this bill and then you have that discussion. but yes or no is all they need, say yes or no and go onto the next question and let's communicate with people the way they want to communicate with s. >> how many books to you read in a year? >> i read a lot of books in a year. probably read more books than probably health care legislation. . . i think we can agree that is a great practice. those of you on c-span and on live stream. >> thank you. good to see you.

>> senator, thank you for joining us. senator rob portman of ohio. we'll get right to it. you have been in washington for some time since the 1990's and worked in the two bush white housees and former house member and been a senator since 2010, how would you say this beats ranks to other state of the unions over the years? where does this rank? >> the president as he always does, but there were no big proposals and it was kind of the me an ambivolent speech.

the state of the union is going great and he said it's not going so well and therefore we need to make some changes in terms of take-home pay and long-term unemployed and he said i want to work with congress and then he said, by the way, i'm going to go around congress. as compared to other states of the union that i have listened to, the message was muddled and hard for me to really know what he was trying to communicate. i believe he is uncertain about what kind of second term president he wants to be and there are a couple of models and bill clinton in his second term was more productive and did more in his second term than the first term. think of welfare reform. 1997 balanced budget agreement which dealt with medicare and taxes as well as putting the government on a diet that ends up with a balanced budget over a period of several years.

i think he has a decision here. and so i think that speech was reflective of where he is, which is he is not giving us a clear message. >> he did mention a handful of measures you think you could work with him on. trade promotion authority something that you have been involved with working in the ustr. democratic leaders are very skeptical. do you think the white house is committed to getting this done or is this a nod towards bipartisan? your mind? >> i hope so. i think there were several openings. i think one was on trade and the president made it clear that he is going to promote what he should have been doing along which is the ability to knock done barriers.

it is crazy that the united states of america for the last seven years hasn't had the ability to negotiate a trade agreement and that is all about. that is what trade promotion authority is to read it gives the president the opportunity to sit at the table and get the last and best offer. only negotiated one agreement that wasn't done under a trade promotion authority. every president has asked for it except this president until last year. he needs to come out swinging on that and say i need this and he needs to go to his democrat former colleagues and say, you have to allow me as president to be able to interact with the world. we can't sit on the sidelines and used that last night. >> needs a bigger push. >> bigger push. last night was a good start. i hadn't seen it until last night and we need to encourage him and his cabinet to be out there explaining to the american people and going to democrats saying look, this is something

that is incredibly important to our country right now and losing market share every day as we are not knocking down barriers, other countries are. they are negotiating. 100 trade agreements have been negotiated while we have sat on the sidelines. that hurts us. and i as president want that authority to be able to help move the economy forward. >> have you had any conversations with the incoming finance committee chairman, getting that bill through committee and onto the senate floor? do you think there will be action in the finance committee? >> i think there will be and get democrat support and i have talked to him as recently as last night. >> was he receptive to it? >> you have to talk to him. he believes in trade and represents a state that is huge in exports and got good provisions in the t.p.a. that relate to digital products and specifically i.p. issues and intellectual property issues and there are good aspects for some democrats who are concerned about labor rights, environmental concerns, digital

economy. i think has a good prospect of getting through the finance committee with several democrat votes and i hope all the republican votes and i hope we don't hold back on given trade promotion authority to this president because it is right for the country. >> you have close relationship with people in the business economy. -- community. last night the president talked about the debt limit. when you talk to folks in the business community, how concerned are they about default? and do you think that that congress should increase the debt ceiling without any strings attached? >> talked about this before, when you look back over the last few decades, only thing that's ever worked to get congress to restrain expanding is a debt

limit discussion. gram rudman came out of a debt limit discussion and so did the 1997 agreement we just talked about and george bush 41 didn't get re-elected. the budget control act led to this improvement on the discretionary side of the budget. let's not squander this opportunity and do something about the underlying problem which is the spending problem. i'm not saying add extraneous issues to it but it's like the credit card in your wallet. when you extend the credit card for you or your family or your kids max out, what do you do? you say what do we do with the underlying problem. >> you have the white house saying, we want a clean debt. >> no president in the history of the united states has taken that position. they have all negotiated on it. >> you are saying -- >> this is the underlying problem we have right now in my view.

you have a president who refuses to engage with congress, even talk to congress, so he stands up there and says i'm going to go around with congress, but i won't even talk to them. i mean there is a difficulty of getting congress and the president to work together. i think there are several openings. if you won't engage and talk to congress, it's a tough vote. when i say to my constituents we have $18 trillion debt and $140,000 bucks but if i voted to extend the debt limit again without getting any changes in spending -- i mean that's a tough vote. >> what would you -- >> nobody wants to default. >> what do you think the prospects are? >> i don't think we are likely to default. why? no one wants to default. we should be responsible about this. the president should be responsible and say just as presidents bush, clinton, reagan and carter, when you have to

raise the debt limit, by requirements you have to raise it, you say this is a tough vote and this is the credit card, and both we extend our limit, i want to work with you. the attitude shouldn't be i'm not going to even talk, i refuse to negotiate on this issue. i feel strongly on this because it's something we glossed over last night and we continue to gloss over that everything is fine in terms of the debt and deficit. it's not fine. the congressional budget office has told us we are in deep trouble. they said we are back to trillion dollar deficits within 10 years and say we are going to have a 100% increase on the mandatory side. >> if the house sends something over to you and have the senate >> the process ought to be that the president ought to engage with us, both sides of the aisle and come up with some sensible

changes on the spending side and ought to be on the mandatory spending side. 2/3 of the budget is on auto pilot. that's where the big increasesr that's where the potential is to actually address this long-term problem that is very clear that will otherwise bankrupt the economy over time. and there are some great ideas there, one that i have been pushing is means testing in medicare. why wouldn't the president want to take his own budget that is a $56 billion savings and $450 billion over the next 10 years and say let's do that. in the past, democrats have said they can't touch medicare unless there are tax increases on the rich. that is a difficult logic to apply to cutting benefits for the wealthy. let's say reducing medicare for the wealthy through some premium increases in part b and part d, which is in the president's budget. all of us have different approaches. let's take the president's own

policy proposals and put it as part of the debt limit discussion and tell the american people and say we did something to deal with the problem and it is on the mandatory side of the budget that was on auto pilot that will grow that will bankrupt. >> jobless benefits, you have been involved in those discussions and the president really went after republicans last night for their votes against the latest proposal to move forward. what other discussions right now with senator collins, senator reed of rhode island, senator heller, how likely are you going to get a proposed deal and what are you looking at to pay for that? >> it is doable. i'm one of the republicans who voted to have a debate. we have a proposal that was rejected. the majority leader had his own proposal. we didn't get to have a debate on those issues, but the reality

is we are pretty close. it's a three-month extension and during that time we want to do precisely what the president said last night, reform the unemployment insurance program for long-term unemployed. >> what is the pay-for. >> and we want to pay for it. if you are not paying for it, you you increase the debt and deficit. if you can't pay for it, you definitely should. i have ideas including stopping the double dipping between unemployment insurance and social security disability. there are lots of waste and fraud and other issues we could go after. the democrats are talking about smoothing pension contributions. there are a number of -- >> are you ok with it? >> i heard about it for the first time. there are ways we can pay for it. what's more significant and more exciting for the american people, how do you change the

unemployment system to help people obtain the skills they need to access the jobs that are available today. >> we have to wrap up. but one last question. one thing you learned about president obama last night, what is that one thing? >> i think he's not sure what kind of second term he wants to be. i think the president has an opportunity to engage with congress and work with us to resolve some tough issues, one is the long-term unemployed and skills and get the country back into trade and expanding jobs. it's all of the above, energy policy and can and should be done and talked about tax reform and corporate tax reform. these are areas where we could give the economy a shot in the arm and work with him. he needs to make a decision because it won't happen without his leadership and specifically providing a little help to democrats and support to democrats to be able to work with us to get these things done. >> senator rob portman, thanks

for your time. [applause] we want to welcome senator joe manchin from west virginia. [applause] senator, you are a former west virginia governor and i'm wondering, when you were governor, did you ever go before the state legislature in a state of the state speech and say i'm going to go around the legislature and do things because -- i can't work with you and i have to do things at an administrative level? >> never. why? >> first of all, do you think someone says they are going to do with or without you.

