are living beyond its means. yes, it is, but its means are very small at the moment and that's a big issue they have to resolve. >> jim mcgee -- [inaudible] >> thank you very much. thank you. >> maleeha, sorry to lose you. >> i can see you. i knew you'd ask a question. >> two things. short-term and long-term. when i was in pakistan and east pakistan as well years ago, the literacy rate is about 40% in both places and this is crucial to economic development.

the things we talk about nine to be less than the leader society. today the literacy rate in pakistan is still in the 40s and meanwhile -- is now in the 80s, so it's a terrible gap that need not have occurred, but it's a lack of current priorities are most involved going forward. can just be delete operation. the people can read and write. i'd like to comment on that it is a new government likely to pay mark attention to education quake safe and too many villages for there is no school, but someone is getting a check to the teaching he's being paid for. it's got to be changed. is there any political effort are work

at december and a minimum standard at my second point unrelated as china. protect a great deal about india and theirs so many ways that would improve both sides. there's also another neighbor nearby, china, which i tried to lobby for sunday at the money. china that let us do it. so let's think out out of bed with what could happen with china is a serious neighbor and economic carly connect my first question about literacy and white not given emphasis the last 30 years. >> you're absolutely right on the fact that the literacy rate has demeaned abysmally low in pakistan. the government has not -- no government -- you know, the

pressure for education and literacy, certain international agencies. usaid, et cetera. there is of course a cultural problem, which is the education of women issues. when we look at letters every across countries, you find the literacy rate for pakistani girls is so much lower than anywhere else in south asia. that drops the overall down. if you look at man, women has been very low and relatively constant. that's an issue. i think this election was not font. they always say, you know, they call for electricity in

education and so on and so forth. i'm not sure -- the only one had an education plan was in the manifesto. the abysmally low literacy rates >> i know it's gone way beyond time. a quick comment. >> education is important. there's a lot of noise about it. there are certain systemic problems within our system. for example, it has not been decided whether it is provincial governments responsible to the secondary level education or the role and not.

these are issues, which i think basically really and perhaps things will improve. >> last two questions. ms. grossman in the middle. i'm sorry i couldn't take all the others. go ahead. >> i want to ask -- [inaudible] i want to follow-up and ambassador pickering's question about rapprochement with india, but in particular, looking at nuclear weapons and possible stability measures, confidence building measures i know pakistan has been interested in pursuing for quite some time. my curiosity is where you think nawaz sharif is on this questions of nuclear stability in what role you anticipate the pakistani military might take in that kind of effort.

thanks. >> nuclear stability. >> this think tank is an issue, which nawaz sharif himself is not going to address. it is basically engaged in the military duty and there had been a set of confidence building measures, a couple of those before that, like for example, exchange of correlations between the two countries, et cetera appear that, for example, the exchange of information with avoidance of risk. so these are things, which basically the two sides keep on

talking. they are groping for her some additional confidence building measures and they can't agree among themselves if they say, for example, pakistan would be interested if they would be cooperation between the two countries in the safety areas. so these are things which currently are minutia related to detail between the technocrat rather than the political level is on the technocrat some others simply impossible, i don't think there's any issue of political leadership.

they are the technocratic levels. >> last question. during these elections, if you look at the doctrine of reserves, people for the first time have importance by afp and people's party. the second-largest party this good for is the two largest parties still has some role for the next five years to start performing and particularly go for those structural changes you referred to, or is that more of the same to see announcements on miniature buses and things like that? >> i really don't know, let me say on thing that the people's

party got wiped out because of bad performance. the people's party was not in charge of that. all this time, pml-n -- punjab has been in defeat of pml-n. now, the other issue is will they perform well? well, there being. to time in the past when the government has done very well in terms of performance. but this issue that has to be resolved in karachi. the question is who is actually rolling the province? i think he's taken it back now,

calling for a separate karachi of the thinking. so we just have to see, where is the chief minister going come from an will it be a coalition? will it be straight own night -- or just have to wait and see. >> i think on that note if you would join me in thanking ambassador riaz mohammad khan, trained to try and read. [applause] and maleeha lodhi. we are grateful she joined us. it is beyond the appointed hour of 11:30. it has been a profitable exchange and we've made it that. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> how do you feel about describing your science click >> i'll make the attempt. imagine you had a yardstick be cut into 10 pieces and throw a nine, take the remaining thing and cut it in 10 pieces, throw away nine and keep on. if you do this process 10 times can you get the size of the atom. suppose you did that 35 times. we have no instruments to measure that. people like me have been or can be piece of mathematics called string theory to answer that question. we think there are filaments there. i tried. my wife is often asked by people

who find that i'm a theoretical physicist, what is or has been actually do? her answer is to make that for a living. that sort of right. the way you prefer to tell my story is the following. those people know what novels do. novelist takes words and sentences and makes characters and tell stories. when he's not maddox to tell her stories and a fair guide of what we do come our stories correspond to something that happens in nature. so that clip you saw a few moments ago was my attempt to boil down to a 32nd soundbite describing what it is that i and people in my community to 206 the world. >> president obama today issued an executive order streamlining the permit process for federal infrastructure projects.

he visited a manufacturing company in baltimore to talk about jobs and the economy. this is part of what the white house is calling the middle-class jobs and opportunity to her. >> hello, baltimore. [cheers and applause] well, it is wonderful to see all of you. get duncan a round of applause for the great introduction. [applause] i want to thank all of you for the warm welcome, great hospitality. i tell you i will return the favor by host in your super bowl champ dan, baltimore ravens at the white house this summer. [cheers and applause] will have really was in the china room. what could go wrong? [laughter] what you think your ceo, peter bowing under plant manager and

your entire team for showing me around this great solidity. i was told one of your customers once named a judge after president clinton. so i've got my fingers crossed. never had a dredge name that, so i'm looking forward to it. i've come here today to talk about our single most important priority is a culture right now and that is reigniting the true engine of our economic growth and that is a rising, creating no class. [applause] as i said in my state of the address this year, that is our northstar. so we have to focus on. as it had to guide our efforts. we have great people who are championing middle-class families every single day. first of all, your outstanding governor. come on, mark o'malley.

[cheers and applause] iraq standing mayor, not a mayor. [applause] you've got some outstanding members of congress that by your senior senator, barbara mikulski. [applause] and your own leader in the house of representatives, he is doing a great job every single day and he loves this state, steny hoyer. [applause] so we've got just an extraordinary folks here. let me make sure -- elisha cummings is here. [cheers and applause] but more importantly, elisha's mom is here. [cheers and applause]

and we are so proud of elijah, but his mum apparently prays for me every day, so i'm grateful for her as well. all of the members of congress come that every single day are working, fighting on your behalf in terms of making sure we are growing an economy that creates outstanding middle-class jobs. that is the challenge we should be rallying around every single day. and i know it can seem frustrating sometimes when it seems that washington's priorities that the same is your priorities. i know it often seems like folks down there are more concerned with their jobs than with yours. others make it distract it by chasing every fleeting issue that passes by, but the middle-class will always be my

number one focus. your jobs, your families come your communities. that's why ran for president. that's addressed in the everyday is a step in the oval office. that's it i'm going to keep fighting for over the next four years. and that's why i am so proud to have these partners. john sarbanes-oxley for last because congressmen starving he himself is doing a great job. his father was one of the people he so admired in the senate. he has served for a long time and i remember the conversation we had. he probably doesn't remember, but i asked him what's your advice? he said just keep in mind the people who said she because here in washington, sometimes people get distracted. you are here to work on behalf

of your constituencies. if you stick to that, he'll be just fine. under governor maoist leadership, maryland has one that almost 100% of the jobs claimed by the recession. [applause] so you might not know -- you might not notice you're watching them as ex post all these partisan battles in brinksmanship in washington hear the truth is there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic about where the country is headed. that's going to encourage us to write together and take on challenges holding back the economy and holding down working families. the good news is that little over three years, businesses

like theirs would've created with a 6.5 million new jobs. on my unemployment is still too high, is the lowest it's been since 2008. that's good news. [applause] but that is not enough because we've also got to create more good middle-class jobs and do it even faster. corporate profits have skyrocketed an all-time high. notepad to make sure middle-class wages and incomes are going up, too. families across america haven't seen a take-home pay raise for nearly a decade. that's the next phase. companies are profitable. what you to be profitable. i want you to take a little more home in your paycheck. [applause] are housing market is healing, but that's not enough. goodbye to help our family stay in their homes or refinance to

take advantage of historically low interest rates. our deficits are shrinking at the fastest rate in decades. that's the truth. thus for the cause, sure. [applause] you don't always know that listening to folks in washington. the faxes are deficits go down faster than they have in decades. but we still have to create a budget that is smart and doesn't hurt middle-class families are critical investments in our future. barbara mikulski is fighting hard to make sure that this sequester that is slowing down growth that we start to see growth slowing down because of furloughs and cuts in defense spending a whole bunch of stuff that was a well thought through come with guy to make sure we got a budget that doesn't push our economy back down. we need an economy that pushes

our budget back. the american auto industry is thriving. american energy is booming. american ingenuity has the potential to change the way we do almost everything thanks to the determination of the american people, we've been able to clear away the rubble of the crisis appeared were now progress, but her work is not done in our focus cannot drift. with got to stay focused on our economy and putting people back to work in raising wages and burning manufacturing back to united states of america. that has to be what we are thinking about every single day. [applause] the middle-class has been taking a beating for more than a decade. folks in washington are willing to fight back on your behalf, every single day because every single day you and americans

like you across the country are working hard and living at tears its abilities. you guys are the same seriousness of purpose simulators. i see three areas where we need to focus on what really going to keep the recovery going, but take it to new heights. number one, we've got to make america a magnet for good jobs. number two come with it to make sure workers are able to get education and skills they need to do those jobs. number three, you got to make sure if and when you are working hard at least three decent living. that is why wants to come to baltimore because a lot of people in baltimore work hard. baltimore's conkers tough times in the past, but baltimore has come bouncing back. [applause] i started a few hours ago at a pre-k program at moiré via part

elementary school. they are, kids are getting a head start learning skills they need to succeed in college in the work place. by the way, this is a sinner named after steny hoyer's late wife, judy, because she and steny share my getting every kid every chance as soon as possible. i got to help with one of the lessons. we are having to draw is draws to animals and i've got to say my tiger is not very good. the kids are not impressed. they said that doesn't look like like a tiger. but they were amazing. they are today i'm going to visit with a program that helps people who've gone through to circumstances, especially low

