now, also, we send this message to those who have in fact spoken about changing the very nature and very reason our army protect this country. and the principles that have guided it.

there were able to inspire passion in the people of this country to be who we eventually became. america is the greatest success story the world has ever known. i am living proof because i stand here as the great grandson of former slaves by yet today, a free man, defending the document the constitution of the united states that may free and able to speak to you today. as i leave you, i say to each and everyone of you americans out there, stand up, for america, stand up for god and country. god bless the republic. >> thank you, reverend.

you have quite an eclectic group of people. from a pastor to an economist to the tea party to a well-known author and a family leader. you might wonder why the what i associate myself or why would this come together here is because cristero looking for his exceptional leadership. from my point of view, there is a serious threat to the family. if we do not have real leadership here. exceptional leadership is like beauty. it is difficult to describe but you know it when you see it. i will play an important role in launching the the the the process and we take this role serious. when i am looking for in a candidate, we're looking for

exceptional leadership. america faces real challenges if we're able to provide the next generation with the hope and stability of previous generations, that there america will be better off -- their america will be better off than their parents. these challenges demand exceptional leadership. they are feeding their speeding -- a spending frenzy.

his demand is a sign of leadership failure. failed leadership demands exceptional leadership from others. this is why i join with the tea party founding fathers in supporting their freedom jamboree in kansas city and promoting our country's return to our constitutional rights. this is where we're calling on speaker banner and others to courageously stepped up and provide exceptional leadership -- speaker john boehner and others to courageously stepped up and provide the exceptional leadership. this will reduce the size and scope of the federal government. to refuse the credit card limit and to begin the long overdue process of entitlement reform. this is our only hope for a sustainable and optimistic future for the family. it is not only important we have

exceptional leadership in congress, but we elect a replacement for president obama who can provide leadership from the white house. we are ratcheting up our vetting of 22 of canada's. i tell them the family leader's initiative point toward strengthening the family and it has to do with life and marriage and the constitution, but it has to do with this fiscal issue as well. this includes advocating for families and giving them the best opportunity to thrive financially. in light of what we're here today, i am telling iowans and others that america needs a president that will lead on tax reform. on reforming medicaid and social security and cutting discretionary spending. we need a president who not only raises -- opposes raising the

debt ceiling but opposes deficit spending that leads to death in the first place. a president who will -- opposing spending that leads to debt in the first place. we're talking about an application -- add -- abdication of the constitutional matters. we need a president who will hold to the founders' intent about the limited role of government in our lives. this is a freedom issue. failure to do these things as a result -- and a tremendous setback. we need a president who is more concerned about the next generation than the next election. we need a president who cares more about week, the people that about me, the politician. we are of leading the charge to discover and to launch that

leader. our standards are high because frankly, they need to be. i invite all of 2012 presidents to journey to iowa and to the freedom jamboree in kansas city on october 1 and 2 to share their constitutional, conservative, and optimistic vision for america, which must benefit families for generations to come through exceptional leadership. make no mistake. regardless of what the president may say, america is an exceptional country. it demands exceptional leadership. we, the people will demand nothing less. with that, i thank my peers up here in their presentations today and we will open up for any questions from the press.

tofect leadsle that. if your comments [inaudible] when we lead the issues it will translate into poor economic policy, and that is what we're saying as to why people are not willing to grab that baton to get this budget intact.

>> [inaudible] risking their lives in that event -- afghanistan and iraq, is that part of the core values? i was in combat in vietnam. >> these sexual orientation of any of my fellow soldiers -- to work free will. don't ask, don't tell works. you did not ask me and -- or ask the question what my sexual orientation is. do not ask, don't tell will -- and we will get along fine. >> it is private. >> some of the tea party agree with you that speaker john boehner should be challenged

in the praise -- primaries. are you going that far, do you think he should be challenged? >> i believe that we are -- we believe what we are about today. we're trying to challenge and hopingnnejohn boehner they will step up and provide that leadership. not increase the debt ceiling, repeal obamacare, do the entitlement reforms, cut spending, but we're looking for leadership. that jury for me is still out. >> are you going to be watching who votes for and who votes against? that is putting pressure on speaker john boehner? >> there is no doubt that we put

pressure on speaker john boehner and other members of congress to say we're watching your actions. actions speak louder than words. but the the forgive me if this -- for give me if this is repetitive. the first speaker i heard was calling boehner and ryan rhinos. >> he is a republican in name only. the press will agree that we were highly responsible for john boehner and the house tea party caucus, which they call themselves, to get elected. we expect that definition, we

are defining them as republicans in name only on one issue. if they will hold the ceiling on the national that, they're not. if they raise it, they're going to be advertised ever where it will run candidates against them in their districts if they raise it, on that one issue only. they have time to change. they moved the date to august now. we're going to pressure them. >> i am looking at the revenue stream compared to the gross domestic product. we increased spending by $800 billion. that is 18%. we had a drop-off ever since. shouldn't we demand and it is an obvious mathematical issue. $800 billion that they incur or

decreased two years ago and trend down to 14 or 15% so we debt.ay off the threa this seems logical and prudent. >> that sounds wonderful. my math teacher would be all over me trying to figure that out. we have economists here who can address your question. >> the federal government spending was 18.2% of gdp and is up to 24 or 25%. that is the reason we are in a fiscal mess. deficits and the debt are a symptom. revenues are depressed because of the economic downturn. according to omb, they will climb back above their historic level. balancing the budget is the

matter. >> the problem here is they never got to 26. the got to 20% prior to 9/11. ever since they dropped it, we need sincere cuts below the baseline in order to stimulate growth that we need to reestablish this market to get off the bubble machine that has been -- we have been deriving income. >> the inflation washes out on both sides of the ledger. it is bad to have inflation. that is separate from the burden of government spending as a share of the economy and looking at the deficit and debt that occur because government spending is too high. >> that is great. i will agree with everything dan just said. one of the reasons we're having a slow recovery right now, one of the reasons the unemployment rate is still now 9%.

because the government is so big. the formula is simple. the larger the government is, the more a share of gdp we spend. the smaller the private sector is, straight out mouth. by borough and tax, the government can no longer be used in the private sector. the bigger the government is, the smaller the private sector, the smaller the private sector, the fewer jobs. cutting spending is good for the economy and your question about coming in at 10:00 a.m. and missing some things, what i said and others appear said, all lot of this today is about the debt ceiling and debt limit. using the debt limit is a good tool from an economist's point of view to get spending down. it will benefit the economy.

cut spending. if you have to use the debt limit to do that, i think it is worth the effort. the economy will benefit on the other side. >> i wanted to inject one more thing. on the issue of government, big government. energy, and terrier, commerce, none of them are found in the constitution as a federal responsibility. we have allowed that to be developed over the last 80 years. we have with us and he showed up, george washington. i want you to understand, that is a moral issue. >> thank you. we are here on monday after mother's day. i said my mother was the most beautiful woman i ever saw. all i am i wrote to my mother.

every man, every woman in america and around the world owes a debt to their mother and father. that is a debt of gratitude. that is not a debt we owe because our elected servants have been spendthrifts. they are different types of debt. in my farewell address on september 17, i set an important strength -- said an important strength of security is to cherish [inaudible] and one way to do it is to use it sparingly as possible. not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debt, which may have been occasioned by a the

necessity of throwing upon us wars and throwing upon posterity our debts, is a burden they ought not to bear. a debt is a tax upon the future of america. upon our children and our children's children's children. there is no practice more dangerous than that of borrowing money. when money can be had in this way, repayment is seldom thought of in time. the interest becomes a loss. exertions to raise it and the imposition of our industry, it comes easy and it's spent freely. many things in dullest in that would not have been obtained if it were not purchased by the sweat of one's brow.

in a letter i wrote to james welch on -- in 1799, i said to want to contract new debt is not the way to pay old ones. thank you. >> [inaudible] as juneau, there is no way -- and nobody who has benefited more [inaudible] how do you justify the continued policy? > we -- we are up hyerere

individually as citizens. we need to be drilling here. we need to tap into the energy base that we have here in this country. we need to look at alternative and renewable fuels like ethanol is a piece of that. we have taken a look that there has been a lot of things that have been subsidized and we're saying everything needs to be on the table. this debt ceiling is a huge issue to us. to pass on this type of debt to the next generation might be one of the most immoral things we could do. what we're saying is do not increase the debt ceiling. let's put everything on the table and repeal obama care and go after discretionary spending. all that needs to be on the table.

>> they can sit on their hands and do nothing, and if they do, we will not raise the national debt. this is endangering the lives of our children and grandchildren. >> one of the points we made is that not raising the national debt does not mean the fall. we had $2.25 trillion coming in

this year. interest is $207 billion. the other thing you heard is that if something is meaningful that is achieved, whether it is spending tax or repeal of obamacare or some other form of fiscal discipline, that might be a worthwhile trade. there is not a lot of confidence -- confidence that republicans will negotiate with acumen. >> debt is an immoral and insidious tax on the future of america. as i said. in this constitution, it says for ourselves and our posterity. that means the future. we must not place a tax, and immoral tax on our children.

