facebook and tweeter at c span.org. if you have a tab let or ipad. using a special web page we put together at c-span.org/screen2. lawmakers hosted a hearing looking at the decisions that the national park service allowing d.c. protestors to camp out. a 15-minute portion of that hearing. >> mr. jarvis, one reason i like law enforcement like the chief and other men and women who are in uniform today and everywhere else is because there really aren't protestors that are republican or democrat, aren't laws that are republican or democrat or crime that is republican or democrat.

it's just the law. what is the law? because whatever you say with respect to that square is going to have to be applicable everywhere else in this country. the notion that you think that washington may have special first amendment privileges, it does not. there are no more first amendment rights in this town than there are in any other city, town, hamlet in this country. define camping to me, because you say it is prohibited. tell me what it is. >> i agree with you. the first amendment applies everywhere in the united states, but in the district of columbia we have more experience with it because we have more protests and more activities in the district than any other place in the country. and the u.s. park police and the national park service that manage the national mall handle hundreds of these kinds of events and we take the same approach every time and that is a measure and reasoned response.

what is unique about the occupy group is that they are disorganized. there is no unit leader we can go to and negotiate our expectations of their compliance. >> i hate to cut you off, i have five minutes. i need a definition of camping, because i need to go back to south carolina and tell everyone who wants to spend the summer in one of our parks what camping is and what it is not. so define camping for me, because you seem inclined to draw a distinction and i can't draw a distinction. what is the definition of camping? >> the distinction is for a 24-hour vigil is that they are awake at all times, providing information or signs or whatever associated with their first amendment activities. camping is defined as sleeping or preparing to sleep at the

site. >> is there sleeping going on in the square? >> yes, sir, we believe there is. >> is there preparing to sleep? >> there are some preparing to sleep. >> you aren't drawing a separation? >> we do believe that there is some camping going on at the square associated with their vigil. >> and how much investigation have you done into that? >> wer as i indicated, taking a measured and reasoned approach to this. >> i don't know what that means. i'm an old country prosecutor, measured and reasoned approach doesn't mean anything to me. what means something to me can you define camping because you strictly prohibit it and you said it's going on. and that's fine. if you want to change the rules, that's fine, let me tell my constituents who want to visit

d.c. this summer and come to any park they want to and bring their tent as long as they say they are protesting. >> they can bring their tent. >> can they sleep? >> no, they cannot. >> you said there is sleeping going on. >> what i said and i will continue to say, the protestors, demonstrators exercising their first amendment rights have the right to be in the square 24 hours a day -- >> you view them as a unit as long as one of them is awake, then that gives constitutional cover for the rest to sleep? is that the new analysis? >> no, i did not say that. what i said is that they, as a group, have the right to be there on a 24-hour vigil. individuals. camping is a group violation. >> how many people have been

cited for camping? >> at this point, none. >> you told me people were sleeping. >> we are imagining compliance through a series of ramping up the enforcement at the site to gain compliance. that it approach we have used. first amendment -- >> how long has imagining compliance been going on? when did the movement start in d.c.? >> this particular movement began in october. >> october, november, december, 90 days, coming up on 100 days, is that right? how long do you think it will take you to gain compliance? >> i hope we gain complete compliance very soon. >> no citations for sleeping? >> we have issued a lot of citations for other violations.

sleeping is one of the definitions. >> to prove your ideological neutrality, if the chamber of commerce or independent council of businesses wants to come to the square this afternoon with tents, as long as one person remains vertical, they can stay? >> i'm ideological neutral on this, i could care less what their cause is. my job as a 35-year veteran of the national park service is to protect the individuals' rights under the first amendment. when each -- >> wait a second, to protect their rights under the first amendment, is it not also your job to enforce the law? >> absolutely it's my job. >> is it against the law to camp? >> the courts have afforded us a great deal of discretion. >> do you agree the supreme court has said sleeping and

camping can be prohibited? >> yes, they can be. but at the same time, they gave us the discretion on how and when we implement that regulation. >> anyone who wants to camp throughout the united states, as long as they said they are in protest of something can do whatever they want in federal parks and with that, i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. >> thank you very much. and i want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and for being here. courts traditionally have held the right of governments to manage and supervise public property as long as there is a rational basis for the rules and no point of view is being discriminated against. but the very named occupier suggests a constant presence and commitment not to move in the face of perceived injustice. director jarvis, let me ask you,

due to the length of the vigil, does your office have any special concerns about health and safety? >> congressman, yes, sir. we have been concerned actually the most about health and safety since the very beginning and we have been working with the district of columbia to put in place both the systems, for instance, the national park service increased the trash collection at mcpherson to three times a day so there wouldn't be an accumulation of attraction or distraction at the site. >> and your office did work with the park police on an ongoing basis? >> absolutely. yes, sir. >> how would you characterize the response of the occupied d.c. protestors to whatever concerns that might have been expressed to them?

>> initially, because there is no one leader there that we could go to and discuss specifically with them our concerns for health and safety, cleanlyness at the site and other concerns and initially, they were antagonistic to our presence at the site, that is significantly changed. through the great work of the u.s. park police and our staff on the national mall, we have developed a rapport and a great deal of compliance. they notify us when the there are concerns particularly with law enforcement. i believe we have made great inroads. >> theve been basically cooperative after the initial resistance? >> yes, sir. >> are there any vigils being maintained in a few locations?

is it best that they be concentrated or have the ability to move from one perhaps location or one spot to another? >> it is an advantage from a law enforcement standpoint that they are concentrated in one area. that allows us to work directly with the met ro p.d. to provide around the clock law enforcement services at the site rather than being spread across the very large area, as well as the impact to the grass has already happened and moving to another site would result in new impacts to one of our other first amendment sites. >> you mentioned your 35 years of service with the park service and obviously, you have seen many permits. you have seen many protests, many demonstrations.

have you seen any of that have raised the level of concern that occupy d.c. seem to be raising to the point of a congressional hearing? >> this is the first congressional hearing i have testified related to a first amendment activity. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from illinois. the chair would recognize another the gentleman from illinois, mr. walsh. >> thank you for hosting this hearing. mr. jarvis, welcome. and i apologize if i want to pull us back and get some context. it's always so dangerous at hearings because we focus on things we maybe shouldn't be focused on. i want to focus on one very specific notion. there is a statute i believe that says camping is illegal,

camping in mcfierceon park is against the -- mcpherson park is against the law, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and you handed out a document early on in the occupy d.c. protest to the folks at mcpherson park that i found quite helpful, spelled out the definition of camping, that you and i both agree, is not allowed and it says -- i don't have my glasses, but it says camping is defined as the use of parkland for living purposes such as sleeping activities or making preparations to sleep, including the laying down of bedding for the purpose of sleeping or storing personal belongings or using any tents or structure or fixture for sleeping or digging

or earth breaking. mr. jarvis, based on your own definition of camping, are they camping at mcpherson park? >> we believe there are individuals there that are doing those activities that would result in us seeing that they are camping, us. >> why have they not been removed? why has not your statute been enforce snd >> in each of the demonstrations, they are unique. in this one, it's unprecedented in part in that it has been stated that the core of their first amendment activity is that they occupy the site. and so as we have approached this, how we are trying to manage this activity and provide -- our first goal in the

national park service in allowing and providing for first amendment activities is the health and safety of the community and the demonstrators themselves. and we felt that going in right away and enforcing the regulations against camping could potentially incite a reaction on their part that would result in possible injury or property damage. >> mr. jarvis, i appreciate the candor. you have acknowledged they are camping and there are individuals in mcpherson park breaking the law. and they have been there since october. so, it's not like three or four months later now, you've been too quick to enforce the law. they have been there four months. we aren't even there yet getting

into many of the issues that the city is having to deal with. and again, nobody up here, republican or democrat, i don't think anybody in this hearing room questions at all their right to protest. that's not what this hearing is about. you're not enforcing your own statute. who's telling you -- and i know this isn't you -- who's telling you not to enforce the statute? it's not your job how to treat protest groups differently. they are breaking the law. why aren't you enforcing that law? it's been four months? >> well, all of our decisions related to the way that this particular protest has been handled has been made on the ground first and foremost by our u.s. park police, officers and commanders in terms of what --

>> i served as a law enforcement officer. law enforcement officer is granted a great deal of discretion in terms of how they enforce, when they enforce and what they enforce. >> are there some political insensitivities at play here that is preventing you from enforcing the law? >> absolutely not. >> are you getting any sort of advisor orders from people above you? >> i'm regularly briefing the secretary of interior, as would be expected under any issue that affects the park service. i'm not taking any direction from how the site should be handled. >> i had a staff member visit mcpherson park last night just to sort of learn what's going on and obviously what we found out seconds your opinion that folks are sleeping. they are camping.

