george washington university law professor jonathan turley looks at the issues of surveillance and privacy and whether we aren't losing our privacy protections. later, debra hersman, chairman of the national transportation safety board, discusses the role of the agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents. "washington journal" is next." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: welcome to "washington journal" this monday, december 19, 2011. news from north korea that leader kim jong il has died. this 20-something year old song kim jong un is the heir apparent and looks to be the successor. the house will meet at 10:00 this morning despite the initial plan to be on holiday recess this week. yesterday house speaker john boehner said on "meet the press" that house republicans will reject the payroll tax cut plan

between the senate and white house. our question is what you think about speaker boehner's news that he is rejecting the senate payroll tax cut plan. here are the numbers to call -- you can also e-mail us and find us on twitter -- and we are on facebook. here is the story in "the financial times" this morning.

let's look at some more coverage of the story. in "usa today" -- to get some perspective on the story, we go to the phones and hear from daniel, staff writer ed "roll call." when did this take place, this evolution of speaker boehner coming out and saying this yesterday morning. was it a surprise to supporters who had been covering what was going on? guest: it is hard to say. those of us on the capital on

friday night saw, after the deal was struck, minority leader mitch mcconnell, come out and he was happy. there was a picture of him giving one of his colleagues a high five. and he said he had spoken with speaker boehner and was confident that the next day everything would be fine. well, the next day, but house had a day -- the house had a conference call with all the members and there was a particularly rowdy opposition to this the senate plan because of the fact that it is such a short-term plan. some people on the call -- it had been widely reported that speaker boehner expressed some sort of support for the senate's plan, whereas almost everyone else in the conference did not support it. but almost immediately after and on sunday, the speaker appeared on "meet the press" and said he

was opposed to the deal, so that shut off any inkling that he was supporting it. wrote a storyt that said -- what does this mean? where do we go from here? guest: after we filed a story it became a little more clear. late last night -- this senate bill today. it will happen tonight around 6:30 p.m. we will see. they expect it to sail. we will see exactly how it goes. i know democrats in the chamber

are sick -- try to support this deal made between harry reid and mitch mcconnell. so, it could expect significant democratic support but obviously they will need some republicans at least to pass it. after that happens, it becomes a little less clear. there are two options. they could amend the bill. and mr. boehner expressed support for a full, year-long bill. the difference would be exactly how to pay for the tax cuts and the unemployment benefits. or they could send it to conference, where senate leaders and house leaders could hash out their differences. host: one item on the table that was controversial was the keystone pipeline but it seemed like republicans got what they want it on that. was it just not enough? gee, yes, i think that is how it was -- guest: yes, i think that is how good was to me.

one the representative from oklahoma, he got the sense that the senate leaders thought sticking the keystone pipeline in there, that of the house members would vote for anything thinking it was a victory. speaker boehner on a conference call, i was told, did also characterized the inclusion of the keystone light which as a "victory." but, again, most republicans on the call had a sense it was not enough. a two-month bill was just taking the can down the road and, of course, people will tell you in private law is part because they did not want this issue to be around again in two months during an election year when democratic opponents can say, well, republicans don't want to cut taxes on the middle-class, as they have been saying. host: you mention speaker boehner initially indicated he might have some support for this. members of this conference did not. does this show the power of a bloc of republicans are freshmen

who just said we are going to do business differently? guest: absolutely. without that block of republicans, i doubt that this would be the case. and also -- well, i guess it has worked both ways for them. when it comes to the omnibus spending agreement they just passed, they had to pass it in a bipartisan way, with all to end up with the republicans getting less of what they wanted because they put all of these legislative riders on the bill and had to remove several of them to get democratic votes because they could not get their own caucus to vote for the bill. in this case it seems to be working in their favor because in the senate, ultimately democrats have to negotiate twice, once with republicans in their own chamber and once with republicans and house chamber. host: thank you so much. guest: thank you.

host: let's go to twitter -- let's go to oregon where andy joins us on the democrats' line. and guest: i think the speaker does not have control of his chamber, that seems obvious. i frankly think it is pretty responsible of that chamber at this point of time. it then know that they think they could get more or something better for the country, but i did not think a country needs a congress to be behaving frankly almost childish. it is pretty appalling to see that we basically cannot manage our own country at this point in time when we really need to be managed well. we are in a difficult economic situation. and once it's in, d.c., particular in the republican caucus and the house, it is

discouraging to some one incident on the outside wondering what congress will do to help america. host: what about the speaker's statement yesterday that he would like to see a longer-term deal struck, not just a two- month interim measure? guest: i agree with the idea of a longer-term deal, but i am sure the terms and conditions that but caucus will ask the other side of the aisle, and the american people to absorbent or take a bite out of, i think most of us will look at and say we do not agree. it's so let's hear from mark, and republican from arizona. caller: how are you today? i am really, really upset. the democrats, they take and say everything, but they have a house, they have the senate, they had the presidency, and they did not pass no bill, but not do a darn thing, all the what to do is pass basically their propaganda, health care. i think john boehner, kudos to

him, i think he should stand up. quit kicking the can down the road and get something right. they are getting paid. yes, it is going into the christmas. what they going to do, kicked the can down the road just to celebrate christmas? john boehner is on the right thing, bringing them back in the period that keystone pipeline will bring -- not just let jobs on building but all of the people getting jobs. look at all of the revenue once people get back to work. i'd been john boehner has the right idea and i hope they do not pass this bill -- i think john boehner has the right idea. host: let us listen to speaker boehner in his own words. >> i believe that two months is just kicking the can down the road. the american people are tired of that. frankly, i am tired of it, on the house side. we have seen this kind of action before coming out of the senate. it is time to stop, do our work, resolve differences and extended

for the year and remove the uncertainty. we can find common ground. it is just the usual, let's just punt and come back and do a later. >> you will not accept caking off to february? then i think we should do all right now. host: speaker boehner talking to david gregory. robert joins us on the independent line. caller: ok. look at it this way. the republicans are pushing for the oil pipe line. ok? that oil is under pressure, it is sand and oil mixed. what does that do to anything? and the mixture will deteriorate rock. you have joined in that pipe. it may be rubber. if that pipeline starts leaking, you can't keep -- clean the

tweet. host: the extension was actually included in the bill passed by the senate, something republicans have wanted. it did go through the senate version. as our guest mentioned earlier, some in the senate thought it would help clear its in the house. let us look at "the washington post" headline. bryan, democrat caller from indiana. caller: i would like to add on

with speaker boehner not wanting to -- wanting to end the payroll tax cut. i think that would be across the board, if he is going to be that way, and it ought to end the bush tax cuts as well. they are for it and then they are against it. i don't know, the 99% of the people in the middle-class are out here struggling and i really think that if we are going to do it to one person we do it to all. host: orange county, california. george's on our republicans line. caller: i would like to comment on the pipeline but i think they should add another pipeline right next to it and put fresh water in it from up north and bring it down to the south for when they going to drought. i am running for president. host: what do you think about the news from speaker boehner that the deal looks like it is

falling apart? caller: they will keep running it through until everybody agrees on the best situation and what to do about it. we have other sources but that is the one they want to stabilize and use right now because we are all used to using it. they are just going to keep running it through until everybody agrees on it. putting it through the newspapers and create all the controversy until everybody feels comfortable and then they will pass it. tv -- pay for everything -- the stock market goes up 100 points. i will create a super fund when i am president. host: let us hear from gene sperling, part of the white house team on cnn talking about this news from speaker boehner that he does not want to do this extension. >> as i said, of course, this

president would like a full year. he would like a much more -- much more. he would like to see everyone agrees of a full measure of its american jobs act which, as you know, and included saving hundreds of thousands of teacher, first responder jobs, putting hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work, rebuilding roads, schools, bridges, giving 6 million small businesses tax relief. so, we would all like more. but what we need to do if we care about getting a win for economies and jobs is a fine of bipartisan compromise. again, by supporting the bipartisan compromise at think it is the best way to sound a clear signal to the american public that we are going to put the economy first, jobs first, and politics last for a change. host: that was gene sperling, the president's director of the national economic council. talking about speaker boehner's announcement that the house does not look like it will pass the payroll tax cut deal brokered by the senate and the white house. north carolina. roy is on independent line.

caller: thank you. we need a payroll tax cut. it has been all norris -- onerous, for about 30 years, ever since reagan got a hold of it. working people have been paying the bulk of the taxes. but this tying it to the keystone pipeline, this is cataclysmic. there is an algae bloom, a dead zone, and in houston. somebody in houston, the oil powers, whenever, want this gunk to come to houston and houston is already over-pressed for pollution. this is 3,000 miles away. this gunk 10 probably be refined anywhere along, with an 1,000 miles, several places. they can take butane, propane, methane off it, get the gasoline

and probably the sludge left over it is good for paving roads. why the oil powers are demanding it comes to houston is so fishy. it smells really bad. host: what do you think about the announcement of speaker boehner that he is not interested in passing the payroll tax compromise? >> khan it is -- it is good what he is saying. i do not think it is true -- two months is ridiculous. in that short of a plan. it should be a year. he is right about that. host: a viewer rights on twitter -- -- writes on twitter -- pat, democratic caller from avondale. good morning. caller: i am against the pop -- the pipeline. host: but what do you think about speaker boehner's news? caller: i would not trust

speaker boehner with nothing. if it is left up to him. they need to investigate him on his income because i don't trust him. and he is for the rich. we already lost our homes and stuff. they can hurt us no more. i don't know why this president is so far into helping -- saying that we need a payroll cut, we need this. we need a lot of things. but you know what? we need a little order going up in washington. i prefer that over anything else because i have to live on the hill -- i will do that before i let them pass anything. host: a viewer writes on twitter -- let us look a story about how democrats are responding to the news. this is from "the hill."