you are going to hunch down and try. i would like the benefit of the doubt, the president is very frustrated. i understand that. if you are an executive, you have been frustrated. i worked with the right and left but bottom line i have to get something accomplished for the people of west virginia. that is what i was elected to do. i have to figure out how i get everybody to vote. and the bottom line is, you never put your opposition in an embarrassing position and don't send them home. >> do you think -- >> we have an atmosphere up here if you don't you you'll get me. that's not getting anything accomplished. if i was trying to get you on the other side of the aisle and know we are a different party, but still we are trying to get something accomplished, i can't go out and berate you on issues and think you are going to work with me on monday and go to your district on friday and try to defeat you and raise money against you and say i need you on monday because this is what's great for the country.

you have to build trust and relationships and that's what it starts. >> you think his going around congress ruins the relationships? >> he isn't going to go around congress. i would have liked to think he could have chosen better words. first of all, the constitution gives executives so much leeway. you have powers that you can do something. and you are in charge of the operation. all the agencies you have, they deliver the services that people depend upon. the laws that have been passed, gives that agency the power to do things, are they exercising it in a prudent manner. you don't have to say anything.

my goodness, keep moving around. and if you do, go out with the playing field and someone says, wait a minute, governor or mr. president, you are going too far here. let's sit down and talk. let's interpret it this way. >> is he going too far in doing things on an administrative level? >> i keep seeing frustration. i have trade it. maybe he believes in his heart to the best of his ability he has tried everything he can to people together. you don't give up on that, that's the challenge. do you ever try hard enough and accomplish it and are you able to get frustrated to the point that you think i have the powers to do it. i just don't think that is his intent. it came across pretty harsh, pretty direct and you will see america pushing back and the opposition take it to a different level. >> is it unconstitutional, concerned about him expanding --

>> he might try. no difference than when he had the recess appointments. goes to the court. he doesn't want that. he wants to get something done so bad. i could see the frustration level. i have been down that road before and my goodness, can't they say this will get people back to work and can't you see simplifying the tax code. i like that he said incentives reward corporate deduction because of the job you produced. you give me something in return. i need value. people need value. jobs is what people need in west virginia. at some corporation, god bless them all. have to make these investments. their return or incentives should be if you want to have an offset, you have to produce a job for it, not just using the code, if you will.

>> you talked -- he talked about energy last night and that is a big issue in your coal-producing state. >> energy is a big issue in this country. >> he said yesterday, climate change is a fact. >> absolutely. seven billion of us made an impact on this. >> give me your assessment of his administration's efforts to regulate carbon emissions and coal-fired plants and the effect that is having on the coal industry. >> let me give you the facts. first of all, the coal industry, as you know it, whether you like it or don't like it or don't understand, it produces the majority of the power for this country. it produces 35-plus percent of the power. only thing close to it is natural gas. 75% of the power. you can wish all you want right now and i'm a total believer in wind and solar but i'm realist, it's only going to produce that

much. if you are relying on it, you would be cold. that's a fact of life. even the department of energy, the president's department of energy, energy information agency said you will be able to depend on coal and need it for the next 30 years. the president acknowledged that we reduced emissions in the last few decades. >> what about the e.p.a. regulations on coal-fd fired power plants. >> we should be working together with the technology. $8 billion has been laying there since 2008. none of it has been spent looking for technology, r&d. if we reduced emissions thus far, we did do more. we burn less than one billion ton of coal in america. >> do you believe that the line that the administration is

waging, the so-called war on coal? >> if you had someone shooting at you every day, you would think you were in a war. >> you think that? >> you have this moving target and performance standards saying they want coal and gas, the same air standards. they can't. it's physically impossible. and all we have said, why don't you take a more realistic approach, look at the six best coal-fired plants in the country and use that as your standard because they are already producing. you are depending on energy. if you want it cleaner, find examples. if you want better, invest things in research and get private and public sectors working together. this is how we cured all of our other problems -- he never even mentioned coal and it produced more energy. and he said we are going to cut credits, $4 billion. we have been subsidizing wind

for the last decades at 2.2 cents. -- per kilowatt hour. >> how much is the president's unpopularity in your state to keep rockefeller? >> his numbers aren't good in our state and they have gone down, one of the two lowest, wyoming and west virginia are two of the lowest states of his approval. and i said listen, the president is my president and he's your president, whether he or she, democrat or republican. you want that president to do well. and i have never been against something that i didn't think i had a better idea. just to be against it because they all have a perception. i go out and defend immigration. not a popular thing. people just don't know. you have to mainstream these

people and get them productive citizens of america. we will all benefit by it. so these things here constructive criticism, they have a hard time taking constructive criticism. >> you mean the white house? >> maybe the people they are defending and saying ok, that makes sense. let me give you the facts on this. have some real intelligent discussion. >> if hillary clinton becomes your presidential candidate or nominee, how does that affect the democratic party, can there be a resurgence for the party there or is the state shifting pretty rapidly to the right? >> west virginia is the northern most southern state in the united states. we are right on the mason-dixon line. so we are the last but seeing a national trend, a lot of social issues, a lot of lifestyle that people don't understand. it's just one of those things -- >> a shift to the right.

>> it doesn't have to be a permanent shift. if you look at the entire south, i'm still very proud west virginia democrat and i have a lot of friends who are proud west virginia republicans. we don't really relate to the washington democrats a lot or the washington republicans. so it's a little different. and we are not just running against, it's just who we are. and west virginia, you can be pro-life and pro-choice and be pro-labor and pro-business. >> do you want hillary to run? >> i do. i don't know if there is anyone more qualified who has had the experience. experience, hard to replace that. the experience she has had, seen it from the front line, first lady and governor's end of it. the governors have a perspective that is different. we have to balance the budget. we work towards a time line

every day as a governor. when the crisis hit in 2007- 2008, most governors meet once a week with the policy, we had to meet every day, meeting twice a day to try and keep a handle on finances. we don't see that urgency in the federal government. saying, we have got to balance this budget. the last time the budget was balanced was 2001. it is 2014 now. think about it. and no one is talking about it. >> quickly, if there's one thing you learned about president obama last night, that would be what? >> i learned that his frustration level is very high and parts of that speech, we are going to work together and be americans. i would like to think he misspoke and picked his words poorly and say if you don't want to be an american, i'll be american myself. i don't think that was his intention. it came across a little bit as that and i would hope that we could come together and there are a lot of good people who want to work for the country. senator joe manchin, thanks for

your time. [applause] >> i'll introduce my colleague with senator richard blumenthal. >> good morning. thank you for joining us. we appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. i wanted to give a quick reminder those to to participate in the polling question and we'll get to that. i want to start where you left off, what was the one thing -- the biggest thing you learned about the president last night? >> that he is frustrated with congress as the american people, as i am and going to use the full reach of his authority, not exceed it, not overreach, but use all of the authority that congress has given him to give action to the american people and whether it's the minimum wage or immigration where he has already acted or veterans, which

is such a pauferfully important issue, he is going to use -- how were fully important -- powerfully important issue, he is going to use executive orders and promulgate the regulations that are delayed. one of the problems is the overdelay in issuing rules in order to implement the law. >> a lot of your colleagues on the right said he was overreaching by his call for executive actions and trying to go around congress. do you disagree with that? >> i disagree that the president will overreach. he has used executive orders less frequently than recent -- any recent president, not by a little but by a lot. the numbers were in the papers this morning about how infrequently he has used his authority. this authority has already been given to him. in fact, there's a strong

argument that he should have been doing more executive orders much earlier in his presidency, but i understand that he wanted to work with congress and still does, but he is going to use the full reach of his authority to implement the law. he is simply executing the law. >> focus on obamacare, focus on energy policy, but what were you most invested in and got constant mention, for example, intelligence reform, n.s.a., where do you want to push that issue? >> i would like the president to continue to emphasize the need for stronger judicial oversight. i have proposed and advocated a constitutional advocate, a public interest advocate in an adversarial process. the president has embraced that idea. i would like greater openness in

the fisa court so more rulings and opinions and decisions are made public. we cannot have secret laws made by a secret court. and i would like to see more of that expressed by the president. but obviously, he was focusing on a theme that has such compelling power right now, the theme of economic opportunity. i think it was a home run. and the veterans' issues, more speaks physicianity in terms of -- specificity in terms of the programs that will help not only brave and dedicated veterans like sergeant remsburg but like the guest i had last night suffered traumatic brain injury and has come back to be an advocate for veterans, health care and also on military sexual assault because she was a victim

of sexual assault while in the military. i would like to see him talk those issues, embracing some of the ideas that are in the bill that chairman sanders of the veterans affairs of the committee, senator sanders of vermont and i was very pleased to be a leading co-sponsor when he introduced it. health care, educational opportunities, skill training. >> what about gun legislation, coming from connecticut and the tragedy that happened there, giving the odds of it getting some momentum this year. is it hit a stale mate? >> uphill, but still has a chance. the thing to keep in mind here is and i have lost sight a little bit, too. president reagan was almost assassinated. and jim brady was shot and paralyzed and still it took 12 years to adopt the brady handgun

law, 12 years, which makes 12 months look like a sprint. we have to be prepared for a marathon. we are going to bring the bill back in some form. background checks, mental health initiatives, a ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchaseses. the american people want it. 90% of the american people favor it. and i think it will come back in some form. maybe this session, maybe not. but in some form, it will come back. >> talk a little bit about the immigration reform, house republicans are potentially doing something. are you optimistic something will get done. anything you can do to try and push progress along? >> i think immigration reform will be done.