and i appreciate your candor and i don't think this is your decision. i appreciate that. the city of washington, d.c., is at a breaking point right now and i'm just really curious as to why people above you don't let you enforce the law. thank you, mr. chairman. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a week from stood, a hearing on global threats to the u.s. among the witnesses -- >> we will have live coverage of that next tuesday here on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> i do believe that the west for all of its historical shortcomings and i discuss these

shortcomings, the west still today represents the most acceptable and workable, universally workable political culture. >> the united states in 1991 was the only superpower, today how to restore its status in the world and "strategic vision." on book tv, it is argued that europeans no longer believe in anything other than their own personal economic security, saturday at 11:00 p.m. and the new privacy is no privacy. how your rights are being eroded by social networks. book tv, every weekend on c-span2. >> for more resources in the presidential race, use c-span's campaign 2012 web site. see what the candidates have said on issues important to you

and read the latest from candidates, political reporters and people like you from social media sites at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states! [cheers and applause] >> tonight, president obama delivers his state of the union address, live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the president's speech, republican response by governor mitch daniels and your phone calls live on c-span and c-span radio. watch the president's speech along with members of congress and more reaction from house members and senators. throughout the night, go online for live video and add your comments using facebook and twitter at c-span.org. >> if you have a tablet or laptop computer you can follow

while watching the speeches on c-span at c-span.org/screen2. >> as you heard, indiana governor mitch daniels is delivering the republican response. governor daniels delivered his state of the state address at the state house chamber in indianapolis. called for a statewide ban on smoking and right to work law from requiring workers to join a union. his speech is 35 minutes. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you very much.

>> members, honored guests, fellow citizens. for the eighth time and final time, you afford me the privilege of this podium as it is my last chance to express my appreciation for the public service you each perform and the hoosiers for hiring me twice. i start with a heartfelt thank you. [applause] >> but the time for remembering will come much later. tonight and all night in today's indiana it must be about the future, where we are and where we're going. a reporter asked recently, what keeps you up at night? i replied, i judicially sleep well but if i have trouble, i don't have to count sheep, i count all the states in a i'm glad i'm not the governor of.

[applause] >> when i first took office, a radio caller expressed a fairly common sentiment and said i like what you say you stand for, republicans, democrats, nothing ever changes, nothing is ever different. i responded, sir, i'm careful not to promise what i'm sure can be delivered but i promise you one thing. in a few years you may disagree with the decisions we've made or actions we have taken but you will not think nothing's different. i'm pretty sure that man would agree that things are different in indiana now. then, we were broke and other states were flush. tonight, while states elsewhere twist in financial agony, indiana has a balanced budget, a strong protective reserve in our savings account and first a.a.a. credit rating, one of just a

handful left in america. [applause] >> our credit is better, imagine this, than the federal government. [laughter] >> another host of states raised taxes last year while our citizens were taxed at the lowest level thanks in part to the lowest property taxes in the nation. [applause] >> while other state governments stiff their vendors, close parks, delay tax refunds and ignore unseptemberbly poor

service levels, indiana state employees are setting national standards for efficiency. tonight, they are served by the most productive government workers anywhere. indiana has the fewest state employees per capita in the country, the fewest since 1975, and yet our parks have never been in better shape, your tax refund comes back twice as quickly as it used to and the average customer got out of a branch in less than 14 minutes. [applause] >> i'm not the only one to notice. in a national survey last summer, 77% of hoose years described their state government as efficient, far above most states in the second highest rating in the nation. uniquely in public sector america, indiana pays state

workers on a performance basis, so those doing the best job are properly rewadded for their superior efforts. but the reward they value is money and simple recognition from the citizens they serve and i hope you will show them that you value them and their hard work as much as i do. [applause] >> careful stewedship of the taxpayer dollars and improving services are matters of duty and good government but they are not the fundamental goals of public life. they are just means to the real goal which is a place of opportunity and upward mobility and a better standard of living,

a place where young people and people not so young know that they can start with nothing and make a good life. from our administration's first day, this has been the central objective around which everything else was organized. we have worked relentlessly to move indiana up the list of great places to do business. we set out to build the best sandbox in america, a place where men and women of enterprise knew if they risked the buck on their idea or dream they would get it back. with something left over, they could hire the next hoosier. we are in the top tier of every ranking, number six in the site selectors and number six from the "c.e.o. magazine," but it isn't nearly enough. it was our ironic bad luck to

create a great economic climate and where business investments slowed to a crawl. we became the prettiest girl in school the year they called off the proposal. [laughter] >> despite these headwinds our recently strong state revenues shows something positive is happening. in 2010, the most recent data we have, indiana's income grew at eighth fastest in the country. [applause] >> here's another encouraging sign. more people are moving into indiana than moving out. our population is growing at the fastest rate from iowa to maine. maybe best of all, thousands of college graduates moved into our state last year, more than moved out. [applause]

>> there is no better indicator of economic promise in today's world in success of attracting top talent and we are. we are not where we want to be, no where close, but with a welcoming business climate, enormous investments in public infrastructure and a stable fiscal picture, we are poised for more progress and better days. beyond the statistics lies a more basic difference in the indiana of today. we are now seen as a leader. in hundreds of articles about fiscal prudentens, economics, transportation, corrections, child protection and so on, we are cited constantly as an example for others to examine, from cleveland, ohio should follow indiana's lead and dive in. from detroit, indiana has many of the answers. as seen in indiana, it's certainly possible.

from north carolina, fortunately, there is no need to speculate about how a state might proceed. indiana has already done it. more than words. we now experience the sincerest flattery all the time. our economic development corporation has been copied by ohio, wisconsin, michigan and iowa, among others. our corrections program by oregon. our employee health care by oklahoma, missouri and florida. our performance-based personnel policy by tennessee and wyoming. and online university, w.g.u.-indiana, by texas and washington. and at every governors' meeting, someone says, if only with we could pull off a deal half as good as indiana did with its toll road. [applause]

>> the latest realm in which indiana is now a leader is perhaps the most important. from coast to coast, others are praising our reforms of public education. one national magazine wrote that indiana has gone, quote, from the backwaters of education reform in america to the front. the fordham institute said no one is more successful than a system that is failing america. and the "daily telegraph" of london wrote that quote, england would do well to follow indiana's lead. [laughter] >> the days when education debates started and stopped at dollar signs are over and high time. from president obama down, everyone now recognizes that leaders in education are defined not by what they put in, but what they get out. just for the record and despite

frequent misrepresentations to the contrary, indiana is a leader in what we put in. with this year's spending increases, plus the additional funds we requested for full-day kindergarten, k-12 is 56% of the entire state budget, the highest of any state in the nation. [applause] >> no state anywhere devotes more of its state funds to education, but that's not why others are following indiana but our new commitment to rewarding the best teachers, liberating principals and supets and providing parents the same choices as their wealth year neighborhoods. and this year, when we end the cruel defeatist practice of passing children who cannot read

into fourth gade and when our most diligent students begin to graduate from high school in 11 years and get a head start on college costs, others will take notice of indiana again. there are a few subjects more studied or more intriguing than leadership. leaders come in many forms and often from unexpected direction. but some qualities are common among them and one is that leaders never loaf and never settle for things as they are or stop pursuing innovation or excellence of result. if they do, leadership will pass and new leaders surpass. leaders who loaf aren't leaders for long. indiana now bears this burden of leadership, the duty to keep pressing ahead. this administration will not loaf. we have made out a long list of

self-assignments for our eighth and final year. economic development corporation had new jobs and transactions and raise the bar to 250 for the year ahead and press hard to accelerate ahead of schedule of our major moves transportation program. in 2012, we'll invest $1.2 billion in road and bridge construction, the sixth straight record-setting year. [applause] >> the last contract on the corridor will be let next summer and the entire project by 2013. south bend through cocoa mow will be let this year and we have accelerated.

i-69 will be open for traffic and the highway in northeast indiana. [applause] >> the sherman bridge will be rebuilt and opened by march and new bridge to louisville cementing indiana's place at the forefront of the public-private partnership movement. we will build the state's 3,000th mile of bike and hiking trail and a trail within 15 minutes of every citizen. the air and water of indiana is now the cleanest in recent memory. in 2011, every indiana community met all air quality national standards for the first time in the history of the clean air act. [applause]

>> last year, we wiped out the last of the backlog of old, and therefore, less strict environmental permits and are now the only state completely current. our goal for 2012 is to maintain the status and if national limits are lowered again, to find a way to meet those standards, too. we'll complete our successful overhaul of what was once america's worst welfare system when in february when the final region is conformed to our private-public system. backlogs have been slashed by 80%. timeliness have sored and last october it earned a cash bonus and award for most improved in the nation. we set high targets for continued improvement in 2012. [applause]

>> the same is true of our campaign to conserve indiana's national heritage. the last seven years have seen new records for protection of wetlands and habitat, 50,000 acres by the end of this year, highlighted by the largest such project ever at goose pond. in 2011, we launched new waterways conservation projects the side of three goose ponds and five goose ponds along the wabash corridor. hoosiers will travel 100 miles down our state's signature river and never leave a protected wetland. [applause] >> our coming by centennial gives us the opportunity to

extend the historic area of refer rans. i have appointed a commission of citizens led by my partner and lee hamilton to guide the great celebrations to come. as the first initiative, i have asked them to oversee a by centennial nature trust, a statewide project that protects still more of our precious natural spaces. on our 100 birthday indiana launched its state park system. the initiative is a fitting sequel and be quest from our second century to our third. we identified state funding with existing resources of $20 million, but that is just the beginning. the trust is to inspire others and match their donations of land or dollars in a continuing state-wide surge of conservation. the commission joins me in challenging citizens and

businesses and our unique network of community foundations to identify and fund local projects that will safeguard places of beauty for future generations. [applause] >> in this assembly, too, you must set big goals. we should at long last enact the law to protect workers and patrons from the hazards of secondhand smoke. public support has grown and so is the evidence of health risk to workers and time to move thr long-sought objective to the finish line. [applause] >> we should -- no, we must strengthen our laws against the horrid practice of human trafficking and must do it in time for the super bowl.

