said. those jailed and, remember, there are many who have been jailed and more that are being jailed as we meet, have been subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment and some have been tortured. more than 40 were convicted and a dozen, including several presidential candidates, remain imprisoned to this day. at a hell sankst sinky commission i -- helsinki commission i chaired last month we heard shocking testimony from one of the presidential candidates who endured torture during his two months of stay at a k.g.b. prison. yes, mr. speaker, in belarus it is still called the k.g.b., showing how little they have strayed from their dark roots. the families, the lawyers, the independent journalists and activist who is are not yet in prison continue to be harassed and intimidated in their -- and their homes are watched by the k.g.b. this has been the worst

political crackdown in europe in we will over a decade. the postelection crackdown has followed the pattern, however, of repression that is characterized lukashenka's nearly 17-year rule through a series of rigged elections, suppression of independent media and civil society, the dictator has consolidated his control over virtually all national institutions. his dictatorship has the worst record of human rights by far of any government in europe. . specifically, and significantly, the sanctions outlined in the bill are aimed at the senior leadership of a dictatorship that displays utter contempt for the dignity and rights of the belarusian people. we stand with the belarusian people and against their oprosor -- oppressors. h.r. 515 requires the state department to issue a new report to congress on the sale,

delivery or provision of weapons, weapons related technology or training, lukashenko's personal wealth or assets and cooperation by the belarusian government or other governments related to censorship or surveillance of the internet. h.r. 515 states a u.s. government policy of strong support for the belarusian people in their struggle against lukashenko to live in a free, independent country where their human rights are respected. this despite -- despite pressures from an anti-democratic regime. it calls for a full accounting of the 1999-2000 disappearances, i was talking to a woman this morning whose husband disappeared, presumed to be dead, by this regime and she continues to this day struggling for human rights on behalf of her people, now in exile. it calls for and supports

radio, television, interknelt broadcasting to belarus, including radio europe, and the satellite radio station belsat. it calls for a release of all political prisoners. we can't say that enough, we can't say it one day and forget it the next, we need to redouble our efforts to promote a free belarus where all can live in peace and prosperity without that knock in the middle of the night by the k.g.b. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i want to con fradge late my friend from new jersey. he's been a passionate advocate for human rights across the board. we may not agrees gree on all issue bus his commitment to human rights can in the be

questioned, and i thank him. i believe the yearning for human rights is a basic human yearning. it is not limited to the american culture the western culture, as we have seen, in the outpouring of support during the arab spring, for the basics of human freedom, the right to organize, the right to express politically, the right to practice one's religion freely. the right to organize political parties and to involve thems in political dissent. these are universal yearnings as our founders understood in their genius in the writing of the deck la rage of independence. it is absolutely a fundamental, american value that we proclaim those freedoms an we assist those who seek actively in that yearning to implement those freedoms. so again, i congratulate the distinguished chairman of the house foreign affairs committee and our colleague from new jersey for their leadership and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back our time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i have no further requests for time. i want to thank my friend from virginia for his statements and i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, for his leadership on all things related to human rights, freedom and liberty. what an interesting weekend that we saw, not just the death of mr. havel but at the same time, the death of kim jong il. what an incredible juxtaposition to see a wonderful human rights leader like mr. havel and at ethe same time a terrible despot like kim jong il who was responsible for starving his people as well as having them hunger for freedom and justice. with that, i yield back the balance of our 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 amendments to h.r. 515. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those being in the affirmative, the rules are su -- the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: 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, furr proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, rise. mr. lungren: i move to suspend the rules and a adopt h.res. 497, to provide for the placement of a statue or bust of sir winston churchill in the united states capitol. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 497, resolution to provide for the placement of a statue or bust or sir winston churchill in the united states capitol. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren and the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, will each control 20 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lungren: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.res. 4897, the placement of a statue or bust of winston churchill here in the united states capitol. winston churchill was unique, an inspiration to millions around the world in world war ii. winston churchill's eloquence and courage brought hope to those bound under the weight of tyranny and war. his prose and voice were direct an succinct. he believed in calling things by their rightful names. when he secretly met with president roosevelt in august, 1941, and signed the atlantic charter, he made sure it referred specifically to nazi tyranny. always a straight chooter, he talled tissue called it like it

was. in many -- in retrospect, many think it's easy for thanomen clayture to be used but at the time it was unique. during the 1930's when voice after voice cautioned against taking too strong a stance against nazi germany, winston churchill refused to ig fore the depathering storm. in 1982, mr. speaker, i was a young, second-term member of the house, but i, like millions of americans, was inspired that year by the actions and words of our 40th president who traveled across the atlantic in qune of that year to address parliament. he did so out of an appreciation out of the common, liberty loving and natural rights-affirming heritage great britain and the united states shared and which he thought must be protected at all costs. as he should have, he quoted frequently from churchill that tai for there was no other statesman in the 20th century

who had fought, who had contemplated who had written and taught us about war, about the motives of man and about the causes of and necessities present for civilization to survive. that's why churchill's hatred of tyranny burn sod deep and why his warnings about oppression before and after the war sos preyent. during the long, dark night of war, 1940 and 1941, before the united states was there to aid its allies, britain suffered the horrors of attack after attack as all others on the continent had fallen and it was left alone, separated only by the channel, from utter destruction. during nazi bombing atabs on london, the great, majestic stmple paul's cathedral was padly damaged. it looked like it would crumble in flames but it did not. one of the most inspiring images of the war is st. paul's with smoke billowing around it, standing tall, refusing to fall, and reminding us of the

things for which britain was fighting. like that aimage, winston churchill's -- image, winston churchill's example does the same. almost 70 years ago todd day, he risked his life in aumbings-boat attack in a secret voyage across the atlantic. on december 26, 1941, in an address to a joint session of congress, he said, i avow my hope and faith, sure and inviolate, that in the days to come, the british and american peoples will for their own safety and the good of all walk together in majesty in justice and in peace. this is a charge to which i hope this congress will still aspire. mr. speaker, i support this resolution, i urge my colleagues to support it, and i reserve the perhaps of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. connolly: winston churchill was prime minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1950 to 1955, was one of the renowned leaders of the 20th century. he was renound for leading his nation through most of world war ii and in addition to his oratory skills, he was a talented writer and painter and the only british prime minister to receive the nobel prize in literature for his numerous works, including a six-volume set, "the second world war." he served in the british house of commons and as a cabinet minister in several posts before being selected prime minister in 1940. a great ally to the united states in world war ii, he was the architect of the grand alliance with the united states and the soviet union, he forged a strong relationship with president franklin delano roosevelt and the two had numerous meetings shaping the direction of the war and what came after it. one shutch meeting resulted in

the creation of the atlantic charter which led to the creation of the united nations. as with other historical figures, mr. speaker, his life was fraught with complexity and contradictions. he held ante diluvian views with respect to race, which was long a point of contention to people of india and his relationship specifically with gandhi. during world war i he was first lord of the admirality and he set in motion the failed assault at ga lip lee in a -- gallipoli to try to secure a sea route to russia. that forced him out of government, it was years before he'd return, warning of the threat hiterer presented in germany that ability to define injustice and pursue actions with clarity of prurp in the absolute face of evil no matter the consequences is one of the

traits that helped him transcend his human flaws and foibles and enter the ranks of the great statesmen of the 20th severage rhythm he stood alone in the 1930's issuing jeremiat after jeremiad about the threat. his peers did not heed his warning. he showed consummate colonel and resolve, never lost the clarity of the recognition of evil and in fact, that extended into a decade later when he warned about stalin's iron curtain. in recognition to his contributions to our nation and our international alliances, he was the first person to be made an honorary citizen of the united states. it's fitting that we now recognize the 70th anniversary of his address before the joint session of congress mentioned by mr. lungren of california and request to have a statue of him displayed here in the

capitol. it would not be the first time churchill's life work has been honored this capitol. a bronze stamp weth was placed in statuary hall from 1985 to 1986 and has since been on dislay in the ways and means committee of the house. i support the resolution honoring a great american ally and i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner, the author of this resolution and distinguished speaker of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker of the house. the speaker: as they pointed out, next week on december 26, what marks the 70th anniversary of winston churchill's address to a joint meeting of the congress. you know, it was less than three weeks after the japanese attack on pearl harbor, churchill arrived in washington to begin

coordinating a military strategy with the president and the leaders of the congress. during his address he warned the congress of the difficult path that lie ahead. he spoke of the many disappointments and unpleasant surprises that were going to await us. and regarding the japanese aggressor, he asked, what kind of a people do they think we are? is it possible that they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they've been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget? churchill's joint address became known as the masters of our fate speech. in it he said, now, we are the masters of our fates. as long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerble will power, salvation will not be

denied us. on declaring war against the axis powers, churchill said, and i quote, the united states, united as never before, have drawn the sword of freedom and cast away the scab ard. this resolution -- scabbard. this resolution that will honor the former prime minister by placing a bust of him in the united states capitol, the british similarly have a statue of abraham lincoln in the park across from their parliament. winston churchill was the best friend america ever had. and i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring his legacy of persistence, determination and resolve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: we have no further speakers on our side, mr. speaker, and we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: yield back. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california.

mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to mr. harper, distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on elections for the committee on house administration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi for four minutes. mr. harper: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of h.res. 4 7, providing for -- 497, providing for the placement of a statue or bust of sir winston churchill in the united states capitol. mr. speaker, much has been said and writ been winston churchill -- writ been winston churchill -- written about winston churchill. he served as prime minister of the united kingdom and again from 1951 through 1955. but he was so much more. during the 20th century's darkest hour, winston churchill warned of the approaching evil, stood tall when it arrived and inspired his citizens and ours and liberty-loving people around the world to fight, to persevere and to never surrender before victory was assured. he knew that the long road of

our humanity-affirming progress would not end and could not end and was not going to end in defeat to tyranny. mr. speaker, we are in fact one week away, as has been said from the 70th anniversary of churchill's address to a joint session of congress. on december 26, 1941, with our nation still in shock after the attack on pearl harbor, and simultaneous defeats and setbacks across the pacific, and more than two long years since the invasion of poland, prime minister churchill, as this resolution reminds us, said, sure i am this day, now we are the masters of our fate, that the task which has been set us is not above our strength, that its pains and toils are not beyond our endurance. as long as we have faith in our cause and an uncomparable will power, valuevation will not be denied us -- salvation will not

be denied us. mr. speaker, world war ii was a conflict which engulfed the world for six long and bloody years and took approximately 60 million lives. whole continents were engulfed in flames. europe, as we knew it, was overrun. poland, belgium, france, itsly, norway, finland, -- italy, norway, finland, denmark, greece and others were conquered by the nazi inferno. only until britain stood alone. and in those days churchill, his people, the heroic royal air force, and the courage summoned from the depths of their character rose to met the -- meet the evil face to face. mr. speaker, winston churchill was made an honorary citizen of the united states by an act of congress in 1963. he was awarded the congressional gold medal in 1969. his strength, fortitude and resolve have stood and will forever stand the test of time

and his life and example will be one of those guiding lights to which we always look in troublesome days, whenever they should appear. it is more than appropriate to have a statue or bust of sir winston churchill in our great capitol and i support h.res. 497 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, a distinguished member of the judiciary and foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas for three minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, winston churchill, born to a british father and an american mother. winston churchill to me is the person of the 20th century that is an example of a lead that are motivated the free world -- leader that motivated the free world in the defeat of the tie rans of tyranny -- defeat of tyranny. he served as prime minister of the united kingdom from 1940 to 1945, when our two nations battled together to save

civilization from the grips of the nazis and the japanese. but also because of his steadfast unwillingness to ever surrender. he still serves as a guiding light to america and to free peoples throughout the world. in world war ii, during the batful britain, london endured -- battle of britain, london endured systemic bombing for 76 consecutive nights which destroyed or damaged over a million london homes and killed more than 40,000 british citizens. to bolster resolve among the british people, winston churchill gave the following speech. even though large tracks of europe and many old and famous states have fallen or may fall into the grip of the gastapo and all the apparatus of nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. we shall go on to the end, we

shall fight in france, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender. mr. speaker, history shows britain never did surrender. and along with the united states and the rest of the allies, they dedepeeted tyranny and the zeal of the -- defeated tyranny and the zeal of the nazis to enslave peoples in the east and the west. today our country faces many daunting problems. the world is still a very dangerous place and there are those who would snuff out the flame of freedom. we can learn from the resolve of winston churchill. our nation will get through tough times both home and abroad just as the allies did in world war ii.

americans need to be strong and courageous, not timid and weak. work together and remember as churchill so eloquently encouraged the british people in 1940 that some things are worth fighting for and, mr. speaker, america is one of those noble ideals. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? hearing no objection, the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i now recognize the gentlelady from texas, ms. lee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas for two minutes. jackson scrax jackson i thank the gentleman and the speaker and -- ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman and the speaker and the chairman for their kindness and recognition for two minutes today. coming in from houston, i had the privilege of being with reservists that visited one of my hospitals that serves

military families and of course the soldiers and veterans. they serve them on the issue of post traumatic stress disorder. i say that because it was a feeling of warmth and family. first acknowledging, as i wear this yellow ribbon, of those who have come home and those who have done their duty. i believe that the acknowledgment of sir winston churchill is an appropriate action for this congress but really on behalf of the american people. and i read quickly this quote in brief of his words. sure i am this day now we are the masters of our fate, that the task which has been set us is not above our strength. although this was in the context of world war ii, i plead with my colleagues who are all arriving back by train, bus, airplane and

car that this is a time that is within our strength to not in any way yield to the tasks and not accomplish on behalf of the american people. we are masters of our fate. we have before us the senate conference on the payroll tax and employment extension. vote on it. vote together in a bipartisan manner. realize that there are differences but that we have another day, as was devised by the senate, by february, to be able to debate this issue. the american people thought this was settled. people who are hungry for a payroll tax relief, $1,000. ky get an additional -- -- can i get an additional -- mr. connolly: i would ask for an additional 30 seconds for the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. jackson scrax jackson those who are get -- ms. jackson lee: those low who are getting $1,000, those who

would be beneficiary ears of the 4,000 jobs and those who would be beneficiaries of the unemployment extension that will help them pay their mortgage or help them pay their rent or food or the necessities of life. putting those moneys in the economy. the american people thought we were finished, thought we had compromised, thought we had risen to our higher angels. and so if our soldiers and those who are returning can do their job, i'm pleading in a bipartisan manner, let us vote for the senate bill, let us move this forward and let us realize that we are the masters of our fate. with that i thank you for your courtesies and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. -- does the gentleman from california have any observations on the winston churchill statue? mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, returning to the subject at hand , we have the great portrait of general lafayette here in the

house chamber. one of seven honorary citizens of the united states. winston churchill being another. winston churchill was, as is evident, one of the great, great men of the last century. one for whom inspiration was a way of life. and one who is as the speaker said just a few moments ago, was the best ally that the united states has ever had. as a young boy, having been born somewhat after world war ii, i remember the fascination, seeing this figure on television. seemed to remind me of a baby i'd seen, they all looked like winston churchill without the cigar. and you wonder what was it that made this man great? and you began to read history,

you began to talk with your father who had served in world war ii about what this man was. and you realized this was someone who in his youth was involved incal vary charges -- involved in charges and was a leader of the country at the beginning of the thermal nuclear world. talk about the span of time and the span of greatness and the ability to perceive through all of that time, despite his mistakes as being a fallible man , perceive the greatness of the individual and the opportunity that democracy gives to individuals as no other form of government does. at the time when he could have -- criticized nazi germany, it was not something that all then

said. christopher hitchens, the late christopher hitchens, in april, 2002, article of the "atlantic" said this, but alone among his contemporaries, churchill did not denounce the nazi empire merely as a threat, actual or potential, to the british one. nor did he speak of it as a deprived but possible useful ally. he said it as a wicked thing. that appeared now but was exceedingly uncommon then. in what was perhaps his best speech ever delivered to the commons five days after the munich agreement on october 5, 1938, churchill gave voice to the idea that even a peace-loving co-existence with hitler had something rotten about it. quote, when i -- what i find unendureble is the sense of our country falling into the power, into the orbit and influence of nazi germany and our existence becoming dependent upon their

goodwill or pleasure. that was an uncommon statement at the time, it was a courageous statement at the time, it was a visionary statement at the time. it is to honor that vision, it is to honor that ally to honor that person who was dedicated to the best of western civilization, who was one that stood with very few at a time when that civilization was threatened as never before. mr. speaker, it is an honor to be on the floor to offer this resolution to allow for, to authorize, a statue or bust of winston churchill here in the united states capitol. and mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time as i urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia still has time if you want to reserve for the moment.