on the list of priorities likely to get done, veterans, immigration reform, i think are at the top. and i say immigration reform because everybody has a piece of it. the president has mentioned the issue of high skilled workers needed by american industry. we need to educate our own engineers and scientists and computer experts. but in the meantime, there is a desperate need for those skills. agricultural workers are needed. the nation cannot allow 11 million people to remain in the shadows. and the dreamers, one of the president's guests was a dreamer, i believe. so i think there is real currency, political currency to

this issue, and i think it will get done. again, not everybody is going to get everything that they want. little bit like the farm bill, which took a while to get done. >> in erm it is of that these are issues that often get into the political grit loch we talk about and write about a lot. the partisan nature of the speech last night some people said didn't necessarily help the movement, the momentum in the direction of getting things done. do you think that there's any sense that the president went too far? that he should have pulled back a little bit? >> i think things are getting done. hopefully we're going to have the debt ceiling solved. we have a budget. the farm bill. i think that there is a series of measures that are going to

break the dysfunction, at least to an extent. flood insurance. infrastructure. you know, everybody in that congress has railroads and roads and airports and schools. they're all decaying. metro north. and the amtrak line that i'm willing to bet a lot of folks here rode today is a 20th century track. 50, 70 years old in some places. and your train going home is going to break down, is going to stop just like last thursday night in the new haven line, people were stranded out on the tracks in one of the coldest days of the year. soverb has a stake in infrastructure. and there are ways to do an infrastructure bank a railroad

trust fund, this is an idea that in the absence of earmarks, i came to congress in the post-earmark era, the senate had abandoned earmarks to the -- over the protests of many of my more seasoned colleagues -- >> would you like them to come back? do you think that would help? >> i think what's needed is maybe not specific earmarks for specific congressional districts or even states, but i think a solution that provides something for everyone in infrastructure. >> one of the things we talked about before coming on stage was veterans affairs. i know it's something you're very involved in. the president talked about the troops quite a bit but didn't set any policy. this is maybe something to have bipartisanship on. can you lay out a couplele of places where you think that might go? >> i think the invisible wounds of war are an area where this nation simply has failed to address our only gation. post draw mat exstress, traumatic brain injury. different veterans of different ages and different eras have different needs and challenges so what we need is a really comprehensive, broad, big approach like the bill that i've offered, proposed by senator

sanders, chairman of the committee where i serve. i see this issue through the eyes of two of my four children who have served or are now serving in the military, through the eyes of their contemporaries, making dillingses about what to do with their lives, some having come back from war with real needs and challenges and we have not even begun to address that obligation. so health care. counseling. skill training. job opportunities. there is a range of challenges and needs that we need to meet and again, the president can't go into all of these details in the state of the union, but i'd like to see his support for the

kind of omnibus, comprehensive bill that we propose in the senate through the veterans affairs committee. >> i wanted to end on kind of a lighter note. you were cull can -- you were called in "the washington post" a while ago, a jewish robert redford when you were an f.b.i. prosecutor. i wanted to get your sense of the afghan scandal and how closely it hugheses to the movie from -- hues to the movie in your experience. >> at the beginning of the movie there's a line, some of this actually happened. about 5% of the movie actually happened. i took a lot of grief from the f.b.i. team i was working with at the time, i was the u.s. attorney in connecticut, and the movie bears a faint resemblance to the truth. interesting, i think it's a great movie. but i wouldn't look to it for what actually happened. >> from your personal experience. all right, well thank you so much, senator, i really appreciate it. >> thank you. \[applause]

>> welcome congressman chris van hollen. thanks for joining us. >> great to be here. >> we will get started. you heard some of what the senator spoke about and i want to get your read in terms of kind of the one thing you learned about the president last night, you know, this isn't his first speech that he's making to congress, you've met with him before. was there any kind of insight that you drew? >> first, i thought the president -- \[inaudible] i want to thank michael grimm for delivering the republican response which essentially said to the american agenda, i'm going to throw the agenda over the balcony, the president's agenda. i think that sums up the republican reaction in the house. i think what we learned from the president last night is that he's someone who can bounce back from a tough year, resilient, determined not to have the country go as slow as the

slowest boat which is the house of representatives. he laid out a number of specific challenges for the country and the american people. asked the congress to join him in those challenges. but also made it clear that he will look for every avenue within his authority to move the country forward, that congress is not the be-all and end-all and he'll engage business leaders and educational leaders and civic leaders, as he's doing today in both maryland and pennsylvania, to move forward wherever he can. so look, i think resilience is a characteristic the president demonstrated last night. >> in terms of the speech, when you look at it, i was talking to house derms before, what was the anticipation, they were nervous he wouldn't give them enough to run on in the elections. do you think he did to try to turn people out in 2014 for you guys? >> the interesting thing about the president's agenda, i don't

think it's just red meat for the base, i think it's overwhelmingly popular with the american people he laid out specific initiatives. while it was under the important umbrella of opportunity for all and economic empowerment and more shared prosperity, he set out very specific initiatives. so let's increase the minimum wage. so someone who works full time is not below the poverty level. let's allow people to earn paid sick leave so you can take care of a loved one who is sick. and not have to worry about missing your rent payment. he talks about universal early education, talks about closing corporate loopholes that encourage companies to move overseas and take some of those savings and invest them in infrastructure here at home. on every one of those if you looked at the chamber last night, republican were sitting on their hands. i don't think those are red meat democratic proposals, i think those are commonsense proposals

that will resonate throughout the country. what happened in 2006 which was the last shift over in the house, what we said during that election, what the democrats said if you elect democrats as the majority in the house, here's a specific list of things we'll do. we called it the six for 2006. it was a way to break through some of the clutters and say, ok, republicans say they want job growth and economic opportunity, so do democrats. but how do you distill that in a meaningful way that will impact people's lives? minimum wage, paid sick leave, universal pre-x and -- pre-k and some of the specific thicks the president laid out will impact the lives of real americans. if we can get people to focus on the details the contrast will be clear and helpful. >> one thing you have been very involved and focused on is campaign finance reform. would you have wanted more and where -- how are you going to try to push that issue in the coming months?

>> there are a couple of pieces to campaign finance reform and voter empowerment. one is clearly the millions of dollar that was pouring into these races. and you know, my focus has been, look, i'd like to have campaign finance reform so that we can reduce the impact of special interest money but for goodness sake, at least the american public should know who is spending that money. and that is why i was the author of the disclose act in the house which passed the house a number of years ago. failed in the senate by one vote in the end on a filibuster after senator ted kennedy passed away we were not able to get 60 votes because scott brown voted against it. but the disclose act and that idea in transparency and accountability is very important to the public. the president has spoken about it in the past. we will be speaking about that more in this election because it relates to all these other issues. the reason people are secretly financing and bankrolling these

campaigns is not for charity. it's because they have in most cases an economic agenda. and apparently they're not proud of the economic agenda they want to implement because they don't want the american people to know who is spending the money. we do think there's a clear connection between these, you know, bread and butter kitchen table issues that are important to the american people and the issue of campaign finance. the last point i'll make is the president did talk about voter empowerment and the fact that nobody should have to wait in line five or six hours in order to exercise their ability to vote in this country, again, i think those things also resonate with the public system of republicans are going to have to explain why they're against a proposal that was derived by the president's former campaign counsel and mitt romney's former campaign counsel. if we can break through on these sensible policies that are not red meat to the democratic side but i think really should be red meat for the whole country, then we can move forward.