[applause] >> the kind of event at which the exploitation of young women is rampant in the absence of such a tough law. we should assist students with the cost of higher education by empowering our higher ed commission to the creep to student expense. undoubtedly some degrees will continue to justify more than the traditional 120 credit hours. but schools requiring 126 hours for a degree in sociology or 138 hours in special education or 141 hours in music education should have to explain why all that time and student expense is necessary, especially when other colleges offer high quality programs in less time and costs. we should deepen the state's response to the terrible tragedy that befell so many at last

year's indiana's state fair, a catastrophe so singular merits unique treatment and i hope the money that has been provided you augment that has been provided by the state and private donors. [applause] >> and we should trust the people of central indiana with the decision whether to raise local dollars for mass transit if they believe it is crucial to their future quality of life. within weeks, one of the great public careers and perhaps the greatest judicial career, our state has known will come to a close. the chief justice one of the many occasions, thanks you for a quarter century of fairness, firmness and farsight he hadness

on our state's highest bench. [applause] >> part of justice shepard's legacy is the landmark that he co-authored proposing overdue modernization of our pioneer days structure of local government. one way to do this is advance the needed reforms set forth by the commission. [applause] >> i ask this assembly to do so

on their own merit but also in recognition of this historic public servant. because economic opportunity and building america's best home for jobs is the central goal of all we do, everything should include a bold stroke to enhance it. this year, the choice of actions has become obvious. in survey after survey, hoosiers support the principle of right to work. after a year of studying the proposal, i agree. the idea that no worker should be forced to pay union dues as a condition of keeping a job is simple and just, but the benefits in new jobs would be large. a third or more of growing or relocating businesses will not consider a state that does not provide workers this protection. almost half our fellow states have right to work laws. they are adding jobs faster,

growing worker income faster and enjoying lower unemployment rates than those of us without such a law. and the ratings of businesses that i mentioned, the states ahead of us are right to work state. what every development expert has testified to, we have learned from firsthand experience, over seven years and well over 1,000 job competitions, when indiana gets a chance to compete, we win two out of three times, but too often we don't get that chance because a right to work law is a requirement, especially in this poor national economy, a state needs every edge it can get. everyone knows that among the minority favoring the status quo, passion on this issue is strong and i respect that. i did not come quickly or lightly to the stance i took. if this limited the right to organize, i would not support it. we cannot go on missing out on

the middle-class jobs our state needs just because of this one issue. for those of you without jobs and young people beginning the climb up life's ladder, remove this obstacle and make indiana the 23rd state to protect the right to work. [applause] >> i have a new prized possession. it's a letter written to his parents by a young clerk named a.b. carpenter on february 12, 1861, ploong debates, young mr. carpenter reported the following, there is excitement

concerning a couple of legislators who went to kentucky to fight a duel. a democrat slandered and abused a republican in a speech and moody challenged him. he accepted and accepted the buoy knives. they went to kentucky last friday night and have not been heard from since. [laughter] >> you think we have disagreements? when we do, i hope we keep them in this state and in this chamber, where the people's business is supposed to be settled. [applause] >> mr. carpenter's letter wasn't about duels or hair cuts. he wrote it because he went to

see the newly elected president, lincoln, who spent that day, 52nd birthday in indianapolis. young carpenter's described his arrival at lafayette road down washington, illinois to the hotel. seeing the new president, filled carpenter with hope, he said, that soon our government will be remodeled. i like the term. these measures i have mentioned are part of our continuing remode -- remodeling projects. in three weeks, the world will be looking at our state, i hope a matter of pride to every hoosier everywhere. the super bowl didn't get here overnight. there was constant striving, building and reforms to make our capital the liveable and model city it has become.

no one leaderor a group of leaders made it happen. the work was passed from hand to hand, administration to administration, generation to generation and in no era did the people of indianapolis rest or settle or loaf. so it will have to be with the construction of the great indiana we are determined to achieve. i carried here from its place on my desk an atomic clock given to me by a friend to served as governor with great distinction and sits directly in front of me each day counting down the days, hours, minutes and seconds until i turn over these duties and return to private life. it is there to remind me to use every moment as well as i can to make indiana a place of greater promise and prosperity, silently, a and challenges me to

search each day to look for the next efficiency, the next break-through, the next stroke of indiana leadership. yes, these nights are about the future, but i look back at past speeches in order to avoid repeating myself. in one, i recounted telling an east coast c.e.o. what indiana was known for that one day he wouldn't have to ask. tonight, he doesn't. in another, i said i hope we become bolder in our embrace of change, take our motto from the inspiring athletes of the special olympics and be a braver state. tonight, we are. and the very first of these meetings, i invited you and every hoose year listening, demanding excellence, aiming higher. tonight, we do. in a column titled "indiana promises a better future," a

young graduate student, a lifelong resident of another state wrote to "the indianapolis star" that she had made a crital life decision and take her degree and move to indiana. she cited our, quote, fiscally responsible choices, our economic integrity, our avoidance of out-of-control spending we see in so many other states and concluded by predicting mortal ented young people would make that short drive down i-69 to a more promising future. that is the state we have dreamed of, a state that mag any advertises people of talent and the risk-taking capital that employ them. a state of growth, a state of hope, a state of promising futures. we are not yet fully that state, but we are so much closer to it. we have leap-frogged other

places, past a lot of other places that tony stewart's homestead and we are different. until it became real, i never imagined that for eighth fulfilling years, i would be given the chance to help make indiana different. on the night it became real, i resolved to use every day, take every action, make every change that might make our state a place of promising futures. i only have 369 days, five hours, 28 minutes and nine seconds left as the people's employee. i pledge to use every one of them as wisely as i can in the service of those who sent us to this chamber. i ask you to do likewise, to be the kind of leaders, the new

leadership state of indiana now expects us to be. god bless this assembly and this great state. [applause] [applause]

>> this joint assembly is adjourned. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> mr. speaker, the president of the united states! [cheers and applause] >> tonight, 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 watch the president's speech along with members of congress and more reaction from house members and senators. throughout the night, go online for live video and add your comments using facebook and twitter at c-span.org. >> and if you have a tab let or laptop computer, follow tweets from members of congress, reporters and other viewers

while you watch the speeches on c-span using a special web page we put together at c-span.org/scren2. jay carney says state of the union speech will be a book end to president obama's speech last month in kansas. president roosevelt outlined his agenda for new nationalism. the white house says the theme is, quote, building a country and an economy where we reward hard work and responsibility and where everyone does their fair share. here's the president's speech in kansas. [cheers and applause] >> thank you! thank you! thank you. thank you very much.

thank you! thank you very much. thank you everybody. please have a seat. thank you so much. thank you. good afternoon everybody. >> yeah! >> well, i want to start by thanking a few folks who joined us today. we've got the mayor here. [applause] >> we have your superintendent, gary french in the house. [cheers and applause] >> and we have the principal of the high school doug chisholm. [cheers and applause] >> and i have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius is in the house!

