let's go to the house floor. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be led by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. o lord, our god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you have kept us in life, sustained us and allowed us to reach this moment. bless the members of the people's house that you have gifted to serve our nation. as the first session of the 112th congress draws near a close, we ask your special blessing upon those who have given so much time and talent throughout this year and in these closing days. the staffers of each congressional office and the various committees, grant them peace and renewal in the weeks to come. grant the members of this chamber continued wisdom and charity as the work of this session comes to a close.

may they be truly grateful for the awesome privilege which is theirs to serve the people of our nation in this august body. help us all to be truly grateful for what we have and generous in what we do. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: pursuant to section 3-a of house resolution 493, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. and the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3421, an act to

award congressional gold medals in honor of the men and women who perished as a result of the terrorist attacks on the united states on september 11, 2001. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 16, 2011, at 8:28 p.m., that the senate agreed to without amendment house joint resolution 94. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of

representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 17, 2011, at 4:19 p.m., that the senate agreed to without amendment h.r. 789, h.r. 2422, h.r. 1264. that the senate passed senate 1874, senate 1710, senate 1959. that the senate concur in the amendment of the house of representatives to the bill, senate 278. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 17, 2011, at 11:23 a.m. that the senate failed house

concurrent resolution 94. that the senate passed with amendment h.r. 3630. that the senate agreed to conference report accompanying the bill h.r. 2055. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 17, 2011, at 12:56 p.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 3672. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the

rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 17, 2011, at 2:37 p.m. that the senate agreed to without amendment house joint resolution 95. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker: pursuant >> the house is taking a break now. when they return, a number of items on the calendar. including a vote on the payroll tax extension. all boats will be held at 6:30 this evening. -- all votes will be held at 6:30 this evening. the speaker will hold a meeting at 10:15 eastern. we plan on having live coverage on c-span. more live coverage of the house

when the house doubles and. looking now at the u.s. state department, hillary clinton is releasing an annual report on global landmine eradication. have that live on c- span. we have more from the road to the white house coming up. anita perry is in new hampshire today. you can watch her meet and greet residents live at 1:00 eastern. sees fit will cover that live. boehner.d john paintjohn >> i say if you cannot live with the nuclear iran, then you have to say what to do, and i think all options are on the table. >> if we took the oath of office seriously, we would get rid of 80% of the governor. he could your question was, who

is the approving constitutional conservative in the race, and that would be me. >> visit the latest interviews and comments from reporters all /campaign2012./ampaig the speaker coming up 10:15 eastern. while we wait, a discussion from this morning's "washington journal."

not surprising if you studied the candidates and see what people are saying. ron paul has a very interesting message. he is definitely a fiscal conservative. he wants to return to the days of isolation the wisdom. he feels like we of no business in places like israel and iran, and can use the military to create jobs where it is needed, instead of industrialized countries. newt gingrich -- they have taken at all out assault on him. you thought herman cain was more

an assault until fiscal indiscretion. the contract has made money for him. even in congress it showed it is not much of an outside but still working inside congress making a lot of money. it is tough. obviously he had the intellectual capital. one person as it is jon huntsman. i find it shocking. 65 percent of the time i find this guy's name. he is an authority on china.

they loved his economic ideas. they feel he is well thought out and reasonable and will go over well with the moderates. we know he may colossal mistakes with his campaign manager in opted not to participate in iowa. can he recover remains to be seen. i would not cause -- count him out. i do not think, in this is nothing against mr. paul, i do not think he has the arsenal to defeat him. let me just say this, it is really not about the gop, it is about barack obama and his ideas. the fact that they just made the decision to bail out europe and whether he can create the jobs he is talked about, whether he can turn the economy around and turn it into a decent way of life.

whether it is health care or loss of jobs, even the housing crisis. many people in foreclosure, their home is -- they have so much money in the home until they are under water. host: let's listen to mitt romney contrasting himself with president obama. in >> his policies have not work. we need regulation in our society. i am not someone who says let's get rid of all regulations, which is needed updated and modern and anchorages enterprise as opposed to burdening it. his great feeling is he does not understand how this economy works and how this policy has made it harder for the economy to put americans back to work. i do know how the american economy works. in my policies are designed to

give people what they desperately want. they want to have a great job and a bright future. host: want to get your response. but we throw in that "the des moines register" endorse him. guest: the interview the candidates and made a decision on who they felt was the best candidates. he is pretty solid. you cannot argue with his experience in the political body and also as a candidate. he is still being paid from big capital. fundamentally while president barack obama offered a lot of hope and change in his campaign and many people crossed over to support him, is not coming even

close to delivering on promises. many people feel, fundamentally the president does not understand economics one a one. he does not understand how to get the economy moving. people close to him came from the private sector. that has drastically changed under this president. i would be shocked a 20% came from the private sector. the other issue is that the president is more interested in creating income and expenses and makeshift jobs. he is not creating real assets in society. look at china was able to do. we went through a great recession in china did at the same time we did. look at how they were able to turn their economy around. it was done to create real institutions, real industries that create assets in the long

run, because you realize in the economy has decreed them themselves. one thing he said was it is so overregulated that businesses are holding money because they do not embrace these policies like health care. it is a registered extended for two months and not a year. it is no longer a payroll tax holiday. it is expected that it will continue, and congress put these things in and said a year from now it will no longer be. this ban will go on and on. the real question, what is it really doing to stimulate job creation? >> armstrong williams mentioned mitt romney in the money he is still receiving from the place he once worked.

almost 13 years ago he left the capital. -- bahn capital. when it came to his considerable personal wealth, he never really left bain. he read negotiated a retirement agreement with former partners that has paid him a share of the profits of%. let's go to the funds to hear from steve, a republican in florida. >> good morning. caller: good morning. if mr. williams does not have skeletons in his closet, i might to see him on the ballot this was funny to watch when the media turned on howard dean, hillary, and they 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 take the can of it for the republican. i just hope we wind up with a strong canada. i like mitt romney. -- i just hope we wind up with a strong canada. >> we leave "washington journal." >> democrats and republicans agree the payroll tax cut needs to be extended for a full year to provide the kind of relief that americans need and the struggling economy. the house last week passed a bill to do just that. instead of posting -- passing the house bill or another bill which extended the payroll tax credit for a year, the senate democratic leaders passed a two- month extension of punting the problem into next year.