mr. lungren: i'll reserve my time if the gentleman is going to yield anything -- is say anything else. mr. connolly: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. lungren: i yield back the balance of my time still urging my colleagues to support this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passing the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. 2/3 of those being in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the

>> if you ask the consumer out there, do you want a faster download of an app, they will say yes. they will say -- that is not the trade-off i thought was at stake. is done incorrectly, that is the tribe of. >> current legislations to create new mobile broadband in emergency communications. tonight at 8:00. >> with the iowa caucuses and

new hampshire primary next month, c-span looks back at 14 man who ran for president and lost, but have a lasting impact on american politics. tonight, henry clay, who ran against andrew jackson. tuesday, james g. blaine. thursday, the socialist party candidate eugene debs. on saturday, 3-time governor of new york alan smith. the contenders -- every night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> white house spokesman jay carney said the white house remains hopeful about the payroll tax legislation.

this briefing is about an hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for your patience. thank you for being here for your daily briefing. i do not have announcements. let's go straight to questions. >> thank you. the payroll tax cuts -- is the president concerns at all about the security of the new group -- nuclear arsenal in north korea? >> the united states is closely monitoring events in the aftermath of kim jong-il's death. our focus is on coordinating closely with our allies and

partners. we're committed to the security of the korean peninsula and our allies in south korea and japan. as you know, the president has a very close working relationship with president lee. in addition, leon panetta, tom donovan -- donolan, they have spoken to their counterparts in south korea. secretary clinton is involved and we consulted with a wide range of our japanese colleagues. we're in touch with russia and china, the two other members of the six-party is beyond -- the six parties beyond north korea. president obama has been briefed on the situation. as for the situation, we are monitoring. the succession that is in place has been in place for a long time now, and we're closely

monitoring the situation. >> [unintelligible] concerns about nuclear stability right now? >> i do not think we have additional concerns beyond the one that we have long had with north korea of's -- north korea's approach to nuclear munitions and we will continue to press them to meet their international obligations. but we have no new concerns as a result of this event. >> clearly, there is a transition now. there is an opening for better days? >> i think it is too early to make a judgment like that. this is a time when north korea is in a time of national mourning. and we hope the north korean leadership will take the necessary steps to support peace, prosperity, and a better

future for the north korean people, including acting on commitments to the denuclearization. >> on the payroll tax, was the white house ever given any assurance from the house that this is something it would support? when the president came out and spoke on saturday, did he think this was a done deal? >> as you know, the president works closely with senate leadership as it negotiated. the senate democratic leadership negotiated with the republican leadership on a compromise that won an overwhelming bipartisan support, overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate. 89 to 10. 90%. more than 80% of senate republicans voted for it. i do this sometimes.

i have been here long enough to say, it has never been the case that the senate votes at 90% with overwhelming majorities from both parties without communication with their counterparts in the house. it is certainly not for the president to be the main intermediary between republican leaders in the house and the senate. is our expectation and we have reason to believe there is support in the house for measure that means that americans will not have their taxes go up in 12 days. not only do we believe that because of the nature of the negotiations, the nature of the negotiations to complete on capitol hill, but as many of you have reported, the speaker of the house in his conference call with house republicans urge them to support this measure, said it was a victory in the right thing to do. so, he was for it before he was

against it. >> again, i would say the numerous reports from your colleagues citing republicans who are on the call, making the opposite point. again, i think the broader issue here is the president from the beginning has been for a federal payroll tax cut extension and expansion. it was in the american jobs at. that was on the table back in september. here we are, the very end of december, facing the possibility of 160 million americans having their taxes to walk on january 1 -- having their taxes go up on january 1 and the house refusing to pass the measure that has overwhelming bipartisan support. the president was before the support of the measure, the approach of was taken in the

senate that also would have extended the payroll tax cut for a 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 americans will have their taxes go up. is very hard to understand why -- it is very hard to understand why it a measure passed the senate with nearly 90% support. all it would take in the house, if all democrats vote for it, it is 25 or 30 republicans. 12%. 12% of republican support in the house for this thing to become law. for the house to ensure that americans do not have their taxes go up. we call on republicans to do that. >> you say it is time for congress to act.

the house vote is going to go down. are they not going to bring the senate back to renegotiate? is this its? >> i do not want to speculate about what happens after this, because again, i do not think it is too much of a long shot to say 25 republicans in the house might break ranks and say, you know what? i do not want to go home and explain to my constituents why i voted to raise taxes on them, on middle-class working americans. i think we remain hopeful that the house will act, that house republicans will do the right thing, and support a proposal to extend this payroll tax cut for two months, allowing the time necessary to negotiate a

full-year extension. everyone says a full-year extension. these are republicans traveling some distance of opposing after being for a. hopefully the house will do the right thing and pass this bill. >> north korea -- i know you said it is early days and you are formulating, but people who follow this closely say is one of two things. the development will that lead to greater instability and there will be an opening. dizzied ministration been to one view or another at this stage -- does the administration lean to one view or another of the stage? >> i think it is too early. north korea is in a period of national mourning. this transition has to take place. the issue here is not about personalities. is about the actions of the government.

we will monitor the situation closely. you know, i think it would be premature to make assumptions about what this development would mean in terms of its effect on six-party talks. >> reuters -- detailing talks between the united states and -- [unintelligible] what is the aim of them? what do you expect out of them? >> i say a couple of things. we have been leaving it up to the afghan government to characterize the state of the talks they are leading. it remains the case that we support reconciliation, afghan- led reconciliation, that would

bring afghans together and allow insurgence to come up the battlefield. we have been clear about the conditions that would need to be met. insurgents would need to abandon violence and abide by the afghan constitution. including respecting the rights of all afghans, including women and ethnic more minorities -- ethnic minorities. let's say. victoria? >> [unintelligible] the order on the initiative for girls in conflict. >> i would refer you to the state to permit. the secretary is speaking on this issue, i think, to get. these kinds of things have a fairly long setup process.

i guess i do not understand your question. 1 not today? >> [unintelligible] >> i can tell you that -- let's see what i have here. the documents that are part of the executive order for the first ever national action plan on women, peas, and security lay out the steps the administration will take to prevent and resolve conflict. did the mob -- the documents released today represent a change for military and developmental support to women by ensuring that women's respects is woven into the dna of how united states approaches ps processes, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance. i think we will hear more, if

you have not already, from the secretary of state on this. >> by president biden gave an interview in which he said -- vice president biden gave an interview in which he said we were fighting the taliban right now. i do not know what to tell you. can you explain a little bit more? >> i know you have written about this. i think it is important to understand what most americans know, which is we did not invade afghanistan. we did not send u.s. military personnel into afghanistan because the taliban were in power. they had been in power. we went into all tied up -- we went into afghanistan because al-qaeda launched an attack. what the vice-president is reflecting is -- and this is related to the reconciliation process -- the taliban per se, while we are fighting them, the elimination of the taliban is

not the issue. the number one principle here is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately the ft al-qaeda, as well as stabilize afghanistan. -- and ultimately defeat al- qaeda, as well as stabilize afghanistan. this has led to croatian talks. the conditions for reconciliation for the taliban are very clear. but reconciliation has to be part of the long term process in afghanistan, if afghanistan is going to evolve into a peaceful country. >> i understand that. obviously, there has not been much outside the presence inside afghanistan. the director told me a year or two alone -- ago there were less than 100 cockeyed operatives.