[cheers and applause] >> we love kathleen. [laughter] >> well, it is great to be back in the state of texas -- oops. [laughter] >> state of kansas. i was giving bill a hard time. he was here a while back. as many of you know, i have roots here. [applause] >> i'm sure you're all familiar with the obamas of kansas. [laughter] >> actually, i like to say i got my name from my father, but i

got my accent and my values from my mother. [applause] >> she was born in wichita. her mother grew up in augusta. her father was from el dorado. so my kansas roots run deep. and my grandparents served during world war ii. he was a soldier in patton's army. she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. and together they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the great depression and over fascism. they believed in an america where hard work paid off and responsibility was rewarded.

and anyone could make it if they tried. no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out. [applause] and these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. it was here in america that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on earth. you know what, every american shared in that pride and that success, from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor. [applause]

so you could have confidence that if you gave it your all, you'd have enough to take home to your family, have your health care covered, put a little away for your retirement. today we're still home to the world's most productive workers. we're still home to the world's most innovative companies. but for most americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. those at the very top grew wealthier from their income, from their investments, wealthier than ever before. but everybody else struggled

with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren't. and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up. now for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality but in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. we all know the story by now. mortgages sold to people who couldn't afford them, or even sometimes understand them. banks and informsors allowed to keep package -- and investors allowed to keep packaging the risks and selling it off. huge bets and huge bonuses made with other people's money on the line. regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this but looked the other way. or didn't have the authority to look at all. it was wrong.

it combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system. and it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we're still fighting to recover. it claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people, innocent, hardworking americans, who had met their responsibilities, or were still left holding the bag. and ever since, there's been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness. throughout the cup country, it sparked protests and political movements from the tea party to the people who have been occupying the streets of new york and other cities. it's left washington in a near constant state of gridlock. it's been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful

discussion among the men and women running for president. but osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. this is the defining issue of our time. this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class for for all those fighting to get into the middle class. because what's at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement. now in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. after all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the great

depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. in fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stack the deck against middle class americans for way too many years and their philosophy is simple. we are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. i am here to say, they are wrong. [applause] i am here in kansas to reaffirm

my deep conviction that we're greater together than we are on our own. i believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share. when everyone plays by the same rules. [applause] these aren't democratic values or republican values, these aren't 1% values or 99% values. they're american values. and we have to reclaim them. you see, this isn't the first time america has faced this choice. at the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world's industrial giant, we had to decide, would

we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? would we allow our citizens and children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? would we restrict education to the privileged few? because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you paid for progress. theodore roosevelt disagreed. he was the republican son of a wealthy family. he praised the -- what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. he believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.

it's led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world. but roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. [applause] he understood that the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. and so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. and today, they still must. he fought to make sure businesses couldn't profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe. and today, they still can't.

and in 1910, teddy roosevelt came here to osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a new nationalism. our country, he said, means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. [applause] for this, roosevelt was called a road call. he was called a socialist. even a communist.

but today, we are a richer nation and -- and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign. an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women, insurance for the unemployed. and for the elderly and those with disabilities. political reform. progressive income tax. [applause] today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less and it's made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. and many of you know firsthand

the painful disruptions that this caused for a lot of americans. factories where people thought they would retire, suddenly picked up and went overseas where workers were cheaper. steel mills that needed 100 or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. and these changes didn't just affect blue collar workers. if you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by a.t.m.'s and the internet. today even higher skilled jobs like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like china or india and if you're somebody whose job can be done cheaper -- cheacher by a computer or someone in another country, you

don't have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer americans today are part of a union. now just as there was in teddy roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in washington who for the last few decades has said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. the market will take care of everything, they tell us. if we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes, especially for the wealthy, our economy will grow stronger. sure, they say, there will be wippers and losers but if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. and, they argue, even if

prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty. it's a simple theory and we have to admit it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. that's in america's d.n.a. and that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. but here is the problem. it doesn't work. it has never worked. [applause] it didn't work when it was tried in the decades before the great depression. it's not what led to the incredible post-war booms of the 1950's and 1960's, and it didn't work when we tried it

during the last decade. [applause] understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory. remember in those years new york 2001 and 2003 -- in those years, in 2001 and 2003, congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealth any in history. what did it get us? the slowest job growth in half a century. massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of americans reach and stay in the middle class. things like education and infrastructure, science and technology. medicare and social security. remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running

congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight and what did it get us? insurance companies that jacked up people's premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick. mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn't afford. a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy. we simply cannot return to this brand of you're on your own economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. [applause] we know it doesn't result in a strong economy.

it results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. we know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. it results in a prosperity enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens. look at the statistics. in the last few decades, the average income of the top 1% has gone up by more than 250%. to $1.2 million per year. i'm not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars, i'm saying people who make $1 million every single year. from the top .01 of 1%, the average income is now $27 million per year. the typical c.e.o. who used to earn about 30 times more than

his or her worker now earns 110 times more. and yet over the last decade, the incomes of most americans have actually fallen by about 6%. now this kind of inequality, a level that we haven't seen since the great depression, hurts us all. when middle class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy, from top to bottom. america was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. that's why a c.e.o. like henry ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars he made.

it's also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run. inequality also distorts our democracy. it gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. [applause] it leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in washington is rigged against them. that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most americans.

but there's an even more fundamental issue at stake. this kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of america. that this is a place where you can make it if you try. we tell people, we tell our kids, that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. we tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. that's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores. and yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart. and the middle class has shrunk. a few years after world war ii, a child who was born into

poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. by 1980, that chance had fall ton around 40%. and if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one in three chance of making it to the middle class cla -- middle class, 33%. it's heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. but the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work, that's inexcusable. it is wrong. it flies in the face of everything that we stand for.

[applause] now, fortunately, that's not a future we have to accept. because there's another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country. a view that's truer to our history. a vision that's been embraced in the past by people of both parties. for more than 200 years. it's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around america,

it's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government know house to fix all of society's problems. it is a view that says, in america, we are greater together. when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot at -- and everybody does their fair share. [applause] so what does that mean for restoring middle class security in today's economy? well, it starts by making sure that everyone in america gets a fair shot at success. the truth is, we'll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who's best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who's best at busting unions, who's best at letting

companies pollute as much as they want. that's a race to the bottom that we can't win. and we shouldn't want to win that race. [applause] those countries don't have a strong middle class. they don't have our standard of living. the race we want to win, the race we can win, is a race to the top. the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle class security. businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest skills, highest -- highest skilled, highest educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology. the world is shifting to an

innovation economy. and nobody does innovation better than america. nobody does it better. [applause] no one has better colleges, nobody has better universitys, nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity. no one's workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring. the things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment. but we need to meet the moment. we've got to up our game. we need to remember that we can only do that together. it starts by making education a national mission. a national mission. [applause]

government and businesses, parents and citizens, in this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. the unemployment rate for americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. and their incomes are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. which means we shouldn't be laying off good teachers right now, we should be hiring them. [applause]

we shouldn't be expecting less of our schools, we should be demanding more. [applause] we shouldn't be making it harder to afford college, we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn't wrack up $100,000 of debt just because they want. -- because they went. [applause] in today's innovation economy, we also need a world class commitment to science and research. the next generation of high tech manufacturing. our factories and our workers shouldn't be idle. we should be giving people the chance to get new skills and

training at community colleges so they can learn to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high powered batteries. by the way, if we don't have an economy built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won't all gravitate toward careers in banking and finance. [applause] because if we want an economy that's built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. this country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. we should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words, made in america. [applause]

today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world. that's why the over one million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn't be sitting at home with nothing to do. they should be rebilling our roads and bridges. -- rebuilding our roads and bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband. modernizing our schools. all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores. yes, business and not

government will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. but as a nation, we've always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed. [applause] and historically that hasn't been a partisan idea. franklin roosevelt worked with democrats and republicans to give veterans of world war ii, including my grandfather, stanley, the chance to go to college on the g.i. bill. it was a republican president, dwight eisenhower, proud son of kansas, who -- [applause] what started the interstate

highway system and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the soviets. of course, those productive investments cost money. they're not free. and so we've also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending. but we don't have unlimited resources, so we have to set priorities. if we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. we have to make choices. today that choice is very clear. to reduce our deficit, i've already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law. i've proposed trillions more,

include regular forms that would lower the cost of medicare and medicaid. [applause] but in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. now most immediately, short-term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that is set to expire at the end of this month. [applause] if we don't do that, 160 million americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in january and it would badly weaken our recovery. that's the short-term. in the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. we have to ask ourselves, do we want to make the investments we

need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing, all those things that help make us an economic superpower. or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest americans in our country because we can't afford to do both. that is not politics. that's just math. [applause] now, so far, most of my republican friends in washington have refused, under any circumstance, to ask the wealthiest americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when bill clinton was president. so let's just do a trip down memory lane here. keep in mind, when president clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession.

instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs, and we eliminated the deficit. [applause] today, the wealthiest americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. this isn't like in the early 1960's, when the top tax rate was over 90%. this isn't even like the early 1980's, when the top tax rate was about 70%. under president clinton, the top rate was only about 39%. today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you. millions of middle class

families. some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%. 1%. that is the height of unfairness. it is wrong. [applause] it's wrong that in the united states of america, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million. [applause] it's wrong for warren buffett's secretary to pay a higher tax rate than warren buffett.

