to be and talk about perot- growth and getting the deficit down and making a priority -- about pro-growth and getting the deficit down and making a priority. and number four was somebody that has the ability to unite this country. their rigo. checked all of those boxes. this was really -- there we go. checked all of those boxes. this was really interesting. we got into this race and john jumped into this race and was immediately discounted because he did something that i am actually proud of -- serving his country. he did cross party lines to serve his country because he was asked. that is something that, as a wife and a mother of two sons who are serving in the united states navy, i am proud that he chose to serve.

and i am proud that he did that. i think he was overlooked when he first got in. what i feel happening in this country as we have gone through -- many candidates are going up and down in this race. people now are coming back and say, if you know what, we will be honest. we forgot to give him that first look. we appreciate you being here, giving him that first look. he has been the most undervalued stock. he will be the most valued stock. he is the most valued stock in my book. i decided you all need to get to know him and learn why i love the man as i do. he is a mile deep in all the issues. to excited for you to get

know him. thank you. [applause] >> so i like to tell people that, it you cannot find anything to like about me, i hope that is not the case, you still have to find something to like about her. and if you cannot find anything to like about her, you are crazy. [laughter] but if that is the case, we have seven kids and we can comprehend divide in the state very well. i like our chances in new hampshire. this is a fabulous state. i want you to walk away with two things -- what i will do when elected president of united states of america. the two things that i believe this country needs most in order to get back on our feet and together as americans first and foremost, they are both deficits. they both need to be addressed. one is the economic deficit. it is called $15 trillion.

it is a cancer metastasizing in this nation. if we do not deal with it aggressively and realistically, it will consume the next generation. i say that is not fair and that is not right. i do not want to see it as adjusted debt problem. when you have 70% debt to gdp -- just look around the bend in europe. what does italy have? 120% debt to gdp? japan, well over 100% debt to gdp. your economy does not grow any more. it just peters out. i think we need to look at it as more than just a debt problem. it is a national security problem. if we do not deal with it aggressively, it will hurt our economy and our ability to compete in what is today a highly competitive marketplace. not only will i hit it hard

from a debt and spending standpoint -- i agree with the ryan plan. i am the only candidate on the stage that agrees with the ryan plan and what he says in terms of the $6.20 trillion in cuts the need to be made over the next 10 years. is it tough? is it big? is it aggressive? of course it is. do we have eight choices people? no, we do not have a choice -- do we have a choice as people? no, we do not have a choice as people. not given where we are. i want to fire the engines of growth in this country. we are the most creative entrepreneurial people on earth and we are stock. we are on hold. we have no confidence. we want to break out of the box. we want to grow and get out of the whole. but we are stuck. we are stuck because we do not have a plan.

we are stuck because we have some structural challenges called a 1955 tax code trying to travel on the superhighway of the 21st century. and we wonder why we cannot compete. we have structural problems called too much in the way of regulatory red tape. we have structural problems like a country that wants to become energy independent and we itself from its heroin-like addiction, 65% imported oil. but we are not old enough to take the steps necessary to get us there. i want to get it done. and i want all of you in this room to take a copy of my economic plan. if you have not seen it already, endorsed by "the wall street journal," the most respected economic territorial paper in this country. what i am asking for is the phasing out of loopholes and deductions in total. i delivered to our citizens in utah what is effectively a flat

tax. everyone said it could not be done. tough and challenging politically, may be treacherous. i did the same thing, called for the phasing out of loopholes and deductions. i want to do the same thing for this nation. i want to lower the rate, broaden the base, and simplify. i am speaking to you not only as an academic theorist. i am speaking as a practitioner. i want to do for this country what i did for my state. in firing up the engines of growth and boosting confidence. we can launch as a people a manufacturing renaissance in this country. i get around this great state and icy hollowed out old manufacturing buildings from the last industrial revolution. these buildings were once fired by energy and productivity. and the competitive spirit that we all embody as americans.

i want to get back to those days. some people say that is impossible. that is totally doable and totally within our grasp. we have the largest marketplace in the world. we are 25% of the world gdp. we have the most productive workers on earth. we're just a little tired. we have just fallen behind in terms of our competitive environment. we all know that we can get it done. i want to launch a manufacturing renaissance in this country. in order to do that, we will have to create a more competitive environment to operate in. that is doable. while china has been running high for 30 years, they are beginning to come down current inflation is going up. the cost of manufacturing is going up. political uncertainty around the corner -- the investment dollars just conveniently lance in china will be looking to go somewhere else. -- conveniently lands in china will be looking to go somewhere else.

we would not be very smart if we did not recognize that and if you did not take advantage of it. if we are smart enough as people to fix our taxes to improve the regulatory dynamic and take steps toward greater energy independence and work on things like work force training, vocational skill development, expanding our community, we can be that manufacturing power. i want to get it done. i want to lead the charge in making that happen, in providing in creating the jobs that allow us to broaden our economic base and pay down the bills. that is how we deal with it. the second deficit, ladies gentlemen, is not an economic deficit. it is a deficit of another kind. it is called a trust deficit. the people of this nation no longer trust their institutions

of power. we are a nation founded on institutions, developed on trust. we have lost trust in our institutions of power. i look at congress -- 8% approval? 8% approval? i want to know where those people are hanging out. it is no wonder. you know what? congress needs term limits. and nobody wants to talk about it. i will lead the charge in this country talking about term limits for congress. and congress needs to close the revolving door that allows members to just file out into the lobbying profession where they can trade in on their relationships. and we ought to do something about blocking the pay of members of congress until they can balance the budget, for heaven's sake. [applause] there ought to be some medical

requirements for congress in order for us to give them any trust consideration at all. but the trust toward congress does not exist. trust in the executive branch, gone. no presidential leadership at a time when this nation desperately needs to be led. the president has two years in the very beginning to address our competitive deficiencies in this country and creating more hospitable and propitious environment for job growth. he did not get it done. instead, we have health care reform. obamacare dropped on us when we did no one and could not afford it. $1 trillion. no trust in the executive branch. no trust in our tax code. loopholes and deductions for anyone who can afford a lawyer or a lobbyist on capitol hill. we get crony capitalism. who got a loophole reduction last year in this crowd?

anybody? who has a lobbyist on capitol hill doing your bidding for you? anybody? who is paying for it all? we are all paying for it. and i say, in my tax code to make you want to get serious about cleaning up washington and addressing lobbying and the special interest cartels that are ruining this country, change the tax code. phase out all the loopholes and deductions and the corporate welfare and subsidies on businesses, that is what i will do. when you get rid of all of that, there's not much to lobby for and i think that is a good outcome. when you get rid of all of that, it levels the playing field for businesses were trying to get up on their feet. that is what i want to have happen. i want to infuse trust back into our tax code. i look at our wars -- no trust in our wars. 10 years we have been fighting the war on terror. 10 years. we have given it our all as

people. some families have given the ultimate sacrifice and it is to them that we offer a deep sense of gratitude and thank you and respect. we have a lot to show for what we have done in afghanistan. i want to stand up and explain to the american people that we routed to the taliban from power, but ended and dismantle al qaeda. they're now in subsidiaries or sanctuaries. we have had free elections. we have killed osama bin laden. you know what? it is time for these people to come home. [applause] thank you. 100,000 troops in afghanistan nation building at a time when this country needs so desperately to be built. if we do not have a strong core, which we do not have today -- our economy is not working -- you can project your values. when this nation is strong -- i

have lived overseas for times. i have seen this nation at its best. it projects its values of democracy. we're not doing that today. i want to fix this court. i want to give this nation back on its feet. until we do so, we do not have much of a foreign policy. when we are weak at home, we are weak abroad. i will pullout the map and say 700 american installations in 60 countries around the world? we have a little bit of the overhang from the cold war mentality. we need to be in the second decade of the 21st century in terms of our foreign policy and security structure. a look at germany -- 50,000 troops in 20 different installations? the russians are not coming anymore. let's get real about where we need to be in terms of our

positions throughout the world. i want a foreign policy for the american people that is led by economics, first and foremost. you have to recognize the ongoing counter-terrorism. we have to take it seriously. but i want a foreign policy led by economics. it used to break my heart running the embassy in beijing, the second-largest in the world. i look at afghanistan, 100,000 troops securing the perimeter. the chinese would move in and take the mining concession. there's something wrong with this picture. i want a foreign policy driven and led by economics that plays right back into strengthening our jobs. i look at wall street. no trust. no trust toward wall street. why should there be? banks that are too big to fail, banks that have an implied

guarantee on the part of the taxpayers -- if they screw up, they get a bailout because they are too big. if they go down, we all go down. all i am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, is that we will not do bailouts anymore. we have been there and we did that. we are not doing it again. [applause] thank you. in order to ensure that, we will have to have a president that can write-size the banks. here is what i mean. we have six institutions that have assets combined that equal to two-thirds of our nation's gdp. $9.40 trillion. trillionking about $2 to $3 trillion institutions. if they get infected, they cannot fail. they go down and take us down with them. capitalism without failure is not capitalism.

that is what we have set up on wall street. banks as institutions that we will just bailout over and over again because they're too big to fail, i say that puts taxpayers in a very precarious position. i want to right-size those banks. i want to put them back to where they were in the 1990's. so if they are insolvent, they can fail. ladies and gentlemen, when you leave here today, i just want you to remember that huntsman and i will deal with the economic deficit and he will draw from his experiences as governor where he took his state to the no. 1 position in job creation, where he took his stake to be the best place in america in which to do business. and what you to remember that

huntsman guy as someone who will deal with the trust deficit as much as he does the economic deficit. in the end, we have to come together as americans. we cannot part in our little cul-de-sacs and alleyways and expect to find solutions to our problems. we have to come together as americans and drop from the best traditions of our past. and i want to -- and draw from the best traditions of our past. and i want to get us there. i will not pander. i will not contort myself into a pretzel. i will not sign those silly pledges like everybody on the debate stages have done. i will not do that. i will do what i think is right for the people i represent. that is what i have always done. i have a record that speaks to being a consistent conservative. mary kay mention that, early on, there were people who passed

right by me. that guy when i ran across the partisan line to serve in china as u.s. ambassador. of course i did. because you put your country first. i will take the to my grave. i'm sorry. that is just to why am. i also serve president reagan and president bush and president bush. i will always believe in putting this country first. if you weigh my background and what i have done and who we are as a family, i hope that we can win you over. so my final request is this. i just want your vote. that is all i want. i want your vote. that is not asking too much. i have to earn it. i know i have to win it over. you may not like 100% of it, but that is ok. that does not mean that we cannot be friends. but does not mean that we can win you over. we will recognize that we have

everything we need to succeed in this country. we do not have the confidence to break out and get it done. but we have everything that every nation would want to succeed. i thought that living in china, a 10,000 miles away, you reflect on this country, the greatest nation there ever was, the most blue-sky optimistic people there ever was -- that is who we are. and right now, we are a little down. we are in a funk. we are dispirited and ejected. that is not natural. that is not who we are as people. we are in a hole and get to get out. we have to find solutions and march forward as americans. but to look at china 10,000 miles away at what we have in this nation, we have it all. we're still the envy of the world. we have stability. we have rule of law. we have the longest surviving constitution in the world.

we have private property rights. we have the greatest universities and colleges anywhere on earth and people still flock here to attend them, just to prove a point. we have the most entrepreneurial, creative, and innovative population of people anywhere in the world. we have a pretty brave and courageous armed forces. and i will be darned if we will let those who have been in the front lines in the theater of combat come back to the unemployment lines. that will not happen. they will come back to our respect, our admiration, and our gratitude. and they will come back, ladies and gentlemen, to jobs and opportunity because they deserve it. and they, like the greatest -- [applause] thank you. and they, like the greatest generation -- we have some in the audience that may be from the greatest generation. i had the great opportunity of shaking hands with some of the members of the greatest generation.

just like they built this country in their generation, we have another greatest generation coming up. and they will to dissipate in the rebuilding of this great nation -- and they will participate in the rebuilding of this great nation. do we have everything we need to succeed in this nation? of course, we do. we do not have leadership. we do not have confidence. and we do not have a plan. it is 2012 -- is 2012 critically important to our future? absolutely, it is critically important. therefore, all of you are, too. as participants in the first primary in this great country of ours. not to put too much pressure on you, but the world will be watching, ladies and gentlemen. thank you so much for being here today. i appreciate it. [applause] thank you. mindful that there is a patriots game -- [laughter] and the most dangerous place for

a candidate to be standing is between you and a patriot games. we can do some questions and comments and then we will let you go. the most important event of the day, right? we will turn it over to you. yes, sir. i come from an open state, right-to-work state. i think they have a distinct advantage in the marketplace. and i think time will prove that capital is a coward. capital always flea's risk in the marketplace. what we have seen play out in south carolina, that is a perfect example of the manipulation of the marketplace. capital will flee from that kind of activity. i do not think it bodes well for either right-to-work states or

not. i had companies that were expanding in other states and got that kind of treatment. i would worry about the rest of the companies headquartered in my state. what is the alternative? they go overseas. they go to china. i say that is a loser for everybody in the united states. so let this be debated. let it play out. but i have seen it in my own state the power of the marketplace at work and how right-to-work contributes to that. >> i have listened to a lot of candidates with all of their promises and what they will do and what they have done. most of the time, nothing happens. of course, right now, for a long time, we have been looking at all of this partisan bickering in washington.

how on earth will you get past that to implement some of these wonderful ideas? >> i will lead. i heard the same thing when i was elected governor back in 2004. how will you make it happen? everybody talks about this. i let out. i came out with a very simplistic template for economic revitalization, starting with tax reform, flat tax, and all the way to health care reform. it took us a couple of years. we got it all done. i went back to the people when i was reelected -- if you love your state, i kept all my promises. it may have been lovely to watch some of the play out, but if you like where your state is, -- it may have been ugly to watch some of it play out, but if you like where your state is, vote for me.

no politics, no theatrics, no- nonsense, just get the work of the people done. when you are elected, you have the will of the people for a certain amount of time. you have the good will of congress as the governor does with the legislature for a certain amount of time. remember, congress wants to be led. they do not like to be left doing nothing. there is a vacuum on capitol hill. and what happens in that vacuum? mischief-making. everyone is in their political corner and a finger-point engage in the blame game. all the while, the work of the people this not get done. congress wants to be led. so in the first year and a half after i am elected, i will take three things to capitol hill. i will say to the leadership, as ronald reagan -- ronald reagan did a good thing in 1980. he befriended tip o'neill and the senate majority leader and

relationships mean a lot on capitol hill. i would do that. and then i would take three things to capitol hill on my first day and say i have a pretty simple agenda i want to pursue. i know it will take as a couple of years to do. it is the work of the people. they wanted done. they spoke out in the last election. let's get it done. and that is the tax package and will put forward. that is in a bipartisan fashion. it is not a pie in the sky thing that might get a wild applause line at some political event. it is the real thing. second, regulatory reform, some simple steps, like repealing obamacare and repealing dodd- frank. but everybody knows we have to clean up the marketplace. that will be part of it. and third, moving toward energy independence. i want to dismantle and disrupt that one product monopoly. it is great if you want to use oil or the oil derivatives. it is terrible if you want to

use any alternative product. we are a nation that will be drawing more and more from alternative fuels, like natural gas. had one of that? i ran my car on natural gas when i was governor. the number one problem was distribution, finding fill up stations. how do you get fuel in your car? we have only one product. it is like a heroin addiction. that is coming to an end. we will take control of our energy future. why? because we can. we have all of the raw materials in this nation to make it happen. we have some structural problems. we have stood due to that one- product distribution system that we did to the broadcast system in the 1960's. we have to blow it open.

