and editor of the aclu blog.free future guest: that is a blog on privacy and technology issues and implications. at new technology and that have the potential to be spying surveillance or and what we think ought to happen with them. you.: thank that is it for our program on unmanned vehicles, drones we calling it interchangeably. i hope you learned something. onwe leave you we will leave a shot from the association that wi about at en talking the washington convention center. the association of unmanned international. another "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. then.l see you [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> taking a look at some of our live programming -- in about half an hour, the senior -- inder in a guest a map a chemist and will brief reporters. -- in afghanistan will brief reporters. att is scheduled to start 10:30 a.m. eastern. later today, president obama's half-sister will address the traffickingf ending exploitation of women and children and speaking at the center for american progress live at noon eastern. be sure to join us this evening for another of our town hall meetings. the focus today is unimplemented asian of the affordable care act. administration will delay implementation of the section of the law covering limits to out- of-pocket costs for consumers. we will check in on congressional town hall meetings

around the nation and what questions members of congress are getting from their constituents. we'll get an update on court challenges to the law and check out the rollout of healthcare exchanges which is opposed to take effect by january 1 of next year. here is a brief art of tonight's program. i don't think you understand the law you are in charge of executing and enforcing. the clawback where you limit how much a person pays back, that is only a person who is eligible for a subsidy if their income changes in the year in which the subsidy takes place. person, -- if a person gets a subsidy they are not eligible for which will clearly be the case if your major enforcement tool, the employer mandate is not in place, the law requires you clawback 100 % of that subsidy they are not entitled to. >> i apologize, the hypothetical you gave that many moving pieces which are correct. one question i have -- we have discovered that this individual

got an inappropriate subsidy. withed some connection their employer to learn that information. >> which will be 2015 at the earliest -- then but welearn it will get the official employer report in 2016 but either way, we will make the effort to validate the fact of coverage for each individual receiving a subsidy. >> somebody will get two years of a subsidy that they signed up or unknowingly which the law does not make them eligible for and you will have to tax that back in two years time. is that the law? >> we will help the individual at the front and and navigate through the exchange to help them understand if they have an employer-provided plan. >> i think you have already answered the question. will have a lot of people getting subsidies that are not supposed to get and then you will hit them with a big tax bill in about two years.

>> tonight's town hall meeting gets underway at 7:00 p.m. eastern including your comments. some news this morning -- the associate rest reports that former illinois congressman jesse jackson junior and his wife sandra will be sentenced by a federal judge today for misusing $750,000 in campaign money on everything from goldplated rolex watches and eight make case to vacations. federal prosecutors are recommending a four-year prison term for the 48-year-old son of the reverend jesse jackson. give him asuld little as probation or impose the maximum five-year prison term. newark mayor cory booker brushed off three experienced opponents in a senate primary setting up a campaign of deep contrast with steve lonergan who won the republican lot --

nomination. they will face-off in a september 16 election. innk langenberg passed away june and that will be the seat they will fill. will have live coverage of a pentagon briefing on afghanistan coming up but 10:30 a.m. eastern, until then, a segment from this morning's " washington journal." on drones.

>> people think of drones that are military and hostile but that's not what the systems are. you will see that many of these systems weigh less than 55 pounds, they fly only about 400 feet, they last between a half and hour and two hours. they are usually used that line of sight during the day. the missions they will perform are not those that will be aircraft butanned rather with environments or operations where it is very safe to operate these systems.

a thing that flies and is 30% of the system. you have a sensor or a camera. you have a communication link between the two and a ground station and most importantly, you have a human being. being involvedn whether they are flying in the planner on the ground operating it. >> when you hear somebody refer to them as a drum, what goes through your mind?that did not have to>> we don't use that term because it gives the wrong impression of the tech knowledge he that has the ability to save lives, save money and be more effective and efficient. this morninge talked about this technology in terms of privacy issues and concerns. what are some of the other uses besides a surveillance. applications you will see when we get into the

national airspace is going to be in precision agriculture. more than 80% host: our guest, michael toscano, he is the president and ceo of the association holding this event in washington, d.c., and he will be with us for a half-hour. if you want to give him a call,

according to the faa, there are three types of operators and one is known as a private recreational operator and there is a public operator. there is also the civil operators, can you break down which groups or type of industries represent these three groups? .

the commercial application is prohibitive to use unmanned aircraft systems in a commercial way and that determination is being done by the faa right now. those are restrictions from the standpoint of safety. when i talk about using unmanned systems for agriculture, it is to help the farmers to know how to grow crops better than anyone else, do it in a much more effective and efficient way to make sure we have food for the next couple of generations. safety is paramount, the faa has only one responsibility and that is to make sure that anything that goes into the national airspace is so in a safe manner which means it has to be able to see and avoid if it is a man's system or sense and avoid of his is a man's system. if it goes into the national airspace, it can do no harm. it cannot fall out of the

national airspace and cause harm to anyone else. that is the purpose of the faa. they are doing a good job. we have the safest skies and the world. ability tos their travel and commercial space, what is the deadline of the faa? congressman dated and that bicep 2012 timbre 30, 2015, the faa had to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace. it did not say fully integrate so we are trying to determine what that means. recently, there has been some success with the faa and up in the arctic with two systems that were flown in for oil and gas exploration as well as wildlife monitoring. in thet went fantastic operation was successful and that was done in a safe and efficient manner.

we are starting to get those commercial application uses. host: it is possible for these operations to be flown by people? the faa can control that and will make sure there are safety regulations in place. as we startance integrating these systems is not going to be were normal commercial airlines are flying. you look at the band of airspace and they are flying in, anything from 1000 feet or below is where we can operate the unmanned aircraft systems. . many of them weigh less than 55 pounds. they will not be 747 flying where manned aircraft is. do you envision this will be broad in nature? i believe the faa is

working toward the right mix to ensure safety in the national airspace. the integration of manned and unmanned systems will be done in a safe manner. there is a lot of attention on this and that is the job of the faa. host: michael to scotto, will be with us until about 8:30 a.m. to talk about these issue and take your questions. this first one is from ohio. caller: on the airspace thing, 400 feet is supposed to belong to the citizens. isthing below 400 feet considered trespassing. that was my question and i was wondering how are they going to do that? chesty do get caught

passing with drones, would somebody get in trouble if they shot it out of the sky? guest: 400 feet or below is fixed wing but some aircraft can fly below that. as far as the air you own, that is still a discussion being made and there is no defined entity at this time. the idea of shooting anything into the air, you have to take responsibility and that would be a reckless act on anybody's part whether it is manned or unmanned. i would caution you on taking that type of route. host: any operational and viren meant is usually well-known and in many cases certified by the operators. if you're going to do a search and rescue which is an important mission, it seems we have over