>> what's your sense on immigration reform, the house republicans look like there may be a little more optimism there, they're going to be going to the retreat this week, discussing the principles. is there anything that democrats can do or are you hearing neg in terms of making you more optimist exthat something might be passed before the elections? >> well, the jury is still out on this, right. as you indicated, the house republican caucus was going on their retreat today and will have -- we'll have to see how this shakes out theasms president pointed out last night, and it is important for the country to know, the senate did pass a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill and it would pass the house today if the speaker would allow us to vote. there are enough votes in the house today to pass comprehensive imgreags reform, the president could sign it tonight. the speaker is holding it up. he says he's going to look for another path. we will see. he's got a lot of folks in his caucus that are dead set against any kind of comprehensive immigration reform so we can

hope, and i do hope, that they'll come together but right now, it's -- it's hard to put really great odds on that. >> on that point, how big of an issue do you think this is going to be for 2014 in terms of turning out the vote, if immigration reform doesn't happen, and then also, i wanted to have you touch on the number of retirements you guys have been facing in the house. there's a lot of longtime, veteran lawmakers making the decision not to run. >> sure. i think immigration reform will play an important role in the mid-term elections because as i indicated, you know you do have this bipartisan bill in the senate that the house republican party has refused to allow us to vote on. and you know, people know that. and so if the speaker is unable to, you know, muster a majority in his caucus or however many vote he is think he is needs, that clearly will be an issue that's laid at his feet as something that he was unable to

do despite the fact that he had a bipartisan bill sitting in the house. again, i think it's another specific initiative that will differentiate the parties going into the mid term elections along with those other sort of kitchen table and bread and butter issues i talked about. in terms of retirement, look. i'm sure you talked to some of my colleagues, george miller, we're going to miss him terribly as we'll miss all of them. i mention george, he's been there for 40 years now he said it was time, time to go home and be with his family and do other things. and i think if you talk to other members who are retiring, you'll find the same thing. you know, again, in most -- >> you don't think it says anything in terms of the

democrats' ability to take back the majority in 2014 or 2016? >> most of those retirements are in congressional districts we will win. there are a couple in tougher districts. but the same is true on the republican side system of no, i don't think it says anything about the prospects for taking up the house. we will pick up seets in the house and the question is whether we'll reach the critical number of 17. and what i would say is that as we move through this new year, we're going to have a national debate on all the issues that the president raised last night and again, if we can get the public to focus on he specifics and make it clear that if the house goes to the democrats, you will get a national minimum wage increase, if the republicans don't go along with it between now and then. you'll get earned sick leave, paid for your family. we will push for universal pre-k. we will push to close down those corporate tax breaks that incentivize companies to ship jobs overseas and invest in

infrastruck cher here at home. if we can crystalize the election on the specifics, i think we can break through. >> we're going to get the hook here, this is something we're going to be focused on a lot, we have a story out today saying republicans are not going to go to the mat on the debt chairman, they're going to cave. you're budget chairman, you have bhn involved in this talks, do you think they will cave? >> this is when it would be interesting to be inside the republican caucus in maryland over the next couple of days. as you've heard in the last couple of weeks, republicans keep saying they've got to get something in exchange for the debt ceiling. you know what? you don't get to enact your republican agenda in exchange for paying our country's bills on time. you don't get something for upholding the full faith and

credit of the united states. you don't get something for agreeing to pay for something that congress on a bipartisan basis has already voted on in the past. and so, if they make the mistake they made last october, and essentially threaten to shut down the government and much worse, i mean if you were to put the full faith and credit at risk, then i'm sure there will be a big public price to pay and the more level-ed -- level-headed members of their caucus recognize that but the question is whether the tea party element will essentially run the show. they did a little bit of breaking that fever with the bipartisan budget agreement but that is still a major part of the house republican caucus and when it comes to imgreags reform and the kind of question we're talking about with respect to the debt ceiling that remains the fundamental question. this sort of war within the republican party, are they beginning to reconcile or not? the fact that they had, you know, multiple responses to the state of the union address, the tea party response, the libertarian response, the official response and of course

mike grimm's response. the fact that you had multiple responses seriously shows that there's a real division that continues. >> thank you so much congressman. really appreciate it. >> thank you very much. >> i'm going to welcome mike allen back to the stage, he is with senator patty murray, chair of the senate budgeting committee. >> thank you, anna, and thank you all for being here and thank you who are watching. we have the honor of being with senator patty murray, chame of the senate budget committee, the fourth-ranking senate democratic leader and the number one ranking senate democratic woman. senator murray, last night the

most porn thing that you learned about president obe ma was what? >> i think what i was most impressed with was there's a lot of discussion about him being not engaged, he was very much engaged. he knows exactly the issues the american families are talking about, their hopes and dreams, and spoke directly to them. i felt he understood where the country was. >> senator, you were on the escort committee, you actually interacted with the president. what was that like? >> well, actually, i happen to be talking to the president at the exact same time that michael bennett was, we had a discussion about who the president was going to be rooting for on sunday and i won -- no, actually the president was going to get

in the middle of it. but uh -- but we know who's going to win. >> now chairman murray, things have started to work in washington, we thought that wasn't possible. and you were a big part of that. the budget deal you made with your house counterpart, pule ryan, was an amazing accomplishment. you and were talking about how an important part of that was the personal relationship, the trust you established. there was a token of that trust you presented with chairman ryan. tell us about that. >> as you know, a budget discussion can be very difficult and challenging and the way that we broke up our tension most often was to talk about football. i happen to have a very good

team this year, the seahawks, and his team wasn't doing so great so i would give him grief about russell wilson who happens to be from wisconsin. so he kind of became our point of bringing our discussions back to somebody we both could support, so once the budget agreement was done and we had voted on it and gone home, i called the seahawks and russell very graciously signed a jersey to paul and i brought it back here and presented it to him. it was a great moment and he now has a real treasure. >> now senator murray, how do you keep the momentum going from that agreement? >> i think that's really an important question. i think one of the things that kept ryan and i together working on this agreem was the knowledge that the country felt broken. like democracy can't work. my country can't work. that is a very bad feeling for a family -- for families, businesses, communities, everybody, wanted our country to work. and that focused us on making sure we could find an agreement. i think what i have heard so much from people coming out of this is, thank you for showing me that there is a way forward, that people can work together. and i think if we keep that goal in mind, on all of the tough issues that we face, that the country is counting on us to find ways to move forward and to come to an agreement. surely we have partisan differences, surely we have different philosophies but to not make them feel like the country is broken. >> something fascinating you said to me as we were chatting

back stage, was that the success with the budget agreement might be a template for eventually getting tax reform done. how would that be? >> i think there's a couple of things that we learned, one is to trust each other not to take things out of a negotiation room, to use politically against each other in trying to reach an agreement. but i think the bigger template for tax reform is that we didn't try to do everything, all at once. i think the country has been through a lot. people are really feeling fragile. and they want to know that nothing big is going to happen that changes their life so dramatically that they can't figure it out. so we set our goals smaller. a two-year deal. replacing sequestration. doing it in a way that didn't really frighten people or impact

people but brought back certainty. i think the lesson for tax reform is that we have to do the same thing and actually the president suggested last night in his speech that we perhaps fund investments in transportation infrastructure by looking at closing -- closing some tax loopholes and bringing money home here to the united states to invest in something that's important to families and businesses and communities. so instead of taking it home, we're going to throw the entire whole thing out and start all over, you don't know what will happen to you when you fill out your tax forms next year, rather, taking small things and pushing forward in a way people feel more comfortable with. >> you must have felt pretty good last night. the president's priorities seem to be a number of issues that have been your priorities for a long time. specifically on inequality. i've heard you talk about how that impacts women. >> absolutely. when women are earning 77 cents on the dollar, that impacts their ability to be able to put food on the table.

when 2/3 of the people who are on minimum wage are women that impacts their family's security. i lived this growing up because my dad was -- had multiple sclerosis and there were seven kids -- >> purple heart. >> yeah, made in america. my mom, raising seven kids, not working, had to go back to work and couldn't find a job that had the same kind of pay as my dad and it was very difficult this impacts millions of families across the country system of that job security of raising the minimum wage and dealing with income inequality and providing the kinds of support that families need, they're not asking for the government to run their lives or control their lives but just to give them that little bit of support when they need it to get backen their feet and be able to be a thriving citizen. >> all your family is on pacific time, late at night after we were all exhausted, after you'd done an npr interview, you went home and were texting and emailing with relatives and there was one specific thing on their mind.