>> what kind of spending caps might be an acceptable trade- off? >> you have all sorts of things. the tax limitation balanced budget amendment. senator corker has a tap fact that organized -- updates. you have obamacare. just [no audio] to say which is best are acceptable. during the continuing resolution, they did not get much and that does not bode well for what will happen with the debt limit. >> the markets want to see and standard and poor's in their negative outlook on the u.s. said this. they want to see some meaningful, lasting, and significant -- that was their

word. i call it durable and medium and long-term correction to the course that we're on. right now, we're looking at a trillion dollar deficit as far as the eye can see. let me add a couple of little comments. i am in the private sector. we were here before this. bear stearns kamala lehman brothers, wachovia, they were taken out with accusatory language about reckless behavior. if the u.s. to read was a bank, the fdic would close and down friday night. they have run their fiscal books in an awful manner. what is interesting is when i have discussions with politicians and some in the leadership will have talked to,

they are saying we need a 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 years to fix this. we cannot cut it as fast. the private sector does not get that luxury. nothing, no family gets that luxury. . there cut spending now, when people off, or " big rep. and so the bottom line is and what is fascinating to me is they turn around and say, i am being extreme. i am the one who is extreme. because i am saying you are -- you are out of control. we need 15 years to fix things. you do not get that luxury in the private sector. this is a bipartisan problem. this was created in a bipartisan

manner. paul ryan, i met him when he was 19 when he was an intern to jack kemp. he is a smart and free market and capitalistic person. he voted for t.a.r.p., medicare part b and no child left behind. the auto bailout. my question to him is, what is he? is he for bigger government or as a for smaller government? i believe we would not be in this position today if it were not for republican votes when president bush was in office and what president obama and the democrats have done since then. this is a bipartisan problem. i believe using the tool of the

debt ceiling, i made the analogy this is like solomon saying i will cut the baby in half. it is a drastic action but necessary because neither side will listen. just like the two mothers who claimed the baby was theirs. we need a drastic action to bring adult behavior to the budget of washington. private firms laid off people, went bankrupt in this process. the government for some reason thinks it can avoid that and that is what i think a lot of people are saying appeaup here. >> so we can say it clearly and get it clear so we can wrap our minds around what is happening

here, $1 trillion. budget was tos trillion. $9 billion $1 trillion just so the average joe gets his mind around that. the time of christ's birth, if we spent $1 million a day from the time christ was born, we would not today in 2011 have spent $1 trillion. we cannot sustain this type of spending. it is immoral. it is impractical. we came today to say we will not tolerate this any longer. >> did you say the government

democrats and republicans are making more in the private sector? >> yes. that is the result. what about tea party people out in the street two years ago, $13 trillion in debt fostered by the federal government in action and dollying with fannie mae and freddie mac. while the american people trusted their government representatives, they were spending like drunken sailors. but spared -- both parties. when i came out in atlanta in february or april 15 in 2009 and found 40,000 americans, the largest number of people ever assembled before the golden dome, i thought, these must be conservative republicans.

when i started asking them that, they said we are democrats. i said, how can this be, you elected president two months ago and a resounding answer was $13 trillion in debt. and republicans. this is about the american people being fed up with its government acting like children. >> seems a lot of steam came from the private sector. i have not heard about efforts for the tea party endorsing [inaudible] . i wondered if you could [inaudible]

>> the two are in bed together. i understand that. it is a government that has the responsibility of oversight. if fannie mae and freddie mac are being overseen by the federal government and our representatives allow subprime mortgages all over the place and the business is playing to that, who has the responsibility to bring it under control? the federal government has the responsible to not be playing games of the cost of the american people. it is the american people -- we are not for a big business getting away with murder. we understand who has the responsibility to make sure it does not happen. we're after the federal government first. >> you have regulations that

will be tightened up, what would you eliminate budget for the sec? >> the regulations you saw, the 2500 page health care bill. that is the kind of ridiculous paperwork the federal government produces in which big business can hide and do their things. it is a regulation that we need to remove. we need to give the country freedom, not more paperwork. all of this is one big barrel that our federal government, i am 60 and the department of commerce, the department of labor, department of interior, all these unconstitutional departments have been created over 80 years. their power does not belong here. it belongs in the states. we want to see the government cut not just both parties

talking about freezing spending, we want to see commerce cut. we want to see agriculture cut and the last thing is the department of defense. there is waste their but the first responsibility is to protect its people and they're not doing anything about our borders and about the debt and they are creating their own little world where they can retire on million dollar retirements with their own health care plans and they have created a house of lords down here. >> even before the bailout bill, the financial services sector was second only to nuclear energy in being the most regulated industry. that is part of the reason we got into this. government actions like easing money policy. that was -- one the government bailed out the people who made

mistakes, that is what anchored the average grass-roots american. that is why when we see these stories about fannie mae and wanting another $9 billion of bailout money, that is the problem. people want to make mistakes and make bad bets, go ahead. do not come to the taxpayer asking for money. that is what got the tea party people angry. >> it sounds like you are saying the government is responsible for oversight but we need to get rid of regulation? >> the government is too big. it is not what the founders intended. we're going to be running around washington taking a look at the big departments. >> you said we could raise the debt ceiling if we could do $100 billion. >> we come to the card game and

we're not just handing over our chips to the liberals from the other side with the help of our house republicans. if you want to raise the national debt ceiling and we gave you eight or nine things we might consider, including getting rid of obamacare, we are going to play our cards one step at a time. you want to raise the debt ceiling, what are we going to get in return? that is the way this card game will get played. >> let me add something to this. again, we're not all in agreement about specific issues. we are in agreement about the big picture. let me talk about this debt ceiling and raising it a little bit at a time. let's argue before we get there. if we did not raise the debt

ceiling right now forever, it is stock and will never go higher. first of all, the government has to run a surplus. we borrow money from social security every month and that adds to the debt so we cannot do that. we need to run a surplus to never rephrase the debt ceiling again. if you pick your programs, you can pick two or 10 or 100. i will take -- pay the interest and pay social security and paid defense, pay veterans's benefits. everything else in the budget, congressional pay, everything else has to be cut on average 85% to balance the budget. that is how far out of whack this budget is. what william is saying is that

-- i think, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, the mayhem of spending cuts would be so far reaching and so dramatic that it would tear departments up and parts of the economy to shreds. it cannot cut 85% of all spending like that. what you need is everybody knows they've down that the debt ceiling is going to have to go up at some point. what i believe needs to be done is it needs to be used as a tool to get spending cut and if you can do it a little bit at a time, we will raise the debt ceiling for one month. you have to vote on it 12 times this year.

spending has to get down and this is the tool, the weapon of mass discipline that can be used to do this. we can get spending down quickly and balance the budget in six years of waste -- if we freeze spending. we have to get something like that done. everybody realizes there has to be some movement in these issues. >> new zealand and canada both did exactly that, from spending in the 1990's and went from large deficits to budget surpluses. it is possible to freeze spending. that might require a short-term increase in the debt limit but get something real in exchange and that fight does not leave was hopeful about negotiating skill at the gop. >> thank you for covering this. we wilinvite you to attend the

freedom jamboree on october 1 and 2 in kansas city. >> it is september 30 and october 1. >> we would join new -- invite you to join us. also we invite all presidential candidates to be there. thank you for a time. and has been a pleasure. -- it has been a pleasure. >> we will have live coverage of a discussion between the current chairman of the fcc and one of its predecessors on the future of telecommunications. their discussion comes on the 50th anniversary of the historic

speech to the national association of broadcasters when he said television was a vast wasteland. we will see what they think today and the impact of that 1961 speech. >> when sony says we're protecting the consumers, the consumer might want to know, wait a minute. i have the right to protect myself and all i am saying is to policy makers, they should no sooner. >> on the theft of millions of theumers' personal data on sunny network. >> pakistan's prime minister rejected allegations that national authorities were complicity in hiding osama bin laden or incompetent in tracking him down. his remarks came during a speech to the pakistani national

assembly. this comes to us courtesy of al jazeera. it is 20 minutes. >> this -- the official standard was raised. hon. speaker. in today's age of information, it is important to sift fact from fiction. it is the virtual media that obscures'. truth cannot for long been submerged in culture. sometimes we forget the 6 -- the sequence and context of fast- moving events. however, everything has a context.

it is well known that those you forget history are condemned to relive it. [unintelligible] in talk shows and public comments have missed some attention points. the reaffirmation is necessary. let there be no doubt. pakistan is a proud nation. our people value their honor and dignity. our strength is our people and our institutions. we are united and committed to sparing no sacrifice to uphold the national the -- dignity. to safeguard our interests by all means and all resources at our command. no other nation has

successfully met so many challenges. no other people have been put through so many tests by history and by circumstances of geography and geopolitics. no other nation has borne the burden of the international community. our nations has met all these challenges. born out of a firm belief in the [unintelligible] our values, our culture, and tradition. ever since that independence, pakistan stood up for our values which are also universal. freedom, dignity, equality, humanity, harmony. it has always reflected [unintelligible]

pakistan is not only a state, but an idea. that idea -- people struggle in their lives to translate into reality. as -- a free press, open and intense public discourse are our great strength. the escalation -- [unintelligible] that inspires them to seek equality, justice, security, peace, progress, and prosperity. for 30 years, pakistan was conflict. in that struggle, we with the

rest of the world decided to uphold the principle of self- determination. we opened up our homes and hearts to those who supported the great job. it is perhaps necessary to remind everyone about that terror which has been so well . [unintelligible] all this was real. we have continued to suffer from its effects.