look at what we have to make. those are the three things that i will take to capitol hill and we have one yet -- we have a year-and-a-half to two years to get it done. let's get busy. exerted a little bit of leadership on top of that and i think this country is hungry to see things happen. and congress, for all of their appearances of being divided and polarized, there is no leadership on capitol hill. the full pack position is mischief making. that will not -- the fallback position is mr. making. that will not happen when i am president. we will get it done. thank you. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> there you go, right behind you. >> i have to not tell my wife that i am not as loud as she thinks i am. [laughter]

i have always believed that one really great way of saving in this country was by stopping pork spending. one of the reasons that i like senator mccain so much. i am really against pork. i would like to know where you stand on this issue. >> no pork. no port. [applause] a safeguard is the tax code that phases of loopholes and deductions that all of the interest groups are getting. i can say no pork, which is a great sound bite, but i want a level playing field for everybody. it will end up in three different rates. it will allow us to simplify.

i think that is the most powerful contribution we can make toward getting us back on our feet in terms of economic revival. i think it is the most important contribution we can make to clean up the practices in washington. that is what i want to do. yes, sir. right behind you. >> i want you to talk the little bit about family and row vs. wade. i am pro-life. i always have been. and so for those who may not agree with my position, that is where i am. i have two little adopted rules at home reminded every day -- one is from china and one is from india. i am reminded -- i cannot say every day because i denied it to see them everyday. but i am reminded about their mothers who i will never get to

meet. and for whatever reason in their cultures, where it would have been a whole lot easier to not choose life, they chose life. we now have a great blessing as a family to raise these two girls. and i see how powerful their life is. i see the contributions they will make as they go forward in making the world better place and bringing joy and happiness into people's lives. it is a pretty powerful thing. that is just another example to me of the power of life. that has been pretty central to my core philosophy. that is where i come down on the whole issue of roe vs. wade. yes, sir. back here. >> i have been so impressed with your speaking in the national televised debates. iran has been making threats

that, if they are attacked, that they will retaliate against america. the top newspaper in iran came out with an article saying that "there are elements in america that will detonate nuclear bombs in american cities." i wonder if you can address the nuclear threat from iran? >> it sounds like a lot of threatening hyperbole to me. not completely unexpected in a war of words. i think that the most transcendent form policy challenge for us, for our country, it is iran. i say that because they have two things playing out. you have centrifuges spinning in iran making low-enriched product. i think it will eventually become a high-enriched product. then they can make a weapon.

you combine that with the rhetoric that has been on display toward israel, combine that with the connection that tehran has with damascus in syria and support for hamas and hezbollah, and i say that we have a very lethal combination of elements that are playing out here. as for me, i say the leadership in iran has already decided to go nuclear. a think they have looked at the world. they have looked at north korea. they have said they are a nuclear power. they are really out of reach for most people. and they look at libya, which had a program that they gave up in exchange for international friendships and alliances.

look at what happened there. i think tehran as saying we want the leverage and the stature that be a nuclear power will bring. so we have to ask ourselves a simple question. can you live with a nuclear iran? if the answer is yes, then you have to live with the dramatic proliferation implications, including saudi arabia, turkey, egypt, although we do not know what the leadership structure will look like there anytime soon, but it does look like the strong backbone of the egyptian military will go nuclear. at that point, you have lost control. that is an unsustainable position for the region to be in. i cannot live with a nuclear iran as i played out on the chessboard. if you cannot live with a nuclear iran, then you have to conclude with the people. all elements of national power are then on the table to be used in whatever phased way, incrementally in order to keep iran from developing a nuclear weapon. that would be my position. i think we will have to prepare

for that conversation with israel, whether it is a year from now or three years from now. i think it will likely happen. there is enough information out there that leads us to believe that they have enough material. are you with us or not? and then it will be important to understand what it means to be an ally with united states. you stand with your friends could you stand with your allies. there are certain values that bring nations together. at that point, we need to stand on our commitments. and make sure that the malls in tehran that all options are on the table for the united states. yes, sir. >> i see in your documents that you believe in reducing the tax rate for corporations and also eliminating the taxes for the

dividends and capital gains. it seems to me that leaves a lot of high-income people who worked in the securities area not having any personal taxes. i am wondering why you chose to delete the dual taxation on that side as opposed to the corporate side where you want to lower that anyway? >> i am guessing that, on the corporate side, not everybody is paying only 35% rate. i want to recognize that reality. a lot of corporations can afford the lawyers and lobbyists to do their bidding. so i want to recognize the reality of the world that we live in. phase out subsidies and lower it from 35% to 25%. in the name of growth. i have also said that on capital gains and dividends. i want to take it to zero. and we have a lot of investors

in this nation. a lot more than people might realize. i will err in this case, knowing full well that you have a legislative battle. but my position will be that. it is airing on the side of growth. i think we need -- it is erring on the side of growth. i think we need to deploy more capital to the marketplace in ways that will allow this nation to move forward. my on analysis, i was erring on the side of growth in making that decision. yes, sir. >> thank you for coming today. two issues that are high in my concern is, one, i am a small businessmen. over the years, i have always played for health insurance for my employees pick -- i have always paid for health insurers for my employees. it is now a question of how much longer i can afford to do that. the insurance rates that we see keep climbing. frankly, i do not entirely agree with your position.

i was disappointed that obamacare did not offer a single-payer or a public auction. i see the -- a public option. we are subsidizing uninsured people through our insurance rates at hospitals who do not have insurance. we have all of the subsidies that will go to health care, yet the people that are paying the insurance are observing a significant portion of that cost. my question to you on that issue is eliminating obamacare leaves us with the same system we have today. how will it be more affordable in the future?

that is the first question. the second, quickly, is, in terms of the open trade policies between countries, how do you feel about their trade? i do not hear any of our candidates talking about that, fair trade where we allow our corporations overseas to avoid regulations here that have made clean air and clean water, good regulations, where we do not have child care and we have workman's comp. when you have overseas, they do not have those policies and they can send the product back. they will go overseas. what will you do? >> i want to reverse this trend by launching a manufacturing renaissance in this country. and recognizing full well what the years ahead will look like. look at what ford motor co. is doing.

look at what dow corporations doing. look at with the natural gas revolution is doing in providing more opportunity in this country. the largest consumer class developing in china and india, we have a huge export opportunity in this country. exports have been on average 12% to 15% of our gdp. i can see a time when it will go to 20% of our gdp, expand our base, and create jobs. we are a great manufacturing power. the changes that taking place in the macroeconomics the environment are giving us the opportunity to get bigger in terms of our manufacturing capabilities. i want to reverse those trends and promote insourcing, more in the way of exports to the rising market place and we are just fully understanding that.

it is a very powerful thing for any country. recognize the magnitude of what this may mean in terms of a single engine of growth we may not be counting on. what are you going to do after 2014 after obamacare takes effect? i asked you as a small businessman. have you thought that through? [no audio] the problem is affordability with insurance policies. as we embark upon health care reform when i was governor, i thought we made some pretty important contributions to health care reform. we stumbled upon problem number one, costs. it is a $3 trillion industry equal to the g.d.p. of france. and half of that number, $1.50 trillion is needless, superfluous spending.

how do you take it out? what are the drivers of that cost that we do not need, and how do you take it out of the system? toward reform, i think would be one step. second, the fee-for-service approach where you are directed to does your doctor for any procedure yet they may have available, you are fully billed for it later which leads me to believe we need to empower our patients more to understand what procedures are available for them. what are the costs? what does insurance actually cover at the end of the day? no one understands costs. doctors do not know, patients do not know and we are in this highly ambiguous environment that we need to tighten up. finally, closing the gap on the uninsured, we will never get there. you have to mandate your way on closing the way, then you have the what they have in

massachusetts where costs go up, quality goes down. emergency room visits skyrocket. or you can do what we try to do come expand the market place for affordable expansion. we had to find an affordable option, for the youngest group of are uninsured. they're never going to die. why do they need health insurance? whether states are working on the same thing or not, this is a good breakthrough. it proves the point that in the and we can get insurance companies to do what they're supposed to do, take a risk. they have done enough of what they're supposed to do, take a risk, look at their profile in terms of affordable and accessible policies.

we just do not have those today. [no audio] it is a cross-state transaction. as president, i would eradicate those barriers that make it impossible for you to bax's that affordable policies somewhere else which will drive costs down because providers in this area will want to compete. i think that would be very, very good for the marketplace. let's take a step back, and before we get to $1 trillion over the next 10 years or the mandate that may prove to be unconstitutional next summer when the supreme court takes about, not to mention the uncertainty for you and others in small business to do not know what to do about hiring come in fusing capital expenditures into the marketplace, so everyone is just sitting on their hands waiting for clear -- greater clarity. the clarity i am going to bring as to do away with obamacare. we are going to sit down together with the 50 governors and we say we will take two

years because the american people cannot afford to wait any longer. we will find the best approach is for cost containment, because we know we can do it, and we will find the best approaches for things like individual responsibility. 75% of health-care spending is in four areas, cardiovascular, cancer, diabetes, obesity. there are choices that each american can make in bringing improvements to the table. we will figure out a way to bring about an up of the way of the marketplace of the accessible, affordable insurance policies, which we have not even started, which will allow us to close the gap. that is what i would like to do. i will take one more and then i will let you go, because i know have a game on the table. yes, sir? >> i agree with your earlier

comment that rather [no audio] we let banks get bigger. can you talk about how, procedurally, you would address that and the glass stiegel restrictions? >> they are good thoughts. on glass-steagall, what i would be willing to do in terms of a remedy for the banks that are too big to fail, i would impose a fee. it would cause the banks to say they cannot afford to pay its a they should invest themselves of holdings down to a size that is commensurate with where they were in the mid 1990's. goldman sachs in the mid 1990's was about $600 billion in size. $1.10 trillion in size now. did we get any better?

is our nation better served by size alone? or did we assume more of a recess tax payers? since the economic collapse of several years ago, these banks have bought up these underperforming subsidiaries. i say i will impose a fee until they can fall under too big to fail and then i will withdraw the fee. i think that is the right approach, and i think it needs to be done. if we do not [no audio] we can improve the regular tv -- a regulatory environment, move toward energy independence, all of that, but there will still be banks that are too big to fail which is not in our long- term interest. thank you come everyone, for being here. let me reiterate my one request. if you like what you have heard

today, go back and read up on our economic proposal on the table that there. it makes for great light time reading, writing from start to finish. you will love it. take a look. see where my service years have taken me as governor. if you like the choices i made as governor in terms of economic reform, health care reform, we did a lot when i was governor. i need your support. we can make the changes this nation needs so desperately and that happens with you, not me. you, the people. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] >> this afternoon, we will continue our road to the white house with anita perry. she is in new hampshire meeting and greeting residents there and live coverage gets under way in a couple of minutes around 1:00 p.m. eastern. hear what the candidates are saying at the newly designed cspan website for campaign 2012. >> if you cannot live with a

nuclear iran, you have to say what to do. i think all options are on the table. >> if we took that oath of office here is the washington, we get rid of 80% of the government. >> your question was who is the proven constitutional conservative in this race and that would be made. >> read the latest comments from candidates have a link to our media partners all at c- span.org/campaign 2012. >> if you ask the consumer out there if they want a faster down but, they will say yes. if you ask him if it means you no longer a global news, weather, sports, emergency information on your television, they will say that is not the trade off that i thought was at stake. when it is done incorrectly, that is the trade off. >> the head of the national transportation -- the national

association of broadcasters will talk about emergency communications tonight at 8 on "the communicators" on c-span 2. >> the cspan series "the contenders"looks back at 40 man who ran for president and did not win that had a lasting impression on politics. tonight, henry clay, tuesday, james g. blaine, wednesday, william jennings bryan, five times socialist candidate eugene-on thursday and friday, charles evans hughes and on saturday, a three-time governor of new york al smith followed by businessman and member of the liberal wing of the gop wendell willkie. "the contenders" every night at 10:00 on c-span. >> we will bring you live coverage from hudson, new hampshire with anita perry, the

wife of rick perry. she is at the ladies auxiliary of vfw in hudson, new hampshire. they are getting set up and it should begin shortly. until then, your phone calls from today's guest:." is the story in "the financial times" this morning. host: let's look at more coverage on the story. in "usa today."

to get some perspective, we go now to the phones. staff writer art "wrote col. good morning. thank you for joining us. -- staff writer for "roll call." was this evolution is a prize to reporters who have been covering what was going on? guest: after the deal was struck, they saw mcconnell come out and he was happy. there is a picture of him giving one of his colleagues a high five. he said he was confident

that the next day everything would be fine. they had a conference call with all of their members and there was a particularly rowdy opposition because there was a short-term plan. it had been widely reported that he expressed some sort of support for the senate plan where as almost anyone else in the conference did not. almost immediately after, and on sunday, the speaker appeared on nbc's "meet the press" and said he was opposed to the deal. host: our guest over the phone. said --

what does this mean? where do we go from here? guest: after we fed 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 gothe 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 urse, 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 chamb 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 askhe 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 snd 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 ll deteriorate rock. you have joined in that pipe. it may be rubber. if that pipeline starts leaking, you can't keep --lean 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 fun 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 n 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 ecomies 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 yea, 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. somebodyn 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 suld 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.

>> you can see "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 a.m.. we go live now to new hampshire with a campaign meet and greet with anita perry, white of rick barry. they are at the auxiliaries vfw. >> bless your heart. thank you. that is wonderful. how are you? from harlingen? that's great. thank you. thank you. hi. how are you? >> i live in hudson.

very happy to be working on her husband's campaign. >> nice to meet you. thank you. it is cooler this time of year here. >> it's a collection. >> morning. your hands are cold. >> yeah. >> nice to meet you. >> hi, there. i'm anita. nice to meet you. hellow, sir.

anita perry. my grandmother is a golden. that's a mazing. >> is she irish? >> i don't know. nice to meet you. thank you all for your service. how are you? >> doing great. >> thank you for being here. veterans take care of veterans. >> did you see yourself in the video? >> the voice coming from the gut makes a difference. >> i know. well, thank you for being here. >> i'll be here until the end. >> hello again. >> hi there. how are you? good to see you.

how's your mommy? >> she's under the weather. vertigo. >> oh, no. >> wonderful. non-stop jetblue to boston. can't beat it. ooh, yum. cookies. let me say hi to this guy right here. nice to see you. hello. anita. nice to meet you. did y'all make the cookies? [laughter] >> how are you?