>> i have a a big family. four brothers two sisters, and multitudes of people beyond that. one thing they were all saying to me was they were so impressed that the president talked about women and fighting for women and giving them a place and some security, whether it's income inequality or whether it's minimum wage, fighting to make sure that women have the support they need, preschool education, they all love that. because everybody has women in their lives that are important to their family, to their income, and they want every american to be able to have that. and i thought it was striking particularly because that's how the women on the floor of the senate, the democratic side, felt too when the president -- and the president spoke to all of us. >> there's been a lot of attention to the shriver report. how do you think that that's changed the conversation around minimum wage? >> i think that has brought front and center what the actual issues are that women face. look, what every family wants

today is certainty. that they've got the income coming into their house to be able to provide for their kids and fair families, certainly something every woman cares about, and men too, but women in particular. this is something they consciously think about. so the shriver report really pointed out some things that women were really feeling, like it's not just me that's struggling, it is something that is struggling in this country that we really need to pay attention to. >> of all the things you know about chairman murray, there's one thing you may not know and that is, she's a fisherwoman. >> that's right. >> what do you catch? >> i'm from the west coast and i catch salmon and i am -- i usually compete with my family and win on that one too. >> where are you going to watch the super bowl? >> i will be at home with family and friends watching the super bowl, cheering on the team that's going to win, the seahawks. >> by how much?

>> i have a prediction that sherman will intercept a pass from peyton manning and we will win by 13 points. >> that's an optimist. now, you're going to drive, you usually fly but you're going to drive from your house to here. >> i've done that before. it takes a long time. >> how long? >> well, actually, the shortest amount of time is my husband and i had to drive a car back to my daughter when she was in high school and we left here and arrived two and a half days later, driving four hours each every time, splitting it. i'll never do that again. >> if you did and you had to take with you russell wilson or richard sherman who would you take? >> i would take both. fantastic conversation. and sherman is a very smart individual and one that i think contributes much to his

community, his family does as well and certainly russell is a >> chairman murray, thank you for being here. before we say good-bye, i'll tell you who is next, i lost my paper here. thank all of you who are watching on c-span, thank you in live streamland, thank you all and chairman murray, thank you. \[applause] >> senator chris coons from delaware, thank you for joining us.

we'll get started right away. tell us about, we were talking about this back stage, you were at the white house a couple of weeks ago, you talked to the president before his state of the union, what was the message that you delivered to him there and how did he respond when he gave his speech last night? >> manu, what i wanted to challenge the president to do is speak directly to the american people in the state of the union last night about the broad pack about the package of bipartisan manufacturing bills that are introduced, could be brought to the floor and could be passed. i spoke about the manufacturing jobs for american initiative and went through the caucus and said there's always a great bill on community colleges that al franken is leading. on skills and skill certification that kay hagan is leading.

on cutting read tape for manufacturing that shaheen is leading. earlier that day the president had been in north carolina. to announce the law firm of the second of these advanced manufacturing hubs. the first had been youngstown, ohio. there's a bipartisan bill that brown and senator blunt are leading, it's one of a package of bills that could be pecked up, passed and signed into law. my challenge to the president was, it's great to speak about new york inequality. it's important to talk about raising the men mum wage and extending unemployment for those out of work but it's not creating a ladder into the middle class. these are things, concrete, good, bipartisan things you could do. it's too early to give up on congress. please speak to these, please challenge us, get taos do this. >> does that concern you, the fact that he did talk extensively about going around congress, to do -- does he need a more sustained push within congress to get things cone this year? >> i think the speech was balanced. each time he spoke about an executive action he was going to take, for example on the men mum

weage, he spoke to congress asking us to reach an agreement. one specific moment on opportunity and mobility he spoke to the earned income tax credit and specifically spoke to senator rubio, having some positive, concrete ideas he'd like to see us work together on. enge the speech would have benefited from more of that, from more specific, outreach. one of the applause line he is got was that this nation, where the nation of a son of a single mother and the son of a bar keep could be the president and speaker of the house has always stood for opportunity that got sustained applause because it's essential outreach and in part because it recognizes a reality right in front of us, that his tore exly we have been a country of almost unrivaled opportunity and today we need to take action to continue that. >> what do you wish you would have heard more of last night?

>> no amount of talking about concrete actions to grow the middle class through expanding manufacturing would be too much so i think he could have gone through some of the specific suite of bills i just mentioned and i would have been even happier but he dedicated a fair amount of the speech to that. i do think there were a few things i wish he'd been a little clearer and stronger on, n.s.a. surveillance issues in particular, i think there's more that the president needs to do. there's an oversight hearing late they are morning with the attorney general where i know a number of us will be pressing him on exactly how he plans to deliver on the president's plan to move the section 215 metadata collection from government control to third party. there's a number of difficulties around actually -- >> do you think that will work, to create a third party to store

this metadata? >> i think that will be very challenging to deliver on, to execute on. i respect and appreciate the president's tone on surveillance issues which is to listen and to work with members of congress, republican an democrat, who have expressed real concerns about how do we keep america safe, how do we recognize that we really are in a world where we need the valued services of our intelligence community and our armed forces but we also need to execute on making america safe in a way that respects our most fundamental values, which are our ability our civil liberties and privacy. >> you're also on the foreign relations committee and one of the foreign policy issues he talked about last night was an iran sanction. he urged members of congress to hold off on pushing that bill until the negotiations play out. you support this, co-sponsor this iran sanction bill. do you think it needs a vote before the negotiating period

ends? >> now is not the time for a vote on the iran sanctions bill. enge that sanctions have so far played a very constructive role. sanctions have brought iran to the table and the sanctions passed by congress during the bush administration, during the obama administration, this administration has finally delivered on bringing together a multinational coalition of our allies and our partners to make those sanctions work, to really cripple the iranian economy and bring them to the table. now that we have this joint plan of action, now that it's been signed, i and others are digging into the details, figuring out what did we really get? reviewing in a classified setting the iaea report to see if this agreement is as good as it's sold as being and i think that's what congress should be focusing its attention on now,

making sure the resources are there for the iaea inspections and making sure the questions we have about the scope and promise, there's a dozen issues, we should be working that through with the administration now while holding the bill which i still support and keeping it as a possible future action. for now, i intonet support moving forward with the bill. >> if there was a vote on the floor on that bill now you would vote no? >> i would urge we not move to a floor vote now. >> do you feel this is a prevailing view within your caucus right now? that a lot of folks support it? >> i think there's a wide range of views. i think to the extend that we simp he excite further the dissonance or the tension between the administration and congress on this, that doesn't serve our shared goal of making

certain that iran does not acquire nuclear weapons capability. the thing that most troubles me is that president ruhani of iran, and past fwoshting teams from iran have a demonstrated pattern of negotiating while continuing to make progress towarder that goal of acaring nuclear weapons capability. i'm concerned that the negotiating framework at the moment doesn't require that iran dismantle any of its core capabilities. it simply requires them to stop them in place. this administration, though, has made real progress. in iran really is taking its 20%, etc. highly enriched uranium stockpile and converting it to ox side or cutting it back to 5%, if they are revealing us to plans for the water reactor, if they are giving searching inspection capability, that's real progress and we need to give this window this miami of opportunity for peace, a chance. but if there's any country in the world i don't trust to actually abide by its treaty commitments, it's iran. i think there's an appropriate

role for congress in holding the president accountable, in supporting the negotiates, but in making it clear that we will act on sanctions at a moment's notice if the iranians default on these negotiations. >> let me ask you, the affordable care act, another area they was speech last night, you're up for re-election in the fall. how much concern are you hearing from businesses about implementing this law, small businesses and do you think -- you've never had a chance to vote on this, you were elected after the law was enached -- enacted, should there be legislative fixes on the floor this year to cheage elements of the law that may be difficult to implement? >> i was pleased that the administration heard concerns expressed by many -- by me and many others on behalf of the sol tier fire service. i'm from a state with 60 volunteer fire companies and for a century they provided all our emergency response they respond to car crashes, house fears, they play a central role in our community. and there was an unanticipated impact on volunteer fire

companies because the i.r.s. treats volunteer firefighters as employees for tax purposes. the administration responded promptly. there are many other challenges that could be done administratively. some of the more fundamental fixes such as concerns from small business owners what is the part-time/full-time definition? what is the numb of full-time employees? is there way to make it less after a cliff and more of a smooth transition, that's a difficult broader conversation. s that difficult environment to move bipartisan legislation to improve the affordable care act as long as one caucus is relentlessly determined to repeal the act and so really is not yet committed to working in a positive way. the u.s. chamber has moved from a commitment to repeal to a willingness to work with legislators to improve it and the white house has been positive, has been welcoming of a discussion about how we can improve it, so i will work with the white house and with any legislator, republican or

democrat, who wants to improve this law. i will not support bills that will gut it or defund it or deauthorize it. >> politically does it make sense to bring a bill, any bill, even a narrow or minor bill to the floor, given the environment and how republicans are running against this law in the mid terms? >> i choose to be an optimist, i have to be to get on the train and come here every morning, as we were talking about. i choose to see very positive signs, you just heard from senator murray who did a wonderful job of leading a bipartisan budget committee effort and got us a budget deal for the first time since i've been here in the senate. we now have an enacted $1.0 trillion appropriations deal and i think we're days away from having, from the -- for the first time in five years a bipartisan farm bill.

