think you see that now because they're trying to do things -- they are trying to give fannie mae and freddie mac to do things that the one not now that the urgency has gone away -- in 2009, they said we have to act boldly -- that urgency has gone away so it has become much harder for them to impose their will on what they want to have happen in the housing sector. >> he said nationwide rising home prices is the ultimate goal. at what year do we get there? >> i think you are seeing the beginning of a bottom and a handful of hard-hit sectors. once prices hit a bottom, they will probably not rise for a year or two because we will continue to have foreclosures. even if home prices bottom this year, we're not talking about

annual year-over-year appreciation until 2019. >> you said congress needs to act. what do they need congress to do? >> the administration is hoping that congress will take the idea proposed by the president during the state of the union to have millions of homeowners who are currently paying mortgages on time refinance and ticket bondage of historically low rent -- lending rates. we think that is very slim. the administration is trying to force the regulators to have companies write down mortgages. we will see it as a practical solution. >> what happens from there?

does he have a plant b? >> the secretary did not want to prejudge a whatdemarco would say. it is wait and see right now. >> the $25 billion mortgage settlement, what does that do for consumers? >> the fact that the settlement was talked about for so long in public and the press, i think that fed into the hopes that it could not possibly do $25 billion. when you talk about $700 billion of mortgages under water, it is a drop in the bucket. it is a cure all. we will not see a plan that will help of the margins but i don't think it is a game changer. >> thank you both for being part

of "newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> if you missed any of " newsmakers," 29 this afternoon at 6:00 eastern for the interview with hud secretary sean donovan or watch at any time on a c-span.org line a. >> here's a look at what is coming up -- president obama and republican presidential candidate mitt romney deliver remarks at the news editors annual conference and that i look at potential privacy from a f domestdrones, and later, and that -- a discussion about the muslim brotherhood and domestic politics. >> to night, the u.s. senate youth program -- >> one of the greatest experiences this week was when i got to meet my two senators.

>> some leaders like leon panetta talked about how important is to be financially sound. if we are not, devoting money to national defense will not be worth it because we will not having money to devote to it. >> high school students from all 50 states participated in a week-long the government and leadership program in the nation's capital and reported their conversations as they interacted with members of congress, the supreme court and the president. >> there's a lot of partisanship going on in congress and i am the one reaching across the aisle. everybody we have met here from congress has said that. it makes me wonder if everybody is saying that. it is not actually happening. is there a discrepancy between what they are saying and what they are actually doing? that is why i came here. >> this is tonight at 8:00 eastern on cspan's ". in day" >> president obama spoke at the

american society of news editors' convention tuesday. he focused his remarks on the federal budget. he criticized house does pass republican plan as radical and a trojan horse disguised as a deficit reduction plan. the president also took aim at republican presidential front runner, mitt romney. right after the president, we will bring you mitt romney's remarks in just over one hour.

[applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. >> and democrats believe the agenda does not go far enough and most republicans believe that it goes way too far. while we thought the 2008 white house race was a rough-and- tumble, the 2012 race makes it look like bumper cars by comparison. our country has become even more polarized. the 1% and a 99% are at each other's throats. campaigns are now funded by secretive multi million dollar super packs. what is next? gig-pacs? the only thing anybody seems willing to compromise on -- i can't think of anything. [laughter]

really, would want this job in the first place? we're very honored today to have the man currently holding the office and aspiring for it for another term and with apologies to al green, my new favorite singer ladies and gentleman, the president of united states of america. [applause] [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you very much. please have a seat. good afternoon and thank you to dean singleton and the board of the associated press to inviting me here today. it's a pleasure to speak to all of you and to have a microphone i can see. [laughter]

feel free to transmit any of this to vladimir if you see him. [laughter] clearly, we are already in the beginning months of another long, lively election year. there will be gaffes and minor controversies, there will be hot microphones and etch-a- sketch moments. you will cover every word we say and we will complained vociferously about the unflattering words you write, unless you are writing about the other guy, in which case, good job. [laughter] but there are also big, fundamental issues at stake right now. issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate and serious coverage among every

reporter. whoever he may be, the next president will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered. from the worst economic calamity since the great depression. to many americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills for their mortgage. to many citizens will lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession it. - hit. a debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, to massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis will have to be paid down. in the face of all these challenges, we will have to answer a central question as a nation -- what, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of

security to people were willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well while a growing number struggle to get by? or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same rules? this is not just another run- of-the-mill political debate. i have said it is the defining issue of our times and i believe it. it's why i ran in 2008 and it's what my presidency has been about and it's why i'm running again. i believe this is a make or break moment for the middle class and i can't remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear.

keep in mind, i've never been somebody who believes government can or should try to solve a problem. some of the know my first job in chicago was working with a group of catholic churches that often did more good for people in their communities than any government program could. in those same communities, i saw no education policy, no matter how well crafted, can take the place of the parents love and attention. eliminatedt, i've dozens of programs that were not working, announced over 500 regulatory reforms that will save businesses and taxpayers billions, and put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since dwight eisenhower held this office. since before i was born.

i know the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not washington, which is why i have cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years. i believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. my mother and grandparents to raise the value personal responsibility. i also share the belief of our first republican president, abraham lincoln. a belief that true government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. that belief is the reason this country has been able to build a strong military to keep us safe, and public schools to educate our children.

that belief is why we have been able to lay down roads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. that belief is why we have been able to support the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs in new industries. that belief is also why we have sought to insure every citizen can count on some basic measure of security. we do this because we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, anyone of us, at any moment, might face hard times, might face bad luck, might face a crippling illness or lay off. so we contribute to programs like medicare and social security which guarantee health care and a source of income after a lifetime of hard work. we provide unemployment

insurance which protects us against unexpected job loss, and facilitate the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic. we provide for medicaid, which make sure millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need. for generations, nearly all of these investments from transportation to education to retirement programs had been supported by people in both parties. as much as we might associate the gi bill with franklin roosevelt or medicare with lyndon johnson, it was a republican, lincoln, who launched the trans continental railroad, the national academy of science, the land grant college. it was eisenhower who launched the interstate highway system and new investment in scientific research.

it was richard nixon who created the environment protection agency. ronald reagan worked with democrats to save social security. it was george w. bush who added prescription drug coverage to medicare. what leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments are not part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another. they are expressions of the fact that we are one nation. these investments benefit us all. and they contribute to genuine, durable economic growth. show me a business leader who would not profit if more americans could afford to get the skills and education that today's jobs require. ask any company where they would rather locate and hire workers, a country with

crumbling roads and bridges or one committed to high-speed internet and high-speed railroad and high-tech research and development? it doesn't make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly, sick, or those who are actively looking for work. what makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services are businesses sell. when entrepreneurs don't have the financial securities to take a chance and starting a business. what drags down our entire economy is when there is an ever widening chasm between the ultra rich and everybody else. in this country, broadbased prosperity has never trickled down from the success of the wealthy few. it has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. that is how generation who went

to college on the gi bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economies world as ever known. that is why a ceo like henry ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. that's why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run. yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. they keep telling us that if we convert more of our investment in education, research and health care into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, our economy will grow stronger.

they keep telling us if we strip away more regulations and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, somehow we will all be better off. we are told that when the wealthy become even wealthier and corporations are allowed to maximize profits by whatever means necessary, it's good for america and their success will translate into more jobs and prosperity for everyone else. that is the theory. the problem for advocates of this theory is that we have tried their approach on a massive scale. the results of their experiments are there for all to see. at the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest americans received a huge tax cut in 2001

and another huge tax cut in 2003. we were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. they did not. the wealthy got wealthier, we would expect that. the income of the top 1% has grown by more than 275% over the last few decades to an average of $1.3 million a year. but prosperity sure did not trickle down. instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. the typical american family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6% even as the economy was growing. there was a time when insurance companies and financial lenders did not have to abide by strong enough regulations and found

ways around them. what was the result? profits for these companies soared, but so did people's health insurance premiums, patients were repeatedly denied care, often when they needed it most, families were enticed and sometimes just plain tricked into buying homes they could not afford, huge, reckless bets were made with other people's money on the line and our entire financial system was nearly destroyed. we tried this theory out. you would think after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, the proponents of this theory might show some humility. might moderate their views a bit. you would think they would say,

you know what? maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or mortgage lenders. maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off and giving the wealthiest americans another round of big tax cuts. maybe when we know that most of today's middle-class jobs require more than a high-school degree, we should not get education or lay off thousands of teachers or raise interest rates on college loans or take away people's financial aid. but that's exactly the opposite of what they have done. instead of moderating their views even slightly, the republicans running congress right now have double down. they have proposed a budget so

far to the right it makes the contract for america look like the new deal. in fact, that renowned liberal, newt gingrich, first called the original version of the budget radical. he said it would contribute to right wing social engineering. this is coming from newt gingrich. this is not a budget supported by some small group in the republican party. this is now the party's governing platform. this is what they are running on. one of my potential opponents, governor romney, has said he hopes a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency. he says he's very supportive of this new budget and he even called it marvelous.

which is a word you don't often hear when it comes to describing the budget. [laughter] it's a word you don't often hear generally. [laughter] here is what this marvelous budget does. back in the summer, i came to an agreement with republicans in congress to cut roughly one trillion dollars in annual spending. some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste, others were about programs we support but cannot afford given our deficits and our debt. part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction. this new house republican budget, however, breaks are

bipartisan agreement and proposes a massive new cuts in annual domestic spending. exactly the area where we have already cut the most. i want to go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly. bear with me, i want to go through this because i don't think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget. the year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financially cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. there would be 1600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like alzheimer's, cancer and aids. there would be 4000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students and

teachers. investments in clean energy technologies helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth. if this budget becomes law and cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the headstart program. 2 million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. there would be 4500 fewer federal grants at the department of justice and the fbi to combat by the crime, financial crime, and helped secure our borders. hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. we would not have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food we eat.

cut to the faa would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air- traffic control services and parts of the country. over time, our weather forecasts would become less factor because we would not be able to afford to launch new satellites. that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane. that's just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. you can anticipate that republicans may say that we will avoid some of these cuts since they don't specify exactly the cuts they would make. but they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. this is math.

if they want to make smaller cuts to medical research, they have to cut even deeper to things like teaching and law enforcement. the converse is true as well. they want to protect child education, it would mean further reducing financial aid to people who are trying to afford college. perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall, but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments we need to help our economy grow. this is not conjecture. i am not exaggerating. these are facts. these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next. if this budget became law, by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things

i just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95%. let me repeat that. those categories that is mentioned, we would have to cut by 95%. as a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever is left in entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the national debt, period. money for these programs that have traditionally been supported by bipartisan basis would be basically eliminated. the same is true for other priorities like transportation, homeland's security, and veterans' benefits for men and women who risk their lives for this country. this is not an exaggeration. check it out for yourself.