we oppose the senate bill because doing a two-month extension instead of a full-year extension causes uncertainty for job creators. i used to run a small business. i hired workers. a two-month extension creates uncertainty and will cause problems for people that are trying to create jobs in the private sector. the idea that a tax policy can be done two months at a time is a kind of activity we see here in washington that is -- has really put the economy off the tracks. last week both chambers work together to pass a full year a bill to fund the government. i do not think this is used in a different. it is time for congress to do work. no more kicking the can down the road. tonight the house will vote on the bill. this will vote on whether

congress will stay in to work or go on vacation. i expect the house will disagree with the senate amendment and instead vote to formally go to conference. in the formal process in which the house and senate can resolve differences between the chambers in between our bills. and i expect the house to take up legislation that reinforces the need to extend apparel tax relief for full year, rather than just two months. i think the best way to resolve the difference between the two month extension and full year bill is to follow the regular order here in congress. when there is a disagreement between the chambers we sit down and a conference and resolve the differences. that is exactly what i believe the house will do. the president has said repeatedly that no one should be going on vacation until the work

is done. democrat leaders in the house and senate have exception -- have said exactly the same thing, so i think it is time for the senate democrat leaders to follow the president's example input vacations' on hold and work in a bipartisan manner to finish the nation's business. >> if you cannot work out a deal for a year-long expansion in the short amount of time you have left, are you prepared to let the tax cuts laps all together? >> we have made it perfectly clear that we believe a full- year extension is very important. i do not believe the differences between house and senate are that great. it is time for us to do our work. >> if you and your colleagues in the house were so much against the two-month extension, why did you not raise the red flag with republican colleagues who for the most part voted for this? >> we expressed our reservations about what the senate was doing,

but understand i made perfectly clear to senator reid and mcconnell sometime mid-last week that i would not enter into negotiations with them until the senate produced a bill. the senate produced a bill and we expressed reservations, and i believe they're trying to resolve this in a regular order of our business is their purpose it way to proceed. -- is the appropriate way to proceed. we agree with the president that all of these, the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance with reforms, all of this big to be done in the right way. i have been around here for a while. i had seen the congress kick the can down the road. it is time to stop the nonsense.

>> how is a bill that got 90 percent signed in the senate now dysfunctional? >> what i am suggesting is the president asked for full-year extension. democrat leaders have said the same thing over the past two weeks, that we should do this for the full year. why do we always have to go to the lowest common denominator? it is time for us to do the work, we're prepared to do the work. >> , what other specific changes you want in the bill? >> we believe we passed a reasonable bill if there are differences between the bodies, we have resolvent. >> [inaudible] >> when we sent our bill to the senate, 90% of all such work

offsets that the president agreed to. i do not believe it will be that difficult to come to an agreement that would make reforms in the unemployment insurance program and do so in a fiscally-responsible way. >> [inaudible] >>no, never a conversation with the white house. >> you initially supported moving forward with the two- month plan. what changed in your mind? >> [inaudible] >> that is not true. what i was outlining was the fact that having the keystone pipeline in here was a success, but i raised concerns about the two-month process from the moment i heard about it. thank you, everybody. >> house speaker this morning

with house republican lawmaker'' position on the rejection of the tax cut over the weekend. the house is in recess right now subject to the call of the chair. live coverage when they return on that issue and a number of other items. we will have live coverage when members return here on c-span. the secretary of state is speaking of the bottom of the hour on landmine eradication and weapons destruction. possibly speaking on the death of the north korean leader. we will have live coverage coming up at 10:30 eastern. and until then, your phone calls from this morning's "washington journal."

the speaker said the bill would be rejected by a rank and file republican in the house when it was taken up this week. let's go and look at some of more coverage in this story. "usa today" to get perspective on this story we go now to the phones and hear from dan no news hour, staff writer art roll-call. good morning.

guest: is hard to say. we saw mitch mcconnell come out and seemed almost happy. there is a picture of him giving one of the leaders of high five. he said he spoke with speaker and was confident everything would be fine. the next day there was are particularly rowdy opposition to the senate plan because of the fact it is such a short-term plan. some people on the plan said the speaker expressed some sort of support for the senate plan

whereas almost everyone else in the conference did not support it. almost immediately after and on sunday the speaker appeared and said he was opposed to the deal. that shut off any idea that he was supporting it. >> he wrote a story with mayor- shriner that said -- what does this mean? where do we go from here? guest: after refiled the story became a little bit more clear. late last night the house took of the senate bill.

that will happen tonight at 6:30. we will see. they said they expected to fail. we will see how that goes. i know democrats are trying to support the deal that was made between harry reid and mitch mcconnell. it could expect significant democratic support, but obviously it will need some support. after that, it becomes a little less clear. they can amended the bill as we wrote, and the speaker has expressed support for full year bill. the difference would be how to pay for it, and the tax cuts and the unemployment benefit, or they can cash out differences. host: 10 thing that was

controversial was the keystone pipeline. guest: i spoke with tom cole from oklahoma, the state where the pipeline is supposed to end once it is built. he said he had the sense that senate leaders would vote for just about anything they brought, thinking it was a victory. the speaker of the conference call also paraphrase it as a victory. again, most republicans on the call had the sense it was not enough, that a two-month deal is taking it down the road. of course people will tell you in private that this is partly because they do not want this issue to be around again during an election year where democratic opponents can say republicans do not want to cut taxes on the middle class. host: you mentioned the speaker

initially indicated he might have support for this. members of his conference did not. did this show the power of the bloc of republicans who are freshmen and newly elected and have said we're going to do business differently? guest: absolutely. without the block of republicans, i doubt this would be the case. also -- it is work both ways. when it comes down to the senate agreement they just passed, they had to pass that the bipartisan way, which ultimately ended up with republicans getting less of what they wanted because it put all of the legislative riders on the bill, and they had to remove several of them, because they could not get the caucus to vote for a 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 the republicans in the house. >> thank you so much. staff writer at "roll call." let's go to twitter -- let's go to oregon were andy joins us on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. the speaker does not have control over his chamber, that seems to be obvious. it is pretty irresponsible at this point in time. i know they think they can get something more for the country, but i do not think the country needs congress to be behaving 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. it is discouraging to someone who is sitting on the outside wondering what congress will do to help america vs. hindrance. host: what about the speaker's statement that he would like to see a longer-termed deal struck? caller: i agree with the -- turned deal. these are things that most of us will look at and say, we do not agree. >host: we will hear from mark in north carolina. caller: good morning. the democrats have the house, senate, presidency.