and by the way, warren buffett agrees with me. so do most americans. democrats, independents, and republicans. and i know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible. this isn't about class warfare. this is about the nation's welfare. it's about making choices that benefit not just the people who have done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class. and those fighting to get into the middle class. and the economy as a whole. finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy

where everyone plays by the same rules, from wall street to main street. [applause] as infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country. but part of the deal was, that we wouldn't go back to business as usual. that's why last year, we put in place new rules of the road, that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose. getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas and financing millions of

families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college. now, we're not all the way there yet and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way. but already, some of these reforms are being implemented. if you're a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a living will that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for wall street's mistakes. [applause] there are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under. the new law bans banks from making risky bets with their

customers' deposits and takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed c.e.o.'s while giving shareholders a shea on exec -- a say on executive salaries. this is the law we passed. we are in the process of implementing it now. all of this is being put in place as we speak. now, unless you're a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating customers, and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules. some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life. worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank. i know from her and i know from all the people that i've come in contact with that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals want to do right by their customers. they want to have rules in

place that don't put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. and yet, republicans in congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren't enforced. i'll give you a specific example. for the first time in history, the reforms we passed to put in place a consumer watchdog, who is charged with protecting everyday americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors, and the man we nominate for the post, richard cordray, is a former attorney general of ohio, who has the support of most attorneys general both democrat and republican, throughout the country. nobody claims he's not qualified. but the republicans in the senate refuse to confirm him for the job. they refuse to let him do his

job. why? does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors? of course not. every day we go without a consumer watchdog, is another day when a student or a senior citizen or a member of our armed forces, because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff, could be tricked into a loan they can't afford, something that happens all the time. the fact is, financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests. consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them. [applause]

i intend to make sure they do. [applause] and i want you to hear me, kansas, i will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules we put in place. [applause] we shouldn't be weakening oversight and accountability, we should be strengthening oversight and accountability. give you another example. too often, we've seen wall street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there's no price for being a repeat offender. no more. i'll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so firms don't see

punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business. you know, the fact is, this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between main street and wall street. major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust. you know, at minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis. they should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their homes. we're going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed home onsers to look for work without having to -- homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house. the big banks should increase access to to refinancing

opportunities to borrowers who haven't yet benefited from historically low interest rates and the big banks should recognize that because the steps are in the interest of the middle class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the bank's own long-term financial interest. what will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks. [applause] investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed, a tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share, and laws that make sure everybody follows the rules, that's what will transform our economy. that's what will grow our middle class again. in the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot and a fair share will

require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other's success. and it will require all of us to take some responsibility. it will require parents to get more involved in their children's education. it will require students to study harder. [applause] it will require some workers to start studying all over again. it will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can't afford. they need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. it will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective. more consumer friendly, more responsive to people's needs. that's why we're cutting programs that we don't need to

pay for those we do. [applause] that's why we've made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars. that's why we're not just throwing money at education, we're challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results. and it will require american business leaders to understand that their obligations don't just end with their shareholders. andy grove, the legendary former c.e.o. of intel, put it best. he said, there's another obligation i feel personally, given that everything i've achieved in my career and a lot of what intel has achieved were made possible by a climate of democracy and economic -- an economic climate and investment climate provided by the united

states. this broader obligation can take many forms. at a time when the cost of hiring workers in china is rising rapidly, it should mean more c.e.o.'s deciding to bring jobs back to the united states. [applause] not just because it's good for business, but because it's good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible. [applause] i think about the big three auto companies, who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in america and then decided to give bonuses not just to their

executives but to all their employee, everyone was invested in the company's success. [applause] i think about a company based in minnesota, it's called marvin windows and doors. during the recession, marvin's competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go. but marvin did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees. not one. in fact, they've only laid off workers once in over 100 years. mr. marvin's grandfather even kept his eight employees during the great depression. now, at marvin's, when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay and so do the owners.

as one owner said, you can't grow if you're cutting your life blood, and that's the skills and experience your work force delivers. [applause] for the c.e.o. of marvin's, it's about the community. he said, these are people we went to school with. we go to church with them. we see them in the same restaurants. indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys. we could be anywhere. but we are here. that's how america was built. that's why we're the greatest nation on earth. that's what our greatest

companies understand. our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. it's about building a nation where we're all better off. we pull together, we pitch in, we do our part. we believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarred and that our children will -- rewarded and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on. [applause] and it is that belief that rallied thousands of americans to osawatomie. [applause] maybe even some of your ancestors. on a rain-soaked day, more than a century ago, by train, by

wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it. we are all americans, teddy roosevelt told them that day. our common interests are as broad as the continent. in the final years of his life, roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny os watt mee, to the heart of -- os watt mi, to the heart of -- from tiny os watt mee to the heart of new york city, to make cauntry where everybody would get a fair chance.

well into our third century as a nation, we've grown, we've changed in many ways since roosevelt's time. the world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. but what hasn't changed, what can never change, are the values that got us this far. we still have a stake in each other's success. we still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. and we still believe in the words of the man who called for a new nationalism all those years ago, the fundamental rule of our national life, he said, the rule which underlies all others, is that on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together. and i believe america is on the

way up. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

♪

♪ >> white house press secretary jay carney says tonight's state

of the union speech will bookend the president's speech last month in osawatomie, kansas he said the theme of both speeches is building an a country and economy where we reward hard work and responsibility and where everyone does their fair share. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. >> tonight, 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, watch the president's speech along with tweets from members of congress, and after the address, more reaction from house members and senators. for more, go online for live video and to add your comments using facebook and twitter at c-span.org. if you have a tablet or laptop

computer, you can follow tweets and facebook posts from members of congress from members of -- and other viewers using the page we have put together at c-span.org/screen2. this morning, three former presidential speech writers previewed tonight's state of the union speech thism also talked about the mechanics of writing a major presidential address. msnbc political analyst richard woolf moderated the discussion. >> good morning. i'm zach ray hastings, director of public affairs here at the bipartisan policy center. it's my honor to welcome you here. 2012 promises to be a land mark here. we are celebrating -- we're

growing by leaps and bounds and expanding our focus to governance and looking at policy areas against the dramatic 2012 election season. today marks the first in a series of events we'll be undertaking throughout the year examining the politics and policy on the upcoming presidential and congressional leches. we'll host round table discussions examining the political process from the rise of superp.a.c.s to swing voters and other topics. we are also proposing forums to discuss broad topics and more casual evening gatherings. in november, after the election, we'll recap the entire event at our fourth annual summit in new orleans. we are fortunate to have with us four seasoned speech writers who anticipate and frame the president's speech this evening

in the anties -- and the anticipated republican response. our moderator is richard wolf, he's also the author of the best-selling book "renegade." detailing his travels with obama during the 2008 campaign. you may recognize him from his frequent appearances on msnbc and nbc. richard, welcome. this must be one of the best and worst nights for speech briters ever. you have all the attention of this high-profile event and you have all the fiddling hands with your finest prose that comes with a group effort like the state of the union. i

everyone likes to get down on top of the speech writers and be tough on them. i was speaking to a white house official who said when asked how is it going, you working hard? she said yes, but the people who get abused are the speechwriters, because they have way too much work and everyone is really critical. here, we have a great collection of formerly abused people who i will go through here. a former speechwriter to president clinton. i actually first came to notice her work with that 1995 speech in northern ireland when most of the british press who had no idea that speechwriters existed said that whoever wrote that

speech needed to be hide by british. john is washington-based consultant in politics, government, business and entertainment, which i think there is some overlap. a long time senior speech writer for president bush and vice president cheney. he was responsible for some of the most historic speeches of the bush presidency, including the joint session of congress after september 11. he was responsible behind four state of the unions and co-authored the eulogies for some past presidents. the first and only woman who head the white house office of speechwriting, deputy assistant to communication and for

president george h.w. bush. and finally bob has written even more books than i have, which is really impressive, a commentator, speechwriter former speech writer for vice president gore. he has written several award-winning novels. and he is best known for his none fiction book, which is "a guide for writers and speakers." he will correct every mistake that we're about to say. i want to start with the process of writing one of these, because my impression is that what starts out as maybe having some grand vision, some articulate

ideas get nibbled to death by the group mentality of everyone needing to check, correct and maybe veto some parts of the speech. what is the best and worst parts of the state of the unions as you saw it? >> a few things and thank you all for being here. one of the things i'm sure that will come out in this panel every white house has a different process, every administration is different and i'm sure the obama's process is different from what each of us experienced. one of the points you made in your opening remark when you talk about the state of the union being frustrating, i don't think the state of the union is an address where you see the kind of rhetoric that ends up engraved. it is a policy statement and agenda setting kind of address. i was a foreign policy speech writer, one of the battles we