800,000 people go missing every day in the united states dax this is a capability where you can find those people in an efficient manner. anytime you hear a search-and- rescue has been called up because of weather or darkness, you can continue that. boundary of that search envelope is identified and that system will only operate within that space. thatrecautionary aspect is any time there is a loss of communication or anything that goes wrong, these systems or programs to go to a designated spot to either land or go to a certain spot or they can reestablish the link and communication and then operate in a safe manner. safety is paramount with unmanned systems and you will not launch the systems and put them into the national airspace unless they are say. e have been showing a lot of exhibitors. how many drone manufacturers are there in the u.s.? have over 590we

exhibitors but they come from around the world. in the united states, i don't have that specific number but i have a directory that has that number in it. i believe it is well over 300. firms makenational these type of systems? guest: this is a global technology. this is what will help many folks. agriculture is one of the biggest areas of utilization. wildfires or at monitoring whether, hazardous conditions -- we call them the thatd's those missions many are exposed to.

host: who is the largest builder of drones in the u.s.? probably twois answers to that. one for my dollar standpoint and one from body him. the smaller type of systems can manufacture a lot of them to that ability to have situational awareness. many of the small ones that weigh less than two pounds operate for 20 -- 30 minutes. if you have a situation where you had a critical event that of thees, and incident building that happen at oklahoma -- when the first responders got on the site with the debris and smoke, the individuals could not go in and do their job because they did not know if there was another bomb and they did not know if there were gas leak. if they have the capability of finding one of these two pounders to the building, it would have made their job easier. anytime you see where the men and women trained and

responsible to perform these missions, this is a tool that allows them to do their job better. our cameras typically attached to these type of systems? what else could be attached to them? guest: in the farming industry, there will probably be sensors that ended checked the chemical makeup of the soil. those devices exist and they are developing more. couldssion packet payload be whatever you are trying to do. if you're trying to get pictures, you will have a camera on their. if you want to sense when a to be picked,l you might have an olfactory smelling device on it. maybe the fermenting tells you when the grape is right or it may be visual where the color of the grape is a perfect color. farmers can know exactly when they should harvest their crops.

maybe they harvest have to crop at one point in time, wait a week or two until the other part of the crop is ideal and harvest at that time. that means they get a higher yield and don't waste as much of the fruit and they get a better product. talk about the privacy considerations. what about cameras being attached and people being looked at with these type of systems? especially with revolutionary technology, you have to use it in a responsible way. if you do not follow the law, you should be held accountable. that is no different than the internet you have that most people utilize now. up, we0 years of using have bullying laws can some people are misusing that technology. laws, thed privacy fourth amendment for over 222 years. we have peeping tom laws and privacy laws print it says if you break those laws, are held

accountable whether you do it with a manned or unmanned system, a pair of binoculars or putting a ladder against your house and looking into a window. if you break the law, you are held accountable. host: specific laws are needed for this technology? the fourthave had amendment around for 220 two years. we have had technologies developed during that timeframe. internet and cell phones and satellite technology -- all of these technologies. when we talk about the privacy issue, it is about the collection of data. it is how the data is being analyzed and how that data is being stored and how that data is being disseminated and how it is being destroyed. that is true with much of data we are talking about and they call that the big data picture. it is not how you collected, it's what happens afterwards. host: this call is from texas, independent line. caller: you mentioned 1000 feet

will the ranch lands have any height restrictions? you say that is the government that will process the privacy issues and if they are the ones breaking the privacy, how will we hold them responsible? -- this isoperation what the faa and other government agencies and all of the private citizens and the public in the states are getting involved with. you may say you will only use these systems for these particular applications. if you use these particular applications, this is how you have to do it. you have to do it in a safe manner and you have to follow the law and the rules. presidentguest is the and ceo of the association holding this event in washington, dc this week. jordan, aberdeen,

maryland, independent line. what do you think the usedned vehicles will be as far as fire departments and police departments? a lot of the civil applications, these are ideal applications, the men and women are trained to do their job better than anyone else. this is a tool that allows them to do it better. search and rescue is an important one and firefighting is a important one. park rangers have to do monitoring of operational environments or their conditions. when you look at noah monitoring whether, look at the tornadoes we have throughout the country and the world, you look at the hurricanes, you look at the floods, all of these things that affect us as human beings, this is a better way for us to

understand our operational and bierman to the environment in which we live and also the other species that are here as well. monitoring wildlife, to understand them so we don't disturb their habitats or are able to make sure we can live in harmony with these other animals. this gives us more situational awareness, better information so we make the decisions. training talked about for the operators of these type of systems. is there a standard training that is done? we are still in the process of determining what the standards will be. because this is a family of systems -- the training you would have for something that weighs two pounds is only going to fly 40 feet high, line of sight could be different than something you will fly that will go beyond line of sight at different altitudes. there is no one answer i can give you. it will be based on what the

operational environment is and the considerations that have to take toys to make sure these systems are used in a safe manner. this is aberdeen, maryland, independent line. i think we lost him. talk a little bit about your role especially here on capitol hill. i suspect you and others in your industry talk to people on the hill about these issues. what has been the basis of these conversations? is a nonprofit organization for unmanned systems in the air, ground, and maritime. we talked mostly about the unmanned systems. we have had many conversations with the law makers, stakeholders, silver liberty groups, the public to make sure that people understand how this technology can benefit their life. there is a lot of misinformation.

word drone itself has a negative connotation to it. that is not what these systems are. have had a situation where you needed to have information to make a good decision, we mentioned search and rescue you have a lost child, you want those responders to have the best tools possible to be able to get to a good result in a timely manner. that is what this technology brings. there is a human being that is in the loop that is making the decisions. this is just an extension of the eyes and ears of a human being in order to be able to do their job in a much more efficient way. congress, it comes to are there specific laws they are considering? we talk to them on a regular basis. no one wants their privacy to be invaded or to be taken away.

this is just like any other technology we have to deal with. we meet with the congressional and decision makers and many will tell you they understand the economic impact that this technology can have in their states and from a national standpoint and a global standpoint. within the first three years, when we get into the national airspace, you will have 70,000 new jobs created, over $13.6 billion of economic impact. in the first 10 years, those numbers go up dramatically and we will have $90 billion of economic impact area this can help grow our economy, create new and exciting and good paying people to bews more effective and efficient in what they do today. host: according to folks that study these things, 39 states so far have laws and bills that deal with addressing search warrants, 18 states have laws that limit the drums for surveillance by non-law- enforcement personnel.