income dads in the program giving them the training and guidance they need to find the work and support a family. which is a priority. and probably some of these didn't get that early childhood education that put them on the right track and we want to first of all make sure kids get the training. if they missed out, we still want to give them an opportunity on the backend. but obviously the training of kids, giving them good education, training older workers, none of that will make a difference if we don't have great companies that are hiring. that is why you want to come to ellicott dredges. ellicott dredges come you guys are an example of what we can do to make america in that for good jobs. after all, you all know a thing

or two when you've been doing it for more than a century. this company was founded in 1885. you could write your own bush street since 1900. this boat dredging equipment that help to panama canal. [applause] that's impressive. what that means is this company right here in baltimore literally helped create our global economy because that was one of the first connectors that started to allow us to ship goods and cut the distance is that integrated the world economy. and yet after all this time, this come to me still has a set of core values that lasted for generations. just like the folks who came before you. you've got the check to make the

best machines that money can buy, to sell products all over the world, to grow not just a business, but a community and by doing that you're growing our country. these guys have seen it through an era of enormous change. their leaders saw the potential in developing markets like china, india, brazil and bangladesh, said he went to focus on airports -- exports. maybe on airports, too. and the federal government has worked with u.s.a. partner to sell dredging equipment right out of the shop all over the world. he maintained your quality. you you've got a serious force that travels everywhere outhustled the competition to do business. all that hard work is paid off. today, this company and you have sold equipment to more than 100 different countries. you've made new investments here at home a.ver the past two

decades, during some of the tough times for workers come you are able to keep building equipment stamped with those three proud words, made in america. and you are around the world. [applause] i steny hoyer like to say, you're actually making stuff in america, but it also means we all make it here in america when you do what you are doing. this is a great example. the good news is more and more companies are following your example. after shutting jobs for 10 years, manufacturers have added more than 500,000 jobs over the past three years. ford is bringing jobs back from mexico. caterpillar is bringing jobs

back from the japan. [applause] after placing plants in other countries like china, intel, which has been making the chips in your smartphone and ipaq and all these gizmos everyone is holding up right now, intel is opening its most advanced plant right here at home, right here in america. washington should be hoping the success stories take root all across the country. that is why we visit my administration has boosted our efforts to help businesses export more goods and services. soa sign trade agreements that will protect american workers, but open up the markets and support tens of thousands of good paying jobs. that's why we reauthorized the export import bank and we're proud to have the chairman right here beside your name. he's helping us come to me as we

speak. so markets overseas. so today, exports are at an all-time high. we are selling my stuff around the world. we've added more than a million experts supported job since i took office. [cheers and applause] some of these steps are making a difference. but there's more we can do. we need to pursue new trade agreements with europe in the region. ready to invest in high-tech manufacturing centers to be made in america. our workers are either passively or way of building stuff. so today i'm also announcing the next step in our effort to cut through red tape that keeps construction products are getting off the ground. i'm really big on months rebuilding our infrastructure.

i want to put people back to improving roads, bridges, airports. [applause] the panama canal is being revamped out of panama to accommodate even bigger ships. these cargo ships are so vague that if we don't these states, they don't talk at our ports. we'll lose that business. we've got to up our game on its infrastructure. you're putting people back to work right away, doing other stuff and are also laying the foundation for future economic growth. the problem is with us in trouble out of congress that will go ahead with funding, but

we've had a little difficulty getting our republican friends to work with us, to find a steady funding source that everybody knows this to happen. in fairness, one of the problems in the past was it takes too long to get projects off the ground. all these permits and red tape in planning and assume that. we could do it faster. a while back i ordered everybody involved in approving projects to speed up the permitting process for 50 different big projects across the country, from the tappan zee bridge to the port of charleston in south carolina. we've been unable choose cut approval times from seven years time down to a year. [applause] soviet-made progress.

so today i'm directing agencies across the government to do what it takes to cut timelines for breaking ground on major infrastructure projects in half. what that will name its construction workers get back on their jobs faster. it means more money going back in the local economies and it means more demand for dredging equipment that is made here in baltimore. [cheers and applause] some of you know you guys been working on this is deputy transportation secretary, john porcari. your former secretary here in maryland before governor o'malley generously agreed to share with the entire country. so those are some of the ways we can create conditions for

businesses like the sun to generate even more good jobs. these are the kinds of ideas we have to stay focused on every single day. it should be our principal focus. how are we making ourselves more competitive? how retrain workers to do the jobs they need to be done? how can we make sure we stay on the cutting edge in terms of technology he? how we make it easier for businesses to succeed? going to keep trying to work with both parties in washington tonight are oppressed. our challenges are solvable. i travel around the world the name the people from all walks of life. i can tell you there's not a country on earth that would trade places with the united states of america. [applause] that's really true. they know we've got all the ingredients to succeed.

we've got the answers. the only thing that holds us back is a lack of political will. sometimes their leadership is in focus where we need to be focused. it's a two u. and people country to tell the people in washington, focus on getting stuff done. we may not agree on the way to do certain things. we all love our country. without one is best for kids and grandkids. would we be better off if every american could find a good job that pays the bills, was due for the home and take a vacation, put some money away to retire. what we do better for your kids kids are getting education from an early stage, if we reform our high schools for this new economy, if we are helping our young people afford to go to

college? would we be better off never workers wages a that the von. nobody wants to be on welfare. nobody wants to rely on a handout. they want to work. let's make sure workspace. when we be better off if every american could afford quality health care the peace of mind that comes with it. that's why we pass health care reform. [applause] would we be better off if we did what is necessary to protect her children for the horrors of gun violence? [applause] there's going to be disagreements about how we get there. let's remind ourselves of the together, nobody can stop us. you do the right thing. that's what i believe. that is what i'm going to fighting for.

bacitracin is the stories of people like you that it's a great honor of meeting and working with every single day. you deserve leaders at the same dedication and commitment and focus of the people who work at this company bring to their jobs every single day and you look at those dredges up their act that folks who worked here 38 years. some worked 40 years. the pride they take in our product in the way they'll work together is the attitude we've got to bring to bear. i think about a woman here, myrna labarre. myrna labarre. where is myrna? here is myrna right here. myrna labarre. [applause] myrna has been at ellicott for more than 50 years. that means she started when there were no child labor laws

because she was clearly legal. she was four or five and they start putting her to work, but a broom in her hand. but when somebody asked myrna what she learned after 50 years of her consent company, she said be honest, be hopeful, except your mistakes cannot be good to people, have the best were thought to possible and handled the good times indeed over the bad. [applause] at the pretty bits recipe for success. [applause] thank you very much. that sums up everything. dr. rhee lake to understand america to be, who we are as

americans favor honest and helpful. we work hard, work or to others, were handled the good times indeed over the bad teams. if we keep that in mind, if we all just keep myrna with the advice in mind, keep plugging away, keep fighting, we will build an even better america that make up right now. and we can pray, she appeared to add that in there. if we were to create my jobs and give every american the tools they need for these jobs and hard work pays off in responsibility as reported, once again america is going to be seen if you try and prosper together. make sure america remains the greatest nation on earth. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. [cheers and applause]

chat [chanting] [chanting] ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪

[inaudible conversations] ♪ do not want baltimore, the president touched by an elementary school where he visited a prekindergarten class. >> hello, everybody. >> here's our special guest. >> say hi, mr. president. >> good to see you guys. how's everybody doing today? i'm going to say hi to your

teachers first. >> hi, i'm mr. gist. >> agassi appeared what are we learning about? >> today we are trying our favorite new animals. >> it's a snake? a big snake or a little snake? [inaudible conversations] >> remember, the president will come and talk to you, so let's listen first. >> i just came by to say hi because i hear you guys are doing all kinds of great work. are you enjoying your class? how will this everybody? >> four. >> five. >> some four euros and some five

euros? you are for? you are five? >> this everybody enjoys school? so what kinds of things have you been learning? >> animals. >> what else? >> animals around us. [inaudible] >> you've been doing some math? add and subtract and? like one plus one? how much is that? >> two. >> and that two plus two. you know that one? >> four. >> you've been studying. so if you go -- how much can you subtract? but stick to and subtract one. how much is that?

subtraction is tougher than addition. >> one. >> very good. >> we been talking about lions and cheetahs. >> lions and cheetahs. i don't want anorak studying. i'm going to grab a share. >> the last thing i had to do was at my spot. remember, i am pretending reddish-brown. i'm going to add those spots. they look like squyres, maybe some circles, maybe some long rectangles. lots of different shapes. >> ovals, that would be good. >> what else could i have to my

picture? >> red. >> what to recall that? >> details. >> what could i add? >> a son. >> absolutely. what else can i add? >> grass. >> i cannot grass, very good. i cannot clouds to my sky. what else darnay show? trees, absolutely. >> alright, so so you are now going to draw more pictures. [inaudible]

so go ahead and get your pencil. write your name first. >> how do you know my name? i hammack >> you've seen me on tv?

>> at this house hearing, testimony on legal and privacy issues with the domestic use of drugs. congress is considering legislation to limit use and establish privacy protections. wisconsin congressman james sensenbrenner chairs as many hearing.