these are not huge advances but they are demonstrating that we can work together on the thing that was previously caused government shutdowns, fiscal cliffs. i think we should keep open the possibility that we can improve the affordable care act legislatively. i think it's too early for us to give up on legislating this entire year. but a clear-eyed view of the wreckage of the last three years and the inability to move important bills suggest this is will be quite hard. >> you're from delaware, you take the train to work as joe biden did, your predecessor in your seat. do you think he should run for president? would you support him if he did? >> i supported joe biden when he ran in 1988 tissue in 1998, in 2008 an i look forward to supporting him. i think he's one of the strongest vice presidents in american history. that's why the president has relied on him for a whole series of challenging and important roles in this administration. just last night you heard the president focus on the importance of skills. there are 600,000 currently unfilled high-skill, high-wage

manufacturing jobs in america and he tasked the vice president with looking at all the different job training program, reducing them, coordinating them, focusing them, that's exactly the sort of thing i know the vice president is focused on, fighting hard for america's middle class. no one knows more about it, fights harder for it than joe biden and whatever role he seeks in the future, i'll support him. >> one quick thing you learned about president obama last night? >> he's a compelling speaker, he has a great sense of the moment and a presence and he was able to lift even a sharply divided, partisan congress to its feet by repeatedly reminding us that nothing worth having in life comes without work. he lifted our eyes and got us to focus on sergeant remsburg up in the gallery. previous presidents have used this in a more frothy way a brief positive story. the story of sergeant remsburg is one of enormous suffering and challenge and he foused not just on his heroism and combat but the long, hard work of his recovery, both directly and indirect amessage to the american people.

we're in this together but with determination we can recover as a country and be stronger again. >> senator chris coons from delaware, thank you for your time. now i'd like to introduce my politico colleague for our final discussion of the day. >> jennifer, thank you so much for joining us -- joining us today. one great thing about wrapping up the event is you get the last word. >> that's good. >> one question i have to ask you, we heard from a will the of republicans today and their recurring them was the president is talking about executive orders. they said, one said he wanted to stick a finger in her eye, he's going to circumvent the process. tell us about that. >> this is not an either-or situation. this is -- the president wants to pursue all the avenues he has. so he wants to work with congress where he can and then

he wants to act on his own where he can. so there are a lot of things we think we can do with congress he went through them. even last night. immigration reform has a good, obviously we're -- we think has a good chance. there's housing finance. we'd like to get unemployment benefits, unemployment insurance extended. manufacturing hubs, which is something that has a lot of bipartisan support. so the point is he'll work with congress on a lot of issues and we're going to continue to pursue that but he's not president of washington, he's president of america. there's a lot of -- much of the progress that's being made is

being made outside of -- in the country outside of washington. what we found, the way we think about it, really is how can you leverage whatever it is that he has the authority to do to make progress. the united states, the united states goth is the greatest force on the planet, right? we spend more money than anyone, we hire more people, we -- so if you're leveraging whatever he has the authority to do, it could have a big impact. one example is a rule we did in the fers term on cars. fuel efficiency in cars. you do that, what does that do? the carmakers, automakers are producing more cars. that means new research is being done, new plants are being built, that means new auto dealers are being made. it's looking to see where we can target our resources best where he can use the bully pulpit

authority he has to make a big impact and then what is that leverage? that's the sort of -- that's the lens we're using to look at things this year that he can do. >> he's always said he's not president of washington and it looks like you're going back to sort of your tried and true strategy, which is taking it out to the people. tomorrow you're going local. tell us a little bit about taking this message, going to pennsylvania and maryland? >> we're going to, right now, in maryland, he's going to a costco, which should be amaze. the vice president went to a costco last christmas. costco is the employer who has decided to pay workers are living wage, they pay higher than minimum weage, so that's a good example of how you can continue to be successful but pay your workers a living wage and you're liable to get better, less turnover, better service out of your employees. so we're going there. and then he's going to u.s. steel in pittsburgh and he's going to talk about retirement there.

we have offered a new retirement account announcement last night called my r.a. you heard him say last night, we spent too much time trying to come up with a name of it, we settled on my r.a., not so easy to pronounce. but the workers at this steel plant have great retirement, great benefits. that's not true for all workers as we're more mobile, change manager job -- changing jobs more often. this is the retirement account for people who don't have that kind of pension available to them to save. so -- >> and the strategy for taking the message outside of washington? >> this is -- there's just nothing -- his words are very powerful but the images of us being able to show the american people outside of washington with americans that are either directly affected by what he's doing or are -- or are -- or are the example of the problem that we're trying to solve that just makes it real for people in a way that you can't get from the east room, no matter how grand that is in the white house.

>> do you find it easier to work with the local press in a way too, to get the message out? >> the press, the local press will have, there's buildup leading into, when he's coming and usually a lot of excitement about it as el. so that's a benefit in and of itself. but it is -- but it is -- even if it weren't for that, you would still want him out in the country, even your national coverage is going to be a lot better if you're not in washington. you know, we don't have a billion dollar advertising budget like we did in the re- elect so you have to be more creative about how you put him in the public eye in a way that will get a lot of penetration so we look at not just, what the local media, that's national media likely to cover and what

are the audiences that you're not going to reach by network television or print media. this is why we had a big -- every year we probably have an exponential increase in our use of social media at the white house and we're trying to reach as many audiences as possible. >> you didn't want to commit to social media leading up to this. what does it get you? >> it's been really powerful. each year, it grows, we have an incredibly creative team that works on it. and every year they come up with a lot of new ideas, some of which are a little, perhaps, what you don't actually see because it might be too edgy but this is, we reach millions of people, millions and millions of people that follow us on at the

white house that are on our email list that follow @barackobama on twitter. it's not just reaching people to hear a particular message but they are able to engage. and it's a forum, it's a medium that nothing else can replicate in terms of the personal connection that you have. we find that when we try to make products that are shareable in terms of graphs and charts, when we did the state of the union, i think this is the third year we've done this, while the president is speaking on one after half othe screen at white house.gov, on the other half of the screen, it's enhanced state

of the union, we've prepared graphs or interactive charts and pictures of the -- pictures of the individual we're talking about, store roins the side, little facts. no one expects to be seeing news or a speech in just one -- with just one medium, even on television there's going to be a crawl, there's going to be something, some kind of scroll across the screen. we try to make it as interactive as possible and we do develop a relationship with, you know, with these people who are not necessarily supporters but they're interested in what the president is doing. it's exciting to see, what's the next thing going to be? it's not -- there's a team of

people far younger than me who are really enknow vative and they've been great. big block of cheese day, an an crew jackson and "west wing" reference, all day we're doing q&a with white house staff on twitter and other platforms. >> you went into the speech, the narrative wasn't great going. in poll numbers not particularly good. there was a narrative in place that the president can't do anything in these last three years. tell us about his mood going into the speech as he was working on it. >> he was -- you know, he describes it, i think, best, in the david remnick article in the "new yorker" and i've heard him say it before, he considers he happens to be president these eight years and the way he looks at the job and certainly the way he approached the state of the union is, ok, what can i get done? and what can we accomplish, what can we take care of, get in good shape and have it be completed? and then -- but he understands it's a long continuum.