what does it say that so many states have some type of law dealing with this issue? isst: this is something that on the minds of many people because they recognize, first of all, that this technology is something different. revolutionary and some people call it disruptive, they are reacting to it. once you explain to them how this will be used and how this technology can better their lives and make it something beneficial to all of mankind, 20 of those states have defeated those anti- uis legislation. there are some put in place but it should make no difference between a man and and an unmanned system. the only difference is the pilot is not sitting in the plane. he or she is operating it from a safe distance. the operation itself and the behnology itself should technology agnostic when it comes to the laws of privacy. that is one of the biggest

things that people miss. this is not about the aircraft or the sensor that it is carrying. it is about data collection and we should address the issue of the data collection and let the technology be available for everybody. host: regulation and legislation has to come down the pike? guest: and that will be for all of data collection. host: williamsburg, virginia, republican line. caller: i was in the marine corps infantry for five years and one of my jobs was to get search -- a small to two person unmanned drone. did not have any weapons and was light weight. we used it for reconnaissance. one of the problems or one of the confusions in the popular discussion today is this lack of whatedge between -- as to

is the difference between a war fighting phone like a predator drone or something like a global hawk and what is a reconnaissance drone, what type of drones would be used on domestic soil. -- wend paul filibuster in fission predator drone's with hellfire missiles flying over -- thatunities which is would not be the case at all. that would be incredibly expensive. it would be incredibly illegal. this is where i disagree with you -- you said you would not need specific laws but you were referring to statutes that would be specifically about drones and privacy. the vast majority of our fourth amendment protections as technology has increased from

wiretaps to pin registries and havered detection devices been jurisprudence. i cannot imagine that we would not see massive litigation coming through based on privacy issues, fourth amendment issues in relation to unmanned drones up they were used in a police service or any kind of public servant situation. first of all, i am not a lawyer and i did not stay at a holiday inn. see theare going to legislative body interact when this technology is used in a more expansive way. that is the normal process that yearschnology -- it is 50

after the internet has been introduced that we are now writing laws about the internet. the technology has to be utilized and we have to go through that normal process of finding out exactly how this technology is going to be integrated in a safe and acceptable way. you look at first generations of any technology we have whether it be cell phone or the internet and here we are seven generations later and the technology has evolved into what we want it to be in order to be able to do the things we feel are important to us and do it in a safe manner. host: this is from twitter -- i disagree. if you use this technology in a responsible way, you will make mankind a better place to be. when you don't have to send men and women into those dirty and dangerous and difficult places to be, look at fukushima, the

individuals that went back into that facility knew they would not live long after that and that did not have to happen. we have technology today that can be utilized. when you hear of natural disasters -- when we look at places on the planet that we physically cannot because we are too frail. we have technology today that can be utilized. when you hear of natural disasters, when you look at places on this planet where we just physically cannot go because as human beings we are too frail, now you can do exploration and find out wonders of the world that we dream about at times. this is what technology allows you to do, and it will make for a better place, a more efficient and effective life, and i want my grandkids to be able to explore more and have a better future. host: long beach, california, democrats line. this is edward for our guest, michael toscano. caller: yes, hi. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am in california, so i wanted to say good night. guest: yes, you?re up early. caller: i had two questions for the speaker. what is the outlook for >>lifornia, and have they done

you can see the rest of this www.c-span.org. >> by way of perspective, this is waste on my time here from tour with during a 15- the 101st airborne division. during that timeframe, we did most of the fighting. the afghan security forces were just developing. were notur operations partnered during that timeframe and we did most of the fighting. -hen a division came back, 2010 2011 with general john campbell, the afghan security forces had grown both in quality and quantity.

the american forces and coalition forces and individual commanders could partner. they fought side-by-side. this time, we came back and the afghan security forces have significantly improve their capacities, their capabilities, and we have moved into and advise and assist role. thisin that role, the afghan security forces are in the lead. they are doing most of the fighting. for us, what winning looks like is getting them to take lead responsibility for security so they are in position to have full responsibility for security. when we were here last time, we said we are getting combat teams and now we have security force thegates that pair up at brigade level and they work very closely with the afghan security

forces advising and assisting them. we are starting to bring our forces down. when we arrived here in march, we had 58 bases. right now, we have 17 bases and 11 assistance platforms. here,i have come back there has been a lot of changes with the afghan people. they have had the opportunity to go to school. there has been economic development and access to health care. noticed is that kids are playing a lot more sports which i thought was interesting. cricket, soccer, volleyball -- a chance to do things that i did 2008-e when i was here in 2009. afghan security forces -- we have the 201st and the 200 word. they conduct operations. they integrate artillery into the operations they do.

we just did the largest air assault in recent afghan history with mi17's and that operation is going on as we speak. they are working very closely with integrating. we have a concept called laid security which is made up of the different security pillars. they have an orgasm nation called the coordination center -- they have an organization called the coordination center. toy use those organizations coordinate and synchronize the afghan security and that is allowing them to become united between all the pillars and making them a very strong defense for the enemy. what we see right now is the whoy is the afghan people

are challenging the afghan security forces. they have some challenges. don't think the afghans have been able to link their objectives to this fighting season. to wean ouring forces down and they are no longer present in the numbers they used to be. they used to say they were fighting foreign occupiers and they can no longer really say that because they are fighting afghan security forces and fighting against the afghan people. we are at a key decisive time. has just finished and we are expecting a spike in violence with about 60 days left in the fighting season. the enemy to achieve those objectives. i think we are at a critical time. this is the first time that the afghan security forces have been in the lead during the entire fighting season. they believe they are winning

and i tend to agree with them. the other thing coming up which is a concern is the bilateral security agreement. that enduring commitment is on the ground. thelk to commanders and people and that is key to maintain the confidence of the afghan security forces and the afghan people. before i take questions, i would like to tell the american people out there that their sons and daughters are doing an incredible job over here during a very challenging mission and making a difference every single day. i will open it up to questions. i'm sorry about the audio difficulties we experience earlier but i will make sure you get the entirety of major connville's remarks. progressrd about the

of the afghan security forces. estimate -- how much beyond 2014 will they need military support assistance and training? i think right now they will need it beyond 2014. are making progress every single day. i think they are winning. that -- iggest believe in the afghan security force right now that they are winning and they cannot be defeated by the enemies of afghanistan. what we see right now is their ability to run the score up. they are winning but not but a significant score. feelnemies of afghanistan they have a chance to continue fighting. as they get better every single

day in certain areas like the afghan air force, it will take a few more years before they are fully operational. that will give them the capability to be so strong that of afghanistan will not be willing to continue the conflict. >> to be more specific about the ineframe as you see it -- addition to the air force, do you think the afghan security forces will need are in a sentence for of years or a continue toder to win against the tele band?

