[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 12 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   STATE OF THE UNION SEATING GESTURE

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, on Tuesday we made history in a 
small but significant way here in Congress. When we filed into the 
House Chamber for the President's annual State of the Union Address, 
many of us cast aside a long-held custom and crossed the aisle--
literally--and sat together rather than divided by party. In some 
cases, as with my colleagues from my home State of Colorado, we sat by 
State delegation, Republicans and Democrats together.
  I advocated for that change as a symbolic gesture. It was something I 
have done since I served in the Colorado State House.
  In the days leading up to Tuesday's speech, folks here, and in the 
media, had a lot of fun comparing our plans to finding a date to a high 
school dance. They started speculating on what was next--trust falls? A 
ropes course? I am an old mountaineer--I have been joking that the 
aisle has become a mountain to climb.
  And while those jokes have been entertaining for us inside the 
beltway, I think the media's interest in the drama highlights part of 
the problem that led me to call for a change in the way we sit during 
the State of the Union.
  My staff did quite a bit of research on the history of the State of 
the Union Address, and they couldn't find any historical reason for 
divided seating. It seems to have developed along with the evolution of 
broadcast journalism.
  So it appears that the media's hunger for drama--and our own need to 
use the media to project fierce party unity to the audience at home--
has made the State of the Union like a pep rally--or a kind of sideshow 
to the main event. We've lost our focus on the content of the speech in 
an effort to get a moment of air time or a good headline.
  I will be the first to admit that Tuesday's new seating arrangements 
aren't going to suddenly change the atmosphere here in Congress. But I 
hope it was the start of a new tradition. It certainly was a step in 
the right direction. Coloradans and Americans overwhelmingly supported 
the idea. It is something Americans are hungering for--I was just the 
messenger. There is no question it got us talking to people outside our 
comfort zones. I think the result was a more respectful--and less 
divided--State of the Union Address.
  And I bring this up today--2 days after the State of the Union--
because I don't want this to be an anomaly--a brief moment of half-
hearted kumbaya before we slip back into our old habits. There was an 
even more serious reason for bringing us all together. We are not just 
divided during the President's State of the Union Address--it is nearly 
every day--in Washington and on the campaign trail.
  If you go out and talk to citizens--as I do when I am in Colorado--
the vast majority of people say they are frustrated with the bickering 
in Washington, and they believe it is hurting our Nation. The words 
used by politicians and commentators on the right and the left have 
become over the top--even violent.
  After the horrific events of January 9, it is only natural that we 
ask whether there is a connection between the fact that Congresswoman 
Giffords was the subject of violent gun metaphors on the campaign trail 
and the attack by a disturbed gunman only a few months later.
  I, personally, think it would be simplistic to believe that one was 
the sole--or even a part--cause of the other. But it is 
incontrovertible that the level of violence and vitriol in our 
political language has been escalating year after year to a point where 
the space between rhetoric and reality has grown from a gap into a 
chasm.
  To quote Jon Stewart of the ``Daily Show'' during his rally to 
restore sanity in politics: ``We live now in hard times, not end 
times.'' Yet you wouldn't know it by listening to the 24-hour media 
spin cycle.
  I know Gabby well. She represents the district my father represented 
for 30 years. I grew up in Tucson, and a piece of me will always be 
rooted in its sandy soil. It is a border district, full of independent 
westerners whose ancestors made a good living there, despite harsh 
conditions and punishing temperatures. Its people include moderates as 
well as staunch liberals and strong-minded conservatives. In order to 
represent the area well, you really have to be outside politics, 
willing to hear everyone's point of view and to bring them together 
regardless of party. That is Gabby in a nutshell.
  It would be a huge disservice to Gabby, Judge Roll, Christina Greene, 
and all of the other victims of the Tucson shooting if we didn't seize 
this moment to reflect on how to rein in the rhetoric--to become more 
civil to each other--and--as our President said eloquently--live up to 
their ideals for our democracy.
  So sitting together was only a small step. I hope we can follow it up 
with more efforts to work together--perhaps bipartisan retreats--or, as 
was suggested by a few of my colleagues--doing away with the aisle 
altogether.
  I want to thank my co-leaders in this effort--Senator Murkowski of 
Alaska, and Representatives Heath Shuler and Paul Gosar. I look forward 
to working with them and any others in ways that will eventually help 
us solve the big challenges that confront us--because if we cannot sit 
together, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can win the global 
economic race, pay down our debt, develop a 21st century energy policy, 
fix our broken immigration system--or address any of the myriad other 
problems facing our country.

                          ____________________