what can we advance so the next president can pick it up. climate change, he's going to make a lot of progress dealing with it but it's not going to be resolved at the ovene his presidency. but what can you -- what are we advancing and that is -- and he has -- that's the theory about, with pre-k we introduced it last year, pre-k for all. we got some money appropriated to expand it somewhat just in the last budget agreement and we'll do more this year and we'll keep pushing on it. it's not something you expect to get adopted in a year but you have a couple of years. he looks at this as a long arc. it may with his presidency, what he's able to get done the next three years and it may end up going through the fall for the white house communications director easier to have a president who says, i understand what's happening and what's happening with the press and what it's going to be like and i know that -- you know, he was --

he would be somebody who would tell me, we're going to get through this and we have a whole new plan and you know, we're going to come out of it. more so than anyone i've ever worked for, he has the ability to do that, to look beyond what's happening right now, we work hard and get through et, he's like, we're going to get through this and it makes it a lot easier. >> can you share with us anything he took out of the speech? >> we took things out of the speech that we wanted to -- it was a lot, you know, each year, this is the third state of the union i worked on for the president and each year, you

know, you say we're not going to have a laundry list, it's going to be short, it's going to be the shortest one yet. and each year you end up, you know, with a high -- it's a high class problem work too much policy that you're -- to talk about so there are things we chose to hold back. some things that needed more work and some things we'll be talking about later in the year. the executive action and we talk about the pen and the phone, executive action is more the pen, the things he has the authority to do that he can be innovative about, for example the executive order in minimum wage yesterday for federal contractors, but the -- it takes a lot of work. they are -- you are short of maybe bending the government in a way that they're not used to or you're by definition looking at novel ways and it's very -- or if you're trying to leverage private sector to join you in

something, it's labor intensive. some of these things have a long lead time. >> you worked in the clinton white house. >> yes. >> tell house how the culture is different in the clinton white house and the obama white house, eight or 10 years later. >> i'm not only in the white house again but i'm in the exact same office i had, the ventilator still rattles the same way it did 15 years ago. the one word i would use to describe it, the obama white house is a lot less volatile. when i first got to the obama white house that was the word in my head almost immediately. i would say that the decision making progress -- process in the clinton white house was dynamic, i think is a good way to put it, so this is -- so that is a difference and you don't -- how do you spend your time is different as a result of that. >> so no drama obama is true? >> it's true. of course there's drama in the course of any day when you're

working in the white house but it is -- it's like -- it's different. all the dynamics of the -- are the same, the flow of the year, the interactions with congress, the interactions with the press, the media has changed a lot but human nature hasn't and some of it is very familiar. >> one thing we've asked everybody today is, we've asked them to finish this sentence. the biggest thing i learned about president obama last night was that -- he you probably didn't learn anything about him last night but what have you learned about him in this process that you could share. >> i think when we started the conversation about how he -- how we approach this, he is a very resolute and optimistic guy and sees that there is a ton of good that we can get done. he is -- he's been very clear with the staff, very clear with

the cabinet on everyone, you know, pushing the boundaries of our creative thinking and you know, getting outside of the box. to say if there's something good i can do, some difference i can make, i'm going to do it. even if there are things that appeared to not be as consequential as legislation, there's something you can leverage out of that. he wants to look at every opportunity there. so he is someone who really slogs through a process which

i'm not sure that comes across. and -- in coverage of him, i mean. whether it was solving the website, dealing with health care in the fall, preparing the months and months of work that went into the n.s.a. issue, preparing for the state of the union, he has a lot of patience and focus to get through difficult issues and really thinks them through hard and tracks them and has a very penetrating mind, penetrating question. so we have a great plan, i mean the one thing that like i said we're going to continue to work with congress but the one thing about having a program focused on executive action, it can be a road map for the year which is what you want out of the state of the union. sometimes, you know, you hope that is what it's going to be but something will happen that takes you off course and you're

president of the united states, anything that happens in the world affects you. but we have a road map and have things planned throughout the year that come back to issues of opportunity. it's been a really good planning process. >> how much campaigning will he do for the mid term elections? >> that is tb determined. he'll be doing fundraising as will the other principals, you know, the vice president, the first lady, as well as i think she's going to california. we're in quarter one still. >> we keep reading that speech writer cody keenan grew his beard for this. did he shave it? >> yes. this is good news. he grew a fulsome beard and he is -- i didn't realize, i thought this was just a beard but he is going to shave it. he's going to shave it in pieces. but the great news is that the is that he fenally got rid of

the awful beard. as communications director, i had some say in how the person representing the president should look. >> did you tell carney to shave? >> i did but i think maybe it was his mother. i thought it was terrible, the president had derogatory things to say about it but it wasn't until his mother weighed in that he showed up clean shaven. >> thank you so much jennifer for your time. >> thank you. >> it's time to wrap up here. i want to thank you all of you for sticking in here even with the weather. i thank all our c-span viewers and everybody else out there and i want to thank our partner in this, innovation alliance. have a great day and we hope you come to our next event. \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> president obama recently sat down for an interview with cnn.

the next clip that we will show is from him talking with jake tapper on thursday, as well as with congressman paul ryan. he is the chair of the house budget committee. first, the president. >> if the speaker proposes something where they say that folks are not immediately being deported, family separated, we are able to attract young , then there is a regular process of citizenship. i am not sure how wide the divide winds up eating. >> we do not know who is coming and going in this country.

doing nothing on the security side of this is not a responsible thing to do. it is important that you brought this up around executive orders. we do not trust the president. ofyou look at the standards the republican leadership, it is security first. first we have to secure the border, which is a work of verification systems. those can be independently verified before the rest of the law occurs. it is a security force. we will not let that happen. this is not one of those issues where there is a deadline behind it. this is a -- here are our standards, this is our approach, and if you want to do it, this

is what we want to do. if we can get security first and nothing happens, this is a good approach. >> i do not know the answer to that question. whether or not they could have amnesty,enforcement, if we could do that, we are getting security first. we might be able to get somewhere. i do not know if that will be the case. >> more, now, on congress and the week ahead. at cq rollor editor is with us. the house just wrapped up their

conference in maryland. limit, how dodebt republicans plan on addressing that in the weeks ahead, adriel bettelheim? the clean be about debt limit or whenever they choose the vote. bring sentient takes the latter route. indications that are that there is some sentiment in increasing the debt ceiling. payments for rising policies. becoming the next big target obamacare.

>> is that just some way to slow down this proposal? >> we sense that there could be political can -- currency. health plans have to sell policies everyone know. to at least temporarily have their back. whether this is being prudent in the health system or a giveaway is a political framing, of course.

there were key principles on immigration. they downplayed these principles. there was a resemblance in some of these areas to the deal struck in the senate by the gang of eight. they want to address visas and employment verification. 11 million immigrants in the country. if not a couple of months off? >> a lot of members were very comfortable with taking the

vote. they were afraid they would be did --ied -- primary primaried. the primaries do not happen all at one -- all at once. they keep their legal status. this is something that everyone can sort of agree on. i am not sure if they will go so far as dealing with the legal status of undocumented this year. >> what does it look like for passage in the senate? >> setting up a vote to clear the whole piece of legislation is huge, sometime on tuesday afternoon. this could be the last big bipartisan legislative deal this unless something

unexpected happens on taxes or immigration. it deals with so many different provisions. people are going to likely not kick up a big fuss. i think it will be cleared. >> in terms of major pieces of legislation, what do you see? in the short run, a couple of public lands and hunting and fishing bills. especially in the western states. one of these, from ohio,

republican, would expand access to forest service lands. it sounds innocuous, but there is some interesting language. it would bar enforcement of individual firearm regulations. for example. to meet in house rules on monday to decide how to debate this. from there we will see if it will be a huge floor fight or something like that. >> cq senior editor, adriel bettelheim, you can find him online. thank you for the preview of next week. >> glad to be with you. chambers are in tomorrow. legislative business begins at 2:00. two bills are on the agenda. the senate returns for a five- year farm bill and a vote to limit debate is expected at 5:30 eastern time, and a vote on

final passage could come on tuesday. , live c-span coverage of the debate in the 13th district of florida. they are running a special fortion to fill the seat representative williams, who died last october. live coverage of tomorrow's debate the ins at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span three. >> this is the native olympian oyster. this is what the industry was based on. over harvest and pollution knocked the population back. companies of the few

still putting them into the hatcheries today. they are wonderful, delicious. they have a wonderful, coppery flavor to them. they can do large scale restoration. >> even though in the 1880s they were adopting different growers in best practices, there was a demand for a number of oysters. initially they were not thinking , byt environmental concerns the 26 century they were not the or a high-end specialty item.