-- the taliban? i would probably put the terms in a couple of years. >> i would probably put that in terms of a couple of years. >> i am with reuters -- you said you think even the afghan security forces do not think they have achieved their goals for this year. could you be more specific? feelis it that makes you that they are not overmatched. what sort of-- the taliban? i would probably put the terms in a couple of years. problems are you seeing that you could expound on? i thought i was pretty clear -- i said the enemies of afghanistan had not achieved their objectives to this fighting season. that is what i thought i said. as far as the afghan security forces, i think it is more important what they believe -- they believe they are winning right now.

especially with the afghan national army, they have had some major successes as far as major operations both withcorps .d the 203rd corps hezerak places like and other places where historically they have not been and gone in there and hold those areas which they were not able to do before. >> you say they think they are winning but you don't think it is a significant margin. where do you see shortcomings? where do the uc areas they can improve? >> when i say that we are not winning by a significant margin, at the end of today, the enemy of afghanistan thought they were

losing by a significant margin. they would have stopped the conflict. the conflict continues so there are still enemies of afghanistan out there that for one reason or another, they think they can continue to hurt innocent people in afghanistan and continue to do high profile attacks in kabul. what can the afghan security forces do better? as the air force, in areas such as combined armed they cans -- i think improve. they have made tremendous progress over the last six months since we have been here and over the last couple of years. thanks for speaking with us. on the elaborate more level of violence we are

expecting over the next 60 days? can the afghans handle that and what type of things would you look at in terms of adequately handling that? we have taken a look at this. we have been looking through the entire fighting season. the fighting season in afghanistan starts in march around march 15. if progress is through september toward october. it depends on the weather conditions. is the have seen so far enemies of afghanistan really have not had any successful operations. we are kind of expecting -- that's what we do in the military, we plan for the worst. they will have to do something. they have not met their objectives. high-ould like to use

profile attacks and hopefully get into kabul and maybe blow up some things and hurt some innocent people. like to maybe assassinate some senior leadership. they would like to attack our troops. we anticipate that and we are prepared to do those type of things. at the same time, the afghan security forces will be in the lead and block these attacks. >> we cannot make any definitive assessment untilor after the 60 days? >> when i first came here, people asked me how the security forces were doing. it is best to describe to see how they did. this yearn watching since we have been here, they have had major event so far that have been an indicator of how

well they are doing. one of the first major events we had was the afghan new year. during that timeframe, many people go out and there was a good opportunity for the enemy to attack. assessment until after the 60the afghan militaryo secure that day. they had a major islamic festival and the enemy was trying to disrupt that. the afghan security forces were able to secure that. they had a victory day, another major event, when we were here last time and the enemy was able to disrupt of the afghan security forces were able to secure that. we have had multiple events along the way that have shown that they are doing a good job as a military commander, we have more days left. we need to stay focused on the mission so we don't allow the enemy to have any type of success during this fighting season.

following up on your comments about the spike in violence -- how do you see the flow of foreign fighters into eastern afghanistan for this fighting season? the number of foreign fighters now outnumber the number of afghan fighters in a certain area? interesting about the narrative going on in foreign fighters versus local fighters, the enemy used to say that they were fighting us as foreign occupiers. forward, that narrative no longer holds true that they are fighting foreign occupiers because they are fighting afghans.

some foreign fighters as advisors helping the conduct their operations but we don't very large numbers of those advisers. do you see the numbers increasing as the fighters -- as the fighting comes to a close? >> what's interesting is as we look -- we have actually seen a decrease in the violence so far as we work our way through ramadan. >> butld continue to go down what i am planning for is the worst. if it does not spike, then things went well. i want to plan for the spike in

the afghans will plan for the spike and have major operations planned coming out of ramadan. that is so they can launch a new type of enemy all caps of that happens. >> i have questions about pakistan. can you contrast the level of effort the pakistan military has undertaken against afghanistan insurgents in safe havens -- contrast the last seven or eight months with 2008-2009. as the level dropped off for increased? one of the things we see with afghanistan is the importance of the constructive relationship. i don't have full visibility of

what the pakistani military is .oing i don't have the capability to say what is different from 2008- 2009. both countries share the same goals of having a safe and secure border. what we have seen over the last month or two is what we think is important to having a constructive relationship, a bilateral relationship between the afghans and the pakistani military. we found in one province which we thought was a pretty major event -- the pakistani military and the afghan military had a flag meeting where they met at the border and discussed some of the challenges both were having with insurgencies and they were able to work out ordination

measures so they could deal with the insurgents at the border and we are still starting to see more of those things. both the pakistan zen afghans understand the importance of working together to combat in the insurgency. operationally, what are you seeing cross-border between afghan insurgents into your region >> is there a consistent back-and-forth? movementsee major coming across the border. >> you said you are down from 58 bases to 17. and you have 11 assisted platforms.

what do you mean by that? what about coming down from 58 to 17. can you tell us as far as withdrawals between now and the end of the year and does the delay or the difficulties in reaching a bilateral security agreement -- does that affect the withdrawal land? start with our concept for advising and assisting. found -- i would describe this fighting season -- the afghans have been the lead. they have been working this operation and we are doing most of the combat operations but they appreciate our advice and systems. down, weught the force

wanted to stay with the afghans as long as we could so we went to a concept called the assistant platform. basisd to have u.s.-only and within those races, we had u.s. soldiers. we have moved to transition bases to the these afghan security forces so they are taking over the basis of they can haul the areas we previously were conducting combat operations in. we want to do a transaction instead of doing it suddenly. the system platform means we keep a small portion of the base for our advisory and security team at that base. actually manned the base and learn how to contract and run the base. they go through the logistics and the contracting. when we leave, they are ready to run the whole base which in itself is a challenge.

we have other system platforms that as we transferred the bases, we go to an assistant platform and that allows us to stay with the base and make sure they can't run it and we eventually leave. in some cases we leave a warm base which is a small area at that they so we can come back and do specialized training or advise and assist as the afghans need it. as we draw down, we are slowly passing the securities possibility to the afghan security forces. going to a doing is provincial hybrid advisory team. that means for each province, we period y over the next of time through the elections and advise -- we will have one in each province just about

and we will advise the afghans at the brigade level, at the police headquarters level, and that the operations coordination center provincial which is an organization that helps coordinate all the afghan security elements inside the province. from in there, we can have a god idea of how things are going and if they need our assistance or advice but at the same time, they are in the lead and they are moving toward full responsibility for security. you may have mentioned this at the beginning but we could not hear you -- can you say what the reduction in the number of bases translates into as far as the number of forces? bases, hown to 17 many troops is that? force --the afghan air

can you talk to us about this delay in testing this light attack plane to the afghan forces and to what extent that is in feeding -- impeding their ability to get up to speed? is that a factor? what is the problem with the afghan air force? i will take the first question and talk about the numbers. we were about 18,000 soldiers and rce's when we got here and we are down to about 12,000. by force will come down february 434,000 but i will not give the exact number to wear those wars is will be. there will be decisions made after that how the rest of the force comes down based on senior leader discussions.

force,as the afghan air i can talk about how we work with them and their mi 17's and attack helicopters. what we see over the last six months is some significant progress. we first came here, they did not have the capability to do evacuation by helicopter. just starting to do resupply operations with their helicopters. they did not have the capability to do air assaults with helicopters. they have made tremendous progress in that. they just did a pretty major air effort with six mi 17's and twqo hezerak going into

which was a strong operation for a new air force. they are going to the most difficult places. they are starting to go and back their troops. forward, they are going to want close air support and whether that is provided by helicopters or provided by light attack aircraft or, we are trying to develop the capabilities that they have internally to help mitigate that. is on casualty in the actuation. -- casualty evacuation. if we have a wounded soldier in our military, we send a medevac helicopter because we are not from the area. it will pick up our soldiers and bring them to a medical facility. hurt in boston, i don't get in a helicopter. i go into a local medical

facility unless it is a place were i cannot get to. we are developing the same type of thing. if they get hurt in their first and town, the we want them to do is to use the vehicles to use -- to transport victims to local facilities but if they are further, they can use helicopters and we are starting to do that. the second thing is their capability to use indirect fire. capability tothe shoot howitzers. they can shoot them in an indirect mode and they have 82- and 60-er mortars military mortars to get indirect fire systems against the enemy.