this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care. we're told medicaid would simply be handed over to the states. that is the pitch. let's get out of the central bureaucracy, the states can experiment, there will be able to run the programs a lot better. but here is the deal the states would be getting. they would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to medicaid that has ever been proposed. a cut that according to one non-partisan group would take away health care for about 19 million americans. 19 million. who are these americans? grandparentsone's who, without medicaid, will not be able to afford nursing home care without medicaid. many are children.

some are middle-class families with children with autism or down's syndrome. some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24- hour care. these are the people who count on medicaid. then there is medicare. because health care costs keep rising and the baby boom generation is retiring, medicare, we all know, is one of the biggest dryers are long term deficit. that is a challenge we have to meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall for seniors and taxpayers who share in the stakes. but here's the solution proposed by republicans in washington and embraced by most of their candidates for president. instead of being enrolled in medicare when they turn 65, seniors to retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second

cheapest health care plan in their area. if medicare is more expensive than at private plan, they will have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional medicare. if health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher, as, by the way, they have been doing for decades, that's too bad. seniors bear the risk. if the voucher is not enough to buy private plan with bit specific doctors and carry need, that's too bad. most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care or cheaper costs, the way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors, cherry picking, leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional medicare where they have access to a wide range of doctors and

guaranteed care, but that makes the traditional medicare program even more expensive and raises premiums even further. the net result is our country will end up spending more on health care and the only reason the government will save any money is because we have shifted it to seniors. they will bear more of the costs themselves. it is a bad idea. it will ultimately end medicare as we know it. the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts' because our deficit is so large. this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on. that argument might have a shred of credibility were not for the

proposal to also spent $4.60 trillion on tax rate. we are told it will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and limiting -- eliminating wasteful deduction. but republicans refuse to list a single tax loophole that are willing to close. not one. and by the way, there is no way to get even close to those savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle-class families. tax breaks for health care, retirement, tax breaks for home ownership. meanwhile, these would come on

top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 per year. let's step back for a second and look at $150,000 pays for. a year's worth of prescription drug coverage for senior citizen plus a new school computer lab plus a year of medical care for returning veterans plus a medical research grant for chronic disease plus a year's salary for a firefighter or police officer plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable plus a year's worth the financially. $150,000 would pay for all

these things combined. investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all this -- all of us. for $150,000, it would go to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. this budget says we would be better off as a country if that is how we spend it. this is post to be about paying down our deficit? -- this is supposed to be paying down our deficit? it is laughable. the bipartisan simpson decibels committee that i treated, which the republicans were for until i was for it, that was about paying down the deficit. i did not agree with all the details.

i proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion -- i am sorry, it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion more in defense cuts than i propose in my own budget. but it was a balanced effort between democrats and republicans to bring down the deficit. that is why, although it differs in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach. cuts in discretionary spending, in mandatory spending, and increased revenue. this congressional republican budget is something different altogether. it is a trojan horse. it is disguised as deficit reduction plans and is really an attempt to impose a radical

vision on our country. it is thinly veiled social darwinism. it is antithetical to our entire history as the land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who's willing to work for it. a place where prosperity does not trickled down from the top, but grows out for from the heart of the middle class. by getting the very things we need to grow an economy that is built to last. education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline. and everybody here should understand that because there are very few people here who have not benefited at some point from those investments that were made in the 1950's and the 1960's and the 1970's and the 1980's.

that is part of how we got ahead. and now we will be pulling up those letters for the next generation. in the months ahead, i will be fighting as hard as i know how for this to truer vision of what united states of america is all about. absolutely, we have to get serious about the deficit. that will require tough choices and sacrifice. i have already shown myself willing to make these tough terraces when i signed -- tough choices when i signed into law the biggest tax cuts in history. the overall spending next year will be lower than any year under ronald reagan. i am willing to make more of those difficult spending decisions in the months ahead.

but i have said before and i will say it again. there has to be some balance. all of us have to do our fair share. i have also put forward a detailed plan that will reform and strengthen medicare and medicaid. by the beginning of the next decade, it achieves the same amount of animal health savings as the plan proposed by simpson-bolles. it does so by making changes that people in my party have not always been comfortable with. but instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors like to the republican congressional plan proposes, it will go after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies, gets more efficiency of medicaid without gutting the program. it ask the wealthiest to pay a little bit more.

new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results. and it slows the cost american costs by strengthening an independent commission, one not made of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need. we also have a much different approach when it comes to tax. if we are serious about paying down our debt, we can afford to spend trillions more tax cuts for folks like me. for wealthy americans who do not need them and were not even asking for them and that the country cannot afford. at a time when the share of national income flowing to the

top 1% of the people in this country has climbed to levels blast scene in the 1920's, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. as both i and warm but have pointed out many times now, he is paying a lower tax rate and his secretary. that is not fair. it is not right. and the choices really very simple. if you want to keep these tax breaks and deductions in place or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the republicans in congress propose, then one of two things will happen either these higher deficits or it means more sacrifice for the middle class. seniors will have to pay more for medicare. college students will lose

financially. working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest americans are doing less. i repeat what i said before. that is not class warfare. that is not class envy. that is math. if that is the choice of the members of congress want to make -- and we will make sure that every american knows about it -- in a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we call the buffet rule. it is a simple concept. if you make more than $1 million annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do. on the other hand, if you made under% $250,000, like 98% of american families do, then your taxes should not go up. that is the proposal. you will hear some people point

out that the buffet rule alone will not raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems. maybe not. but it is definitely a step in the right direction. and i intend to keep fighting for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening could i believe this is what the american people want. i believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. by the way, i believe it is the right thing to do. this larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year, by the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. during moments of great challenge and change like the ones we're living through now,

the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. that is a good thing. as a country that prizes both are individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have. no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as americans. we believe that come in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can just think about ourselves. we have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. we have to think about our

fellow citizens, with whom we share a community. we have to think about what is required to preserve the american dream for future generations. and this sense of responsibility to each other and our country, this is not a partisan feeling. this is not a democratic or republican idea. it is patriotism. if we keep that in mind and uphold our obligations to one another and to this larger enterprise that is america, then i have no doubt that we will continue on our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on earth. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you.

thank you, everyone. thank you. >> we appreciate you so much being with us today. i have some questions from the audience. the republicans have been sharply critical of you as well. americans want both sides to stop fighting and get the job done. >> i completely understand the american people's frustrations. the truth is that these are imminently solvable problems. another christine lagarde is here. the kind of challenges they face fiscal is a much more severe than anything we can confront if we make some sensible decisions. the american people's impulses are absolutely right.

these are solvable problems the people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. the challenge we have right now is that we have, on one side, a party that will book no compromise -- and this is not just my assertion. we had presidential candidates who stood on stage and were asked would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involves $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue

increases -- a 10-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue. not one of them raised their hands. think about that. ronald reagan, who was a recall is not accused of being a tax- and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that come when the deficit started to get out of control, for him to make a deal, he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. he did it multiple times. he could neither did through a republican primary today -- he could not get through a republican primary today. let's look at booles-simpson.

i proposed less revenue and slightly lower defense spending cuts. the republicans want to increase defense spending and taking in new revenue -- and take in no revenue. if you essentially eliminate discretionary spending, not just cut it, everything we think of as being pretty important, from education to basic science and research to transportation spending to national parks to do environment of protection, we would have to eliminate them.

i guess another way of thinking about this -- and this bears on your reporting -- i think there's oftentimes the impulse to suggest that, if the two parties are disagreeing, the near equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. and and equivalents is presented, which reinforces people's cynicism about washington in general. this is not one of those situations where there is an equivalence. i have some of the most liberal democrats in congress who are prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests and who said they were willing to do it. and we could not get a republican to stand up and say we will raise some revenue or to even suggest that we will not give more tax cuts to people who do not need it.

i think it is important to put the current debate in some historical context. it is not just true, by the way, of the budget. it is true of a lot of the debates that we are having here. cap and trade was originally proposed by conservatives and republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems. the first president to talk about cap and trade was george w. h. bush appeared now we have a party that essentially says we should not even be thinking about environmental protection. let's gut the epa. healthcare, which is in the news right now, there is the reason why there is a little bit of confusion.

in the republican primary about health care and the and did -- and the individual mandate. it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace and health care while still ensuring that everybody got coverage as opposed to a single-payer plan. suddenly, this is some socialist overreach. as all of your doing your reporting, it is important to remember that the positions i'm taking on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, it would have been considered squarely centrist positions. what has changed is the center

of the republican party. and that is certainly true with the budget. >> [inaudible] the need for a lower deficit and lower taxes. how do you respond to that? >> she is absolutely right. when i travel around the world to these international forums, i have said this before. the degree to which america is the one indispensable nation, the degree to which -- even as other countries are rising and

their economies are expanding, we're still looked to for leadership, for agenda-setting. not just because of our size and our military power, but because there is a sense that, unlike most superpowers in the past, we tried to set out a set of universal rules or a set of principles by which everybody can benefit. and that is true on the economic front as well. we continue to be the world's largest market, an important engine for economic growth. we cannot return to a time when, by simply borrowing and consuming, we end up driving global economic growth. i said this a few months after rose elected at the g-20 summit. -- after i was elected at the

g-20 summit. driving economic growth by taking imports from everyplace else, those days are over. we do have to take care of our deficits. i think christine has spoken before and i think most economists would argue as well that the challenge, when it comes to our deficit, is not short term discretionary spending, which is manageable. as i said before and i want to repeat, as a percentage of our gdp, our discretionary spending, all the things that the republicans are proposing to cut, is actually lower than it has been since dwight eisenhower. there has not been some massive expansion of social programs, programs to help the poor,

environmental programs, education programs. that is not our problem. our problem is that our revenue has dropped down to between 15% or 16%, far lower than it has been historically, far lower than it was under ronald reagan. at the same time, our health care costs have surged and demographics show that there's more and more pressure placed on financing our medicare and medicaid and social security programs. at a time when the recovery is still gaining steam and unemployment is still very high, the solution should be pretty apparent. even as we continue to make investments in growth today, for example, putting some of our construction workers back

to work rebuilding schools and roads and bridges or helping stage rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge -- or helping states rehire teachers at a time when schools are having a huge problem retaining quality teachers in the classroom, all of which would benefit our economy, we focus on a long-term plan to stabilize our revenues at irresponsible level and to deal with -- at a responsible level and to deal with our deficit in irresponsible way. and that is exactly what i -- in a responsible way. and that is exactly what i am proposing. during the clinton era, wealthy people were doing just fine and the economy was stronger than it had been.