-- al-qaeda operatives. that we were focused on defeating taliban insurgents, taliban fighters. i understand this ultimately is some kind of reconciliation, i just wonder if the language is regrettable." the language is taken out of context, as i explained. -- >> the language is taken out of context, as i explained. we went into a canister and after september 11, 20001. we are there alternately to stabilize afghanistan and to defeat al-qaeda or other terrorists to have as their aim attacks on the united states, to not establish a foothold in the country. so, what is completely clear is that afghanistan's future has to

include reconciliation, and that is why we support the afghan government-led effort there. >> president lee has received criticism in his country for what is perceived to be a belligerent attitude toward north korea. i am wondering if the white house has a take on that? also, there are intelligence analysts within the administration to speculate why all the attacks, the torpedoes, the shelling, because the new president has joined the military, the kind of trying to earn his stripes. is that proven? do we have intelligence about that? >> you can not expect me to

discuss intelligence from your. it really is immature to make assessments of the new leader, at least the one who has been designated by succession, that was already in the works. we will judge north korea, the north korean government, as we always have, by its actions. and by its actions with regard to upholding its commitments, with regard to denuclearization. stepping back, it does make sense to give this process a little bit of time. before we make judgments about the new leadership's or the disposition of north korea going forward. >> [unintelligible] >> south korea is a very close ally. we will work very closely with them. >> [unintelligible] >> not that i have heard here.

justin? >> because house republicans have been able to show unity on issues this year and they have maintained that they simply will not have the senate version of this bill, the last thing the president said was congress cannot and should not go on vacation. will be urged the senate to come back and get this -- will he urge 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 a bill or an amendment to a bill that has received overwhelming bipartisan support on this issue, that will make sure americans' taxes do not

grow up in 12 days. it is time for us to step back and looked at what has transpired here. we have been in this situation where where the public is, or the vast majority of folks in washington are is at variance with a slim subsection of one party in one house. i think it is pretty clear again, based on the reporting you and your colleagues at done, what transpired here. this is in one way a very unique situation compared to what we year transpire, because the senate did -- what we hear transpire, because the senate did pass the bill. they passed the bill with broad bipartisan support, including broad republican support.

is waiting to be voted on by the house of representatives. is perplexing for all of us, and for a lot of you, to understand why house republicans would not support a measure that -- i did the calculations on my iphone. 83% of republican support in the senate. we have some republicans saying today, please come up to their colleagues, to the house republicans come up passed it. it is crazy not to do it. is the obvious thing to do. -- it is the obvious thing to do. it gives the negotiators time to work on a full-year extension, which is the president said at this podium on saturday, should not cause a great deal of trauma -- drama in january or february as the work it out. >> if the bill is not passed,

will the president stay in town? >> the president has made it clear he wants congress to get this done, that he is here now and will be here as congress tries to sort this out because it is essential to man. it is his number one priority the middle-class americans do not have their taxes the what january 1. we remain hopeful that enough house republicans will not vote in lockstep with a position that is supported by almost no one out there, and instead make clear they are committed, as we are to a full year tax cuts for the american people. and issue the president has said consistently, which republicans have been singing -- we do not want to cut -- we do not want

to kick the can down the road. it numerous senior republicans who were dismissing the economic value of the payroll tax cuts, dismissing the need to do it at all and making clear their support was tepid at best. we've seen some movement in that direction. there is support for it. we expect congress to pass it. the house to pass it. you know, the alternative is americans waking up on january 1 and trying to figure out, ok, how am i going to budget, how my going to make ends meet with a thousand dollars less this year? because the house republicans refused to vote for something that 83% of senate republicans supported. >> on north korea, how confident

are you the transition of power will go smoothly? >> we see no indication that the succession prior to this event, the succession that had been contemplated will not take place. we expect that it will. we seen no indication that it will not. beyond that, i do not really have a comment. >> kim jong un is 20 years old. he is described as an untested with a volatile personality, someone who recently encouraged attacks against the south. is that someone the u.s. believes should be leaving north korea? >> i appreciate the question. i think we will make judgments n the new leadership's

disposition based on how he and the government's handle itself going forward. we are open to engagement with north korea. we also made it clear that the north koreans need to take steps towards it denuclearization that would demonstrate a willingness to negotiate. that remains our position going forward. demonstrating not willingness will open the doors to renew it six-party talks, and to improve relations with united states and north korea's neighbors. nothing has changed in our position. we will judge north korea and as government based on how they engage on this issue going forward. >> can i clarify -- nothing has changed. does that mean you will go

forward with food aid to north korea? >> we of longstanding concerns about the at risk population of north korea. the state department has repeatedly made clear we require adequate monitoring provisions to ensure assistance will be provided to those with a genuine need. no decision will be taken without a respect to such a range of a. that was true last week and going for. there is no decision at this point regarding food aid. this is about the precursor to that, which would be making sure such arrangements are in place. >> so it is fair to say it might be delayed with kim jong-il's

death? with all the questions that i have gotten -- >> with all the questions that i have gotten, we will react and monitor the situation. we will low valuate behavior and act accordingly. it is too soon to know what the next. will apply -- what the next period will look like. now it is a time of national mourning. we just have to see. >> [unintelligible] >> no. no. not on the cusp of the deal. i think we are having these discussions, and there was not an imminent deal to be announced. >> there was a report of an imminent deal within days -- >> i do not have anything to announce on that. again, a decision like that was

not going to be taken a moment -- and will not be taken by the united states government that the arrangements i mentioned being in place. >> dino at the is department north korean specialists have had any contacts -- do you know if the state department of three specialists have had any contacts -- >> i cannot know what we know at the state farm in. i am not going to get into assessments right now. we are focused on actions. i certainly appreciate that they are in a time of national mourning. >> you talked about winning for a time. -- waiting for a time period. his father was dead for number of years before kim jong-il made

his presence known on an international stage. is that what you were talking about? >> we just have to say. >> [unintelligible] the think it is prudent for the administration to take a position on whether the death of kim jong-il will lead to more nuclear proliferation rather than less? what is the risk? >> there are opinions that we might have that we might not necessarily share on matters of national security of foreign governments. what i am trying to make clear here is this is the time of national mourning, and our position is what it has always been. we will judge governments, and this government is the same, by their actions. >> increased their level of

alert and readiness. is there a chance this will have an effect -- >> as i understand, no. obviously, you can ask for more detailed information from the defense department. that is not the case for us. to rihanna? >> [unintelligible] what are you basing that trope on? [laughter] >> on month ago, juliana, there was ample evidence house republicans were opposed to a payroll tax extension. we are now at a place where they are so committed to it that despite the substantial efforts to get a one-year deal, they are saying now that they cannot possibly accept a bipartisan

compromise to extended to two months to allow time for more negotiations for a full-year extension. i mean, there is a little bit of kabuki theater. we all know how unusual this situation is that transpired this weekend. is not common practice, i would say, -- it is not common practice, i would say, for a bill of substance that does not have to do with naming a post office or commemorative coins to passed with overwhelming support from both parties, 90% support, without the wheels be increased in the other house. -- without the wheels being greased and the other housekeeping it makes it difficult to get things done for the american people when you

have that kind of situation with that volatility, things that have broad, broad american public supports cannot get done because of a subfaction of one party in one house dictating the direction of the majority opinion that housekeeping and makes it very difficult. we remain hopeful. that represent even a majority of the republican party. 25% of the house republicans. that is all we need. not the 82% we got in the senate. 12% to 15% of house republicans to ensure americans do not have the taxes go up january 1. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not have any calls to read out. kristin, did you have anything? >> yes.

will miss the last time the president did meet with speaker boehner? >> i do not have any conversations to read out to you at this time. >> what can we expect to see from the president later today and in coming days? >> he is actively engaged on this issue. again, you saw him here on saturday. he worked closely with senator reid and the senate democratic leadership on the one-year deal. with that was not achievable in the timeframe that was before us, senators reid and mcconnell worked out a two-month extension that had the support of 89 senators out of 99 votes. the president was very

supportive of that measure. now, tonight, apparently there will be a vote. and it should pass. it has overwhelming support. it will ensure that working, middle-class americans will not have their taxes go up january 1, and it will give negotiators for the time to make sure it is extended for the full calendar year, 2012, the payroll tax cut extension as well as the extension of unemployment insurance, which has, as every outside economist will tell you, a very positive impact on the economy. let's not forget what the substance of consequence -- substantive consequence of failure to act will mean. not just a $1,000 tax hike for the average american family. been negative impact on the economy. there are economists out there who say if we do not extend the

payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance, it increases the possibility of a recession or slow economic growth. the converse of that is passing this tax cut, passing unemployment insurance will of a positive impact on economic growth. there are republicans out there, and not surprisingly those of the ones who are opposed or tepid in their support of this, who claim based on no credible economic evidence that these things have had no effect on the economy this year. there is no economist who would argue to you that payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance have not had a positive impact on growth and job creation. and that is why we need to have them for next year. >> [unintelligible] >> setting aside the

individuals, certainly we're in contact with capitol hill on this matter and have been all weekend and today. and you will continue today. -- 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 make sure that their taxes do not go up january 1. it is pretty simple. >> when to say context, that includes republicans? >> let me just say, a think the president himself told you on saturday -- i think the president himself told to 1 saturday.