in some cases, that can help them where we may use close air support and they can use their howitzers and mortars to make up for that. term, long-term helicopters would give them more capability and that will take time for them to get there. i want to follow-up about this fighting season. it seems like some of your units in the area are still conducting operations with no support from police andhe local most of these missions are reconnaissance operations, street-level engagements. how long do you foresee those types of missions continuing considering the afghans are in the lead in your area across the country? are there any more questions?

caller >> could you repeat that? >> you talk about the afghans being in the lead. some of your forces are still running operations with no support from the ansath. most of those are reconnaissance missions but they are going out on their own. who you foresee that continuing on the run-up to the drawdown? do you see those missions stopping once your troop numbers drop below a certain point? >> i will make some closing remarks. the enemies of of data stand used to say that we had the watches and they have the time.

over thedevelopments last 12 years here in afghanistan, i think the app and people would say they now have don't have and they the time for the enemies of afghanistan. i am real proud of the soldiers and airmen that i have the opportunity to serve with every single day. they are doing great things and their parents and family members and friends should be proud of what they are doing. i certainly am. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] the six people have been killed across the country in clashes between security forces and supporters of ousted resident

mohamed morsi. -long state ofth emergency after riot police moved to clear encampments of his supporters. in the midst of the protests of violence in egypt, british broadcaster sky news says one of its cameramen has been shot dead. of-long state ofrd emergency after riot police -- was part of their journalists but the rest of the crew is not hurt. we have more live programming coming up on c-span. -- president obama's half-sister will address ending trafficking and expectation of women and children speaking at the center for american progress today at noon eastern here on c-span. be with us this evening for another of our town hall meetings with the focus on implementation of the affordable care act. this includes news that the administration will delay the section of the law covering limits of out-of-pocket expenses

for consumers and we will check in with congressional town hall meetings around the nation and members ofons congress are getting from their constituents and check on court challenges to the law. here is a brief part of today's program. don't think you understand the law you are in charge of executing and enforcing. you described,s where you limit how much a person pays back, that's only a person eligible for a subsidy if their income changes in the year in which the subsidy takes place. -- if a personw gets a subsidy they are not eligible for which clearly will be the face if your major enforcement tool, the employer mandate, is not in place, the law requires you clawback 100% of that subsidy to which they were not entitled to. >> i apologize -- the hypothetical you had -- you gave had a lot of moving pieces.

we have discovered that this individual got an inappropriate subsidy. we made some connection with their employer to learn that information. >> which will be 2015 at the earliest? we have>> we could learn it in t we will get the official report in 2016 but either way, we will make the effort to validate the fact of coverage for each individual receiving a subsidy. >> somebody will get two years of a subsidy they signed up for unknowingly which the law does not make them eligible for and you will have to tax that back in two years time to all of it. that is the law, correct? >> we will help the individual at the front-end filling out their taxes and navigate through the exchange to understand whether they have an employer- provided plan. >> you have already answered the question. if you don't have the tool to verify this, you will have a lot of people getting subsidies that are not supposed to get and then you will hit them with a big tax

bill in two years to claw it back. the law requires that. tonight's town hall meeting gets underway at 7:00 p.m. eastern including your comments. tonight on c-span's encore presentation of " first ladies" - i think it was her youth and effervescence. change in this royal court. , she was a about her very happy girl. queen victoria thought she was wonderful. titles given the official which would not normally given

to a niece. it would only be given to the wife of an ambassador. >> the encore presentation of --,"riginal series congo first ladies." house financial services hensarlinghair jeb yesterday outlined legislation that would change housing finance by eliminating fannie mae and freddie mac. , theding to congressman bill is supported by house majority leader eric cantor. he said the legislation would not and 30-year fixed mortgages. this was a 40-minute event. [applause] back >> thank you mr. secretary for the kind introduction. i don't know if you can see me, this is a rather large podium.

me of what i frequently tell my washington colleagues -- everything is bigger in texas but me. if you can't see me, you can at least hear me. i was delighted to accept the invitation to speak before the bipartisan policy center for a couple of reasons. number one is because of the outstanding work you have done in the housing arena and number two, i live about re-miles from here so it took me about seven minutes to get here. as a fairly new chairman of a standing committee of congress, i have a number of speaking invitations that come my way. a lot of press is interested in speaking to me me but i assure work toon't have to

remain humble. i accept the number of them and my home, i was working on one of ande speeches after dinner my wife who helps keep me humble sayses into my study and -- ok, in washington, you made me mr. chairman but in dallas, you are mr. dishwasher and you are not getting any cleaner. my wife's subtle hand and dropped the speech and went into the kitchen and began to work on the dishes. a few minutes later, the phone rings and she picked it up and comes into the kitchen and says "the wall. big shot, street journal" on the phone. i was wondering how they got my home number but i would rather talk about quantitative easing then washing the dinner dishes. i picked up the phone and said this is jeb.

asked if for $29.92 a month -- [laughter] you, that will indeed keep you humble. something else that will keep you humble is trying to reform our nation's housing finance system that is something i believe is vital to every homeowner current and would be, vital to every taxpayer and the future of our economy. if you did not understand that, you would not be in this room today. i want to thank the bipartisan center for the work at has done on housing reform. it is very important work and i especially want to recognize the outstanding leadership and service of people like secretary cisneros,nd secretary

the latter secretary being a fellow texas aggie. as i reminded him, he is a temporary resident in san antonio in the early 1980s and my former mayor. i want to thank both of you gentlemen for continuing in this facet of public service. you for the solutions you support for our nation's housing challenges. i also want to thank the center for the work they do in promoting a respectable and constructive dialogue on what is typically a fairly contentious issue. we know that in washington, it occasionally sheds more heat than light. i hope that today we have a little bit more light and i am flees to be a part of that dialogue today. i have of you may know, focused a good portion of my public service career to the issue of housing.