and let's work on medicare and medicaid in a serious way, which is not just taking the cost of the books, of the federal books and pushing them on to individual seniors, but let's actually reduce health care costs. we spend more on health care with not as good outcomes as any other advanced developed nation on earth. that would seem to be a sensible proposal. the problem right now is not the technical means to solve it. the problem is our politics. that is part of what this election and what this debate will need to be about. are we as a country willing to get back to common sense, balanced, fair solutions that

encourage our long-term economic growth and stabilize our budget? it can be done. one last point want to make that i think is important because it goes to the growth issue -- if state and local government hiring were basically on par to what our current -- all part to past recoveries, the unemployment rate would probably be about a point lower than it is right now. if the construction industry were going through what we normally go through, that would be another point. part of the challenge we have right now in terms of growth has to do with the basic issues of huge cuts in state and local governments and the housing market still recovering from this massive bubble. those two things are huge

headwinds in terms of growth. if we put some of those construction workers back to work or we put some of those teachers back in the classroom, that could actually help create the kind of virtuous cycle that would bring in more revenues just because of economic growth, would benefit the private sector in significant ways, and that could help contribute to deficit reduction in the short term, even as we still have to do these important changes to our health care programs over the long term. >> president, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for the supreme court to overturn law passed by an elected congress. if the court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do or propose to do for the 30 million people who would not

have health care after that ruling? >> first of all, let me be very specific. we have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by congress on an economic issue like health care that i think most people would consider commerce. they'll like that has not been overturned -- a lot like that has not been overturned at least since locklear. that is pre 1930's. the point i was making is that the supreme court is the final say on on the constitution and

our laws and all of us have to respect it. but it is precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our congress. so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. as i said, i expect the supreme court to actually recognize that and abide by well established precedents out there appeared to have enormous

confidence that come in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the court will exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our supreme court has. as a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies. what i did emphasize yesterday is that there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember. it is not an abstract exercise. i get letters every day from people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it is not fully implemented. young people who are 24 or 25

who say, you know, i just got diagnosed with a tumor. first of all, i would not had it checked if i did not have health insurance. and i would not have had it treated if i were not on my parents' plan. thank you and thank congress for getting this done. i get letters from folks who have just lost their jobs. their cobra is running out. there in the middle of treatment for colon cancer or breast cancer and they are worried that, if there cobra runs out and they are sick, what will they be able to do if they cannot get health insurance? the point that was made very ably before the supreme court, but i think that most health care economists have acknowledged, it assures that

people will get coverage even when they have bad .... one way is the single-payer plan. everyone is in a single system like medicare. the other way is to set a system in which you do not have people who are healthy but do not bother to get health insurance and then we'll have to pay for them in the emergency room. that does not work good as a consequence, we have to make sure that those folks are taking their responsibility seriously, which is what the individual mandate does. i do not anticipate the court striking the stem. i think they take their responsibilities very seriously. i think what is more important is for all of us, democrats and republicans, to recognize that, in a country like ours, the wealthiest and most powerful

country on earth, we should not have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick. or and waiting until they do get sick and then go to the emergency room which involves all of us paying for them. >> you have been very generous with your time. we appreciate so much you being here. >> thank you so much, everybody. [applause] thank you.

>> republican presidential front runner mitt romney had an opportunity to speak at the annual conference wednesday. he responded to the president's remarks, saying they were full of distortions and inaccuracies. following the speech, he took questions. this is 40 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to this very special naa luncheon today. before we get started, i would like to give special thanks to fti consulting, a global business with specialized services in the newspaper and publishing sectors. their practices focused on thought leadership and digital strategy, and audience yield, combined with expertise in organizational design, advertising performance, news and content, and fulfillment operations. ken harding from fti is here today if anyone would like to discuss their services further. for anyone who was opened a newspaper or turn on a television in recent months, our speaker does not need much in terms of an introduction. he is in good shape from a recognition standpoint and he is happy today given the events of last night with a clean sweep of the three primaries and a

further widening of his delegate votes. however, his recognition is build some the on a career of accomplishment. as a businessman, he founded bain capital, a hugely successful investment firm that launched names like staples and sports authority. he is widely credited with savaging the salt lake city winter olympics. he volunteered skills to take over an organizing committee mired in debt and controversy, leading to one of the most successful u.s. olympics ever, even with the massive security issues just months after 9/11. after -- as governor of massachusetts, he raced the budget deficit, and acted -- he embraced the budget deficit, and acted education reform, and health care reform that the state level. after last night he holds a wider and stronger delegate lead in one of the toughest and

many say contentious political campaigns in recent memory. here to sara -- share thoughts on the campaign and the country it is my -- here to share some thoughts on the campaign and the country, it is my pleasure to welcome governor mitt romney. ♪ >> good morning. thank you, good morning. thank you to the newspaper association and your board for the invitation to speak to you today. over the last 10 months, i have come to know a great deal about a number of your journalists part of your organizations. we have air our dirty laundry

together, sometimes literally as well as figure to wait, we have david hour upon hour on the fine aroma of a campaign bus and shared birthdays and holidays more with each other than with our families. one of the reporters covering my campaign enjoy her birthday, and for bad birthday i got her a cake and sank her eighth birthday song. -- sank her a birthday song. she reciprocated by telling me and my birthday that i was old enough to qualify for medicare. the changes in your industry have been striking. back then i would look online to see how stories were developing, and only hours after a speech it was dissected on the internet. now, we go to twitter. it is instantaneous. in 2008, the coverage was about

what i might have said in a speech here today, it is about what brand jeans i'm wearing, or what i have for lunch. most people in my business are convinced it you are biased against all of us, identified with the famous quip from lbj that if he were to walk on water your headline would read all call the president cannot swim -- "the president cannot swim." [laughter] >> frankly, in some of the new media, i find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality-control. and i missed the days of two or more sources for a story when it least one source was actually named. how your industry is going to change, i could not predict.

i subscribe to the famous dictum for testing is very difficult, especially when it involves the future. i do know this. you will continue find ways to provide the american people with reliable information that is vital to our lives and to the nation, and i am confident that the press will remain free, but further, i salute this organization in your various institutions that make it up in your effort to make it not only free, but also responsible, accurate, relevant and integral to the functioning democracy. thank you for that work. now, given the number and scale of our nation's challenges, this november's election will have particular consequence. it will be a defining event. president obama and i have very different visions for america, both of what it means to be an american today, and what it will mean in the future.

the voters will expect each of us to put our respective views on the table. we will each make our case, buttressed by our life experience. the voters will hear the debates, there will be buffeted by advertising, and informed by your coverage, and hopefully after all of that they will have an understanding of the different directions we would take and the different choices we would make. of course, for that to happen, the candidates have to be candid about their views and their plans. in that regard, president obama's comments to president of the death a deeply troubling. -- president of reaching that should give -- president dmitry medvedev are deeply troubling. by flexibility he means that what the american public does not know will not hurt him. his intent is on hiding. uni will have to do the seeking. president obama exchange with

the russian president raises all sorts of serious questions. what exactly does president obama intend to do differently once is no longer accountable to the voters? what is flexibility with foreign leaders require less accountability to the american people, and on what other issues will he state his true position only after the election is over? instead of answering those vital questions, the president came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one was making, and criticize policies no one is proposing -- criticized policies no one is proposing. it distracts from his record. wilander stand the president does not want to run on his record, he cannot run from his record either. i have said many times before the president did not cause the economic crisis, but he did make it worse. he delayed the recovery, then he made it -- made it anemic.

when he took office, many americans turned to him to turn around the economy and lead us to full employment. he failed these americans. the first three rules of any turnaround our focus, focus, and focus, but instead of focusing on the economy, he delegated the stimulus to nancy pelosi and harry reid. the $780 billion stimulus included a grab bag of projects that languished in congress for good reason for years. it was less a jobs plan and more the mother of all earmarks. the administration pledged stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%, and it has been a mob every month since. the president's attention, -- of of every month since. the president's attention was elsewhere like to government control -- takeover of health care, and apologizing for america abroad. he handed out billions of

dollars to green energy companies including his friends at companies like solyndra, who are now bankrupt. the answer to the economic crisis was more spending, more debt, and larger government, and by the end of his term in office he will have added nearly as much public debt as all of the prior presidents combined. no president has ever run a trillion-dollar deficit. the new normal the president would have less embraced is trillion dollar deficits and 8% unemployment. through all of this, president obama has failed to pass a budget. in february, he put forward a proposal that included the largest tax increase in history and still left the national debt

spiraling out of control, and the house rejected it unanimously. of course, no fiscal challenge is greater than the one we faced with entitlements, as the president acknowledged three years ago, this is not a product which problem we can kick down the road for their -- problem we can kick down the road further. i would be happy to consider his plan, but he does not have one. 3.5 years later he is failed to even propose a serious plan to solve the entitlement process. instead, he is taking a series of steps that end medicare as we know it. is the only present to ever cut $500 million from medicare, and as a result more than half of doctors will say they will cut back on treating seniors. he is destroying medicare advantage, eliminating coverage millions of seniors depend on and reducing choice by two/thirds. to control medicare costs he has created an unelected,

unaccountable panel, what the power to prevent medicare from providing certain treatments, and the result will be fewer services available to patients. a couple months ago we saw a fascinating exchange on capitol hill that epitomized not only this administration's inaction on entitlements, but also its appalling lack of leadership. treasury secretary timothy geithner testified before congress, congressman paul ryan, who unlike the president has had the courage to offer serious solutions, he was pressing timothy geithner on the administration's failure to lead an entitlement reform, and timothy geithner responded, we are not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. what we do know is we do not like yours. take a moment. think about that. we do not a dissolution.

all we know is you -- we do not like yours. it all makes us long for the day when the president simply read from behind. now, in the weakest recovery since the great depression, the president has repeatedly called for tax increases on businesses. as a candidate obama, he decides that a lower corporate tax rate would be better. as president, he has added regulations at a staggering rate. as a candidate, he wants to find ways to reduce them. as president, he delayed the development of oil, coal, and natural gas. as candidate, he says he favors an energy policy to adopt an all-of-the-above approach. nancy pelosi said we would have to pass obama-care to find out what was in it. president obama has turned the buys into a campaign strategy.