>> good. how are you? hello. how are you? nice to meet you. >> thank you for coming to us. >> nice to meet you. >> thank you for being here. hi. hi there. good to see you. at the hudson post. i'll introduce you. >> we've met. >> thank you for being here. this is the treasurer. i don't know if you met her. >> i did. hello there. >> would yo ulike to get started?

>> i would. we're on your schedule. thank you. i'm anita. nice to meet you. >> welcome to new hampshire. >> thank you for everything.

>> good afternoon, everyone. if you could please take your seats, we will start. for those of europe who do not know, i am the state president for the ladies auxiliary to the veterans of foreign wars and i am posting this event today. i would like to recognize those at the head table beginning from my right, ellen, the treasurer of the hudson auxiliary and the wife of a commander. john, next to her, is a post commander.

we have the state senior vice vfw commandor. i would like to introduce don knapp, a past president of the ladies' auxiliaries and she will be talking today. -- i would like to introduce donna. [applause] >> good afternoon. this is a project that was and theyback in 2004 t had care packages sent over to iraq. not every soldier gets a care package from family. brian, serving in iraq, asked his family to adopt their unit and they did. then other units said, "look at the stuff that they get. they get amazing stuff.

they must be getting that from wal-mart." that is how it started. every christmas, they send christmas stockings to as many soldiers that are serving and i think it is up to, right now, -- the highest amount we have ever sent out. i just want to let you know that what they do is 100% of what they collect and goes 100% to our service men and women. if there are leftovers from serving, they send to walter reed or other hospitals that are taking care of our wounded soldiers. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, donna. before i introduce our honored

guest today, i would want to thank the hudson post auxiliary and the post for doing such a great job setting this up and great food they have provided us with. [applause] at this time, it is my honor to introduce the taxes first lady, mrs. -- texas first lady, mrs. anita perry. both she and her husband, 2012 gop presidential candidate rick perry are concerned about the loss of benefits for veterans and military personnel. as a nurse, she is a passion for caring for others and especially our veterans deserve our utmost care which they earned through their service and sacrifice given in the name of freedom. following are comments, she will open the floor to questions regarding a her work and her

husband's candidacy. i would like to present mrs. anita perry. [applause] >> thank you. you all are so kind. thank you so very much for coming out today. i know this is a busy, busy week and people have things going on. we have lots to do so i really appreciated. thank you so much. thank you, beth. great to be here in had some. it is a beautiful day. i am rubbing my hands together. that is just a little -- i do not know. colder than i'm used to. [no audio] my dad was a 9-38 pilot in guam. it did not talk much about his military service.

[audio issues] i think his plan is in the bottom of the ocean or something right now. i want to thank you all for your service. without it, we would not be here. [no audio] i am the wife of a veteran. when rick graduated from texas a&m, he was a pilot in the air force flying c-130's. now he is running for the presidency of the united states. [no audio] i never thought there would be here, but i am delighted. i want to thank you all for your support and those who continue to serve for us. [no audio] we have the finest infantry in the world and you are all heroes.

[no audio] those who say that our country is not [no audio] are wrong because they have not visited you here at the hudson. i'm want to talk a little bit about rick. some of you may have heard about him before. he is the son of farmers in dry land, cotton, where we did not get a lot of rain in texas. he went to church, went to boy scouts, he is an eagle scout. [no audio] we took care of our neighbors. if they were sick, we made them casseroled put in their freezer.

we took care of their dogs when they were on vacation. we never worried about having enough, because we always had plenty. we learn that from our fathers. [no audio] his father commission that of england in world war ii in 35 missions. neither of our fathers spoke often about the war. they did profess their love for america and their desire to [no audio] people say, why am i doing this? because both of us are proud to walk in our father's footsteps. it was a tumultuous time, those

that serve in vietnam and that was the time that rick was in the air force. he volunteered. he was prepared to do with his nation required him to demand the was proud to wear the uniform of our country. people say [no audio] if i could say one thing [no audio] he is an optimist. [no audio] he truly believes that america's best days [no audio] four years ago, a man became our president and promised us hope. 10 million people are out of work. 45 million people are on food stamps. we think it's time we had a president to understand that hope comes from [no audio]

in fact, if you look at government, [no audio] it is now the most affluent metropolitan area in the country. this is why things will never change if we replace one [no audio] wrecked is not feel that we can make a change in our country if we just tinker around the edges. he thinks we need a bold change. we need members home in their districts with the people that they represent and living under [no audio] he sinks they need to cut their pay in half, cut their time in washington [no audio] he wants to jolt the economy back by cutting taxes for working families and get rid of

the irs as we know it. [no audio] ban banker bailouts, ban at pet projects. his plan not only eliminates [no audio] but it will end tehe great moral injustice known as the death tax. [no audio] takes your house. when it comes to foreign- policy, we will never apologize for country that has done more than any other country in the world to liberate the oppressed.

as president, he will protect our values, tools they need to wage war successfully. he will never endanger american lives unless they are in the most vital of interests. he will not only in the late fund our current defense [no audio] but programs that take care of the veterans that once served. you know, we live in the greatest country in the world. a free nation cannot turn a blind eye to the wounded warriors. i just came from a prosthetic company. i saw the wonderful work they do there in fitting our veterans

with the most innovative technology that they can. the federal government will try to take that away. they will decide what is best. if they decide that veteran [no audio] that is not right. they are our flesh and blood. we want to give the veterans the best we can because they are our families. they should have helped transitioning back to civilian life. [no audio] they should get the freedoms that they defended. this election coming up quickly, your primary, you have a choice. politics as usual. you do not have to settle for modest reforms that amount to [no audio] you can reach beyond the

boundaries and confine the beltway. the true leader, a true washington outsider. you can choose a president that wore the uniform of our country just like you did because we are one of you. [no audio] i'm going to ask you, if you have not already, to put your support in us for this quest as we try to save our country. we have somebody with us today. [no audio]

thank you for your service. thank you. that says so much more than the words on this paper. is it the longer video? the navy cross recipient, a decorated marine that was with us. i would like for you to listen to that video. valor and veterans. you do not have to take my word. [no audio]

i joined the military in [no audio] >> clearly we are having some technical issues with our coverage of this campaign stop with anita perry, what of rick perry. she is in hudson, new hampshire. we are recording the program and we plan to bring it to you later in our programming. coming up shortly, we will have today's white house briefing with jay carney. until then, i conversation on texting while driving and the ntsb's recommendations.

our guest is the chairperson of the ntsb. thank you for being with us. i make this recommendation? guest: it is a combination of investigations of the safety board. there have been anywhere distraction has been present. when it comes to highway accidents, we have made recommendations about novice drivers and stages in learning how to drive. we made recommendations about school bus drivers and we have also made recommendations for commercial drivers that are driving 80,000 pound vehicles. we made recommendations. >> tells about the role the ntsb plays when there is a crash. you look at exactly what is

happening. and you are investigators piecing together what rent wrong. >> we are an independent investigatory body. we want to determine what happened so are charges very simple. it is not up to us to implement those recommendations but to others. we make recommendations for people we think it could be changing to prevent accidents and 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." so, 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 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 was the second bus of a two- bus convoy. he did not heed the signs. there was a low clearance up ahead. 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. -- the bus. 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. it's been used for a long time and both are used by businesses, truck drivers, taxi drivers, day to day. 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 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. -- distraction. 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 it done before. how are tax dollars going to get it done?

the outrage is driving the people, but we are not getting it done in the years before, how do expect to get it done now? 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 the first bus, 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 guest is deborah hersman. chairman of the ntsb. she is serving a second five- year term. she has been a board member for a while and will be until the end of 2013. 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. 409 employees. 26% spread across 9 regional offices. 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. our investigators are looking at everything from the bridge collapse in minneapolis to airplane accidents and regional airplane accidents, aviation in every state, all times of the year. our investigators do great work, and we do probable cause determination every year. d,st: let's hear from e

republican caller in indianapolis. caller: good morning. my issue is very different, but distracting as far as i'm concerned. on the highway, when it is raining, some highways in particular to dig up an awful lot of stuff from the tires. it is very difficult to deal with. i am a very experienced driver, and i've only seen it on eps vehicles -- ups vehicles -- nylon skirt over the wheels that reduced the amount of spray coming off of the tires. i just don't understand why. -- why there's not a mandatory

-- [unintelligible] for semis to help reduce the amount of spray from the water. host: what do you think of ed's idea? guest: ed raises great points about implement weather conditions and driving around a big vehicles. there are challenges there, and you want to make sure you are operating safely. i think that the driver -- the caller raises interesting points about visibility and out that can be obscured. we will look at those issues, but ntsb investigates a number of highway accidents. we have not necessarily seen the

issue he is sharing with respect to ups vehicles but we will be on the lookout for it. host: the ntsb recently recommended banning texting in all 50 states what driving. how often do you make recommendations relating to a large scale cultural change? guest: that has been a really tough issue for us, because it is not just about changing the laws, but changing hearts and minds. i have been so really gratified by the national debate in the last week since we should this recommendation. i know a lot of people don't support the recommendation, but i'm hearing from a lot of people who do. the fatalities every year is the equivalent of having regional jet crashed every week. we have to get to a point where we are not accepting the number of fatalities on the nation's highways.

there are things that people can do every day to prevent them. the first step in addressing the issue is identifying we have a problem, a challenge that needs to be dealt with. that is with these recommendations have done, they have begun a national debate and dialogue about what is acceptable about bringing these devices in the car, because they are getting more complicated and distracting, because they have so much functionality. it is almost as if it they what to make the car and extension of your home or workplace, but you are driving a two-ton vehicle that can kill someone in the blink of an eye. you have to be vigilant. host: there are recommendations for after a plane crash that pilots at work differently or technology can be upgraded, but this relates to what people did in their own vehicles and personal lives. is it rare to make such a big recommendation?

do you make these often? guest: is rare in that we don't make a sweeping recommendations that are new and have not been filed before, but we have recommendations on our books about seat belt use in all 50 states, about curbing drunk driving, about having proper restraints for our children. you mentioned pilots. when we look back at the investigations were conducted over the past 10 years, it is not just the people behind the wheel, but people in the cockpit, people in the locomotive cabs, and we investigate incidents involving two northwest pilots who overflew their destination to minneapolis by over 100 mi., did not respond to air traffic control for over 60 minutes. they had their laptops out and respected. we make recommendations after an accident in which we saw that the co-pilot texting on the

taxiway. we look at all facets of an accident. we did find that the behavior was going on, and in the aviation industry, because of the distractions, they have what is called a sterile cockpit rule, and below 10,000 feet, they cannot talk about anything else except that tax at hand. ask at hand. host: massachusetts, democrats line. caller: i would like to weigh in with the secretary of transportation on this -- host: we are listening. you are on with the chairman. caller: well, i agree with her. it is absolutely necessary to ban these telephone devices with their myriad capabilities, simply because, number one, driving requires defensiveness.

when i was learning how to drive, one of the things i was taught was that you have to drive defensively. in other words, you have to have both hands on the wheel and absolute concentration on what you are doing in order to be good and effective driver. the other thing this goes to is the value of a human life. iis it more important to be so distracted and doing something like texting than putting an innocent life in jeopardy? i would say the answer is now. if you want adult enough -- if you are not enadult enough to put down a toy and concentrate on your driving, maybe you should not be driving. guest: you have really hit the nail on the head.

we have seen too many accidents were innocent lives were lost is not just people talking on the phone or texting and distracted. it is the other people around, who have no reason to be put in harm's way. we see too many fatalities every year. whether it is 10, 100, 1000, no text, no call is worth a human life. if you talk to the families of those killed by a human destruction, they will tell you that those on the other end in most cases cannot even remember what the reason was that they were doing it. and it wasn't that important. host: next caller. caller: chairman hersman, the

last time icu was in december 2009, i believe, you are on c- span, and you made the astounding statement that the 9/11 black boxes were recovered and sent to the fbi. i wonder if you could elaborate more on this and why the public is not allowed to know what is with the black boxes. i think if the conversations on the black boxes would be released -- host: don is breaking up on us, but we got his point. guest: not all of the black boxes were recovered. in some situations, they were. the boxes were never recovered from the towers. even though we looked and looked for a long time. they were recovered from shanksville, pennsylvania.

