host: what do you think the headline will be after tonight? guest: we have gotten so much detail about things like the domestic agenda that the headline we'll leave "washington journal" as the u.s. house is set to come in for the beginning of the legislative day. members are expected to work on a resolution on the paris terrorist attacks. conroy: let us pray. loving god, thank you for giving us another day. the house prepares this day to welcome the president of the united states and other governmental judicial and military leadership of our nation. the world watches as america's great experiment and civilian self-government is in high

relief. may all who populate these hallways today be possessed of good will and shared commitment to guarantee the freedoms and responsibilities inspired by the soaring rhetoric and subsequent actions of our american ancestors. we know that all too often these past congressional sessions terms of debate, and consideration of issues have been more reflective of partisan politics than productive problem solving. perhaps this is to be expected. given the nature of republican forms of government. even so we ask that your blessing and inspiration come down upon our elected leaders that they might be moved to negotiations and solutions beyond their own imaginings. may all that is said and done in this chamber today redown to

the benefit of our nation and the glory of your holy name. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. mr. cummings: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the repubfowc standsonnaonnd indivibl wh bed sceorll. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the president addresses the union tonight. promising more government, more spending, and more taxes.

obviously the president did not read the november memo from america, the majority of the union rejected the president's policies in the election of persistent big government. king george iii and the british imposed the stamp act 250 years ago this year. the colonists decried the new tax. higher taxes and more confiscation of property and wealth is not a sound solution. after all taxes are already too high. after all, revenue into the federal coffers are at a record level. after all americans are already hammered by obamacare taxes, and after all raising taxes is not a proven economic theory to grow the economy. we need less tax we should consider the fair tax that does not discriminate in taxation. the president should remember history and not follow the old failed policy of king george iii of more taxes. but should pivot the union to less taxation, less government, and more freedom for our citizens. and that's just the way it is.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the -- the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objeio t gentla rogze moh: ank you, sir. yesterday was the day that we honor martin luther king's life and legacy. it should be honored every day. great american who stood for justice liberty, and yet in this house there is not a desire on the other side of the aisle to increase the minimum wage, which would be one of the first things dr. king would want. there is not a desire on the other end of the -- other side of the aisle to pass a voting rights act for which dr. king is known to have worked on the march in selma and help bring about some 50 years ago. and there's no effort to reduce the great disparity in wealth that threatens the middle class and threatens the future of democracy and the way we know america. we should honor dr. king every

day. unfortunately, many and most of his values are being neglected by the majority in this house. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balancofisim for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recogniti? mr. chaffetz: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempor wit oon gelen is recognized. . affe: mr. speaker, i rise today to remember an honor rebecca lockhart, proud utahan and past speaker, immediate past speaker of the house of representatives in utah. unfortunately she passed away just a few days ago at the young age of 46. speaker lockhart was elected to the utah house in 1998, she was trained as a registered nurse and she first served on the health and human services committee, but quickly threw herself into transportation issues. after her fourth session, she was appointed house leadership as the vice chair of the executive appropriations and stayed in leadership the remainder of her time. in 2008, then representative lockhart was elected as the

assistant majority whip, and in 2010 she became the first female speaker of the utah house in utah history. for tenure was epitomize bide more collaborative bottom up approach that focused on having an open process where all members of the body could bring forward ideas for discussion. becky and her husband stan raised their three children in provo, utah. they have been stalwarts within the party. her presence will be keenly missed. her trail blazering legacy will live on. may may god bless rebecca and her family. we thank her for her service and we'll miss her greatly. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. ms. pelosi: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without oeconth gentledy is recognized. ms. pelothk you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this weekend we observe the celebration of the life of the reverend martin

luther king jr.. he talked about engagement for, engagement for the american people, for jobs, for justice, for peace, and that is -- it was pretty exciting to see the response across the country at a time when all of these issues are in the forefront. tonight we will hear from the president of the united states. from what i hear about what he will present it will reflect what we have seen across the country in terms of what he said last year, when women succeed, america succeeds. about college affordability, about childcare, about sick leave, all the kinds of issues that enable families, not just when the families to succeed, and to hopefully it will reflect what we talked about on opening day. better infrastructure, bigger paychecks. as we all know despite all of the economic gains and all the indicators that tell us that

progress has been made in our economy, indeed it has, it isn't reflected in the paychecks of america's working families. so what we hear tonight i know will be in furtherance of increasing that paycheck. starting from the middle. starting from benefits -- when i say benefits, initiatives that benefit the middle class and those who aspire to it. all of it a reflection of the american people thinking, all of it about engagement for what the reverend martin luther king talked about. all of it hopefully that we are able to do in a bipartisan way. let us find the areas in which we have common ground. let us work together to get that done. build confidence, between us in this body, among the american people. and make -- keep america number one in education innovation, and justice and a factor for peace in the world. with that mr. speaker, i yen.

the speaker pro tempore: the -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlanies ba. for at ppo ds the gentlanrosoro seek recognition? mr. wilson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro temre withouobn, genem iregned mr.so mr. speaker, after six years american workers continue to lose jobs. under president obama's failed economic policies. the president makes exaggerated claim of job creation but workers feel the facts. the administration's policies have caused stagnant wages, weak economic growth, and a shift toward many americans settling for part-time jobs. raising taxes destroys jobs. the "washington times" reports that 140 million employment payroll in november was up by only 1.2% over what it was four years previously. also the statistics claimed by the president that the unemployment rate has done down to 5.8% is inaccurate because so many people are eliminated

as having stopped looking for jobs. in december the labor force participation rate fell to the lowest point in over 30 years. this is not an economic recovery to be celebrating, and the american people deserve better for jobs. house republicans have passed bipartisan pro-growth bills to create american jobs. we keep fighting to help americans get back to work. full-time. in conclusion god bless our troops and the president by his actions must never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker this morning most americans woke up to the news that isis was holding two citizens of the nation state of japan. and in the holding of those

citizens, threatening to kill them, asked japan to give $200 million. mr. speaker, does that sound like an organization that is dedicated and committed to principles however much we disagree with them? or does it sound like a group of thugs? who are willing to do anything to gain money to promote their evil and dastardly acts? the very existence of isis and others is not a reflection on islam, and over the weekend we have seen so many expressed opposition to these terrible acts. that is why it is so important as we listen to the president's state of the union that the congress, although with different opinions, agree to work on behalf what is good for all of america, both building the economy, but fighting against the war and terror, not only with weapons, with educating about democracy and principles and equality and

trying to win the hearts and minds. mr. speaker, we have a lot of work to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a record vote of the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote insecures objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 37. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 37 resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives condemning the recent terrorist attacks in paris that resulted in the deaths of 17 innocent persons and offering condolences to those personally affected by this cowardly act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr.

