LOCAL CONGRESSMEN OFFER MIXED REVIEWS.

Byline: Lisa Friedman Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Southland congressional reaction to President George W. Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night split predictably along party lines.

Democrats slammed nearly all of the president's proposals, from reforming Social Security to making tax cuts permanent. They also criticized Bush for not putting more money toward education and job creation.

Republicans, meanwhile, praised Bush for speaking strongly on national security, for declaring that ``America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people'' and for reminding the nation not to become complacent when it comes to national security.

``I think the president was on point,'' said Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Thousand Oaks. ``He put a significant amount of emphasis on the issue of terrorism and what we're doing and what we're going to continue to do.''

Rep. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, specifically praised Bush for vowing more funding for community colleges. McKeon is a senior member of the House Education Committee and chairs a panel on higher education issues.

``I was glad he talked about higher education and the things we needed to do for job creation,'' McKeon said. He also had praise for Bush's calls to make tax cuts permanent and reform Social Security.

He dismissed Democratic criticisms that Bush did not put enough money toward education as ``just rhetoric.''

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks, however, called Social Security privatization ``the most important and frightening part of this speech.''

``Such privatization schemes endanger benefits to today's retirees,'' Sherman said.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, declined to respond to Bush's speech.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Van Nuys, skipped the address to attend the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland.

Taking a dig at the president's space proposals - which went unmentioned in Tuesday's speech - Sherman added, ``The president forgot to mention the moon, Mars and the federal deficit, all of which are sky high.''

Gallegly said he found the single paragraph on Bush's immigration proposal ``interesting.''

``It was something that was just kind of buried in the speech,'' said Gallegly, an opponent of the plan. He noted that only about four Republicans and two Democrats stood and clapped when Bush mentioned immigration, in contrast to the near-wild clapping offered by the GOP for other parts of the speech.

``If tonight was any indication, it's not going to take rocket science to figure out it's going to be a very tough row,'' Gallegly said.

And on gay marriage, neither Gallegly or McKeon would immediately embrace the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, but said Congress should take some action.

``I have a real fundamental problem with constitutional amendments, but this is going to require a lot of thinking on my part,'' Gallegly said.

Added McKeon, ``I don't know if you need a constitutional amendment or you need a clearly defined law.''

Lisa Friedman, [phone]

lisa.friedman(at)langnews.com