i believe homeownership is a cherished american tradition. that i believeon is far more meaningful than granite -- granite countertops. it is a quality that combines families together, build financial security and strengthens our communities. as cherished of an institution as it may be, homeownership does not in and of itself constitute the american dream. it never has. i think most of us believe the american dream is something far more profound. simply, the right to use our god-given talents to control our own destiny to the end, that our children might have even greater opportunities, greater abundance and greater freedoms than we have ever enjoyed. it is this understanding of the american dream that serves as my

personal composition this debate. before we can use any compass to help chart a path for the future, we must have a thorough understanding of where we have been and where we, unfortunately, find ourselves today. for my work on the congressional oversight panel for the tarp program, it became clear that the great tragedy, the financial crisis was not that washington failed to prevent the crisis that that washington helped lead us into it. led into it based upon a single good intentioned -- that every american family should own a home. intentions do not necessarily lead to good public policy. washington helped lead us into washington helped lead us into this crisis in three principal ways. federal policies expanded policies by encouraging lending to people who bought homes that they simply could not afford to keep. sadly, the federal government

that lives beyond its means tragically encouraged american families to do likewise. washington promoted moral hazard by protecting fannie mae and freddie mac which privatized their profits and socialized their losses. lastly, the federal reserve maintained a highly accommodative monetary policy that traumatically lowered interest rates and kept them low and inflated the housing bubble. let's hope history is not repeating itself currently. the fed set the stage for a wave of mortgage our wing by setting borrowing conditions too low too long. the fed began lowering interest rates in early 2001 to cushion the economic fallout. on an inflation adjusted basis, the fed dropped interest rates from four percent in late 2000 28 negative one .5% by early 2003. that decision unleashed a wave

of cheap credit on a housing market that was already experiencing a down cycle. if the federal government has attempted to spur lending and are owing to expand homeownership without direct taxpayer spending and without annual congressional approval. are thoseand there that disagree that one of the more damaging initiatives has been the community reinvestment act which is clearly undertaken with good intentions but i feel is antiquated and in need of repeal. have said of bandits that a small portion of subprime mortgage origination's related to the cra. i believe this is a more fundamental point - largeoan mandates remain in precedent. they require lending institutions to abandon their traditional underwriting standards to comply with this government mandate. cra put the government's housekeeping seal of approval on low-quality loans.

finally, fannie mae and freddie mac -- private companies awarded monopoly powers by congress in exchange for meeting certain affordable housing goals. they exploited those chargers tube ro at discounted rates and ultimately dominated our secondary mortgage market. bait wildly inflated their balance sheets and personally and rich their executives via explicit government backing. cook- did i mention the looks that allowed the connected executives to make off like bandits was what their regulator described as ill-gotten bonuses in the hundreds of millions of dollars? in theheir prominence market, investors and underwriters came to believe that if fannie mae and freddie mac touched a loan, it was safe, sound, secure, and sanctioned by the government. more than 70% of subprime mortgages that helped lead to the crisis were backed by fannie mae, freddie mac, fha and other

taxpayer-backed programs. if you have to put your finger on the root cause of the crisis, this is it. inpite the inherent dangers such transactions, fannie mae and freddie mac supporters kept encouraging them to roll the dice a little bit more. they did and the result is the worst financial crisis since the great depression. of ultimate consequence these policies with that the average american family watched helplessly as their net wealth declined i nearly $50,000 wiping out nearly two decades of financial progress. ladies and gentlemen, this is where we have been. five years later, where do we find ourselves today? are singlenow there moms throughout our economy to our having to work even haodon r their families heads. that is unconscionable.

today, taxpayers have been forced to pay for the mother of all bailouts, nearly $200 billion for the failed gse's. that is unimaginable. taxpayers remain on the hook for nearly five trillion dollars in mortgage guarantees, roughly 1/3 our economy, that is unfathomable. the federal government has a virtual monopoly on the housing finance system, that is unwise. due to the dodd frank act, washington elites decide who can qualify our for mortgages puttig ownership out of reach for millions of creditworthy american families. that is unfair. ae american people deserve path forward, they deserve a path to a housing system that is sustainable, fair, and preserves the american dream. they deserve a system that protects current and future homeowners so that every american who works hard am a plays by the rules, can have opportunities and choices to buy

homes they can actually afford to keep. they deserve a system that protects hard-working taxpayers so they never again have to they'll out corrupted financial institutions like fannie mae and freddie mac. they deserve a system that finally rakes the distractive boom/bust housing cycles that it hurt so many working families and bought our economy to its knees. that is why the house financial services committee recently approved hr 2767, the path act which stands for protecting american taxpayers and homeowners. i believe the path act is the path forward. of act as the principal work scott garrett of new jersey. commend them for their principles to bring this landmark legislation to our committee. at its core, the housing market is not fundamentally different from the market of any other

asset. housing is not immune to the economic laws of supply and demand or risk and reward. path act principally relies upon private capital and market discipline. it includes quite -- or goals to the development of a competitive free market. government ise of clearly defined and limited. second, our official barriers to private capital are removed to attract investment and encourage innovation. third, market participants are given clear transparent and enforceable rules for transactions to foster competition and restore market discipline. lastly, consumers are afforded informed choices in determining which mortgage products best suited her needs. the act specifically ends the costly fannie mae and freddie mac bailout, it protects and restores the fha by defining its mission come it increases mortgage competition, and

enhances transparency and maximizes consumer choice, and breaks down barriers for private investment capital. that theeve, as i do, first step in creating a sustainable housing finance system is to and the costly bailout of fannie mae and freddie mac. we need to permanently move away from a system where the fate of our economy depends upon their success or their failure. the path act and the bailout and gradually winds down both failed companies over a 5-7 year time frame. much of this debate has centered around these so-called need to have gse's or their equivalent in error eyes -- housing finance system. we should recognize that the u.s. is tactically alone in the modern industrialized world in having government sponsored enterprises directly guarantee mortgage securities. we are practically alone in our level of direct government subsidy and intervention in our housing markets.

we were also practically alone in the world in the level of turmoil in our housing markets as measured by foreclosures and delinquencies. i believe there is a direct causal link. fannie mae and freddie mac have not propelled our nation to housing finance nirvana. to other modern industrialized nations, whether we look at rates of homeownership or spreads between mortgage interest rates and sovereign debt, the u.s. can typically be found either in the middle or the bottom of the pack. however, there is one category where the u.s. has clearly led, foreclosure rates. only in america, can you find a government that subsidizes housing more so that we the people can get less. not have to look overseas to see a well functioning housing market. without government-sponsored enterprises. we don't have to look any further than our own jumbo market that has successfully operated without them.