they did not pass no bill. they did not do a darn thing. all they wanted to do was basically past propaganda health care. i think john boehner, kudos to him. quit kicking the can down the road. they are being paid. what is it going to do kick the can down the road just so they can visit at christmas? i think john boehner is doing the right thing to bring them back in and get a bill. the keystone pipeline will bring not just a jobs bill, but all the people getting jobs, and look of the revenue once the people get back to work. i think the speaker has the right idea, and i hope they do not pass the bill the senate put down. >> let's take a listen to speaker vadboehner. i believe two months is kicking the can down a road. the american people are tired of

that. frankly i am tired of that. we have seen this before coming out of the senate. it is time to stop and extend this for one year. we can find common ground. it is just the usual punt. kick the can down the road and come back and do it later. >> you want to get this done right now? >> i want to get it all done right now. to go cincinnati, ohio. ronald joins us on the independent line. good morning. caller: the republicans are pushing for the oil pipeline. that is all under pressure. what does this do to anything? it makes a mixture with rock.

some of it is going to be metal to metal, some of the rubber. if the pipeline starts leaking, we cannot clean the oil out. the extension of the keystone pipeline was included. it did get into the senate version. some in the senate thought that would help clear its in the , however, it did not. the two-month deal is called insufficient. democrats say it is this agreement or nothing. and overwhelmingly passed a bill by the senate is uncertain after a republican conference expressed displeasure with the two-month deal. faced with the uprising on his right flank, the speaker retreated from previous support of the package, saying the house does not plan to approve the

deal on monday night after it returns to washington. caller: i would like to add with the speaker not wanting to end of the payroll tax cut. and i think that would be across the board if he is going to be that way, and they should at the bush tax cuts as well. they are for it, and then they are against it. 99 percent of the people in middle class are struggling, and i really think if we're going to do it to one person, we should do it to all. >> orange county, california, georgia on the republicans line. caller: i like the comment about the pipeline, and i think they should add another pipeline right next to it and put fresh water from up north and bring it down to the south when they go

into a drought, and also -- host: what you think about the news from the speaker that it looks like it is falling apart? caller: they're just going to keep running it through until everyone agrees on this situation. that is the one they want to stabilize and use because we're all used to using it. they are just going to keep running it through until everyone agrees on it. they will create controversy until everyone feels confident about it, and then they will pass it. host: let's hear from gene sperling, part of the white house team. this is on stage of the union

talking about the news from the speaker that he does not want to do the two-month extension. >> as i said, of course this president would like a full year. he would like to see everyone agreed to the full measure of the american jobs upper. as you know, it included saving hundreds of thousands of jobs, putting hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work. and giving 6 million small businesses taxes. we would all like more. what we really need to do is find a bipartisan compromise. and again by supporting the bipartisan compromise, i think that is the best way to send a clear signal to the american public that we're going to put the economy first and politics last for a change. host: that is the president's director of the national economic council. we're talking about the

announcement yesterday that the house does not look like it will pass the payroll tax cut deal brokered by the senate and white house. roy on the independent line. we need a payroll tax cut. it has been onerous for about 30 years, ever since reagan got a hold of it. working people are paying the bulk of the taxes. this tying it to the keystone pipeline is cataclysmic. there is a dead zone in houston. somebody in houston, the oil powers, however, want this to come to houston. they are already over prep for pollution. this is 3,000 miles away. this could probably refined

anywhere along within 1,000 miles, several places. they can take propane, methane off of it and get the gasoline and probably the sludge left over is good for paving roads. why the oil powers are demanding it come to houston smells bad. >> what about the announcement that speaker vein there is not interested in passing apparel talks -- tax compromise? caller: it is good when he is saying. two months is ridiculous. it should not be that short of a plan. it should be a year. host: a message from twitter -- to pass, democratic calller in south carolina. good morning. icaller: good morning. i am against the pipeline.

host: what you think about the speaker's news that he is throwing out the payroll tax could deal at this point? >> see washington journal every morning at 7:00. live now to the state department. secretary clinton is discussing land mine restriction. >> good morning. i am pleased to be here this morning to release the 10th edition of walk the earth in safety. the annual report on removal and destruction of unsecured conventional weapons and the success in humanitarian divining. i am joined today by assistant secretary for political military affairs, and the shapiro, who you will hear from shortly. -- andrew shapiro. and dr. can rutherford.

excess and unstable munitions along with the countless number of land mines still buried around the world pose a grave danger to the lives and safety of men, women, and children everywhere. in areas recovering from conflict, these weapons increase the threat of a group or individual might reignite hostilities. around the world landmines render thousands of acres of land unusable. and literally tearaway the fabric from communities unable to walk safely from village to village. we are making important progress. over the past decade we have helped decrease the world wide number of land mine casualties

from around 15-20,000 annually to approximately 4000 in each of the last two years. that is still an unacceptably high figure. the progress we made is it do in no small part to the commitment of the united states government and partner organizations to clear hundreds of thousands of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle land mines. this report documents the $201 million in aid the united states provided in 2010 to help 49 countries clear explosive remnants of war and the story excess stockpiles of weapons and munitions. there are lots of good news stories to tell coming out of this. central america became the first affected region to achieve mine impact free status, meaning all explosives have been safe to

cleared from areas where people go about their daily lives. community-based de-mining programs help clear over 80,000 square meters of land in afghanistan, and the state department's quick reaction force helped the people of new guinea reclaim land for local use by clearing dangerous unexploded munitions from world war ii. further, since we began detailing our efforts in this report, the united states has helped a strike over 1.4 million small arms and light weapons, eliminate over 80,000 tons of munitions andcess yo take more than 30,000 air defense systems out of circulation. the so-called man pads are shoulder-fired missiles capable of taking down an aircraft.