he wants to reelect him, so we can find out what he will do. with the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for president obama as hide and seek campaign. he said he wants to transform america. i do not want to transform america. i want to restore the values of economic freedom, opportunity, and small government that made this nation the way it is. it is opportunity that has always driven america, and defined us as americans. my grandfather was in the construction business. he never really made it himself, but he convinced my dad that he could accomplish anything he wanted to. my dad did not have the chance to finish a college degree, and he was an apprentice as a carpenter, and based on that experience he turned around a car company, and later became the governor of the state of

michigan. my father made the most of the opportunities that came before him. by the time i came along, and i was the fourth of four brothers and sisters, i have the chance to get the education my father could not. i love cars, and i was tempted to stay in michigan and go into the car business, but i always wondered if success i might have was due to my dad, so when i got out of business school if i stayed in massachusetts and got a job with the best company that would hire me, and perhaps, more importantly, i was married and on the way to having five sons. over the next 25 years my business career had ups and downs, great successes, definite failures, but each step of the way i learned more and more about the power of the free enterprise system. now, i am not naive enough to believe that free enterprise is the solution to all of our

problems or to doubt that it is one of the greatest forces of good that the world has ever known. free enterprise has done more to lift people out of poverty, to help build a strong middle class, to help educate our kids, and to make our lives better than all of the government's programs put together. if we become one of those societies that attack success, the outcome is certain. there will be less success. that is not who we are. the promise of america has always been that if you worked hard, took some risks, there was the opportunity to build a better life for your family and for the next generation. i am offering a clear choice, and a clear path. unlike the president, i have a record that i am proud to run on. after my years in business, i use my experience there to help

save and olympics and turn around a state. when i became governor of massachusetts, the state budget was out of control, and the legislature was 85% democrat. we cut taxes 19 times and balance the budget every one of my four years. we in raced a shortfall and left office with a rainy day fund. i cast over 800 vetoes. if there was a program or an agency that needed cutting, we caught it. one television commentator said i did not go after the sacred cows, i went after the whole herd, and i cannot wait to get my hands on washington. unlike president obama, you do not have to wait until after the election to find out what i believe what my plans are. i have a pro-growth agenda that would get our economy back on track, and get americans back to work. this administration thinks our economy is struggling because

the stimulus was too small. the truth is we are struggling because our government has grown too big. as president, i will get the government out of the way and unleash the power of american enterprise and the innovation of the american people. seven months ago i presented a detailed plan for jobs and economic growth. it included 59 different proposals that would help strengthen the economy. i understand some people are a news that i have so many ideas, but i think the american people will prefer it to president obama's grand total of zero. i will cut marginal tax rates across the board for individuals and corporations, and limit deductions and exclusions. i will repeal burdensome regulations and prevent the bureaucracy from writing new ones. i will unleash domestic energy resources so we can get the energy we need at a price we can afford and keep those dollars in this country. instead of picking winners and

losers with taxpayer dollars, i will make sure every entrepreneur gets a fair shot and every business plays by the same rules. if i will create an environment where our businesses and workers will compete and win. i will welcome the best and brightest to our shores and ensure that we have labour and training policies that help american workers to be more competitive. instead of growing the federal government, i will shrink it. i will repeal obama-care, and cut programs we simply cannot afford, and i will send the state's programs they can implement at lower cost with better results. i have already proposed a plan that would strengthen medicare and social security for future generations, and on like president obama i have the courage to stand behind my plan and the leadership experience to ncacy -- enact them, without tax increases.

i will gradually raise the retirement age for social security and reduced the rate of benefit growth for higher- income seniors. i will introduce competition and choice to medicare while preserving medicare coverage as an option so future seniors can get higher quality at lower costs. this november we will face the defining decision. our choice will not be one of party or personality. this election will be about principle, freedom, and opportunity. i am offering a real choice in a new beginning. i am running for president because i had the experience and the vision to get us out of this mess. we know what barack obama's vision of america is. we all lived these last three years.

mine is very different. i see an america where we know the prospects for our children will be better than our own, where the pursuit of success unites us, where the values we pass on are greater than the debts we leave our children, where poverty is defeated by opportunity, not enabled by a government check. i see an american government that is humble, but never humbled, that leads, but is never let. we wage this campaign as republicans and democrats, but we share a destiny as americans. together, we must ensure that america's greatest days are yet ahead. thank you, and god bless this great land. [applause]

>> hello, ken. >> i'm ken paulsen. governor romney has graciously agreed to answer some questions. these are from all across the country. we had a special guest here yesterday who had some views. president obama said the republican party has gone so extreme that ronald reagan could not win a gop primary. i know they you took a look at the president's remarks. did you have a response? >> i think ronald reagan would win handily in a primary, and frankly, in all the primaries. i think our party is intent on

preserving the vitality and dynamism of the american spirit that i think is being deadened by a series of government programs that have been increasingly in evasive and have attacked economic freedom. i look at what the president said. there were so many things i found to be distortions and inaccuracies, and it is hard to give a full list, but let me try. he looked at the budget and said if we were to pass the paul ryan budget, look at the terrible things that what happened if we cut programs and a proportional basis, but of course you would not cut programs on a proportional basis. some programs would be eliminated all right, obama-care being first on the list, and this is about $100 billion a year. he went through a series of strong men, saying the republicans are interested in corporations being able to do whatever they want to do with pollution, employees, with impunity and without regard to

consequence. these things are strong men that have no relevance in reality. it is important for us to have discussions about the real issues that exist and how we would address them, and there are differences, but the idea of this rhetorical excess does not serve as terribly well in a process like this, and i hope in the future we can talk about the real issues, the real differences between us, the failures of the last three years -- the president the other day said that his has done a great -- has been a great presidency, in line with great presidents of the past, as he defined them. i do not think this has been a great presidency. as you like the pieces of legislation he has enacted, they did not get the economy to work again. the economy has gotten better, some will say, but the rate of recovery under this president has been the most tepid. i saw an article in "the wall

street journal" that said this is been the slowest economic recovery, including that of the great depression, following the great depression. so, this is has the records to be proud of. it is a record i think he will have a hard time defending, and it is a vision i have yet to hear laid out. how can you run for president and the president and not put forward a plan to make sure medicare and social as attorney are solvent? >> a gallup poll showed you leading president obama by one percentage point by -- among men, but trailing him by 18 points among women. why do you think you face this gender gap? >> i know our party has faced a gender gap traditional repair if the democratic party has done an effective job mischaracterizing our reviews. in the final analysis i will win by having the support of men

and women, in the battleground states and across the country. that will be by focusing on the issues that women and men care most about my wife has the occasion to campaign on her own and also with me, and she reports to meet regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy, and getting good jobs for their kids and for themselves. they are concerned about gasoline prices, the cost of getting to and from work, taking their kids to school, or to practice and so forth. that is what women care about in this country, and my vision is to get america working again. short-term and long-term. look, we are on a path to becoming more and more like europe, and europe does not work in europe. it sure is not going to work here. [applause] >> we are going to have to

maintain the unique features that make america the economic powerhouse that it has always bad, and a strong economy allows us to do a lot of good things. one, have good jobs, rising incomes, a growing middle class, and allows us to have revenue from taxpayers who now have jobs to pay for grade schools, a wonderful care for our seniors, a strong military to defend us, but at the heart of these things is a strong and vibrant economy. the president, almost without exception, if you look at the policy had at -- he has pursued and the acts that he has signed, they have made it harder for our economy to rebuild. do you know any businesses that said let's hire more people because obama-care is coming, or in the financial-services sector do you find smaller banks saying i am willing to give more loans because of dodd-frank, or when they heard about cap and trade the energy industry said let's grow in america, or when they heard about the boeing decision they said it is a good

time to hire people? in almost every measure the president has taken, it made it harder for small business to decide to grow, were big business to stay here. it has been an anti-business, anti-investment, anti-jobs agenda. that is not what the president and tended, but that is what it has done. it is time for golf -- for us to go back and say we want to make america strong again with the best environment for business in the world -- small business, big business, and job creators of all time. when the head of coca-cola says america's business environment is less friendly than that of china, we know we have a problem. i said the other night that my liberal friends say they love a strong economy, but they do not like business very much. the economy is simply the addition of all the businesses in america, and what we will

have to do is encourage enterprise, and, of course, encourage it with appropriate regulation, fair taxation, and without special breaks for friends of one party or another. that has to be done. making business thrived in america is one good way of getting people jobs and growing middle class. >> today you once again referred to president obama apologizing for america around the world. countryountry's -- truly errors, if our troops engage in something that is truly wrong, is there a time when a president should apologize? >> when mistakes happen, you acknowledged the mistakes, but this is different than the apology to the middle east, not talking about a mistake that was made, he was instead talking about america. he says that america has

dictated to other nations. he said that america has been divisive and arrested. look, america has not dictated. america has freed other nations from dictators. america's history is not only of having listed people out of tyranny through extraordinary -- listed people out of tyranny through extraordinary sacrifices of our sons and daughters, but also our principles of free enterprise, human rights, freedom and democracy, that have helped to lift millions out of poverty. america is the greatest nation in the history of the earth, so on the list, on the balance sheet, it is not appropriate for the president of the united states to apologize for america, america's history, and america's role in the world, but that is of course different than acknowledging mistakes. >> this might be a question of self-interest. four years ago senator john mccain struck it spoke to us and he pledged to support a

federal law -- spoke to us and pledged to support a federal law. >> i have not looked at that. i will give it consideration. i have an unusual background perhaps for politics, and i will describe a circumstance. we faced a decision about whether to extend a line of our subway system. it was an expensive decision, in my senior staff and a number of cabinet members, and have our legal department came in and said we of all met, gone to the pros and cons, and decided it was something we all endorse, and they expected me to say fine, go ahead. i said as anyone of you disagree with this, and they said no, and i said i cannot make a decision to go ahead with the project unless someone in the room vehemently opposes. with regards to something of

this nature, i would want to hear the pros and cons. i would like to hear the back- and-forth. >> i respect that, and i do wonder, then, early in your remarks you mentioned the good old days of multiple sources. she'll bonds are about giving reporters the rights. d.c. a role for confidential sources in america -- do you see a role for confidential sources in america? >> yes. can i ever imagine a time when a source would need to be revealed? i can imagine that, too. i know that sounds like a conflict, which is why i have to give this more thought to understand which side of that i would come down on. i would want to hear from people in the industry.

is there ever a time you would think a confidential source should be revealed? if the answer is no, i would like to understand why that is the case, and what the alternative is. >> we have time for just a couple more quick questions. you promised to use any means necessary to prevent iran from using a nuclear weapon. with you seek congressional authorization before a military attack? >> i will follow the constitution and determine what is the authorization to take any kind of military action. with regards to iran, and their nuclear program, this is not something which can be guaranteed to be solved through diplomacy. i certainly hope we can dissuade iran from their nuclear folly to crippling sanctions, which should have been put in place all long time ago, threw him in

guiding -- and died in -- indicting ahmadinejad, and to have support of dissidents are run the -- among the iranian people. the president was silent when they took to the streets following a stolen election, and i think we would have to decide we would take military action if necessary, and the degree of congressional involvement that would be in accordance with the law. >> one final question. you had a very good day yesterday. you have had your supporters, paul ryan, marco rubio among them, and they're called on republican opponents to get out of the race. have you asked them yourself? >> no, i have not. [laughter] >> now that you bring it up. [laughter] >> people are free to make their

own decision. they have each invested a major part of their lives into the campaign. i hope we are able to resolve or nomination process as soon as possible because i would like to focus time and attention on the key battleground states and raising the funds to be somewhat competitive with the president and his billion dollar request. we have a challenging road ahead of us, but i believe we will rise to the occasion. >> governor, thank you for sharing your time and your comments. >> thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