the housing bust, the jumbo market was 20% of our total housing market. there was capital, liquidity, competition, eight 30-year fixed mortgage choice and innovation all right here in america. all of that was delivered for from 7-20 basis points what the gse's offered. modest amount to avoid taxpayer bailouts, government control and economic catastrophe. i think it is important that whatever modest interest rate benefit the gse's delivered to , to some extent, it was clearly offset by the inflation of housing principles for the very same home buyers. in other words, it is not self- evident that the homebuyer was any better off. at, to some extent, it was clearly the end of the day,t argument i have heard to perpetuate the gse's are the following: they were standard

setters throughout the underwriting purchase requirements and served as loan aggregators for smaller lenders by purchasing loans through their cash window and they provided a conduit for smaller originators to access mortgage investors through the issuance of mortgage backed securities. indeed functions well worth preserving in some form throughout a new system. the path act ushers in a new system of housing finances separating these functions, providing clear and transparent disclosure of mortgage data and giving certainty to contracts and enforceability, utilizing the knowledge and networks of the federal home loan bank system and creating an open access utility per mortgage backed securities issuance that is decoupled from the holding of the long-term mortgage risk. to ensure a smooth transition to the new system, the path act implements several reforms to fannie mae and freddie mac. these reforms include repealing their misguided washington created affordable housing goals that helped precipitate the

crisis. shrinking their portfolios of mortgage-backed securities and other assets and eliminating the government granted competitive advantages over the private sector. the path act reforms the fha. you cannot have true housing reform without fha reform. otherwise, you are simply squeezing the balloon on one side only to have it bulge on another. regrettably, the fha is not only broken but it is bail out broke. it has experienced severe mission creep and i would argue are directlyon related. stead of helping those it was intended, fha insures mortgages for millionaires and homes $729,000.high as that is a mansion and most of the fifth congressional district of texas and far beyond the reach of those truly earning low and moderate incomes.

the fha government privileges given advantages that muscle out private competition. it is no wonder that fha today controls 57% of the mortgage insurance market. it has gained this advantage over competitors by using many of the same practices employed by subprime lenders, small down payments, low credit scores, cheap upfront pricing, and encouraging the purchase of increasingly [indiscernible] homes. fha has more in common with the now-defunct countrywide than with the fha of years ago. the path act returns it to its traditional mission helping first time wires and low and moderate income families. it further helps ensure fha solvency. a bankrupt fha helps no one. rest assured that in times of serious economic downturns, under the path back, the fha can insure loans to any borrower. this means the path would 's existinge fha

countercyclical role in mortgage lending which enables the fha to serve as a backstop to keep mortgage credit flowing, promote stability in the housing market, and ensure middle of income families can buy homes. it allows for a new but old method for banks to finance mortgage lending by creating a regulatory framework for covered bonds financing. old becauset covered bonds have existed and have been successfully used in europe for more than 200 years. third pathway to mortgage financing beyond traditional portfolio lending and securitization. when it comes to housing finance, many in washington fight the new and defend the old failed status quo that gave us a government run monopoly, taxpayer bailouts, economic crisis, and delivered only mediocre homeownership rates.

but detractors of the path act have claimed it will eliminate the early year fixed rate mortgage. could be the biggest myth about the path act. in fact, section 213 of the path act specifically states that " the fha shall provide, among other mortgage products, for the availability of a 30-year fixed mortgage." does not say fha can provide or may provide or should provide and instead says shall provide. 213uld note that section would be the first time that the fha has ever been specifically required to offer a early year fixed rate insurance product which would conclusively refute that argument. some people have stated that the very existence of the 30 year fixed-rate mortgage is due to the fha. the path that goes to great lengths to strengthen it

for future generations by granting it meaningful autonomy defined in its mission and helping make it solvent and giving it more flexibility to manage looks. rate mortgages existed before the financial crisis without a government darren t and they are being made today without a government guarantee. " the washington post" said the lack of permanent government backing will deprive the market of liquidity and and 30 year fixed-rate mortgages. my answer to that is that some 30 year fixed-rate loans exist without government help. homebuyer should have the opportunity to acquire a 30 year fixed-rate mortgage. it is important to many americans. washington should not steer people into it but instead should ensure that our citizens have informed choices about an hour rate of mortgage products

that could meet their needs. as the head of the federal housing finance agency recently stated " one thing i would say about 30 year mortgages, it is not necessarily the best mortgage product for a homebuyer, especially a first time homebuyer." at statistics, first-time home buyers tend to own their first home for four or five years so it may not be the best for their circumstances if they buy that house with that kind of timeline. different mortgage product in which they can build equity at a faster rate than a 30 year fixed-rate mortgage" president obama has a knowledge that shorter duration loans hold advantages for many are words like when he proposed last year and expanded loan refinance program where borrowers " must agree to refinance and weight loan with no more than a 20 year term." seek to own a who

home find themselves selling their property before they'd build some if any equity in that property. that leaves their situation akin paysing a renter who thousands in closing costs, agrees to do the maintenance, and then has to pay the property taxes. there is no one-size-fits-all mortgage in america. some opponents of the path back claim that sufficient private sector capital simply does not exist to fill a post government guarantee void. markets 2.5 times the size of our mortgage markets and yet they exist without any , government or otherwise? , government or otherwise? how much capital is sufficient for housing finance? i don't know the answer to the question and i suspect no one in this audience does either. what i do know is that whatever that number is, it must be sustainable. that is the key concept.

us all thatnd capital has alternative uses. every dollar that washington artificially puts into mortgage finance is a dollar that can no longer be used to promote math tutors for our children, or promote our pays thousands in economy manufacturing sector to give them jobs once they graduate. another important factor to remember about financing the u.s. mortgage market is that investors, property and casualty life insurers, pension and retirement funds, ritual funds and real estate investment trusts, elbow most 50% of the market share for whole mortgages and mortgage-backed securities by 2010. for these kind of investors, the was an ideal investment opportunity given their need for long-term investments. explains thatpert winding down the gse should be

accomplished without any major stress in the flow of funds for u.s. mortgages. seee look abroad, we another modern industrialized nation that has avoided our disastrous gse experience. private capital is willing ready and able to fund the mortgage market. attack made against the path back is that it will be harder for middle income families to buy homes. no, that distinction belongs to the frank act. zandi testified that one single dodd frank rule, qrm, could increase mortgage interest rates 1- 4 percentage points. a company that analyzes information set about half the mortgage loans made today would not qualify with dodd frank

rules that go into effect this january. in other words, single-handedly, the dodd frank act could cut the number of mortgages in half and double the cost of those that remain. it is that bad. perhaps, that is why the national association of homebuilders says dodd frank and grind the system to a halt. the dodd frank act, washington has more control over who can buy a home than your local banker. theseth act addresses devastating rules head-on, getting washington out of the way to allow banks to lend, builders to build, real close to sell, and home buyers to buy. the path act entirely eliminates the qualified residential mortgage issued by striking the dodd frank credit risk retention requirements in prohibiting federal agencies for requiring risk retention or premium catcher reserve accounts. it eliminates the troubling ability to pay liability exposure for lenders for the

mortgages they are willing to hold in their own portfolio or securitized through the platform created by the path back. that some have claimed that somehow the path act is ideological. that is a word you hear more in washington. it seems to me that those who would defend a failed status quo of taxpayer bailouts, economic crisis and mediocre homeownership rates, perhaps these are the ones that are being ideological. instead, the path act is sustainable, sustainable for home owners so they can buy homes they can actually afford to keep and sustainable for taxpayers so they no longer have housing finance system, sustainable for our economy so that we avoid the seemingly never ending cycle of boom and bust in our housing market. washington, that is

ideological but in the fifth congressional district of texas, i think it is known as common sense. i have spent a lot of time listening to my constituents and their common sense. i recently heard from diane in why shouldwrote me " those of us who did the responsible thing and purchase afford have to pay the freight for those bought larger more expensive homes they could not afford?" i heard from steve in jacksonville, texas -- " if it were a mom-and-pop business that did with fannie mae and freddie mac did would have been shut down for border -- for poor business practices and jailed." whatscott wrote me -- " the american people need is not more washington regulations or subsidies, just give us the opportunity to buy a home that people can afford to keep so we can live and raise our families." of washington get it.

