[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 268]]

            GOOD ADVICE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION CEREMONIES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 6, 1999

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly commends to the 
attention of his colleagues an editorial found in the January 5, 1999, 
edition of the Omaha World Herald entitled, ``Discreet State of Union 
Would Do.'' The editorial appropriately points out that during recent 
years during a President's State of the Union address ``supporters 
bounce up and down giving standing ovations in response to 
choreographed rhetorical flourishes. His opponents, also playing to the 
cameras, signify displeasure with stony silence. Or they 
disproportionately applaud such presidential lines as, ``We must do 
better,'' when ``better'' refers to a policy that the opponents 
support.''
  Indeed, it should be obvious to Members of Congress and to much of 
the American public that the atmosphere now attending the delivery of a 
State of the Union address has become high political theater which does 
not serve the reputation of the Congress well; nor does it reassure the 
American public that the Congress or the President are seriously 
attempting to work together to address the problems and opportunities 
facing our nation. It has degenerated into the kind of exaggerated 
conduct that one would expect to find in an old-fashioned melodrama. It 
is time for a change, and the editorial makes some relevant points and 
suggestions about directions for such changes. This Member urges his 
colleagues and especially leaders of the Congress to work with the 
President and his successor to make appropriate modifications in the 
manner in which the State of the Union is presented to the Congress.

                    Discreet State of Union Would Do

       Some U.S. senators, including Democrats Robert Torricelli 
     of New Jersey and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, say it 
     would be inappropriate for President Clinton to appear before 
     a joint session of Congress to report on the State of the 
     Union while his impeachment trial is pending. It would not be 
     a national tragedy if Clinton listened to them.
       Nothing in the Constitution says a president must deliver a 
     prime-time, televised speech from the House of 
     Representatives every year. It says only that the president 
     ``shall from time to time give to the Congress information of 
     the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration 
     such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.'' 
     George Washington and John Adams addressed joint sessions of 
     Congress in person. Thomas Jefferson discontinued the 
     practice. He said a personal appearance was too monarchical a 
     ceremony for the leader of a democratic republic.
       Written State of the Union addresses--often not much more 
     than a collection of bureaucratic reports from the 
     departments of the executive branch--were delivered to 
     Congress until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson resurrected the 
     tradition of a presidential speech. Wilson said he wanted to 
     show ``that the president of the United States is a person, 
     not a mere department of the government hailing Congress from 
     some isolated island of jealous power, sending messages, not 
     speaking naturally with his own voice--that he is a human 
     being trying to cooperate with other human beings in a common 
     service.''
       It's hard to quibble with that proposition. But the 
     development of television since Wilson's time has put the 
     State of the Union address in a different light. The 
     president is now one of the most visible persons in the 
     world. And the event Wilson described as a chance for the 
     president to speak naturally with his own voice about common 
     service to the people has devolved into a glitzy production 
     heavy on style and light on substance.
       In the modern television age, the formula is the same 
     regardless of which party holds the White House. As senators 
     and representatives look on in the House chamber, the 
     president's entrance is preceded by processions of Cabinet 
     members and Supreme Court justices. Members of the 
     president's party send up a raucous cheer when the chief 
     executive enters the chamber. Even people who despise the 
     president jostle to be captured on camera smiling, clapping 
     and cheering for him.
       Throughout the address, the president's supporters bounce 
     up and down giving standing ovations in response to 
     choreographed rhetorical flourishes. His opponents, also 
     playing to the cameras, signify displeasure with stony 
     silence. Or they disproportionately applaud such presidential 
     lines as ``We must do better,'' when ``better'' refers to a 
     policy that the opponents support.
       The president tosses rhetorical bouquets to people seated 
     in the House gallery--his family, disabled veterans, civilian 
     heroes.
       The State of the Union address has become a long, shallow 
     and predictable bit of political theater. A reversion to 
     Jeffersonian discretion, considering the current 
     circumstances, wouldn't be a bad thing.

     

                          ____________________