[inaudible] >> the subcommittee on crime terrorism homeland security investigations will come to order. today we have a hearing called icings die, domestic use of unmanned aerial systems. this is showing that the use of systems within the united states. there's a lot of privacy and civil liberties concerns raised in the air. we are supposed to have us about 10:00 and to get the hearing over with prior to the time we have votes because i don't think many members will come back. i'm going to ask first unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare recess when their votes on the floor and secondly, i ask unanimous consent that all members opening

statements be placed in the record, including nine in the ranking members. at this time, i will yield to the ranking member, mr. scott to say whatever he wants to say. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and please re-examining these topics not covered to updating our laws, conformer expectation of privacy to emerging technology and asked the resume statement be placed in the record. >> without objection. we have a very distinguished panel today. i would begin by swearing-in or witnesses. if you would, please all rise. do you in each of the testimony you're about to get to the committee will be the truth come whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? at the record show that all witnesses answered in the affirmative then please be seated. i will be very brief in the opening introductions. our first witness is mr. john

villasenor, a non-resident scholar and a senior fellow at the center for technology and center for technology innovation fabricators. he's a professor for electrical engineering, public policy at ucla and a member of the world economic global agenda and property system. mr. mcneal is a professor at pepperdine university school of law and previously served as the assistant or of the institute for global security to counterterrorism program for the justice department. mr. tracey maclin us at boston university school of thought and assert the counsel of record for the aclu and addresses first amendment issues. mr. calabrese is the legislative counsel for privacy related

issues in the aclu's legislative office. prior to that he served as the aclu type knowledge in liberty project. i say without objection off the witnesses full text this will be placed in the record. each of you will have five tennessee summarize your false statement. we have a timer in front of you. i think you're all familiar with the green, yellow and red lights. mr. villasenor, you are first. >> good morning, chairman sensenbrenner, ranking member scott of members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on import topic of privacy and unmanned aircraft systems for ua asks. i'm a nonmetal center for knowledge innovation at the perkins is to shoot a professor

at ucla in both electrical engineering department department of public policy. it is i express here are do not necessarily represent those at the brookings institution at the university of california. when discussing unmanned aircraft privacy, thoughtful to keep in mind the greater platforms made possible by this rapidly developing technology. some unmanned aircraft such as the global hawk used by the u.s. military are large and fast as this jazz. some say a lot for long periods of time. on december 2010, the airplane they wingspan of 74 feet to win over 110 pounds instead of offer to continuous mix of arizona. boeing is under contract with darpa to set up in the stratosphere for five continuous years. then in a hummingbird developed by california-based environment including unburned

powered by electricity delivered to rate them higher to external successful robotic insect power source. it weighs less than 1300th of an ounce. unmanned aircraft can be employed in a must for applications, and the overwhelming majority beneficial following a natural disaster and provide vital overhead imagery should tempting to defuse a standoff that agriculture they are used for scientific applications in quality assessment, whether tracking and measuring the dynamics of islet storms. unmanned aircraft provide a significant important tool that will generate significant economic benefits and unmanned aircraft designer protection to advances in robotics at a pileup and aviation fields ranging from manufacturing the surgery. however, like any technology, unmanned aircraft can be misused. legitimate privacy concerns

operated by nongovernment entities, privacy and was tension between the first amendment freedoms, nonstatutory proxy protection. the first to gather information is expensive, but not in on it in infinite crisis to an invasion of privacy. with respect to unmanned aircraft systems, the fourth amendment is central to the question. all supreme court is never explicitly he's unmanned aircraft, careful examination is just the fourth amendment will provide a stronger measurable protection against government and aircraft privacy widely appreciated. the fourth amendment has served us well since ratification in 1991 and there's a reason to suspect it will be unable to do so were unmanned aircraft are widely used. this does not mean there is no need for additional statutory unmanned aircraft rights and protections. in nick's eminent to consider

legislation. it's important to recognize the inherent difficulty of any map they change it to elegy. legislative initiatives to regulate competing escrow of us have time to address the more complex privacy issues that arose in the subsequent decade with wireless services. when considering maas for aircraft privacy and existing legal framework spirit does play a vital role in deserving them might be misused to violate it. some of the best privacy protection late nonstatutory tax with a canine life innovations of aircraft technology that constitutionalist drafted over 200 years ago. thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. >> thank you very much.mr. meal. good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member scott. i'm pleased to be here to

testify. i want to commend the subcommittee for the approach you are taking, too. this is a difficult issue to legislate on in the approach the committee is taking this really a lifeline weakening for us of course our fourth amendment precedents and working our way down for various privacy considerations. the looming prospect of expanded use colloquially known as drones this race understandable concerns regarding privacy. those of the tentacle for legislation, mandating all uses be prohibited unless the government is first obtained a warrant has such an approach would be to time cases to perverse results that would have the use of information gathered by a drone. such a technology centric approach misses the mark. a privacy for public policy concerns in the legislation address the information a technology neutral fashion.

belle plaine six key issues in drafting legislation. carson reject calls for a blanket requirement that all use be accompanied by warm. proposals that prohibit evidence or information are overbroad and in my view vilifies to such legislation treats information different than gathered by the aircraft differently than not by a police officer on patrol car or even officer on foot patrol. under current fourth miniaturist prudence, please are not required to shut their eyes until they have a warrant. why impose a collection of information by drones? power shaper hitherto said evidence gathered by drone. such restrictions they only serve to protect criminals will not deterring government wrongdoing. third, if congress chooses a warrant requirement should carefully consider codifying some exceptions to the work

requirement. for example, it should codify suppressing evidence for serious consequences for the truth seeking a nonfirst and objectives of her criminal justice system should present a high obstacle for those searching for its application. it should be a last result, not our first impulse. the measures for when we apply the exclusionary rule should not be whether a drama series but rather benefits of deterrence outweigh the costs. worth, power should spend a substantial amount of time defining terminology and specifying what places are entitled to privacy protection. what a lay person season they see the research, what a legislature means him in a court may think they meant are all different things. many same terms like search from a surveillance original expectations, cartilage, private property, public place another terms of our whistlers are familiar with, copper should specify what terms mean. this is the most important part

of the drafting process is the terminology will drive actions are allowable and what places are entitled to privacy protection. power should consider adopting an entirely new set of definitions for necessary and reject existing technologies that may be overprotective or under protect you. that, congress may consider simple surveillance legislation rather than very detailed drone based legislation. ..

such laws will allow privacy advocates and concerned citizens to closely monitor hadrons are being used and enables a political process to check government action. the emergence of unmanned drones have understandable privacy concerns and require careful and creative legislation. rather than per suing a drone specific approach, congress should consider legislation aimed at making the use more transparent and allowing the people to hold government accountable. thank you.

>> mr. mcneal. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member scott, members of the committee for inviting me to testify about the fourth amendment surrounding the use of drone. the constitutionality of drones raises several important questions that are not easily answered by the supreme court's count fourth amendment juris prudence. they can be equipped if the raid tar names and thermal inning -- imaging devices and drones will soon be able to operate with facial recognition or soft biometric recognition equipment that can recognize and track individuals based on attributes such as height, age, gender, skip -- skin tone. because of the advance technology available, comparing

a treason to a helicopter is comparing a friction to a police officer to a modern x-ray machine that can see beneath one's clothes and depict someone's physical features. the supreme court rulings that airplanes and helicopter surveillance could not implicate the fourth amendment were premised on naked eye observations and surveillance equipment that was readily available to the public. for example, in california versus terrello, the chief bit -- chief justice burger -- called simple visual observation from a public place. moreover in each of these cases the court signaled that more intrusive and sophisticated police surveillance would raise different and more difficult issues. thus i agree with our previous speaker that the courts 1980

rulings do not apply to drones. furthermore, it's important to recognize, even among the justices of the current court, that the definition of what constitutes a search is what triggers the fourth amendment is subject to change and is in a state of flux in the recent gps case, united states vs. jones, five justices indicated a willingness to re-assess traditional notions of privacy. justice sotomayor encouraged her colleagues to reconsider reports analysis of monitoring a sunday, and justice are -- said, the use of long-term gps modern

investigations of most criminal offenses impinges expectations of privacy. what i read from that is five of the justices are saying that you have an expectation of privacy vis-a-vis long-term electronic monitoring when you're in the public. if you have that expectation of privacy, at least in the eyes of fives of the justices when you on the public streets, certainly ought to have the same level of expectation of privacy when you're on your own property. notwithstanding the fact that a drone may or may not be in air space. in considering whether drone surveillance constitutes a search under the forth amendment i urge the commitey to avoid resolving this question through litmus steps or legal terms of art. the test out of kat is a

subjective test. most of the justices acknowledged that. and the test was disavowed in united states vs. white. a 1971 decision. often judges citing fourth amendment cases will simply say, all the fourth amendment requires is reasonableness and they will judge the case accordingly. in these cases courts typically apply a rational basie test, whether the activity was related to a legitimate governmental business. this degree of deference to police intrusions i suggest is the central meaning of the fourthed. the fourth amendment is not asserted in the bill of rights so judges could defer to governmental intrusions on privacy. we know it was put -- >> thank you very much,

mr. mcneal. >> thank you, chairman, charging member scott, members of the committee. thank you for ensigning me to testify today. the ac liu u believes the widespread domestic use of unmanned aerial systems, known as drones, raises significant new -- which cannot be adequately addressed by the system. drones share some characterrics with manned aerial surveillance, such as planes and helicopters, but the privacy invasion they represent is substantially greater in both scope and volume. manned aircraft are expensive to purchase, operate, and maintain. this expense has always imposed a natural limit on the government's aerial surveillance capability. drone,' low cost and flexibility erode that limit. they can explore hidden spaces and peer in windows and lgeow cs long-term monitoring, all for

meche less than the cost of a plane or helicopter. ongoing improvements in computer technology exacerbate these privacy issues, high-poweredneath vision camera provide more and better detail. imagine technology similar to the naked body scanners at the airports attached to a drone. through technologies like face recognition, and group an littics and wireless internet it's possible to track specific individuals with multiple drones, uses could extend from long-term surveillance to traffic enforce: droneses have the use for search and rescue missions, firefighters, dangerous police tactical operations. these realities point to significant possible harms if left unchecked. with the use of video cameras we have seen ongoing problems of voyeurism and racial profiling by operators. er is they're a persistent danger of monitoring it creates the real danger that people will

change how they act in public, whether at a protest rally or just sunning themselves in their back yard. drones mississippi be integrated into the federal air space by 2015. while the use of this technology will explode, current law has not caught up to the new technology. as the professor noted, the supreme court authorized air mayoral surveillance and photography of private property and the court may stepped protections to ongoing unlimited automated tracking but no cases have been decided around drone use. federal privacy protection rights are spotty and state protectionness their infan -- infancy. the federal government is in the base position to make rules. based on four key prims. first no mass surveillance nos. one should be spied upon by the government unless the government believes that person has committed a crime.