>> this is part of the history of washington state. there was a debate on where the capital of washington should be. they debated against each other on the capital being in their city. the oyster was sent around to the delegates. was a way to avoid a political conversation. we wound up getting the capital here because of this oyster. >> this weekend, book tv and american history tv, throughout the weekend on c-span two. >> he was someone who grew in the office. he was badly burned by the bay of pigs experience. he had listened to the experts,

the cia, his staff. he went to see de gaulle in france. de gaulle said that you should sit -- you should surround yourself with the smartest possible people, hear what they have to say, but at the end of the day you have to make up your own mind. truman said the buck stops here and after that he was determined to make up his own mind. heard what these experts had to say, wait what they were telling him, but at the end of the day he was going to make the judgment and be the responsible party. bringing the transcripts of all of those tapes, he was his own man.

chiefs at armst length. he did not want to do it. tonight at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. on u.s. crudean oil exports. people working in the energy industries testifying before the resourcesural committee for about one hour and 45 minutes. >> the senate committee on energy and natural resources will come to order. we will have a very busy morning today, but i want to start with particularly exciting news. senator landrieu having hit her first grandchild in a few hours. she has been up most of the night.

we will give her a round of applause. she is with us and we are glad that she is. senator murkowski and i wanted to have this hearing because america's energy renaissance has sparked a conversation on whether exporting crude oil is in the national interest. i think it is fair to say this conversation will not be resolved anytime over the next few weeks. certainly there is a lot of interest in that congress on the subject. that is why we thought it was important to hold the hearing to begin a real conversation on a very important issue. personally i believe deeply in expanded trade. in my state, one out of six jobs depends on international trade and trade jobs often pay better

than the non-trade jobs because they reflect a higher level of productivity, which is often required to get american goods and services and to internet -- get them to international markets. i often say one of my principal goals is to help make things in america, grow things in america, add value in america and then ship them somewhere. i have promoted that philosophy as chairman of the finance committee on international trade. that is why today's debate is especially important. the fact is energy is not the same thing as blueberries. accordingly it is treated differently under federal law. the energy policy and conservation act allows for the exportation of crude oil only when doing so is in the natural interest. there it's not that requirement for blueberries or other nostril natural commodities.

right now there are several armed conflicts around the world. south sudan, the a, mozambique and elsewhere that are certainly being inflamed by the fight to control oil. i will post oregon blueberry up against just about anything, but the last time i looked, nobody is fighting a war over blueberries. hard to believe only a few years after the campaign for america's energy independence, having being dominated by drill baby drill our country now finds itself in a serious discussion over where it should expert oil. energy independence has been a

well-worn staple of virtually every politician's speech for decades. now the country is in the enviable position of having choices about the energy future. in other words, the question becomes how can this energy boom create the greatest benefit for america? can energy help grow the economy? the answer is of course. can the country reduce dependence on fuel from countries that do not always have our best interest in mind? again, of course. those are the easy questions. the harder questions, how can you come up with a policy where america can have it all? can our country get the domestic benefits and still retain a cost advantage for domestic consumers of businesses and families. that is certainly my goal. in an effort to keep today's hearing under seven or eight hours, we will have to have a focus. i want it understood for this hearing i have a particular interest on focusing on the consumer. it is never very hard to have -- to find a voice for the various

regencies, industries and various ideological points of view in america. consumers often do not have one. i just want it understood that on my watch the consumer will not get short shift. looks like a number of influential voices want to start importing oil. i want to hammer home the point this morning that for me the litmus test is how middle-class families will be affected by changing the country's policy on middle exports. it is not enough to say the algorithm determines they are good for growth domestic artist or some other abstract process. simply charging forward and hoping for the best is not the way you get the best policy decision. responsibility of the committee, and we have always worked on

these issues in a bipartisan way is to make sure consumers will not get hammered by the cost of gas going up because of some theory that everything will turn out hunky-dory in the end. i will end by saying i think there are important issues with respect to timing. there may be a time when crude oil exports are of -- are important. when a conversation has begun on exporting crude oil, i am not hearing a similar conversation on ending imports. our country is still importing 40% of bird oil, including from the places that do not have our best interest in mind. every member of the committee understands the debate about energy as a global commodity. we have all heard about how it

is a global price and i am sure we will hear that again today. the global price does not automatically mean a stable price. if oil stopped flowing from saudi arabia next week come american consumers and businesses would feel it in a hurry. the question is, does real energy security mean the ability to be energy independent, even if we never actually do it? i think most think the government would not import oil. all of that said, we will listen to the argument pro and con. i personally need to hear more. i look for were to working with senator mcconnell skeet. all of so the country can maximize what we all would say it's a historic sets of

circumstances that we want to think through carefully about how to tap the potential of. >> thank you. i appreciate your considered remarks and the opportunity to bring up the issue before the committee. as you and i have both noted over the past year, we have not shown any reticence in taking up the difficult issues that face the nation when it comes to energy production, the issue of export, whether it is natural gas or now oil. this is what people expect us to do, take up the hard issue, having considerable debate and dialogue and then where and when appropriate to act on that. my hope is that today's discussion is the beginning of

many very considerate and thoughtful discussions on what is certainly a very timing -- time a bull issue when it comes to the dramatically increased oil production. so again, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this today. i would note it has generated a fair amount of discussion. we have not seen a full hearing room in a while. we have good representation on

the committee so i am pleased to see that. you will recall you and i were speaking together at the center for international studies on unconventional natural gas reduction. it was just about this time but during the q and a after our presentation, one of the attendees asked us about the ban on crude oil exports from the united states. you proceeded to answer the question in a very thoughtful manner and when it came time for my response, i said isn't it amazing that you are able to ask that question and not be laughed out of the room? a year prior to that it was not have even been possible to have that discussion.

where we have come in just a year recognizing that as a nation when it comes to the energy production on several different fronts, the landscape has strange -- changed dramatically. what we are seeing coming out of north dakota has changed the dynamic from an energy perspective. it has helped clearly with jobs and opportunities but not just north dakota. it is what we see in texas and north dakota. unfortunately we are not seeing it alaska -- seeing it in alaska and i regret that we will not see the opportunity for x duration -- exploration. shell has announced they will not be moving forward in 2014 because of the recent decision by the ninth circuit and lack of certainty from the regulatory perspective from the administration. very troubling to me. let's make it back to where i think we want to take a conversation this morning. a couple of weeks ago i addressed the brookings institution and presented a white paper on the energy trade. i called for exports. i will tell you, i have been ratified by the thoughtful responses. it has not been the nature of the sky is falling but much more considerate and thoughtful, and i think that is where we need to be with the discussions.

i want to prompt further discussion and the debate over the issue. analytical and trade winds are blowing fiercely. the architecture of u.s. energy exports must be renovated. the highest profile example is the outdated prohibition on crude oil exports. this ban creates inefficiencies and other distortions. it is my hope and expectation that this hearing continues the conversation that began at brookings raising all of the issues considering all side and most important, reaching conclusions so that we can move forward rather than let the

global energy markets developing around the world asked us five. having said that, i do not fix that that we will either see the administration moving forward with a decision next week or legislation coming forward from me or other members of the energy committee here. what's i am hope they -- hoping his week in advance the discussion so that it is clearly understood on the consumer perspective so that it is understood why exports would make sense. the timing issue is critically important because timing is key. the impact on american consumers is critical. i happen to believe opening up world markets to u.s. crude oil will low work to price, which will in turn lower the global price for petroleum products. all things equal, the american

consumer will benefit from the interaction, as those benefited as a result. the international trade dimension, given the ongoing trade talks with europe and asia is just beginning to be understood. from today's vantage point, i believe national security will be enhanced by our strength and posture on energy trade. we cannot let short-term thinking distracts us from the long haul. gasoline prices will fluctuate. we know that and see it every year. there will be variations across the united states due to a constellation of variables, including infrastructure challenges, differing tax structures across states, different inefficiencies and other aspects of the nation's refining and distribution system. regional variations in prices are still ultimately variations on global prices. lifting the ban is about production, jobs. the international energy agency