royce, and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i ask that all members may have five legislative days to revise a extr rks and to add any extraneous material to the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this resolution. the resolution condemns the terrorist attack in france carried out by islamist extremists earlier this month. on january 7, two armed gunmen entered the offices of charlie hebdo the satirical magazine in paris and in a brutal premeditated attack killed 12 people and injured 11 others. the following day as we watched this play out on international

media their associate shot and killed a female police officer it and in the following days with the brothers on the run a kosher supermarket was targeted where he shot and killed four jewish shoppers and took multiple hostages, and later that day courageous french police officers stormed the supermarket, killed the attacker, and freed the hostages. there are no words that we can speak today, i think, that will comfort the families and the friends of the 17 people murdered in those terrorist attacks. the victims included cartoonists and maintence in workers police officers, grocery shoppers, christians jews, and muslims. and there are no words strong

enough to condemn these terrorists and their radical jihadist ideology. the charlie hebdo offices were attacked because their cartoons offended. the mag's editor was specifically marked as a target for death in al qaeda in the arabian peninsula's online paper magazine called "inspire " under the not so subtle headline, a bullet a day keeps the infidel away. the kouachi brothers called out the editor's name before they shot and killed him. the attack on charlie hebdo was an attack on free speech. the right to express ideas and opinions even if they are unpopular or offensive, is a foundation for a free society, france's and ours, frankly the struggled of the enlightened has largely been a struggle against blasphemy laws going all the way back to the

foundation of this republic and our first amendment in jefferson's concept of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. . it was not the first time this magazine was targeted. and it won't be the last time it will be targeted and that's why this resolution resolves to uphold and defend the basic principle -- free speech. the grocery store victims were murdered because they were jewish. in the days following, france stationed thousands of police officers to guard france's jewish schools and synagogues in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. alarmingly anti-semitic forces are on the rise in france and in much of europe. this resolution puts the house on record as condemning in the strongest possible terms possible the paris attacks and extends the sympathy of every

american to those affected by the tradgedeefment it reiterate -- tragedy. it reiterates our support for france, our oldest ally, and calls upon all nations to join the global effort of fighting violent extremism. this is a time to not just express sorrow for those killed but also a time to show resolve in the face of terror. our intelligence sharing with allies, already strong, will need to get -- will need to get much sharper. border checks improved and coalition efforts to destroy isis will need to be stepped up. i urge all members to support this resolution, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. engel: mr. speaker i rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. engel: mr. speaker, the terrorist attacks by radical islamists in paris were tragedy for all who love peace and freedom. what happened at the offices of "charlie hebdo" and the kosher market reminds us that violent extremism remains a crucial threat. i'm happy to stand with the chairman here in showing strong bipartisanship once again because we grieve with france, our oldest allife our hearts break for all -- ally. our hearts break for all those. as a new yorker mr. speaker, i remember the outpouring of support from france following september 11, 2001. but even as we mourn the dead, we draw inspiration from the displays of courage and solidarity on the streets of the city of light, across europe and around the world. with the attackers still at

large the region took to the streets in masses and peaceful vigils. they sent a clear message to the world, that freedom and justice will not be cowd by violence and terror. in these attacks, mr. speaker, the ancient evil of anti-semitism once again showed its ugly face. anti-semitism is both a state with which governments need to deal and a societal challenge requiring honest dialogue, critical self-examination and constant vigilance. france's deployment of extra troops was the right thing to do, but much more will be needed in the days ahead to ensure that europe's largest jewish community is safe from attack and free from fear. and just as america stands with the people of france against terrorism, americans also stand shoulder to shoulder. that's the message we're sending today with this resolution. whether in paris or new york

moscow or jerusalem, where the homegrown are imported, where the targeting jews christians or anyone else, this has no place in a civilized world. we continue to work with our friends and allies to put a stop to this threat. it's important that congress goes on record strongly opposing this violence. we'll do whatever it takes to secure freedom and democracy. mr. speaker i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recogti? mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas judge poe, chairman of the foreign affairs nonproliferation and trade, and by the way, the author of this resolution, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texs recogze mrpo i thank the speaker. i thave the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this legislation -- i thank the

chairman and the ranking member for bringing this lution to the house floor so quickly -- resolution to the house floor so quickly. mr. speaker, it was a cold morning in paris just before lunchtime when two masked men with ak-47's approached a woman outside the door of char -- "charlie hebdo," forcing her to let them them. they gunned down the security guard and shouting charb. charb is the nickname of the editor. they executed him and 10 others. they exited the building yelling god is the greatest. then they sped off. they'll kill an injured muslim police officer lying on the ground before they fled. the two terrorists got away but not for long. french law enforcement found and killed the men in the standoff near the paris airport.

that same day, another terrorist killed a female police officer and attacked a kosher supermarket and murdered four jewish men. once again, french law enforcement took care of the terrorists and rescued the hostages. these terrorists killed because they didn't like what people had to say. mr. speaker, it's a fundamental right, human right of freedom of expression freedom of press freedom of speech and freedom of religion. no amount of violence can take those rights away from us. it is basic. mr. speaker, this resolution says we're not going to let islamic radical terrorists steal those rights from anyone, whether it's the french, whether it's someone else in the world or here in america. mr. speaker, after all they killed at the kosher cafe

because they not only didn't like what people were saying, they didn't like those people because they were jews. france did an excellent job bringing swift justice down on these terrorists, but the fight is certainly not over. there may be and probably is hundreds of others around the world plotting to kill neighbors and countrymen and people in other nations because those terrorists don't agree with what those people say or what those people look like or what those people's personal religion may be. they think they have the right to kill in the name of a radical islamic religion. mr. speaker, the threat is serious and it's deadly and this resolution remembers those folks that were killed because they believed the way they did or because they looked the way they looked or because their religion was different than

others. and we mourn when the french mourn, as stated earlier, the french are our oldest and first ally. in fact mr. speaker, we have two portraits in this house chamber one of george washington and one of lafayette, the first great frenchman that helped the united states. we have a close bond with the french, and it is important that we let them, the world and especially the terrorists that our bound with freedom-loving countries will remain strong, especially in time of need, when people are attacked because of their beliefs and the idea that they can express a difference of opinion. so i want to congratulate the french law enforcement for their speedy and quick resolve in disposing of these

terrorists, and we should let them know that we appreciate all law enforcement who fight back against terrorists who want to kill us because we don't agree with them. i thank once again the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this resolution to the house floor and i'll yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from xais recogned three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you very mu, . ear. thank you to mr. royce, mr. engel and to mr. poe for their leadership in brings the house together on a very important issue. earlier today i stood and spoke about the tragic news that we heard early this morning of two japanese citizens being held

and isis asking for $200 million. the work of these individuals in paris, france and beyond was in their mind a connectedness to al qaeda and others proudly so as they slaughtered those individuals who chose to lift up liberte in the spirit of the french people and take to the pen and assess the atmosphere of the day and provide humor to it. mr. speaker, i do not comment on one person's opinion, but i do know that liberte, democracy liberty and our own beliefs gives every human being dignity and the right to freedom of expression, the free press, the right to free speech and religion, and i believe that these are very valuable

ideals. and so this resolution speaks to that by condemning the heinousness of the acts how many families, children, mothers and fathers were impacted by the loss of their loved ones, what tragedy to see a police officer gunned down in the street who asked, as i reflect on the words as i recall them, to be left alone. and yet was shot again. and other officers in the line of duty being subjected to the violence of these individuals. this is an intolerable situation that should not be tolerated, but we're hearing from the voices of these terrorist groups that they're now asking individuals to stay in place, to stay at home and create jihad. at the same time i heard voices from the islam extended community, people of the faith, islamic faith, and i heard them condemn these violent acts. i've heard them condemn these