as a necessary for us to remind the international community of volunteers who had joined the jihad the mutated into al qaeda? who was responsible for the birth of al qaeda? who was responsible for making the method of osama bin laden? the answer to today's question period is necessary to revisit the not so distant past. collectively, we must the knowledge this in the middle of history. pakistan alone cannot be held to account for flawed policies. pakistan is not the first [unintelligible] we did not invite osama bin laden to pakistan. who was osama bin laden and what is people trying to fight? he was the most wanted

terrorist and am -- enemy number one of the civilized world. elimination of osama bin laden launched waves -- who launched waves of attacks against pakistani is justice done. the legacy remains to be demolished. the anger and frustration of people over oppression and tyranny that has fueled the fire of terrorism in the world needs to be addressed. otherwise, this will find new ways of expression. pakistan believes in democracy and pluralism, a society that strives for equality and dignity. an open and transparent a

society is essential for addressing the rage and anger arising from political or economic injustice. let me say that in this war against terrorism, pakistan has lost 30,000 men, women, and children, and more than 5000 armed forces personnel, billions of dollars lost. we do not intend to put a price or sick acknowledgement or recognition from anybody. the war against terrorism is our national project. our nation is united to eliminate terrorism from our sacred land. pakistan will not relent in this national cause and is determined not to allow its soil to be used by anyone for terrorism. [applause] this national consensus was

built by democracy. this parliament and the political leadership of this country, citizens and state institutions are united in prosecuting this campaign against terror to its logical end. use a lot -- realizing all means and resources and we shall succeed. let me briefly retrace the first decade. international forces marched into afghanistan to dismantle the taliban regime after 9/11. the taliban had ordered and taken a cut it to hide out in afghanistan. -- al qaida to hide in afghanistan.

-- could lead to the dispersal of qaeda. al qaeda leaders and foot soldiers saw hideouts everywhere. in the mountains and deep inside cities including pakistan. we did not invite al qaeda to pakistan. for the first time, our armed forces were deployed to form a security cordon during the bombings. 249 members were captured by the armed forces. intelligence prosecuted the anti-terrorist strategy with high dignity and professionalism and superb determination. 40 of the operatives including the chief operating officer and

khalid sheikh mohammed. the master planner of 9/11 was captured by the isi. armed forces also carried out successful operations in swat a nd waziristan. no other country and no other security forces have done so much to interdict al qaeda. this was done with the full support of the nation and according to the political will articulate a by the parliament of pakistan. it is disingenuous for anyone to blame pakistan or state institution of pakistan in cluding the isi for being in cahoots with al qaeda. al qaeda and its affiliation carried out suicide bombings in

every city and town. also targeting leaders. the obvious question is, how could osama bin laden hide in plain sight in the city? let's not rush to judgment. allegations of complicity or incompetents are absurd. we have -- in the public domain meant to create despondency. we will not allow the detractors to succeed in [unintelligible] shortcomings in the blame game that stigmatizes pakistan. this is -- issue needs of national and serve. recrimination and -- as self- defeating.

this has been an intelligence failure. it does not only ask -- of all intelligence agencies in the world, the al qaeda chief along with other al qaeda operators have managed to elude agencies for a long time. he was constantly being attacked not only by the isi but other intelligence agents. it was a fight that pass to the cia that enabled the u.s. to use superior technological efforts and focus on the area in which he was eventually found. all this has been explained in the statement issued by the foreign ministry and the -- as well as in a detailed briefing by the foreign minister. this asymmetrical war --

terrorism falls in the category. osama bin laden used terror for whatever cause he espoused. hiding in plain sight is evident. it is perhaps another technique that would be used in symmetrical intelligence. we are determined to get to the bottom. people are -- on the issue of sovereignty. this has raised questions about pakistan's defense capability and the security.

as the episode illustrates, the military responded to the u.s. forces. there force was ordered to scramble. our response demonstrates our own -- our armed forces react. it does not require any level of special defense arrangements. there is no denying the u.s. technological ability. we declare this action was undertaken without our concurrence. this has serious consequences. suppose the operation had gone wrong. let no one draw any wrong

conclusions. any attack against pakistan will find the matching response. no one should underestimate the capability of our armed forces to defend our sacred a homeland. there are issues that raise the question of sovereignty. this is a question to be directed to the international community as a whole. the security council has repeatedly emphasized this be done in accordance with international law, human rights, and humanitarian law. those are given out as an instrument to fight terror. as we have said, these attacks

constitute a violation of pakistan sovereignty and our counterproductive. on this question, we have strong differences with the united states. the media spin masters have tended to portray a false divide between the institutions of pakistan. i would like to reject the notion. the political leadership is supportive. an all government approach. the statements issued by the foreign ministry on the death were authorized by the government. let me a firm but fair rents confidence in the high command of the pakistan armed forces

and the the center services intelligence. isi has the full support of the government. we have considerable accomplishment. let me put the situation in its proper perspective. our strategy is -- this require security and stability and the pursuit of this objective is the guiding spirit of engagement with the international asmunity's and -- as well regional. [unintelligible] we are on the road to giving this vision form. the region is undergoing a

fundamental transition. our friends have made strides in technological development that are a source of inspiration and strength for the people of pakistan. apprehensions are voiced about the relations with united states. let me dispel any anxiety. pakistan attaches high importance to its relations with the u.s. we have a strategic partnership which beneficially serves our interests. this is based on mutual respect and trust. pakistan and the u.s. have -- dissonance is about operational in tactical matters. it is not unusual to have an unusual point of view on

methodology to achieve shared objectives. we agree that whenever we find ourselves on conflicting paths, make efforts to reach common understanding by deeper and more intense exchange of views. .

>> there has been a change in relations with destiny interlinked. we must resume ownership and responsibility of realizing shared region of prosperity. with india we have embarked on engagement for people and people of south asia as a whole. we will pursue relations with india in a positive manner. i would like to review the following, number one, pakistan is confident of our future. two, our real strength is our

people, who are determined to work on all. three, we have an ongoing multitrack purpose of engagement with all major powers including united states. four, our engagement within the region is being intensified in the sense of stability and prosperity. five, out of terrorism is (inaudible). six, al-qaeda has declared war on pakistan. osama bin laden's elimination from the scene (inaudible). eight, blame game serves no purpose. ninth, investigation in the matter has been ordered.

which will be conducted by general of pakistan, lieutenant general. 10, our security policies are reviewed to enhance defense capabilities. 11, there are no differences among the state institution. 12, cooperation and counterterrorism warrants a partnership which fully accommodates pakistan's interest and respect for deadlines. 13, pakistan's relation with all state, especially immediate neighbors and major powers are in good shape. 14, safeguarding and promoting the national interest is the sole objective of the government's policies. 15, the parliament is right for us to discuss all important national issues. the will of the people shall

prevail. a joint session of the parliament has been called. >> coming up we will have a live discussion between the current chairman of the f.c.c., g genachows genachowski, and mr. imeno, coming up the speech of that to the broadcasters. and see what they believe today and the impact of that 1961 speech. >> for me when sony says we were protecting the consumers. again, the consumer may want to know, wait a minute. i am saying to the policy makers if they should know sooner. >> california representative marry bono mack on

communications on sony and other game makers. >> you are watching c-span bringing you politics and government affairs. every morning it's "washington journal" with the news of the day, weekdays watch live coverage of the u.s. house and week nights of policy forums, and supreme court information and on weekend you can see our programs. and you can watch our programming at any time at c-span.org, washington your way, a service created by america's cable companies. >> at today's white house spokes

briefing, jay spoke and will meet with the senator caucus on thursday, about the deficit and long-term budget deal. and the president plans to meet on the house on topics in the coming weeks, this is about 55 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, this week the president will meet on the senate republican caucus and the democratic caucus, about the need to adopt a balanced approach in terms of the long-term deficit challenges. the president plans to meet at the house caucuses for similar discussions in the next two

weeks. on that -- i don't have anything on that. ben. >> a couple of topics, will we keep hearing about this good cooperative relationship with pakistan and the fall-out about bin laden. and to my knowledge they are not making available that of the three wives taken in custody after the raid. do you know when they plan to do that and if the white house is willing to accept? >> ben, the united states and the white house have an important complicated relationship. the cooperation we have had with pakistan is important and more terrorists have been killed on pakistani soil because of that cooperation than anywhere in the world. and that's perspectiimportant td

we have differences and they are aired. but fact of the matter that relationship is important and the cooperation continues to be important for the united states to pursue al-qaeda and other terrorists as the war continues after the death of osama bin laden. we are in conversations with the pakistani government about the matter you raised. osama bin laden's wives and other materials that may have been obtained by them after the team left. and will continue those conversations. we believe it's very important to maintain a cooperative relationship with pakistan. >> do you believe that cooperation will be about the wives? >> we remain confident that we

will have cooperation with the pakistani government. i don't have an announcement about what that will produce but believe it will continue. >> does the president believe the pakistani leaders if they will do a full investigation and who may be harboring? >> we said that we feel it's important that the pakistanis do a full investigation. and we are doing a full investigation in examining some material that our operators collected in bin laden's compound for the network of support that allowed o -- osama to live in abbottabad for so

long. but obviously this was an ongoing process. it's important to remember that how complex this relationship is and despite the differences, it remains an important and vital relationship for the united states. because of our national security interest. and that's why we continue to make the effort to cooperate with pakistan. because it's in our interest to do so. >> when they offer those assurances that's part of the investigation? >> we believe that they will investigate and we are investigating ourselves. and this is part of a cooperative relationship that we need to have and will have and despite the differences in the past. and will continue to have in the future. >> can you give us a sense whether the president will make a point that are new?