he talked to senator mcconnell. thank him for this bipartisan compromise. it is not our job to negotiate between him and senate republicans. the senate passed -- 82% senate republican approval. 39 senate republicans. a provision to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance as well as other important issues for two months. the house should follow suit. >> two questions on north korea. so far, have you noticed any unusual movements by the north korean military? does the president have any --

as with the korean president? >> with regards to the first question, my understanding prior to coming out here was we did not see any evidence of that. i would refer you to the defense department for more detail. my understanding is the answer is no. >> thank you. the house says the bill before it. they can pass it. and they are not interested in negotiating. is that the white house view as well? they should take it or own it and that is the end? or if they rejected, will there be time for more negotiation? >> if they reject it,

immediately speculating about the outcome. i understand there's the suggestion that would happen. bad as unfortunate -- that is unfortunate. i do not want to get ahead of that process. we just heard senate republicans and forces point. is the right thing to do. vote yes to 9. -- vote yes tonight. an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority in the senate. i do not want to get ahead of the process. it is certainly the case that senator reid worked very closely with senator mcconnell to work out this compromise. and they put together the two- month measure. they put together trying to get a year payroll tax extension,

unemployment extension. they were not able to accomplish that at this time, and they felt it was at the utmost importance to make sure that peril taxes to not go of january 1. that is the president's top priority. 89 of 99 senate votes, senate ayes, and it moved on to the house. i think it is not too much to ask on behalf of the american people that the house follow suit, a vote as the senate did in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that taxes do not know what january 1. i am not going to speculate on what happens if the bill goes down. >> by -- the senate democrats are putting pressure on the house, and if you were in the same place, that would add

pressure. you are declining to do that. >> let's be clear. i am doing everything i can to make, in our view, the american people overwhelmingly support this. the senate overwhelmingly supports this. it is overwhelmingly the right thing to do. the american people will be angry if congress does not, in this case the house does not, vote to extend this tax-cut. people are going to wake up. they will spend the holiday season trying to figure out how they will manage their budgets with $1,000 less in their paychecks next year, because it is nonsensical behavior where it takes compromise to get things done here. we are two-party system and a

divided government. something happened saturday in the senate that does not happen often. 89 senators voted for something that was not a post office or a commemorative coin. 39 republicans. i think they must be pulling their hair out when they look at the house now refusing to do this. >> it seems like an outdated question, all the way back to saturday. why did the ministration -- the administration changed that language given that a few days earlier the house indicated -- proceed ministration indicated the president would veto -- the

administration indicated the president would veto. the president spoke in general about an ever to mandate a decision, a u.s. decision, as being something he would reject. this decision does not mandate that outcome. which does not mean it is not extreme yes. that it is not wholly and nell -- irrelevant or related to the sgr doc fix. it was a purely political thing inserted by senate republicans. we accepted that. senate democrats accepted it, because that is part of what compromise means. sometimes you have to take things you do not want. with the clear on what that provision, if the house does take the appropriate action

tonight, what it would mean and what it would not mean. >> it is the same provision that was in the house bill to us -- the preseident said he would veto a bill -- [talking at once] going back to that time, which as you say, seems like a long time ago, it was not any single element that would make that bill veto-worthy. that bill is dead and will not land on the president's desk. >> i would only point to the statement made by the state

department about what a 60-day review would mean. the whole reason more time was needed was to do these assessments for an alternate pipeline, it requires more time than 60 days. he would be difficult -- it would be difficult for that review to have been responsibly achieved within 60 days. i would refer you to that statement. >> does the white house of any response to the reports that the day after the u.s. combat troops rolled up that the shi 'ite government issued a peeath warrant for --

and sparked fears of political and sectarian fighting there? what i did have something on that. hold on one second. -- >> i did have something on that. will, second. yes. yes, as you know -- this just in. what i can say is we are monitoring this. monitoring the situation where an arrest warrant has been issued for the vice president in iraq. all parties have expressed concern regarding these developments. we're urging all sides to resolve their differences peacefully in a manner consistent with the democratic process. >> if the house votes tonight the way we are told it will,

that is the end of the it. you are going to say everybody -- >> i am not accepting that outcome. >> we need to, right? >> i was told it was impossible for the kansas city chiefs to be the green bay packers -- beat the green bay packers. >> you say if the house votes tonight, americans are going to wake up, angry, tearing their hair out january 1. it sounds like you were going to give up? >> >> no, i am not seen that. all it would take would be for 25, 30 republicans to do what their constituents overwhelmingly want them to do, which is to grant an extension of the payroll tax cut, to follow the bipartisan majority established in the senate in support of this measure and

allow this bill to reach the president's desk and have him sign it into law. i do not think it is a possibility that will have been. the fact of the matter is -- you know. it is 12 days and eight hours until taxes go up. it is less than before. the march of time. americans expects washington to work. they expect political opponents to come together and work out a compromise on the substantive issue, a meaningful issue like a payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment insurance, paid for in both cases, as well as

provisions of that measure. when they work it out, senator mcconnell, and senator reid and 89 senators vote with them and support that measure. most americans would probably expect the house to follow suit. he would probably expect at least 12% or 13% of house republicans to follow the 82% of senate republicans in supporting this. the respect that for all the reasons i have spelled out. including the established precedent in the way washington works. it was clear there was an expectation on the hill there would be support for this lane neihaus. it is unlikely, based on our understanding of the house, that that would have sailed over with huge bipartisan support that the door is not also in expectation

of support in the house. and also there was the conference call with the speaker of the house. hopefully reason will prevail, and they will vote accordingly. >> what is it that you think speaker boehner is up to? you have a 2-month extention? >> no, no, no. we want a one-year extension. the president has made this clear. the only reason why americans might not have their taxes go up january 1 is because the president has been pushing this since september. again, there is republican resistance. and tepid support. and then last tepid support. -- less tepid support. >> [unintelligible] >> it is remarkable how things

change. every element of that jobs act, as i have said many times, was inserted because it had an impact on the growth of the economy and job creation and they were the kinds of measures that traditionally earned bipartisan support. i have it in my book here. in a statement after statement after statement from republicans from 2009, their answer to what we needed to grow the economy was a payroll tax cut. well, let's do it. the president supports this. he pushed the one-year deal. when that was not achievable, in the timeframe that we had, a bipartisan compromise was reached. 89 senators voted for it. we should do that so americans do not have their taxes go up. >> so what is it that you think speaker boehner -- >> again, i think i made it

clear. there is an issue that one subsection of the party is dictating. using from some of the reporting and statements -- you have seen from some of the reporting and statements. "we do not want to give president obama a victory." it is the kind of thing that americans are very angry about. we should just do this because it is the right thing to do. >> [unintelligible] you will not reopen negotiations? >> harry reid is justifiably perplexed and frustrated by the events of the weekend. he worked very closely with senator mcconnell to achieve the bipartisan compromise on saturday. the position that the house ought to pass this is our position. >> this is it?