drone use over private property should only happen with a search warrant based on probable cause. the same standard used to search someone's house or business. it may be per permissible to mor individuals in public at a lower standard, perhaps reasonable suspicion, but the key is to prevent mass suspiciousless surveillance of the public. in order to protect this exception, exceptions to be limited to emergencies connected to life and safety, or narrowly drop administrative exceptions. second, information collected from drones for one purpose to combat a fire or perform rescue, should not be used for another purpose, such as law enforcement. information should be kept securitily and destroyed promptly once it is no longer needed. third, drones should not carry weapons. weapons developed in the wars in iraq and afghanistan, have no

place in the united states. the heritage foundation the international association of chiefs of police both support sharp limits on weaponnized drones. finally, oversight is crucial. communities, not just law enforcement, must play a role in who l to purchase a drone drone you must be monitored to make sure it's a wise investment that works. drone use should only be -- drones should only be used as subject a powerful framework that regulates their use in order to avoid abuse and invasion of privacy. the aclu believes some members of the committee have already taken great strides to find this balance with hr637, the preserving americans privacy act. we support this bipartisan legislation from mr. poe and urge the committee to making marking it up a priority. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the chair will recognize members to ask questions under the five, minute rule, and the first up

will be chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your whole worlding this hearing and for your forebearance. i would ask that my opening statement be made part of the report. >> without objection. >> thank you. mr. villasenor? which do you believe are in the best position to regulate uas on privacy grounds, courts, congress, or the states? >> in terms of actually regulating, the question specific to privacy or -- >> primarily. >> privacy, with respect to law enforcement use, i'm on record stating i do believe the fourth amendment is going to provide quite a bit more protection than are recognized in state courts. with respect to private use, it's state level you have

statutes against invasion of privacy, stalking, harassment and annoying, and there's a role at the state levels to make sure the statutes- -- >> should congress regulate the future commercial use of unmanned aircraft or should -- as mr. -- suggested that could be left to the states. >> with regard to the privacy issues, i'm not sure that congress -- that you can get around privacy without looking -- without congress doing it. so let me sort of rephrase that. for commercial uses, we're concerned about privacy, it seems that congress is the most appropriate body to legislate the way that we would have laws across the board. but in the same camp at mr. villasenor that if we think that the fourth amendment protections that currently exist are sufficient, we could copy

those over for commercial purposes and adopt those as our statutes for privacy protection. the problem is that we have a big body of law on privacy with regard to what law enforcement does but far fewer rules to what private parties and commercial parties might do. so this is the thing people get concerned about. commercial uses being just my neighbor flying around doing video for photography or his youtube page or for real purposes, that can then start to look a lot like snooping or peeping tom events. some is covered by state laws. when you look at the line of cases where people have been able to successfully sue when they feel like their privacy rights are being violated, you don't see a lot of success. it's a high bar for people to overcome. so there might be room for a congress to regulate. i don't think that's the -- when

you look at the commercial uses, we're thinking of flight of up manned systems for fedex and want, privacy is not the issue. >> mr. calabrese, i take it from your warrant-based approach to use of uas by governmental entities, we do have a -- an exception for an emergency situation, so, for example, if the tsarnaev brothers in boston had been somehow detected by a drone, that would still be evidence admissible in court under your circumstances if they're following them down the street and were either impeded from placing their explosives or were not impeded but that evidence was available to show

that they were the perpetrators of the crime? >> yes, that's correct. as mr. poe's legislation indicates, there's a stron emergency exception that allows, in the case of a danger to life or limb, the use of drones in order to provide -- have to play out the scenario in terms of where they are in the situation but there's a strong emergency exception as well as ability to act before a warrant issues. >> can you describe how uas may affect police dress and whether police discretion should be limited by statute? >> i think it should be limited by statute. when i talk about police discretion i'm talking about the ability of law enforcement to simply fly a drone over, examine, surveil, without any probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and certainly if you don't have either one of those two things, you can't get a warrant. i would take slight objection

with the notion that if we're going to require warrantses, we should allow possibly allow warrants based on reasonable suspicion, and the court, i think,er than the administrative search context said, when you need a warrant, has to be based on probable cause. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. calabrese, can you say a word about how the technology has complicated this issue in terms of the difference between a -- one photograph, all the way to tracking someone in pock for long periods of time, what the expectation is? >> certainly, mr. scott. thank you for the great question to be clear it's actually not just drones. if you think about the technologies at issue here you can imagine tracking with the drone, coupled with the fact of using a cell phone which is something this committee has considered recently, tracking

with the license plate scanner and all of the things can be coupled and provide mass surveillance all the time. but in terms of drone, they have become smaller, cheaper, the surveillance technology penetrate more deeply at night, you know, with smaller and greater cameras. i a nova special indicated a camera could cover multiple square miles, and do detailed surveillance literally of an entire city, and that technology, coupled with surveillance, changes the way people think of public and what a public space it. it really merits further regulation by congress. >> you mentioned the problem with weapons. are weapons ever appropriate with drones? >> i think we need to explore the question of weaponnization carefully. the answer is, no, weapons

should not be used because a drone is not in the same kind of danger as a police officer is. clearly a police officer has to be able to defend himself. we all understand that. or take appropriate action to apprehend somebody. a drone is not going to defend itself, not going to apprehends anyone, and a drone operator may not have the same judgment or expertise peering through a little camera as a police officer does on the ground. all of that argues against weaponnization. there may be exceptions for training but buy and large weapon does not belong on drone. >> can you say a word about how you choose which areas are under surveillance? >> well, i think that's an outstanding question. it goes to a couple of important issues. one is having the community be involved. you should know if there's surveillance. the community should be able to decide if they think getting a drone is an appropriate tool and

how it should be used. also, just in the question of discrimination generally, we have seen in monitoring video cameras that video surveillance is frequently a very boring task for an operator. it's dull. minds tend to wander. they tend to follow around -- research says they tend to follow pretty girls and then follow they're biases and look for particular racial minorities they may think are more likely to commit crimes. we think it's very probable that could happen with the drones. >> in terms of selecting areas under surveillance? >> not just the areas but the individuals they might choose to follow. if you have mass surveillance over a particular area, they've may be picking out particular individuals and deciding to follow them around and see if they're going to commit crimes. >> if you have a legal exception for surveillance in a recording, what happens when you see something that you didn't have

probable cause to suspect but you noticed because it was under surveillance? >> i think that's going to be relatively uncommon. we do have an exception -- >> i think the entire storm of traffic surveillance and say, that's okay, and you see some drug deal over on the side, is that -- you get to use that? >> i think what we say, we hope they wouldn't have mass surveillance like that, wouldn't have cameras up in the sky all the time. so we would assume that surveillance would largely be by drone, directed and targeted, and so individual -- if individual acts were already being monitored by law enforcement, we expect they would likely come under an existing reasonable suspicion standard as the investigation was done, for example in public. because we'd be looking at -- we'd already have a court order that would say it's okay to do drone use in public at these times. >> if you have all this stuff

recorded, could there be a limitation on what you can do with it after you have it? >> i think there has to be, yes. we don't want people be report all the time. we don't want to feel like the drones are constantly monitoring them, and we want people to know there are safe -- not just in private but also in public to live their lives without worrying what they do is going to end up on youtube. >> gentleman's time is expired. under the procedures that have been announced by the chairman of the committee, full committee members who are not members of a subcommittee, are entitled to sit on the dais bus are not entitled to ask questions unless a member yields them time to do so. and under that procedure, the chair yields his time, his five minutes, to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate you yielding, and all four of you being here.

i guess the crowning decision, concept, is the supreme court's dicta, for lack of a better phrases, of expectation of privacy down the road. could be not expanded but made smaller. that's what the court -- members of the court to me are saying, which concerns me. so, it seems to me that congress in the area of drones needs to set a standard, rather than let the courts down the road set a standard. i'm from houston, and our local sheriff, adrian garcia, third largest county in the country, he won't use any kind of drones because he doesn't know what the law's going to be and doesn't want to wait for the supreme court to rule ten years ago on a search, throw out a case he has

arrested some bad guy and put him in jail. so he is not using drones. so he is waiting for somebody to give him and other law enforcement agencies some direction on the use of drones. so, seems to me two issues. law enforcement use, and private use. and what is the expectation of privacy? in those areas? and should we do anything about it or just wait? >> mr. calabrese, let me ask you, there's been commentses made that the courts should make these decisions about -- the fourth amendment, which the courts have been dying, apply what is lawful, what is not lawful under the fourth amendment. should the courts be the answer for solving this issue of drones and the fourth amendment? >> well, i think that your legislation does a very good job of creating a careful balance, something that congress is particularly good at and the courts are not always particularly good at.

we would think how we would want to use a drone, it's clear that most of the uses, finding a missing person, fighting a forest fire, are not uses that particularly implicate the fourth amendment, and your legislation is very careful to carve those out, and i think by creating clarity you allow the use of drones for all of these good persons, including commercial purposes, where people don't have to worry the drone in the sky is spying on them. so you allow for the growth of the industry while still protecting the people's privacy in a reasonable way. so, yes, i think congress absolutely has a role, and i think it's a very strong role and one you can -- you're well suited to perform. >> what about the faa? right now the faa decides who gets a permit for a drone. they make that decision. the president has weighed in on that. told the faa to -- giving new

permits. >> i think the faa has a role in some of the things like deciding what is going to happen once it's collected. providing notice where drone are flown and how. but i think congress has the role in regulating the government. so, you have to be -- congress has to be the ones to decide how the police -- how to the fourth haven't should be interpreted. of course congress has the role in interpreting the constitutional. you're constitutional officers. sew the faa can perform an expert function. >> since the issue of drones has come up there are a lot in the industry, the drone industry and other industries, saying, if you want to talk about fourth amendment, let's expand it and previsit the whole concept of the fourth amendment, and not just with drones, but with all of the new technologies. what do you think about that? >> i certainly believe in

expanding the fourth amendment. i no question. i know you do as well. i think the commitee is doing that right now. you're not just considering drone. your considering surveillance of cell phones, had another hearing on electronic communications privacy. so, you really are visiting the issue and doing it in a very intelligence and deliberative manner. so this is a piece of that. so, once again, on the other technologies, and some yet to be invented, should congress set the standard parameters on law enforcement civilian use or should we just wait for the supreme court to make the ultimate decision? >> i think that it's -- the 21st century, we have new technologies and have to make sure our values come with us. that we don't lose those constitutional values as we move to new technologies.

you, of course, are perfectly suited to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's timer is expired, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thank you very much. could i ask -- have you heard about the poe legislation 637 preserving american privacy act? are you able to comment on it at all? please do. >> yes. first of all, very appreciative of any attention congress is giving to this very important issue. one of the concerns i have with overly broad warrant requirements is that the problems that can arise -- i certainly agree we should not countenance governmentishings id aircraft or any other technology.