mitch mcconnell remained silent on sunday morning about the prospect of senators returning to washington next week. louisville, ky. arthur on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? yes, i would like to say, first of all, what boehner is doing is not bold at all. basically it is more of the same. attacking the president, attacking the president is --

president. it when you say you want to get rid of him, to me it is a problem. you are supposed to cooperate with the president, not going against him on every action. and one more thing, if i could. how about us getting together and supporting the president instead of attacking him at every decision? the two parties, independent, we should be working together. when are we going to start doing that? host: let's hear from reece, independent caller from kansas. caller: yes. i think this extension that they had planned is just another plan for them to get their holiday leave sooner, because they were

not told they were not able to go on holiday until they had a kind of plan. host: albert, north carolina. caller: yes, ok. about a pipeline then i don't know why -- don't they understand the reason why the republican won the pipe line is because president obama had put those construction workers out of work over there in iraq? they want to be making the money that hussein had, trying to ease up the money and that is all they want the pipeline for civic and bring the people back over here to put them to work. i guarantee everyone is -- that construction co. in iraq, they are republican because the republicans on the construction companies. host: coming to us by e-mail, michael in alexandria, virginia, ways in --

randy is in river falls, wisconsin, on the republican line. caller: of the house and boehner, they already passed this bill for a whole year. now it goes to the senate, harry reid says it is dead on arrival, and then they finally, with a two-month deal. the democrats, the party in the note -- the only way to look at it. they want to keep the controversy so it takes the attention off what the real problem is with president obama and his policies and everything has failed. so, there is only one way to look at it. and i hope that the house sticks to it. and do it for a year. just like the keystone pipeline. the democrats did not want to

talk about it now because they want to use it for another political deal. president obama has a jobs bill was to get past so bad? it would to put all of these people to work? good, union jobs, and then the senate and president not want to pass it? take a look at some of the other news stories. this is the big headline in many papers today. "the wall street journal" -- his that opens a new and potentially dangerous period of transition and instability for north korea and northeast asia. in september of 2010 he tapped his youngest son to succeed in, but it is not known whether his son will take control right away. 69 or 70 years old died from

fatigue during a train ride, a weeping television announcer said. this is a story from maine ap -- the ap. our question for you this morning is what do you think of speaker boehner's news that he does not think the payroll tax cut bill can pass his body. we will get back to that and in moments, but first, some other news. this is how the white house

reacted to reports of the death of kim jong-il. "we are closely monitoring reports that congenital is dead -- kendall gill is dead at." we are committed to freedom and security of our allies. joe from new york, new york. independent caller. caller: i think the speaker's move is absolutely correct. we don't need to go through this again in the middle of january, start asking questions. all of those people who seem to think that the speaker is anti- obama, i think that if -- that obama himself had asked for a plan that goes at least through the end of the year. that ought to be taken into consideration. i also think that harry reid is the most divisive person in all

of washington. he has been divisive ever since last year when president obama and the speaker made a deal on tax cuts. and i think that i would like to see our senator schumer become head of the senate. host: let me ask you a question -- what do you think will happen in the next couple of weeks? will the senate come back next week? you think the payroll tax cut will die? caller: i think it will probably go to the last minute, and either as last year, president obama will get to reid, reid will be nasty but bring the people back. i think that is how it worked out and we will come once again to the brink and we will pass it. but as i said, i think that harry reid is the real culprit.

two month extension -- someone mentioned here this will bring christmas shopping to an end. in you think you're only going to get two months of unemployment, are you really going to go out and buy a lot of christmas presents? it does not matter if it is two months or none, the mood will be terribly negative. host: steve, democratic caller from detroit, michigan. speaker boehner mentioned that they pass the bill for a year but he failed to mention that when harry reid tried to bring his bill up to a vote in the senate, mitch mcconnell block that and would not allow it to come up for a vote. if speaker boehner wants to go through for a year, he needs to talk to his senate colleague from its mcconnell and have him allow the bill to come for a vote. but he will not, because he know that bill will not pass the senate. host: let's take a look at some

other news stories. this from the associated press -- you can see some images here, the last to leave, specialist ashley walter hugging a fellow staff sgt after arriving in the last military convoy to depart

iraq. soldiers gleeful in kuwait. this photograph -- they will be home for christmas. president obama stopped short of calling the nine-year u.s. effort in iraq a victory. another story on the same page -- a general says we are not leaving afghanistan. troops will stay past the official deadline. this comes from kabul. u.s. military intends to maintain a troop presence beyond the 2014 deadline for afghan troops to take over. marine general john allen, a top commander for u.s. and divorces, says the taliban and other forces need to know the u.s. military will make sure the afghans can handle the job. here is a story about social media and afghanistan --

ed talks about how twitter is being used to communicate everything from news to plans to trying to network. our question for you this morning is what you think about speaker boehner's announcement that house will likely reject the tax-cut deal that was voted on in the senate. let's go to l.a. where david is on the republican line. caller: how're you doing? host: good. caller: -- host: we lost him. new york state. lee on the republicans line. caller: i am calling from utica. it is so simple. anyway, i want to wish everybody a merry christmas. it is so simple -- to pay for the payroll tax, just take the cap off of it. i don't understand why the republican party -- the only way

to raise revenue is to put the people to work. there is no other way to do it. if anybody can figure this out -- i was an economist for years. no other way to get the money. but the people to work, they will pay the taxes and we will get out of the debt. the way my republican party wants to do it, we will never get out. i say let's kick boehner's and mcdonnell's can down the road. caller: the house controls the purse strings. they have passed all kinds of finance bills, financial bills, and whatever, and send them to the senate. the democratic controlled senate will not even allow those bills to be heard. now they want to come back with a two month extension and want to go through this dance again in two months? that is a bunch of malarkey.

thank you for listening to me. host: let's hear what zack has to say. gladstone, missouri. caller: you know, boehner it seems more -- i agree with the guy from kentucky and new york -- it seems more he wants to extend the vacation time until we get that from the holidays and basically just wants to set it aside. democrats and republicans, you know -- and it is all about -- we just need -- host: lost that. let's read more about how the story is being covered. we talked about some of the articles and the news. all the major papers are looking at what it means for the payroll tax cut -- whether it will happen, whether it will go forward and how the senate will react and how the house will vote this week. let's read more about that from "the washington post."

fran in pine hill, new jersey. caller: how are you this morning? i am a first-time caller. i really appreciate c-span2 and i would like to say i am really unhappy with the games they are playing in washington, d.c. i think they have gone to extremes to make each other look stupid. and they are doing a good job making its other look stupid. -- each other look stupid. they are trying to make us feel helpless. but we are not. we have the power of the vote and i think we should vote them all out. as an independent, i look for the best possible person and i have not seen a lot of them out there. the other thing i would like to say is, they keep calling this a payroll tax cut. we all know what the payroll taxes for. i believe it is for social security.

so, screw the seniors one more time. and also, i heard about a situation where they are tried to pass something with regard to mortgages. where the mortgagee would have to pay some kind of penalty and ordered to pay for the payroll tax. could you look into that and let us know what is going on with that? thank you very much, and have a good day. host: dw writes in from seattle -- plantation, florida, where hunter is a republican caller. caller: good morning. you know, winston churchill once said that the americans arrive at the right decision after they tried everything else.

and we are doing it again. the american public is queasy over all of this wrangling going on in congress. and i think the american people are setting, can't anybody settle this? the truth is, it has been settled. we had a bipartisan commission called simpson-bowles that came out with a decision that neither party liked. american voters should take this as a sign that that is probably what we need to do. given what they see going on in congress. now, there's a group of congressmen who are trying to get simpson-bowles pass. i pray that they are successful, because this is going to go on forever. thank you very much. host: let's look at some of the headlines from around the country, coming to us courtesy of the newseum. "the richmond times-dispatch" --

moving on to "the atlanta journal-constitution," distressed home sales values, looking at property issues. also, the final troops leave iraq, looking at how the last american convoy left the country. and the north korean leader, 69, dies. "the boston globe" leads with the north korean leader 9 and also has a profile of mitt romney, a former governor. and for some international news and flavor, let's say of we can find "the guardian." they profile not block hovel --

vaclav havel, the lead actor in a play that changed history. that is how they profile him. the leader of the velvet revolution died at the age of 75. the question is what you think about speaker boehner's announcement that the house will scuttle a deal struck between leaders and the senate that would extend a payroll tax cut. speaker boehner said it should be a year-long deal, not for seven months. ken, republican from cincinnati. caller: i host a radio show here in cincinnati and one of the things we talked about was the nomenclature. this is also on micheletti payroll tax cut. the prius caller had it correct -- the weakening of that is also security system, a semi- privatization, and i don't know why people are allowing it to go by and not looking into the details of this. the other thing the previous

caller talked about was this mortgage payment penalty that is going to be used for this. $15 a month per $100,000 mortgage if i have my facts correct. that is going to damper the real-estate industry. we just have a lot of people playing a lot of politics and they are not really looking out for the best american interest. i am looking for the middle- class tax cut or for the rich -- but i am going to be looking for someone for the american people. host: a viewer from twitter -- rockford, illinois, joins us where joanne, independent line. caller: i agree with the lady a couple of callerss back. i will not even say what she did and if we could get together with more people and a grade on

what is the one on in our world, and when the american dream of the house and raising a family is gone, i did not know what the world will go. host: do you think the payroll tax cut could be extended? caller: i am so in the dark without taxes. i have been going through a lot of problems with a loved one passing away -- my husband. and i am just in the dark about that. just going through so much right now in the world that i cannot put it together what is going on. host: sorry to hear that. one of our callers talked about prove it -- approval ratings for congress -- i think we lost to win. there were polls out there showing that while public approval rating for congress as a whole is low, many people still support their own member of congress. zack, what do you think about that, in harrisburg, pennsylvania? caller: i think that is the sense i am getting. i think we are just tired of the

two-party nonsense. we need decisions that are made for americans. not democrat, not republican. i am in military debt. this is not what i signed up for. not what i went and gave my time for. i know there are tough decisions that have to be made, but they are not being made with us in mind. they are being made -- thinking about my next election, or thinking about keeping the millions of dollars that i made it through my insider trading. the tax cut for what we are talking about nine, to me, is so my new compared to what we should be talking about. to me, it is a distraction from -- how much will really cost us? one person said about the seniors, and again, putting it on the seniors. when the tax cuts for the rich would go so much fervor if we brought those back into the

coffers. who else out there howls -- has a mortgage? rich people do not have mortgages, only on the second home, so the mortgage they are paying will hurt us in the middle again. host: johnson city, tennessee. independent line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: what i don't understand is, the president has the authority to put congress in session until they get their job done. everybody else, when they are doing their job, they have to stay until they get done. host: what do you think he should do? caller: he should make them stay right there in washington until they get the business taken care of that the country needs done. host: was leaving the business is? extend a payroll tax cut -- what the think of businesses?

extend a payroll tax cut? caller: facing what do the business of the country right now instead of trying to get in front of the camera all the time. host: indiana, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i think the tax cuts should be extended, but i also believe -- i am former law enforcement, and there is a conspiracy thing where you have more people tried to sabotage our economy, that is a federal crime. and it appears, in my opinion, that the republicans, with the intention of removing obama, are intentionally sabotaging america's economy. i think it should be investigated criminally. host: that is all for this segment this morning. coming up later ron, we will hear from the chairwoman of the

national transportation safety board, a recommendation to ban texting while driving. we will also talk to jonathan turley about surveillance and privacy issues. but coming up next, conservative commentator armstrong williams. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i always knew there was a risk in the bohemian -- i decided to take it, because whether it is an illusion or not -- i don't think it is -- it helped my concentration. it stopped me from being bored. stop other people from being

boring, to some extent. it would keep me awake and maybe to go on longer to enhance the moment. if i was asked what i do it again, the answer is, probably, yes. i would have quit earlier, possibly, hoping to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say, of course. not nice for my children to hear. it sounds a responsible saying i would do it again to you. the truth is it would be hypocritical for me to say no, i would never touch the stuff that i had known because i did know, everybody knows. and i decided all of white -- life is a wager and i will wager on this bid. and i cannot make it come out any other way. it is strange -- i almost don't even regrets it. though i should. because it is just in possible for me to picture life without wine and other things fuelling the company.