acts as not reflecting their faith. then again as we watched an individual slaughter jewish persons in a kosher market purposely because of their faith, we cannot tolerate that. and in had one single voice we should rise up, as h.res. 37, says we should rise up to express the affection of all people and their right to exist. that is a if you will, universal phenomena, to allow individual nations and persons to exist without threat of heinous violence. as i talked to about dr. martin luther king, i said the very words that he has commended to us, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. i will simply ask, mr. speaker, as we begin -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. engel: i yield the gentlelady another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for another one minu. ms. jackson lee: as we begin

again this journey into a new year i don't know how much we'll be confronted with these horrible acts. i am even the homeland security committee and for a long time we were seeing the signs of what i call franchised terrorism, but i do know that it has to be a world global effort but it also has to be, as i began to talk about earlier to reach the hearts and minds of young men and possibly women who are becoming subjected to radicalism on the internet or elsewhere, we have got to stop that bleeding, if you will, and begin to promote openly our values which includes the respect for religious differences. as we do that, i believe, mr. speaker, it will be well worth the investment, because we don't know where this is going to end and we certainly need to say to the american people that we're committed, in essence we're on top of it but we have many solutions to this tragic problem. so i rise in support of h.res.

37 for its condemnation and recognition of where we are today and i ask for us to address this in a multitude of ways to be able to have peace in this world and in this nation. i yield back and i thank the gentleman for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. tenem fm w rk reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. . mr. royce: i reserve the right to close. are there additional speakers on the other side? mr. engel: we have no additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker je suis charlie, i am charlie hebdo. this is what we are all saying collectively as a congress as we debate this bill today. this is what the people of france were ig and and have been saying ever since the trangdy happened -- tragedy

happened. people with placards and banners were carrying them high above france to show solidarity in the fight against terrorism. mr. speaker, we have had an important conversation here in the house. i'm heartened by the expressions of unity and resolve and i hope they provide a measure of comfort to those families, those suffering, who had loved ones who were killed, and those who were wounded by this recent attack. symbolism looms large in foreign affairs. and with this resolution we deliver a powerful message. we deliver it on the day the president is going to speak with us in the state of the union and i think nothing could be stronger than for this house unanimously to fight terrorism, to reject terrorism, and again to say, je suis charlie. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. royce: i want to thank congressman poe from texas, chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism nonproliferation, and trade for authoring this important resolution. i also want to thank our ranking member eliot engel of new york, for his support in bringing this resolution to the floor to ensure that we speak with one voice on issues of violent extremism. and to ensure that we stand with our ally france, at this difficult time. last week many members visited the foreign affairs committee and signed a condolence book and greet the french ambassador in person. mr. engel and i thank them for their show of solidarity in this. mr. speaker the ultimate reality is that these attacks in paris are indicative of a resurgent terrorist threat from radical islamists extremists.

the brothers were connected to al qaeda in yemen, a particularly active and deadly al qaeda franchise. the kosher market gunmen pledged his allegiance to isis which now controls parts of iraq and syria and has specifically targeted americans. up to 5,000 europeans are believed now to have traveled to syria to fight or get training. and whether from organized groups or returning foreign fighters or lone wolves the terrorist threat is real and it is growing. these are not criminals united by happenchance but by a militant jihaddy impulse united by ideology and doctrine and practice. its adherence drawn all the way from africa to southeast asia, from the middle east to the caucus suss, unlike some of the

rhetoric we have heard here in washington, in every corner of the globe terrorist groups are growing in number and growing in strength. and in europe, france is at the frontlines of a dangerous and growing ideology that is again demonstrated that it knows no bounds. as we face an expanding and evolving threat, it is imperative that we unequivocally condemn attacks on freedom of speech, condemn attacks on religious pluralism, and reaffirm our resolve to fight extremism. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 37. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, theul suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to

reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a co-sponsor of h.r. 36. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove myself from h.r. 36. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. after consultation among the speaker and the majority and minority leaders and with their consent, the chair announces that when the two houses meet tonight in joint session to hear an address by the president of the united states only the doors immediately opposite the speaker and those immediately to his left and right will be opened. no one will be allowed on the floor of the house who does not have the privilege of the floor of the house. due to the large attendance that is anticipated, the rule regarding the privilege of the floor must be strictly enforced.

children of members will not be allowed on the floor. the cooperation of all members is requested. the practice of purporting to reserve seats prior to the joint session by placement of placards or personal items will not be allowed. chamber security may remove these items from ths. membe merir only bphic presence following the security stream of the chamber. -- security sweep of the chamber. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair delayers the house in recess subject to the call

lagardere my you can do so on our c-span website www.c-span.org. joining us now to talk about the state of the union, two former speech writers from various administration. we first hear from all orzulak -- paul orzulak, writer for george clinton and mary kate cary, writer for george w. bush. -- george h.w. bush. can you start off with what he hopes to achieve tonight? guest: it is two things. it is a chance to form your policies.

and you say this is what i'm going to be about this year. and then to set the terms of the debate going forward. it is one of the few chances the president has to speak to the nation without a media filter to present his ideas directly. it is the bane of every speechwriter, because they invariably turn it into what people call laundry lists. but if done right, it can help make a case for your plants -- plasns. hopefully we will hear what the next two years is going to be about. guest: i would agree with all of that. paul is right, it's a chance to make her case to the american people. -- to make the case to the american people. and to say washington really can do things, they really do have a plan, and then to try to convince people there is lamenting for positive change in

the u.s. host: you said it was the bane of every writer's existence. give us a little bit about what it's like trying to run a speech for george w. bush. guest: it was such a great experience. i was a 25 euros b treader -- 25-year-old speech writer. i won all kinds of writing awards and was the national spelling bee winner, and i would 10 times rather write a speech like that than the state of the union address. that one, you were guaranteed to be on the nightly news and no one said that was a terrible speech. the state of the union, a tremendous amount of work, months and months of work. and what was the last time you ever heard anybody quote from the state of the union? it is not known as a memorable

speech. it is important, but not a fun speech to write. host: i suppose the response from the president is something you looked forward to with trepidation as well. guest: right, the worst response to get from any president, i believe, is an -- a giant x across the page. that is when you know you've gone off track and lost the intention and you've got to get back on track. the best responses when they slip one word and writing in the margins, and then you have sparked a thought. that is what you want as a speechwriter. host: tell us about your process writing for resident clinton. guest: i, too, was a back entrance speechwriter. i did not write a lot of things that would be carved in marble. nobody likes the state of the union. it's a huge process, as mary kate said. and the chief ben is sort of a steward of -- the chief pen is

sort of a steward of the process. and this white house as we reach out to ceos and other sectors, you are getting a massive amount of information trying to fit it into something attic, something -- some thematic, narrative position. people start out trying to get rid of the laundry list of the state of the union but process doesn't lend itself to that. at the end of the day mario cuomo said you campaign in poetry and you govern in prose. this is the pros. this is the work of government. ill clinton always relished these moment because -- bill clinton always relished these moment because what he did better than anyone, people thought of him as an explainer in chief. he could make a case for why he

was so passionately putting something forward. that is partly why he had the longest speeches in history. host: what about getting exes and circles? what response you get from president clinton? guest: the process usually started with staff assembly a lot before christmas. he would do a lot of reading and then after christmas, this process would go through where he would write -- rewrite a lot of things until the week of. of course, every president has a different process. president bush and mary kate's president would lock things down a few days earlier. president clinton wrote on the way to the state of the union. it works differently for each president. everybody works differently. host: again, the process of the writing of the state of the union for some you may have some questions about the process. the numbers are on the screen.