>> mike wallace, longtime correspondent, passed away last

night in connecticut. he was interviewed by his son, the host of fox news, at a community college celebrity forum in a massachusetts. they spoke about their careers in journalism, their relationship, and some of the issues of the day. we will show you that interview with mike wallace and his son at 3:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. he was born in massachusetts in 1918. he served in the u.s. navy during world war ii. he became one of the original correspondence 4 "60 minutes," bank launched the show. -- helping launch the show. he was 63. at 6:00 eastern, in our "newsmakers" interview this afternoon. he talks at the obama administration handling of the

market. and what is ahead for a fannie mae and freddie mac. "q&a."ght on c-span's >> with a grace experiences was when i got the opportunity to meet both of my senators. just being able to meet them and talk to them. >> some of leaders like a leon panetta talked about how important it is to be financially sound. if we're not financially sound, devoting money to national defense will not be worth it because we will not have any money to devote to it. >> high school students from all 50 states to participate in a leadership program shared their observations and experiences as they interact with members of congress, the supreme court, and the president. >> all of my confidence in the senators is that there's a lot of partisanship going on and i'm the one who is reaching across the aisle. everyone who has said that, it kind of makes me wonder if

everyone is saying that but it is not actually happening. there is a discrepancy between what they are saying and what they're doing. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span's "q&a." >> earlier this year, president obama signed into law an aviation bill that expands the use of an unarmed aircraft by the federal government. it would also allow the civilian use of drugs by 2015. last week the institution in washington organized a discussion about the potential privacy and safety concerns of domestic drones. this is an hour and a half. -- >> i guess so distorted.

this is a great turnout and i am delighted to see you. >> if you are here, you probably already realize we're on the verge of a kind of a revolution in this country. we have seen the revolution already to a great degree in military affairs, but in a provision of law that got little notice at the time that has been creeping up on people. congress has brought the revolution home. exactly how it will do that is not yet entirely clear. what will and will not be permitted under what circumstances is not yet entirely clear.

>> this is a big change. consider the rules that exist now. you can fly model aircraft of one sort or another provided that you do it for non- commercial purposes and provided you do it under 400 feet. you can use increasingly powerful technology, but you cannot get in the way of the big boys. what the military has shown abroad is that there is an enormous amount that you can do with this stuff if the regulatory latitude is there to do it. the most famous applications of this and all surveillance and targeting. that is not the only

application. i can give you an idea of how far this thing could go. i was talking to a journalist who spent a lot of time reporting on this. i was reflecting. shane spent time writing a paper and imagining where the technology was and how soon it was going to get there. he came to the conclusion that there was no good reason any more for their to be pilots in the domestic air flights that we take. he does not think that will persist for long. a major barrier to that. staging out is psychological, not technological. there was an amazing episode that happened.

i ran across it randomly recently. there was a grotesque animal cruelty issue going on in this facility. you can imagine a lot of malicious applications by individuals, by governments, by corporations. you can imagine revolutionary effect on people's day to day lives. the privacy concerns, the promise, the broad range of

potential facts are what we are here to talk about today. none of you is here to listen to me. i will keep my role to a minimum. i will introduce our discussants and then duck out and manage conversation slow. speaking first is john, a fellow at brookings. he is a professor of electrical engineering at the university of california in los angeles. he has written extensively about this set of issues across a broad range of the topics we will be discussing today. speaking next will be paul, the founder of red branch consulting.

he served in the policy shop of the last administration. next will be cast iran, who is a staff attorney with the -- catherine, who is a staff attorney with the aclu. the next guest has written about robot 6 in law, mostly in the -- robotics in law, mostly in the international context, including a paper he wrote for the brookings institute. i will turn it over to john. thank you for coming. >> your microphone is not on. >> can we get a microphone? >> i will focus my opening

comments on a particular class of unmans aircraft, fpv aircraft. they transmit real time to deal to an operator on the ground. the operator looks at the computer screen and sees the view as if they were sitting in the cockpit. when the aircraft is not visible to its operator, it is called nine-line of sight operation. the use of these aircraft in today's domestic aircraft raises significant challenges in the areas of safety, privacy, and national security. it raises well recognize concerns. if the communication between the pilot and aircraft sales, there are challenges in bringing the aircraft back to the ground without endangering other aircraft or people on the ground.

there was a recently enacted aviation bill. it will be important to be conservative when it comes to the rules. with respect to privacy, the aircraft can make it easier to spy. the person standing in the street in front of your house operating at unmanned aircraft over your house is more likely to get caught. a pilot can blocks away would be much harder to find. a person could fly a plane into a fenced in yard and take pictures of the interior of the house. this would be in violation of various aviation rules. despite those rules, if there are tens of thousands of systems out there and tens of thousands of people applying them, it will happen. it is important to put in the appropriate prohibitions and sanctions to address it. it would make no sense for a terrorist attack at a shopping

center using a drone. as we saw in 1995 in the oklahoma city, a truck filled with explosives would be easier and more deadly. drones can be harder to stop or detect in a -- than a truck. a report issued by the institute for defense analysis recognize these types of concerns. "a small team could launch a uav from hiding and make their escape before impact." "a precision guided uav has a high probability of successful execution."

i do not believe smaller unmanned aircraft pose a credible security threat. other platforms might. using today's technology, an fpv aircraft could be guided to a target well beyond the line of sight. the harder questions are, how big is the risk. of the many thousands of met this available to someone intent on committing an act of violence, there are areas of concern. are there measures that can be expected while minimizing it negative its impact on the use of drones. communications and other systems can thwart an attack.

these can be used to defend our military facilities overseas. i would expect that there are people in our government working on solutions. we are not going to be hearing a lot about the details of that work. we can recognize the dog you of these technologies -- recognize the value of these technologies. this concern has not been recognized enough. the best defense against drawn attacks at home is to make sure they do not happen in the first place. identify and respond to potential threats. insure that weapon 9 drones do not fall into the wrong hands. the challenges regarding privacy, safety, and -- insure that weaponized drones do not

fall into the wrong hands. some companies attending these events are developing amazing technologies. these innovations and the jobs they create now and in the future can help american competitiveness in the drug industry and more broadly. thank you. >> am i on. first, thanks for inviting me. it is a pleasure to come to brookings and i appreciate the opportunity. i will try to give you the bookend. where john has spoken of the threats that come from droned technology and the potential national security threats, i want to ask the question about the utility of drones, especially in the homeland security and law enforcement space, the crucial governmental use of those.

i want to fight the premise of the introduction. he said the introduction of drones is a revolution. i would say it is more of an evolution than a revolution. drones might be more pervasive, but not so terribly different and a host of area uses that law enforcement and border control and homeland security use every day. one thinks of helicopters as an example. in doing that, i want to sound a cautionary notes. differences in degree becalmed differences in kind. if history is any lesson, if policymakers pushed too rapidly in the use of drone technology

for governmental purposes, it will quickly you -- lose the support of the public and run the risk of killing the goose that laid the golden age, -- the golden age -- egg. why do i think drones are useful? think of the border. the southwest border is a 1,500 mile long desert punctuated in a few places by a large cosmopolitan populations. the crossing point. in between, there is nothing at all. that is why there was such a move in the last 5-10 years to think of ideas like sensors. it is impossible to imagine a

situation where one could patrol the 1,500 mile length of border with anything approaching uniformity. the sanctions have proven difficult to construct. there is a reason the department of homeland security is so intent on the purchase of new uav's for the southwest border. it gives a broader scope of the visibility and allows deployment of response forces. instead of having border patrol every 30 feet along the border, you can have people respond when an intrusion is observed. that is one of many potential positive uses that droned technology could be put to. when one thinks of whether or not that is different, i would submit it is unlikely in that

context to proved different from the existing law. there is a supreme court on the supreme court -- there is a case on the supreme court involving the use of a helicopter. the supreme court said you can double-said there is no constitutional limitation on the -- the supreme court said there is no constitutional limitation on the use of that technology. john's hypothetical of the uav that comes down and looks inside the house is interesting. i have never thought of it before. it would probably fall into another set of rules. people have a reasonable expectation of privacy for things happening inside the

house. having said that drones are useful and lawful, that is not to say we should rush headlong into their application. to see that clearly, i want to tell you a short story from the recent past involving something called the national applications office. something i doubt anyone in the room has heard of it because it came and went so quickly that it made barely a blip on the american national policies screen. it was an attempt to unify the use to which america put its national technology and means to work. that include satellites. we use those in the classified means for spying on russia or

china or wherever it is that the ngi wants to look. we also use them to follow the tracking of hurricanes and after hurricanes hit, to assess the damage, like new orleans after hurricane katrina. there is a gap between those two uses. satellites also pass over the border between the united states and mexico. one could readily imagine using those satellites as a mean of -- means of surveying the traffic across the border. the national application office was going to be a cross- government office and was going to unify these different means. it would assign resources based upon need and do a racking and

stacking of requests for use. in times of hurricane crises, we would use its four hurricanes. in times of tension, we would be focused on china. that was a totally sensible proposal to use the technology that had legal limitations. it crashed and burned because it was rolled out without any thought for the obvious privacy and civil liberties concerns involved in using a technical means for that kind of surveillance along the border. the intelligence community drove the development of the proposal. it was presented in a way that was -- that did not involve congress or the ngo's that have privacy and civil liberties concerns. the history is instructive for

what we need to think about in terms of drone use going forward. drones used for law enforcement or homeland security purposes should not be prohibited. there is a great deal of utility that we have fought in that sort of expositions. without developing an oversight mechanism, we will not be able to advise homeland security for the good uses. >> is my microphone on?

thanks for having me here today. i want to pause for a moment and note how unusual it is that we are having a conversation now. the reason it is unusual is that when a new technology is introduced in the united states, it is generally introduced because law enforcement purchases and adopts that technology. the public learns about it years after the fact and there is some debate about the issue. because of the faa rule prohibiting the widespread domestic deployment of drawings, particularly by law enforcement and commercial purposes -- the plumbing of drones -- particularly -- the deployment of drones by law enforcement -- drones pose problems and opportunities.