and keeping me reading and some traveling and energizing me. >> thursday, a journalist, author, critic, and "vanity fair", is an editor christopher hitchins passed away. watches more than 100 c-span appearances at the c-span video library. >> if you ask the consumer, do you want a faster download it? they will say, yes. if he asked them, does that mean you no longer have local news, weather, sports, emergency information on its television, they will say, no, that is not the trade-off i thought was at stake. but is done incorrectly, that is the trade-off. >> national association of broadcasters headboard this man on current legislation to sell broadband spectrum to create a new space for mobile broadband an emergency communications. tonight at 8:00 on "the

communicators" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: armstrong williams is -- is with us, the author of "reawakening virtues" and tv talk show host and columnist. the presidential campaign -- a lot made their rounds yesterday. did anything stick out? guest: it is quite fascinating that ron paul is leading. not surprising, actually, if you really study the candidates and get away from the media lenses and you hear what people are saying on the radio and around the country. ron paul has a very interesting message. he is definitely a fiscal conservative. he wants to return to the days of isolationism. he feels we have no place in

places like israel, iran, and america pause in military is spread too thin and you can use the military right here to create jobs that are desperately needed instead of helping the industrial economy of other nations. he seems to resonate. speaker gingrich -- an all out assault. romney, ron paul, michele bachmann. this is what happens to the front runner. it is a beauty contest. the candidate for bank the contestant who rises to the top is going to get a salted. you thought herman cain was under assault -- he is more under assault for his personal indiscretions and has less to do with his ideas, even though much of his 9-9-9 plans to scrutinize. a lot of people saw a lot of hope that at least be put a plan together. but gingrich -- it is as personal life, his dealings in terms of contracts that have made money for him since leaving the congress, shows him he is not so much of an outsider,

still working inside congress making money. obviously he has an intellectual capital, he has debating skills. bob schieffer did everything he could to lay a glove on him and he was not quite successful. but i tell you, i think the sleeper and all of this is candidate huntsman. he is one of the few candidates in this gop field who has not surged yet. and many people -- i find it shocking when you ask people about the candidate, they all say huntsman. i am telling you, 60% of the time i hear this guy's name, huntsman. what is it about? he is an authority on china, they love is economic diaz, they feel he is reasonable and they feel he will go over well with the moderates. you know, he made some colossal mistakes with his campaign manager, are opting not to participate in iowa. can he recover and can he surge, remains to be seen. i will not counting bridge out.

i don't think ron paul takes the complete package to taken to the gop nomination. certainly, if it does, i don't think -- this and nothing against him -- but i do not think he has the arsenal to defeat president obama. i think the best candidates in the field to defeat president obama is romney, newt gingrich, and consonant. but let me just say this. it is really not about the gop ticket is about president barack obama and his ideas, his economic policies. the fact that they just made out a decision to bail out europe. and whether he can create the jobs, turn the economy around and return americans to a decent way of life. many americans are suffering -- whether it is energy, health care, loss of jobs, the housing crisis -- many people in foreclosure or will soon go to foreclosure. their home -- they have so much put in their home, until they are under water. whether he can turn these things around remains to be seen. it is his to lose.

host: let us listen to mitt romney who appears on fox news yesterday contrast himself. >> his policies have not work. we need regulation in our society. i am somebody who says get rid of all regulations. we just need regulation that is updated and modern and encourages enterprise as opposed to burdening it. his great failing is he does not understand how this economy works and how his policies have made it harder for this economy to what americans back to work. i do know how the economy works. and my policies are designed to get people what they desperately want. not -- they want to stop being poor, have a good job and have a bright future. host: mitt romney speaking on fox news sunday. let me also throw in that "the de maureen register" endorsed him. -- "the des moines register."

guest: romney is pretty solid. you cannot argue with his experience, not only in the political body where he was elected governor, and also as a businessman. he was very successful as an entrepreneur. he is still being paid from bain capital, quite a handsome fund. i want to explain something romney said on fox yesterday -- yesterday. fundamentally, while president barack obama offer a lot of hope and change in his campaign and many people crossed over to support him, he has not even come even close to deliver on his promises. many people feel fundamentally the president does not understand economics 1 01. he does not fundamentally understand how to get the economy moving. if you look at past presidents, and at least 40% or 50% of their cabinet or the people closest to them came from the private sector. that has drastically changed in

as president. i would be shocked if 20% came from a private sector. the majority are from the government and public sector. the other issue is the president is more interested in creating income and expenses and makeshift jobs. leading real assets. like what he talked about -- rebuilding the economy. look at what china was able to do. we went through a great recession, china went through a great recession at the same time and look at how they were able to turn their economy are around. it was not spent to shoulder of state governments or wall street but to create real institutions, real industries that can create assets. you realize that economies in the end must correct themselves. the government cannot create jobs but the government can give incentives and create an environment where you can create the jobs. one of the things that romney said which is true, it is so overregulated that businesses and people great wealth -- people of great wealth of hoarding money but of they do not know the impact of policies

like health care, what will happen with the payroll tax, and it is outrageous to spend it -- extend a payroll tax holiday for two months and not a cure. you know what it is? it is expected that it will continue and congress put these things into law and say a year from now it will no longer be the law, we would system people agree -- but, no, it will go on and on and what does it really do in the end to stimulate job creation? host: our guest mentioned mitt romney and the money he is still receiving from bain capital. let us look at this story briefly from "the new york times" --

let's go to the phones and hear from steve, a republican from florida. good morning. caller: if mr. williams does not have any skeletons in his closet, i would like to see him on the ballot. but what i want to get at is how the media he did herman cain. it was funny to watch when the media, they turned on howard dean, they turned on hillary, and they had picked obama. and now, they got a taste of what every republican gets a taste of continuously, and now they are trying to whittle down and pick the candidate for the republicans. i just hope we wind up with a strong candidate. i like romney. that is what i got to say.

thank you. guest: listen, people are desperate for someone to come and do what is in the best interest of the american people. these members of congress who've been not hold themselves to the same laws that they pass for the people the represent, exempt from insider trading -- and cut these deals and a trade and as long as it is disclosed, it is ok. the american cds double standards. they see congressman come to congress with mediocre income and come out felt the rich and these huge stock portfolios. american people want the people to come to washington and work for them. something is not working in this country. to create jobs, you must give people incentives to create jobs. you must create opportunities in the work pork -- were please. the other thing we did not admit is unlike the great industrial revolution and the agricultural area of our society that produced these great entrepreneurs, we are now in an

information age and it requires much more than it requires 70 or 100 years ago. while many jobs are available and science and technology and mathematics, many young kibbutz and they just cannot have the skills to take these jobs. and in many young people to not have the skills to take these jobs. we just cannot have the human capital we once had. many of these chinese come here to universities and get the best education and then they go back home to empower their government and corporations. at one point, we did a very good job keeping human capital in this country. we need to encourage them to stay here -- whether from china -- and also develop the capital we have here. it's got to go back to the best creators of jobs in this country are business people and we cannot strangle them, feel that we are against them, and we cannot permit class warfare that makes people believe that because they go out and earn a hard living and the judy hsu society, that they should be punished and take from the

haves and give to the have nots. while we believe in compassion and helping those who are unfortunate -- it should not be enforced by the government. we did the best jobs ourselves. host: the democrats' line. caller: my question has to do with time. i am curious why nobody wants to of knowledge of the time. host: what do you mean, susan? caller: pipeline -- i've done those before, two or three months of work and those jobs are over it. it will be for a little bit. these are not long-term jobs. until someone on these parties wants to stand up and go for the american people and say we've got to reform these overseas trade pacts and get these american businesses back in the country, we are just not going to have it. it is just not going to be here. we did that and what were ii.

host: are you saying what a lot of people are proposing are short term? caller: yes, and even this two- week tax break and all of that. globalization of wall street is tied to the overseas trade acts, keeping a big week blowing. guest: thank you, susan. i actually think that she has said something that is very insightful. i mentioned earlier about the president and the decision to bail out europe. but how you go and allow someone who has a 35-hour work week, they can retire and 50's, they can take almost a six-week vacation? socialism has unraveled europe and these entitlement programs have been going on for so long, so it is impossible for the government to sustain it anymore. and the euro is just about dead. one of the smartest thing about

markets -- margaret thatcher, and people revisiting her legacy now, she made sure the u.k. was not a part of the euro. until europe is ready to make the sacrifices -- can you imagining corp. in europe trying to the business? she is right -- many of these corporations should have incentives to come back to the united states, take the money from you almost forced many businesses out of this country to go elsewhere or the territory is friendly. when people ask, why should we be concerned about greece and spain? some of our banks are tied up with many of these loans in their country. what happens in europe drastically affects the united states. when did you ever think international monetary fund, we're accustomed to them billing and third-world countries. did you ever imagine it would bail out europe and the united states would increase its exposure in order to make that happen pressed mark i don't know

people have process that. it is almost insanity. host: let's hear from mike, independent line. caller: first of all, these people, especially that by sitting next to you, have done everything to sabotage you. host: who do mean by these people? caller: the republicans. they turn around and go, ain't it a shame the president's ideas are not workingblah blah blah. if i was the president, i would make sure no votes ever got counted electronically ever again. the only way these people get in office is they still the vote. they wind about voter fraud, what about massive voter fraud with these touch shagreen the emissions that have no record? it seems the republicans do well in these precincts. guest: i respect what the caller

is saying, i do not necessarily agree. the real issue he illuminates is most americans have been so -- in thinking the democrats are better than the republicans and republicans are better than the democrats and the problem lies in one or the other. the issue is, they are both correct. they both have backdoor deals that come back to haunt american and long run. in the last few days, speaker boehner felt mcconnell and senate majority leader harry reid should work out these negotiations on the payroll tax holiday and he was all board. then they balked at the deal and he went right on the press, changing his mind saying, we're going that ask for an up or down vote today. they're all in bed together. the sooner they realize we are suffering as a result of these politicians and hold them accountable, and, look,

president obama is no different if you look at how he created this environment and in power of these companies who never had experience with bil'in dollar contracts, -- million-dollar contracts, they're getting the benefit from the administration. at the end of the day, none of them have the best interest of the country at heart. we need to stop looking at them as republicans or democrats, and just make them do their jobs. it is outrageous we're at the last minute and had a session on saturday for a tax holiday that will be revisited again today, meaning the senate will have to come back and probably work through christmas and new year's. they would get on the phone, negotiate something better because it is all about the president having something to campaign on about the republicans. it is not about the interest of we the people. host: will they come to

resolution on the tax cuts and the last hours? all of the sudden, they find a way. it is theater. we should be offended. they're supposed to be adults. host: joe, republican, georgia. caller: thank you. i love c-span and half for 30 years. i just want to say, armstrong, we're really fired up. we are wanting to be the no. 1 mining town in the country. up aboutt really fired mitt. armstrong, we think he will be elected to me the greatest president in history and be even better than my hero ronald reagan. host: what is it about mitt romney? caller: i met him about five

years ago and his lovely wife. ever since then, i have been energized. i decided when he ran the next time, i wanted to be his number one supporter. i answered the phone, "romney for president." my wife and i both have romney bumper stickers. he knows how to create jobs. he has been successful. we think he will be the greatest president in history. i am so far for up that out -- i am so fired up, i'm having a hard time sleeping. host: one less thing before we let you go, many of the polls show there's not as much enthusiasm and passion for mitt romney. why do you think that is? caller: i think a lot of people do not know mitt. i have known him about five years. if you're with this man, he looks like a president. he is warm, intelligent, has

been highly successful. as you get to know him, you get to love him. host: a story today, romney speaks of love and family. he got two key endorsement over the weekend. it talks about him opening up on fox news sunday and his personal side a little more. armstrong williams, do you hear such passion and romney supporters? guest: yes, and all the candidates. host: but that is not what the polls show. sway for ron paul or newt gingrich and romney has not let that far of enthusiasm we just heard from joe. guest: that is why he has been the steadiest of all the gop candidates. let me caution the caller, with all due respect, this is the same kind of enthusiasm we heard for president barack obama when he was a candidate. the same kind of enthusiasm we had for sarah palin and john