we did not recover all of the boxes. i am sorry if that is something that confuse you. the ones we did helped the fbi to read out and much of that information was not made available in the report on 9/11, the. independent. host: "the washington post" have s an editorial today. they encourage banning of texting. they say that "states have been slower to-and cellphone compositions come out ye -- to ban cellphon conversations -- guest: well that is really the

reason we made a recommendation. "the washington post" and many other newspapers and the country are taking a strong stance, because it is about changing the debate in changing the way people think about this. when we look back on smoking many years ago, even though it was en vogue and something that seemed glamorous at that time, over time we recognized that it is dangerous. we have changed our rules and standards but also our personal behavior and how acceptable is to people don't want to get in a car with someone else who is smoking. we need to get to a point where people will not get in a car with someone if they don't put the device down. we see this with young children and seat belts. as they grope with seat belts, they are the ones who encouraged grandparents to book -- grow up with seat belts, they are the

ones to encourage it grandparents to buckle up. guest: that is part of the three-pronged campaign for a success rate is also about having good education and enforcement. there is lots of people who will be motivated by education campaigns, and that is fantastic. we want to see that happen. there are some people who are the thing for the law to tell them what they should or should not do and what is right. when it comes to enforcement, there is a certain segment of the population that is not going to come along on less they feel there is a risk or consequence for not complying. host: jim, arizona, republican caller. caller: my name is jim. i am watching this department transportation deborah -- host: yes? caller: the problem that everybody has -- they are lax on

the laws. you have the laws, but they are not in force. germany, a prime example. when you go over there, you take a test, and it takes you six months before you can take that -- you got to go to school prayer you cannot smoke, you cannot eat in your vehicle -- you've got to go to school. you cannot smoke, you cannot eat in your vehicle, which i see all the time. people on phones -- they just don't care. host: let's talk about penalties, what jim just brought up. guest: i think that penalties are varied, but one of the things we see in our investigations is that very often there is strong enforcement. sometimes the laws are difficult

to enforce. in missouri, the case with that with this accident, they did have a texting ban, but it applied to drivers 21 years old and younger. the challenge is how did the law enforcement officer know when they see some texting they are 20, 19, or 2425? -- or 24 or 25? we have to get to a point where the laws are consistent and easy to enforce, but law enforcement officials have done great things with impaired driving, looking at people not maintaining their lanes, not maintaining speed, driving erratically. these are the same of marks we can look forward to distracted driving. host: what should the fine be for infractions? the most popular rate of charging someone if they have

committed the crime, the misdemeanor, is $100 to $200. 35% to 34% believe that should be the biggest penalty. let's look at percentages of people who are sending text messages and emails. females, 17% bid the largest percentage of emailers and texters what driving is in the 21-to-24 age range. guest: these devices are very generational in nature. there are people who have grown up, literally, with electronic devices in their hands long before they had a learner's permit. they are comfortable with them and are bringing them into the car with them. when we look at all of the

things in people's stockings or under the christmas trees this year, we know that one of office item -- one of the hottest items are iphones, ipads, tablets, devices that qiviut incredible amounts of technology. how important is it for you to update your facebook page or even playing angry birds behind the wheel? technology creates some of these problems for us, but technology also has the potential to provide the solution for us. you can make sure there's functionality to turn it off when moving, so it recognizes who was in the driver's seat and who was a passenger, so you don't become distracted. in a way, people want to check the messages, they want to check their textws, sometimes they are bored and don't know what to do with themselves. this is a problem for people in

the driver's compartment. not for people in the passenger's seat, but for people in the driver's compartment. we have got to figure out a way to shut that down. if people are in their vehicles and want to access that for home or work, we have to design vehicles so they prevent accidents. if you don't want to be driving, we need to get cars that drive themselves. i've seen google's self- driving car, and maybe that will be the solution for people who don't want to be driving. line.pete, democrats' caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with the 100% as far as texting, hands-free, talking on cell phones. i'd love the police department, but i see some of these shows where some of the fellows are going to an emergency and they are going 60, 70 miles an hour,

looking down and reading a computer while date and by driving that fast, talking on the radio, talking on cell phones. how to dat 281 -- how to they do it without getting in an accident? i just don't understand that. guest: i think you are right about the distractions that law enforcement have. they have a very, very difficult job. they have to respond to directions with information. sometimes the information is coming from multiple sources. it is important for them to be able to operate safely. we see hundreds of fatalities every year with police involved in a high-speed police chases. very often there are emergency vehicles involved in cases, responding to an emergency, whether it is a fire or an accident. we want to make sure that all of those are prevented. it is up to each jurisdiction to figure out how to do that and how to fix those.

host: one last tweet. our guest, debbie hersman, is chairman of the national transportation safety board. she is serving her second five- year term. thanks so much for being here this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we have brought to talk about the recommendation to ban at texting. >> it picture from the white house briefing room this afternoon. jay carney is expected to brief reporters about 10 minutes from now. we will expect simmons on the tax cut extension and the death of kim jong il over the weekend. live in 10 minutes or so. until then, secretary of state hillary clinton offered remarks on the demise of the north korean leader and u.s.-japan relations.

she is here with the japanese foreign minister in his news briefing that wrapped up a few minutes ago. >> it is an honor for me to welcome foreign minister to the state department on his first official visit to washington. he and i have closely consulted both by fphone and in person at in several places, but it is a real pleasure to have you here. >> [speaking japanese] >> japan and the united states share a strong and vibrant partnership. our alliance helped safeguard regional security --

-- the pacific. >> [speaking japanese] >> today the foreign minister and i discussed the evolving situation on the korean peninsula in light of the reports from north korea's state-owned media on the death of kim jong il. >> [speaking japanese]

>> we both share common interests in a peaceful and stable transition in north korea, as well as in ensuring regional peace and stability. we have been in close touch with our partners in the six-party talks today. >> [speaking japanese]

>> president obama and president lee spoke last night. i spoke with the foreign minister earlier this morning. we are also reaching out to beijing and moscow, and it, of course, closely coordinating with our japanese friends. >> [speaking japanese] >> we reiterate our hope for improved relations with the people of north korea, and

remain deeply concerned about their well-being. >> [speaking japanese] >> the minister and i also discussed a number of the bilateral and regional issues, and reviewed the ongoing collaboration between at japan and the united states in the aftermath of last march's earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis. >> [speaking japanese]

>> we discussed the japan's recent move to pursue consultations on joining the trans-pacific partnership negotiations to resolve longstanding trade concerns in order to deepen the economic ties to the benefit of both our countries. >> [speaking japanese] >> i also urged that japan take decisive steps so that it accedes to the hague convention

on international preble child abduction and address outstanding cases. >> [speaking japanese] >> we are also focus on investing in the increased ties between our people, and in particular, young people, through the tomadachi initiative. >> [speaking japanese]

>> i welcomed the news that the foreign minister will soon visit burma. we now have a real opportunity through sustained diplomacy to test the new government and overcome the obstacles in the way to burma achieving its rightful place in the community of nations. >> [speaking japanese]

>> later today, japanese and u.s. officials will meet with counterparts from india for our first ever trilateral meeting, and the united states supports the meeting between japan, china, and ourselves as the foreign minister recently proposed. >> [speaking japanese] >> and finally, we covered global issues like iraq and's nuclear ambitions and the situation in afghanistan, where

our two nations are the two largest donors. >> [speaking japanese] so we had a very comprehensive, constructive discussion, and i am grateful for this chance at the end of this year to meet with the foreign minister, to take stock of where we are, and i look forward to meeting again next year as we continue our work together. >> [speaking japanese]

>> [speaking japanese] >> let me start by saying that at the invitation of secretary clinton, i visited the united states for the first time in a bilateral context. this visit has served as an opportunity for me to deepen my personal relationship with secretary clinton and to further strengthen japan's u.s. relations. >> [speaking japanese]

>> in light of the developments in north korea, namely the death of mr. kim jong il, secretary clinton and i had an in-depth discussion of the situation within north korea at today's meeting. we shared the recognition that it is important that the latest events would not negatively affect the peace and stability on the korean peninsula. for this purpose, we closely monitor the situation and coordinate closely with each

other by sharing information between japan and the united states and imam japan, the united states, and the republic of korea. >> [speaking japanese] >> i understand that there was a conversation between prime minister noda and president lee myung-bak yesterday, and based on the discussion i had with the secretary clinton today, i intend to reject my counterparts in the republic of korea at -- and tried -- i intend to reach out to my counterparts in the republic of korea and china and discuss this issue.

>> [speaking japanese] >> we share the view that we should coordinate closely with six-party partners. we are also an agreement that both sides want stability and calmness during this period. >> [speaking japanese] >> in addition, we also confirmed that we should maintain our close coordination among japan, the united states, and the republic of korea on the effort for neutralization of north korea, in particular to ensure concrete actions taken by north korea. >> [speaking japanese]

due to the most recent developments, we are seeing an increasing level of interest in and attention to how the process of dealing with the abduction issue develop within japan i expressed my gratitude to the united states for raising the abduction issue every time during the u.s.-north korea dialogue, moreover taking into account that in this situation, i asked for continuous understanding and support from the united states in resolving the issue. [speaking japanese]

also, when we look at the asia- pacific region, a trust and cooperation among japan, the united states, and china is critical for e ensuring stability in the region. with this in mind, i proposed to secretary clinton to launch a trilateral dialogue among these three countries, and in response, secretary clinton shared my view. >> [speaking japanese] >> i am encouraged by the

progress in democratization and national we conciliation in -- reconciliation in myanmar. secretary clinton visited last month, and i will visit next week. against this backdrop, we will deepen cooperation between japan and the united states said that the positive trends will be further solidified in myanmar. >> [speaking japanese] >> in india, as the secretary suggested, we affirm that japan and the united states a deepening strategic relationships with india. as a specific example of collaboration, the japan-u.s.- india trilateral dialogue will be held at a working level in washington, d.c. here today. >> [speaking japanese]

>> we also exchange views on global issues, including pressing challenges of iran and afghanistan, and confirmed we will closely consult and cooperate with each other. during our discussion on iran, specifically in relation to the national defense authorization act, which targets the central bank of iran, i conveyed my view that there is a danger of causing damage to the entire global economy if the imports of

iranian crude oil stopped. >> [speaking japanese] >> and let me emphasize that it is the foundation of the japan- u.s. relations that enable us to coordinate, cooperate, and

consult with each other closely. on a security, secretary clinton and i reaffirmed that the two countries will continue to implement the realignment of the u.s. forces stationed in japan, including the relocation of the air station and the location of the u.s. marine corps from okinawa in accordance with japan-u.s. agreements. we also confirmed that with regard to the u.s. budget for the relocation of the marine corps to guam, the commitment of the u.s. government to the implementation of the 2006 japan-u.s. roadmap design change. i emphasize the importance of moving forward to lessen the burden on all key nella and ask for cooperation from the united -- statlessen the burden on okinawa and ask for cooperation from the united states. >> [speaking japanese]

>> on the economy, from the perspective of incorporating the economic growth of the asia- pacific region, which is the growth engine of the global economy, japan has decided to enter into consultation with the countries concerned for participating in the gpp negotiations. i proved it secretary clinton on the most recent status of preparation regarding the consultation. >> [speaking japanese] >> as part of the centennial

anniversary of the presentation of the cherry blossom trees from japan to the united states, and also in the context of the reconstruction efforts after the disaster, we discussed a youth exchange program that focuses on the north america as well as collaboration with the tomodachi initiative, the joint initiative between japan and the united states, and implementing the project. >> [speaking japanese] >> in conclusion, taking into consideration the current situation in north korea, secretary clinton and i affirmed to continue to make frequent contact with each other. thank you very much. >> thank you so much.

>> secretary of state hillary clinton and the japanese foreign minister from earlier this hour. white house spokesman jay carney will be here in the briefing room for questions from reporters on the death of kim jong-il at the ongoing house- senate negotiations on approval of a tax cut extension. the house will be back debating the issue at 4:00 eastern. you can see it the house on c- span. right now, a look at the 2012 presidential election from this morning's "washington journal."

host: armstrong williams is a radio and tv host and columnist. guest: good morning, libby. host: the candidates made the rounds of the sunday talk shows yesterday. did anything stick out to you? guest: it is fascinating that ron paul is leading. not surprising, really, if you hear what people are saying on the radio and around the country. ron paul has a very interesting message. he is a fiscal conservative. he wants to return to the days of isolationism. with regard to iran and israel, he feels that america's military is spread too thin. and he seems to resonate.

speaker gingrich -- an assault on speaker gingrich. romney, ron paul -- but this is what happens to the front runner. it is a beauty contest. the contest and that rises to the top is going to get a salted. you thought herman cain was under assault for his personal indiscretions and less for his ideas, it even as his 9-9-9 plan was scrutinized. dealings since leaving congress showed that he is not so much of an outsider, but an insider making money. he has the intellectual capital, the debating skills. bob schieffer did everything

he could not "face the nation" to lay a glove on him and was not really successful. jon huntsman is the only of the candidates who was not searched yet i find it shocking when you ask people about candidates, they all say "huntsman." ask what it is about him you ask what it is about tahim. he is an authority and china, they left his economic message. he made mistakes with his campaign manager and that ought not to participate in iowa -- and opting not to participate in iowa. i would not count gingrich out. i don't think ron paul was a complete package to take it to the gop nomination.

this nothing against mr. paul. he does not have what it takes to defeat president obama. romney, gingrich, and huntmsan. it is not really about the gop. is about president obama, his ideas, the fact that he made the decision to bail at europe, and whether he can create the jobs he has talked about, turning americans to a decent way of life. whether it is energy, health care, loss of jobs, the housing crisis -- many people are in foreclosure, will soon go into foreclosure. they have so much but in their home until they are under water. whether he can turn these things around remains to be seen. host: let's listen to mitt romney, on "fox news sunday" yesterday, contrasting himself with president obama. >> we need regulation in our

society. i'm not somebody who says get rid of all regulations. we just need regulations that are updated and moderate and that encourage enterprise as opposed to burdening it. he's great feeling is that he does not understand how this economy -- his great failing is that he does not understand how this economy works. i do know how the economy works, and my policies are designed to get people what they desperately want brad they want to stop being poor, have a good job and a great future. host: mitt romney on "fox news sunday." "the des moines register" endorsed him in. do you agree with that? guest: obviously, they interviewed all the candidates, who went before the editorial board, and made the decision as to who was the best candidate. romney is pretty solid you cannot argue with his experience, not only in the political body were he was

elected governor, and also as a businessman. he was very successful as entrepreneur. he is still being paid by bain capital, quite a handsome fund. i want to respond to something that romney said on fox yesterday. president obama offered hope and change in his campaign, and many people crossed over to support him. he has not even come close to delivering on his promises. many people feel that fundamentally the president does not understand economics 101. he does not fundamentally understand how to get the economy moving. you look at past presidents, at least 40% to 50% of the cabinet, people close to them, came from the private sector. that has drastically changed under this president. i would be shocked 20% came from the private sector. the majority of them is from government and the public sector. the president is more interested in creating income and expenses

and makeshift jobs. he is not interested in creating assets for the economy did look at what china was able to do. china went through a great recession at the same time we did not go look at how they were able to turn the economy around. it was not done to save wall street or state governments. it was to create real institutions and industries that could create assets, because you realize that economies must correct themselves. the government cannot create jobs, but the government can give incentives and create an environment where you get these jobs. what made romney said is so true -- it is so over regulated businesses and people of wealth are hoarding money, because they don't know the impact of policies like health care, the payroll tax, and it is not to extend the payroll tax holiday for a month and not the full year. you know what it is?

it is expected that it will continue, and congress put these things into law and says, well, a year from now, they will lockerbie the law. no, this will -- they will no longer be the law. no, this will go on and on and on, and what will it do to stimulate job creation? host: armstrong williams mentioned mitt romney and, he is still get -- and the money he is still getting from bain. "he moved to utah and began a second career in public life. yet when it came to his personal wealth, mr. romney never really left bain. he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that as a in a share of bain's profits ever since." caller: i would like to -- if

mr. williams does not have skeletons in his closet, i would like to see him on the ballot. what i would like to get at is how the media did herman cain. it was funny to watch one of the media turned on howard dean, they turned on hillary, and picked obama. now they got a taste of whatever republican -- >> see this segment in its entirety on c-span.org. now to the white house briefing with a spokesman jay carney. >> i don't have any announcements, so let's go straight to questions. >> north korea, then move tothe tax.ll is the president concerned at all about the security of the nuclear arsenal in north korea? >> the united states is closely

monitoring events in the aftermath of kim jong il's debt. our focus is on coordinating closely with allies and partners. we have reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to the stability of the current peninsula and the security of our allies, south korea and japan. the president, as you know, has had eight working relationship with -- has had a close working relationship with president lee. secretary clinton, secretary panetta, national security adviser tom donilon have spoken to their counterparts on the ground. secretary clinton is meeting today with the japanese foreign minister and we have consulted closely with it a wide range of our japanese colleagues. in addition, we are in touch with russia and china, the other members of the six-party talks beyond north korea. president obama has been briefed on the situation. as for, you know, the situation,

we are monitoring it. the succession that is in place has been in place for a considerable period of time now. we are closely monitoring the situation. >> as concerns the nuclear stability right now? >> i don't think we have any additional concerns beyond the ones that we have long had with north korea's approach to nuclear issues. we will continue to press them to meet their international obligations. we have no new concerns as a result of this event. >> and based on what you are hearing so far, clearly there is a transition now. is this an opening for the white house? >> i think is much too early to make any judgment like that.