keeping them out of the wrong hands is essential to protecting global aviation everywhere. these efforts have been in the headlines this year because they are of paramount concern in libya. we have been working closely with the libyan authorities since the early days of the conflict to inspect the known storage sites and secure dangerous weapons and ammunition. we are now working together to inventory the stockpiles. clearing and destroying conventional wiweapons is only one part of our mission. we're raising awareness about the threat of unexploded ordnance so that whenever possible we can prevent injuries from occurring. when they do occur, we strive to help survivors and their families rebuild their lives. our humanitarian actions

include medical rehabilitation and medical training for landmines survivors. 40 landmine victims in afghanistan, half of whom were women, recently graduated from our program where they learned to tailored clothes and repair motorcycles. these kinds of assistance programs give land mine survivors new skills to help provide for them and their families and help reintegrate them back into society. in bosnia up our support for the international trust fund for the mining and mind victims assistance has helped survivors regain mobility and dignity while helping restore confidence among the region's ethnic groups. for example, oki is a sitting volleyball club made up of land mines survivors in amputees. they have become the broke champions of their sport. as the team compete in tournaments around the world,

they remind us of how much this human spirit is capable of. and we stand firmly with all those working to address the harmful and indiscriminate effects of land mines on civilians, and this report is hard and prove that when we work together in common cause, we can make real progress. it is also a reminder of how much more we have to do. one of our next great challenges will helping country secure and secure stockpiles of unstable conventional munitions. many of these stockpiles are left over from the cold war. they are often poorly maintained, improperly stored or inadequately guarded. since 1995, explosions at more than 200 of these depots have claimed thousands of lives in

every region of the world. the frequency -- frequency of such explosions is increasing as the stocks degrade over time. we're working with 30 countries in improving munitions maintenance to help reduce the threat of these explosions. and our effort to secure industry conventional weapons -- combined efforts of diplomacy and defense smart power at work. we work to make post-conflict area safer and better set the stage for their recovery and redevelopment. to achieve this, the state department collaborates with the right away of partners. from the department of defense, homeland security come and usaid to dozens of public and private partners. i especially want to thank ngo for their efforts. together we of help injured millions of people can now walk safely across the earth.

children can run freely without fear in communities damage by war can begin to heal. at this point i would like to turn it over to assist the secretary shapiro. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, and good morning. i want to think secretary clinton for her longstanding support for u.s. efforts in this area, and taking the time to mark the addition of the walk and safety report. then as you may know, i have worked for senator quentin for eight years in the senate. the very first piece of legislation when i started the job was companion legislation to help leonine survivors. -- landmine survivors. i also want to thank all of those that have been involved in

the preparation and publication of this report, and recognize all of the partners from agencies across the u.s. government, as well as numerous private sector partners that contributed to the success of the conventional weapons destruction program. these programs are truly it -- truly a collaborative effort between the department of defense and centers for disease control and usaid. they seek to rebuild infrastructure assist survivors to integrate into society, and establish situations conducive to stability, non-violence, and democracy. the state department is also proud of the public/private partnerships initiative and conventional weapons destruction, which presently connects the apartment with close to 70 private sector partnerships. these partnerships help reunite

the private sector with the passion of the non-profit sector and through the reach of the u.s. government, we're able to make a concrete difference. looking ahead, despite all of our successes, we anticipate the risks from poorly-secured conventional weapons will remain a major humanitarian concern for the foreseeable future. the fact remains there are still, with thousands of undetected land mines buried around the world, each posing a great threat, each rendering the surrounding land unusable. childhood is far from carefree for millions of children growing up in countries recovering from conflict. a playing field may contain hidden dangers. as the secretary noted, and it is clear in this report, our conventional weapons destruction program saves lives and are critical to helping war-ravaged

areas recover. while i know budgets are tight me, the value of these programs to u.s. national security is also without question. by helping countries recover from the effects of war, our assistance is playing a vital role in advancing stability and prosperity around the world. with that, i would be happy to take any questions you might have about the report. >> one quick one in regards to libya. i believe the most recent figures the department has given regarding the number of man pads destroyed is roughly 5000 out of an estimated 20,000 that the muammar gaddafi regime is believed to have had. has that figure gone up? heavy funding more? -- have you found more? >> as you know, i was in libya last sunday when i said we secured nearly 5000.

it is roughly the same number now. we do believe thousands were destroyed during the nato bombing campaign. the rest were destroyed with militia and others. so the key now is to get those that hold on to the weapons to turn them in and take them out of circulation. we're working with the libyan authorities on the best way to do that. that is one of the topic of discussions during my visit to libya last sunday. >> any sense of how many of those remain in control and whether they have made their way out of the country? >> we are continuing efforts to categorize and assess how many weapons are still at large and will require us going back to the areas that were bombed and

they gain them up and figuring out how many we got. -- areas that were bombed and dig them up and figuring out how many we did. that was a topic of my discussion last sunday. so far we have not seen any evidence that they have left the country, but we're obviously very concerned about it, and that is why we had such a substantial effort on the ground in libya to work with authorities to secure the weapons. >> the number 20,000 has been bantered around for months now. is that still your best estimate before the nato campaign began? clear, they had a team since the 1970's. we do not know how many were serviceable, but that is based on the review of shipping

receipts and other things we have obtained. that is the estimate of how many we have. as we go through these bunkers that were bombed, we will discover more. that is a high-and number of how many the muammar gaddafi regime had obtained since the 1970's. >> that figure has not changed? >> no, it is based on what we've seen thus far. we're going through ammunitions storage areas and bonkers for any additional evidence. >> there was criticism recently that too much attention was being placed on the man pads at the expense of everything else. >> my discussions with libyan authorities, we talked about those, but also securing