mccain. all i say is, do not put your hopes lock, stock, and beryl and a politician. there are all engaged in the theater. they all are told what they need to do. until someone actually governs and delivers and turns the economy around -- president obama talked about how he would have these jobs, make these changes, reach across the aisle. guess what? none of it has happened. my attitude is, you have to show me. i am not one of the blighted by things i should see but refused to see. just like people thought they knew herman cain. as more and more is revealed about these politicians, especially when they are elected in have to govern, that is where the rubber meets the road. host: "washington post," where evangelical voters will put their backing. is as a buying for the face of evangelical voters, gop presidential kennedy's make

christianity views to garner support -- candidates make christian views to garner support. the after republicans are making to have sessions with the evangelicals, to convince them of their morality and what they can do. the crux of the story is, there is no one candidate standing out. they say even for the evangelical voters, this is not the season of clarity. if the right relationship with jesus christ drums the right portfolio to defeat president obama, and of mormonism is to be recorded with more sufficient in the catholicism that many evangelicals have come to tolerate. it is clear from the i one evangelical gathered here that there remain open to the inspiration. guest: listen. everyone wants someone who shares their faith, who can be a stand-up kind of guy, who can hold firm and represent them on

a front. sort of like we had and former president ronald reagan, even jimmy carter. to an extent. if you look at president obama on the issue of commitment to his family and family values, he has been a sterling example of family values and commitment to family. i think what has happened is that while we want some of that moral fiber and leadership, we dumb that down as we suffer. it is easy to talk about god and jesus when they're doing well, when they think god is blessing them. but when they began to struggle and a lifestyle changes, that moral purpose they talk about does this. that is why newt gingrich was able to rise so quickly. forget about what they said about his three marriages the obvious why they told about him being at his wife's bedside giving her divorce papers -- which never happened. but the more people suffer,

morality will become less of an issue and they will begin to say, what you do in your personal life is your business. what i care about is getting this back to the place where we once were. host: our guest armstrong williams has a blog. the recent piece was on herman cain and you weigh in on his issue and is accused infidelity. you write that marriage should be for life, couples should work through the trail in challenges many marriages are confronted with. you talk about herman cain and his wife and as long marriage. why is this important? guest: it is an important issue. it may be surprised what i'm going to say, i believe for the most part that 70% of men probably cheat. i think their wives probably no and are aware of it, even though they may not want to confront

it. as long as it does not impact your life style -- it is wrong, you can call it a moral, but i think a lot of people do things a marriages -- i mean, when they took at val for better or for worse, until death do us part, say what everyone to say, they have shown a marriage can survive anything. you may call it a business, but i do believe they love each other. so the differences you could have believed candidate cain for the first outlandish allegations, but when this woman came along, she was not tried to harm him. schussing he would never heard her. it became obvious that herman cain did not come clean with the public. and why are you going to take care summit for two and half years if it is harmless and your wife is unaware of it. host: your biggest concern as he

did not repented? guest: no, to be a man, you have to admit wrongdoing. when i went through no child left behind, i said i was wrong. i accept whatever punishment the marketplace asked of me. that is what a man does. people would be more likely to trust you if you said, "yes, this is what happened" and move on. he did not show leadership. host: this was your right to about notre left behind, weighing in on it with sponsorships. guest: it was disclosed on television, but it was not disclosed in my column. but i never tried to make excuses. i accepted responsibility. host: democratic caller, california. caller: i would like is a barack obama was the best president we had since the last 10 years.

he helped me. i feel the republicans are blocking everything he is trying to do for the united states. there is nothing that every bill he passed through, they blocked it. it has no chance, dead on arrival. host: armstrong williams, is that a productive goal? there has been a lot of talk of commons that minority leader mitch mcconnell made about china make barack obama a one-term president. is that a worthwhile goal of the republicans? guest: all parties, that is what they do. that is the political cycle. the goal is to get the president out. i mean, people understand that. but to some republicans tried to block every good goal and policy the president puts in place is whichheer -- i don't know script she's reading from. i think people believe president obama has a socialist agenda and

trying to draw out -- adopt the ways of europe. we just need to look at europe and see how it has collapsed and what america will become if we do not stop the president in his tracks on some of his policies. even he has retracted some of his own health-care laws over the last several months. , there's president' just some fundamental issues that republicans differ with president obama on. it is not personal or because they dislike him, but they feel his economically wrong. host: let's hear from newt gingrich on "face the nation" talking about the issue of subpoenaing judges in the power of the judiciary branch compared to that of the legislature -- legislative and executive. >> it is always to out of three. of the president and congress of the court is wrong, in the end, the court would ruse. but the congress in the course to the president is wrong, the

president would lose. the founding fathers designed the constitution very specifically to have a balance of power, not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches. i'm suggesting congress and the president reviewed every decision. i am suggesting in which they're literally risking putting civil liberty rules and battlefields, and it is utterly irrational for the supreme court to take on its shoulder the defense of the nine stations -- in the states. host: armstrong williams, what is your reaction to what he's talking about the power of judges? guest: i agree, that is why we of the separation of powers. that is why the americans have been so divided on the revolutionary war, civil war.

you cannot have congress running around trying to re-enter the decisions of the supreme court. that is why the supreme court decisions are final. i think a lot of people would balk at the factory of a conservative court. they strictly interpret the constitution. that is why -- understand this, if you look at the polls, every poll, the most respected and the most trusted body between the legislative, executive, and judicial branch is the u.s. supreme court. even after bush, they still were held in high regard because people see them as being fair, balanced, and not having an agenda. also, you do not see the bickering among judges. you see the civility and respect. host: nuking rich is essentially talking about taking away some of judges' power -- newt gingrich is essentially talking about taking away judges' power. guest: i disagree.

sometimes he studies too much. he has thousands of ideas. he needs to pick which 5 are the best because the other 9995 stink. host: tom, independent line. caller: good morning, mr. williams. i am a recovering democrat, recovering republican. i'm a legislative bill reader for a large labor union. there was a lady that called in earlier that was concerned about jobs. one of the things that seems to be overlooked, and i will try to be brief, no. 1 on green jobs and clean energy it represents 2.5% of our energy needs. and to try to force the other 97% and cause problems with the economy is something we should not be doing. no. 2, environmental legislation to increasing more and more every year.

they have become so punitive, they actually force business out of the country. no. 3 would be a congress that would create legislation to solve a problem with a positive and beneficial results. i still have my fantasy of a public official standards and accountability act, but we have not got there yet. i appreciate your alec. some of these folks that call in, it is distressing to me. i want to thank you. if you have any comments on the environmental and impacts, this is a reality. this really affects the country. it affects the people here. it is something that is really not addressed because everybody wants the environment to be clean. we all do. but each year, the standards get higher and higher, more and more expensive. it does nothing but -- thank you

for your time. guest: he is right. we get so worked up over the sierra group, these environmental groups. the president's policy, he has little backbone on the pipeline issue. that is why even in the legislation that passed over the weekend, they put in an up or down vote on the pipeline. the country continues to suffer. these people talk about the earth is warming and we have to do this to stop the emissions. you ask yourself, the earth has always had the capacity to correct itself throughout the history of its creation. yet man is always try to tinker with the environment because he seems to think he wants to the god and his best. host: arthur, republican, new york. caller: bless you, armstrong. i am a true republican.

we continue as people of color to have more of a face in the party. three issues. as long as the campaign finance laws remained as they are, i do not feel on either side or all three sides that you're going to get the best. they come in with their intentions to do the job because there are affected by the fact of those that have supported them, corporations, etc., with the changing of the loss, they will not remain unfocused but be controlled. no. 2, if you would be so kind, first of all, let's it meant this republican slate, except for one, huntsman, it is terrible. i am not happy with many of the democrats, but let's admit that could please, name one or two upcoming republicans that you would keep an eye on or get

behind. i will be speaking to you again -- please, put up where we can contact you. thank you for what you're doing. guest: huntsman, he is a sleeper. people mentioned allen west. i had a chance to sit down with him and he is very impressive, much more impressive than his sound bites on television. his military background, his discipline -- i thought the former governor of south carolina, even of his personal challenges, was a candidate that had much promise. i think people are so afraid to run because they cannot endure the scrutiny. again, i go back, i think huntsman is the sleeper in this campaign and he will emerge. i don't agree that huntsman is the only candidate. i think americans are looking for leadership. gingrich, former speaker of the house, has some ideas that are

pretty brilliant. he is a great debater. i think obama fares enbridge i think it would much rather have romney as a challenge to -- i think the obama campaign fearsome but i think it would much rather have romney as a challenger. host: david gregory asked if she would be a vp pick, which he step down from the governorship to take that? she said, absolutely not. guest: she is a rising star but her feet are not wed. she's still getting adjusted to being governor of south carolina. sometimes we're so desperate for running mates, for leadership, we take the early pickings of people just starting their positions as u.s. senators and congressmen and governors and say, "this is the one." they need to go through the trial and error of the training ground in that position before they're considered. host: what about michelle bachmann? guest: i'm surprised she is

still on the race. host: why? guest: she's had her moment. she has said some pretty a religious things. i don't want to get into it. even her issue on immigration. to send all the children back? you have to least show some sensitivity and compassion. i think she has potential, a machinist to develop and a more sophisticate a politician. maybe five years ago shoot -- i think she is potential, but she needs to develop a more sophisticated politician writ maybe five years from now. host: taxes. guest: you do the two things that keep journalists mouthpiece on the air. you jump on the reagan corporate expansionist bandwagon. we need tariffs. demonize our elected

officials and demoralize the american workforce. we need regulations on our corporations, before they cut down every dam tree in the world, and of course we need regulations on our politicians. you just get on there and said everything everybody wants to hear except for that corporate expansionism the reagan started. we need small business -- he was out to get those corporations expanded into lower our wages here so they could compete on world thing. so don't talk about virtue and get on there and just keep your job staying with the corporation's 12 to say and demonizing our government so they can whittle down our rights by electing our officials. if you want to demonize redistricting, fine, but i haven't heard you do that. guest: thank you. i do not have to demoralize

current leadership. they do a good job of that themselves by the choices they make. the other things i'm not going to respond to. host: let's pull one thread. we do not want personal attacks. let's talk about redistricting and things that will be happening. do have a concern about that? you like what you see? guest: the party in power controls the senate, redistricting. the republicans are controlling the congress, they will redistrict. different than what the democrats to win the had power when they had and that is not wanted change, ok? whether you like it or not, it has nothing to do it principle. it is based on politics and expands the power -- power party in power. host: our guest is armstrong williams, author of "reawakening virtues." he writes a weekly column.