back during when host: a lot of the peyton manningers are saying some of the major themes have already been telegraphed. what was it like during the time you were writing? guest: that's consistent. we often had a situation where the director of speechwriting would go in to the president and say for the next two weeks we'll talk capital gains tax cut, budget deal whatever. there would be a list of topics. that got handed to the speech writers and it was up to you how you were going to weave those together and make it interesting in the audience in a way that was local and colorful. so this speech themes were defined well in advance by people with bigger paychecks. -- by people with bigger paychecks. guest: we had a president that has similar themes through the years of administration.

every speech somehow fit that framework. ronald reagan famously had three central things for every state of the union, and if those policies did not fit into those themes, that is why those were so short. you want to in any given year reflect what is happening in that year, but you also have an overall arc. these last two years, when legacy is a much bigger issue for presidents like president obama, you will be talking about the resurgence is real, talking about creating more jobs in a month than any time since the 1990's, you know, it's framing the last six years and giving us a sense of where the next two years will be closing. but it's with an eye forward and then i back --an eye back.

host: and the unemployment numbers help, too. guest: his approval ratings are up nine points in the last month. i don't think is an accident. the economy is doing better, but not for everybody. that is what the president will address tonight, and that's why the focus is on middle-class job creation, tax relief, and trinity college -- community college. guest: i would disagree with you on one point, which is the list of topics i have seen that when you look at the latest polls of american voters, the economy is still number one. and what is surging up this morning is terrorism and the deficit in the military. i don't think we are going to hear any more about those.

i think the president probably feels defensive on the subject of terrorism because of what happened in paris. if i were him, i would have a lot more foreign policy in the speech that we are going to hear. guest: i do think he has laid out a lot of cyber security terrorism programs that he will be talking about tonight in a week of sony, and everything -- you know, centcom being hacked the day he delivered a cyber security address. this is the next battlefield. guest: i think people will want to hear that. guest: he will definitely want to talk about how after 13 long years, afghanistan has come to an end and how we to the extent possible helped make it as peaceful as possible. i think he will address terrorism. there are some big issues things like entitlement reform

and certainly, budget issues. if we're going to compromise in the next few years, here's where i'm coming from. i'm helping the middle class succeed in opportunity and then let's have a discussion about everything else in the next few years from that position. host: our guests will take questions. first call from virginia. go ahead. caller: a keeper taking my call. ima registered -- thank you for taking my call. i'm a registered democrat and president obama has done a wonderful job since he took office in 2009. everyone must remember the mess we were in when he took office.

and without republicans lifting a finger to help him, he rescued this economy and brought forward , and the most important thing to remember is this economy today is not like the 1990's or middle 2000's. this growth is robust and sustainable. there is no bubble. we see moderate growth. it is real and sustainable. host: the trick is, how do i take credit for that? guest: last year's state of the union address them i remember president obama in a quite surprising way, i thought, was very clear about how poorly the economy was doing and how displeased he was. and he kicked off a series of very bad numbers, i thought. president clinton, if you look back on his speeches, especially near the end of his term, every single state of the union address, he rolled in his policy

initiatives with the good news and the compliments of everything he had achieved. and i think president obama could take a page from that. and talk about some of those things. i think that is why politically for his legacy, and he's got to start working -- worrying about that. and he has not until this point. he could take some advice from you. the rest of the world has an unprecedented growth the last

decade. for the first time in 15 years there is a sense that the economy is back on track. we can do things now to address and build again. mary kay was right, last year was not as clear. what the president kept saying it was he year were everything turned around. we are seeing the results of six years of a focused effort to get things back on track. is it perfect? no. we can talk about how we build together going forward. >> i want to make it clear that i don't agree with all of his accomplishments or what he is going to propose doing. i think it makes good political

sense if he would start taking credit. some of the things he will propose tonight, there is some overlap. i hope there is a change in tone from the last two weeks. where he can take the things they do agree on and move forward with that. republicans are in favor of an earned income tax credit. marco rubio proposed that. i don't understand why he is using that against republicans and trying to make that look like they are not in favor of that there is plenty of common ground. i don't understand the combative tone or it -- guest: it's not the president

that is putting you on the defensive, it's the position from your own. the republican growth of the middle class opportunity have been different than the democratic vision. what the president is doing is defining the democratic vision going forward and recognizing that progress can be made. we are going to have to figure out ways to work together. i think it's setting the terms of the debate going forward tonight. if the republicans are defensive about that, it's because it's far from their agenda. caller: good morning. i am with an organization in washington dc. we are for d.c. statehood and we have been advocating that the resident talk about his support for statehood in the state of the union for several years.

we have a petition on the white house website. i want to know, when he publicly choose that subject? would it be part of the speech? guest: i would predict probably not. guest: i would say no. i have had a lot of people work in the d.c. statehood movement. i have admired their work. the work has to happen on capitol hill. the president could put in a nice line about d.c. statehood. he supports it. the work has to happen on capitol hill. the state of the union address gets criticism for being a feel-good bunch of platitudes. they don't have a clear path forward. this is one of those.

i think a lot of work has to happen on this issue and others which congress has a safe. host: james is in california. caller: i think that any responsible american needs to hear both sides. they need to listen to the state of the union address, which is always important area it does outline the presidential plans and directions. they need to listen to the rebuttals from the republicans. i think a lot of republicans should get on board with those things that they agree with. voters rights, the republicans more than some of the democrats are blocking some of these issues as they come to the

floor. they are leaving themselves open for a real embarrassment. some of them should be put on trial for crimes against humanity because of their extremely conservative ideals. guest: we have a lot of different people and we see that it has been divided about 50-50. i don't doubt that people who are conservative believe strongly as i do. i believe in what i believe and what the president believes. i don't think we should cast dispersion just because their views are different than our own. minimum wage increase, voting rights, those are issues that we should behind because this is what the country has always been about. i don't think republicans

support either of those. guest: we are in favor of a voting rights. guest: given that 25 republican state legislatures have put huge barriers up to voting rights over the last four or five years that require ids and other things. guest: i don't think showing id is him -- outrageous thing. guest: there are a lot of elderly voters the don't have driver's license and they were not able to vote. more republicans have used the word freedom and liberty in's reaches according to this great analysis than anybody else in history. that is absolutely true. guest: i would endorse your

urging people to watch the republican response. i had the privilege of writing one when it was christine todd whitman. it was a big deal for a woman to give the response. i'm not privy to what joni ernst will be saying. she is an iraqi war veteran. i think she is one of the rising stars of the republican party. last year, it was a small business owner. she is from washington state. she did a great job. she showed the alternative view. i think people near deer both. she did a great job of inviting voters and other legislators to join our agenda. i thought she was very effective. i hope people stay tuned. host: that response is part of

the coverage you will hear at 8:00. as far as responses go, do those people write the response? how to they do that? guest: when ever a republican is in office, the head of the democratic national to midi decides who gives the response. bill clinton was president and haley barbour was head of the rnc. i was a speechwriter for a haley barbour. and he put me on loan to her. i was there to tweak it'd make sure it was consistent with everything that haley barbour would have wanted. guest: there are some people jim webb dave one of them -- gave one of them.