but for example, suppose that law enforcement in an aircraft is monitoring a traffic intersection after an accident and on the sidewalk next to the intersection a terrible assault take place and suppose the video from the unmanned air craft is the only way to identify the perpetrator. it would defy treason say to the victim we know who the perpetrator is but we're going to let him go because we didn't have a warrant and there's legislation that says we can't use it. we need to be cognizant of potentially bad -- unintentionally bad of what sounds at first blush like something which is only good. >> mr. mcneal? >> highlighted one of the points i make in my written testimony where i provide a few examples where the legislation, the current privacy act and the one in 2012 as well, where they both create

a circumstance where we might desuppressing inned a vert tently discovered information. so out on a search and rescue mission in public parks and along the way while looking for the lost hiker, come across evidence of a crime and now that evidence can't be used. some privacy advocates want a ban on the use of the secondary evidence in all circumstances. and i understand the impulse. the idea is that if you say you're using it for search and rescue purposes and then you use the evidence for crime collection purposes, it presents the circumstance where we might have the general surveillance we're all somewhat concerned with. i think there has to be some way in the legislation that we craft an exception for that. >> thank you. professor maclip. >> i'm not in a position to express an opinion. i have not did yesterday it. >> of course, let me turn now to

the very disturbing consideration of this general subject. this is a prime example of technology overtaking the stabbed -- the established law, and i think we're going to have to go beyond the fourth amendment. there's going to have to be a body of statutes that go into some of this detail. it's not all of our privacy but privacy, always a continuing exception. do any of you want to recommend to this subcommittee which might be the ones that take on this responsibility, any courses of action that we might take to examine all of this?

this guess beyond drones because there could be new technology coming up to further complicate it. >> i think you hit the nail on the head when you said this goes beyond drones in new york city, nypd has a helicopter, they call it 23, for the 23 officers killed on 9/11. it has a camera that can observe activity two miles away. it's more -- see the detail on people's faces, read their name tag if they have one on their shirt. up to two miles away. so this isn't a drone specific thing. it's an advancement of technology. i think the approach, if congress wanted to legislate on this, would be to look at the issue of surveillance, define what surveillance is. i put some definitions in my written testimony. and then create some lines based on duration of surveillance, allowing officers to observe individuals from any platform for a period of time, let's say

two hours in a seven, day period and once we get to the end of that period, they need reasonable suspicion to continue the surveillance for 48 hours and anything longer than that might require a warrant. the times are my best guess at good privacy protection. some might put it at 20 minutes or higher. but we're treating all technology the same. so a camera trained on one's home day of day would be treatedded the same as if it's a camera on a drone or someone standing on a rooftop. we're seeing the technology and invasion -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have the privilege of being on the armedded services committee where we quite often have to struggle with issues of unmanned

aerial vehicles because more and more the technology is allowing us almost to pilot from the ground in many different circumstances. and this is also true of missile technology. it's guided missiles and piloted on the ground aerial vehicles. this technology is beginning to merge and best presents significant challenges. we like to say, never send a man to too a missile's job. but the reality is that the technology becoming chore more difficult and raises constitutional issues, as i think the previous gentleman very well astutely articulated. so, i guess my first question is how to apply the time honored constitutional principles, essentially according to original intent in a way that is reasonable and appropriate. so let me give you this example.

recently the city of boston endured obviously a terrible terrorist attack and streetcar cam -- street cameras were key to law enforcement in the hunt for the terrorists. then the police used thermal images from helicopters to locate the armed suspect as he hid from the police. any of these images could have been derived from unmanned aircraft. so, constitutionally, mr. maclin -- this is not a trick question. thought mr. conyers' point was very -- spot on. does it matter to you've constitutionally whether those street images in that case came from a street camera or from an unmanned aerial surveillance? >> constitutionally speaking? no, i don't think it matters. what matters is who is responsible for those cameras. now, i may be mistaken but i

believe one of the cameras was from lord and taylor, the lord and taylor store. let's assume that they were put up by the city of boston. no, constitutionally speaking, doesn't matter. doesn't matter. >> then let me direct the question to mr. calabrese? you said the uas would be accept teen you for nonlaw enforcement purposes by nonlaw enforcement agency but privacy will not be stangs shag effected and surveillance will until bet used for secondary law enforcement purposes, and to mr. -- to he previous gentleman's, mr. maclin's comment, site your position that the fourth amendment applies only to law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes? >> to the government generally. i'm sorry. as opposed to -- the fourth

amendment would apply to government generally. >> but for reasonable nonlaw enforcement purposes, that would no longer apply. >> that's correct -- well, wouldn't say the fourth amendment does not apply. i would say that i think the biggest -- going to apply no matter what i say but -- >> i'm reading what you said. >> i understand. i'm sorry. what we believe the biggest danger is, is that the law enforcement will use drones in an invasive manner. but we still want to create the ability of government to use drones in a noninvasive manner. for example, a firefighter is actually a governmenting a. they should be able too use a drone to investigate a fire. we don't want to keep that from happening. whether or not the fourth amendment applys there, we certainly children which -- which it dot bus not for law enforcement pours. >> seems to be a pretty challenging parse there if one tries to apply the fourth

amendment to nonlaw enforcement agencies different than law enforcement agencies, when the effect is the same, and i know that's one of those issues we're grappling with a long time would anyone else on the panel like to address either of those questions? >> i just want to direct you to page six of my testimony where i try and thread this needle, which is by -- i think the fourth amendment issue is -- i think what we need to focus on is the log that will direct this policy concern you have brought up and that requires definition of what a search is, that might go beyond the fourth amendment. the big thing we hey beening about here is this general search, a blimp over the town other, territoried search on an individual and we want to address those search inside different ways. new york city, for example, is subject to a general search at all points in time because of the the cameras --

>> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlemanwoman from california, miss bass. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to ask some questions of the panel in general about what you believe laws and restrictions should be placed on drone use by private citizens to conduct aerial surveillance. it's my understanding that if a private citizen wants to use a drone they have to get faa approval. but beyond that, i wanted to know if you had suggestions. >> maybe i can at least partially try to respond to that question. first of all, currently, commercial use in the united states of unmanned aircraft is not a yet permitted. the faa is in the process under the faa modernization and reauthorization act of 2012, in the process of drafting those regulations. the question -- >> still to come, right? >> that is to come, and by late

2015, those regulations would be complete. the question is an imminently reasonable one. there's a very significant body of common law as well as in most states, statutes, both civil and criminal e.r.a. -- related to invasion of privacy, and those statutes are usually tried to the concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. so if a private party used an aircraft in manner that does invade privacy it is actionable under numerous grounds grounds m confident there are protections -- there is also a good reason to sort of look at those statutes to make sure things like harassment and stalking statutes cover potential misuse of unmanned aircraft. >> in my area there's a concern over the paparazzi, which has gone to some extreme lengths to invade people's privacy. >> i'm not going to defend

privacy invasions that the paparazzi commit. we all know they happen and that's not a technology problem. that's a paparazzi problem. >> any other comments, anyone? >> i would just say the private use does raise serious first amendment concerns. we think there's a lot of existing law around invasions of privacy, at both the state level and also to some extent at the federal level. it's both in the intentional invasion of privacy under tort law, it is peeping tom laws, trespass laws, and california specific paparazzi laws as well. so, i think that unlike the fourth amendment government context where we spend a lot of time talking where it's unregulated and the committee needs to focus. here there is a fair amount of existing law and may be appropriate to see how that weighs out. >> anyone else in you know, when

i learn about some of the drones being so small, like the size of a period of whatever, how do you see in the future that being regulated? i mean, what is to stop an individual from just getting that without faa approval? >> well, i think there's already a hobbyist exception for unmanned aircraft, model aircraft as defineed in the legislation, and i think it's very important to provide exception for hobbyists so that a parent who goes and replies flies a model aircraft at a field with his or her child doesn't need to get faa approval before doing so. so at the very small en, there's certainly going to be some flexibility in terms of the platform, but it's the use we are where we draw the lines and to the extend the platforms can be used in invasive and unlawful manner, we address that

behavior. >> okay, thank you. yield back my time. >> gentleman from utah. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the panel for being here. it's an important topic. the rapid expansion of technology, technology is great as long as it's used in the right and proper way. i want to talk about the jones case if i could, apologies. i walked in a little bit late. i was interested by justice sotomayor's opinion on this. obviously a 9-0 ruling is fairly conclusive, but it does beg the question of what other areas should this by applicable to? from your perspective, and experience, our current justice department and the implementation by the fbi and others, have they been -- have they taken this jones case and implemented it the way you see it should be implemented or is

something missing sneer what should the federal girlfriend do with the jones case. mr. calabrese? >> the jones case concerns tracking and in the aclu's view the government has been deficient in applying jones. we believe a majority of the court no matter how you read it, said that systemic tracking of individuals over time is an -- implicates the fourth amendment and is a search. given that rationale we believe that all manner of tracking currently undertaken by the government, whether that's cell phone tracking, tracking of a gps device by a car, implicates the fourth amendment and should be done with a warrant. i think it's a very interesting question as to whether that same rational should be expanded to drones. clearly drone could be used to track an individual for a long duration, in a very detailed manner. programs u.s. v jones will come to regulate how drones are used.

>> anybody else compare to comment? >> i would just say this about jones. i think the story on jones and the scope of jones is unwritten. certainly justice sotomayor and justice alito's opinion talk about electronic monitoring. justice scalia's opinion is careful not a to rely on the test and not rely on concerns.electronic monitoring. his opinion was solely about the physical intrusion and the purpose for the governmental conduct. and i think if you read the most recent ruling from the court in this area, florida vs. jordan, with justice scalia writing the majority point, you can see the concern on the physical intrusion. i think with respect -- >> what's your opinion? it seems to behortsighte so think the physical intrusion --