this one is called "seniors versus the number generation." -- "seniors versus the younger generation." guest: this is new for me. and never thought about this before. senior citizens are far more wealthy than young people. senior citizens, people over 55, owns 60% of the wealth in this country. yet young people who are just beginning to get on their feet have no stability or series income in their lives, expect to subsidize them through social security and medicare and other entitlement programs. while there are seniors who need that assistance, i mean, as some point you have to draw the line to say there's something clearly unfair worry have a bunch of -- i'm not saying rich seniors, being subsidized, but something

as a nation we need to revisit as we revisit many things to correct many of the issues we have in this country that are causing many of the problems we have. look, i think more than any other group in this country, young people are more affected by the downturn in the economy. they have not had time to create a real career or save anything, yet the burden of what we're doing now is being passed to them. i think the seniors can afford to pay for their social security and medicare. honestly speaking, they put their money in and to get it back. guess what? they get far more money back and what people are talking about than they put in. and the first years, they get that money back. someone makes -- needs to make the argument, what about the young people? host: omaha, nebraska, independent line. caller: i wanted to comment on the relationship between the

obama administration and republicans. i think leading up to the election before obama was elected when he was running against mccain and sarah palin, he was painted as a muslim extremist. once in office, now is a bleeding heart socialist. are urging making comments about europe. and their failings -- i heard you making comments about europe and their feelings and ideas they're trying to implement. at the same time in our country, we do not have a perfect system, either. i think we need a little balance, would you say, between capitalism and socialism? how do you feel about that? guest: i think your point has merit. we try communism and we tried socialism and we have tried capitalism. capitalism is the only system that creates a real middle- class. it is why the united states has been the most productive economic power the world has ever known.

it is capitalism that allows you to make as much as you want to in a free market society. we tried the feudal system and the monarchy system in europe where they took with the considered to be the peasants and took care of them. it did not work it the best system that work is where people understanding must duke and create for themselves. the government plays a role, but it should be a limited one. the government should not choose winners and losers in the economy. capitalism, yes it brings about greed and need to treat it, but we should never treat it in favor of more socialism. look at europe. you can never deny europe is collapsing. i don't know if europe will recover in the next 100 years. people are talking about 10 years. i do not see it happening in the next 50 years. learn from history. if we don't, we're doomed to

repeat it. host: 1 last caller. caller: i think what people do not realize is the democrats for two years controlled both the senate and the house, and i still not able to balance the budget then. the republicans were able to take control and the 2010 elections because of that. so i think the obama and ministration needs to have more accountability, and not just write off everything to the republicans. guest: absolutely. president obama spent too much of his initial capital at the beginning on health care. to me, just ridiculous. he should have spent that time focusing on the economy, focusing on creating jobs, even members of the senate the support him will tell you privately that he waste too much capital. they will tell you that the president should have caved in on the pipeline in the beginning. it is because he would not that he was catering and pandering to

the special environmentalist group so we ended up in the mess we're in right now. even though they will not said publicly, they think the president has become so arrogant -- and i know people hate that word -- and his position that he finds it difficult to listen. he engages in colleagues that have the know-how of estimate for this economy. it always comes back to bite him read they find themselves cleaning up his mass host: -- cleaning up this mess. host: armstrong williams, to you for being here. -- thank you for being here. guest: thank you. host: coming up, jonathan turley, law professor, on privacy versus surveillance. >> with tunics to go before the iowa caucuses, the state

republican party is taking the cyber threat seriously. a video claiming to be from a collective of computer hackers says they will correct the data base of vote totals and crash the website used to inform the public about the results. aware the video may be a hoax, members of these republican party's central committee said have authorized additional security measures to ensure hackers are unable to delay the release of the vote results on capitol hill, congressional investigators say four house members received vip discounted loans from the former countrywide financial corp., and under whose subprime mortgages split apart nations for closure crisis. carol fisa, the chairman of house oversight and government reform committee did not name the four but did write to the house ethics committee they should investigate the lawmakers. the world economy, conference call on europe's finance by europe's finance ministers set for later today.

the talk about the region's debt crisis. they will also try for an additional $260 billion of aid through the international monetary fund. and also try to put together the new budget rules discussed at a previous meeting. wall street is optimistic about the eu meeting ahead of the opening bell, dow futures are up about 50 points. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> there's a risk and it brought him national and i decided to take it because with it is an illusion or not, i don't think it is, it helped my concentration. it's stopped me from being bored, stopped other people being boring, to some extent. it would keep me awake. it would make me go on a long conversation to enhance the moment. if i was asked, what i'd do it again? the answer is probably, yes.

easy for me to say, sounds irresponsible if i say, yes, i would do that all into, saying to my children. it would be hypocritical for me to say i would not touch the stuff if i had known. i did know. everyone does. i decided all of life is a wager and i'm going to wager on this bit. i cannot make it come out any other way. it is strange. i almost don't even regret it, though i should. it is just impossible for me the picture live without its. --without it. keeping me reading and some traveling and energizing me. >> there's a, a journalist, author, critic and vanity fair columnist and editor christopher hitchens passed away the age of 62 from complications of cancer.

what is nearly 100 c-span appearances archived and available at the c-span video library. ""washington journal" continues. host: jonathan turley, thank you for being here. he has a legal blog the cause of a lot of issues in the public eye. yet 80s recently called, "are you being watched? it's your fault." what does that mean? guest: in the overall debate in the country, we have something of a crisis with regard to privacy. this country used to be defined by privacy. we have an innate sense of privacy that you have not been expressed in other countries, even close allies like england really do not have the historic

commitment to the privacy the united states has had. what does happen in a short time as the erosion of privacy in this country to the point of a crisis. we're fast becoming official society. when you came here this morning, when you left your home, you're not found on the road striving to the highway, and how itself but -- you were found on the highway. if you stop for coffee, were found in the 711. then when you got in your car your surveiled. when you got to work, your surveiled. most businesses have video cameras that run continuously. you work in that environment and a turnaround and compete -- complete that trip we had americans are used to being under surveillance. i teach privacy at george washington law school is a big sign on the class is this says, "your under surveillance." i teach privacy. that sign is right above my

head. the question is, what is happening to our society? what type of citizens are we producing when they grow up learning to expect, even be comforted by, continuous surveillance? host: i want to read the last paragraph could the problem is not the government but with us, we're evolving into the perfect citizens for new transparent society. of crown accustomed to living under observation, even reassured by it, so much so you're likely to notice, let alone more privacy passing. guest: my students have an understanding of the privacy cretaceous -- i understand. their children are likely to have less but we're not discussing what happens to society of cellophane citizens, a society where we expect, even want to be under surveillance. that is completely different paradigm from what the framers believed was essential.

what people often is, the constitution protect privacy to a small extent, but not much. the inability of the government to actually engage in surveillance for a lot of times. technological limitations did those limitations are gone but the government can engage in surveillance the framers never would have imagined. it is coming at a time when people are no longer focusing on the loss of privacy because they are not used having much privacy in this society. host: you dig into the case jones vs. the nine states that involves a gps tracking of putting a gps trucker in the vehicle of a suspect. take us to your concerns about this case. guest: perfectly or million. that is what kennedy said. let me get this straight, and this is the obama administration, saying we should be applied gps devices on in

citizens without a warrant so we can follow them 100% of the time, know exactly where they're going. justice kennedy said, isn't that are willing in the you can do that? the obama says, basically, citizens have no expectation saying in terms of traveling with public, even with a device that shows every turn every second day in may. that is the reality. it is strange, but we have like a 40-year cycle where privacy doctrines' breakdown. the best example was in 1928 and a case called olmstead, the supreme court created the trespass document. it says the government only needed a warrant if they physically trespassed on your property. that of course is bloody ridiculous. the case for the supreme court actually forced technological changes. so the market of surveillance that really went to non

trespass 3 surveillance. the supreme court pushed the industry into developing ways to engage in surveillance that did not involve trespass like laser window pickups and parabolic mics. it was a huge failure. the government and out -- in 1967, the supreme court handed down a very elegant decision. it is the decision that said famously, before commitment protect people, not places. that is great. barely captures the moment. host: why is an important? guest: the trust has document treated the physical outline of your home as being protective what is really being protected is what is in the home, privacy. the court handed down a test that was really a major step forward for privacy. it had within it its seeds of

own destruction. it's that the government would require a warrant to engage in surveillance whenever you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. here is the problem -- that means to ensure reasonable expectation of privacy falls, the government's surveillance increases. you have this downward spiral which we're in today. most of my students have very little expectation of privacy outside their immediate home or apartment. that means the government has much more ability. host: to think the case now before the supreme court to be significant as the earlier law was? guest: it could. we're on the 40-year mark again. the court could correct its past problem real the problem we have is it is not the courts doing. it is a conservative court. there is not a lot of privacy

advocates on the supreme court. it is a problem many libertarians have with the movement. many of the justices are conservative and libertarian and that they tend to vote for government on police and government surveillance programs. host: jonathan turley, law professor at george washington university law school. here's how you can join the conversation -- those go to new hampshire. good morning. caller: ken morning. i have sort of day, and greet the recently heard news, no longer fighting a war now, the drones, which were used in the war will be used to left doubt that we're no longer in the work, the drone's return used in

the war will be this is totally scary because this is an additional layer of erosion. i would like your comments on that. guest: it is a good question. i am afraid you are correct. we're running out of wars abroad and they're bringing that act at a war in the country and that will be on privacy. congress is not very protective, as usual. they more often are the threat to privacy than the champion. you are seen drones being used. we saw one used in a case in texas, where it was used involving what would have been a low felony. they used a drone over the skies ranch. you'll see a lot more of that. i'm critical of both sides. i wrote a column in the "l.a. times" not long ago talking about how barack obama may have killed the civil liberties

union and united states because he divided the movement. something just not break from obama. civil libertarians to be angry with him. the question you raised goes to that issue. is not just the drone. for example, the president will be signing this new law that allows for citizens to be held indefinitely without trial and access to courts. civil libertarians oppose that. the president said he would veto it and broke that promise. .ut we're seeing this shift listen, we just do this to other people. many thought it was comforting. but now they're bringing it home. they're bringing the technology and practices back to the u.s. it is a little bit late to get the cat to walk backwards. host: here's the op-ed piece.

you're right, perhaps the biggest issue is obama himself. it is needed to a whisper. indeed only a few days after he took office, the nobel committee awarded him the nobel peace prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. many democrats were and are in rapture. do think there is a feeling among liberals of privacy advocates and others that as you mentioned, the pendulum has swung from president george w. bush and so this is the best that can be done in this moment? guest: that is a big debate that we have on our blog list every day. many people said, i cannot support president obama and. many civil libertarians said when obama went to the cia and said, i will not allow you to the investigator prosecutor for

torture, which violated a treaty obligations we had, and so civil libertarians, many of them simply cannot vote for obama. in fact, the irony is the only guy talking about civil liberties today is ron paul. it is bizarre. obama has taken most of the bush policies and actually expanded them but not just maintain them. the result is, the of this division in the civil liberties community. some say, i cannot ethically support obama after what he has done. i have to say others are caught up in this cult of personality. the democrats are plan the same argument, "he is bad, but those guys are worse." that is the type of argument guarantees you're going to get someone bad. many people saying, i don't want to do it anymore. with the democrats, have this

stockholm syndrome, a bracing obama even though he pretty much has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the united states. host: a common on twitter -- guest: that is exactly right. that is the problem with the case. when you say you're desensitized, that means you do not have as much of a reasonable expectation of privacy. that becomes a self fulfilling fact. the amazing thing is, i remember many years i was called at the head of a school district of one of the largest in the country. he said, i want to ask your opinion about as putting video cameras on school buses. i said, really? that means you have thousands of tapes. this was before digital. he said, no, no, we will only put one, with tapes of the kids

will not know which one. i sort of fell back in my chair. that is the chilling affect predict what the constitution is trying to prevent is not so much the surveillance of you directly, but the chilling affect if you fear you may be under surveillance. it is that affect the changes to we are. every year i asked my students to do an exercise around this time when they go home for the holidays. i tell them to put a tape recorder on the table when having breakfast with the relatives or a with a friend. they say, this is an assignment from my professor. no one will listen but me, and i put this on? just pretend to put it on. watch what happens. suddenly, your friends will start talking in complete sentences. they will be incredibly. night. they will not talk about who is sleeping with hugh -- who. host: is that so wrong?