conventional weapons as well. we discussed working with them to do a proper stockpile management, as well as encouraging those who have conventional weapons, that they did not need to turn them in, and to encourage libya, where the conventional weapons, where would they do not need them for the defense needs, to work to destroy them. that has been a topic. our efforts on the ground. we will work with them on this issue, as well as other conventional weapons. >> someone in congress has given become memorable records that the united states does that have an outright ban on them that has been resisting over the years? >> we are currently undergoing a review of policies. as you noted, the united states is the largest contributor

towards land mine that survivor assistance, as well as clearing away landmines around the world. so those are the review is taking into account what impact it would have to conduct military operations. that should not in any way detract from the wrist and averts the united states has made to words-- risk and efforts the united states has made towards this. we did discuss this at a review conference last month, and experts would agree that the united states has been that the leading contributor to these efforts. >> when do you expect to

complete this? with the death of kim jong ll i am wondering what the united states will be ready to remove the mines along the north korea/out 3 of order? >> we have made progress during the review. -- remove the mines along the north korea's lashed south korea borda/south korean border? >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we have more road to the white house coverage coming up on c-span. anita perry, the white of texas governor and republican presidential candidates, rick perry, is in new hampshire today. you can watch her meet and greet residents live at 3:00 eastern here on c-span. -- live today at 1:00 eastern. hear what the candidates are saying at the newly designed web site for campaign 2012. >> i say if you cannot live with the nuclear iran, and i cannot comment that you have to decide what to do. i think all options are on the table. >> your question was, who is the proven constitutional conservative in this race? that would be me. >> read the latest conduct -- commons from political reporters

all at c-span.org/campaign2012. the u.s. house is in session today. they are in recess subject to the call of the chair. they will return of about 4:00 for debate on five suspension bills. earlier today it house speaker boehner said the house will likely defeat the bill. more votes expected this evening. live coverage of the house is later today here on c-span, probably around 4:00 p.m. eastern. right now from this morning's "washington journal," looking at surveillance and privacy and whether we're losing our privacy protections.

host: you had a piece in the washington post called -- "are you being watched? it's your fault." guest: we have something of a crisis when it comes to privacy. this country used to be defined by privacy. is aave an inate said privacy. other countries don't have the historic sense of privacy that the united states has had. we're fast becoming a fishbowl society. and you came here this morning,

you were films on the roads driving on the highways and if you stop for coffee, you were filmed in the parking lot and of the 7-eleven. you got back in and you were surveiled inside your building. most buildings have video cameras that run continuously. you turn around and you repeat that trip. americans are now used to being under surveillance all the time. you are under surveillance -- a big sign. i teach privacy with a sign above my head. what type of citizens are were producing when they grow up learning to expect -- even covered by continual surveillance. host: i wanted to read the last

paragraph of the piece you wrote. guest: my students are likely to have even fewer privacy concerns. what happens to a society where we expect and want to be under surveillance. that is a different paradigm from what the framers believed. the constitution does protect privacy to a small extent, but not very much. the inability of the government to engage in surveillance. technological limitations.

those limitations are now gone. this is coming at a time when people are no longer focusing on the loss of privacy because they are not used to having privacy. host: you get into the case of jones against the united states and putting a gps tracker in a vehicle of a suspect. guest: perfectly orwellian. that is what justice kennedy said. we should be able to put gps devices on any citizen without a warrant so we can follow them 100% of the time, and justice kennedy said, isn't that orwellian? citizens have no expectations in

terms of traveling in public. that's the reality. we have a cycle where our privacy doctrine's breakdown and we need a correction. there was a case in 1928. the supreme court created a trespass doctrine. it said the government needed a warrant if they physically trespassed on your property. the market of surveillance when to non-respiratory serve balance device. the supreme court pushed the industry into developing ways of surveillance that did not involve trespass, including the parabolic microphone.

the government is engaged in massive amounts of surveillance. the supreme court handed down cats. that said the fourth amendment protects people and not places. that captured the moment. host: why is that important? guest: it treated the physical outline of your home. will was being protected was what the home represented, privacy. there was a test that was a major step forward for privacy. the government would now require a warrants to engage in psoralens whenever you had a reasonable expectation of privacy. that means that as it falls, the

government -- your expectations fall. you have a downward spiral which we are in today. most of my students have low expectation of privacy outside their immediate home or apartment. host: do you think the case now before the supreme court could be as significant in these privacy issues? guest: it could. the court could correct its problem. the problem is that this is not the court to do a. this is a conservative -- a conservative court. it is a problem that libertarians have because justices are conservative. they tend to vote for the government of police and surveillance programs and not to individual rights on things like

privacy. host: jonathan turley is a law professor at george washington university. you can join the conversation. let's go to new hampshire on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a comment. i heard that now or we along fighting a war, the drones which were used in the war will be used to see what is happening and then if they see a crime and basically speaking of orwellian, this is scary. this is an additional layer of erosion. guest: it is a good question and

i'm afraid you are right. we're running out of wars abroad. the war will be on privacy. congress is not very protective. they have been the threat to privacy than a champion. you are seeing drones being used now. there was a drone used in texas. they used a drone out over the ranch.ranis guys' i wrote a column talking about how barack obama may have killed the civil liberties union. some people cannot break from obama. civil libertarians tend to be angry with obama. this is not just the drones.

president obama will be signing a new law that allows for citizens to be held indefinitely without trial. civil libertarians oppose that and president obama said he would veto it. we're seeing this shift. many things being done abroad -- many citizens thought it was comforting. they are bringing the technology and the practices back to the united states. it is a little bit late to get that cat to walk backwards when it comes to civil liberties. host: this was written by our guest, jonathan turley.

host: he was awarded the nobel peace prize. many democrats remain in raptured -- enraptured. the pendulum has swung from george bush and this is the best that can be done in this moment. guest: that is a debate we have on our blog. the people say, i cannot support president obama -- many people say, i cannot support president obama. this violated a treaty obligations that we have. many civil libertarians cannot vote for obama. the only guy i talked about civil liberties is ron paul.