>> i agree. my personal opinion is that the concerns with the monitoring are more important because we're already at a time where government doesn't need a physical intrusion. >> you can triangulate things without actually physically attaching something. and that's my concern. i really do -- i have a geolocation bill done with senator widen, the bipartisan way, you have been very supportive. i don't think it is just merely the physical intrusion of attaching a gps device. technology over the course of time. i do think -- and let me get the 0 two gentlemen's opinion of this. another thing we need to look at is air space. if you have private property and may have something small or large, let's say you have a five acre parcel of land. there's a reasonable expectation of privacy that isn't just limited by walking down the street and, okay, you put up a fence. i think the air space is something in general that we should look at. but maybe if you can talk to

that and jones. i want to leave time for the last -- the other person as well. >> what you have are -- lated -- articulated of the reasonable expectation of privacy is broader than the supreme court has articulated. going back to the oliver says and other aerial surveillance cases, going to katz, is a matter of fourth amendment concern. so if you want to protect the air space over someone's yard it will require legislation because the court doesn't seem prepared to identified that yet. >> time is almost up. if we can get to you. >> i actually read jones more optimistically than perhaps many we respect to protecting long-term extended surveillance. justice aleta were joined by three justices and justice sotomayor agreed with the statement that long-term tracking itself, even without the actual trespass associated with the attaching of the device, was reasonable that --

violated a reasonable expectation of privacy, and even justice scalia, in his majority opinion, said it may be unconstitutional. so imencouraged. >> i think that's the right direct -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. maclin, let me start with you. a lot of conversation goes on depends on reasonable expectation of privacy, and as we discussed another bill. at what point do you think it's if going to get to a point where we have to say what a reasonable expectation of privacy is, period? because the more and more that things evolve, the more and more i think i have any expect addition of privacy, and at some point will someone say your expectation of privacy is unknown. >> if agree with you. i think this committee can use their powers under section five of the 14th amendment to

enforce the fourth amendment and say, yes, a reasonable expectation of privacy includes the following. >> mr. calabrese you talked about tort laws denying governmental action. as i watched the news this morning there's an incident new york where a guy took pictures of people in an adjacent building, didn't capture their face but caught very intimate moments, and those pictures are now in a gallery selling for $8,000. see thugs of them were very upset -- the subjects of them were upset and the lawyers said there's no recourse for them. i guess it's that sort of thing that concerns me in terms of, if with get to drones, how do we reconcile that? >> they are very difficult questions. but they're very difficult questions both because they are potential real invasions and also because of the powerful need to protect the first

amendment. i think that peeping tom laws would deal with a drone right up on someone's window. across the building, but with a powerful camera, it's a harder question. the first amendment protects our right to gather information for really important reasons. revving lating how government operates, giving people the ability to talk about what is going on in their lives, share information. obviously need to help -- to protect the press. we have seen that this week. so, we're going to have to balance those. we think there's a lot of law in this area. so i think we're going to have to tread carefully in regard to the first amendment, and i do think there are more existing protocols that control around first amendment related activity for private use than the fourth amendment space and government use. >> we talk a little built about the drone -- a little bit about

the droned and the fact they have the came ability of license plate readers. my police chief is excited he can put license plate reader0s on every stoplight. so at what point do you think we get to -- do you think police now would need some authorization to record and store the data from license plate readers, for example, if you have a spring of -- spree of burglaries, they can be back and see if there's any car that went through the red lights close to any of those homes? can they just store that information? >> i believe that there's a reason that we have license plate readers. looking for stolen cars is a perfectly appropriate reason. i believe that information should be destroyed at the end of the shift once the purpose that you gathered it for is no longer operative. i do belief that's because if we don't do that, we're going to

live in a society where we have mass surveillance. we live in a world of records now. everything we do generates a record. so if we're going to start saying, let's just keep it just in case? our entire lives are going be to out there to be investigated anytime someone wants to poke through the records. >> that's what i was worried about. the just in case. anyone else want to comment on that? >> i will just add that while i'm fully and sympathetic to these concerns, there's agray area here. it's very difficult. if as mr. calabrese suggested all of these records were destroyed at the end of the shift, post spouse there was a kidnapping or missing persons report that wasn't reported until 48 hours after it happened. i don't anyone would deem it a positive thing if we potentially destroyed information that might have led to us solve that more quickly. i don't say i have the answers but these are hard questions.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i think justice alito said this: new technology may provide increased convenience or security at the expense of privacy, and many people may find the trade worthwhile. how we will know that who who who gets to make that decision? >> can i comment on that, congressman? >> sure. >> that's a touchy statement. the problem with -- >> it's not my statement. >> i understand that. my concern with that statement is that because society would -- or members of society would be willing to make that tradeoff, the individual will be the one who suffers the harm. and i think, again, that's the job of -- i assume that's one of the reasons why this committee

is holding the hearing to get our view. i agree with congressman richmond this body should make a determination of that. if it's just a matter of what society would prefer or what tradeoff society would be willing to make, individuals are the ones who suffer. >> so, if i remember con law correctly, the bill of rights kind of sets the minimum, and if states or this entity, perhaps, wanted to have a more arduous view of of one of the amendments, we could do so, right? >> i would just caution because because the jurisprudence under city of burn versus woods, does not lend itself to congress going beyond what the supreme court has done. that said, however, -- >> i thought the constitution allowed congress to some instances set the jurisdiction of the courts. >> allows is to set juice disk

of the court but under section five the court has been somewhat restrictive -- sit of bernie is the main case and recent precedence sense then and it will be interesting to see what they do with the shelby county case but the court has invalidated several congressional statutes where congress has imposed on states restrictions that the court has found constitutional. >> how does the expenditure of map power or woman power impact a fourth amendment analysis? i can see an analysis where if you had to invest detectives or line officers in surveillance, that's one analysis. and it would be a different analysis than just having a computer do it. am i dreaming up that the investiture of resources would be part of -- jason, my friend, love him to death. he has bill dealing with gps tracking, and part of the

analysis i think is that at least win you're having a person doing it, you're investing time, investing resources. that's a different analysis than just have something device do it. how does that play into it? >> ill know of no supreme court case in which the court has said how much resources or at the degree of resources invested makes any difference in the fourth amendment question. >> i think there is. you guys are the experts. the gentleman beside you is shaking his heat. probably to agree with now and not with me. >> i think i agree withyou, congressman. the appropriate place for us to calibrate these expectations is in the legislature rather than letting judges write things up. the body is in the best position to know what your con sit tunes expect, and if we wand to control surveillance, gps or geotech until, congress can pass legislation to require a warrant rather than a bowl.

that's completely appropriate. >> do all you've agree that technology can impact whether or not a search is considered reasonable? >> i think i can at least partially answer that. supreme court has ruled that the government uses a large team of agents to literally follow somebody for -- around, that is not a violation of the fourth amendment, whereas the supreme court in the jones majority is on record leaving open the question of performing that same tracking with technology, may be a violation of the fourthed, and justice alito and four other justices think it is a violation -- >> do you agree -- i'm almost out of time -- technology impact or reasonable expectation of privacy and it's a scale that changes from culture or generation to generation in. >> i think to some extent we're all more comfortable with the

concept of photography than people in the late 1800s when it became possible to capture an image of somebody at will. so technology impacts or views of privacy but doesn't mean we don't have privacy. >> i agree, technology affects our fourth amendment. >> the gentleman's time is spared. the gentlewoman from cast, miss chu. >> i'd like to ask calabrese about the storage of data. we know that local police departments are applying to obtain permitted from the faa to use drones for law enforcement purposes, and i understand that there's some potential that large amount of data could be collect eddie drones and stored for a very long period of time. i'm concerned that limitless data collection can pose a threat to americans' privacy. can you tell us what type office data these drones can collect, and if those law enforcement

agencies, who acquire drones, have data minimization policies in police. >> those are incredibly good questions that don't necessarily have clear answers at this point. let me try to sketch a few of the parameters for you. i think that absolutely the widespread collection of detailed information to hd camera level video, can create huge privacy implications. it really changes the way we consider public safe. don't consider ourself to be recorded in public. we may be' public but not preserve evidence. and we can apply face recognition to that detailed video. we can use it to zoom in, for example, or examine particular things we might not have noticed tom time in term office data retension those are best practices. every police department should limit the amount of collection for a purpose and then discard it after it no longer northeasts

it. whether that's happening now, it's tough to say on a local level. we certainly hope it will be something the faa requires and that all local law enforcement does. >> do you think we should require that agency to use drones -- have some sort of data minimization policy in place? and considering civilian drone use. >> i think that data minimization is important. you put a drone up for a particular reason. once that reason is expired you have examined the person, searched the person or followed the person you're looking into, the case is over, you no longer need it, discard the data. if you don't do any mass surveillance, you won't have to worry about keeping dat for long periods of time. >> we have to update other laws dealing with electronic

communications. what can we learn from our lessons when it comes to individual privacy? ... notifying about whether information is again why giving them information.

>> mr. villasenor, and the focus on the positive benefits of terms. as a representative from california, we faced many dangers wildfires each year and certainly benefit from additional tools to fight these fires. for example, the station fire killed two firefighters and burned 162,000 acres and was the largest wildfire in the modern history of l.a. county. if the faa modernization act helping to accelerate the firefighters can have those tools in the near future that warrant any? >> is very well aware of the importance and the faa is of course not soft and five and is working hard on the regulations

uses his firefighter that nobody in this room finds objectionable. so that's moving apace quite well. i yield the balance of my time. sheila jackson lee. >> thank you. mr. calabrese, just a simple question. what is the opportunity for racial profiling in how is that? >> resurfacing racial profiling use of video cameras. >> pajama woman's time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate you being here. i'd like to follow a period i am curious the line of questioning she had. you know, is a doctor friend who said it new camera's incredible

new lens skyward and to pictures of the shuttle going over the meters saw the news that broken up and got to the paper. didn't sell it, just put it out and it was a photograph is that more front pages of publications than any other. on the other hand, if you took the same camera and pointed it in has been a formula is, you would get an issue. said technology makes a difference in the stands we do get into some intense issues. i'm curious, mr. calabrese, there's a lot of area. i'm curious if congress went about setting what we believed and i think there's a lot of room for agreement on both

sides. mr. richmond questions and i think we agree on a great deal in this area. sewickley came to an agreement on what we in congress believe wasn't appropriate, reasonable expectation of privacy, are you guys aware of a law law that would create a problem for us in such an expectation -- reasonable expectation of privacy? >> no, i believe you are a powerful piece of legislation in front of you right now, h.r. 637 is a very good beginning on setting parameters for how drug should be used. just to answer your question replace existing law private use, stuff like that. >> is anybody aware of was the universe within reachable expectation of the?