guest: it is. even though only one person will listen to it, it changes the way we relate. that is the chilling affect. we're becoming inhibited people because we are cellophane citizens. host: democratic caller, south carolina. caller: mr. turley, chilling effect. i would tell you the new generation, even some in mind -- i'm a 55-year-old guide -- is kind of going away. people display their lives on networks like it is nothing. they show all of their dirty laundry. i am amazed at the things they post on facebook. it seems the only way to deal with the privacy is to specifically state would expectation of privacy means. otherwise, the technology and

the attitude, especially of like my kids and everything, it is doing away with -- like he said, the goal posts kids shortening. one question about the president's expanded policy. -- i cannot believe the president's can come, call me at my house in the dark of the night, and whisked me away and i have no actions i can take. i mean, what is that? why isn't the supreme court weighing in on this? i am a strong democrat who backed obama, but i am thinking about not backing him because of this. i would like to hear your opinion. i have enjoyed to over the many years i have seen you on tv. thank you. guest: thank you. first of all, your second point, it is worse when they're coming

into your house. president obama just stated he is quick to maintain a policy that he can have any american citizen killed without any charge, without any review except his own. if he is satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says he can to you anywhere in the world. two of his aides were at a panel the other day and they reaffirmed that they believe american citizens can be killed on the order of the president anywhere including the united states. that has left civil libertarians heads to explode. what is amazing, you have a president who says he can kill you on his own discretion. he can deal you on your own -- jail you on his own discretion. i do not think the framers would have ever anticipated that. they believed the citizens would hold a liver is close and would not relax those fingers, but

they are. the point you had made about the question about privacy and the new generation. we're not going to get any help from congress. congress never had a good record on constitutional issues with privacy. the only positive thing, i want to give something positive as you had to work, we have had three polls in the last year and the all share the same thing. the american people say they're more afraid of the government than they are outside forces like terrorists. so there is this disconnect. the majority of americans are very concerned about the loss of rights, but congress, both democrats and republicans, cannot move harder against privacy. and this is part of the cynical calculation. i think president obama made this calculation early on and decided no one would be to the right of him on terrorism and

national-security, and he has taken the democratic party with him on that. so you had this remarkable disconnect with the majority the citizens are going, "we are really concerned about this, we're fearful of their own government." yet, it is not translating on the hill. host: "are you being watched? it is your fault." you write congress has been in different if not hostile to individual rights. few members are willing to pass laws to protect security. you talked earlier about how privacy is under assault from private companies. guest: that is something people often do not think about the fourth amendment protection against the government that creates a huge gap. surveillance industry today is a multibillion-dollar a year industry. most of that is going to private companies. they have become exponential in terms of their growth, in terms of the surveillance over

employees, with the support of congress. so most some townspeople are under is not by the united states government. -- most of the surveillance is not by the hon states government. the standard is nonexistent. where the government needs a warrant, the private companies do not in terms of much of the surveillance they do. england has become a true fishbowl society. that tens of thousands of cctv cameras. most are private. the government takes from them. chicago, my home town, has about 10,000 cameras giving a road another column recently about citizens listen for -- film and police officers. the chicago district attorney or state's attorney has gone to court to fight the right of citizens to film officers in

public while the city itself had 10,000 cameras filming citizens every minute they are on the street beaming the government loves to do surveillance, they really do not like citizens filming them. host: republican line, good morning. caller: i went to focus the attack away from the president and congress for a second and just talk about the supreme court itself has made some rulings on what i call topically flawed ones where for instance, a warrant that is misaddressed, the entry is made and contraband is found. that being a mistake, it came under certain -- otherwise, if the police take a probable cause to gain entry and establishment and it is determined it is

illegal, that is found to be not good. jimmy, contradictory here, -- to me, contradictory here, the good work done by mistake is allowed to get a good warned, that is only statistically effective or the illegal warrant made by police are not quintic enter establishment -- are not going to enter an establishment because they do not have not probable cause. those entries will be successful if they get away with it. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: you are right, the fourth amendment area is a mess. i feel like i have to apologize to my students when i teach it. when they say, how are these consistent? he have to say, they're not. the supreme court has done some pretty lousy work when it comes to the fourth amendment. even some of the justices have admitted this field is

inherently in conflict read the fourth amendment is a beautifully written thing. it is very clear, to protect your person, or things, your home. what the supreme court did years ago is they decoupled two clauses. there is a reference to warrant and then there is reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. the couple did and say, that means you can do reasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. they started to create the exception for the warrant. and those have swallowed the rule. vastly more surveillance of his conduct without a warrant than with one. most surveillance by the government is down without anybody looking at it. with probable cause, the standard is incredibly low. the vast majority of warrants are granted. when it is not, i got to tell you, there's a serious problem.

probable cause does not require a lot to get a warrant. most surveillance in this country is down without a warrant because of the slew of exceptions the supreme court has created. host: independent line, connecticut. caller: good morning. tickets for the discussion. i want to make a couple of points. the president, global law lecturer at university of chicago, so -- low-level law lecturer at the university of chicago. i'm not sure he is qualified on legal issues. a second issue, there have been a lot of coin dealers robbed this year. surveillance was substandard. the place has nothing to go on. i think the police do need the tools to do their job. there's a lot of tax evasion where the irs needs better tools to do their job. how would you respond to those

concerns? guest: their legitimate concerns, but i have to tell you the police have a lot of tools today. i stopped teaching constitutional criminal law because it went down more like a teacher from a pamphlet. every right seem to have an exception or be reduced. with fraction of protections in terms of citizens we have just a couple of decades ago. they have a lot of these types of protections. the problem privacy advocates have is that we're trying to sell an abstraction. when people hear the word privacy, they like it, but it is still an extraction -- obstruction breed of politician will say, do you want to know the guy that still your coins? do you want to stop someone from a terrorist attack? people can think of themselves and that's circumstance. privacy always loses in the tradeoff. that is why we see this radical diminishment that is changing

who we are. can we really get that back? what i'm trying to say is that it is very easy to lose privacy. it is much, much harder to get it back. it is one of those things in your lives that once it is gone, you have a hard time finding where you left it, and an even harder time to find someone to give it back to you. host:host: jodi writes in on twr -- when you havelly, lost it to such a degree that you're left wondering "who am i? who are we as citizens," there is this passivity. privacy is one of the most

important rights to you. it is what we enjoy the most, but you do not associate those things with privacy. once it is gone and you find yourself living in a fishbowl society, as we increasingly do, then you realize a bit too late that it is gone. that requires us to educate people and to really prevail upon congress. people in congress will do anything to keep their jobs. that, i think we all agree on. if the public makes clear that they can mess around with a lot of things, they can ruin the economy, but they have to fix privacy, they will -- host: what is the difference between privacy and anonymity? as a young person, i can --

guest: first of all, it's incredibly insightful. i have written on this, the difference between privacy and anonymity. i take a rather dim view of this distinction. first of all, it is actually correct that people now more often talk about anonymity rather than privacy. the reason is really sad. privacy has diminished in our society. people are grabbing on to anonymity as the only way of retaining a small aspect of privacy. that is why i take a dim view of it. this is another faustian bargain.

in a society that is official, the only way to retain any privacy is to pretend you are a different fish, so that is what people are doing. on my blog, have a complete anonymity rule. my guest editors have questioned whether we should have that because people abuse it. people become vicious one-day are allowed anonymity. but anonymity has become the last recourse. people have no privacy. it is really sad. it is basically saying, when i go outside, i am going to wear a disguise, because, otherwise, everyone will know what i am doing, what i am saying, who i am. think about how that changes you. think about the children's schools with metal detectors and cameras that film them all the time. what type of citizens are we creating?

they do not even have an inkling of what was like to feel like you could walk on the street or say something and not have it recorded. host: jonathan turley is a law professor at george washington university. his legal blog is jonathanturley.org. you can find discussions there. newt gingrich has come out in the past couple of days talking a lot about the role of the judiciary. this is a story from "national review." he said, "congress has the power to dispatch the capitol police or u.s. marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly opposed." this came up yesterday, when michele bachmann was doing the sunday talk show circuit. let's hear how she weighed in on

federal judges. >> the constitution is set up the way that it should be. problem is that the supreme court or other members of the courts have past decisions that are in conformity with our constitution -- have passed decisions that are not in conformity with our constitution. what is wrong is where judges make a loss in conformity with their own opinion. they cannot make laws -- host: michele bachmann on " meet the press -- on "meet the press." what you think of this discussion? guest: it is the perfect storm. we have talked about the president's decision to allow citizens to be killed without trial. they seem to be running against the constitution. i am a scholar of james

madison, and i will admit that james madison is like elvis to me. none of these people are james madison. he is one of the most brilliant scholars this country has produced. what i would encourage people to think about is where we would be if we did not have an independent judiciary. everyone disagrees. i have had courts will against me that i thought were in same. as citizens, we share a certain covenant of space. that is what the macedonian -- madisonian system is. we might disagree with each other. we might even hate each other, but it is a leap of faith. you have to trust the system. what gingrich and bachmann are talking about is the height of demagoguery. i do not want to challenge them personally, but they need to

look at what the tories are saying about this country and what we will be left with -- what they are sang about this country and what we will be left if the independent judiciary is -- caller: he is on the right track, but i wish he would put the blame for all of this where it belongs. that is with the conservatives on the supreme court. they are the activist judges. for 30 years, they have eroded rights and given them to the government and to private business. i just went through this stupid drug testing stuff. i cannot believe that private companies are allowed to get into my private business and what i do off hours. the supreme court -- the republicans on the supreme court have eroded the rights. republicans in congress have eroded the rights. just because they call it something else to force the president to sign it, now he put

all the blame on the president. what scares me, the conservatives, if one gets in there, will actually use this power. guest: i certainly agree with the supreme court -- if people are going to deal with the crisis we are in, we have to be even-handed. we cannot make excuses. there is no excuse for president obama. if he signs a law that says he can indefinitely imprisoned citizens, then he has made an incredibly bad decision. it does not matter what it is attached to. his decision to tell cia employees that they would never be investigated or prosecuted for torture -- that is an incredibly bad decision violating treaties. can make excuses. democrats are equally at fault -- we cannot make excuses. democrats are equally at fault. we found out that democratic leaders knew about the torture program, the unlawful surveillance program.