faced in those days which is what is different from john is getting foreign policy into the state of the union. when we think about what we are going to hear tonight, all of the polling suggests what the public cares about is the economy. all of the previewing is about domestic issues. i'm curious what foreign policy will play because president obama has a lot to be proud of on that front. what they are struggling to get their issues prominently mentioned. >> john. >> the bush speechwriters didn't have a problem getting foreign policy into the state of the union. the biggest challenge is to keep it on large themes and because the speech is a presentation of a legislative program, it can be very difficult to keep it on big themes. you are going to have a lot of topics, if you keep it

manageable, the number of topics that go into a state of a union, there are going to be a lot of them. but try to keep it on the big themes and tie it to a big theme. it helps you if you have something like that and then you can put everything under that category and then you can do your transitions. transitions are difficult for speechwriters, connecting one idea to the next. it's hard when you have 40 different transitions in a speech. it helps to have a big themes and i'm sure they are working on that right now. >> chris, you managed these things before, what is it like being on the management side? >> long hours, really, really long hours and you have to become a diplomat and a manager all at the same time. what you are doing is managing

the creation of what i saw is really a political document. it is not just policy. it's a political document. it's almost a campaign document and in an election year like tonight, it becomes a campaign document, but it's always a political document. and one of the things that's most difficult to balance when you are going through that process is trying to write a speech for so many different audiences. normally, you go into a venue and one audience and one big message trying to get out and while you may be lucky and get a theme, you are trying to deal with so many audiences and they all judge it differently. your big audience is the american people, that's your number one audience and then the members of congress in the hall. and then we've got members of the media. the wonks are out there watching

and special interest groups. and each of those groups will judge the content of the speech differently. so it's very difficult to write a speech that is going to please everyone. so juggling all of those different interests and making it all try and come together in some way and have the glue that connects the transition is a very difficult process and all of those groups also try and get their information, their points that they want made into you. so you are also juggling their expectations along with what their evental assessment will be of the speech. and that is difficult, because you have way too many audiences and you just can't please everybody. >> if it's that difficult, you had a tougher challenge which is

writing the minority response. can you tell us how tricky that is. >> that was a lot of fun. when chris was supervising george h.w. bush's first address to congress, i wrote the minority response for lloyd bent son. and there for so many cooks, i talked to him for an hour. i went and wrote the speech. we came back and about three, four aides and the most -- the thing we talked about most was, i had done a tribute to lloyd's father, who had just died and he said he wanted to do that but he was afraid he would choke up. so we went back and forth over that. and i had prepared a plan b, which was a churchill quote or something. and finally, i said all right, i'm going to read it so many times to myself and will have no

emotion and will be totally under control, which is what he did, and i was relieved that he did that, because when bush spoke, he used my plan b -- [laughter] >> and he would have been really stuck. but one of the things i learned about that is how limited you are when you do the minority response. you have 45 minutes or an hour of glitz, and lights and then you cut away to lloyd sitting by himself in a dark room, no applause, and he has nine minutes. and you cannot compete with the president's per swafe i haveness and can be critical of things and looking for ways for common

ground. you are limited in what you can do. i understand that former speechwriters get together and some of them work together and if you were talking about the current team, the chief speechwriter working in a diningy, low-creelinged, windless office in the white house, he may have done a few already, what would you say to the team today? what should they be avoiding? >> the one piece of advice i would give for a big speech like that, especially in an election year context when you are going to set up the contrast, not explicitly, but set up the

contrast is to avoid straw men, really stay clear, if you are contradicting a counterargument, make it a real counterargument that is actually held by a person, don't make it a straw man or an argument that no one has actually made or asserted. bill, when he worked with nixon, he said unfortunately nixon had a habit of saying something along the lines of, i made a difficult decision. there are people around me who have taken the easy way. he could never get the president to stop using this little device. and on occasion when bill told the story when he was walking through the west wing and walked past the closed door, he would say, take the easy way, mr. president. that's my advice, avoid the

straw man. >> i hate to agree with a republican, but that is one of the things i liked least about the big speeches. when you see and obama does it, there are those who say, some say, you can be sure there will be something -- you can find real people on the other side and rebut what they say and look much more credible when you do it when you are talking about a real person with a real quote. >> that particular challenge now with the way state of the unions evolved, policy-driven speeches, but this is an election year. we were talking earlier about how little coverage there has been leading up to the state of the union. is there a mismatch here between what the state of the union

traditionally is, is there a laundry list of things you want to get through congress? how do you square those things with this one speech? >> in this case what we'll hear tonight for the very reason you said, there is a feeling that it will be impossible to get much done this year, but what we'll hear is a longer view than just 2012. this is the second obama term and setting a bigger vision for where he would like to take the country and thinking about the challenges and differences in writing now and this would be the same as if there was a republican president in the white house, the environment has changed. one of the things that the white house is doing differently from what we did, it's not just the written text of the state of the union but the interactive experience, so the digital team is putting together their enhanced state of the union.

i think that is fascinating. in the clinton white house, we had a deserved reputation for being less disciplined in getting drafts done really early, to have that kind of last minute feeling going into the draft and have the obligation to be producing the multi-media experience that is going to go along with it, it is just a busy time for all of the communications professionals. >> is there a way to square the election year's needs with a level of expectations? >> after having asserted that this is a political document five minutes ago, i'm going to contradict myself and say, i think if i was going to give one piece of advice, which i suspect they would never listen to me tonight, it would be the tone. and i think the american people have kind of had it with all of the fighting and so on that's

going on between the white house and the house and the senate, congress, and i would hope that tonight this speech will be president obama laying out his vision, but doing it in a way that allows for at least the possibility of some progress at least this spring. and one of the things i would urge is to avoid the kind of lecturing tone this evening and perhaps extend the olive branch one more time and see if we can make progress this spring. i think politically that is helpful for the president as well. i think coming in with any kind of an angry tone tonight i think would not be well received by many of the audiences i spoke about earlier. that would be my advice, for what it's worth.

>> is it possible to reach out with an olive branch at this point? >> sure. i don't expect it to be put in those terms. basically, what you are going to get, i think in general, isn't it going to be things are getting better in the country. i think he clearly is going to say that. it's an election year and this is going to be on people's meends and i think he is going to make a strong case that things are getting better in the country. and then the undercurrent of the rest of the speech i think is going to be things are going to get even better if you pass my legislative program. and by the way, if you don't, we're going to have a big fight about it this fall. not in those words, but that's pretty much what the progression is going to be. as to tone, i don't know. you could put that message across in one tone or another. i was looking back at president

bush's 2004 state of the union, election year state of the union that i worked on as part of a team, and it really doesn't read as a campaign speech if you go back and look at it, so you don't have to make it an explicit campaign speech or even close, but you can, and i don't know what we're going to get. >> what do you think the time is going to be? >> one of the thing that obama does well, the most persuasive thing you can do is concede a point to the other side, we have taken republican ideas. people, when researchers who look at these things, look at what their reactionsr don't interpret it as weak. he knows the truth isn't always on one side. in the 2008 campaign, mccain campaign -- they strung together a group of these concessions of

obama saying, republicans have a good idea. i guess they thought that would persuade people that republicans had good ideas. and they took it off after two days and they looked at that and thought that obama was reasonable. he'll have to draw some firm lines here. but i think that will be part of the speech. >> i want to make you aware, we are going to do questions later on. in the meantime, couple of quick once for you, i have the impression that there is a pressure to come up with the shiney new thing to stick on a speech like this, something that will surprise the news media or get some attention.