this is the period where north korea is in a period of national mourning. we hope that the north korean leadership will take steps necessary to secure peace and prosperity and a better future for the north korean people, including acting on the commitment to denuclearization. >> was the white house given any assurance from the house that this is something it would support? did the president think that this was a done deal? >> as you know, ben, the president worked closely with senate leadership. senate democratic leadership, sen. reid and others, it negotiated with republican leadership on a compromise that won an overwhelming bipartisan support, won overwhelming

bipartisan support in the senate, 89-10, 90%. more than 80% of the senate republicans voted for it. you know, i do this sometimes, i have been here long enough to say that it has never been the case that the senate votes 90%, overwhelming majorities from both parties, without communication with their counterparts in that house, and is certainly not for the president to be the intermediary between republican leaders in the house and the senate. it was certainly our expectation, and we certainly had reason to believe, that there was support in the house for a measure that would ensure that americans did not have their taxes go up in 12 days. not only did we have reason to believe that because of the nature of the negotiations -- thought that was mine -- the nature of the negotiations taking place on capitol hill, but as many of you have

reported, the speaker of the house in his conference call with house republicans urged them to support this measure, said it was a victory and the right thing to do. he was for it before he was against it. >> [unintelligible] >> again, i would cite to the numerous reports from your colleagues, citing republicans who were on the call making the opposite point. i think the broader issue here is the president from the beginning has been for awful- year payroll tax cut extension it -- a full-year. tax cut extension and expansion brought it was in the american jobs act. here we are at the very end of december facing the possibility that 160 million americans will have their taxes go up on january 1, and the house refused

to pass a measure that has overwhelming bipartisan support from republicans as well as democrats. the president was very supportive of the measure of the approach that was taken in the senate that also would have extended the table tax cut for year. he continues to support a full extension, as he made clear on saturday, of the payroll tax cut. but congress needs to act, the house needs to act, or else, americans will have their taxes go up. it is very hard to understand why a measure passed to the senate with nearly 90% support -- all it would take in the house, if all democrats or virtually all democrats to vote for it, is about 25 or 30 republicans, 12% of republican support in dallas, for this thing to become law -- 12% of

republican support in the house, for this thing to become law. we call on republicans to that. >> you say it is time for congress to act. mr. boehner says that is not going to happen, the house vote is going to go down. sen. reid says he is not bringing the senate back to renegotiate. is this a? is this the vote tonight? or is there any path to get this done if it goes down? >> i don't want to speculate on what might happen, because it is too much of a long shot to say that 25 republicans in the house might break ranks and say you know what, i don't want to go home and explain to my constituents why i voted to raise taxes on them, middle- class working americans. i think that we remain hopeful

that the house will act, that house republicans will do the right thing, and support our proposal to extend the payroll tax cut for two months, allowing time necessary to negotiate a full-year extension. everyone says they are for a full-year extension. this is about against traveling some distance from opposing it to now being -- this is republicans traveling some distance from opposing it to now being 48. hopefully the house will do the right thing and pass this bill. >> i know it is the early days and you are formulating the assessment, but people who follow this closely say eight is one of two things that either the development will lead to greater instability or perhaps it is an opening prayer at this the administration lien towards one of -- or perhaps it is an opening. does the administration of tlean towards one or the other?

>> it is too early trade and north korea is in a period of national mourning -- it is too early. north korea is in a period of national mourning. it is not about personality, is about the actions of the government. we will monitor the situation closely. it would be premature to make assessments about what this development would mean in terms of its effect on sixth party talks >> on another subject, reuters had a detailed announcement last night about the taliban. i was wondering if you could bring us up to speed on what their aim is. what do you expect there? >> a couple of things. we leave it to the afghan

government to characterize the state of the talks that they are leaving. it has been our policy that we reckons that -- we support the afghan reconciliation process. putting afghans to gather and allowing insurgents to come in off the battlefield. its way and the government there have been clear about what conditions would have to be met. they would have to break free from the violence and abide by the afghan constitution. and it writes for women and of economic minorities. >> what would you come out and say on the executive order with

the conflict resolution? >> the secretary of state is speaking about this issue today. these kinds of things have a fairly long planning time. i'm not sure if i get the nature of your question. why not today, i suppose. >> could you talk a little bit more about why [unintelligible] the administration? >> the documents that are part of the executive order released today for the first ever national plan on winning, peas, and security lay out the steps we will take to support women and resolve the conflicts. the documents released today represent a change in how the u.s. will approach its diplomatic and military and development-based support to win in areas of commerce -- to

win it in areas of conflict. -- women in areas of conflict. as well as humanitarian assistance. you'll hear more from the secretary of state on this. >> there was an interview in which he said the taliban per se is not our enemy. we are fighting the taliban right now. could you explain a little bit more? is it that he regretted using that language? >> i think it is important to understand what most americans know, which is that we did not invade afghanistan. and we did not send u.s. military personnel into afghanistan because the taliban were in power. we have been in power. we went into afghanistan because al qaeda had launched an attack against the united states from

afghanistan. this is related to the reconciliation process but i was just discussing. the taliban per se, while we are fighting them, the elimination of the taliban is not the issue. the objective when the president laid out his afghan strategy made clear that the number one principle is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeating al qaeda, as well as to help stabilize afghanistan. and that is what we are doing. a part of the process is the support of the afghan reconciliation talks. the conditions for the taliban are very clear. but reconciliation house to be a part of the long term process in afghanistan if afghanistan is going to evolve into a peaceful country. >> i understand that. obviously, there's not much of

al qaeda presence in afghanistan. a year or two ago we were told there were less than 100 outside operative spirit and we have been devoting a great deal of both blood and treasure focused almost entirely on defeating taliban insurgents, taliban fighters. i understand that are ultimately there will have to be some kind of reconciliation. i just wonder if the language was regrettable at all. >> only when taken out of context, as i just explained, that it is regrettable to explain it out of context. it is a simple fact that we went into afghanistan because of the attack on the united states on the timber 11, 2001. -- september 11, 2001. we are there in afghanistan now to help stabilize afghanistan, and to do so in part because where al qaeda and other terrorists have amos for attacks

on the united states -- have an aim for a tax on the united states, they cannot establish a foothold from within that country. what is completely clear is that afghanistan's future house to include within it to reconciliation. -- house to include within that reconciliation. has to include within it reconciliation. >> the a somewhat belligerent attitude toward north korea, i wonder if you could comment on that. and whether it was a reason for all of those attacks, or because of the new president of

north korea is joining the military. is that proven? do we have intelligence about that? or is that speculation? >> as you can expect, i will not discuss intelligence from here. and i would add to that that is premature to make assessments of the new leader, or at least the one that has been designated by a succession that was already in what the works. and we will judge the north korean government as we always have, by its actions. and by its actions in particular with regard to uphold its commitment to denuclearization. it does make sense to give this process a little bit of time before we make judgments about the new leadership or the

disposition of north korea going forward. >> isn't she a very close allies? >> this president works very closely with him, as most of the government does. >> have that created any attention? >> kanapaha i have heard here. -- not that i have heard here. >> senate republicans have been able to show some consistent unity. and they have maintained that they simply will not have the senate version of this bill. last week, the president said that congress should not go on vacation until they deal with this. will he urged the senate to come back and get this over the finish line? >> we are urging the house to follow the senate's lead and

pass an amendment to a bill that has received overwhelming bipartisan support on this issue, that will make sure that americans taxes do not go up in 12 days and eight hours. it is time for us to step back and look at what has transpired. we have been in this situation where -- where the public is, where the vast majority of the folks in washington are, it is at variance with within a subsection of one party in one house. and again, based on the reporting that you and your colleagues have done, it is pretty clear what transpired here. in one way, this is a very unique situation compared to what we saw transpire this whole

year, because the senate did pass what the house leadership had asked to do, which was to bass -- pass a bill out with broad bipartisan support. is there and it is ready to be voted on by the house of representatives. and it is simply perplexing for all of us, and i think, for a lot of you to understand why house republicans would not support a measure that garnered -- i did the calculations on my iphone. 83% support in the senate. you have now some senate republicans coming out today saying, please, -- to their colleagues -- please, this is crazy. this will keep the american taxes from growing up and it will give them the time to work

on an extension. the president said from this podium on saturday that this should not cause of a great deal of trauma in january or february when they worked it out. >> will the president skipped his vacation? >> the president has made clear that he wants congress to get this thing done. he is here now and will be here as congress tries to sort this out. it is the number-one priority right now that americans do not have. -- do not have their taxes go up on january 1st. if enough house republicans will not vote in lockstep with a support -- a position that is not supported by the public, and instead, make clear that they

are in support of a four-year tax cut for the american people. a position, by the way, that the president has consistently said -- republicans have said they cannot support kicking the can down the road. they did not even support extension until a few weeks ago. we had numerous leaders on the hill who were dismissing the .eed for a payroll tax cut now, fortunately, we have seen some movement in that direction. there is support for it. the alternative it is americans waking up on the first of january and trying to figure out how i am going to make ends meet with $1,000 less this year.

house republicans refused to vote for something that 83% of senate republicans supported. >> on north korea, how confident are you that the transition of power will go smoothly? >> we see no indication that the succession has, prior to this event -- the succession that had been contemplated won't take place. we think that it will. but beyond that, i do not really have a comment. >> kim jong un is 27 years old. he has been described as an untested, experience, and with a volatile personality, someone who recently encouraged the attacks against the south. is that someone that you feel

confident should be leaving north korea? >> i appreciate the question. i think that we will make judgments on the new leadership 's disposition, if you will, based on how he and the government handle themselves going forward. we have consistently demonstrated that we are open to engagement with north korea, but we have also made clear that the north koreans need to make steps towards the denuclearization that would demonstrate their purpose and a willingness to negotiate. that was our position last week and it remains our position going forward. demonstrating that willingness would improve talks with the united states and with north korea's neighbors.

we will judge north korea and its government based on how they engage on this issue going forward. >> i want to clarify a "nothing has changed." does that mean the u.s. will go forward with an announcement about foreign aid for north korea? >> we have repeatedly discussed with them the terms for humanitarian assistance. the state department has repeatedly required monetary assistance to be sure that assistance is not the cry from those in genuine need. that was true last week and it is true going forward. there is no decision at this point to provide food aid. this is about a precursor to

that, which was about to making sure that such arraignment's -- arrangements are in place to go forward. >> [unintelligible] >> again, all of the questions that i have gotten, we will monitor the situation. we will evaluate behavior and act accordingly. it is too soon to know what the next time will look like as they are now in a time of national mourning. >> can you confirm that the united states was on the cusp of a deal? >> no, not on the cusp of a deal. i think we were having these discussions, hazmat had in the past. and there was not an imminent

deal to be announced. >> there were reports of an imminent deal within days to be followed by an announcement. >> i do not have anything to announce on that. a decision like that was not going to be taken and will not be taken by the u.s. government with respect to that kind of assistance without the arrangement i mentioned being in place. >> does the state department know if corrine specialist have had any contact -- any korean specialists have had any contact with the government? >> i do not. >> what we know about kim jong un? >> we certainly appreciate the a, are in a time of national mourning. -- the fact that they are in a

time of national mourning. >> it was years before kim jong- il made his presence felt on the international stage. >> i do not think we are in a position to publicly a suspect. we will just have to see. >> can you just explain why -- how the death of kim jong il could lead to more nuclear proliferation out of north korea? >> there are opinions that we have that we might not necessarily share on matters of national security or foreign governments. this is a transition and a time

of national mourning. our position has always been that we will judge this government and governments as the same, by their actions. >> is the u.s. looking to increase their level of readiness with respect to military bases? >> by understanding is no. you can ask for more detailed information from the defense department, but that is not the case for us. >> you keep saying that you are hopeful that house republicans will support the measure. what are you basing that hogan? -- that hope on? >>, the go, juliani, there was ample evidence -- a month ago, juliani, there was ample evidence that a number were only

oppose rate -- they were not opposed to a payroll tax extension. despite the substantial efforts to get a one-year deal, they are saying now that they cannot possibly accept a bipartisan compromise to extend it for two months to allow for more negotiations for a full year extension. there is a little bit of kabuki theater going on here. we all know how unusual the situation is that transpired this weekend. it is not common practice, i would say, for the -- for a bill with substance that does not have to do with naming a post office or commemorative coins to pass with 90% support and overwhelming support from both parties without the wheels greased -- being greased, if you will, in the of the house.

-- the other house. it makes getting things done on behalf of the american people pretty difficult when you have the volatility and that situation where the things that have broad bipartisan support and american public support cannot get done because one faction in either house is basically dictating the direction of the majority in the house. it makes it very difficult. but we remain hopeful because again, they do not represent even a majority of the republican party. 25 to 30 members of the house as 12% to 15% of the house republican caucus. that is all we need. not the 82% that we got in the senate, but 12% to 50% of house

republicans can vote yes and insure that americans will have the pack -- the tax extension. >> do you have anything to read out? >> but not at this time. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not have any conversations or calls to read out to at this time. >> what can we expect to see from the president later today and in the coming days? >> he worked closely on the efforts to get a one-year deal, and when i was not achievable in the time frame before us, --

when that was not achievable and the time frame before us, senators reid and mcconnell became involved. that measure now awaits consideration by the house of representatives. tonight apparently, there will be a vote, and it should be passed. it has overwhelming support, and it will ensure that americans working, middle-class taxpayers, it will give them more time. it will also extend the unemployment insurance, which every economist will tell you has a positive impact on the economy. let's not forget what the

consequence of a failure to act would mean. not just a $1,000 tax hike for the average american family. but a negative impact on the economy. there are economist out there that say, if we do not extend the payroll tax cut, if we do not extend insurance. the consequence -- passing this tax cut will have a positive impact on economic growth. republicans are the ones that are tepid in their support for this. they know that these things have had positive effects on the economy this year. there is no credible, nonpartisan economist who will argue that the unemployment tax

cuts has not had a positive impact on unemployment. [unintelligible] in contact with leadership on the phone? >> certainly, we are in contact with capitol hill on this matter and we will continue to be. we will hope, as i said, that republicans figure out the right thing to do here, support their colleagues in the senate, support what the american people want done and ensure that taxes do not go up on january 1st. it is very simple.