the leadership knew about it. there is no red or blue issue. that is something of which i'm mara -- of what genera -- of a chimera. when elections come around, we put on our blue or are red scarves, and we go running -- or our red scarves, and we go running off to support them. the system that madison created? this is what benjamin franklin said one woman came up to him and said, what have you created in philadelphia? madam,, " a republic, i fyou can kee -- if you can keep it." if you are a nation of chumps, you lose the republic that wa

s created. caller: i want to thank you for believing in individual rights and freedom. one of the things that is really disturbing to me -- in the national defense authorization act, it allows for the detention of u.s. oil -- u.s. citizens on u.s. soil without due process. i called my representatives and congratulated them for voting against it. this thing about the president being able to decide who gets eliminated and who does not at his own personal discretion, this coming from a guy who would probably fight against the death people -- the death penalty in cases the people who the been tried and found guilty of heinous crimes -- to have been tried and found guilty of

heinous crimes. i think the problem is that the american people are never, ever told the truth. mainstream media is so biased towards one side that they are truth.lling the remember the movie with jim carrey, "liar liar," where he could not lie. if that were the case for our politicians, you would see a dramatic shift in this country like nothing ever before. people, if they are told the truth, our founding fathers knew this -- they could rely on the people if they have the truth, but they're not getting the truth. thank you, mr. turley. guest: if that were to happen, the silence would be deafening on the hill.

i would love to see that. one of the interesting things i found, in speaking with herbs from you talk to massachusetts, is there is a shared -- in speaking with groups from utah to massachusetts, is there is a shared view about their fear of the government, their resistance to the powers that have been accumulated by the government. you have a disconnect where the two parties are advancing and interest that is starkly opposed to them -- an interest that is starkly opposed to them. it comes from a sense of detachment and helplessness, that people feel like they did not count any more, that they do not have an influence. we have this blue-state/red- state thing. the majority of citizens look at that and say, i did not matter

any more. that is the scariest thing of all. the framers did believe that citizens matter and could change the outcome in a representative democracy. host: tying in to that, on twitter -- guest: it is going to take a lot. it will take a third party, quite frankly. we have a political system that is brain dead. the cagey -- the ekg is flat. everyone seems to agree. congress is now as popular as ebola. yet most of those people will be returned and they know it. it does not really bother them that everyone thinks there are clowns as long -- they are clowns as long as they get back. i wrote an article about how we

could change the system. part of it is to break the control of the monopoly. i will give you an example. many areas, let's say utah, are not likely to elect a democrat, but they would pick someone other than their income and. with the state runs primaries is that this -- their incumbent. way the state runs primaries is that -- two republicans could break the hold of incumbents. what we have to do is read the american people to say, this is not what it is supposed to be -- what we have to do is rally the american people to say, this is not what it is supposed to be in a representative democracy. they have to get mad enough demand serious reform -- to

demand serious reform. host: one last call from valencia, california,. -- california. gary, can you keep -- can you keep it brief? caller: well, i had a lot. host: sorry. caller: they capped the house at 435. when sppeople speak out about this, they get punished. the woman who runs the center for judicial accountability, she tried to hold them accountable. an independent judiciary is an account book judiciary. -- an accountable judiciary. we do not have one. no one gets impeached. there is the doctrine of

absolute judicial immunity. guest: i do think that -- i have written, as was noted, that judges can be imperialed. there should be more review of their conduct. i have been very disturbed by judges who have held people in contempt for statements made about them. that is a worrisome trend. i think we can agree that there is something fundamentally wrong in our system now. if you really believe in a patriotic purpose as a citizen, you have to stop listening to these people, these politicians, and organized as a citizenry to save the country -- and organize as a citizenry to save the country. cruses we're in is a crisis of faith. people have lost faith.

when you lose faith, it is an invitation for strongmen, for authoritarian power. as citizens pullback, power is filling the void. it is very dangerous. host: jonathan turley is a professor at george washington university. he also has a legal blog, jonathanturley.org. coming up, we will talk about your money and transportation with the head of the national transportation safety board with deborah person. sman., -- deborah herd >> the obama administration may try to start talks with north korea following the death of kim jong-il. his death was announced two days later. kim jong-un, the 20-something-

year-old son of kim jong-il, was placed in some high roles. in washington, the house meets today to consider the payroll tax extension. house republicans do not approve of the two-month extension approved by the senate last week. house leaders say will make changes to it or put together their own bill, according to politico. you can watch the house like that 10:00 a.m. on c-span television, or listen to the debate here on -- house live at 10:00 a.m. on c-span television, or listen to the debate here on c-span radio. >> if you ask the consumer, d want a faster download of an -- do you want a faster download of an app, they will say yes.

if done incorrectly, there is a tradeoff. >> the national association of broadcasters head, gordon smith, on creating more spectrum. tonight at 8:00 on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: every monday at this time, we focus on how your tax dollars are being spent. this week, we look at the national transportation safety board. they have recommended that all states to ban testing while driving -- states ban texting while driving. why? guest: it is the culmination of 10 years of investigations. we have investigated accidents where destruction has been present.

when it comes to highway accidents, we have made recommendations about novice drivers, young drivers, learner's permits, to restrict electronic devices. we have made recommendations banning bus drivers from a school bus drivers from a motor coach drivers. we have made recommendations for commercial driver's -- we have made recommendations banning bus drivers, school bus drivers, motor coach drivers. we have made recommendations for commercial drivers. host: when there is a crash from ntsb goes on the scene and looks at what has happened -- when there is a crash, ntsb goes on the scene and looks at what has happened. guest: we are an independent investigatory body -- an independent, investigatory body. it is not up to us to implement recommendations. that is up to others. we make recommendations to people who we think can change

what is happening, to prevent accidents, to save lives. host: let's look at some statistics related to distracted driving. this comes to us from the ntsb in "new england journal of medicine." tell us about how you came up with these numbers. what are you evaluating? guest: those statistics and data are other researchers' information. according to nhtsa, there were 3000 fatalities due to distractions last year, all types of distractions. the ntsb, our charge is to investigate accidents. we look at a handful of accidents each year. what i can tell you is we are seeing destruction being a more prevalent cause or contribute factor in accidents across the specter. we did not go into these

accident investigation looking for cell phone use or text thing =-- texting. it is just that we are finding it more and more as part of our investigation. host: you do not go in with an investigation -- with an agenda. you are trying to read on what what went wrong. give us an example of one of these distracted -- were trying to evaluate what went wrong. give us an example of one of these destructive-driving cases. guest: we should recommendations in 2003. the driver was on the cell phone, a new driver, not familiar with the car or the roadway, talking on the phone. she lost control the vehicle, went across the median, flip over on another vehicle, and killed -- flipped over on another vehicle, and killed by the. that is when we made our recommendation involving novice drivers. we have seen some spectacular crashes. one in which a motor coach

driver was on handsfree cell phone and was talking handsfree. he was driving down the gw parkway, coming from baltimore- washington international airport, going to george washington's home in mount vernon, ticking out of bus full of school kids -- taking a bus full school kids. he had driven the route before. he did not heed the signs. when our investigators interviewed him, after the accident, he did not see the signs. he did not recognize the first boss had moved over to the left lane. he told investigators he did not see the bridge before he hit it. he crushed the top of the boss. he was very fortunate there were no fatalities -- of the bus. he was very fortunate there were no fatalities. in one of the worst accidents that can that he had seen, a

number of people were killed, 11 fatalities -- in one of the worst accidents that kentucky had seen, a number of people were killed, 11 fatalities. host: let's go to the phones and hear from john on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to call in and commend the ntsb for their activities as far as the limits on textile and cell phone used -- texting and cell-phone use in all vehicles. i have long been a proponent of handsfree devices. i am currently a truck-driver trainer. i have been in the business for 20 years, been training for the last year. technology has been outstanding for bluetooth technology. yet every day, i see drivers

using normal, handheld devices up to their ear. myself, i would not consider that. host: are you in a vehicle right now, on a bluetooth device? caller: yes, i am. both hands on the wheel. guest: be careful. studies have shown that handsfree is not safe for -- safer than handheld in many situations. a lot of it depends on the conversation. it is about the auditory distraction, your cognitive distraction, your brain being focused on multiple tasks. carnegie-mellon has done brain

scans looking at people talking on the phone. 37% of your brain, when you're having a conversation with someone on the phone, is actually pulled away from the driving task. we know there is a distraction. we know there are a lot of distractions when you are driving. this is one that actually increases your cross -- crash risk and the likelihood that he would be in an injury or fatal accident. statistics have been done of commercial drivers, too. host: a recent story in "the new york times" looks at this -- this is an attempt to put in place a complete ban, rather than a partial ban. do you take into consideration whether or not a complete ban

would be possible or costly? guest: are charges to not worry about what is popular. we cannot -- our charge is to not worry about what is popular. we're asking people to change behavior. we are asking people to do things that might be hard, but we're not here to win a popularity contest. we're here to determine what happened and prevent other accidents from happening again. while it may not be a popular recommendation, it is the safe recommendation. seatbelt use with drunk driving, putting children in a profit restraints, other popular -- and popular recommendations, like helmet use -- other unpopular recommendations, like helmet use, will save lives. it is up to people whether to implement them.

caller: my question is, is this recommendation for legislation encompassing mobile devices like -- sprint now has a mobile to mobile, also cb radio. guest: our recommendation goes to portable, electronic devices. it is very broad. it is looking at all devices that can be brought into a vehicle or installed in a vehicle that contribute to distraction. you're talking about something that people might be using to talk with dispatch and things like that. we want to make sure that those devices help to aid in the driving to ask and do not distract the driver from the task at hand. we recognize this is a difficult

issue. we have seen too many accidents as a result of destruction. we are more concerned with personal devices that are being brought in. it is not just about staying in communication with people. it is about surfing the web, checking e-mail, posting to facebook, even playing games or watching movies. all of these things are distracting. host: deborah hersman is the head of the national transportation safety board. let's take a look at the distracted-driving ad. >> the average text take your eyes off the road for nearly five seconds -- takes your eyes off the road for nearly five seconds.

host: that, as i mentioned, was by the national highway traffic safety administration. explain the difference between your agencies. guest: the ntsb is an independent agency. we investigate accidents and determine their probable cause. we do not have any regulatory authority. we cannot force people to do anything. we cannot really incentivize them either. nhtsa is a standard-setting organization. they set standards for the design and manufacture of vehicles, automobiles, motorcycles. they also are involved in the educational campaigns and enforcement campaigns. they are the ones that help the states put on click it or ticket, or over the limit, under arrest for drunk driving. host: nebraska, jim, democrat.

hi there. caller: i am watching what you're saying. the show is dedicated to the text messaging destruction. i totally agree that the text messaging destruction is ridiculous. -- text-messaging distraction. i totally agree that the text- messaging distraction is ridiculous. we are not getting tit done be fore. how are tax dollars going to get it done? guest: enforcement is always a challenge. it takes three things to make something a success when it comes to how we set the -- to

highway safety. the first is having good laws that people understand. the second is education, making sure people understand the risks and consequences. the third is having strong enforcement. enforcement is a key component to make sure that compliance goes up. 40 years ago, we had about 15% seat belt use in the united states. now we have over 85%. that is because we have had three things -- a good laws, a good education, but enforcement -- that is because we have had three things, good laws, good education, good enforcement. we have seen changes when it comes to drunk driving, when it came to restraining -- comes to restraining children. all comes to those three areas, law, education, enforcement.