>> look, as i have been saying, i am not going to predict what happens if republicans vote to raise taxes on the american people, because i do not think in the hands -- i am hopeful that they will not. >> is the white house committed to making sure this is resolved? because it is not. >> it is the white house's commitment to make sure that's taxes do not go up on january 1, as he has amply demonstrated. he will make sure that americans do not have their taxes go up and he will continue to do that. we need a partner in this. we had a partner in this. demonstrated by the overwhelming bipartisan support, which again as the president

said on saturday -- that is not a huge victory. but it was the right thing to do to ensure we got to where the full extension could be passed. holding up the process now is playing politics with the paychecks of 160 million americans. jay. >> in terms of this payroll tax, there are logistical issues going on here. [unintelligible] the national payroll reporting consortium has expressed concerns -- a nonpartisan group -- about the legislation. they think -- [unintelligible]

is that a substantial problem, affecting significant numbers of employers. the bottom line is they do not think there's enough lead time to do this because it is only two month and one-year. >> i appreciate that. thank you for sending it to me ahead of time. one, the reason congress was so slow to get its work done last year was an issue when the payroll tax was extended. is created complications. -- it created complications. b, the president is committed to make sure his administration works with american businesses to make sure the tax cut is extended for american taxpayers, wage earners, people who get a paycheck. 160 million of them. he worked overtime over the

holidays to make that happen. thank you, everybody. >> jay. >> you are right. i am sorry. i apologize. >> thank you. to two questions. [laughter] >> wise guy. >> less does it state -- it was very confused last night. can you explain how the president learned of the death of kim jong il? >> it was reported to him by white house staff at about 10:30. it was established by news reports the north koreans had made that announcement. >> aside from the topic of not

leaving for vacation, what is the president doing here that he cannot do in hawaii? >> as we have made clear on other occasions, the president travels with the presidency. he is in meetings all day long. i have been in some of the. he will continue to work in other areas unrelated to this he believes this is absolutely the number one priority, that congress needs to take action, that the house needs to vote accordingly, to make sure that americans don't have their taxes go up. and he's working toward that end and will continue to do so. >> on those meetings, you said at the beginning when answering ben's question, you said that he's having conversations with senate democrat leaders that are having conversations, and it's not the white house's job to be an intermediary between that

group and the house republicans. is the white house engaged with any group -- is direct contact beyond the senate? >> again, i think the president told you that he spoke with senator mcconnell on saturday. my broader point was in that process that led to the vote on saturday in the senate, the president was engaged with estimate democratic leadership and in their efforts to work with senator mcdonnell and senate republicans to find a bipartisan compromise and solution, his goal remains a full one-year extension. his highest priority is that americans don't see their taxes go up on january 1. and what, as he made clear on saturday, what the overwhelming vote in the senate, bipartisan vote in the senate on that bill

made sure would not happen is that americans would not have their taxes go up if the house followed suit. and going 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 didn't have some reason to believe that the house would follow suit. >> [inaudible] >> again, we've had conversations at multiple levels with folks on the hill, but i'm not going to get into detailed readouts. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> so, at this hour, we are waiting for house members to make their way back to the floor of the house. the house recessed subject to the call of the chair, although we expect them back shortly. we know the house republicans are meeting now, and also the democrats meeting. as things develop, our live coverage will continue right here on sper. from earlier today, the speaker, john boehner, talking about that payroll tax cut extension. as soon as the house comes in, we'll have live coverage right here on spann. >> good morning, everyone. americans are tired of washington's short-term fixes

and gimmicks. which are creating uncertainty for job creators at a time when millions of americans are out of work. democrats and republicans agree that the payroll tax cut needs to be extended for a full year and to provide the kind of relief that americans need in the struggling economy. 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 a year, the senate democrat leaders passed a two-month extension, a punting of the problem into next year. we oppose the senate bill because a two-month extension instead of a full year extension causes uncertainty for job creators. i used to run a small business. i met a payroll. i hired workers. a two-month extension creates uncertainty and will cause problems for people who were trying to create jobs in a private sector.

the idea that tax policy can be done two months at a time is a kind of activity that we see here in washington that's really put our economy off its tracks. last week, both chambers worked together to pass a full year bill to fund our government. and i don't think this issue is any different. it's time for congress to do its work. 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 go to conference. the formal process in which the house and senate can resolve differences between the two chambers and between our two bills. and i expect the house to take

up legislation that reinforces the need to extend the payroll tax relief for a full year, rather than just two months. again, to provide certainty for job creators. i think the best way to resolve the difference between the two-month extension and a full year bill is to follow the regular order here in congress, when there's a disagreement between the two chambers, we sit down at a conference and resolve those differences. and that's exactly what i believe the house will do. the president has said repeatedly that no one should be going on vacation until the work is done. democrat leaders in the house and senate have said exactly the same thing. so i think it's time for the senate democrat leaders to follow the president's example, put their vacations on hold, and work in a bipartisan manner to finish the nation's business. >> mr. speaker, if you can't

work out a deal for a year-long extension, are you prepared to let these tax cuts lapse altogether? >> i think we've made it perfectly clear that we believe that a full year extension of these tax cuts are very important. i don't believe the differences between the house and senate are that great. it's time for us to do our work. >> if you and your colleagues over here in the house were so against this two-month extension, short-term, why did you not raise the red flag with your republican colleagues who for the most part voted for this in the senate? >> we expressed our reservations about what the senate was doing. but understand, i've made perfectly clear to senator reid and senator mcconnell, sometime mid last week, that i would not enter into negotiations with them until the senate produced a bill. the senate produced a bill. we expressed our reservations, and i do believe they're trying to resolve this between the two chambers in the regular order of

our business, is the appropriate way to proceed. >> you got the guarantee that the pipeline would be in this deal. are you going to guarantee that you'll get a full year, that congress will give one full year? >> we agree with the president that all of these -- the payroll tax cuts, the unfloiment insurance with reforms, all of this needs to be done in the right way. you know, i've been around here for a while. i've seen the congress kick the can down the road. it's time to stop the nonsense. we can resolve these differences and we can do it in a way that provides certainty for job creators and others in our economy. >> mr. boehner, a bill that got 90% in approval in the senate is now dysfunctional. why? >> what i'm suggesting is that the president asked for a full year extension. we agree with the president. the democrat leaders have said the same thing over the last two weeks, that we should do this for the full year.

why do we always have to go to the lowest common denominator? it's time for us to do our work. we're prepared to do our work. >> what other specific changes do you want in the bill? >> we believe that we passed a reasonable bill that extended all of this for a year. if there are differences between the bodies, we will be able to resolve them. >> are you willing to look at the iraq afghanistan fund? >> when we sent our bill to the senate, 90% of theoff sets wereoff sets -- of the offsets were offsets that the president agreed to. i don't believe it will be that difficult to come to an agreement that would make reforms in the unemployment insurance program and do so in i think a fiscally responsible way. one more. >> did you ever tell the white

house of the senate proposal? >> no. never a conversation with the white house. >> you initially supported moving forward with the two-month plan. what changed in your mind? >> no. >> we were told that you initially supported it that the house should move forward with the senate. >> no, that's not true. what i was outlining was the fact that having the keystone pipeline in here was a success. but i raised concerns about the two-month process from the moment that i heard about it. thank you, everybody. >> we just saw speaker boehner earlier this morning. at this hour, the speaker behind that wall there meeting with the house republican caucus, we also are told the house democrats are meeting as they talk about that payroll tax cut extension.

we will, of course, have live coverage as soon as the house returns. president obama has issued an executive order that establishes the nation's first ever plan for promoting women's rights and protecting them from violence and conflict. also making sure they're part of peace building efforts. and hillary clinton explained that initiative earlier during a speech at georgetown university. we'll show you that as we wait for events to unfold on capitol hill. >> good morning, everybody. we are very pleased to welcome secretary of state hillary clinton. >> hi. i see we have some special reporters here today. welcome. we're so glad you're here. maybe you can help your dad with his work here. good morning. i'm pleased to be here this morning to release the 10th

edition. the united states government' annual report on the removal and destruction of unsecured conventional weapons and our success in humanitarian demining. i'm joined today by assistant secretary for political military affairs, andrew shapiro, who you will hear from shortly. and i'd like to thank andrew as well as jim lawrence and his team in the office of weapons removal and abate. -- abatement. and dr. ken rutherford, and james madison university who helped prepare this report. excess and unstable munitions along with the countless number of land mines buried around the world pose a grave danger to the lives and safety of men, women, and children everywhere. in areas recovering from conflict, these weapons increase the threat that groups or