>> i'm not aware of that, but i would urge some caution there. and i'd decades. you might be better served by focusing the government conduct you want to control, defining terms like search and public place and what not and controlling -- focusing legislation there, rather than defining privacy. with the recent? at titian in new york city is different than anywhere else. >> ms. bass was pointing out she has a lot of pop for a week in east texas we don't have that much. her concern is still my concern. not just public entities, but if you have a nosy neighbor that has the telescope and points into your backyard or inside your house in southern skyward,

there are to be some point you can expect privacy. >> in the ee data collection by private priority for the subsequent use of the information. if you like chemistry that may come a you can see the houses. it's not something that ought to legislate. maybe the use of the information is something we want to control the. >> in the mid-70s and the supreme court that they don't have a reasonable expectation thinking records. itecvely reverse the rule and give individuals more

privacy. >> that's a good point. is anybody aware of any laws that would prohibit you shooting down a drone in an area where the tissue? fits over your airspace i think it would be a very bad idea. >> i'm just asking if there's any laws. i'd occur from churches say many 50 rounds because that's how many it takes. >> up and up someone out they could be charged. >> unfortunately, did some immense times six by your remark i appreciate that, mr. chairman since he normally allow people to answer questions if rds. all members of the subcommittee having used a yield their time without objection the

subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> so the question is why do we do it? my take on this?

is it for fun, adventure? are certainly easier is making a living doing this. we do it to understand the world and how it changes. the road tends to move. tension spilled and suddenly they snap with violent political change of a coach where the cracks start to see how the plates are fitting together. we do this so innocents have a voice. we do to show tv pundits and studio jockeys are usually wrong. we do it because they decided this is what we want to do their slice of time on this planet.

>> good morning, everyone. on behalf of my colleagues, i

would like to welcome all of you. related roughly a week to talk about the report events in south asia, the elections in pakistan and we are going to be focusing on pakistan the next few weeks because there's so much happening this year in the region that affects pakistan and what happened in pakistan affects the region, so wanted to let you know monday afternoon will have another session looking at economics and development and how the usaid cease the circumstances in pakistan as opportunities to move things forward. and then on the third of june, i'm delighted we will be hosting a well known in the member parliament, who in his prior

existence as a diplomatic surge in pakistan and he will be talking about the search for regional stability with a view to what happens between india and pak and postelection. this is the recurring theme and i'm delighted we have three excellent persons who are going to help us understand where we go. particularly given that mountain of challenges packed and faces internally and externally. let me quickly introduce them and invite each one of them to speak briefly and have a discussion and if all goes well will add at 11:30. first of all, ambassador maleeha lodhi is joining us from pakistan via skype. ambassador a small note to washington audience in a soup

racism buses are outright critical junctures in the u.s.-pakistan relationship. she's also been an active observer of the pakistan political and economic scene and participates in india-pakistan dialogue's and writes regularly on events in pakistan so you can see her commentary. and then we have ambassador riaz mohammad khan. his detailed biography is 50th and it's important to note he's been an ambassador to china, tajikistan and foreign secretary was foreign secretary under the government of general musharraf and continued under the pakistan people's party government until he decided he would advise against taking the benazir bhutto case to the u.n. and there's a parting of ways.

maybe has a different explanation. thus the public discourse on hand. he said that even a number of dialects, in the name of the military to military dialogue. he will be with us and then we have our own sub one. use at the the imf ms works close way with pakistan in previous government advising them on specific issues for mass for it by. but at a circuit at the atlantic council. we thought it would be critical to look at the economic challenges facing pakistan and get a season person on board.

let me just say on my part a lot has been said about the elections and the conventional wisdom in a watershed election that will change everything. in my personal view it's very important. the turnout was so historic proportion, which was the last so-called competitive elections in pakistan. the end result you know wasn't very good for pakistan. i lost half the country. this time it's different to miss an opportunity to build on this. however, some interesting things come to light. one, the punjab in the center will be clearly the control of the same party. this has not happened in a very long time, so it offers a great

opportunity to work together is the punjab can be a mention of economic growth for pakistan. the other worse is the pakistan peoples party surprisingly folded very badly must now largely concerned to sindh. pti managed to surprise everyone i taken a large number and push a very good in the punjab and urban areas. so there was some galvanizing of new insurance into pakistani politics come which is likely to have an effect as we go forward. the shape of the new new government is still being decided. relationships with neighbors are obviously on the agenda and we look forward to covering all of these. one interesting point i leave

you with this despite all the talk of the islamization of pakistan, if you look at the numbers, the islamic parties have not, the 5% mark. still having 4.5, 4.8% of the total vote that garnered. that probably says something for the main parties come it says something for the urban class of pakistan and the opportunities establishing a proper polity going forward. i'm not going to take the place of our experts, so let me go immediately to maleeha. if you could tell a sensor of the crowd how thinks that that and how do you beat these weasels and after you spoken, we will invite the others to join us. thank you.

>> thank you, shuja. it's a great pleasure to join you this morning. i can't see you. i could see me? >> yes. >> all right, okay. you know, i was in islamabad and then out to karachi to join the election coverage in pakistan's largest media network is organizing from karachi. symantec should see two large cities. i can't tell you what excitement i saw it there a site by side in you enter together. as you said, shuja, 60% like 1970 testifies to that fact that people are galvanized at the polling station. they did that in pakistan and

really showing they were not going to be scared of the pre-election violence we saw. but it was by and large peaceful. orders can now to vote for experienced hands and they put their faith and experience because they saw the country contracted unprecedented challenges and they're going to stick to the familiar experience at hand. but it's also voted for change. they reshaped the entire political landscape.

have to see how entering this change will be. they change it by projected not the incumbent parties. this is a party saw a base world crumbled from 30% in the last election to have come the 15%. in terms of the people's party was in second place in terms of seats because pakistan is the first system, the people did better because as you said it has its vision said they were able to get it there. also routed the sensitive province with the national party who just crumbled. so did another faction of the

muslim lake, the rival faction to nawaz sharif. they saw their world, from dirty 3% in 2823% this election, clearly where mr. sharif receded is most important money consolidating debt disintegrated or at least had an away among several factions rather than one faction. so the question many people asked her surprising and the answer to that is yes and no. they were not surprising because the general expert tatian were showing him to land. people expected subbase party to do better, but not to plan. the surprise did lie in the of the jury achieved by nawaz

sharif. i was in touch with members of his party. even did they not expect a clean sweep and he is now close to getting not just a majority with the help of independence and many people who have the option within three days of joining one or the other party, that he could end up a two thirds majority in pakistan's national parliament. so it is based and predicated on the landslide. where he won 116 out of 140 seats which at the national seats. and the provincial legislature, prd has a two thirds majority. so the question is, why this is so strong? this clearly in favor of nawaz

sharif, so why this is so strong? what i said before your, i think his main message that i know how to set the economy right was ke so the personalities they are, but so was his message now is throughout the election. i'm the only one who knows how to do with the economy. he constantly kept saying you don't want untested hand straight out. the one experienced hands. then of course you have a situation where there is strong candidate. said they had a bunch of strong candidate in pakistan, elections are as much about candidates locally as in any other country, politics is locally. the election is as much about

candidates as it is the party they belong to and personality and not parity. the other questions that raises is why did the party on trans-subbase party disappointed? they've set themselves unrealistic targets. they were taken on an entrenched but she had successfully galvanized by a remarkable campaign where he was undeterred that everyone was receiving but obviously the punjab province was largely violence free. so sharif was able to present himself as the only credible alternative to the previous party. only us have to recognize what

he did was to bring in the political process a whole bunch of old who had previously shunned politics. this is the educated middle-class women and of course as you said yourself the youth vote. there's no question that also meant very quick and adapted his campaign strategy that he was also making to young voters. his approach of saying i have the experience, but also promising voters he could take pakistan activists challenge because if there is one issue that dominated the election, it was the economy and in the five years pakistanis have gone through unprecedented economic hardship, particularly the crisis and shortages in the

public turnouts. so here we are to achieve in your introduction a critical mind storing we'll see in the next 10 days from one elected government to another elected government something that's never achieved. i have to say this is not the first time. it's a second time in every time he's the one who called elections in 1977, but we never saw a peaceful transfer of power. it is an achievement, which ever seen in the media and i can't tell you the best in terms of how pakistani suspect that they had crossed a very important milestone and everyone felt good about themselves.

but then here are the challenges. first as we have seen a sharp he regionalized out on. still important job of those he has support in at least two of the other three provinces. the fact that two of the four provinces the constant pakistan's will be run by political parties, different than the one at the center means that sharif would have to adapt and accommodated than flexible approach in handling pakistan, you know, fundamental federal reality. plus he also has to contend with the senate, which is still controlled by the people's party to have to deal with the senate. but i think he's received shows the voters of pakistan want somebody to just get on and get the country moving on.

i think voters realize the challenges are imposing the numbers and whatthey are saying to sharif is okay with giving you the needs now to take tough positions on security and economic challenges, which i know is better to deal with. but this is where we are. they are clearly tough decisions because there is no shortcut to do it ask and conflicts. nawaz sharif has this enormous majority. he is the assurance of stable governments and it comes from the largest problem of focus and the political confidence to be able to take some of these positions. on both the economy and security front. and statements after his sick jury has been very much on the

lines that when asked what are your priorities, he said the economy, the economy and the economy and also said counterterrorism dealing with militancy but also obviously be very important. it's the foundation, the necessary condition to achieve the economic world pakistan clearly needs. foreign policy has been reset aided by india, for example when he talked about wanting him to continue the process he said he once started, which is true. he was the architect of normalization with india in 1999. in the mid-90s. plus i think he's also sent a strong signal to the united states that he wants to work with the united states, that is worked with the u.s. in the

past. so he's made all the statements that indicate we may be seeing nawaz sharif learned from the past, but also a very different pakistan and different world. so there's a lot of have to do because he has the been at the level for almost 15, 16 years. that's a long time. the world has changed and so is pakistan. where he is positioned as who's got the political mandate. he's got the political strength. he doesn't have to be blackmailed by political groups within parliament. it is not what comes of the black kneeling part of the smaller parties. so he got what he wished for. but beyond, be careful what you

wish for. >> thank you very much, maleeha for setting the scene. economy, economy, economy. the security, security come security may be another mantra closely tied into regional relationships and also will pull together. i'm going to request ambassador sent to do such in light of on foreign-policy challenges he thinks emerge after the election results. >> thank you very much, shuja for inviting me. i think a saturday and today good analysis and a quite comprehensive analysis which are very important milestone.