they raise privacy concerns. some drones are weaponized. it could become a new avenue for surveillance of american life. it is cool to hold government accountable. one of the best things that can happen is when we can have footage of an incident we can use. it is helpful in determining what took place between law- enforcement agents and private citizens. drawings are unique because they are tools for free speech. they need to be regulated in a more sensitive way than your typical technology.

i am going to focus my remarks on law enforcement use of drones and privacy implications of those. one question that has been raised is, what is the big deal about drones. how is this different from what has come before. is it evolution or a revolution. there are reasons to think of it as potentially more dramatic a change in what americans experience. there have been manned aerial surveillance in the united states for a long time. operating and maintaining the aircraft is an expensive endeavor. that has imposed a national limit on the amount of aircraft that can be in american life. many government cannot afford to purchase an aircraft for surveillance purposes. drones would sweep away that problem and raise a widespread

-- raise widespread availability. drones have capabilities and they have an impact on privacy that aerial planes we are used to have not had. for example, they could potentially stay aloft for a long period of time. we are not talking hours. we are talking days. there are light aircraft that can slow it up into the higher regions of the sky months and even years. unlike a traditional aircraft or helicopter, which can be easily detected, drones could potentially engage in surveillance by people who are potentially targets.

those changes, combined with the rapid development of cameras and our ability to analyze the video in a way that has not previously been possible, make these powerful surveillance tools. everyone has a smartphone -- not everyone. i do not have a smartphone. cameras can zoom in two previous -- two degrees that were not previously possible. -- to degrees that were not previously possible. the possibility of facial recognition and tools being used to analyze footage. it could be possible to film an area for a long period of time and reconstructs individual movements.

there is privacy -- there are privacy issues associated with government use. prolonged tracking of individuals is one of them. the supreme court decided a case called the united states versus jones. five justices reached the conclusion that prolonged surveillance of someone's movement in a public space can be a search under the fourth amendment. drones engage in that kind of tracking and raise privacy concerns. drones have a lot of the same privacy implications that cameras have. chilling effects are the ones that people talk about. people behave differently when they know they are under surveillance than when they do not think they are being observed. there was a report on this issue in december in which we

issued recommendations. we are not opposed to the use of drones domestically. there is a broad range of a valuable ways in which law enforcement can use them to meet legitimate law enforcement needs. we are concerned that they not to become tools of general or pervasive surveillance so that innocent americans have to worry about whether or not they are subject to this kind of monitoring. in addition, it would be nice for there to be a real democratic debate about the rules under which drones are adopted, which is different from the way surveillance technologies are adopted. there are issues not dealing with government surveillance, but the private use of drums. you are planning on talking about private surveillance, so i will not talk too much about that. i want to mention the potential

weaponization of drones. when i first started thinking about drones being equipped with nine-lido forms of course and used by law-enforcement agencies, i thought it was far- fetched. in fact, law enforcement agents have expressed serious interest. it would allow them to contain crowds without having officers present. i personally find that to be a scary example of a potential use of drones. the potential for abuse is too great. any private citizens with enough know how can attach a camera to a droned. what else can they attach to a droned? what other regulations will need to be put in place? one of the things i wonder about is whether drones has

become a tool available to law enforcement agents but the public is the structure from using them before -- because of safety concerns. that raises the apostle -- raises the possibility that drones can become another tool to monitor citizens, but citizens cannot take advantage of them. >> ken? >> thank you for the opportunity. i will focus on private party to private party use of drones. i would like to start with my late, saintly mother. in the mid-1960's, she randy social welfare stuff at our church. -- she ran the social welfare

stuff that our church. this was before people like us had things like answering machines and the ability to screen calls and the things we take for granted today. my father stepped in and installed a telephone that would turn off the wringer. you do not look sufficiently shocked at what that meant in 1965. my mother's reaction and the reaction of many of the people she worked west sounds almost unimaginable -- worked with sounds almost unimaginable today. she got calls that she was being dishonest and she was lying to people about whether she was in the house by having something that turned off the wringer. i want to fast forward from the 1960's to the bid-1980's. it was a time -- i want to fast forward from the 1960's to the mid-1980's.

the pennsylvania aclu was trying to come to grips with new forms of technology available on telephones, particularly caller id. the aclu of pennsylvania took the position -- and was vigorously supported by important folks at the time -- that caller id was an intensely wrong way of the nine people free expression because it meant that somebody could not get to you. the caller id was a first amendment violation that the state telephone regulators

should be eliminated because it eliminated the first amendment right you had to meet somebody and communicate speech to them. 10 trillion telemarketer calls later, this attitude is inconceivable to any person in this room and any person listening. our notions of privacy have shifted in a remarkable way, including our notion of person to person and private person to private person. let me bring this to the point of drones. on their own, they relate to privacy and they are at 8 leveraging technology in combination with the censors -- a levering -- leveraging technology in combination with sensors. and the ability to have something that is constantly out there and connected to the web.

i am at going ryan's views here. these technologies pushed our existing privacy structures to be breaking point. they go beyond government and how we interact with each other and what our social expectations for privacy are and how they should be embedded into other forms of law. we have trade-offs and conflicts between free expression, first amendment concerns, the notion of the public and the private. at the same time, there is an

evolving notion of privacy. on the one hand, we wind up insisting we have the right to turn the world away, even the electronic world. at the same time, we share so much. the point that i am actually making in starting with privacy is, i do not think we can actually talk about drones in relation to their impact on these other areas, particularly their legal regulation between private parties, unless we talk about the prior expectations we have about privacy and the way that is socially constructed and the evolved in certain ways. we ask you to contemplate -- one can give a long list of scenarios. devolving drones allow you to put a drone in the air on a continuous basis and have it

looking over into your neighbor's back yard and see everything that goes on there, which may be nothing, and stream that live to the web and attach to that computer technology that enables it to pick up particular people and set up and -- set up a gallery of what they are up to. you had an enhanced collection of information of stuff. none of it is commercial and it may not be particularly maliciously motivated. i would suggest that everybody in this room would believe there is something profoundly wrong about that. this violates some set of formal or informal notions about intimacy, privacy, home, even if it is taking place outdoors and behind the walls. ultimately, the question becomes, are we going to wind

up going beyond the assumption that you can do things like build a wall, you can put up a hedge? you did not have all of these things that are available to everybody else across the planet. or are we going to let those changing expectations sit in with the existing set of rules we have or are we going to get -- going to evolves the rules in various ways. nobody is actually serious about any of this stuff. if they did, they would not use facebook the way they do. nobody would use twittered the way they do. none of these existing social technologies would exist if people actually cared about their privacy in the way we traditionally think about it. people do not think about intimacy as being a private anymore. on the basis of no data except

being the father of a teenager, i do not think that is how it works. i have a strong sense that the younger generation has an amazingly sophisticated sense of what their notions of privacy are about. the way in which they expect notions of privacy are socially constructed are close to the bundle of six approach to property. they have a view that what is appropriate in one setting for the use of a photo is not a pro in another setting for a use of a photo. the way one can collect information or images about a person that are appropriate for one use are not appropriate for another use. we have an increasingly younger generation that is extremely

sophisticated about the ways in which one unbundles the notion of the public of the private and separates it into a series of appropriate or inappropriate uses. they are profoundly naive about whether any of that is reflected in the law. i think it should be in some way. that is how we should see these things. but they are profoundly night even thinking that it is actually is. we have the ability to address these things before they are hardened in some pact. when it comes to private-to-

private interactions in these ways, i think there will be a small war should be a small, but really a very limited realm for criminal law in this stuff. peeping tom laws have to be updated to keep up with new technologies. by and large, most of this will fall under state law and all of this private party to a private party step will fall it under some other civil law. nuisance law and the quiet enjoyment of your property.

we need to update these things, but not all of them run in the direction of protecting privacy. the notion of being in public is a powerful notion in the way of how people can look and see and take photos and do various things. the best thing that could happen in the private to private interactions would be some form of a models set of laws aimed at dates for their adoption. we had a discussion about what the trade of should be between exposure and privacy. finally -- i will close on this -- would be the worst thing in this kind of era. it would be to allow the law to be driven by really ugly bad legal cases and the public is driven by something that is particularly ugly and it is something that reflects that, but nothing else. >> thank you. i should have mentioned this at the outset. this event is being web cast. we have a group of people who are surveiling this, but not

from a drone. the thing that keeps turning and sensing is eerily familiar. let me welcome our part to will participants, who will be -- our virtual participants, who will be tweeting questions to us. when i go to questions from the audience, i will alternate between the physical audience and the drone audience. some are being monitored voluntarily. it gets worse the more i say. i will start with a few questions or east of the panelists. we will go to questions from the audience after that. john, you talked about the national security side of this. it seems to me, the part that is going to guide almost all of that is the safety side, which

we have not talked about much. that is to say, if the faa, on safety grounds, allows less rather than more, there is less capacity for the intrusion on privacy. the nichols will be smaller -- vehicles will be smaller. -- the size of the vehicles will be arguable smaller. i wonder if you could talk about the safety side. how small is this aircraft? how large and how far from the people flying them and the people find them are going to be flying how high and how soon? >> we could have a whole week on that. it is a complex problem. it is almost unimaginable complex to is think about how in the world we are going to successfully navigate the

safety challenges of having tens of thousands of these on manned aviation systems operated by -- operated in an unconventional location and being used by these -- for these unconventional tasks. by consolation, i think the best minds are working on this problem. people are working hard. they will come up with a reasoned approach. the mathematics of the numbers means we will have some hiccups along the way. yet the thing i would say is, the diet that we can turn -- if we reduced to very little, national security concerns get reduced, but so do innovations and privacy concerns. we can welcome them with a prudent eye toward complex safety issues as well as

national security and privacy issues we talked about. >> when you are thinking about the opportunity that it is important to open the skies, presumably, you are not thinking about the set of things that katharine -- catherine and ken are wringing their hands about. what are the things that we should be excited about here? >> there is an enormous amount of commercial opportunity for surveying pipelines. law enforcement deals -- it -- small police departments cannot afford to have their own helicopter, but if they can have they drawn to monitor a hostage situation, there is a long list of beneficial commercial uses.