he gave the big policy speech to the american university, is this a new speech or reiteration? >> i think there is new elements to it. i encourage you to listen and watch as i do americans everywhere. it will reflect his continued commitment to comprehensive reform. we weren't able to achieve in the first part of the president's term. but it remains that of the president, he takes on hard things and that includes bip bipartisan things. and there was bipartisan reform in the past, and at the highest parts in the past. so the capacity of bipartisan support for this immigration reform exists. it existed in the past, and we

think that we can build for it in the future. and the president's speech tomorrow will to continue support. and i think he will take steps on the border security, the fact that the number of agents is doubled that of 2004. we continue to patrol the board and control unmanned vehicles from texas to california. and we seize shipments for drugs and money going south. so we are seeing results. and he will also talk about, if i may, the economic reform. it is simply foolish as a matter of policy, when we think about global competition. economic competition that we face in the 21st century. to educate some of the smartest,

most creative, entrepreneurial young people from around the world. from our universities, the finest in the world. and not let them stay to start businesses, to launch start-ups, to create jobs in america. mayor bloomberg brought up this fact that large numbers of immigrants for jobs. we need those jobs, we need those good, high-paying 21st century jobs. yes, sir. >> back to pakistan and the address to parliament today seems more focused on his government and the idea of sovereignty and not getting to the bottom of whether this government is consistent in sheltering bin laden.

how will these communications damage relations that are strained. and the further mission it will take and is the u.s. taking that seriously? >> we obviously take statements and concerns of the pakistani government seriously. but we also do not apologize for the actions this president took. he said dating back to the campaign, if there was an opportunity to bring osama bin laden to justice and he's on pakistani soil. and this is the only way to do it, unlaterally, he would take that chance. and it was beyond a doubt in his mind that he had the right and imperity to do that. and having said that, and back to ben, our relationship with pakistan remains very important to us. and the need for operation remains important. and we will work with government

leaders in pakistan to work through the differences and continue the operations that we had in the past. that lead to successes in the fight against terrorism. >> and meeting with the china delegation, will he bring up u.s. concerns? >> i think i saw that the vice president and secretary of state brought up our concerns about human rights. we have always done that in our context with our broad relationship with china. i can't see into the future in terms of what the president will say. but it certainly likely he will bring that up and the need of overall dialogue. and one reason why this group was formed, to maintain high level contacts on a regular basis to. look at the bilateral issues we have between us. and to make progress on that. and i think that speaks to the

rebalancing in our foreign policy that president obama sought in office that the national security advisor has over seen. and our entire team has been focused on. and the chinese relations are important and that's what this dialogue is about. jake. >> does the pakistani government not allow access to bin laden's wives for questioning or other material in the raid, will be there consequences? >> i don't want to anticipate something we hope not to happen. we will work with the pakistanis. we are obviously interested in getting access to the three wives you mentioned as well as the material that the pakistanis collected after u.s. forces left. but we will have those conversations. and we hope and expect to make progress. i don't want to anticipate

something and speak hypothetical now, because we think that the relationship is important. cooperation is important. we have had differences in the past. and we think we can overcome them now. >> is it clear they have yet to agree u.s. access? >> as far as i know. but the point is that there are constant and regular communications between high-level officials in both governments, and appropriate counterparts about our need for cooperation. about the concerns back from each side. and that's the kind of interchange you want. it's the best way to work through differences. it's the best way to further cooperation. and since we are having that kind of dialogue regularly. and this week included. we anticipate that we will continue the cooperation. >> in terms of immigration reform. i know that the president has had a number of closed door

meetings with a number of stakeholders, ranging from governor schwarzenegger to eva longoria, and given the vote challenge you have in terms of getting something through the senate and house. why aren't there individuals at these meetings with whom the president disagrees? >> the important part of meeting with stakeholders on necessity. maybe not on every detail of that package. but they also represent a broad cross section of america. republicans, democrats, businessmen and women and mgo's, across the board. and what i think that says, in building what a president needs to do in many cases is build public support. and one thing he does is try to raise profile as an issue.

communicate to the american people and members of congress why it's imperative. and what the positives are. especially in this case the economic imperative as well as the border security imperative. to try to build a case. the president using the unique abilities can build this support he is talking about. and to meet with stakeholders is a way to rally reform allowing them to speak on behalf of that goal and generate some support and pressure on congress to take action. >> i guess the question, wouldn't it be better, if you take that approach and not go directly to the john kyles or john mccains of the world, and trying to go over to the people that influence them. >> i think you do, this is a process. where you have meetings with

stakeholders and maybe meetings with legislators that may be crafting legislation. that we hope to get that to point, which we hope we will. one does not preclude the other. this is an important part of the campaign to build support for comprehensive reform. that we have to do, to have the momentum behind it to get congress' attention. we in washington and congress and the white house are dealing with a lot of big issues. and a competition of attention. and to give immigration the attention it deserved, the need for immigration reform. the president gets out there and meets with stakeholders and others as this moves forward. >> can you explain to many what

is happening in their home country, and the lack of urgency of this administration when it comes to this issue. his plan of what we have done as a country that had any impact whatsoever on the behavior of the government there? >> well, here's the point i will make. you can take actions that have impact on behavior, and the behavior may not change instantly. and i understand as we all witnessed the historic transformation and upheaval in the region. as these unpredicted events have taken place. there has been a desire for what is the end point. what is the closure, why aren't we doing something to make this turn out well. and the fact is we are doing a lot of things in the case of syria. we strongly condemn the violence that the syria government is using against peaceful protesters.

as you know in addition to the existing sanctions against the syria government. instituted targeted sanctions to the government. and we worked on the allies to put pressure on the syria government to cease and exist. and we put that on today, the isolation that syria feels we hope will affect their behavior. we have made it clear that the syria crack down will not resore stability and not stop the demand for change. the action they are taking is counterproductive to the goals they seek. if they seek stability, they are producing instability. when these protesters are there, when they want as they have in many countries. they demand to be heard, to demand their rights and for a government to listen to them.

and stability comes when governments do that. when they engage in dialogue with the opposition. when they produce the kind of of political form in this case that the syria leadership has promised but not delivered. we believe and we have called for this to happen. we believe that the syria government needs to act on its words and promises. and stability will come from that. >> (inaudible). >> let me move through the row, dan. >> back on pakistan. can the u.s. maintain any kind of relationship with pakistan. as it comes out based on the computers and other equipment in the compound. if it comes out there is clear evidence that they were helping bin laden. >> that's hypothetical and we are investigating the support network that existed for osama

to live in abbottabad's compound as long as he did. our cooperation has been highly productive in the past. even when it hasn't been the result of every agreement on the issue. and it's important for americans to know and it's important that americans know about bin laden and found in the duration he's there. these are completely legitimate questions to ask and we are asking them as well. but need to understand that this relationship that complicated as it is has produced results of american stability. and while we not did inform pakistan and they were not aware. the assistance they provided

over the last couple of years helped in that mission. and that's important to recognize as well. >> this is a relationship that the u.s. will never walk away from? >> i didn't say that but too important to walk away without careful consideration. that's probably too loose language. the point is that the relationship is important and has been cooperative in the past in ways that has been beneficial for the united states and the american security. and we look forward to continuing the relationship because it's international security to do so. >> and you said after bin laden was killed and nothing changed in terms of the timeline to draw the truth. in a few more days of -- >> what i said earlier. >> yeah, has anything changed and administration review the strategies and policies? >> no, the administration is in

of course the process of reviewing the situation on the ground in afghanistan. and the progress we made since the surge reached its full complement. and the president will look at the recommendations from his military commanders for the beginning of that transition in july. and the pace of the draw-down. what has not changed at all is the fact there will be the beginning of that transition. there will be a beginning of a draw-down of those troops. and what also hasn't changed is the president's decision to refocus the u.s. government's attention on the af-pak region and that has produced results

for american security. obviously culminating more recently in the elimination of osama bin laden. and prior to that, through that refocus have been able to put greater pressure on al-qaeda than ever before. reducing the ranks of its leadership and forcing, and putting on the squeeze on al-qaeda that hadn't been done in a long time. and making them weaker. and remember what the president's strategy was announced in december '09 was disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-qaeda. and remember we had an interlude for a long time between the invasion of afghanistan and the arrival of this president in

office. where the principle focus and administration was on iraq and not afghanistan and not on al-qaeda central. and the shift was important in producing not just the elimination of osama bin laden but a lot other clear victories in that fight. >> the beginning of the drawdown, you didn't attach a date. >> july 11, correct. >> the president in his interview said we don't know someone inside of the government who knew about the pakistani government. and i want to make clear that no one in the leadership knew was he in any way (inaudible). >> no, not at all, mr. donald said not aware of anyone knowing the presence of bin laden in

that compound, and what we are doing with this information is exploiting for a lot of purposes. number one, looking at it in terms of potential threat and also for the support network for bin laden. and i have no updates on what the president or national security advisor said. >> following up on pakistan leader's speech to retaliate with full force of (inaudible) action. and number one, does the administration object to that language. and number two, does that refer to drone straights. >> what i will say that the relationship is important and we have cooperation to get and hope

to get from the pakistanis going forward in our fight against al-qaeda and terrorism in the region. and obviously the victims of the terrorism that is the focus of this fight are not just americans alone. there are many pakistanis. many have suffered the loss of life because of the terrorisms in their midsts. so this a fight for both countrys and we look cooperation in the future. >> it sounds like a threat. >> obviously pakistan is a sovereign nation. and we understand their concerns. we have made clear given the threat that osama bin laden represented to the united states. given he was the most wanted man in the world. a mass murderer. a terrorists that continued to

plot against the united states and our allies. that the president would use whatever means necessary to ensure we could eliminate him. and he did that. and it's important to remember too, the mission he undertook, the risky decision to employ the raid, assured the minimal amount of collateral damage and civilian casualties. and that's important to note, as we have in the afghanistan/pakistan effort, to reduce this damage, this was an important aspect of the president's decision. >> one more question, a picture those marching, the white house staffers in that picture, are they the only ones who knew?