the voters turnout of 60% is quite ensuring in terms of people's participation in politics. she also emphasized u.s. economy, which people thought that nawaz sharif was the experienced and gave him the vantage. maybe several other elections in the past with pakistan. these elections present although our experience is such that we cannot be overoptimistic, but nonetheless the point is these elections and the result offered hope. i would begin by underscoring

some of what i would say are the silver lining and the advantages. the first thing as perhaps it is for the first time a public perception pharmacists found an voters choice. s-1 was to look at the advertised at the pti, ppp and pml-n. the pml-n is focusing on chat. eta promise for the future because they did not have an experience. ppp was basically invoking the latest the, the sacrifices. so here, this was for the first time it was the performance, which figured the voters choice. in fact, punjab has punished

people for its abysmal performance and also corruption. two prime ministers lost their seats. both gillani and also probationary period than, maleeha would know better, but the general perception is not the old bank they were not to divide the word bank off of pml-n. will this be repeated? of the parties now pay more attention to the need to show performance, to show results? would they be sent today to the needs? one of the glaring examples is the power shortages. they did nothing on that front. but we have yet to see what this

is perhaps in my view the most positive aspect of the 2013 elections. second, the fact that pml-n won by a comfortable margin would form a government without demands of coalition partners in maneuvering has been pakistani politics or perhaps is unavoidable when you have a situation of a home parliament. this is not a hung parliament. they are smaller parties in order to retain its majority. the center against the presents against punjab will continue to rule. he has an opportunity to focus

in earnest in addressing problems besetting the country and this probably is the expectation of the public that he is going to address the enormous problems in the field. if he fails to share results, the risk is his party will also suffer the fate of ppp next time and perhaps next time if he fails results, it would be the pti, which would displace, especially pti is able to show results expected to have the provision comment. third, nawaz sharif personality and political culture resonates with the conservative

constituencies in pakistan. religious constituencies, especially in the punjab. this can be an advantage in dealing with the extremist groups and peeling them away, especially in the punjab. but in dealing with these elements, he must remain clear with regard to acceptance of the rate at the government and the presence, especially the charlotte area is. if the extremists in the punjab and those operating the tribal areas will find that china is an important source of support in the shape of what usually is known as punjab taliban. th next point i would make is

these elections have taken place at a time which army has been an important part of pakistan has accumulated considerable sobering experience and perhaps a reevaluation of military rule under president sayre and president musharraf. there is a clear sense that pakistan's problems are quite in track to bowl, complex and not to be left perhaps to look at the devious and corrupt, but soft and accommodating ways that the politicians. they cannot be addressed from chile to military efficiency, which i think the sheriff had tried to do. on the other hand, nawaz sharif himself has been chastised by his own long x.

over the last 20, 30 years and understands the risk of overreaching. pakistan's problems are enormous. they are obvious nonsense of challenges that our success. but they are not impossible. but for before a comment, nawaz sharif must be against exacerbating sick terry in the country, group enough religious provincial and chauvinistic, alienating ppp and mqm, manipulating politics or there is a potential to do so.

as in the past, such politics will be counterproductive. one can hope that instead of allowing this kind of manipulation, which in pakistan because the political make and break up alliances, et cetera. the current power of prime minister nawaz sharif will be disposed to acting with prudence, credibility, awfulness and will focus on a practical occasion to refurbish credentials as a problem and a man who can mend the economy. the problems can be divided in four categories in my view. first come security, law and order, extremists, virtue of rebellion by taliban and

insurgency in baluchistan and ethnic conflict. tensions. it is evidently soft attitude and willingness to negotiate with the extremists give him a chance to restrain them. but as i said earlier, you must remain firm on the government except in the presence of the army and fontana. we must be firm on the solomon, even in the face of drug attacks, which is something he will have to work it out with the united states. if pti forms posh to come it

will have an interest in containing the taliban for its own success. you can bank on mac. baluchistan is a more complicated problem. nonetheless, davis again politics, not as nawaz sharif himself has said with guns and bullets. as far as sindh is concerned he'll have to deal with ppp and mqm and karachi i see no is also in sindh. the second major basket of problems is potential disaffection and the stress and institutional frictions.

here again the acid test of the center's handling of relations with sindh because the punjab who have their own. pti government may be amenable to cooperation for its own success, but ppp and mqm will have no such come potion and karachi and sindh. when negative six are from election since i find these two major parties, ppp and pml-n as nawaz sharif have become provincial sides. ppp is supposed to support across the country. it now has -- will be sindh and is limited to his home province.

as far as pml-n is concerned, its main support comes from punjab and has no strong showing baluchistan is a very mixed situation. as for the institutional tassels, there ought to be no image unless one is precipitated by nawaz himself. the main circumspect of politics and also we have -- we know that those in the army and judiciary would be a change of oligarch at the end of the year. the third of album is of course economy and of course mr. motson

is going to focus on not. and energy there are problems you will tell on, but she will not have that better managed and then we have to come up with a credible products, not make the rental project that disclaims launched by the ppp, which was a waste of time and waste of resources. nawaz sharif also has the ability with experience of megaprojects, which can generate employment. finally, the fourth area is foreign relations. i think he sergi made the great sequence. desire to normalize its india and import leahy made the statement that we will not allow incidents. this was an important signal to

india. the military sensitivity on account of india i think are often much exaggerated. in fact, nawaz sharif is better placed to work for improvement of relations with india than the earlier leaders and to address issues which have so far eluded prowess. again, the united states has stated his willingness to work. he's also underscored the fact he's worked with the united states earlier. their issues related to asking us and, related to the question of use of drones and the font tag area with isu they need to b ruled out. there has to be some court

nation between the united states and pakistan. on afghanistan, i think we will have to resist temptation of playing any ambitious peacemaking role. pakistan in my view canes little by being proactive in afghanistan. it should do what it can set up with reconciliation. the taliban leadership has to be discouraged. there would also be some challenges with regard to pakistan handling its relation to. finally, let me say an analogy. pakistan's history of politics has an quite masterfully, which hopefully this time will be less so. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you very much. i hope you were incorrect with your assessment of folly. speaking of follies, now we're waiting for a discussion of the issues that mr. nawaz sharif has put front and center and is identified as critical that happens in pakistan. i'm going to request sub one -- mohsin khan to come talk about the economic challenges. >> thank you for inviting me here. it is great to be here. yeah, so basically it's the economy, it the economy, it's the economy, the campaign slogan of the pml-n. he also borrowed from governor

romney that he made the economy and he could fix it. so that is a big issue. the economy is the top priority for the country irrespective of who won the election. and much the pml-n has inherited some economy in pretty poor shape relatively speaking with the growth down to between 3% and 4% a year, inflation of double-digit, bleeding international reserves it by day come back to these issues. rising unemployment, better. there's a litany of economic problems. so the new government has inherited an economy that is in pretty poor shape. the argument is to have experienced people on the team,

experience with the economics of the country in very early on people put two and two together and say that is still up in the air as to whether he would either not. he may well turn out to be the foreign minister. this issue is going on. said during the campaign, pml-n and his economic team identified the long-term structural issues and those are well known. they're a lot term structural economic albums in the country. how to get investment going in the country, which for the long run is essential. it's a problem that the structure. infrastructure development is needed. education. you have to have labor force is the right set of skills in demand by the private sector and

demand that modern industry is the one. that is the problem. new industries, innovations, moving away from the standard industries of textiles is another issue. let me say these are -- characterized as long-term structural issues that existed before the ppp and will have continued. so they'll have to be addressed. what are the immediate issues? i would like to focus my comments here this morning in the brief time i have an immediate short-term issues that the new government on day one will have to start worrying about. one fiscal public finance is. secondly, somewhat related and not bring the relationship in a while.

energy. everyone talks about energy sector and the 30th external balances. the fact the country is the same reserves and people talk about in the name defaults. not very likely, that people talk about that. so when they start with the fiscal issue. the fiscal problems have continued to grow in pakistan over the last few years and under this government that lost the election, the budget deficit this year was six acted to be 4.7% of gdp are actually 4.7% gdp last year in the year before. it seems to be a fixed number finance at that time stewart quits. the budget deficit is going to turn around 9% of gdp.

virtually twice what they predict it. not enough the fiscal deficit is so large, worse though is how it's financed, how it is being financed and essentially by firing from the banks. there is in the central bank while the central bank itself cannot finance the government beyond a quarter. at the end of every quarter, it has to have a zero balance. so with the central bank is very innovative and doing with the central bank promised liquidity in the system and the banks go ahead by the government treasury bills. this is the link for economist is a form of 1990 and therefore reduce the inflation rising, it is no surprise inflation is rising. the fact of these reserves as no surprise if you print money of

this reserves and have inflation. they have to get a handle on the public fi%inflation. they have to get a handle on the public finances. how are they going to get a handle on the public finances? structure of public finance is really bad. for example, government revenues are about 13% of gdp. this is roughly half of the lake of it neighbors in the region. they have very little revenues coming in. the expenditures aren't that high either. not sure if they are nine percentage points higher. but the revenues are the serious issue. on the revenue side, but they need to do? basically oppressive taxes, taxes, tax reforms come up with the rates -- tax revenues that.

here i would've said that this government is going to be this sort of tussle going on with the new government. i'm the one hand, there are people who understand this issue of taxes and i think the problem with this stable stroud surety government is that the value added tax, which was considered on purpose by the people's party and they could not push it through due to the opposition of the mqm from which threatened to leave the coalition if in fact it was adopted. that is not an issue anymore. even so, at that time unfortunately he was in the senate, so not the food the other problem is if

you are very pro-business, you are very reluctant to raise taxes and corporate taxes. the question i would ask is where these revenues going to come from? they really have to be amazed and there will be measures taken i'm sure. on the expenditure side, the most serious problem is not frivolous expenditures. and in 22% of gdp is not a big number. the spending that goes on for subsidies and particularly the refinancing state owned enterprise as i really going down the train completely. here i think one can be a mistake that this government will try and take action on

pseudo-member produces. right now, roughly 2% of roughle the losses of state enterprises. the democrats are pakistan railways, a whole list of them. i think the government can do something about state-owned enterprises because they don't opposed to privatization and they may well turn around and privatize these companies. they are for privatization and in fact are not constrained because the state of enterprises have been used in the past five years as a vehicle of patronage and employment. many of the people hat. many of the people have been employed in this enterprises. so pml-n can say you're not a peep oso will fire you.

the judiciary is a serious constraint on the privatization. so we'll see how they can handle it. so that is basically on the fiscal side they have to do something. energy reform spirit ever talks about energy and it's true. if a serious issue. people often say this is not a capacity problem. this is a governess problem, there is a capacity probthere i. the fact of the matter is in storage capacity, not actual working capacity, but pete demand as a cab and even when you're up early enough for capacity, there is a capacity problem which will have to be

addressed. you can't just say its governance and get away. the biggest problem that creates why in fact -- were he not producing thousand megawatt because i switcher installed capacity is inherently producing 10. why is that? that then becomes governess. it then becomes financial and they said that paying someone energy producing the level you could be producing. not peak demand, but the level you could be producing. every come into a nice turn with circular depth. circular debt as companies running with each other.