it is bizarre. obama has expanded the bush policies. you have this division in the civil liberties community. some say they cannot support obama. others are caught up and they cannot get themselves to vote against them. democrats are saying that he is bad but those guys are worse. that's the kind of bargain that guarantees you'll get someone bad. you have a stockholm syndrome where embracing obama even though he has destroyed the civil liberties union -- movement in the united states. host: we have a tweet.

guest: that is exactly right. that is the case of katz. you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. that becomes a self-filling fact. i was called by the head of a school district and he said i wanted to ask your opinion about putting video cameras on school buses. you have thousands of tapes. he said, we will only put a tape in one camera and the kids will not know which one. that is the that is the chilling effect. what the constitution is trying to prevent it -- the chilling

effect, if you feel you may be under surveillance. every year i asked my students to do an exercise when they go home for the holidays. i tell them to put a tape recorder on a table when they are having breakfast with their relatives and say this is an assignment. no one will listen to this but me. can i put this on? watch what happens. people will be coherent and there will no longer talk about who is fat or who was sleeping with who. there is an immediate change. host: is that so wrong? guest: it changes the way we relate. that is the chilling effect. we're becoming an inhibited people. host: a democratic caller from

south carolina, don. caller: a chilling affect would tell of the new generation and some people in mind -- i am 55 years old -- kind of going away because people display their lives on the social networks like it is nothing. i am amazed at the things they post on facebook. the only to deal with the privacy is to specifically state with the expectation of privacy means. otherwise the technology and the attitude of people like my kids is doing away -- the goal post keeps slipping. one question about the president's expanded powers.

the supreme court -- i cannot believe president can pull me out of my house and whisk me away and there are no actions i can take. why isn't the supreme court weighing in on this? i am a strong democrat who backed obama but i'm thinking about not backing it because of this. i would like to hear your opinion. guest: thank you. it is worse than them coming into your house. president obama stated that he will maintain its 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 can kill you. a panel reaffirmed. they believe american people can be killed on the order of the president. that has left the had so civil libertarians -- their heads are exploding. he can jail you indefinite on his own description. the reaction from the american people is a big shrug and yawn. they would not relax those fingers, but they are. the point -- the question about privacy and the new generation -- we will not get any help from congress. the only positive thing -- i

want to give you something positive -- we have that three polls in the last year and they show the same thing. the american people say they are more afraid of the government then they are by outside forces, terrorists. the majority of americans are concerned about the loss of rights. but congress cannot move harder against privacy. i think that president obama made his calculation early on and decided nobody would be to the right of him on terrorism and national security. so you have this remarkable disconnect or the majority of citizens are saying they are concerned about this. it is not translating on the hill. host: jonathan turley writes

and talks about congress. "congress has been in different '--" guest: that is something that people do not think about. the fourth amendment protections against the government. the surveillance industry is that multi-billion dollars a year industry. most of that is going to private companies. most surveillance that people are under is not by the government. that is dangerous. the government can usually get that surveillance. the standard is not existent.

you see this in england. england has become a troop fishbowl society. they have tens of thousands of cameras. many of them are private. chicago has about 10,000 cameras now. that is ironic. i wrote about citizens filming police officers in public. the chicago district attorney has gone to court to fight the right of citizens to film officers in public while the city itself is installing -- has 10,000 cameras filming citizens on the streets. so the government loves to do surveillance. host: mike on the republican line.

caller: i would like to focus the attack away from the president and congress and talk about what the supreme court has made some rulings. a warrant that is missed addressed the of the entry is made and so contraband is found. if that could be a valid form. otherwise police taking probable cause in an establishment and it is determined it is legal. to me, contradictory is that the good warrant that was done by mistake is allowed to be a good warrant.

that is statistically effective. the legal warrant -- the illegal warrant, they don't have enough probable cause. there will be successful is they get away from that -- they will be successful if they get away from it. guest: my students are trying to say, how are they consistent? they are not. the supreme court has done some bad work when it comes to the fourth amendment. part of the problem for civil libertarians is that the fourth amendment is a beautifully written thing. it protect your person, your things, your home. the supreme court decoupled two

clauses. they decoupled it and they said, that means you can do it reasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. they started to creep exception to the warrant clause. vastly more surveillance debate is conducted without a warrant then with a warrant. the standard is low. the vast majority of warrants are granted. if a warrant is not granted, there is a serious problem. most surveillance in this country is now done without a warrant because of the exceptions the supreme court has created. host: tom from connecticut. good morning. caller: i wanted to make a

couple of points. the president -- i am not sure he is qualified on legal issues. i'm a part-time certified coin dealer. the surveillance equipment was substandard. the police have nothing to go on. i think the police do need the tools to do their job. there's a lot tax evasion. how would you respond to those concerns? guest: the police have a lot of tools today. i stopped teaching constitutional criminal law because it could be taught from a pamphlet.

we have a fraction of the protections in terms of citizens that we had a couple of decades ago. they have a lot of these types of protections. we're trying to sell an abstraction. when people hear the word it.vacy," daylighthey like this is a concrete thing. people can think of themselves in that circumstance. privacy always loses. we're seeing a radical diminishment of privacy that changes who we are. it is easy to lose privacy. it is much much harder to get it back. it is one of those things that

once it is gone, you have a hard time finding where you left it. host: jonathan turley, law professor at george washington university. we have a comment on twitter. guest: unfortunate they will learn. eventually when you have lost its to such a degree, you're left wondering, who am i? who are we as citizens? i talked about a collective yawn. privacy is one of the most important rights to you. you don't associate those things with privacy. once it is gone and you find yourself living in a fishbowl society, then you realize it be too late it is gone.

that requires us to educate people. people in congress will do anything to keep their jobs. if the public makes clear that they can mess around with a lot of things, but they have to leave policy alone, they will respond. host: if your rights and e-mail -- writes an e-mail. guest: that is incredibly

insightful. i have written on this. i take a dim view of this distinction. people now talk about anonymity rather than privacy. privacy has diminished in our society. people are grabbing onto anonymity as the only way of retaining a small aspect of privacy. this is another a faustian bargain. the only way to retain any privacy is to pretend you are a different fish. that is what people are doing. we have a complete anonymity rule on my blog.