he wrote it himself. he is a writer. other people use staff. some use outside writers. i think it's a chance for the party to get the message forward. it's hard. my first loss in politics was senator harkin. as good as anybody is on camera, it's hard to follow the president in a packed chamber with applause when you're staring into a camera. when senator rubio gave the response a few years ago, needed a drink of water became a national story. host: let's go to rich in tennessee. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity to address speechwriters directly.

they just touched on the issue i want to ask about. i mean no disrespect to them. i know you have to put food on the table. it's a living. my question is why should the leader of the country in a speechwriter rather than giving an impassioned defense of his ideas and what the speechwriters do? i can understand the need for editing and grammar with published works. if phrases are going to be quoted and attributed to leaders, it makes one wonder through history how much of lichens -- the gettysburg

address was written by abraham lincoln. all of these famous quotes, where they actually springing forth from the leader or from -- whose ideas? guest: the examples that the caller gave, president lincoln wrote the gettysburg address. george washington gave the first say to the union address to congress. thomas jefferson helped him write it. projecting your ideas doesn't mean that you have the only pen. leaders in these positions 10 to hear -- tend to hear other people. we used to describe ourselves as people united in the delusion that we could write a speech

better for president clinton that he could write for himself if he had the time. while the president is out running the free world the white house is receiving memos and proposals from dozens and dozens of different cabinet agencies and ceos. those ideas are brought in and the president puts his stamp on what he wants to talk about. it's our job to go off and come up with a draft. it gets presented to him. if he likes a draft he sketches it. the current speechwriter has done a magnificent job. it started really strong out of that process. the president just made line edits working up to the address. host: mr. obama refers to him as

hemingway. guest: to riches concern the reason the president or any of the fortune 500 eeo's or any of our clients that we have had over the years, there are a couple of reasons. these people tend to be at that level in a bubble and needed somebody who is the eyes and ears picking up stories or statistics or grabbing the cocktail crasher. you have a statistic so good it makes you drop your drink. you also have a duty to do all of the fact checking. you have a research office that helps. factual inaccuracies are the

greatest way to destroy a speech. you instantly lose that ability. you have to have somebody who is paying attention to the consistency. you are not flip-flopping and getting into trouble for saying something different than you have said in the past. what paul is saying, there is a time versus money versus power factor. is this a good use of the president's time to be flipping through jokes when he is the leader of the free world? it's an honor and a privilege for us to do it anonymously. we are team players. we are there because we believe in the same priorities as the president and the client that we work for. guest: every president takes an active role in the state of the union. president clinton rewrote huge parts to the point to he

realized a lot of his speeches ran long. during those editing sessions, he would figure out how many words he cut and then write the number of words on the bottom of each page. he would add back 2000 words. that process of reconciling the draft, the president doesn't have time to do that. guest: would you rather have him doing that or negotiating with nato? host: heidi from indiana, you are on with our guests. they are both former presidential speechwriters. caller: hi. i live in indiana. i am going to hop from topic to topic. i think it was good that obama needs to to his horn about his accomplishments more. he has done a lot. is made it easy for people with

big student loans and passed the health care bill. it's a start for sure. the whole thing was getting saddam hussein. that was fantastic. it made me proud to be an american. my son was active in the campaign. i was active in the hillary clinton campaign. that is the beauty of america. host: what would you like to hear from our guest? caller: there are a few things. they said about obama writing. he is a very articulate person and a very good speechwriter. we need people to edit. host: back to the speechwriter. what is his day like?

specifically on this date? guest: we had a role that the speech was in the can. finished. no changes. 48 hours at. the president has the right to make changes. he rarely did. he told us a story the first day we were there in office area and he said he had been in a limo with president reagan going to an event. the speechwriter handed reagan his speech cards. vice president bush said, is that the first time you've seen this? and president reagan said yes. they get out of the car. reagan goes up to the podium and knocks it out of the ballpark. president bush tells us the story.

he says don't ever think that you can do that to me. i want all speeches 48 hours in advance because i need to practice them. he knew his limitations as a speaker. he put in a lot of practice time. this date, he would be in the white house theater with a small group of staff practicing the delivery. textual changes were done by that point. guest: i think his day today will be better than the 15 days he was in a hotel room in hawaii. or the hours he spent in a windowless office. if you are fan of "the west wing.," it's a moment of glory for speechwriters. there's an episode where sam

seabourn is announced into the room. he gets big applause. in reality he tells a story that in that room after one of these native the unions that was really successful, president clinton introduced him as the guy who typed my speech. cody his earned some time off. the president will go on the road. it is a lonely existence. it is one persons pen that ultimately is responsible for making all of these changes and framing it and comment with the conceptual arc. cody has had that responsibility since before christmas. he probably has a sense of relief. this president locks down of the same way.

they are probably rehearsing it but not changing anything. there is a chance he got his first good nights sleep last night. host: do you watch it with other people? how does that work? guest: the first year that president bush gave his first state of the union, right before the motorcade took off they asked him if he wanted to ride the president. he said i will go watch it with my kids. i was not a mom yet. i can't believe he just turned that down. i said something to him the next day, i wanted to watch it as 50 million americans watched it. hopefully i will read it again next year and this will show me how everybody else sees it.

if i was in that chamber, it's a very different view. he chose to watch it on television with his family. and learn from that. guest: i watched the first four from the floor of the, -- congress. it's all pageantry. it's remarkable. it's better watched on tv, just like football. you see the way everybody else sees it. somebody different people react in real-time. if you watched some of those dial meter readings, you can see what's connecting. host: bill from florida is on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i wonder how much of speech writing really is spent, it's

been my observation that whenever we have a republican -- democrat in office, the deficit goes down. when a republican in the senate the deficit goes up here in the deficit is an important part of what people worry about. how you tell people that cutting taxes is going to help lower the deficit when it's never done it? guest: if you offset it does. this administration has reduced two thirds of the deficits that it took office with. this president has proposed tax cuts for the middle class. he is offset it with higher taxes in capital gains. those things will make it pay for itself. speeches are spin in the leaf of

a party is spin to somebody. these are what we believe. if these are honest expressions of what we are in government to do, there are cases to be made on both sides. i would agree that every republican has cut taxes and the deficit goes up. the republicans famously during president reagan's term said they would run up deficits to the point where we had to cut programs. what seems like partisan politics is motivated by very real passions on both sides. guest: you may recall that the 1990 budget deal, president bush

was upset about the deficit. he get democrats to agree to spending caps. he did not want to go for taxes. he wanted to spending cuts in place. we know the political price he paid for that decision. because he was not there, he did not get to enjoy the fruits of that agreement. bill clinton was in charge when we had balanced budgets that were mandated by that law. that led to the surpluses that get used to fund the wars after 9/11. we can argue about whether there should have been wars. that is where that money went. i disagree that all republicans purposefully run up deficits. i feel like president bush did the right thing and bill clinton got the credit for. guest: that was a great moment

of political courage. host: we are talking about the state of the union. johnny from chicago, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say two things. i enjoy the show. i'm enjoy listening to the information. i'm a veteran. i was born in mississippi and came to chicago. i never got married, but i had three kids. i adopted three kids. they went to college and all of them have good jobs. they had kids. i have a daughter, one daughter, she is working in georgia for the state. i was at the post office.