there is the spinoff factor. there is a stunning amount of innovation going on in the draw own world, with formal companies that are attending this. university research labs. in the 1960's, it was the space program. for 2010, drones are innovative equipment. -- drones are an equivalent the space to yh program. they will spend out into beneficial ways that we can hardly imagine here. it is important to encourage

them. >> catherine, i was struck when you were talking. it is not a contradiction, but it is an anomaly. you describe the use of drawings for purposes of government oversight and great terror of drones -- you describe the use of drones for purposes of government oversight and great terror of drones in the hands of government. we are really excited about it as long as government does not use it to spy on us. i am curious about your thoughts on that. were there analysts who said, we love this technology in the hands of private parties, but we do not like it in the hands of government? in other -- in any other area, is that a sustainable line for us to take? >> it is a conundrum about what to do about that. is there were some way to promote the good and positive uses of this technology? it is difficult to do that. in some ways, this echoes a

battle that the aclu lost about surveillance cameras. the aclu does not like the fact that it is difficult to walk down the street in any major metropolitan area without having your image taken by tens it, if not thousands, of surveillance cameras. that is an example where the aclu has been a staunch defender of the ability of provinces since to take photography of the police in public. -- the ability of private citizens to take photography of the police in public. they worry about the capacity of the same technology in the hands of government. if you end up in a situation

where every real estate agent is flying a drone or commercial purposes, it will be extremely difficult to argue that the police are investigating potentially serious crimes and cannot take advantage of the same technology. the argument that the aclu and others use, that the police are different than they have powers that no one else has. no one is saying it is an easy question. >> it is an interesting example. for those of you who do not know, there was a real estate agent in los angeles who was -- i do not want to say prosecuted -- who was disciplined for using a drone to take photos of the houses he wanted to sell. the hang their people felt -- the anger that people felt toward the restrictions on the fbi on using google searches. under the old version of the levy guideline, the fbi is the one group that can not google your name to see what comes up. i wonder if you end up in a

situation in which you have a restricted set of rules on the basis the police are different until the day something really bad happens and then you cannot stand to sustain them because what you are preventing them from doing is what all of us can now do. go to bridgestonbrookstone and a little $300 thing you can control with your ipod. i wonder about the stability of it in the long run. >> it would look good on your expense report. >> i do not sure i should direct this question to can or paul. i would directed-- ken or paul. i will direct it to both. ken's tale was, look how weird my mother's reaction to caller

id was 40 years ago. how absurd the aclu reaction to caller id was 20 years after that. it is crazy we will anticipate the way we feel about this stuff once it is integrated into society. we cannot really anticipate it. paul's cautionary tale is, here is a neat government program that did not try to anticipate it. it crashes and burns. ken comes around to paul's view. i am just wondering. is it realistic to think it through. is it something that, whatever judgments we come to today,

sitting here in an faa rule making in congress, we will be your mother. 30 years from now, people will say, wasn't it quite that they thought drones -- quaint that they thought drones were x,y and z. >> there are no new questions. only the same questions over and over again. the concept of government abuse of a new technology is as old as harming the police. -- if arnubming the police. it probably has antecedents that go back to the first time anybody put somebody in charge

of herding the tribe, or something like that. it seems to me that you can and should anticipate the potential for abuse. instead of relying on any deficiency and resources, you have to turn that around and do the harder stuff, which is training, hiring, oversight, regulation. it is not easy. it changes over time as the technology changes. we do not disarm the police because of the potential police abuse of weapons. we tried to hire the right guys. we give them good training. we have internal affairs of it -- reviews after every shooting. we fire the guys who do it more than once and we prosecute the guys who do it in ways that violate more important social norms.

that model will apply to the use of drones -- at least in the government sector. the private sector stuff -- you have to figure out something else. in terms of government activity, that model addresses the problem and you have to address the resources and figure out what the rules are. maybe if no police force can look in a window without a warrant, but they can fly up 200 feet. maybe that is the rule. i do not know the rules, but i've not know the technology. techdon't know the nology.

but they will change next week or next year. >> ken? >> it is going to be incremental. going to ben's question, the responses have to be incremental as well. something happens that extends people's notions of privacy on the one hand and things people should be able to do in public spaces on the other. i would not want to see the sort of regime develop the actively. -- regime that develops reactively. there are court cases addressing these sorts of things. there is room for tried to think of this on the strength -- think about questions that are already starting to arrive. i am committed to the idea that much of this between private parties exists at the state level and it exists out of existing bodies of law, particularly things like nuisance or some forms of courts -- tort.

we know what happens in these cases. some horrific thing happens that involve thrones -- drones together. a young person tosses himself off of a rout in despair and there is a reaction and -- roof and there is a reaction. it enacts a set of criminal sanctions. that would be a bad approach. we can anticipate some of those situations on and devolving basis and try to have a discussion at upfront about what trade-offs need to be included. >> let's go to questions. i will start with a twitter question. when i call on you, wait for the microphone. please start by saying who you are. >> this question is from urbana, illinois. he has a question about using

drones as a tool of free speech. how would the argument that journalism has prior restraint play out? >> ok. let me take a little bit of a crack at that. others who do a lot of first amendment law may have more thoughts. the answer to that would have to be that, just as with a lot of aspects of journalism, there may be legal limitations on what information gets collected. it would be hard to argue that once you have obtained that

information, barring certain extreme cases, it would be proper and you would enjoy in the publication of that. do people generally agree with that point? >> the press cannot beat information out of someone and they can engage in breaking and entering even if they are the press. we have a large body of law that says the press receives information, even if it is collected in a legal matter and even if it is in violation of classification rules. this plays very much into my mantra, which says, there is nothing new under the sign. >> sir? >> hello.

>> hello? i'm with "national defense" magazine. could you address the deadline in terms of technology. a lot of issues to be worked out. maybe some autonomy on board these aircraft. also a sense of avoid technology. the regulatory part, air traffic controllers association who say this will take a lot of writing about the way we do things and consideration. that's my basic question.

is the congressional mandate really realistic? >> i cannot answer all those things. that would be a long answer. for those on the web cast, there is a sheet that was prepared. doing the computations of 270 days after an accident. there are two broad classes of drones. these are drones operated for commercial enterprises and the like. others are operated by police departments. with respect to public or government drones, may 14 is the date after which there will be expedited licenses for those drones.

for civil, november 10, 2012, or the will be a comprehensive plan -- where there will be a comprehensive plan. there is an early -- august 12, the early integration of save drones which provides the option for the faa to allow certain types of drones at that date. there are 10 other -- this is not the time to go through them all. >> i just wrote that only in washington not three-plus years not enough time. it is a complex issue and deserves a great deal of

attention. my own sense is that if the faa has a will to get it done, it can and should be able to get it done. if it does not wish to, they can miss the deadline. three and a half years to think this through is not an unreasonable expectation. >> anything to add? yeah. >> ken billings. what is your thinking on the potential uses that foreign governments might make of drones within the u.s.? for instance, to do some major spying. will that give them an advantage? or to track or kill a dissident.

>> you have given this a lot of thought. ken has written a great deal about targeted killing, including but not limited to buy drones. -- by drones. what happens when other governments want to get in on the action here? >> when it comes to other governments, everything i said about private party in need to evolve incrementally and state law stuff and court liability, none of that applies to foreign governments acting in the united states. it is inappropriate area for the -- it is an appropriate area for the government to say either

nobody does this at all or if you you have to, have a long conversation about what you're doing and why, and civilians of individuals will fall under security concerns. killing somebody is off the map. with regard that as a hostile acts, possibly leading to war. the question is about surveillance in a practical sense. i don't think the united states government has any reason to put up with surveillance using high-tech -- i don't think any of these things we have raised here about the uses of these things by the various folks will apply to foreign governments at all. >> we have another twitter question. >> this is from amy from washington, d.c., an attorney. should be used limitations to prevent drones for the narrow

purpose to be used widely? >> what an interesting question. this stuff collects. let's say you are a weather channel that acquires them for something for neurological purposes or for a traffic reporter -- meteorological purposes. weber was to jump in on that, that is a great is-- whoever wants to jump in on that. >> congress authorized the expenditure for custom and border control to buy certain drones.

in december, a reporter came out with a fantastic article discussing how cvp was essentially using its drones, putting its drone technology at the assistance of local law enforcement agencies. some members of congress expressed consternation that this technology was now being used for a law enforcement purpose by in local north dakota law enforcement agency. they did not anticipate that when the authorized the program. i think a member of congress thinks limiting the principles would be appropriate. >> paul, i imagine you would have a different point of view.

there are no new issues. this is the classic example of this. paul dealt with issues of data collected for one purpose when he was in governments. it would be good to use data that people give to airlines to find out to use for counter terrorism purposes. it is good to know who is on airplanes. you have dealt with this question. is it a different if it is a private party with a drone, or is there nothing new under the sun? >> i hate being predictable. you predict where i would come

down correctly. to my mind, there's the right way to address this in the consequences at the end. we have the cvp. it is not being used full-time. it is a valuable asset. it can be used for another perfectly lawful purpose. if the north dakota police want to use it to surveil their wives on a shopping trip, that's a different thing. if the use it in the hostage situation, that is a good unlawful purpose in pursuit of a public end. why would begin from a promise of making ourselves inefficient or limited? i can certainly see in the end

saying that evidence might not be used in court if you feel strongly about the particular use. to my mind, the right answer is to define what are the lawful uses. it cannot be flown to north dakota and to look in on a political meeting of the north dakota tea party or the north dakota aclu. they cannot use it to surveil in ways and means that would be outside of the zone of their legitimate law-enforcement concern. if the end is legitimate, it seems to me that we make a mistake in hewing -- the right method -- whether or not -- that evidence should not be used unless it meets a

reasonable suspicion standard. but i don't believe in and forced self-inefficiency of government. >> i will try to keep it brief. we placed limitations on technology all the time. you can add to a title for it you cannot do a title 3 wiretapped in all circumstances. there are specific crimes you can use that technology.

i think there's a place for these types of restrictions. on the aclu caller i.d. question, we still don't have caller i.d. on our main switchboard lines. people can call us and tell us stuff anonymously and know that they can be secure in doing that. >> sometimes aclu is described as outside the mainstream. i can think of a single issue in which that is truer. >> yes, sir. >> i like that. >> i'm a private lawyer. the faa does have this deadline coming up in august. they have to decide which save drones to allow. my question is, what do you want the faa to do in august? -- about using safe drones?

let me give you three choices to choose from. one is to do nothing and put up the deadline until 2015. allow commercial drones with line of sight and under 40 feet restrictions, so your california real estate agent can take pictures of houses. or adopt the regime of only adopting drones on a case by case basis. what do you want to do? >> i will not enter that in fall. -- i will not answer that in full. it would be a mistake to allow people to operate drones over populated areas. dangers would be related -- i will give an example. an organization has recognized

the importance of not operating pot farms in that general size range over populated areas. that's a point of view that needs to be -- i do not trust that. i do not trust that real estate agents would respect that. we need to be careful not to rush headlong into that. >> what is the size cut off? you can go too late start in -- you can go to a model airplaine and getting model aircraft that you can fly at reasonably impressive distance, that doesn't raise anybody's alarm bell. what is the difference between the sort of thing that nobody

is worried about any sort of thing that raises those concerns? >> the academy of model aeronautics has a good safety guidelines. anything that is operated in accordance with their rules, i am not worried about at all. their rules don't allow these first-person view remote unman ned aviation systems that are over 10 pounds. it has to be under 10 pounds. anything that is compliant with their rules -- a naturally community-based organization is the phrase -- a nationwide community-based organization -- anything in accordance with that is fine. once we get to heavy metal, that weighs 200 lbs or even 50 lbs., that can raise some

concerns. >> does anybody else have thoughts about what the faa should do? >> i don't think they should touch any of the issues that i raised. the private party to a proper party stuff is not the faa's area -- the private party to private party stuff. the concerns are going to be far and away hugely difficult to wind up meeting. i think there's a sizable concern among the hobbyist community. these folks are very concerned about what happens if you toss aside those kind of informal standards that have been raised by these folks and opened things up. it would not take very many safety incidents of a serious kind that could potentially shuffle the whole thing down the other way. >> yes.