people question whether we should have that because people abuse it. people become vicious when there is anonymity. anonymity is a last recourse for people that does not have -- that do not have privacy. i will wear it disguise because otherwise people will know what i'm doing and who i am. think about how that changes you. think about children that go through metal detectors and our films all the time. they have been raised in that fishbowl. they do not know what is like to say something and have recorded or played back to you. host: jonathan turley is a law professor at george washington

university law school. newt gingrich has come out talking about the role of the judiciary. this is a story from "national review." he would get rid of the judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country. this topic came up yesterday when michele bachmann was on the sunday talk show circuit. let's hear how she weighed in on judges. >> the problem is the supreme court or other members of the court have vast decisions that are not in conformity with the constitution. it is important that the people have their representatives be

able to pass laws as the president would sign. what is wrong is when judges make laws in conformity with their own opinions. host: michele bachmann on "meet the press." guest: be perfect storm -- the perfect storm. we have a presidential campaign or people seem to have a race to the bottom of who can devour more parts of the constitution. they seem to be running against the constitution. james madison is like elvis to me. none of these people are james madison. the necessity of an independent judiciary for a country like

ours has proven itself over and over again. i would encourage people to think about where we would be if we did not have an independent judiciary. we all as citizens share a certain covenants of faith. this is a covenant of faith. we may disagree with each other or hate each other, but it is 8 leap of faith -- it is a leap of faith. you have to trust the system. i don't want to challenge them personally. they need to look at what they are saying about this country. host: let's hear from indiana, chris. caller: he is on the right

track. i wish to put the blame for this where it belongs. the conservatives on the supreme court are the activist judges. they have eroded rights. i went through some stupid drug testing stuff. i cannot believe that private companies are allowed to get into my private business. the republicans on the supreme court have eroded rights. they have forced the president to sign it. now you put the blame on the president. what scares me is if a conservative gets in there and will use that power. guest: i agree about the supreme court's fault. if people are going to deal with

the crisis we're in, we have to be even-handed. there is no excuse for president obama. if he finds a law that he can in prison citizens, this is a bad decision. the decision to tell us cia employees that it would never be prosecuted for torture. that was a bad decision that violated treaties. we cannot make excuses. the democratic leaders knew about the torture program and the surveillance program. there is no red or blue issue here. of a chimera.ing avenue gene we have become a nation of chumps.

when elections come around, we put on our red or blue scarves and we go off running to support them. we're beginning to see our rights being lost. the system that madison created -- this is what benjamin franklin said. a woman asked what he created. he said a republic, madam. host: a republican in utah, cal. good morning. caller: i want to thank you for being one of the fuel law professors that police in individual rights and freedoms. one of the things that is the detention of u.s. citizens without due

process. i called all by representatives from utah and congratulate those that voted against it and said those that voted for it that i would vote against them. this is about the president -- who gets eliminated or not eliminated. this coming from a guy that would fight against the death penalty in the case of people who have been tried and found guilty of heinous crimes. the thing you had on about the collective shrug from the populace -- the american people are never, ever told the truth. the mainstream media is so biased towards one side that they are not telling the truth.

i will set-- remember the movie where he couldcarrey not lie, "liar, liar." you would see a dramatic shift in this country like nothing that no one has experienced before. if people are told the truth -- people can be relied on if they had the truth. guest: if that happens, the silence would be deafening on the hill. i would love to see that. i just got back from utah two days ago. there is the -- the citizens are out there. there is not a big difference

between the folks in utah and folks in massachusetts. they are resistant to the powers that have been accumulated by the government. the two parties are advancing in interest. part of the shrug comes from a sense of helplessness that people don't feel that they count anymore, that they have any ability to influence. so we have it blue states, read state -- red state. the majority of people say, i do not matter any more. that is scary. the framers believed that citizens could change the outcome in a representative democracy. host: we have a comment on twitter from stella.

guest: it will take a lot. it may take a third party. we have a political party that is brain-dead. congress is now about as popular as ebola. most of those people will be returned, and they know it. it doesn't bother them that everybody thinks they are clowns as long as they get back. so we have to do fundamental reforms. i wrote about how we could change our system. many areas are not likely to elect a democrat -- let's talk about utah. the incumbent always wins his

party and the citizens did not feel they have a choice. the top vote getters in minnesota run in the general regardless of party. it could break fecal hold of an incumbent -- it could break the hold of an incumbent. we could say, this is not what it is supposed to be. people should not feel the test or powerless in a representative democracy. they have to get mad enough change reform. host: last call from california, gary. caller: we do not have a representative republic. in 1911, they capped the house

of representatives. we now have more federal judges then we do representatives. when people speak out against this, they get punished. there was an article -- it will untried to hold judges accountable. they are never impeached. judges are dismissed to the tune of 1 most00%. -- judges are dismissed to the tune of 100%. guest: i have written that judges can be imperial and there should be more review of their conduct.

all the people in contempt for statements made in public. they find themselves charged through the bar or the kurcourt. there's something wrong in our system now. if you believed in a patriotic purpose as a citizen, you have to stop listening to these people, these politicians and organized as a citizenry to change the country to return it. the crisis wherein it is a crisis of faith -- the crisis we are in is a crisis of faith. people have lost faith. power is filling the void as people pull back. host: jonathan turley is a law

professor from george washington university. it is for being here -- thank you for being here. >> today was post be a pro forma session in the house. members have return for more debate. the house is in recess until 4:00 p.m. we are expecting votes at 6:30 on possible the payroll tax cut bill. not far from the capitol, the supreme court announced it will hear the health-care arguments on march 26, 27, and 28th, deciding the constitutionality of president obama's health-care overhaul. no one has yet paid a fine for

not taking part in the overall. tuesday's argument will be whether congress overstepped its authority with the law. that story from the associated press this morning. house speaker john been laid out the house republican leaders position on the payroll tax cut extension and what is likely to happen in the house leading into the holiday break. >> good morning. americans are tired of short-