i was there 32 years. i don't know anything about asking somebody for a handout. i don't know anything about asking for free this or three that. it seems like everything is negative to things like that. anytime you have people that are so negative and they degrade other people and then they say an act for other things or other people, jobs to be done. be careful what you ask for. if the good ward -- lord is willing, everyone that has talked negative about what this administration has done, i want to hear what they have to say. guest: thank you for your service and for raising a remarkable family.

we have both worked in government. i've worked at every level of government. public employees tend to be a whipping boy and have been for 20 years. some of the most committed and hardest working people i know are in the federal government. you're right. there are people who go to work and raise the families and do everything that you said. i think this president will receive a lot more credit as time goes by. i would go so far as to suggest that if a republican was office we would talk about it being morning in america again. that's not the role of the opposition party right now. they have taken an approach that doesn't give the president any credit for anything. the majority leader in the senate claim the economy was in good shape and rebounding just

because the republicans won the election and all the change happened since then. that's interesting, but not true. host: don, you are next up are in --. caller: how much of the comment line goes into the speechwriters? i've been calling in since reagan was president. the reason that george bush was not reelected was because he was having heart attacks in japan. guest: i think your question was how much do people calling into the white house line get into

the speech. you might want to write a letter instead of calling in. if you look at the list of people who will be guests of the first lady, there are 25 who will sit in the gallery, a tremendous number of them are people who wrote others to the president through the correspondence office. they won the lottery and are coming to washington and their families are getting entertained at the white house while they go to sit at the capital. you might want to change your mo. instead of calling, send in some letters. that works much better. host: who gets highlighted in the first lady's box? guest: the process is constant all year long as they go out to of that's. as they meet people, they keep a list.

there is a person who handles correspondence for both the president and first lady. they pull the letters for them to see out of all the letters they get. it's a mixture the rest of the white house has plenty of insight. i'm sure that the speechwriters send in people that they have met. the keeper of the list is the speechwriter for the first lady. guest: you go searching for something that will fit the themes of the speech. and afghanistan veteran is in the audience tonight. he is gone through 20 surgeries and can't wear prosthetics but finished a marathon. they pick people that reinforce parts of the speech.

there are some americans whose stories are so extraordinary that they receive invitations for things that are going to happen. the astronaut scott kelly who is going in march to leave earth to spend the year aboard the international space station. there are things happening and it will bring our quest to discover and reach out and find new worlds. his twin brother is married to a former congresswoman gabby giffords. he wants to see how his body changes in space. there are forward-looking things that people you invite emphasized. mostly, it's individuals that

reflect elements of the speech. caller: hi. i just have a quick question. i was interested to hear about president reagan handling the state of the union. one of the things that he was credited for was in 1983 actually solving the sole security funding crisis -- social security funding crisis. i'm curious to know, was that initiative part of one of his addresses? why hasn't a similar solution then posed in recent times? guest: i think that was tax reform that happened between dan rostenkowski and president reagan. they wanted to keep social security solvent.

it happens from time to time and gets extended. president clinton had a commission that also worked to bring extended life and president obama has as well. as i said earlier, that entitlement reform will likely be a topic that comes up because it's a priority of all of the new members of congress. it's something the country has to address. we can afford to have these programs run out. that may be mentioned tonight. guest: i am hoping that the president comes back around and revisits some of the recommendations that deal with social security. i retrieve with you, it's high time for more similar reforms to come through to save social security and medicare. there was no mention in last

year's state of the union. i think with paul ryan at the ways and means committee, he is very bigamist. hopefully there will be some common ground they can come to. host: is there a difference in approach when both houses are powered by one party? guest: both of our bosses had houses and senates of the opposition party. in those days, you used to setit down the middle. one thing for speechwriters to do was to see if you could get your guy to say something to the other size would applaud. that was considered a good

thing. there was one time when will clinton pointed it out when the republicans clapped for one of his proposals. he add lived -- add lived -- improvised. it does change the dynamic when you have both houses against you. there is some fun with trying to write shameless applause lines. guest: for the president, in a funny way there is something freeing about delivering a speech to a republican majority house and senate. there is a responsibility for governing on them in ways that they haven't had in the time the democrats were in the senate. it's not enough to put reddick -- rhetoric forward. or vote 47 times two overturn

the affordable care act. there is a responsibility for governing. the president is speaking to the opposition party that runs the congress now. he is setting the terms of the debate. we have made a lot of progress. this is my focus for the next year. i think we should help middle-class families. when the banks were in trouble we prop them up and save them. now we're at the -- we're asking banks to pay and help middle-class families. banks are making record profits again. it's setting the terms of the debate. now the responsibility is shared has the house can't just past things anymore. we know this is never going to become law there is pressure.

guest: he has announced that this dative unit is more of a movement than a moment. it's just a broad sweeping statement about his priorities. it's not a legislative agenda. i think part of the problem is the president has not been proposing legislation. the second problem is everything and this will not be legislation, but it will be in his budget. the budget last year was a political statement. two years prior to that, it went down unanimously defeated. for him to put forward a budget as an agenda that he knows the republicans will not accept is like a ceo putting forth a

budget to his board of directors that he knows they will not accept. guest: i understand that position. mitch mcconnell took office in 2010 saying the only thing we are about is to make sure that the president is not reelected. they were not partners in governing. did you have any indication that this congress which passed fewer bills in any congress in history had any intention of working with the president? the proposal to put fees on a banks, that was a republican idea. americans support minimum-wage increase. they support paid leave. they are supportive of free community college.