>> and did you say that would include republican? >> i think the president himself told you on saturday that he had spoken with senator mcconnell, thank him for his efforts in achieving this bipartisan compromise on saturday. with regard to the speaker of the house, it is not our job to negotiate between him and senate republicans. again, the senate passed with something like 80 d -- 82% senate approval, 39 republicans. and that will extend a payroll tax cut for two months and some other important issues.

>> have we notice any unusual move by the north korean military. [unintelligible] >> i do not have any announcements about a coming conversations they may or may not have. with regard to your first question, my understanding is that prior to coming out here we did not see any evidence of that. i would refer you to the defense department for a more detailed analysis, but my understanding is that the answer is no. >> several democrats have indicated that the house

[unintelligible] is that your view as well, that they should basically taken an opponent and that is the end? or if they rejected, there should be more negotiations? >> if they rejected, there is immediate speculation about the outcome. i understand that some statements have been made that suggest that is what will happen. some senate republicans reinforce the vote that it was the right thing to do to vote yes, following overwhelming bipartisan support that is received in the senate to ensure that american taxpayers get --

that americans will not have their taxes go up. they put forward the two-month measure. they worked hard on trying to get a year of payroll tax extensions and unemployment insurance extension. there were not able to get at this time, but they felt it was very important that in the very least taxes would not gone on january 1st. they received 89 of the 99 senate votes and then it moved on to the house. it is not too much to ask on behalf of the american people that the house follow suit. " as the senate did in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that americans taxes to naqoura

-- do not go up on january 1st. bikes -- >> this obviously puts a great deal of pressure on the house. >> i am doing everything i can to make it clear in our view that the american people overwhelmingly support this tha. it is overwhelmingly the right thing to do. and the american people will be justifiably angry if the house does not vote to extend this -- this tax cut. people will spend the holiday season trying to figure out how they will manage their budgets with $1,000 less in their paychecks next year.

it is kind of nonsensical behavior. it takes compromise to get things done. we are a two party system and a divided government. at something happen on saturday in the senate that does not happen often. senators voted for something that was not a post office or a commemorative coin. 39 republicans. americans who are paying attention to this must be pulling their hair out when they look at the house now refusing to do what the senate did. >> an updated question all the way back to saturday, is it in the keystone provision -- why did the administration accepted that language, given that

earlier on the house bill that had indicated that it would not? the administration -- >> the administration indicated that the president would veto a specificville -- specific bill. the president spoke in general about the efforts to mandate a guest decision -- yes decision as something he would reject. this provision does not mandate that outcome. it is not extraneous. and it is not wholly unrelated to the payroll tax cut an extension, unemployment extension or any of that. it was a purely political thing inserted by the republicans. we accepted it. senate democrats accepted it t

because that is part of what compromise means. sometimes you have to take things you do not want. but >> that provision in the final bill is the same provision in the house -- bolon >> it is the bill that -- it is something that could end up a hypothetical resolution to this. and going back to the time frame seems like a long time ago, as you say. it was not that any single element that appeared in another bill would make the bill veto- worthy or that it would end up

in a veto if it landed on the president's desk. that bill is now not ending up on the president's desk. the x.t. believe this is the rejection of the keystone question? -- >> do you believe this is the rejection of the keystone question? >> i think it raises the question about what a 60-day review would mean. the whole reason, as i understand it, was that more time was needed because assessments need to be done when you are evaluating these ultimate -- alternate routes. it would be very difficult for the state department to say that the review had been responsibly achieved in 60 days. but i would refer you to that statement. >> does the white house have any response to the report that just

a day out of baghdad that the shiite coup has issued an arrest warrant for [unintelligible] for a personal theft squad, and thus, and sparked fears of political and sectarian violence on that? >> i did have something on that. hold on one second. this did just pray, as you know. we are monitoring this we are monitoring reports that an arrest warrant has been issued for vice-president to reek of iraq. we are encouraging all sides to

work out their differences in a manner that is conjunction with the political and democratic process. >> [unintelligible] >> and not expecting that outcome. >> you really need to, right? >> it would be possible for the kansas city chiefs to beat the green bay packers. >> you are saying that if the house votes tonight, that americans are going to be angry, tearing their hair on january 1st. it sounds like you say, well, we give up. >> on not saying that. i'm saying that all would take would be for 25 to 30 republicans to do what their constituents overwhelmingly want them to do, which is to grab

this extension of a payroll tax cut. to follow the overwhelming our partisan -- bipartisan majority that was as douglas in the senate in support of this measure, and allow the bill -- that was established in the senate in support of this measure, and allow the bill to be signed into law. i do not think that is an impossibility that it is will happen. and if it does not, we will address this situation after that. but the fact of the matter is, -- you know. >> 12 days. >> 12 days, eight hours until taxes go up. >> it is less than before. >> it is less than before. the march of time. americans expect washington to work. and they expect when political

opponents, democrats and republicans can come together their differences on measures that are paid for -- but when they work it out, senator mcconnell and senator reid and 89 senators vote with them and support the measure, most americans would probably expect the house to follow suit. they would probably i expect at least 12% or 13% of house republicans to follow the 82% of seven republicans in support of this. they expect all of this for the reasons i am spelling out, including the established precedent in the way that washington works. clearly there was not expectation on the hill that

there would be support of this in the house. based on your understanding of how congress works, and everything else here, that there have not been an expectation that it would also garner support in the house. we also have the comments made by the speaker of the house in reference to his conference members. the hope is that reason will prevail and the vote will vote accordingly. >> what is it you think speaker boehner is up to? you got a two-month extension. he wants to give you a year extension. >> no, no, no. we want a one-year extension. the only reason why there taxpayers might not have their taxes, on january 1st is because the president has been working on this since september. we have all seen republican

resistance, and then tepid support, and then less tepid support. >> [unintelligible] >> it is remarkable how things change. the fact is, it was a key element of the american jobs act for this reason. the reason the president has supported this is because of have a positive impact on job creation and job growth and they were the reason -- they were the kinds of reasons that would garner bipartisan support. republicans in 2009, their answer to what the economy needed to grote was a payroll tax cut. -- triboro was a payroll tax cut. well, let's do it. the president wants to do it. he wanted to extend out for a

year. and when that was not achievable with a bipartisan support, a compromise was reached in the senate. >> so, what is it you think speaker brainard -- >> i think i have made clear that there is an issue here about what one subsection of the party is dictating. you have seen from some of the reporting and statements about not wanting to give president obama a victory. but we do not want to be against tax cuts unless obama is for them. is the kind of stuff that the american taxpayer can be rightfully angry about. we should do this because it is the right thing to do. >> [unintelligible] >> harry reid had worked very

closely with senator mcconnell to achieving bipartisan agreement on saturday. his position that the house ought to pass this is our position. >> what about the report that the position was, this is it. >> as i have been saying, i'm not going to predict what happens if republicans vote to raise taxes tonight on the american people, because in the and i remain hopeful that they will not. >> is their commitment to making sure that this is resolved? >> i think the commitment to make sure that american taxes to natara on january 1st has been amply demonstrated. -- and do not go up on january 1st has been amply demonstrated.

again, we need a partner in this. we had a partner in this. as demonstrated by the overwhelming bipartisan support for the two-month extension. which again, as the president said on saturday, that is not a huge victory, but it was the right thing to do to ensure that we got to a place where the full extension could be passed. calling up the process now -- blowing out the process now is playing politics with the paychecks of 150 million americans. >> i got a letter -- this is a nonpartisan group that does not advocate one way or another.

they feel that this legislation cannot be implemented properly. he said the concern is that it could create additional problems. the point is, they do not think there is enough lead time to do this and because it is only two months and not a year, that makes it a lot more difficult. >> i appreciate that. and thank you for sending it to me ahead of time. two point, one, because congress was so slow to get its work done last year, it creates complications. but those were worked out. secondly, the president is committed to working with the

treasury department to work with american businesses to make sure that this tax cut is extended for american taxpayers, wage earners. 160 million people. he will work over the holidays to make that happen. he does not want to ask americans to worry about how they will make ends meet with less money in their pockets. thank you, everybody. >> [unintelligible] >> you are right. i was eager to go go ahead. >> two questions. [laughter] >> wise guy. >> in a statement where the president learned about the death of king john maalot -- -- ken john l. -- kim jong il,

where was that. >> he was notified about 10:00 p.m. last night. >> aside from the optics of not leaving for vacation, what is the president doing here that he cannot do from hawaii? >> it is a fair point that as we have made clear on other occasions, the president travels with the president. -- the presidency travels with the president. he has been in meetings all day long, and he will continue to work on this as well as other things unrelated to this to fulfil his duties to the white house. he believes this is the number- one priority, the congress needs to take action and the house needs to take action.

he will continue to work toward that end. >> you said that he is having conversations with senate democratic leaders, who are having conversations with the republican leaders. and that it is not the white house's job to be the intermediary between those groups. with the house republicans, is the white house in direct contact? is there a direct contact beyond the senate? >> in the process that led to the vote on saturday in the senate, the senate -- the president was engaged with senate democratic leadership. and in their efforts to work with senator mcconnell and senate republicans to find a bipartisan compromise and solution. his goal remains a full one-year extension. his highest priority is that americans do not see their taxes

go up on january 1st. and as he made clear on saturday, the overwhelming vote in the senate, the bipartisan vote in the senate on that bill made sure that americans would not have their taxes go up if republicans followed suit. getting back to the point about communicating between republicans, it was certainly not our expectation that the senate republicans would have moved so overwhelmingly in favor of a piece of legislation if they did not have some reason to believe that the house would follow suit. >> [unintelligible] >> we have conversations on multiple levels with folks on the hill, but i will not get

into details. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> finishing out today's white house briefing, the house is in recess for another 10 minutes or so until 4:00 p.m. eastern on the agenda and debating votes. those votes are set for 6:03 p.m. eastern. in the meantime, house speaker john boehner rejects the two- month term of the senate bill. and senator harry reid speaks of the bipartisan support of the measure. live coverage of the house when the gavel back in in about nine minutes. in the meantime, speaker being

held a press conference to make clear his agenda. >> good morning, everyone. americans are tired of washington is short-term fixes and gimmicks, which are creating -- american democrats and republicans aren't in agreement that the payroll tax cut needs to be extended for one year. the house last week passed a bill to do just that. but instead of passing the house bill, or another bill, which extended the payroll tax credit

for year, the senate democratic leaders passed a two-month extension, but in the problem into next year. -- putting the problem into next year. we oppose the senate bill because it creates problems for job creators. a two-month extension creates uncertainty and will cause problems for people who 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 has really put our economy off its tracks. last week, both chambers were together to pass the full year biehl -- a full-year bill. i do not think this time it is

any different. no more kicking the can down the road. tonight, the house will vote on the senate-passed bill. this will vote on whether congress will stay and do its work or go on vacation. i expect that the house will disagree with the senate amendment and, instead, vote to formally berdych conference. the formal process on which the house and senate can resolve issues between the two chambers and between the two bills. and i expect the house to take up legislation the reinforces the need to extend the tape -- the payroll tax relief for a full year, rather than just two months. again, to provide certainty for job creators. and i think the difference between the two was to follow the regular order here in congress. when there is a difference between the two chambers, we sit

down and resolve those differences. that is exactly what i believe the house will do. the president said that no work should be done until something is done. i think it is time for senate democrats to follow the president's example, put their vacations on hold, and work in a bipartisan event -- manar. >> if you cannot work cut a deal for a year-long extension in the short amount of time you have left, are you prepared to let these tax cuts last altogether? >> i think we have made it clear that a full-year extension of these tax cuts are very important. i do not believe the differences in in house and senate are that great. >> mr. speaker, why did you not raise the red flag with your

republican colleagues, and for the most part voted for this? orix -- >> we expressed our reservations about what the senate was doing. but understand my made it perfectly clear to senator reid and to senator mccall 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. and i believe -- i do believe that trying to resolve this. -- resolve this, we will succeed. >> [unintelligible] >> we agree with the president that all of these payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance with reforms, the docket for two years, all of this needs to be done in the right way. i have been around here for a

while. i have seen congress can down the road and kick the can down the road. it is time to stop the nonsense. and we can do it in a way that will provide certainty for job creators and our economy. >> how come the bill got 90% approval in the senate? >> i am suggesting that the president ask for a full-year extension. we agree with the president. the senate democratic leaders agreed with this in the past two about weeks. that we should go to a full year. why do we always have to go to the lowest common denominator? it is time to do our work. >> what specific changes you want in the bill? >> we believe we passed a reasonable that extended all this for a year. if there are differences within the body, we ought to be able to

resolve them. >> [unintelligible] >> one we sent our bill to the senate, 90% of the offsets were offset that the president agreed to. i do not think that it will be that the vote to come to agreement and make a point to the insurance program and do so in a fiscally responsible way. >> [unintelligible] >> it was never a conversation about the white house. >> you agreed additionally to a two-month plan. what changed? >> snow. could you agree that the house to move forward on this. >> that is not true. i said that have been the keystone pipeline and here was a

success. but i raised concerns about the two-month process from the moment i heard about it. thanks, everybody. >> speaker boehner from earlier this morning. the house is in recess, subject to the call of the chair. they should be in shortly. we will have live coverage and return here on c-span. >> if done incorrectly, that is the trade-off. >> national association of broadcasters head gordon smith on current legislation to sell broadcast sector to create new space for broke -- global broadband and emergency communications tonight at 8:00 p.m. on "the communicators" on

c-span2. >> next month, the c-span series of the contenders look back at 14 men who ran and lost, but had a lasting effect on politics. tonight, henry clay, who ran against andrew jackson. tuesday, james g. blaine lost to grover cleveland wednesday, williams jenin brian. thursday, eugene debs. friday, charles hughes, chief justice of the supreme court. then three-time governor house met followed by linda will keep -- wendell willkie. every night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the u.s. house is battling back in shortly. until then, remarks from the secretary of state clinton. this is from earlier today.