term fixes and gimmicks. democrats and republicans agree the payroll tax cut need to be extended for a full year to provide the kind of relief that americans need in a struggling economy. house passed a bill last week to do just that. instead of passing that bill, senate democratic leaders pass a two-month extension, punting the problem into next year. oppose this -- we oppose this. i used to run a small business. is extension will cause problems for people that are trying to create jobs. the idea of a tax policy can be done two months at a time is the

kind of activity we see here in washington that has put our economy off its tracks. both chambers work together to pass the full year bill to fund our government. i don't think this issue is any different. it is time for congress to do its work. the house will vote on the senate-pass the bill. this is a vote on whether the congress will stay and do its work or go on vacation. i expect it will vote to go to conference. the formal process where they can resolve differences between the chambers and between our bills. i expect the house to take up legislation that reinforces the

need to extend the payroll tax relief for a full year rather than just two months, to provide certainty for job creators. i think the best way to resolve this is to follow the regular order here in congress. there is a disagreement between the chambers and we sit down in conference and resolve those differences. the president has said repeatedly that no one should be going on vacation until the work is done. democrat leaders have said the same thing. i think it is time for the senate democratic leaders to put their vacations on hold and work in a bipartisan manner to finish the nation's business. >> if you cannot work out a deal, are you prepared to let

these tax cuts lapse? >> we believe a full-year extension of these tax cuts are very important. i do not believe the differences but to the house and senate are great. >> if you were so against this extension, why did you not raise the red flag with your republican colleagues who voted for this in the sense that -- senate? >> i made clear that sometime last week that i would not enter into negotiations with them until the senate produced a bill. the senate produced a bill. we expressed our reservations. >> you gave a guarantee that the

pipeline would be in the deal and you got it. >> we agree with the president that all of these -- the payroll tax cut, the unemployment allrance, the doc-fix -- this needs to be done in the right way. i have seen congress kick the can down the road. we can resolve these differences and do this in a way that provides certainty for job creators in our economy. >> the bill got 90% -- >> the president asked for a full-year extension. we agree with the president. democrat leaders have said the same thing, that we should do this for the full-year.

why should go to the lowest common denominator? we're prepared to do our work. >> what other changes do you want in the bill? >> we believe we past eight reasonable bill -- we believe we passed a reasonable bill. >> are you willing to look at the iraq and afghanistan funds? >> 90% of the offsets or offsets that the president agreed to. i don't believe it'll be that difficult to come to an agreement that would make reforms in the unemployment insurance program and do so in a fiscally responsible way. >> did you tell the white house -- >> never a conversation with the

white house. >> you supported moving forward with the two-month plan. what changed? >> no. that is not true. i was outlining that having the keystone pipeline was a success. i raise concerns about the two- month process from the moment i heard about it. thank you, everybody. >> hear what the candidates are saying. >> all options are on the table. we would get rid of 80% of the government.

>> who is a proven constitutional conservatives in this race? >> read the latest comments, all at c-span.org/campaign2012. we continue our road to the white house coverage with anita perry, the wife of rick perry. live coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. jon huntsman held a town hall meeting on sunday in rochester, new hampshire. he talked about his priorities for change. he has been campaigning in the granite state since announcing his candidacy in june. ron paul was there earlier this

month. jerry taft is the date of the first in the nation primary. this is just over an hour. >> i have some prepared notes. the person we put in the white house has to be a leader, a statesman, and the president, a conservative, a liberal, and not a republican, and not a democrat. i am honored to of the opportunity to introduce someone who authors everything we need and by all rights should be our next president. jon, i welcome you to rochester.

[applause] >> thank you. i am honored to be with you. it is a great honor and privilege. welcome to our campaign's 400th events. not that many. 126. it is a pleasure to be with you . thank you so much. i want to share some thoughts with you. i would like to turn to the greatest human being i've ever met. the important to get to know who the candidate hangs out with. that will allow you to better understand me. i am honored and privileged to be here with my wife of 20 years, mary kay.

i'm also honored to be here with a couple of daughters, rose mary and elizabeth. we have three girls on the campaign trail. we have to exploits in the navy, and two -- we have two sons in the navy and two girls at home. let me tell you that we were thrilled this morning to hear that we have received two of the five newspaper endorsements so far in this state, which is terrific. thank you. only five given and we have received two. i think that is pretty good. now we're sitting at third- place. with just over to ron paul for

third place in new hampshire. i can feel the energy in this state. it moves that there is no way it will turn backed . once it begins, you cannot stop it. and into january and peaking about january 10. why is that important? it is important event for new hampshire and the entire country on january 10. you'll have a chance to change history. if you stop to argue that the election of 2012 will be the most important in our lifetime, because we will determine who we are and what would become for the next generation of americans. that is you.

you do the diligence. you get to hear from the candidates up close and personal. you then render a judgment. when you do that on the first primary, the rest of the country pays attention. i'm from outside of the state. when this country registers a vote, people pay attention. we know you probably have heard these candidates and heard from them more than the other people. do you have this awesome responsibility on january 10 to begin this march toward change next year in november? of course you do. it is an honor and privilege to be a candidate for the presidency of the united states.

it is an hour to participate in this new hampshire primary process. to understand the part but shaking hands with everybody in the state 15 times before getting a vote -- do why understand the part about shaking hands? of course i do. thank you for being here. i like to turn this microphone over to the next first lady of the united states, wife, may kay. [applause] >> i am honored to be here with all of you. thank you for taking your sunday to be with us. i will tell you if you things about the man that i think has been the undervalued stock in this race. it will be new hampshire that takes into being the most valued candidate in this race. he is a man of honor, of integrity, of great character. he is disciplined.

he is focused. and he has i think just about every trick that we look for when we are looking for a candidate -- every trait that we look for when we are looking for a candidate. i opened up "the economist" magazine and found an article titled "wanted, a fantasy candidate -- where is the alternative?" i started thinking about who this fantasy candidate. number one, somebody that has extensive executive experience, like running a state effectively. i thought, check off that box. then, some in that understands the business and can take this country back to where it needs