you may disagree, but that is the debate. those are the things that are party believes in. we believe that we will help improve opportunities or the middle class. a broad cross-section of america agrees. the president has laid out a dozen things. he hasn't been hiding anything. they are all legislative proposals. these are real things. guest: then let's have votes on them. guest: i hope so. it would be a nice change. people want the government to do the job it was sent here to do. host: paul from baltimore maryland. caller: i wonder if you could speak to how contentious it gets

among speechwriters. this president has taken credit for his success. do you suppose there is contentiousness among the speechwriters? he and others say no. guest: speechwriters don't decide what goes in a speech. we are the pen. people way above the pay grade of speechwriters decide what is going to be in it. people that commit their lives to being involved at this level are very passionate. i would pay money to be a fly on

the wall of the reagan speechwriting team who argued endlessly about the meaning of liberty and freedom and what the country stood for. they use all of those adam smith quotes they learned in college. there is always a passionate defense. in our administration, a remarkably talented person was the chief speechwriter. he loved those debates about what is the meaning of our time here together. if you see him today, he will talk passionately about those same things in a more articulate way than most people. there is real passion. at the end of the day, we serve the president. we are serving the president's ideas. they tend to be open to

argument. that is part of the reason why this process is so broad. policies get argued out over the course of the months leading up to the address. the president ways both sides. we air it publicly. we determine if that is the way to go forward. guest: the one i remember was he had said read my lips no new taxes. that was in a number of speeches as president. as speeches were getting circulated for approval, that phrase would get circled. we were told to tone it down. we were completely blindsided when the president agreed to the 1990 budget deal. the speech lighters -- writers

were left holding the bag. there was quite a bit of contention if you can imagine. guest: john f. kennedy said that the biggest surprise was finding out things were as bad as we said they were when they were on the campaign. i don't think the budget director of the situation that craig is -- president reagan had left for president bush. it was a moment of remarkable courage. it was probably one of the great moments of political courage in the last 40 or 50 years. host: mark is calling from alaska. caller: i have a question for both of the guests. what is their favorite modern-day speech? if they have a favorite. i will take my answer off the air. guest: i am assuming not a state

of union? my favorite is president reagan's speech on the 40th anniversary of normandy. peggy noonan wrote it. it's my favorite speech of all time. it talks about the heroic journey of these workingmen who made it to the tops of the clips. i highly recommend it. i have used it to teach the importance of noble rhetoric. guest: that's one of -- a hard one to disagree with. the challenger speech at the president made, he had to delay the state of the union because it happened the day he was supposed to deliver the state of the union. my favorite speech is the eulogy that bob costas gave when mickey mantle died.

i don't like the yankees very much. there was something about the way he captured what it meant to be a yankee fan and what it meant to be a mickey mantle fan as a boy in new york. i am a baseball ever. that speech to me was remarkable. the only speech i have ever memorized word for word was the gettysburg address. it is fewer than 300 words. it is a remarkable statement about what this country is about. the speechwriters who admire lincoln admire him for how spare he was in his eloquence. we teach that you shouldn't use compound sentences. you should use simple sentences. you should use to sell words instead of three. there are few people who

understood the effectiveness of concise argument then and family can. host: one more call. this is larry from california on the independent line. caller: i love the program. i voted for reagan. and i voted for obama. my concern is the keystone pipeline. i worked in the oil fields. i don't understand how the congress can not send a delegation to alberta. i understand ted cruz had parents who work for transcanada. i don't understand why they can't send a delegation to look at the pits of their. this is my request. do not collect oil.

-- call it oil. guest: tonight, i doubt we will hear the words keystone pipeline come out of the president's mouth. i think it should of been passed along time ago. i don't understand why it has taken five years for the state department to be involved in this. it should be passed right away. the unions are in favor of it. the congress is in favor of it. former presidents are in favor of it. i don't understand the problem is. guest: i think he will talk about energy. america is the leading producer of oil and gas in the world which is a remarkable achievement. the keystone pipeline is not as easy as it seems. the oil is heavier. it burns dirtier than other oil. the number of temporary jobs it creates is 4000, but the

permanent jobs are 50. it's a real debate for people that live in places like nebraska and other places if they want to pipeline that is delivering oil to the gulf. oil is so -- it is more expensive to ship things by rail. this is going to be a debate we are going to have a lot. we have more supply than we need. now we have to figure out what to do with it. pipelines are going to be debated. energy independence and what we do with the energy, whether we exported or keep it here, it's going to be something that is debated over the next two years. if you listen to some republicans, everything will be great.

there are reasons against it. they have had plenty of time, but we have not had delegation's go up to canada. host: two guests who are former speechwriters talking about the process of the state of the union. the state of the union address

live on see spab, c-span2, c-span radio and cspan.org. >> illinois republican senator mark kirk pleaded out this -- tweeted out this photo earlier today showing him with 1-year-old jackson cunningham of champagne, illinois. he suffered a stroke earlier in his childhood and he wrote to mr. kirk in the hospital after the senator's stroke in january of 2012. the two became pen pals during the senator's hospital say it stay. jackson cunningham will be the governor's guest tonight at the state of the union address. and earlier, house armed services committee chair congressman mac thornberry outlined the committee's agenda for the 114th congress, focusing on defense policy and national security issues. former u.s. senator and current a.e.i. senior fellow moderates this discussion.

>> welcome, everybody. it's a great pleasure to be mcing this event which means i introduce our honored guest and have an opportunity to chat with him for a couple of minutes before we take your questions. so be thinking of those questions. when you ask them, please wait for the microphone. identify yourself and then make certain you give him a question rather than a statement. we'd all appreciate that. it was very encouraging for me personally when this gentleman, as expected, took over the house armed services committee in this congress. his predecessor did a great job fighting for the capabilities of america's armed forces in a very difficult time and it is a

difficult time for the united states and for our military. and one of the encouraging things is to have our guest today in a position of such influence. mac thornberry went into the congress 0 years ago, in 1994, two years after i went in. sometimes you spot somebody when they're new and you recognize that they are capable of and will make a tremendous contribution to the nation's interests over time. because of their judgment, their integrity, their willingness to work and their charity, their understanding that congress is a place of people with different views and you have to understand how to persuade people on their terms about what's important for the country. and this is a man we have with us today. i'm not going to praise him too much because it will just

embarrass him but it's wonderful that he's chairing the armed services committee. it's gracious of him to be willing to make remarks and share his time with us today. with that i will introduce my friend and the new chairman of the house armed services committee, mac thornberry. [applause] >> thank you. i appreciate your words. i appreciate you and your colleagues. as well, all of your contributions to national security. being selected by my colleagues to chair the armed services committee is a great honor. it is also a great responsibility.

the first and foremost job of the federal government is to defend the country and our people. congress has a unique and irreplaceable role in carrying out that duty. when i walked into the main committee room and see the portraits of some of the former chairmen in there, i find myself wishing for a little harry potter magic. at hogwarts, the headmaster can consult with his predecessors by talking to their portraits. i have not found any that will talk back yet, but i'm still hoping. i am honored to join their ranks. i'm sobered by the challenges ahead. i don't believe that any of my predecessors faced such a wide array of complex security challenges that we face today. from the renewed aggression of

major nuclear powers, to grappling with the new domains of warfare, to failed states, terrorism, horrible diseases. the list of security challenges is certainly long. the head of the british defense defense staff said last month, that the world is becoming a more dangerous, less certain, less predictable, and more unstable place. i don't know of many people who would disagree with him. the dangers are swirling around. what macaulay called the red whirlwind. americans and american interests were inevitably swept into it. americans are uneasy. a poll in november said that 78% felt that the threats to our security are increasing and 60% felt that we were less secure than we were a year ago.