can you think -- was there one time when someone came to you and said the state of the union is coming out, give us something new, new line, new twist, new policy that maybe was left on the cutting room floor >> what's the news in the state

of the union. and we focused on that. and he would tell us, we'll get back to you on that. and it was going to be some sort of an economic announcement, economic policy announcement and nicknamed it the rabbit because we didn't know where it was or where we are going to put it and stick it in the speech somewhere which in the state of the union is not that hard because it isn't rhetoric. whatever this big bombshell was going to be, we nicknamed it the rabbit. we waited and we waited, but the rabbit never showed. and in the end, we never had that -- exactly what you were talking about that thing that was going to get everyone's attention and we chuckled about it. that is one of my favorite story. >> occasionally you do have

lines that stick. i think maybe you can tell us about the year that big government was over, but the one that i like to think about, ralph williams, no one ever heard of him, thought of a good line and eisenhower did like it and the only thing that people remember anything eisenhower ever said was the warning of the dangers in the industrial complex. ralph williams should be thinking, that should be on my tomorrowstone. >> the era of big government is over. when that line was originally written. it was a two-part sentence and second half of the sentence was something like, the era of big government is over but the era of every man for himself must

never be allowed to begin. as the speech went through the vetting process, every man for himself wasn't gender neutral and the speechwriters were instructed tore change it. and in the end, i don't remember exactly what it said. big government is era but the citizen -- something awkward. when it was covered, the second half of the sentence was completely ignored. and the first half is what people remember. >> gender-neutral version made it into the speech and no one remembers what it was. >> you asked if people do come with you and ask for big ideas. always. but they want the good lines. they don't come to the

speechwriters for the grand ideas, so to speak, but in my experience with president bush, several state of the union messages were in a dramatic context all by themselves, that you were able, not always the case in state of the unions, you were able to have passages of the speech that weren't just strung together. you could really explain something and you had a receptive audience and draw them in and not sort of -- try toville these applause lines. i think of the 2002 state of the union, the 2003 state of the union was two months or three months after congress voted to authorize the war in iraq and the war hadn't started yet. and that was dramatic. and 2007, which was the last one

i worked on was right after the president hat announced the surge of operations in iraq and it was a new democratic congress, both house and senate and pelosi sitting behind him. the congress wasn't supportive, it was a hard sell and the president had to go in there and tell the congress i have to do this. and it was a very dramatic moment. and those are the moments that the writers -- you do your best, but it's the man himself who really does the job. >> did you know the line about the axis of evil was going to pop at the time? >> that it would get a lot of attention? >> yes. >> to a degree, yes. i wouldn't be good at predicting how big it would be. i saw a headline in "usa today," something along axis powers

denounce bush and i thought wow, it got out there. >> what should the tone be from the white house side, what should be the tone of the response? what would be the smartest thing that mitch daniels should do tonight? >> the speech, the emphasis on jobs, i would think the emphasis should also be in the response on jobs. but you're limited in what you can do. and actually, to me that shows the weakness in the american

system. you very rarely see the heads of the two political parties going head to head talking about substantive issues and you don't see it here because an hour of one person and nine minutes of another is not enough to do it. i would love it if we had a system like they do in great britain when you have the prime minister's questions. when you see him go in there and he gets up and fights back and they argue back and forth, even though he has some notes, you see them grappling in a substantive way and when i would look at margaret thatcher, i thought she knew a lot. i can see why she was successful and adds the credibility and i think obama would do very well. >> chris, any advice for mitch daniels? >> one of the arguments in the

debates going on in washington is the election coming up going to be a referendum on president obama and his policies or is it going to be a choice? and which direction will they go and the white house trying to make it a choice and the republicans making it a referendum. i would argue that you really need to do both, that i think that this election more so than any -- and i don't want to say how long i have worked in politics a long time and i think that the american people today really are looking for more than just one direction or the other. they want both. and i think the response tonight has to -- my advice would be would be to do both, talk about president obama's record, criticize it, if you will, but also, i think the republicans have to offer a positive alternative. they have to offer a positive

vision tonight as well, particularly on the economy. and some of the other issues maybe as well, but as bob points out rightly, it's a very short period of time that you have for that response, much shorter than for the main event. so you really have to get a lot in a short period of time. i would focus on the republican vision of the future. that's what people want to hear. >> just a couple of topical things. since we have two people who wrote about foreign policy challenges facing a president, the state of the unions have to talk to a domestic audience and also tricky international situations, iran has come up time and time again during the republican debate, at the same time, extremely volatile, where the pressure is being ramped up in the international arena.

how would you deal with iran in this sort of speech, knowing there are pitfalls on the domestic policy side. people are ready to say that president obama has let the ball drop in some way, how would you approach that tonight? >> i suspect that i just don't know. i suspect that he will not take it on as a major issue. iran will be mentioned in a context of a difficult and dangerous world, but he will not get into here's what i would do. i think it will be mentioned that's out there, that the world is a dangerous place but doesn't take it up as a matter of debate. >> would president bush take on iran? >> i don't know. >> in a speech. [laughter] >> i don't know.

if he stops and dwells on it, it might be interpreted in a way he doesn't want it to be interpreted or find himself out in front of his own policy, because it will be interpreted -- it will fill the air with drama suddenly if he stops and dwells on it and people will take it perhaps as some kind of a signal. i suspect it will be put in a much larger context. i'm interested to know if he will talk very much about defense cuts because he had a pretty big announcement at the pentagon a couple weeks ago, dramatic, hugely consequential and i wonder what he will say about it tonight. >> any other areas of foreign policy to come up, or will they avoid it? >> this is 2012, this isn't a speech aimed at anyone outside the borders of the united states. >> foreign policy may come up,

but i think the economy is the overriding issue and that's where most of the speech will focus. >> one more thing and then we'll open up for questions. but we just saw in "the new yorker"," huge memos showl leaked to an enterprising journalist. anything about the way this president approaches these issues. i don't know if you read the story or read the reports of the story. anything how he works and approaches speeches that is different from your own experience? >> i guess i don't know know enough about how he does things. the president and i worked for -- was a serious editor. i remember that as one of the most parts of the process. after the thing was vetted,

staffed out, as they say in the white house, president bush would sit down with us. he would know what was in the speech, because he would have approved a heavy outline around christmas time or at the beginning of the year. and when he had the draft in front of him, that's when he began his serious editing and would spend a lot of time and a lot of organizational things. and if he would catch us on things, it was more often than not that we weren't explaining enough. in the 2005 state of the union, he was after us for white a while to make sure we explained the issue and the solution well enough. and that's -- i don't know how president obama is doing it, but with president bush, i remember the serious heavy editing that went up through and into the speech prep.

there would be times when he would be practicing the speech in that little theater in the east wing of the white house, the teleprompter would be there and he would stop and pause and work it through with us while there and changed on the screen while we were in the room with him and he would stay there with us and he would think allowed and come up with some very good lines and he said to us, he wasn't happy for the conclusion of the 2002 or 2003 state of the union and he said, i want to say something like the freedom we pride is not america's gift to the world it's god's gift to humanity. and i thought we aren't going to be able to improve. that was one of his signature

lines of his presidency. >> chris much of a father as he was an editor. >> it was predictable in the sense that he would send drafts in for not only state of the union but any of his speeches, go through the process, which staffing out of speeches is a very involved process in and of itself. all of those comments from the different agencies would come back into my office and i would go over them and do a new draft and that's what would come back from him. and frequently, speechwriters live for lines like that. we live to write great flowing line prose. and president bush was a very plain speaker. when we got speeches back, we would write in bartlett's the four eyes and he would scribble

in the margins, too much rhetoric. and what that meant was, too floury. and he didn't take it out or re-edit, but frequently we would have to take some of the best language out of the speeches because he just simply wasn't comfortable with that kind of language. once in a while we would slip something through but once in a while i would go over on bended knee for a line to stay. and one of the things you learn as a speech writer is that you have to learn to write for your principal's voice. it is their words, even if you just spent the last four days writing every single one of those words, it's their speech and their voice. state of the eunice a little easier most of the time because

it isn't so much of a laundry list. it's not that kind of a prose-filled speech. it doesn't have that same kind of flow to it that another speech might. but every speech is reflecting someone else's voice, not your own. >> one more before we get to questions. we are sitting in front of a big sheet of paper, everyone thinks this congress is the most sharply divided along party lines and has a low approval rating. can president obama tonight make a speech saying let's do something together, republicans and democrats? >> not really. [laughter] >> but i do want to say one thing, you talked about the laundry list and you know, there is a defense to be made for the

laundry list and people who research these things say this is not just lather. presidents make between 30 and 40 specific legislative requests in a state of the union and even in divided government, when they say i ask congress to pass a law. 40% of those pass within the next year. if you are listening. this is a blueprint. you are listening to people pretending to take some suggestions, then cutting them out and somebody who outranks you wants something else and soothes feelings and getting everybody to sign off on a speech, including the president

sometimes. >> let's take some questions. please wait for the microphones to come to you, name affiliation, all that good stuff. >> the process certainly started before christmas, so with a big set of information gathering and thinking of presidential style and president clinton was very expansive and curious lerner who absorbed knowledge from every direction and hosted dinners where he would invite public

intellectuals or leading academicsu to get ideas and get a conversation going thinking about the speech. and the drafting would begin i guess in december and sort of work forward. in a way it's not to start too soon because things happen. so you don't want to get the speech done three months out. that wouldn't make any sense. you need to be working in real-time, but at the same time, you don't want to be sweating bullets an hour before you have to get it to the teleprompter. and the structured process is a good one. >> the way it worked when i was with george bush, the chief speech writer i worked with, mike had a serious policy role as well. he had real standing and was in a lot of these policy meetings and from the beginning and so mike would be in these meetings

that talked about the big themes for the coming year and legislative goals and he would have all that information just be in the meetings and it helped a lot. he and my colleague matthew scheduley and i would work on a heavy outline at christmas time and would react to it early in the year and the three of us would sit down and start drafting. it always took seven consecutive days on the calendar, including weekends and blast through the first draft. and we tried to make it something that was deliverable, not anything rough or anything like. really something that was deliverable and then go into the process. and from there, it's the typical senior people at the white house suggesting changes in emphasis or added policies or things of