>> without specifics, there were others who knew but it was a tight group. most of the senior staff didn't know. i won't get into a game of who knew or didn't. because operational security is so important. in this day and age, the kind of technology we have and how hard it is to keep something like that secret. it is really a remarkable testament to the fact that those individuals who knew. in the white house and defense department and cia and other agencies. understood how vital operational security was. and there were no leaks. and this is important, leaks of information and we are frustrated by it. but this would have consequences that would be terrible. any leak would mean that osama

bin laden would be on the run again and at-large for a long time. so the secrecy was vital. >> (inaudible) dealing with bin laden. would you hope to use that as you address other issues? and what other issues? >> our agenda, the president's agenda has not changed at all. in the last eight days. this was on his agenda. very high up. getting osama bin laden. but there are a lot of other issues. one thing i think i mentioned early on last week was how amazed i was on the fact that the monday after osama bin laden was eliminated. we had a meeting i was in that was policy focused on a nonnational security issue for 90 minutes with the president. and bin laden was never

mentioned. less than 24 hours after the event. and to me that indicates how the velocity of events here, the number of high-priority and serious issues on the president's agenda and the things he wants to get done. it hasn't changed at all. we got the vice president doing, working on the talks with congress to lead to debt reduction and immigration reform. we are doing a host of other issues, focusing on the economy and job creation. and he's not taking his foot off the pedal on any of those issues. >> and you wouldn't expect bin laden to have an impact on those things? >> i leave that for you and political analysts to judge about whatever impact it might have. what i know he's just continuing

to go about the business that he was engaged in before the bin laden operation. and we obviously -- we obviously think if there is a takeaway from it. it's resolve he has. the focus he brings to bear on long-term objectives. that he keeps to get it done. and i think that was reflected in his approach to dealing with osama bin laden. the fact that years had passed and in the effort to find him and to bring him to justice. and he made clear when he came into office, that he wanted to look again at the intelligence. reinvigorate the effort. not assume that he could never be found. but to the contrary that he

could be found. and that focus is what he brings to bear on the priorities he sets. >> last month it was brought that the u.s. would not share sensitive missile technology with the russian government, what is his position on this? >> i don't have anything for anything for you on that, if you want touch base afterwards. >> is there new concern that pak-10 couldn't find bin laden on their borders and (inaudible)? >> we take the issue of proliferation seriously and the focus of security and proliferation and feel that's an

important issue. i don't see a link there, and i haven't heard a link made internally of security and bin laden's presence in pakistan. we are investigating this and understand that the pakistani government is investigating and continue with our collaborative information. >> is it better to find out implicit or (inaudible)? >> i think it's better to find out what constituted the network and then assess that and move forward. >> immigration, when it comes to deficit with the president doing two bipartisan meetings this week and vice president doing other things. we see a pattern and when the president is serious about

getting legislation passed, he's all about these meetings. and when it's legislation -- >> chuck, i don't know if you were in my office asking this. but i am sure in three or four five weeks ago, i had a number of reporters talk about -- >> (inaudible). >> hold on a second, that the president is not serious about reform and not grab the tail of that tiger, it's too hard. but you know what? he is serious and he's addressing it and the same is true for immigration. the most valuable commodity that exists in the west wing is the president's time. as you know. every here knows. and just look at how much time he's dedicating to immigration reform. and that should tell you how seriously he is approaching this issue. unfortunately the world we live in and the president like you

guys, we can't do just one issue this month. wouldn't that be great. he's got to do fiscal reform and immigration and continue the fight on terrorism and immigration remains a high priority. >> the president's time it seems like this is just looking and talking to supporters. and just looking to figure out a way if people agree with his position. i understand that. but on legislation, and two people that may be standing in the way. >> we already know from the first two years, the last congress, there was political opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. including some places where there used to be political support. we are endeavoring to change that dynamic by rallying for the

need of immigration reform. and it doesn't preclude, and there is a time for the lawmakers you mentioned. but just sitting in a room with lawmakers won't get you closer to that legislation than it did in the past. this is again, the president would not be dedicating this amount of time to it if he didn't believe it was a high priority. and having covered this place through two administrations, this is the point of the realm. you can judge how seriously the white house is taking an issue by how much the president is focusing on it. end of argument. >> do you feel it's a ballot box decision? >> i don't know. robert said he would leave me a crystal ball but i haven't found it yet. it's important to get it done.

>> the republicans are standing in the way of this now saying that the administration needs to do more to secure the border. the administration has done several things to secure the border. but do you feel these demands from the senators are reasonable? and can be met? or do you dismiss them? >> no, i appreciate acknowledging as you did that we have done many substantial things in terms of border security. i could go through the list but they occurred in this briefing. and we take border security seriously, comprehensing includes security. as a major component. and that's part of the reform he's looking to achieve. but it's not security alone. you need the comprehensive nature requires that you take in all the elements. and see the benefits of

immigration reform, which includes some of the economic things i mentioned before. bill gates, the united states will find it more difficult to maintain its competitive edge if it excludes those who are willing to compete. >> is sounds like that legislation should include security. >> the point we have taken has included security as part of it. we don't want to break it apart, because we believe that it needs to be move comprehensively. >> but their point that you need to move on border security first. >> back when some leading republican lawmakers supported immigration reform. this is what has done since then on border security, doubling the number of agents on the border

and deploying unmanned vehicles that protect the border from texas to california. and the fence is now complete. these are substantial actions that were taken since broader support for immigration reform. we have acted on border security alone and we feel it should be a part of comprehensive package. and we believe we have to move forward in total. i think we need to all work together and focus on the imperative. and get the job done that the american people want us to get done. this is the classic case of not being able to do with one party and have to do it in a bipartisan way. and it includes focus and persistence and we are providing those things. >> you said that you have done enough to border security.

>> i said that we need to continue to work on border security and it should be comprehensive. >> you said in the trip tomorrow and the trips that the president had were aim said at generating pressure. >> i am not a crystal ball reader --- yeah, i used to do that a lot. the great thing you could go on tv and predict something and no one held you accountable, it was awesome. >> in this year what are the prospects of any legislation? >> i don't have a percentage for you, but it's important and the president feels it's important. and the sooner it gets done is for the security reasons we discussed. and that's why he's focusing on it. what were the odds that we would

get the tax cut deal we got. what were the odds that we get the kind of deficit reduction in the c.r. debate. what were the odds to get the kind of agreement we hoped to get out of negotiations lead by the vice president. we are congenital optimists here, and we think we have reason to believe that our optimist is merited. mara. >> the president said in a couple of immigration appearances that he's refocusing the decriminalization policy against criminals? >> i don't have the data for you, i don't know the data. >> (inaudible) groups. >> i understand that, speaking broadly, because i don't have the data in front of me. i think that's the case.

but i would encourage you to talk to the hsi about the figures. >> ok, and in terms of tomorrow's meeting with the dealing of negotiations. now that it seems like the parameters have narrowed a bit on what they are talking about. can you give us an update on what is expected to come out of the meeting tomorrow? >> i don't, any more than i would have predicted, you know, a celebration of comprehensive agreement out of one meeting. i am not going to predict that would happen out of the second meeting. but what we did see was progress. we did see i think a recognition by both or all sides that, that the issues here are important. you know if you step back and look, how do you get hard things done when you have opposing

sides. a major step is agreeing on the problem. you can't solve the problem if you don't agree with the problem. we agree there is a problem, and then step back what is the target to solve the problem and the goals. and we have that, 4 trillion dollars over 10-12 years. what are the elements that contribute to the deficit problem? and we largely recognize those elements. and what we have said, what the president said and others have said. the reason why it hasn't been resolved in so long, because it's hard. and it takes time. and it may be the case that all of these issues do not get resolved in these negotiations. but a number of them can. if we find common ground on those issues where we agree, we can achieve significant further deficit reduction. a good thing. and then if there are other

issues that remain unresolved we will deal with them in the environment that is conducive in dealing with them. but we remain optistic that significant progress can be made from the talks. >> but i am asking that reform is not on the table now, is that a helpful thing? >> i have seen reports about what some republican leaders have said about their specific proposal for ending medicare as we know it or reforming medicare in a way that would end medicare. certainly end the guarantee. we recognize that one of the major dpriefr -- drivers is entitlement spending. that's through his broad fiscal