i suspect those numbers are even higher after the past few days in paris. one of the portraits is of chairman carl vinson. his tenure was 50 years. he came in with a springfield rifle and he left with the icbm. he has an aircraft carrier and our main committee room named after him. it is said that vinson forgot more about the navy than most admirals will ever know. if those pictures ever do start talking back to me, i hope it is his. in the 1930's, when the threats were large and the budget tight, vinson took up the cause of naval modernization. a new deal in social spending dominated the budget. although the threats are germany and japan were

increasing, defense dollars were pretty scarce. vincent insisted on buying new ships. we are a maritime nation that needs a modern navy. after a tough fight he got his way. in the 1930's, three large ship hulls were laid down. those became the carriers, enterprise hornet and yorktown, which sank four japanese carriers at the battle of midway, the turning point of the pacific. 3,000 japanese sailors were killed that day. but it could have been 3,000 americans had it gone the other way. when i talk about the job being sobering, that is what i'm thinking about. if vinson were here today he might find a familiar political landscape and similar frustrations -- the deliberate ignorance of danger, the want of strategic forethought

infinite demand to spend money elsewhere. those are all parts of rhythms that churchill called the endless repetitions of history. fortunately, for the battle of midway, congress got it right. that doesn't mean that congress always gets it right. the country paid a heavy price. in the early days of world war ii and in korea, and you might even argue on 9/11, because our national leaders did not see or chose to ignore approaching dangers. congress consists of human beings from all over the country and all walks of life, with all of our accumulated talents and all our faults. what is this bodys proper role when it comes to national defense? the founders gave certain powers to congress, which they

viewed as the branch closest to the people. james madison said these powers should exist without limitation, because it is impossible to see or define the variety of national needs. in article i, section of the constitution, at least six specific duties were placed on the house and senate related to national security and through those authorities, congress determines the size, shape and soul of our military. the president will determine how to use it. madison also wrote security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. that fundamental object has not changed in 200 years. the way we meet that objective has to change. the 76th congress worried about japan and germany.

the 37th congress dealt with southern rebellion and the suspension of habeas corpus. king george burned down the office of the 13th congress. in our time, congress had to deal with a blend of all of those things. the thought of the capitol burning as it did in 1812 was pretty remote for two centuries. only the courage of united flight 93 prevented it from happening on 9/11. only good intelligence and law enforcement stopped a plot within the past few days. we may not have the same habeas debates, but we struggled with the right balance of privacy and security. we do not have a nazi germany, but we have a resurgent russia and a rising china. through these repetitions of history the 114th congress has the same obligation as the first congress and that is to build a military capable of

defending the country. it is not clear that everyone understands our constitutional system. congress is criticized for exercising our proper role in defense. for example, some of you may have heard that congress is forcing the army to buy tanks that it doesn't want because of some donor or some lobbyist or some parochial interest. the reality is we made a judgment call. there is one plant in the country that makes tanks. the army said foreign sales would keep that plant occupied until 2019 when they needed to refurbish our own tanks. the house and senate appropriations committee and armed services committee went through the arguments and believed the math did not add up. we started upgrading our tanks earlier than the army had

planned to make sure the plant stayed open, that the workforce was engaged, and that the tanks would be fielded sooner. some may differ on the wisdom of that decision, but there is a reasonable, logical, national security argument for it. it turns out last month the u.s. army sent 101 tanks back to europe in response to the ukraine crisis. that is evidence we made the right call. obviously congress has been criticized for other decisions. one year the air force wanted to discontinue the global hawk and rely on the 50-year-old u-2. the next year they proposed the reverse. they asked to retire the a-10 and then a few months later sent it to fly attack missions in iraq and syria. the navy included no money in this year's budget to begin

to refuel the george washington, a carrier with 25 years of life left. the pentagon has asked congress for another round of base closures when g.a.o. tells us we have not yet broken even from the last ground which was 10 years ago. in all of these incidences congress, on a bipartisan basis disagreed, with the administration's request. that is exactly the way the founding fathers intended our system to work. sometimes the pentagon is penny wise and pound foolish. sometimes the pentagon can be parochial. sometimes the white house tries to cut military spending for other parts of the budget. sometimes the priorities are wrong. congress forced the pentagon to buy the predator. they didn't want it. pilots do not like pilotless aircraft. it is countercultural. i don't know many people who would reverse that decision today.

is congress sometimes parochial? of course. each of us has a responsibility to represent the interests of our district or state. if we don't, no one else will. does congress sometimes make the wrong call? absolutely. please, do not fall into, what was said in another context, the soft bigotry of low expectations. the constitution gives congress the responsibility to raise, support, provide, and maintain military capability. congress can and has in the past risen to meet the historical moment. that is what you, the american people, should expect us to do today -- even if the president does not always rise to the moment in carrying out his constitutional duties. some expect lawmakers to just cut the check and not ask questions. the congress should not give

any president a blank check and congress should not be a robber stump -- rubber stamp. it is the branch of government responsible for the character and contours of our military including the organization and structure. congress created the war department in 1789. it was congress that reorganized it into the department of defense in 1947 and it was congress that restructured the services under goldwater nichols. speaker sam rayburn said, too many people mistake the deliberations of congress for its decisions. i admit that the deliberations that lead up to a bill like goldwater nichols can be messy. as the complexities of our security challenges grow and so does the necessity of congress to live up to our responsibilities under the constitution, and play our part to defend the country.

doing our constitutional duty also helps connect our people with national policies. a c.s.i. study 10 years ago entitled beyond goldwater nichols has always struck a chord. they said congress is the place where ideas become national policies and commitments. having messy, frustrating debate in congress changes the clinton policy for this, or the bush policy for that, into the nation's policy. congress is the indispensable link to the american people, they wrote, the connective tissue between the national leaders and policy. to be that connective tissue we have to do our job in congress. a big part is building the military capability to deal with the threats that we can see, and also for the volatile

unpredictable world we live in. that requires the united states to have a military that is strong and agile. i think we've got a lot of work to do on both fronts. last thursday at the republican retreat, british prime minister tony blair was there and he repeated the advice he is given the united states for a couple of years now which was just be strong. don't worry about how people around the world love you. he said. what the world needs is for america to be strong. i think he's exactly right. of course, to be strong we've got to stop the slide into defense budgets. that has recused our base defense spending 21% since 2010. two weeks ago on fox news sunday, chris wallace asked general dempsey if at some point the resources would be cut so much that we can no longer defend this country from the threats we face.

dempsey replied, quote, yes absolutely. and i think it's called sequestration. i can sit here all day and recite facts and figures about sequestration, from the plummeting readiness levels, the long lines of equipment in disrepair, the jets that aren't flying, the soldiers that aren't getting to the rifle range. it's a lot more than about facts amend statistics. it is whether we have the capability to do what the nation needs and the times demand. it is also very much it is about the increased danger that comes to our people from diminished training, aging equipment, and a tempo of operations that stretches them and their families too far. it has to be fixed. even without sequestration, we

have to make decisions on our investments. on people and technology. our people are our most valuable assets. we will get reports of military compensation and military realignment modernization commitment. we need a comprehensive look at the benefit structure, rather than trying to nickel and dime our service members to death year after the administration proposes. i will be looking not only at the financial impacts of that study, but about how it affects our ability to recruit and retain the best our country has to offer. that is the key to our future. we have to improve our acquisition system to get more value out of the money that we spend on goods and services. in 1952, the navy issued a requirement for a lightweight fighter. two years later the first a4 skyhawk