that nature. but the president got a polished draft probably two weeks before the event. and it was a pretty disciplined process. we were never on the fly. >> knowing what i know about their working habits, let's take another question. >> this question is in line with that topic of sticking that obama would want to make it tonight. based on the kansas speech, many ties to teddy roosevelt, is this the image he wants to make for himself as a new image heading into this re-election year and what do you think the republican, if chosen, do you

think this is something that the republicans will address as well? >> that's a good question. teddy roosevelt made that speech at the beginning of the only campaign he ever lost. and so i don't know whether this is going to be the driving theme of the year. >> i think it is at least initially. they found success with it and it's catchy and memorable, the fair rules, the fair shake. i think people get it and the occupy movement is very much in line with that. how the republicans will respond, i won't say. i think this will be a theme we'll see at least in the first part of the year going forward. >> regardless of the language, the robust image teddy roosevelt had is something obama will want to carry forward in the campaign and that 1912 campaign was very

relevant to the campaign because roosevelt lost and wilson came in. the state of the union message -- wilson was portrayed in the papers as a university president. he said i'm going to do something that one-ups and i'm going to deliver this address in person. this was a huge controversy and people thought it was betraying democracy. but he did it any way. and the headlines the next day said, event free of pomp. and wilson said i put one over on roosevelt and ever since they have done oral transmissions. >> i'm a resident scholar here.

just to show i have learned something, there are those who say the age of rhetorical presidency is over. do you think that speeches can still make a difference or have we passed the time when or did they ever make a difference? i think of president bush going all over the country on his social security plan and obama, the same thing with his health care plan. just putting aside the state of the union and looking at other speeches, do they make a differences? >> speechwriting is the most important -- [laughter] >> i do think they can make a difference. we live in a conversational age. so speeches don't look like they used to. state of the union messages -- when i was a kid, i remember

ford, carter, but i don't remember as much applause in those speeches. they could have longer stretches of the type i described earlier that you don't have any more. the speeches are longer. the theatrics has television drama. the drum roll, they have the tv stations have graphics for the state of the union and all of this stuff. this is a 21st century fen no, ma'amon. despite differences, the speech can make a difference and not just that speech, but speeches in general can definitely make a big difference. >> speeches can make a big difference. the two that you use as examples

were the problem wasn't so much the speech as it was the policy. and i think president bush on the social security issue may have been right politically and may have been right policy-wise, but politically the country wasn't ready. he hadn't spent the time to educate people and get them up to speed. one speech can't do all that. you have to make an argument and sometimes with policies like that that are that big, you have to -- it takes longer and takes more than one speech. i think obama's health care was very similar in the sense that the people just simply didn't buy the policy yet. and from my point of view they probably aren't likely to because i don't think it jives with what the american people want. having said that, he did

speeches on health care over time and that did not work. that was an inherent problem with the policy. if president bush -- there had been more of a foundation built, educating people on that, because i think he was right, has to be fixed. but having said that, i would argue that for example, the speeches post-9/11 and so forth were some of the most powerful -- the cathedral and the speech you wrote were tremendously powerful speeches that i think had a tremendous impact on the country. i think presidential speeches are still very important. >> because i teach speechwriting and i use a lot of speeches and see what student reactionsr there is no question. there are wonderfully written speeches by people i don't agree with at all that are not only powerful. sarah palin, 2008 convention

speech written by matt scully. and i think before she was even nominated, was really a wonderful and influential speech. and ronald reagan's challenger speech, obama's iowa speech -- these are all things that can bring people to tears. a great blueprint for speechwriters. >> yes, sir. >> president obama is doing this enhanced live stream on-line of his state of the union address and the g.o.p. is life checking it. what do you hope to see online from both sides in their addresses and what they're doing? >> i'm going to listen to the

speech. [laughter] >> it will be pretty straightforward. i don't know how they're going to do it but i can picture what it's going to look like. >> if anybody watched the jobs speech on the split screen, there can be incredibly graphics with the statements that the president is making and bring words to life in a visual way. as i said earlier, i find this whole aspect of it quite interesting and new and for me kind of alien. i'm not that tech savvy. i like to read about the speech in the paper that i'm holding in my hand. and the fact that the white house is doing this just very

much in response and an appeal to a significant part of what was obama to the way younger people are getting their own information now. >> if i could mention just a small story and that is when we walked into the white house the first day on january 20, that afternoon to write a speech the first thing the next morning, we walked into the white house thinking this is going to be great, the white house, high tech and walked into the speechwriting office and they had a paper teleprompter still. ronald reagan still used a paper teleprompter and walked in and the computers had eighth-inch floppy disks. and that was the white house. they didn't have email. in my lifetime, in my professional lifetime, we have gone from that to live fact

checking, which is hard for me to kind of grasp. [laughter] >> but nonetheless, it has the technique and technology of speachingwriting has changed. we are speechwriters and that's what we do. the technological changes over the last 10, 15 years has been a tremendous boost to speechwriters as it is to members of the media, google and get your research and makes the job of speech writing so much easier than it was. >> i worked at the white house at the same time and i was a speechwriter for vice president quayle. in the early 1980's, they said it would be great if you mention today's headlines, that really made it seem sharp and up to the moment. [laughter] >> this morning's newspaper, a

different era. >> we have time for a couple more. yes, ma'am. >> speaking of how much things have changed, ted sorrennson said there is a mind meld in a way that he would prepare those speeches and given the white house has changed and the staff and the structure, i wonder if the panelists would comment if that still happens and if it does, to what extent. not only gather information and write, but as he writes in subtle ways, influence policies through the wording that you use, the things that you emphasize and that kind of thing. >> sorenson, that was so special because he had been with kennedy since 1953, which is the year he became a senator and contendy referred to him as my

intellectual blood bank and they traveled together thousands and thousands of miles, two of them on small planes. kennedy was kind of building his reputation around the country and it just was an amazing synnergy going back to "profiles of courage" and great speeches of the time. in my experience, speechwriters saw plenty of the president. andy card, the chief of staff said, in this white house, if you need to see the president, you will. if you want to see the president, you won't. i has to be a need. and because speeches were important to him, the speechwriters had access to him when they needed to. we were in and out all the time. but that's important. and i think my colleagues would agree you have to see the president when you need his input. >> there is a big rivalry in the

white house for what you call face time. and people want it and need it. and a lot of times people will say, you don't need to be in that meeting. i'll tell you what the policy is. speechwriters ask different questions than policy people. policy people will say what is your three-point plan. i will say, seen any good movies lately? what impressed you? >> that isn't a trivial fight. and staffs were smaller and used to get a lot of face time and that is the most fun when i was on the house side when you see your boss all the time and you are just cranking out things that can be a genuine clabtive effort. >> one of my favorite face times, the night we invaded

panama and we didn't know we were invading panama and it was the night of the christmas party and it was the night of the speechwriting staff was going to the christmas party. 4:00 in the afternoon, i got a call from the president's secretary and said the president would like to have a drink with the speechwriters, but we're going to the party in two hours. he said, i know, but he wants to have a drink. i think we can fit him in. [laughter] >> we did and because it was the christmas party, we are allredy to go to the residence and that's what we did. we went up to the residence and sat down, his grandchildren were there and running around. but every few minutes, brent scow craft would appear would appear in the doorway or andy card and they would huddle out in the hallway and he had a

pleasant, nice conversation as if nothing was going on and what was going on was the troops were actually approaching panama, about to invade and nobody knew it, including us at that moment and it was all very pleasant and fine and you would have never known anything was going on and then we went to the christmas pearlt and right after that we got -- christmas party and right after that we had the speech ready at 7:00. luck i will luckly, we didn't drink that much. >> sorenson and kennedy is the ideal which we aspire. i think michael walledman was clinton's chief domestic speech writer and i think now john and ben, the top domestic and

foreign policy writers are that kind of mind meld with the president. they are very involved in the policy discussion. it's not quite those times that we look back to longingly but the speechwriters are engaged and not just sequestered. >> john told me about how he was hired and very nervous about working for a president that could write all of his speeches much better than he could and he said to robert gibbs, why do you need a speech writer and gibbs said if we had 48 hours in a day, we wouldn't need you at all. that is how they hired him. but since there is only 24 hours, they would hire him any way. thank you for showing up and thank you to this wonderful panel. [applause] captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] p >> president obama gives the state of the union address tonight. up next, here on c-span, our live coverage begins with a preview of the speech. live at 9:00 p.m. eastern, the president's address, followed by the republican response from indiana governor mitch daniels and at 11:00 eastern, we will show you the president's speech a second time, again followed by a second time, again followed by governor