reform plan has addressed a need for reductions in entitlement spending. we have a different approach because we believe you have to maintain for the seniors. what remains on and off the table is something for them to decide. what we want to see as much successful reduction as we can. where we can find common ground in a way to protect the seniors and the investments and the economic growth we have seen coming out of the recession. and protect the job growth that we have seen since friday with the decent job growth numbers, those are the parameters we bringing to the table. >> pakistan to leak the name? >> i have no comment on that. >> that's the second time in six

months that happened (inaudible). >> i have no reaction or comment. >> do you have any reason to doubt that i put it out? >> again, jackie, i don't have anything to say about that. >> does the president intend to make sure that the reward money for osama bin laden is given to someone that helped find him? >> let me step back, as far as i am aware that no one knowledgeably said that osama bin laden is here at abbottabad at 5703 river avenue. not that the requirement through intelligence gathering to information that lead to that. >> last october the president went into a roosevelt room with

pakistani delegation there. and he said i will go to pakistan in 2011, is that still his intention? >> we don't have a trip for the president and don't have one now, i have no scheduling about the trip. >> has this change said or ruined his expectation? >> i have no knowledge about that. >> and tomorrow air force 1 will carry the president over a dangerously swollen mississippi river. i haven't heard briefings about the president and that destruction? >> he has been regularly updated on these terrible floods. and our thoughts are with all the families and communities and first-responders affected by the flooding of the ohio and mississippi and those threatening the property. as you know fema has worked with

those on the flood, and fema through the regional offices, atlanta, denton, texas and kansas city, and all those areas impacted by flooding. on may 6, just a few days ago, president obama declared emergency measures for louisiana to avert a disaster. when we flew in and out of fort campbell, we could see the flooding in the field and it's obviously of some great concern to to us. let me move around the room.

>> have you heard about the release of the videos of bin laden and is there an image of himself that we created and suggest he wasn't this great leader or revolutionary? >> the point of releasing them was to prevent the release of videos in the future that would allow, give al-qaeda propaganda achievement, that we got these at the compound where bin laden was living. and that we know now what he was up to. and that's why. in all cases. and beyond that in terms of the specific video you are referencing. i think the overall reason is what i just described. april. >> i want to go back to passenger rail here in the

country. since 9/11, you haven't seen passenger rails and protection there, what is the conversation that the nation is having with passenger rail. as we have seen passenger rail attacked in london and those details? >> for details, i encourage you to check with the h & s and we take this seriously. and the first bit that the public got about the intelligence gathered in bin laden's compound was for them to put out the information about the rail in 2010. no significant threat but enough a concern to put out that alert. and we continue to work in ways seen and unseen to ensure that

rail travel remains safe for americans. and we are hyper vigilant and more so in the wake of this mission and for the potential of revenge attacks and things like that. >> why has the administration gone since passenger rail since 2011 and no stepped up security. >> i think there is stepped up security. anyone who travels by rail knows since 2001. and there are measures seen everyday to improve our transportation security by rail as well as by air. i don't have anything more specific than that for you, but we are obviously very vigilant about this issue. >> and also what about the

congressional black caucus after meeting (inaudible). what is that meeting about? >> i don't have any specifics for you, i am sure they will talk about the agenda going forward, the president has and the ideas that the members have. but i don't have any specific information on that. >> is the government bulldozing shiite muslems and why no comment? >> i don't have information on the action you described and we have governments in the region to engage in political dialogue with political opposition. and peaceful political dialogue, that's the key to long-term

stability. it's the way to address the concerns and aspirations of the people in their countries. and we would urge that again. but i don't have a specific reaction. >> you are not equating to bulldozing the mosque to that action? >> no, i am saying that we are about peaceful dialogue and reconciliation with opposition groups to ensure that the governments are mor are more re and the people's grievances are heard.

>> on the question about the do-not-ride list for amtrak, and i have a second question. >> i haven't heard that. i don't have a take on it. >> secondly, there is obviously discussion of an executive order, will we see about action, the rumors that (inaudible). >> i don't have a timetable for action for you. i remind you this is a draft we discussed. and drafts tend to change. more broadly, this goes back to the president's belief that in terms of campaign finance, disclosure is very important. and it's the best way for the american people to know who is funding political campaigns. >> (inaudible) someone has to do something. >> all i have said is there is a

draft. i don't have any announcements to make about any timing for further action on that. hey. >> prime minister (inaudible) would indicate that the pakistani government feels their reputation is being dispersed and no understanding of that, and do you have an understanding of that? >> we completely understand pakistani concerns and we understand the uniqueness of the operation like this. but made no apologies that osama bin laden needed to be brought to justice. and this is no surprise for those who followed the president's issues, and said in

the campaign and took heat for it. he said that if he had intelligence on where bin laden was in pakistan, he would bring him to justice. i understand the concerns. and as i said earlier, in regular and constant communication with pakistani leaders in the government at various . .

>> we continue and to look to cooperate in the future. the >> i wanted to ask you [inaudible] >> i have been to a few brave in

my day. i do not have a thing specific other than this was the conclusion of the second world war and it was an important achievement for both countries and all the allies. >> the overall course of tracking down and of eliminating was [inaudible] >> i have no idea about that estimate, but most americans feel it was worth every penny. >> introductions are starting of the national press club on the future of telecommunications with the current chairman of the federal communications commission and the former

chairman. >> we are very pleased to be the partner tonight in this outstanding program. i would like to thank the chairman for taking part, and for his daughter, one of the most loyal users of our research facilities and our workspace, for all you have done to make this possible, and i would like to acknowledge the presence of the sisters, and this is the first and three sisters have been together to celebrate mother's gain since 1970. he has been doing an outstanding john -- job on behalf of journalistic excellence.

mike. [applause] >> good evening. our global media institute, which is affiliated with our george washington school of media and public affairs explorers the evolving role of media in our society. what better way to engage in that mission then with tonight's program, which began to take form exactly 50 years ago. 1961, what a year. john f. kennedy was sworn in as president and delivered an address highlighted thiokol for service.

-- highlighted by a call for service. on may 5, shepard becomes the first american in space. on august 4, 1961, the 18-year- old gives birth to her first child and names him barack obama. a pulitzer prize is awarded to her early for "to kill a mockingbird -- to harker early -- harper lee for "to kill a mockingbird." for many of us, that play and the title song stirred memories of a magical time in america, a time when the torch is passed to a new generation, when idealism became a reality. was that wonderful play closes,

king arthur nights a young boy and tells him to pass on the story of camelot to future generations. these were president kennedy's favorite lines and the play. do not let it be forgotten once there was a spot that was known as camelot. we have the rare opportunity to welcome one of the knights of the round table and to pass on to future generations a bright moment in the media, on moment occurred 50 years ago, when the young chairman of the federal communications commission spoke about the potential of television. tonight the torch is symbolically path to the chairman and to all of us lucky

enough to be in this room as well as to those listening on computers and mobile devices. this is going to be a night to remember. it is my pleasure to introduce the moderator of the evening, the former vice president and washington bureau chief of cnn, now a professor and director of media affairs at george washington university, my friend and colleague, frank sesno. [applause] >> thank you very much. i am so looking forward to this conversation, because it is what we teach and research and preach about every day at george washington university with our students who are going to be planning and conducting their careers so they are here 50

years from now. that is the thought. what is the public interest? how are we serving people? how are reconnecting down with the world and people around it, -- how are reconnecting with a world region in -- how are we connecting with the world and the people around it, what are our smart phones doing to our attention span, to the way we connect with one another, to the revolutions that take place across the world? what is the great responsibility of the government and those who organized it in making this information to make sense and be responsible? it is my pleasure to introduce someone who will introduce someone. i introduce a man with a great deal of influence and a 24-7 digital headache, the chairman

of the fcc, but first, a word from our sponsor -- sec. the federal communications commission was established by the communications act of 1924. its job is to regulate all non- federal use of the radiuo spectrum, which includes broadcasting and all state communications. do i have that about right? as well as communication that originated or terminate in the united states. this touches on every aspect of our communications life triggered the next time you see someone coming -- communications and whites. the next time you see someone glued to their ipad watching, tell it to the fcc and to its

chairman, julius ganachowski. [applause] >> thank you, an thank you to our host, the national pro scope -- now the national press corps of library -- and the national press club library. thank you all for coming. we have many distinguished guests, none so more than this wonderful family. they are such a vital resources they are usually not allowed in the same place of the same time, but we have made an exception. new's incredible wife is here, and we are joined by his brilliant and dynamic daughters. the leading expert in library law, a leader in corporate

governance, and martha, the dean of harvard law school, my professor, mentor, and friend. the daughters are like the charlie's angels of u.s. jurisprudence, and i hope i am not struck by lightning for describing the minnows. and now the truth is i am sure he would say that raising his three daughters is his greatest accomplishment. this is a special day, and i am truly pleased to introduce him on this historic occasion. he set a standard of excellence that inspires and guides us a half century later. he was 34 in 1961 when president kennedy appointed him as the 14th chairman, the youngest in agency history. there have been 27 total f.c.c.