>> good morning, everybody. we're pleased to announce secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. >> hi, i see we have some special guests here today. and i'm pleased to release the 10th edition of the united states government's annual report on the removal and destruction of unsecured conventional weapons. i am joined today by assistant secretary for political military affairs, andrew shapiro, who you will hear from shortly. and i would like to thank andrew, as well as jim lawrence

from the office of weapons' removal and abatement, and dr. ken rutherford and everyone at the international station for recovery. and james, who held for -- prepare this report. there is a countless number of land mines >> in areas recovering from conflict, have these weapons increase the threat that grips individuals. >> secretary of state to clinton as the u.s. houses back in the session. for enhanced reliability in the transportation of the nation's energy product by pipeline and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute

speeches per side. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the late champion of freedom once explained the battle between good and evil as an etornle, never-ending struggle waged not just by good people against evil people. it takes place inside everyone, it is what makes a person a person, and life, life. so anyone who claims i am a dreamer who expects to transform hell into heaven is wrong. i have few illusions, but i have tissue i work toward what i believe is good and right. mr. mccotter: i don't know if i'll be able to change things for the better, or not at all. there is only one thing i will not concede, that it might be meaningless to strive in a good cause. mr. havel for your meaningful life's work, for right and

good, thank you and god bless you. azure mortal struggle ends and you finally rest in peace, amidst the freedom of your beloved republic. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: another crisis courtesy of the bah-humbug republicans. new they resorted to fighting their colleagues in the other body to avoid doing something positive for our -- positive for our country. right now we could be cutting payroll tax, we could be extending jobless benefits and improving a medicare fix for our doctors. the average american family in toledo and cleveland face a tax hike because of the republican game of chicken. american families want their tax cut or their taxes will go

up, on average, $1,000. millions of americans need unemployment benefit bus house republicans need to pick a fight. if they can't fight with democrats, who are standing up for middle class, they will fight with their colleagues in the other body. here's what i want for christmas. i want republicans to care half as much about manufacturing jobs in america as they do about manufacturing crises. wouldn't that be a present? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. will spon south carolina last tuesday, house republicans -- mr. wilson: last tuesday, house republicans passed a bill to provide medicare payments to physician for a year. liberals in the senate over the weekend amended to it provide for only a two-month fix, an

attempt to tie house republicans' hands and force the two-month extension they led adjournment for recess. the american people deserve better than this childish behavior when our unemployment rate has consistently remained over 8% for 34 months and over 25 million americans are searching for work. our sympathy to the people of the czech republic on the death of their former president who was a brave patriot, helping liberate central and eastern europe from communism, leading to the establishment of the neighboring slow vack republic. god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> it's grinch time in washington, mr. speaker. one is incredulous as to how house republicans would oppose a tax cut for 160 million americans but that's what

they're i think if to do today. is this bill perfecting? no. there are aspects upon which both sides disagree but it is the area of disagreement that should be the most important, congress stops playing politics and halts the tax hike on 160 million fellow citizens. mr. connolly: saturday's senate vote was 89-10, not just liberals, i say to my friend from south carolina, with all members of the senate leadership, republican and democrat, voting in favor. if house republicans vote against this compromise, they'll ring in the new year with a tax hike of their own making. if house republicans were -- really wanted certain i ty as they claim they'd vote for this and assure that no one will pay higher tacks on january 1. holding up the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits will be a true example of how the g.o.p. grinch stole christmas for 160 million americans. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and rthrth my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: i rise on behalf of doctors around the country. as a physician and legislatoring i'm devastated at the way the government continues to treat those who care for america's patients, particularly those who care for america's seniors. physicians have staff to play, building leases, numerous other costs associated with running a practice. the two-month patch the senate sent back to us as part of the payroll tax package does not provide doctors and their practices with the stability they need to do their job caring for america's seniors. at a time when american businesses need certainty, congress gives them a brief and unpredictable and unreliable timeline. two months of tax relief is not good enough. physicians deserve better. patients deserve better. the american people deserve better. i'll vote no on the senate bill and encourage my colleagues to

do the same and then let's come back with a policy that will at least take us through the year ahead. i yield back me balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the thol -- the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 36 2, an act making appropriations for disaster relief requirements for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the anxious gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, the president has said it would be inexcusable not to extend the payroll tax cut for a year, however, the senate plan extends the plan for 60 days, creating uncertainty for job creators at a time when millions of americans are out of work. it also creates uncertainty about what payroll. americans deserve a better tax

policy than two-month increments. last week, the house passed bipartisan legislation to extend the tax cut for a full year saving the average household $1,000 a queer. mr. gibbs: it also extends unemployment benefits and prevents a cut in medicare reimbursement rates. the worst part of the senate plan is it puts new fees on home mortgages to pay for 60 days of spending. this is an irresponsible and outrageous plan. a four-year plan with no taxes is better than a two-month spending spree which is nothing more than a political sideshow. i guess the snars were anxious to leave town and not finish their work. i think we ugget ought to call the senate -- we ought to call the senate plan, i'll be home for christmas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: each week, my neighbors take the time to make

their opinions known through email, phone calls and neighbors. today's pulse of texas is from a federal employee in humble, texas, who wrote me with these wise observations. i am a -- an 11-year federal government employee who works hard yet i'm on a two to three-year pay freeze while unemployment benefits are extended over and over again. i live in a house i purchased because i could afford it, yet my tax dollars bail out others. my children go to colleges they could afford. please help break the cycle of entitlement and lack of personal responsibility the government is fostering in this country. america should be the land of freedom and opportunity, not more free stuff and

entitlement. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, nevadans tell me time and time again they want jbs. mr. heck: we passed a bill that keeps an extra $1,000 in the pockets of nevada's strouging families and maintains access to health care for seniors and veterans. throughout the entire negotiation process, the american people were assured that they would receive an entire year of certainty. then the senate pulled the rug out from underneath them. passing a two-month extension now will put us right back here in february, when we should be using that time to debate job-creating ideas.

the house will stay here and work on this critical issue until it is resolved. the house agrees with the president and the american people, we need a one-year extension. anything else will be judged as a failure to do our job. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 4-rule 1, the following enrolled joint resolution was signed by the speaker on friday, december 16, 2011. the clerk: house joint resolutions -- resolution 4, making propings for the fiscal year 2012 and for other purposes saturday, december 11, 2011, making appropriations for fiscal year 2012. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on megses to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule 20.

recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2056 with senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tite of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2056, an act to instruct the inspector general of the insurance corporation to study impact of insured depository institution failures and for other purposes, senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westmoreland: the bill before the house today is one that will provide much-needed

transparency to the fdic, the federal reserve and the o.c.c. bank examination and resolution procedures. first i'd like to thank chairman bachus an subcommittee chairwoman capito, ranking member frank, and subcommittee ranking member mahoney for their support of h r. 2056. i'd also like to thank senator which chamliss and his staff for working to pass this bill on the senate side. we are pleased to have an agreement with the other chamber, which is highly unusual, and look forward to the outcome of this study. as i have said many times before, there's no greater threat to our communities than bank failures, especially in my state of georgia. since the house last debated this bill in july, more banks in georgia have been closed by the regulators. now, 73 banks are no longer serving their communities and 22 banks alone have failed in

2011. sadly, there are some communities in my district that are no longer served by community bank. i have often referenced the so-called 10 over 10, these are the 10 states that have had more than 10 bank failures since 2008. these 10 unlucky states are georgia -- are georgia, florida, illinois, california, minnesota, washington, michigan, nevada, missouri, and arizona. in fact, six of the 10 states have had more than 10% of their banks fail in the last three years. mr. chairman, the deeper i dig into the actions of the fdic, the fed and the o.c.c., the more concerned i am that our community banks are being regulated like public utilities rather then the -- rather than the job creators they are. h.r. 2056 is designed to cut through all the information to analyze the underlying

fundamentals that continue to cause bank failures across the country. the bill directs the fdic investigator general, inspector general, in consultation with treasury and the federal reserve i.g.'s to study the bank regulators' policies and practices with regard to lost share agreements, the fair application of regulatory capital standards, appraisals, the fdic procedures for loan modifications and the fdic's handling of consent orders and cease and desist orders. further the g.a.o. also has a study in the bill to pursue those questions that the fdic i.g. is unable to fully explore such as the causes of the high number of bank failures. . the impact of fair market accounting has been a tremendous impact on our banks. analysis of this impact on failures of the community banks is especially needed.

the overall effectiveness of loss-sharing agreements for other banks should be looked to carefully. the changes made by the senate now ensures that the banking committee will have a hearing on this important study once it is issued. i know this bill can never bring back the banks that have been lost in this crisis, but this bill and the study will provide congress and the communities in my district and in other districts the information it needs to ensure these failure never happen again. i encourage all my colleagues to support this bill. and mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this was a matter brought to me by the gentleman from georgia who just spoke and his georgia colleague, the gentleman, mr. scott, who is a member of the financial services committee because of his understandable

concern the impact bank failures could have in the states they represent. i am supportive. i want to make clear nothing in the passage of this sudden be taken as a criticism of the fdic. i have been very impressed with the leadership that was given to the fdic but the recently retired chair, sheila baird, an appointee of president bush, who was not only i think a first rate chair of the fdic but gave us a great deal of useful advice. bank failures are an unfortunate fact of life. we don't want them to be done unnecessarily, but neared can they be avoided. and obviously in the overwhelming majority of cases, the problem is in the business community. the right to fail, as we must remind ourselves, is part of doing business. having said that, i agree what the fdic does should be very transparent. there is one aspect of what the fdic does not affect in this bill but one i think you have

bipartisan agreement on in the committee. namely, and i will mention this, because of its impact on our economy. understandably bank examiners felt very sensitive to criticism that during the first part of this century they did not say no to enough loans. loans were made in the mortgage field that shouldn't have been made. but you cannot retroactively go back and undo that by now being too tough and denying loans that should be made. and we have had a frustration on the part of members of our committee because we hear reports from people in the field, in the community banks that bank examiners are being too tough. no one wants to encourage improved lending. i want to take the opportunity to tell the bank examiners if they run into a situation in which no bank loan never defaults then they have been too tough because perfection is

unastainable and what we want to do is minimize the number of failures but not move them out altogether of having good loans being made. having said, it is appropriate that we get a full study of what happens when a bank fails and we would ask the fdic when they are dealing with a failed bank to take into account the needs of that particular community so that the disposition is one that has some sensitivity. and that is where i think -- i would say with regard to community banks, there is a continued recognition that is important. i will just note in the financial reform bill signed last year there was several provisions that were in there at the specific request of the community banks to help them. for example, one of the disadvantages community banks have felt is that people with large amounts to deposit would go to larger institutions because the limitations on deposit insurance would make them more worried about going to a community bank. we increased that number from 100,000 to 250,000 which is a

significant advantage for community banks over the past situation. we have for the first time in our history changed assessments on levies on deposit insurance by introducing a risk factor. before the bill was signed it was every deposit was levied the same amount of insurance cost. now, there is a risk factor which means dollar for dollar the larger institutions which engage in bigger activities would be paying more than smaller institutions. the transactional accounts. so, yes, we are aware of the importance of community banks. i would just repeat what i said at the first, because i have found surprisingly nobody gets everything i say the first time i say it. this is not meant as a criticism of the fdic. this is the recognition of the importance of this process being open and people understand it.

so i say to the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, they were serving their constituents well by moving this bill forward. i hope the bill passes. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to recognize the chairlady of the financial institution subcommittee of the financial services, the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. speaker, and i want to thank mr. westmoreland for his leadership on this topic. he has been very dedicated to finding a solution here. he's worked with both sides of the aisle to find a way to get to the transparency and accountability that we need to have in terms of the examination process with our community banks. and i know he's been a tireless advocate for the communities in his district. we tull teely went to mr. westmoreland's district in

noonan, georgia, to have a legislative hearing and we learned about the bank closures and the financial examination procedure, the regulators were all there. financial institutions were there. but i think the one thing that struck me more than anything in the course of the conversation was when a bank fails, and a lot of times the community bank is the only community bank, local bank, local ownership, know the people down the street, when that bank fails it really guts the community in a way that's hard to describe. you know, the larger banks are there, branches are there, but it's still losing that community anchor in a community bank can be a devastating thing, not just for individuals and families but also for the shop owner, the car dealer, the individual farmer, the folks that rely on the relationship banking that you get so spectacularly through a community bank you lose that. and unfortunately never to come back again in a lot of cases. and so i think that he's very concerned about that and the

people in noonan, georgia, and the people in that district are concerned. the study will see what's really going on here, pull the curtain back, look at the practices and the examination procedures. i know that senator levin made some technical changes in this, and i would like to thank mr. westmoreland for working with the senator. now, maybe that should be a life lesson for us here in terms of what's going on today. but i think we reached a good consensus and good agreement. we will hear the results of this study in our subcommittee and our full committee to find out if we need to work with the regulators to change the regulations, make it so that what the banking institutions are hearing on the ground from their regulators is actually what's moving forward in their written reports that are sent to washington, etc., etc. one of the things that we're challenged with here in congress certainly is creating jobs and creating a climate where banks are going to lend

and creating a regulatory climate where banks are going to lend and want to lend to small businesses. and this issue that mr. westmoreland has highlighted i think will help us with that and hopefully we'll undo some of the needless shackles that some of our examiners are placing on our smaller institutions, on our community banks to be able to get back lending and our small businesses and job creators can get back to the business of creating jobs so we can grow our economy. i would like to thank everybody for their efforts and look forward to the passage of this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to encourage all the members to vote for this. as the chair leady mentioned, weld -- chairlady mentioned, we had a field hearing in my district with our colleague, mr. scott, also. i think it was a very good field hearing.

and we had testimony from bankers and from borrowers about the different regulations that had interfered with their ability to actually do business and the difference in the capital requirements that the fdic is putting on some of these banks. and we understand that the fdic has to enforce the rules, but we do think there are some cases, as ranking member mentioned, that there has been some overbearing on some loans that have been performing and are quality loans and so we think that this study will at least open some people's eyes to this and give us a better idea on maybe some of the things that we need to do to make sure that our community banks stay open. mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having been yielded back, the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r.

2056. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. frank: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thirds thirds -- the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. cravaack: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1801, the risk-based security screening for members of the armed forces act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1801, an act to

amend title 49, united states code, to provide for expedited security screenings for members of the armed forces. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, will each control 20 minutes. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cravaack: thank you, sir. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. today, i rise in support of senate amendment to h.r. 1801. h.r. 1801 represents a bipartisan, bicameral effort in honor of our armed forces by going to a screening process for all u.s. soldiers at our nation's airports. shortly after the house passed h.r. 1801 by a vote of 404-0, the senate, with support of kay

bailey richardson and senator rook feller amended it. i have had time to review the amendment. it establishes the expedited screening process and clarifies that the t.s.a. at manufacture retains the authority to require additional screening for a member of the armed forces should intelligence or law enforcement information raise any concerns. in addition, the senate amendment allows t.s.a. to include accompanying military family members in the expedited screening process quote-unquote to the extent possible, end quote. overall, the senate amendment to h.r. 1801 improved the bill and i urge my colleagues to support it. in close, i'd like to thank the transportation security committee, mike rogers and sheila jackson lee, peter king

and bennie thompson for moving this legislation. additionally, i'd like to thank senators kay bailey hutchinson and jay rockefeller for having their measure pass in the senate. i'd like to recognize some of the great staff on the homeland security subcommittee, including jennifer, amanda, steven, nicole smith, jay rainer -- rehberg and paul blocker and their staff for all they have done in the process. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the senate amendment to h.r. 1801 and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. richardson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as a member on the committee of homeland security and as an ardent supporter of the men and women of the armed services, i'm pleased to return today as we are on the floor to consider the amendment to h.r.