>> i am a japanese caller. i am a journalist working at johns hopskins university. i like to ask about the bottle field. the most use drone technology in the history of the war is in afghanistan. what is the achievement of the drone technology? you have lots of positive sides. also, negative sides. drone technology stimulated the

anti-american war culture or the taliban. >> ok. so, the focus of this event is on the domestic side and nonmilitary applications abroad. that said, this is a subject that when people hear the word "drones," they do not think of news gathering or domestic law enforcement. they think about predators'. let's -- what -- how you assess it and how does -- to bring back to the subject that is -- how does the legacy and origin affect the domestic discussion? >> i'm going to summarize.

look at my name in the program and send me a direct e-mail about that i would be happy to talk about that at length. i think it drives us away from the domestic side alot. i will punt in part. there is an enormous technological feeding back and forth of the development of the technologies in ways that the requirements of the battlefield and the use of drones as not simply another air platform weapons platform in a conventional war but the use of drones as being a mechanism for

-- a mechanism for intelligence and gathering intelligence and then using force based on the intelligence gathered, puts an enormous amount of pressure on the development of not so much weapons. the weapons are shrinking and getting smaller. the real development that are under way in the sensor arrays and the ability to have software that will wind up processing what is coming through. that feeds back into the domestic sphere in all sorts of ways. this drives the commercial sector and all the good things we will see in the ways of innovations. well, in afghanistan and pakistan, we would like to be able to use drones to get some idea of how many civilians are inside buildings. we would like some notion of what the load bearing in packages of those walls in relation to hitting it with a

particular kind of weapon. this has enormously important and beneficial commercial applications back in the domestic sphere, which has to compound your fears about what government agencies could do with that kind of tamale -- kind of ability domestically as well. it has to be seen as feeding on each other. >> we have another twitter question. in the back. >> we have two questions that are related. the first is for an attorney -- is from an attorney. for the center of democracy and technology. to what extent does the mandate include privacy? a related question from a higher education reporter for "u.s. new." is there a need for the government to be able to detect

and track drones at will? do you think they should be licensed by the faa? refering to private or commercial drones. >> who wants to take either of those? >> i have one line that will not surprise anybody. i don't think the faa should be getting involved with the private privacy issues. they have their hands full. >> do you have a sense to which -- to what extend the faa has a mandate that includes the privacy issues? >> i think that's a hard question. the faa's mandate includes protecting people and property on the ground. that has been intrepreted as

a safety mandate by and large. there are all cases dating back to the 1970's to include things like dealing with the environmental impact of air traffic. perhaps it also encompass other concerns which impact people on the ground. i am skeptical that the faa would want to interpret the mandate in that direction. i imagine this is an area where congress may need to do something. they should look at privacy questions. the u.s. does not have a privacy commissioner who evaluate the impact of government actions on privacy. >> paul? >> i agree with katharine -- catherine.

there is no worse a forum for discussing private insurance as discussing privacy issues than the faa. it would be like asking the epa to think about security concerns. it is apples and clowns, even. i do think the privacy issues are vital. if you don't think about them, you'll get the wrong answer because you'll wind up losing public support for the program. the faa is great at safety issues and that air traffic control issues. i would want us to have that privacy discussion somewhere else.

>> yes, in the back. wrong back, but it's ok. >> i am a technology analyst. sometimes we have a habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. here we are talking about privacy issues and all of those sorts of things. there are times when this can be used for rescue purposes and that sort of thing, hovering over with repeaters, so fire departments can speak to one another. in new orleans after katrina, there were not allowed to fly drones with cameras. it would have been ideal to control what was going on. somebody got clever and taped them to the skid of the

helicopters. is anything going on to make sure these valuable uses are not caught up and tossed overboard because of other concerns? >> yes. i agree completely. john has talked about the commercial value. to my mind, the right answer is regulation. we should regulate the good uses and be cautious about the bad uses and the fears. my fear is that by not acknowledging the legitimacy of catherine's fears up front, we will wind up in the same place -- we would have had great uses for national technical means in katrina and we were not permitted those either because of fears.

-- because of fears of big brotherhood. >> stepping out of my role as moderator. there is something we're doing to make sure that we don't throw the baby with the bathwater. congress stepped in and over the faa to have some laws on this subject. that was a deliberate effort to jump-start what been seen as a stalled setup processes. yes? >> i'm a public school teacher. are there other countries that are grappling with how to regulate domestic use of drones that we could look to as examples? >> does anybody -- >> i don't have a full answer to that. it has been estimated there will be $100 billion spent on drones.

over the next decade or by the end of this decade. i understand that australia has some innovated rules with respect to allowing drone use. pretty much any country that has access technology is getting into the act. we'll see all sorts of flavors but i don't have the specifics. >> yes? >> i am a lawyer and in a private practice in d.c. i find the model legislation was pretty good. it might be helpful to have a private right of action in there. what is happening with congress? are they doing anything to implement this or of oversight hearings on this? >> privacy was not included as

a discussion topics, i did not think. there has been interesting developments since then. other panelists spend more time and d.c. then i do. -- more time in d.c. than i do. there's been more concern about privacy. trade organizations have gone somewhat concerned about the development and impact in may have on their industry. they have been approaching various privacy organizations and congressional staffers to try to see whether there is something they can do to find some common ground so that this technology can move forward and not be completely stymied by the privacy concerns. i don't know if maybe others no

more. -- know more. >> in the very far back on the left. >> i am danielle. i was wondering what sort of lessons learned do you think we could bring from that industry into our discussion about privacy in unmanned systems? >> what a great question. how does the internet play into this? >> one observation, who could have known back in 1995 that such a thing as social networks would even exist. as ben suggested, it would be presumptuous to know that 50 years from now we can sit here today and say what they are

going to be. humility with respect to acknowledging we cannot predict. >> we have about two minutes left. each and every chance to rac -- each can have a chance to wrap up. >> a mostly emphasize this from individual to individual. there will be a different level of corporations and we will have a whole series of other questions related to their use of the drones. although there are certain functions about drones that are just about drones -- where they go, what they watch -- most of the questions that will drive privacy concerns this way are

going to be the ways in which drone technology is in bed with -- is embedded with other technologies for things like the web and other forms of surveillance. i think it is the leveraged package that will alter my -- will ultimately concern us. >> i will start where i began. this is a unique opportunity to build protections into the regulations that govern drones. we should be taking advantage of that. the aclu is not opposed to technology -- is not opposed to this technology. there are many valuable uses. if we can see these potentials from the outset, we will be

better off. >> i think the right answer is developing the right systems. static rules about privacy or use will be overtaken by the technology as quickly as the rules about internet usage were. all a sudden -- i do not know what the answer is going to be because i do not know where the tech is going to be. i would just say if you for your drone over my house, i'm shooting down. >> countermeasures. >> drones are like any other technology. the benefits far outweigh the down sides. as long as we are attentive to that, i have high confidence it will all work out.

>> thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> mike wallace, longtime correspondent on "60 minutes" the ideas today in connecticut. they spoke about their careers in journalism, their relationship, and some of the issues of the day. we will assure you that interview with mike wallace and his son at 3:10 p.m. eastern here on c-span. he was born in brookline massachusetts in 1918, and he served in the u.s. navy during world war, to -- world war ii. and you is one of the original correspondence 4 kaulitz 60 minutes," helping to launch the show in 19 -- correspondence for "60 minutes," hoping to

launch the show in 1953. mike wallace was 93 years old. >> at 6:00 p.m. eastern this afternoon, our "newsmakers" interview with sean donovan -- shaun donovan. >> tonight on "q&a," the u.s. senate youth program -- was one of the greatest experiences of this week was the opportunity to meet both of my senators. just being able to meet them and talk to them pierre >> some leaders like leon panetta, he talked about how important it is to be financially sound. if we are not financially sound, devoting money to national defense will be worthless because you will not have any money to devote to it appeared >> high school students from all 50 states participated in a

week-long government and leadership program at the nation's capital shared their observations as they interact with members of congress, the supreme court, and the president. >> all of my congressman and senators said that there's a lot of partisanship going on in congress and i'm the only one reaching across the aisle. everyone that we have met here has said that. it makes me wonder -- everybody is saying that, but there is nothing happening. i wonder if there's a discrepancy between what they are actually saying and what they're doing. i never thought about that before i came here. >> tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> a senior advisor to the muslim brotherhood in egypt said the ruling military council is to blame for the party's decision to reverse course and run a presidential candidate. speaking at georgetown university, he said the supreme council of armed forces in egypt had warned the proobrotherhood

against running a candidate. it was founded after the ouster of president hosni mubarak last year. >> let's get started as soon as you can. i would like to welcome you on behalf of georgetown university and the center for muslim- christian understanding. i have some opening comments. but because we have a very limited amount of time, i will skip them. but if i feel really frustrated, i will get up and give a talk after they're done for 10 minutes to 15 minutes. what we plan to do is to have two of the speakers -- each will speak about seven minutes -- so that instead of having four, we will then go to q&a in which all

four will respond. that will give us a maximum amount of time. could i ask you ahead of time to ask questions? if you want to give a speech, i will stop it. we have a limited amount of time and we want to get as many questions in as we can. our first speaker today will be sandos asam. she is the first speaker of this delegation that has come from the muslim brotherhood and the freedom and justice party. she is the member of the freedom and justice party foreign relations committee, holds a b.a. in english and an m.a. in mass communications. she also served as a board member of an academic publishing

house. sondos. [applause] >> thank you very much for having us. it is really a pleasure to join you today in our very first official visit of the freedom and justice party. we are here to start building bridges of understanding with the united states. we're doing this in several places in the world, but we believe our visit to the united states is probably the most important because we acknowledge the very important role of the united states in the world and we would like our relations with the united states to be better than before. and we believe that a democratic egypt will have