individuals might reignite hostilities. around the world, land mines rendered thousands of acres of land unusable and literally tear away the fabric from communities unable to farmland, unable to walk safely from village to village. but we are making important progress. over the last decade, we have helped decrease the worldwide number of land mine casualties from around 15,000 to around 20,000 annually to approximately 4,000 in each of the last two years. that is still an unacceptably high figure. but the progress that we've made is due in no small part to the commitment of the united states government and partner organizations to clear hundreds of thousands of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle land mines. this report documents the $201 million in aid the united states

provided in 2010 to help 49 countries clear explosive remnants of war and destroy excess stockpiles of weapons ammunitions. and there are a lot of good new stories to tell coming out of this. central america, for example, became the first affected region to achieve mine impact freeze status, meaning all explosives, and i underline all explosives, have been safely cleared from areas where people go about their daily lives. community-based demining programs helped clear over 80,000 square meters of land in afghanistan's helmand province. in the state departments, quick reaction helps the people in new guinea reclaim land for local use by clearing dangerous, unexploded munitions from world war ii. further, in the 10 years since we began dealing our efforts in

this report, united states has helped destroy over 1.4 million small arms and light weapons, eliminate over 80,000 tons of unstable or excess munitions, and take more than 32,000 man portable air defense systems out of circulation. these so called man pads are shoulder fired missiles capable of taking down an aircraft. so keeping them out of the wrong hands is essential to protecting global aviation everywhere. our efforts to mitigate the threat of man pads has been in the headlines this year because they are of paramount concern in libya. we've been working closely with the libyan authorities since the early days of the conflict to inspect libya's known storage sites and secure dangerous weapons ammunitions. we are now working together to inventory these stockpiles and destroy arms that exceed libya's national defense needs.

now clearing and destroying conventional weapons is only -part one part of our work to support civilians who live in dangerous areas with explosive remnants of war. we are raising awareness about the threat of unexploded ordinance, so that whenever possible we can prevent injuries from occurring. and when they do occur, we strive to help survivors and their families rebuild their lives. our humanitarian actions include medical rehabilitation and vocational training for land mine survivors. 40 land mine victims in afghanistan, half of whom were women, recently graduated from a program where they learned to tailor clothes and repair motorcycles. these kinds of assistance programs give land mine survivors new skills to help them provide for themselves and their families and it also helps reintegrate them back into society. in bosnia, our support for the

international trust fund for de-mining and mine victims assistance have helped survivors regain their mobility and dignity while helping restore confidence among the region's ethnic groups. for example, o.k.i. is a sitting volleyball club made up of land mine survivors and amputees. they have become the world champions of their sport. as the team competes in tournaments around the world, they remind us of how much the human spirit is capable of when faced with great challenges. the united states is proud to be the single largest financial supporter of humanitarian mine action around the world. we stand firmly with all those working to address the harmful and indiscriminate effects of land mines on civilians. and this report is heartening proof that when we work together in common cause, we can make real progress. but it's also a reminder of how much more we have to do.

one of our next great challenges will be helping countries secure and destroy their stockpiles of unstable conventional munitions stored in dangerous depots. many of these stockpiles are left over from the cold war. they are often poorly maintained, improperly stored, or inadequately guarded. since 1995, explosions at more than 200 of these depots have claimed thousands of lives in every region of the world. and the frequency of such explosions is increasing as the stocks continue to degrade over time. so working with more than 30 countries on improving munitions maintenance and storage to help reduce the threat of these explosions. our efforts to secure and destroy conventional weapons combine elements of diplomacy, development and defense. smart power at work. we work to make post-conflict areas safer and to better set

the stage for their recovery and redevelopment. to achieve this, the state department collaborates with a wide array of partners from the departments of defense, homeland security, and usaid, to dozens of public and private organizations. i especially want to thank them for their efforts. together we have helped ensure millions of people can now walk safely across the earth. children can run freely without fear and communities damaged by war can begin to heal. and at this point, i'd like to turn it over to assistant secretary shapiro. thank you. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. first, i want to thank secretary clinton for her long standing support for u.s. efforts in this area and for taking the time to mark the 10th edition of the

safety report. as you may know, i worked for senator clinton for years in the senate. the very first piece of legislation when i started that job was companion legislation to help land mine survivors. so she has had a long history of work and leadership on this issue. i also want to thank others who have been involved in the production of this report. i want to recognize all of our partners from agencies across the u.s. government as well as our numerous private sector partners that contribute to the success of the conventional weapons destruction program. these programs are truly a collaborative effort between the department of state, department of defense, usaid, and the centers for disease control. these agencies strive to help countries recover from conflict and create safe, secure

environments to rebuild infrastructure, return displaced citizens to their homes and livelihoods, assistant survivors -- assist survivors. the state department is also proud of its public private partnerships initiative in conventional weapons destruction, which presently connects to the department with close to 70 private sector partners. these partnerships help unite the resources of the private sector with the passion of the non-profit sector and through the reach of the u.s. government, we are able to make a concrete difference. looking ahead, despite all of our successes, we an sis peyton the risks from poorly secured conventional weapons will remain a major humanitarian concern for the foreseeable future. the fact remains that there are still countless undetected land mines buried around the world, each posing a great threat, each rendering the surrounding land

unusable. childhood is far from care-free for millions recovering from conflict. even a simple game of soccer entails serious risk of injury or even death from buried lapped mines or unexploded munitions. as the secretary noted, our conventional weapons destruction programs save lives and are critical to helping war ravaged areas recover. while i know that budgets are tightening, the value of these programs is also without question. by helping countries recover from the effects of war, our assistance is playing a vital role in advancing stability and prosperity around the world. with that, i'd be happy to take any questions you might have. >> one quick one on libya, which the secretary referenced. i believe the most recent figures that the department has given regarding the number of

man pads located and destroyed is roughly 5,000 of an estimated 20,000 that the gaddafi regime is believed to have had. has that figure gone up now? have you found any more since then? >> as you know, i was in libya last sunday when i -- 5,000 weapons, roughly around the same number now. we do believe that thousands were at the stroyed. and that the rest, likely with michigan or others from the cada if i ammunition stocks. so we are working with the libyan authorities on the best way to do that and that was the one of the topics of discussion

during my visit to libya last sunday. >> do you have any sense of how many of those weapons were made in michigan control, and whether any of them made their way out of the country? >> we are continuing our efforts to categorize and assess how many weapons are still at large. and it will require us going back to the ammunition storage areas that were bombed and actually digging them up and figuring out how many we've got. also talking with michigans as well and engaged in conversations with them as well as the libyan government. again, that was a topic of my discussions last sunday. so thus far, we have not seen any evidence that they have left the country. we are obviously very concerned about it. that's why we have such a

substantial effort on the ground in libya to secure these weapons. >> is that still your best estimate of how many there were before the campaign began? >> well, let me be clear. we don't know how many they used in their training, how many were serviceable. but that's based on our review of shipping receipts and other things that we've obtained. as we go through these bunkers that were bombed, we discover additional information that indicates that some were used during training. so that is the high end number that we had of how many the gaddafi regime obtained since the 1970's. >> and that figure hasn't changed? you haven't been able to lower that figure at all? >> no, it's based on what we've

seen thus far. and again, we are going through search areas for any additional numbers. >> there are some criticisms lately that too much attention was being placed on the man pads at the extense of everything else. >> my discussions with libyan authorities, we talked about both man pads, but also securing conventional weapons as well. and we discussed working with them to develop proper stockpile management as well as encouraging those who have conventional weapons that they don't need to turn them in. and to encourage libya where they do not need them for their defense needs, to work to

destroy them. so that has been a topic. our efforts on the groufpbled we'll work with them on the issues as well as securing other conventional weapons. >> the united states' commendable record on cleaning up land mines, that the united states doesn't sign an outright ban on land mines, been resisting that over the years? >> well, as you know, we're currently going over a review of our policy. as you noted, the united states is the largest contributor towards land mine survivor assistance as well as clearing the way of land mines around the world. thus far, our review is taking into accounts what impact it would have on our ability to conduct military operations. and after that review is done, we will come to a decision about

the best way ahead. but that should not in any way detract from the significant efforts that the united states has made towards clearing land mines and helping land mine survivors. i would say we did send an observer to the auto convention annual review conference last month. and i think even non-government organizations would agree that the united states has been the leading contributor to these efforts. >> when do you expect to complete the review, one. with the death of kim jong il, i wonder to what extent the u.s. government might feel ready to remove any of the thousands of mines along the north-south korean border. >> we don't have a timetable for the completion of the review. we have made significant progress during the review. and obviously the impact on korea will be considered during

the review, but i have nothing to add other than the review is ongoing. >> do you hope to finish it before the president's current four-year term ends? or can you not even say that? >> that is the goal. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> again, another live picture from capitol hill for you, as we continue to wait for house speaker john boehner to come out. you can see the reports gathered around there, everybody waiting to hear what the speaker says about that closed door meeting taking place right now with the house republican caucus. house democrats also meeting and talking. we understand 7:15 is the time scheduled for the house rules committee to start talking about the tax extension, the payroll tax cut extension. we'll have live coverage of the house rules committee on our cam upon-on network spann 2.