1801, the risk-based security screening for members of the armed forces act. this requires the transportation security administration develops a plan to providing expedited screening to our military personnel at airport security checkpoints. the senate amendment took a good bill and made it even better by expressly including new safeguards, as the gentleman from minnesota just alluded to. . last congress, an earlier version of this bill was accepted during the consideration of the transportation security administration authorization act. which passed this house by 397-25, which was not acted upon by the senate. h.r. 1801 properly recognizes the preciousness, nothing more important than time, to the patriotic men and women serving in our armed services without compromising aviation security. our troops help keep our

country safe. the least we can do is devise methods while first ensuring safety to make sure that we can help speed up the screening process for our troops that are in uniform and traveling on airplanes while on official duty. since 2001, of this been -- there have been more than two million troops deployed to iraq and afghanistan. our military presence in iraq winds down and more service members will thankfully be coming home. we owe it to them and all of our service members to do what we can to smooth their travels so that they can get home into the arms of their loving families. this legislation establishes adequate parameters that will ensure that our troops and their families including the 236,963 military personnel in my home state of california, will be given the opportunity to board an aircraft in a security-approved, expedited manner. if approved today this legislation will go directly to the president for his

signature. with the enactment of h.r. 1801, we have the opportunity to show the country that despite all the acrimony punctuated in this 112th congress that we can accomplish good things for the american people when we focus on areas of common ground and compromise is embraced. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation with the senate amendment. mr. speaker, before reserving the balance of my time, i'm compelled to build upon this current debate of h.r. 1801 to use this opportunity to urge the republican leadership to bring to the floor additional bipartisan, common sense homeland security legislation. this is the only bill reported by the committee on the homeland security to be considered before the full house. there are a number of other homeland security bills on the union calendar that warrant consideration by the full house as well. among them is h.r. 1447,

introduced by ranking member benny thompson, this legislation seeks to enhance t.s.a.'s coordination be private sector stake holders on aviation policy. also on the union calendar is h.r. 1165, authored by representative jackson lee, that would strengthen the t.s.a. ombudsman office. both of these bills were ordered and reported by the committee on homeland security with bipartisan support. despite having received bipartisan support from the committee, these bills have lingered on the union calendar for 40-plus days. i urge the republican leadership to schedule these bills for consideration and i'm confident that they will return to this house with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack ook i have no more speakers, i'm prepared to close once the gentlelady from california closes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california.

ms. richardson: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley to speak on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from nevada. ms. berkley: i thank the gentlelady from california for yielding. mr. speaker, i thank expedited screening for military service members is very important and i'm glad we're taking this pill up on a bipartisan basis but i think there are some other things happening right now that should take our attention and give it complete attention to what we're going to talk about. with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, far too many nevadans are worried about how to make ends meet and nevada's middle class families who still have a job cannot afford a massive tax increase in january. but that's exactly the direction we appear to be heading toward, thanks to the tea party extremists in the house of representatives. they're holding middle income families hosstabbling, they're

holding unemployee -- hostage, they're holing unemployed people hostage and whire holding senior citizens hostage. why? to protect their big business buddies, corporations that ship american jobs overseas. mr. speaker, enough is enough. it would be a disaster if the house republicans refused to stand up to wall street today and extend the middle class tax cuts. in nevada, 1.2 million people would see their taxes rise as much as $1,247 in january if this house of representatives, led by the republicans, don't do the right thing. with families struggling just to pay rent, put food on their tables and put gas in their car, that's not acceptable. it's time for the tea party extremists in the republican party to let go and get their priorities straight. middle class families in nevada and across the country come first, not wall street

millionaires. the time for political games is over. the clock is ticking. we have to take care of those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. we have to take care of middle income families struggling just to get by and need that extra $$1,000 this year rainshower than have it taken out of their taxes. and we need to en-- this year rather than have it taken out of their taxes. and we need to ensure that seniors get the care they need. on behalf of inform's struggling families, i demand that this house not allow a middle class tax increase and let us do our business before we go home and not shame ourselves and the american people by leaving them in the lurch during the holiday season and i applaud the congresswoman for putting this legislation on and i hope that we truly address what's important to millions and millions of americans across the country by doing the right thing later this evening and making sure

that we pass this middle income tax cut. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from minnesota have observations on the bill under consideration? do you seek to queel time? mr. cravaack feather if the gentlelady has closed, i'm prefaired to close. the speaker pro tempore: she hasn't closed. ms. richardson: i have no more speakers, if the gentleman is prepeared to close, i am as well. the speaker pro tempore: you may proceed. ms. richardson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the measure before us represents discreet, homeland security legislation. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1801 so this measure can be sent to the president for his signature. i'd like to congratulate mr.

vavack of minnesota and the staff on both sides they have aisle for their work not only in this congress but in the 111th congress when this was brought forward in the pyre t.s.a. act. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentlelady for refocusing the debate on who deserves most, that's our troops, that's what this amendment is on, and i'd like to thank all of my colleagues to support this, this is a very big amendment for our troops. let's give them a christmas present that means something to them and i look forward to bringing home the minnesota red bulls safe and sound. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and condition concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1801? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- the gentleman from minnesota. mr. cravaack: i object to the

vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceed option the -- on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1059, an act to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the judicial conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1059, an act to protect the safety of judges to redact information in their financial disclosure reports and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will troll 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i ask that all members have five lem slative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the motion under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i support h.r. 1059 and thank mr. conyers for sponsoring it and i thank mr. cohen and mr. johnson for serving as co-sponsors. h.r. 1059 promotes an important goal providing security for federal judges. you should the ethics and government act, judges and other high level judicial branch officials mousse file annual financial disclosure reports. this increases public confidence in public officials and better enables them to judge the conduct of those officials.

however, they are allowed to redact statutorily required information where the information could endanger the filer of their family. those who seek to harm federal judges might use aties closure form to determine where someone's spouse or child works or goes to school on a regular basis. individuals targeting jums for harassment have been known to file false claims on property owned by judges an their families. they could use financial disclosure reports to more easily identify such property. the judicial conference delegated to its committee on financial disclosure the responsibility to implement the financial disclosure rirptes for judges and judicial employees under the ethics in government act. the committee monitors the release of eare ports to ensure compliance with the statute. in consultation with the u.s. marshal service, they approve -- review and approve or disapprove the redax of any

statutorily mandated information where they believe the information could endanger the filer or their family. under current registration lages, no information will be redacted without a clear nexus between the information for which the retax is sought and a threat. the act will expire at the end of this year if we fail to act which is unacceptable. last year the marshal service investigated 1,400 threats to judicial officials, nearly three times as many threats as recorded in 2003. there were more than 2,900 incidents and arrests at u.s. court facilities in 2010. financial disclosures help maintain an open and transparent government but government transparency should not come at the cost of

personal danger for employees. they perform work that is integral to our system of government. in order to preserve the integrity of our democracy, we must protect the integrity of our courts. that means ensuring bethe security of judges and other judicial employees from intimidation and threats. the senate made two minor amendments to the bill which we accept. the first amendment involves an annual report that the administrative office of the u.s. courts submits to the house and senate judiciary committees. the report summarizes the redaks made in the preceding year and explains why they were made. the first amendment mandates that the report also be sent to the house oversight and government reform committee as well as the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. the second amendment sunsets the redax authority after six years in 2017. mr. speaker, i support h.r. 1059 as amended by the senate and urge my colleagues to extend the redax authority and

i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i want to commend the chairman of the judiciary, lamar smith, for the cooperation and bringing this bill out of committee and through the congress. on september 12 of this year, my bill passed unanimously and the requirement that judges and judicial branch employees disclose their personal finances promotes openness in the federal government. it reduces the risk of corruption and prevents the appearance of impropriety and also sheds some transparency on

what we do in the third brample of government. unfortunately, sometimes tease required discle sures can include critical information about a filer's residence, a spouse's workplace, a child's workplace, a vacation home that has the potential to place members of the judiciary and sometimes their employees and their families at risk, and so what we're doing here is allowing a redax by -- a redaction by the federal conference and the whole idea is to to -- is to make sure that some of the federal judges whose lives have been lost and

others whose family members have lost their lives by disgruntled litigants will not be made that available to them. . the judicial conference is very careful about granting redax authority. i would -- redaction authority. i am supportive of a six-year authority with extension authorities. and so i look forward to the president signing this bill into law immediately. and i reserve the balance of my time. and since there are no other speakers, i will yield the

remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield back as well. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired, the question is will the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1059. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules -- mr. smith: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? robbie: mr. speaker, i -- ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 515. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tight of the bill. the clerk: --

the speaker pro tempore: report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 515, an act to re-authorize the belarus democracy act of 2004. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, and the gentleman will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 515, the belarus democracy and human rights act. before i begin my prepared remarks, however, i'd like to take to honor the life of former president havel, a life-long advocate for the cause of freedom. throughout his lifetime, havel was part of an incredible

transformation of czechoslovakia from an oppressive communist satellite to the free democratic independent nation that is the czech republic. many people at that time had given up hope that such a transformation was possible. it was beyond their imagination. but back laugh havel never lost faith and believed people yes or noing for liberty could come together and affect incredible change. even following the liberation of his own country, he continued to champion the cause of the oppressed around the people, adding voice to those calling for freedom in countries throughout europe, the balkans and even in my homeland, cuba. after the velarde receipt ref -- revolution he said, none of us know the possible tension or

all of the ways in which that population can surprise us when there is the right interplay of events, end quote. it is therefore fitting, mr. speaker, that we come here today to consider this measure to support the democratic movement in a country relatively near mr. havel's homeland, a country that has been called the last dictatorship in europe. the brutal lukashenka regime has proven to be unrepentant in the oppression of its own people. despite claims of reform by those in leadership positions, there have been no real changes in belarus. seems like that's the same script that all communists or communist-style dictators say. hundreds of political prisoners remain in jail in belarus,

including two former presidential candidates and a well-respected human rights defender and reports indicates those prisoners are subjected to degrading and inhumane treatment. even those who have previously -- who have been previously released in attempted overtures to the west, frequently are rearrested or face some other type of intimidation and retribution. mr. speaker, last year the world watched as 700 pro-democracy protestors were arrested en masse. their crime, simply clapping their hands, their hands. this is their peaceful expression of dissent within the regime and fraudulent elections which kept it in power for clapping their hands. and today marks the one-year anniversary of those protests

and how does the dictator of belarus choose to mark this occasion, he has had police summon a key democratic opposition leader and has detained several independent journalists. this clearly shows that the regime is not interested in reform, only in retaining power, power through the muzzling of the opposition, power through the silencing of journalists. power through the repression of its own people. but as mr. havel stated, there is great potential in people calling for their own liberty. the people of belarus are actively calling for their liberty and this measure before us today provides them with the assistance and the resources they need to continue their valiant struggles. i urge my colleagues to join us in showing our support for the people of belarus by passing

this important bill today and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation. one year ago today, belarus president aleksandr lukashenka staged a fraudulent election. after tens of thousands of ordinary belarussians protested, he arrested hundreds of them, including those who dared to run against him. last may most were convicted and handed heavily sentences of up to six years in prison. since then the lukashenka regime has continued to harass members of opposite parties, suppress belarusans access to

free information. when citizens of belarus gathered over several weeks to protest peacefully over lukashenka and his regime he had them arrested for simply clapping their hands. just last month, the government tightened restrictions in the ability of civil society groups to receive foreign grants and placed even greater restrictions on peaceful protests. the obama administration, to its credit, has led the strong international reaction to the fraudulent elections, postelection crackdown and further deterioration of the human rights situation in belarus. on february 2, the united states significantly expanded the list of belarusian officials subject to travel restrictions and to having their assets blocked and restored full u.s. sanctions against belarus' largest state

owned and oil and gas concerned and oil subsidiaries. on september 2, secretary clinton had a meeting of the community of democracies. she repeated her demands that belarus release political prisoners and embark on the path of democratic reform. just last night, secretary clinton and e.u. high representative ashton released a joint sfamente highlighting american and european concerns about continued human rights abuses in belarus on the one-year anniversary of the december 19, 2010 political crackdown. in coordination with the european union, the obama administration has significantly expanded democracy assistance to the private sector of belarus this year. these new resources will support the kind of snarns called for the belarus democracy and human rights act of 2011 which we consider here today. by passing this legislation,

mr. speaker, we're doing our part to encourage the free exchange of ideas in belarus and helping to ensure a brighter future of that people of that tortured nation, people who have the right to self-expression, self-government. i support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm so pleased to yield such time as he may consume to mr. smith from new jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee on africa, global health and human rights, a strong advocate for freedom everywhere and the author of the bill before us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. smith: i thank the distinguished chairwoman for yielding and just join her first and foremost in mourning the passing of havel, the great president and nobel peace prize winner, one of the founders of charter 77, a magnificent human rights organization, that took the helsinki act and turned it

into a duringable and tangible program of the people of czechoslovakia. charter 77 has been replicated all over, including in belarus. it's called 97 there, and as well as in places like vietnam where it's block 8406 and all of these helsinki inspired but havel-inspired for sure. i note pair theycally in the 1980's i and members of the helsinki commission, including steny hoyer, sought to meet with the members of charter 77. one got through and the rest were detained by the secret police, including havel. it's important to say that before he passed away tragically issued or sent a strong letter to the people of belarus encouraging them to hold firm and expressing his overwhelming solidarity with the people of belarus as they

seek their universally recognized human rights. again, this man never ceased in his promotion of human rights anywhere, including in his dying day sending this very important letter to the belarusian people. mr. speaker, i do rise in strong -- urge my colleagues to pass h.r. 515 again. we passed it last july but came back from the senate with a couple of additions which are very much appreciated. and i want to thank senator kerry as well as senator lugar for their cooperation in helping to bring this legislation back to the house and i want to thank our distinguished gentlelady as well as howard berman and eric cantor for bringing this legislation to the floor. this is a very timely piece of legislation. as noted, exactly one year ago

today since the bloody december 19, 2010, election night crackdown in belarus, which swept up more than 700 opposition supporters, many of whom i know and know personally, who dared to challenge the rule of the belarusian dictator, aleksandr lukashenka. on this day of remembrance, we are here in the house to pass legislation that we know president obama will sign. he supports it, that demonstrates our country's support for the human rights of the belarusian people for democracy and the rule of law in belarus through sanctions targeted against the dictator, lukashenka and his senior officials. this legislation tracks legislation that i did in 2004 and 2006 which is current law. called the belarus democracy act. and it builds on that framework of trying to target those who are doing the abuse. it's timely and necessary, as i