shares common -- shares, none more successful. he shifted and improved the communications landscape now in so many ways, upbringing and reception to all tvs and -- screening reception to all tvs, and he inspired or provoked so much of the great television that a merger in the years and now from "sesame street -- but a merged -- that emerged. he also paved the way on satellites. a true story. i am going to tell this one. newt once told president kennedy

that putting communications satellites in space was more important than putting a man on the moon. gartner satellites and allow a ideas to be sent to space, and ideas -- satellite allow ideas to be sent to space, and ideas last longer than men. he enlisted to fight in world war ii when he was 17. his mother pleaded for him to wait until he was drafted. newt replied, what will i tell my grandchildren? he had a particular knack for spotting talent. he introduced a future president and a future first lady. that was one of his many accomplishments. he helped grow public

broadcasting into a service that exemplifies tv's potential. he helped get the original funding for sesame street. as chairman of debates, he is recognized as the father of those debates, halpin and -- helping keep those alive until today. i welcome the ambassador from singapore. for all the amazing things he has done, he still cannot escape the speech, and there is no need to, because his speech on may 9, 1969 was as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. -- 1961 was as relevant today as it was 60 years ago. despite the way we exchange

information, the principles and values in the famous speech and to our -- endure. keep in mind that was a time of tremendous change. he was propelled into office and -- kennedy was propelled into office with the power of a new technology. alan shepard became the first american in space. into the scenes that a 35-year- old fcc chairman, and the speech was his first public speech as chairman. the speech became one of the most important speeches in the history of communications with that memorable description of tv as a vast wasteland. the speech resonated notch because of the catchy phrase, but because he articulated what a lot of people were thinking and offered a promise of a

better future. his challenge to broadcasters to do better and the vision of harnessing the power of technology inspired people who across the nation. you do not have to take my word for it. we dug into our archives to get a sense of what people thought about his speech when he delivered it. we learned that more than 4000 people wrote to the chairman in the months following the speech with the overwhelming majority right thing to say the speech was refreshingly -- right thing to say the speech was refreshing -- writing to say the speech was refreshing and gave them hope. an executive wrote, i have not felt so encouraged about our

country since the days when fdr was making speeches. a woman from new jersey wrote, where have you been all these years? together with the national archives, we have created a compilation of these letters, and after my remarks, i would like to present a gift from the fcc on this notable occasions. no question the speech was of a big deal, but we do not celebrate speech today because it got a lot of attention in a day. -- in its day. we celebrate because of the enduring message. it was not just a speech about a point in time it was a speech for all time. it was not just a speech about a particular communications technology. it was a speech about all communications technology. the speech recognizes the power

of communications technology. he spoke about the technological knowledge that makes it possible to not only destroy our world but to destroy poverty of around the world. the speech explicitly imagines a future were broadcasting and communications technology were tied together in indiana, india, chicago, and a condo. cnn had not been invented, but you can see the broadcast providing connections and education and around the world. you can see that in new services like twitter cannot face a vote, and -- which are, facebook, -- twitter, facebook, and others.

what he said applies to all those involved in today's communications technologies. you must serve the people and the cause of freedom. you must help a great nation fulfill its future. i see a great connection with the article in which he wrote common the next 50 years will see the marriage of computers and technology and the internet, but we need to merge our feelings about the values we want to merge with the system and the public policies to support them. it bears repeating. we need to harness technology for the benefit of all people to

advance the cause of freedom to help our future fulfil an -- and to help our nation fulfil its future. we need to provide opportunity to grow our economy, improve education, health care, public safety, and strengthen our democracy. what better agenda could there be for the fcc today, and who better to r q -- articulate it and then newton minnow -- than newt minnow. if i can refer to one more letter -- good luck, godspeed, and go get them. please welcome newt minow to the stage. [applause]

>> thank you. i remember in one letter said, what time does the vast ?asteland gola on [laughter] i am very touched by what you said. our country is blessed by having you at that job, and much tougher job than i had, because now you have so many new things with internet

explosion, but i know no job that has a more intimate connection every day, every hour, with every person in america -- whether you are making a phone call, listening to the radio, watching television, whether you are accessing your computer to the internet -- whatever. it is the fcc that is dealing to protect the public interest. nothing is very important, and we have an important appointment. i thought i would tell you what happened the day before i gave the speech. may 8, 1961, not long after the disappointment at the bay of the yanks -- bay of pigs, alan

shepard had been sent into space. we were behind the russians. there was great pressure to do something, and we succeeded. president kennedy had invited me to meet him that morning to accompany him when he gave a speech of the national association of broadcasters. i was waiting outside the oval office. the president came out. he said, what about taking the shepherds with us? i am going to take him to congress, but we -- suppose we took them to the convention. i said, that would be wonderful. he came back out and said, it is all arrange. he said, i want to change my shirt. he took me up stairs to the living quarters of the white house, proceeded to change his

shirt, and i was very intimidated, and he said, what do you think i should say to the broadcasters? i mumbled, kind of scared, and i said, you ought to compare the way we do shovels and the way the russians do it. the russians do it in secret. you never know if it was a success or failure. we invite radio and television to cover it, not knowing what will happen, but we want the press there. we want everyone to share in that experience. the president did not say that was good or bad. he finished changing his shirt. check this point i was introduced to the shepherds, and vice president johnson was in office, and we want to the car,

and i said, i had better get in the second car. the president says, come on. he says, you take one of the jump seats. we were driving through rock creek park to go what was then the work munhall hotel -- was the hotel that is now the sheraton. this had been such a success, so he slept lyndon -- slapped clinton in the back, and he said, you're the chairman of the -- slapped lyndon in the back, and he said, you are the chairman, and nobody knows it, but if you were a failure, i would make sure everyone knows

it. i got a laugh. i should have shut up, but i turned to the president and said, if the space shot had been a failure, the vice president and would have been the next astronauts. [laughter] the vice president did not think that was very funny. we got to the hotel. the president walked up to the podium and gave a very graceful, thoughtful, charming caught -- talk about the difference of the way we handle space shots from the russians. it was a perfect talk, and the audience was extremely pleased by it, gave him a standing ovation. the next day, i returned to give

my speech. i can only say the broadcasters and wished i had changed my shirt. when his speech ended, i was standing at the podium. the men came up and said, i did not like your speech very much. five minutes later, he said, i think that was a pretty lousy speech. the third time, he said, that is probably the worst speech i ever heard in my life. gov. collins said, do not pay attention to him.

he just repeats everything he hears. [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we are just getting warmed up. what we are going to do is talk a little bit about the speech, , thempact it hasn' connections to today, but take us back to the 35-year-old guy and that day, and why? what was surprising that you would stand up and give this well-received not -- what was so pressing that he would stand up and give this will dash received speech? >> the context is forgotten.

there have been serious scandals in radio with a rollout, serious scandals in television, serious -- radio with payola, serious scandals in television, serious scandals like when eisenhower had been forced to fire the fcc chairman, so the place was regarded very poorly, and i also felt we needed to impress on broadcasters that is great if -- gift, this precious gift to use an exclusive license given with no charge, that in exchange, we had to insist public-service be provided as well. i thought that needed to be made loud and clear, and that is why i did it.

>> loud and clear it was and is, so you were not scared to -- you were there to have them serve the public interest. i have a clip. i would like to close your eyes and imagine you were there 50 years ago, and these were a power source to be reckoned with. they had this exploding technology, this incredible reach, and this 35-year-old chairman of the fcc get up and says this. >> when television is good, nothing is better, but when television is bad, nothing is worse. i imagine each of you to sit

down in front of your television set when the station goes on air and sit there without a vote or anything to distract your. -- a book or anything to distract you. i can ensure you what you will observe is a vast wasteland. >> you were going to say in your first draft of vast wasteland of -- >> junk. >> why the fed it? >> -- the edit? >> it seem to be an improvement, and i paid very little attention. our general counsel kept telling us to take those words out. i felt there was a little class.

the words i wanted to remember were not vast wastelands. >> was the vast wasteland sound bite -- were those the words that got away from the event? >> the press likes to focus on something controversial. >> whatever gives you that idea? >> if there is controversy, the press will love it, and they saw it as a controversial thing, and that led to a debate. >> would you do a similar thing today? >> the world has changed.

i would not say they have been staying out, and i think what newt minow did was an inspiration for us greater than -- an inspiration for us. it is our job to shift the public debate, make sure our policies are the right one. in many ways what he did was the single most successful use, may be in the country. >> here is something you said. let me quote the speech. he said, you will see a procession of game shows, comedy is about unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, murder, a western bad men, private eyes, and gamesters, more violence, and

cartoons, and endless commercials reaching many screaming, cajoling, and offending. what has changed? >> one of the things i tried to do and failed was to enforce the limit on commercials to reagan region and enforce the limit on commercials. the broadcasters -- was to enforce the limit on commercials. i tried to get as much of the broadcasters -- if you want to enforce it, we will take that. it is yours. i could not get that through, and i regretted it. it seems to me other countries have sharp limits on the amount

of commercial superior -- commercials. in england, commercials are never allowed to interrupt the continuity of the program. we should have done the same thing in this country. >> what you think about television today? >> i happen to be a television junkie. i am watching television all the time. >> what do you watch? >> i am a big fan of cnn. i am a news junkie. at the time i gave the speech, network news was 15 minutes. it was not even on seven days a week. what i wanted to do was to expand the choice for the viewer. we did that by opening up uhf television.