host: the caller from omaha mentioned laws already on the books. let's look at where there are laws banning all texting while driving. is this the wave of the future, that states take this on? guest: our recommendation is to the states. they set the standards. host: we think about seat belt laws and other things that are state to state. guest: there is the ability for the government to incentivize stay to do some of those things, but the states are really the ones moving forward. 35 states have taxing bans -- texting bans. 9 states have banned handheld

use of cell phones. even more have banned teenaged drivers from talking or texting. host: hi, larry. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask about the accident that happened on interstate 44. a young man was texting. he ran into the back of a tractor. however, there were two school buses. they came by flying. they were driving too fast. i'm not suer if -- sure if the young man was kuilled -- killed because he ran into the tractor or because the bus ran into

him. one of the bus drivers was 75 years old. perhaps they are over the age where they are competent? guest: there were a lot of questions and that col. actual sequence of events was initiated when -- in that call. the actual sequence of events was initiated when a 19-year-old driver change planes and rear- ended a bobtail tractor-trailer. that set in motion a sequence of crashes. one motor coach observed the crash and pulled to the shoulder. the first school bus was coming around the motor coach. the first school bus struck the driver, the gms, the truck that had this 19-year-old driver in it.

that bus driver was not paying attention either. she was distracted by the motor coach that had pulled over onto the shoulder and whether or not she was clear of the motor coach. the second, following schoolbus struck a first one because she was falling too closely -- the first one because she was falling too closely. the speed limit had changed 0.2 miles from the accident. each vehicle, where we look at recorded speed, the truck was going about 55 miles per hour a second before impact. he was not belted. the first bus -- school bus was going about 50, as was the second school bus. they were travelling at speed when it came upon stopped traffic. distractions are huge issue. -- are a huge issue. when it comes to the driver of us, she had reason

training and we could not find any issues in her medical condition or any ability she would not be able to drive the bus. she had been cleared and tested and completed training in the month before the accident. host: dialogue on twitter about the video that we showed. "why don't they show that video every hour on every station? it is very effective." one of the studies that came out show that most people do not want to be sitting next to a driver who is taxeding -- texting or on a cell phone. some people may have more multitasking skills. have you encountered that? have people who had been victims or causes of accidents been

surprised by how quickly things can happen? guest: that is a great couple. in the business of accident investigation, accidents do not develop over hours or minutes. they happened in seconds. i was just at a crash test two weeks ago. the vehicles were lined up on a collision course to simulate a t. bone crashed at an intersection -- t-bone crash at an intersection. it took days and weeks to set this up, making sure everything was right. as we were sitting there waiting for something to happen, the chief engineer told me, "don't blink. you'll miss it." if any of you who are watching have been in an accident, you know is how fast it goes from being just fine to everything changing. things happen very quickly. you need to be paying attention of the time.

by way of example, on friday night, i was branded -- was rear-ended. the driver admitted that he was messing with his ipod at the time of the collision. i know how fast it happens. people never intend to be in an accident. when people are surveyed, they say people should not text or talk behind the wheel, because it's dangerous. over 50% admitted to talking on the phone recently. over 20% admitted to a texting -- to texting recently. it is pervasive. there are a lot of people doing it. host: our gesuest is deborah hersman. she has gone on the scene of 19

major transportation accidents. let's go to some members of the funding of the ntsb. $97 million is the budget for 2011. $65 million goes to payroll. about $32 million ghost operating expenses. there is a $102.4 million budget for 2012. take us through your setup. guest: our agency was created in 1967. we were made completely independent of the department of transportation. our accident investigators look at all modes of transportation. in the aviation brawl we have a statutory requirement to investigate all -- in aviation,

we have a statutory requirement to investigate all accidents. we also have responsibilities in the marine, rail, and pipeline -- in marine, rail, and pipeline. we look at regional airplane accidents that occur in every state at all times of the year. we are very busy. our investigators do great work. we appreciate probable-cause determinations -- we received thousands of probable-cause determinations each year. caller: my issue is a lot different, but very distracting concerned.s i'm on the highways, when it's raining, semis, in particular, kick up an awful lot of mess

from tires. it is very difficult to deal with. i am a very experienced driver. the thing that helps in that case, and i've only seen it on ups vehicles, is a nylong-string -- nylon-string skirt to reduce the spray that comes off the tires. i don't understand why it is not mandatory for semis to be skirted in that fashion to help reduce the amount of spray. host: what do you think? guest: i think he raises some

rate close about driving in inclement conditions and -- some great points about driving in inclement conditions. if you cannot see their mayors, they cannot see you -- they're -- their mirrors, they cannot see you. we will look at those issues. ntsb investigates only a handful of highway accidents. we have not necessarily seen the issue that he is at sharing with respect to the ups vehicles, but we will be -- that he is sharing with respect to the ups vehicles, but we will be on the lookout for it. hersman, howh mr. turley, unusual a recommendation is

this? guest: it is not just about changing the law bang, but changing people's hearts and minds -- the law, but changing people's hearts and minds. i have been so gratified in the last week since we issued this recommendation. a lot of people do not supported, but i am hearing from a lot of people who do. the people recognize that the 30,000-plus fatalities we see every year is the equivalent of having our regional jet crashed every week. we have to get to the point where we are not accepting the number of fatalities on our nation's highways or something that we cannot prevent, because we can. there is something that people do every day to prevent them. we need to identify that we have our problems or challenge that needs to be dealt with. what is acceptable about bringing these devices into the car? they are getting more

complicated. they are getting more distracting because they have so much functionality. it is almost as if they want to make the car and extension of your column or your workplace. you are driving a two -- your home or your workplace. you are driving a two-ton car. you have to be vigilant. host: this recommendation relates to what people do in their own vehicles and their own personal lives. is it rare to make such a big recommendations? is this the equivalent of seat belt, helmut recommendations? -- helmet recommendations? guest: we do not make sweeping recommendations that have not been made before. we have sweeping recommendations about seat belt use, using helmets on motorcycles, curbing drunk driving, having proper restraints for your children.

we do make large-scale recommendations. you mentioned pilots. when we look back at the recommendations we have made, we have seen distractions in almost -- not just people behind the wheel, but people in the cockpit, locomotive cab. we investigated an incident involving two northwest pilots, northwest 188, who overflew their destination by over 100 miles and did not respond air traffic control -- to air- traffic control. they were distracted. we saw a copilot texting on the taxiway. that behavior did not cause the accident, ultimately. the aviation industry has a sterile cockpit rule.

below 10,000 feet, they cannot talk about anything except thae task at hand. host: welcome. go right ahead. caller: i would like to weigh in with the secretary of transportation on this. host: you are on with the chairman. caller: i agree with her. i think it is absolutely necessary to bandies telephone devices with their various capabilities -- ban these telephone devices with their various capabilities simply because driving requires defense of this. -- defensiveness. when i was taught to drive, i was taught that you have to have both hands on the wheel and absolute concentration in order to be an effective driver. and the other thing this goes to

is the value of human life. is it more important to be so distracted and doing something like texting, putting an innocent life in jeopardy? obviously, i would say the answer is no. if you aren't adult enough to put down a toy and wood is -- and dow hat is require -- and do what is required of you while driving, perhaps you shouldn't be driving. host: let's get a response. guest: i think you've hit the nail on the head. it is people who have absolutely no reason to be put in harm's way. we have seen too many fatalities every year. whether it is 10, 100, 1000, no

text, no call, no post is worth a human life. if you ask a family of those -- the families of those who have been killed, they will tell you that the peerson -- person cannot even remember what they were sending. nothing is as important as what you're doing behind the wheel. caller: good morning. the last time i seen you was in december, 2009, when you were on c-span. you made the astounding statement that the 9/11 black boxes were all recovered. why is the public not allowed to know what is on the black

boxes? the conspiracies -- if the black boxes were to be released, it would -- host: you are breaking up. we got the point. guest: not all the black boxes were recovered. the boxes were never recovered from the tower. they were recovered from shanksville, pennsylvania. we didn't recover all the boxes. i aplogoi -- apologize if that confused you. much of the information was made available in the report on

9/11, by the independent commission. host: "studies bear out the means to keep drivers from using their cell phones." it says that "states have been slower to prohibit cell phone conversations, yet studies show that speaking on the cell phone distracts the driver more than listening to music or speaking with a passenger. the district and 10 states, including maryland, prohibit talking on a hand-held device while driving." guest: this is the reason we made our recommendation. i applaud "the post" and other publications for taking a strong stand. it is about change in the debate, changing the way people think about this -- changing the debate, changing the way people think about this.

when we look back on smoking, over time, we learned it was dangerous. we changed our behavior is as a society, with rules and standards -- behaviors as a society with rules and standards. there was a point where people would not fit into the car with someone smoking -- get into a car with someone smoking. we have seen with children that they encourage their parents and grandparents to wear seat belts. guest: it is about good laws, good education, and good enforcement. i think there are a lot of people who will be motivated by

education campaigns. that is fantastic. i think there are a lot of people who will not come along until there is a law. when it comes to enforcement, there is a segment of the population that will not come along unless they feel there is a risk and a consequence from not complying. host: and jim from kingman, arizona, republican caller. good morning. caller: i am watching this department of transportation -- the problem is everybody is lax on the laws. you have the laws, but they're not enforced. germany, prime example,w hen when you go over, you take a test. it takes six months.

you cannot smoke or eat in the vehicle, which i see all the time. i get fingered all the time when people are on their phones. any time i honk my horn. host: let's talk about that. guest: penalties are varied. very fo often, there isn't strong enforcement. in missouri, they had a texting ban applying to old ors 2311-years- younger. how does an officer know? we have to get to a point where

the laws are consistent and easy to enforce. law-enforcement officials have done a great job with impaired driving. looking at people not maintaining speed, driving erratically. these are things we can look for. host: "what should the fine be for cell-phone-related incidents?" it goes all the way up to $500. let's look at percentages of people sending texts while

driving. look at the age breakdown. the largest percentage is in the 21 to 24 age range. guest: this isn't a surprise. many callers can relate. what we see with texting and the portable electronic devices is that they are very generational in nature. there are people who grew up with these devices in hand before they got their learner's permit. when we look at the things that might be in people's stockings or under the christmas tree, one of the hottest items is the iphone, the ipad, the tablet. lots of devices that give you incredible amounts of functionality. how important is it to update

your facebook page or to be playing angry birds when you're behind the wheel? technology has greeted problems, but can also find solutions -- has created problems, but can also find solutions. you can have settings so you don't become distracted. people want to check their messages, their texts. sometimes they are bored. this is a problem for people in the driver's compartment. we have to shut that down. if people want to be in their vehicles and act the way they sit behind a desk or at home, we need to design vehicles for that. we need to get cars that drive

themselves. i have seen google's self- driving car. maybe that will be a solution who don't want to be driving. host: pete, democrats' line, hi. caller: thanks for taking my call. i agree 100% with this. i love the police department. i see so many shows where they are driving 60 miles an hour, 70 miles an hour, talking on cell phones, looking down. how do they not get in accidents? caguest: caller, i think you're right about the

distraction that law enforcement have. they ahve a 0--- law enforcement have. they have a lot of information to deal with and it is important for them to be able to operate safely. we see hundreds of accidents caused by high speed chases each year. it is up to each jurisdiction the figure of how to assist officers. host: mary writes -- our guest, debbie hersman, the chair of the ntsb, serving her second term. thank you