-- spann -- c-span 2. we're going to bring you a discussion that took place earlier this morning on "washington journal" about surveillance and privacy.it's yr fault." what does that mean? guest: in the overall debate in the country, we have something of a crisis with regard to privacy. this country used to be defined by privacy. we have an innate sense of privacy that you have not been

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

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

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

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

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

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

it is a conservative court. there is not a lot of privacy advocates on the supreme court. it is a problem many libertarians have with the movement. many of the justices are conservative and libertarian and that they tend to vote for government on police and government surveillance programs. host: jonathan turley, law professor at george washington university law school. here's how you can join the conversation -- those go to new hampshire. good morning. caller: ken morning. i have sort of day, and greet the recently heard news, no longer fighting a war now, the drones, which were used in the war will be used to left doubt

that we're no longer in the work, the drone's return used in the war will be this is totally scary because this is an additional layer of erosion. i would like your comments on that. guest: it is a good question. i am afraid you are correct. we're running out of wars abroad and they're bringing that act at a war in the country and that will be on privacy. congress is not very protective, as usual. they more often are the threat to privacy than the champion. you are seen drones being used. we saw one used in a case in texas, where it was used involving what would have been a low felony. they used a drone over the skies ranch. you'll see a lot more of that. i'm critical of both sides. i wrote a column in the "l.a. times" not long ago talking

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

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

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

to do it anymore. with the democrats, have this stockholm syndrome, a bracing obama even though he pretty much has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the united states. host: a common on twitter -- guest: that is exactly right. that is the problem with the case. when you say you're desensitized, that means you do not have as much of a reasonable expectation of privacy. that becomes a self fulfilling fact. the amazing thing is, i remember many years i was called at the head of a school district of one of the largest in the country. he said, i want to ask your opinion about as putting video cameras on school buses. i said, really? that means you have thousands of tapes. this was before digital.

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

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

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

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

hold a liver is close and would not relax those fingers, but they are. the point you had made about the question about privacy and the new generation. we're not going to get any help from congress. congress never had a good record on constitutional issues with privacy. the only positive thing, i want to give something positive as you had to work, we have had three polls in the last year and the all share the same thing. the american people say they're more afraid of the government than they are outside forces like terrorists. so there is this disconnect. the majority of americans are very concerned about the loss of rights, but congress, both democrats and republicans, cannot move harder against privacy. and this is part of the cynical calculation. i think president obama made this calculation early on and

decided no one would be to the right of him on terrorism and national-security, and he has taken the democratic party with him on that. so you had this remarkable disconnect with the majority the citizens are going, "we are really concerned about this, we're fearful of their own government." yet, it is not translating on the hill. host: "are you being watched? it is your fault." you write congress has been in different if not hostile to individual rights. few members are willing to pass laws to protect security. you talked earlier about how privacy is under assault from private companies. guest: that is something people often do not think about the fourth amendment protection against the government that creates a huge gap. surveillance industry today is a multibillion-dollar a year industry. most of that is going to private companies. they have become exponential in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

faith. people have lost faith. when you lose faith, it is an invitation for strongmen, for authoritarian power. as citizens pullback, power is filling the void. it is very dangerous. host: jonathan turley is a professor a in >> we continue to wait for the house to return for a vote on bills earlier. still meeting behind closed doors and we expect the speaker at that podium. we expect him to come out and we will have live coverage when he does. and the house rules committee scheduled to get under way to talk about the payroll tax cut legislation. as we wait for things to move along here on capitol hill, we will bring you more from today's

washington journal. elected the 2012 presidential campaign. i am told instead of that segment, we are going to bring you today's white house briefing, talking about the payroll tax cut expansion. -- extension. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here for the daily briefing. i don't have any announcements, so let's go straight to

questions. >> is the president concerned at all about the security of north korea and keeping it with optimism? >> the united states is closely monitoring the aftermath of kim jong il's death. we have reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to the stability of the peninsula and the security of our allies. the president, as you know, has a working relationship with president li. secretary clinton and secretary panetta, the hubble spoken to their counterparts in the korean government as well as forces on

the ground. secretary clinton is meeting with the japanese foreign minister and we have consulted with a wide range of japanese colleagues. we are in touch with russia and china, members of the six-party talks of north korea. president obama has been briefed on the situation. as for the situation, we are monitoring the succession that is in place, it was put in place for a considerable period of time. we are monitoring the situation. >> you are concerned with nuclear stability right now? dodge we don't have official 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. far,at you're hearing so there is a transition now? is this an opening for the white house for better days? >> is much too early to make any kind of judgment like that. this is a time where north korea is any time of national mourning. we hope that the north korean leadership will take the steps necessary to support peace and prosperity for a better future of the north korean people including acting on its commitments for denuclearization. >> was the white house ever given any assurance from the house that this was something that it would -- the president spoke on saturday that he thought it was headed for a done deal. >> as you know, the president to

work closely with his senate leadership as they negotiated with republican leadership on a compromise that won an overwhelming bipartisan support , and 89-10. the 90%. more than 80% of the senate republicans voted for it. i have been here long enough to say that it has never been the case that the senate votes at 90% with overwhelming majority for both parties without communication with their counterparts in the house. it is certainly not for the presidency to be the intermediary between republican leaders in the house and the senate. it was our expectation and we had reason to believe there was support in the house for a measure that would insure that americans did not have their

taxes go up in 12 days. not only did we have reason to believe that because of the negotiations -- the nature of negotiations taking place on capitol hill, but as many of you have reported, the speaker of the house, and 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. i would cite the numerous reports from your colleagues, citing republicans on the call, making the opposite point. the broader issue here is, the president, from the beginning, has been for a federal tax cut

extension and expansion. that was put on the table back in september. here we are, the very end of december, facing the possibility of 160 million americans will have their taxes go up on january 1, and the house refusing to pass a measure that has overwhelming support from republicans as well as democrats. the president was very supportive of the approach that was taken in the senate that also would have extended the payroll tax cut for a year. he continues to support a full extension of the payroll tax cut. but congress needs that act or else americans will have their taxes go up. it is very hard to understand why a measure passed the senate

-- call it would take in the house is about 25 or 30 republicans. 12% of republican support in the house for this thing to become law. for the house to ensure that americans don't have their taxes go up. we call upon republicans to do that. >> you say it is time for congress to act, the house vote is going to go down, senator reid says they are not bringing the senate back to renegotiate. is this myth? or is there any path to get this done? >> i don't want to speculate about what ever happens after this. it might be 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 raise taxes on them, on middle-class working americans. i think that we remain hopeful that the house will act in the house republicans will do the right thing, and support a proposal to extend this payroll tax cut for two months, allowing the time necessary to negotiate a full-year extension. everyone says now that they are for a full-year extension. republicans having travel some distance from opposing it is now being for it, but hopefully, the house will do the right thing and pass this bill. >> on no. 3 of, -- on north korea, people say one of two

things. it will lead to instability or perhaps it is an opening. does the leadership lean towards one way or the other? >> it is much too early to make that judgment. north korea is at the time of national mourning. this transition is just now beginning to take place. the issue here isn't about personalities, which is about the actions of the government. we will monitor the situation closely. you know, i think it would be premature to make assessments about what this development would mean in terms of its effect on six-party talks or anything else. >> 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.

i would refer you to the afghan government for specifics about expectations if that was the nature of your question? >> 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. have, by its actions.