my wife's theorist friend from high school and college was the "the new york times" correspondent who was forced as a woman to stand in about today, because women were designated in the balcony. >> we have more when then and 10 men in our journalism program -- more women than men in our journalism program. >> everything has changed today, and what i like about today is that if you are a sports junkie, and you have got plenty of sports. you have channels for sports career if you are an old movie junkie, you have got channels for old movies. you have news programs. no matter what your interests these, today you can find a

channel to deal with it. >> you do not think it is a vast wasteland? >> what i like about today is the range of choice. what julie is has to do is much tougher -- julius has to do is much tougher, and that is what you do with the internet? kids are spending more time with the computer then the television. >> kids are watching internet and -- television over the internet, not even aware they are watching a major network. >> the world is a change, but the core issues are the same. i was reading the speech, and it was interesting the way you spoke about broadcast tv in 1961, having gone from being born to the teenage years, ms. behaving like a teenager, and

you spoke in the speech about now all of the good of the technology can bring and what we have to worry about. that has been true with every advance since. first cable and satellite tv. now the phones. it is an extraordinary opportunity to brin benefits to the public, education, improving health care, providing a library of information for people across the country and across the world. it is also dangerous. you mentioned distracted and driving, real issues with kids, and what inspires me when i think prior to 1961 -- when i think back to 1961 was to focus on communications technology and

also to be realistic about the down sides and the dangers and to do everything possible to steer the country to maximize opportunities of also addressing dangerous. your >> but me ask you this. edward r. murrow lost his job over a speech he gave, and he talked about the great power television should have, the great power to teach. it can eliminate. it can even inspire, but witkin and not only to isn't to the extent not -- but it can only do so to the extent people will let it. it is only wires in a box. he said this weapon of television could be useful. did the speech influence you in

your speech and your thoughts? >> tonight i gave the speech, edward r. murrow called me at home. he was head of the united states information agency, appointed by president kennedy. he called me at home, and he said, you stole my speech, and i said, what do you mean. a said, don't you remember speech i gave two years ago? i have to confess i was ignorant. i did not know about his speech. he gave his speech at the annual convention in chicago. i then read the speech, and i said to myself, and i called him back and said, if i had known

about the speech, i would have quoted it. that last line would have been the end of the speech. edward r. murrow gave the speech in 1958, and as a result, destroyed his relationship with the press. >> what happened after you gave your speech? what was the reaction, and how did the world changed? >> there was an improvement in one area i was interested in, and that was programs for children. the other thing, there was not of region we called it educational television at that time -- there was not -- we called it educational television at that time.

there was not an educational station in new york or washington and for los angeles. i went to the fcc from chicago. president kennedy went to the white house from boston. it was astonishing to me that the major cities in our country did not have a station, so we succeeded in getting that done. i think that has been an important change. >> let me ask you, we are having our roaring debate about the role of public broadcasting in this country, about whether the taxpayers should fund it, about whether taxpayers are too biased or two liberal -- or too

liberal. what is your position on that today? >> my position is very clear. this should never be a partisan issue. the people who supported public broadcasting in the beginning where republican. i have to tell you a story about senator goldwater. dean burch was an active republican. he was chairman of senator goldwater's campaign in 1974. he was chairman of the national committee. he and i served on a bipartisan commission together. when president nixon was elected, been called may -- dean called me and said, i need some

advice. i think i made a mistake. he said, president nixon asked me to be chairman of the fcc, and i said no. i said, why? he said, i have a successful law practice. the kids are in school. that is more important. i said, you are making a terrible error. this is an extraordinary opportunity. call him back and tell him immediately you will do it. he took the job. and a few months he called me and said, ok, you talked me into this. i need some ideas. you can stop by and see me. we were in new york for the meeting. of woman presented what became "sesame street." i was knocked out by a.

-- it. i described her and he said, does the name gams mean anything to you. >> i said, yes, that must be her maiden name. the he said, i asked her to marry me when we went to the university of arizona together. where is she? i said, i have got money from the foundation, but i do not have enough to take it national, and the secretary turned me down. dean said, i think i can help

you with that, because goldwater has got budget. he took her to see senator goldwater, and goldwater said, are you from arizona? she said, yes. he said, are you related to harry? she said, that is my uncle. he said, harry gave me my first contribution when i ran for office. >> it is just amazing how much washington has changed. >> they said, we have got your money. that is how "sesame street" went national. now that is senator goldwater. why are the republicans today -- public broadcasting should been

[unintelligible] >> there are those who say precisely because there are so many channels, there is more need for public funding and public broadcasting. others say, no way. you have got national geographic, bloomberg, a cartoon channel. you do not need it. make the case for where you think public broadcasting the longs today. >> when commercial broadcasting does a series like the civil war, when they do a series of lakes "sesame street -- a series white "sesame street," and i will listen, but before that happens, i do not think it is a bad idea. [applause]

>> the re-imagination of educational content in programming for where kids are, for the audience is today, and there is a lot of interesting work to think about on the mobile device. what is the content? what is the programming that will educate, motivate kids on that? "sesame street" workshop is doing really good work. if they were not doing it, who else would be to rid if? >> you join newt minow and saying there should be expanded funding for broadcast? >> i travel around the country, and local communities around the country -- know what you hear from people in the community on

a bipartisan basis is that this is adding value puree gun -- this is adding value. >> why do we have public libraries? we have got bookstores. why do we have public parks, we have got country closubs. i do not understand the argument. every other country has a broadcasting system. >> in terms of getting that through, many would say this is not some place america should be spending. >> public broadcasting began in england before american broadcasting. -- before commercial

broadcasting. public broadcasting began in japan before commercial broadcasting. public broadcasting began in europe before commercial broadcasting. we did it as an afterthought. we did not think about it in the beginning. when you think about it, the word television did not appear in the statute until years after television began. and very no big debate little attention paid to it. >> you said at the authority lies the power to license, the power to renew or to revoke the license. how much of that power did you use as fcc chairman? >> we use it in the most -- the most interesting story was a station in jackson, mississippi,

which eleanor roosevelt called and said, why haven't you atwered smith's complaint the fcc? i said, i am sorry. i do not know about it. she said, reverend smith is a black minister in jackson, mississippi, running in the democratic primary for congress, and he cannot get on television. he goes to the television station with a check to buy time, and they said, come back next week, and they said, come back next week and next week, and the election is next week. i checked with the fcc, and sure enough, there are the letters from reverend smith from a man named aaron henry, and he was telling the story.

in those days we send telegrams. this was before e-mail. explain to me why this was in the public interest to have no time for candidates, and they said, the incumbent, williams, is not buying any time, and therefore, we are treating them equally. i said, this is an outrage. i called the station. the lawyer came to see me that afternoon. i said, what are you going to do about it? they said, we will take care of it. i said, he will be on tomorrow. he lost the election, but it was the first time a black man had been on television as a candidate. i let the fcc, and the station persisted in that kind of stuff,

and finally, the fcc took away the licenses. i had forgotten all this time that the democratic convention -- i waste 1990's invited to a breakfast with the mississippi delegation, and the men came up to me and said, are you the one who was chairman of the fcc? i said, i am terribly sorry, but i do not know who you are. he said, you do not remember the letters i was sending you when i was reverend smith campaign manager in mississippi? i said, i am sorry. he said, i am the one who called mrs. roosevelt's. i said, what you do now? he said, you do not know. i am the chairman of the

station. [applause] the black group challenged the license, and the fcc took a licensed away from the people who had it and give it to the black group. they have got it today. >> that is an amazing and a great story, and i want to ask the current share -- chair, the you have that kind of power? did you have the power to regulate the internet, which seems like a fairyland to many parents. >> -- a scary land to many parents. >> let me say something about the internet. the internet is a different set of issues.

it is not a scarce asset being divided among a small group of people were licensed are being distributed for free in exchange for a commitment. it is a vast -- issues are different. i believe the most important issues on the internet are keeping it free and open for speakers, innovators, and that is something we have focused on and made real progress. i want to say something about the spectrum. the world has come to recognize the incredible value of the scarce resources. people remember the speech for

broadcasting and what he did around broadcasting, but in some ways, the legacy around satellite and spurring other uses of the spectrum, we experience every day in our mobile phones, internet access, ipads. we have a set of challenges around making sure this public resources being used in a way that maximizes public entrusts -- interest and making sure the spectrum for wireless broadband is available. that is another issue we are

spending considerable time on today but is often critical importance. -- that is of critical importance. it is ironic in some respects. what he did in creating more choice was visionary. over time, as cable technology hit the market, the landscape has changed. one thing that gets less attention is he was one of the first to say, we need to use other technologies to expand the choice. we are only watching over the air broadcast television. my kids do not know the difference between broadcast and cable. for most people, the tv is through cable -- not over the air.

you end up with a situation like we had in new york where there are 26 full-power television stations, some providing incredible service, local news, local information, but it is a small fraction that are doing it common -- doing it, and we need to find a way to reallocate two areas where we are seeing incredible demand. >> do we need a fairness doctrine? >> julius has a more complicated job then i have. broadcasting went through the air. today most people are making their telephone calls through and most are receiving

television through wire. it is a total switch, and with that comes terribly complex problems. the biggest issue is to keep the internet open so everyone has access. that is what is really important and what is working. >> i want to follow this. if you were at the fcc today and you were asked to give this great visionary speech today, clearly you would talk about the internet. what would your horn in -- your warning be? >> it is an interesting thing for government to be involved in for government to be involved in