they understand that the system in place today is too often unfair, unaccountable, and unsustainable. clearly, i know there are other voices in this debate. besides my own and my constituents and i could not be more gratified that last week at the president finally his voice to this important debate. specifics,heard few i welcome him to the debate. i am encouraged by this and i recognize that he is indispensable to a solution. other important voices in this debate besides your own are those of senator corker of tennessee and senator warner of virginia. i commend them for their leadership as someone who has worked for years and years on the complicated and contentious issue of housing reform, i salute anyone who will roll up their sleeves and produce not just rhetoric but an actual plan. even today, more and more voices are being heard in this debate and this is encouraging.

this is good. i stand ready to listen to all and negotiate in good faith with all. i do this with an open mind but i do not do it with an empty mind. thus, i remain skeptical and fearful of an approach that does not and the permanent government guarantee in the secondary mortgage market. if taxpayers are still on the hook at the end of the day, i fear all you have done is put fannie mae and freddie mac and witnessn the federal protection program and given them a new identity and unleash them on an unsuspecting public. providesnment guarantees and it means investors who buy mortgage- backed securities and will be protected against loss. they will not be concerned about the quality of the mortgages. either way, they will get paid and not unlike fannie mae and freddie mac, it could well system where wall

street investors simply offload their risk onto main street taxpayers. such a system, i fear, can guarantee that america will face another round of boom, bust, and bail out. new federal bureaucracies would approve players in the system. i fear the prospect of powerful bureaucrats taking -- picking winners and losers and that system, the taxpayer comes out the loser. way of rearing its ugly head. i remain skeptical of ideas to create a new federal mortgage insurance fund. there is one thing we have learned about government and insurance funds is that the government either cannot or will not properly price for risk. it -- whether it is the national flood insurance program touches underwater, pun intended, the pension benefit guaranty program or even the deposit insurance fund, from time to time, the government has flat gotten it wrong leaving taxpayers on the hook. i will conclude with just these

last few thoughts -- as our nation charts a half forward on housing reform, some will say our public rosy choices for working american families are between house and no house. i disagree. to have a sustainable housing policy where people buy homes they can't afford to keep, the choice in many respects is between house and morehouse. -- will our generation perpetuated system that the man's morehouse today to ensure that our children are confined to less house tomorrow? today's system is retarding economic growth and helping fuel what all acknowledge is an unsustainable level of national debt. our spending driven debt crisis is the greatest existential threat facing our nation today. are borrowing $.31 on the

dollar, much of it from china, and sending the bill to our children. children born today are burdened with a debt of more than $52,000 they had nothing to do with creating. our national debt stands at roughly $145,000 per household. represent inle i the fifth congressional district of texas, that is more than they will ever amass in savings in their entire lifetimes. a presidential appointee to the simpson-bowles commission, and the ceo of honeywell said " the seeds of the next recession have been planted and the debt burden over the next 10 years will sink us." the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the singles nationalreat to security is ever debt. single biggesthe threat to our national housing aspirations, too, is ever debt.

if you have ever attended one of our financial services committee hearings on capitol hill and i hope one day you will, you will also see that we run a continuous real-time display of the national debt clock. it serves as a constant and of the veryinder serious and very dangerous threat that faces our nation. it is a threat that looms large over this debate and should loom large over every debate we engage in. that as weo say think about a housing program for working americans, we've got to remember that the best housing program is not a subsidy or guaranty or interest deduction or a tax credit. it is a job. it is a job that leads to a rewarding career in a dynamic, growing economy because there has never been a greater or more successful housing program ever devised by the minds of mankind than the american free enterprise system.

this is what we should work to strengthen. thatould also never forget at the dawn of american history, it was another crony run sponsored enterprise that needed a bailout, namely the east india tea company. it sparked a revolution gave birth to a nation teeming with individuals who decided to take control of their own destinies. these patriots risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to ensure their children would have something better and afraid they've risked it all for the american dream. that is a compass that should guide us all. in the aftermath of the destruction caused by an unsustainable housing finance system, we find ourselves again at another moment in history. it is a moment in history when we have to make a fundamental choice, one that will shape the future of our nation and the ones we proudly call america

home. that is why this debate matters. when you come down to it, it is not a debate about basis points or fixed term loans. it is about freedom. it is about opportunity. it is about taking back control of your lives and your destinies including many here today, you, who have career in housing finance, to have those careers without the interference of big government. i hope we can all agree it is time for a new path. it is time for our generation to preserve for our children the american dream including that most important dream of homeownership. voice and i thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much for very thoughtful remarks. i know we are running close to our timeframe for lunch. i will throw a question at you and maybe a second one--

one of the things everyone would like to know is what is your assessment of a timetable by which that which we all share which is the desire to see this reform take place could happen? >> you did not say they would be easy questions. the house majority leader is anxious to ring the path act to the floor. i have an open mind. we are speaking to many people now about some revisions and improvements that could be made to that act before it goes to the floor. as i look in this audience, i see a few of those people we are talking with as we speak today. i do not have a close personal working relationship with senator harry reid so i am a little ignorant of what the time table may be over there but in my discussions with the senate banking chairman , tim johnson, and ranking member mike crepo,

i am cautiously optimistic that they too may move some legislation in the fall. as does the majority of the house financial services committee that the path act is the path forward. the voters spoke in the last election. there is divided government and that is why god made conference committees and i wish to get the path act to a conference committee. >> as someone who was in the senate for the better part of a term, i only saw one or two conference committees the entire time i was there. that would be welcome news to those who study civics in our schools that we could come together. i guess that would be the follow-up question -- do you think we could end up in a conference situation? with the senate agreed to that as well as the house leadership? to the extent i have anything

to say about it, we would go to conference. i've got a nine-year-old son, an 11-year-old daughter learning hope it iss and i not relegated to meth, these ideas of having an actual conference committee. i would remain cautiously optimistic. i am more encouraged now that the president has weighed in. i was encouraged when the president's administration initially put out their housing white paper. i became discouraged when it was allowed to gathered dust for roughly 2.5 years. there were a number of conversations with secretary geithner and i was convinced by the sincerity of wanting to move forward and why it never happened. i don't have a clear picture. i am encourage the presidente is weighed in. he seemingly wants to get something done and option one on his housing white paper, to a great extent, encompasses much of what the path act as. i list to his comments carefully

the other day. wind down for fannie mae and freddie mac is similar to what we see in the path act. having said that, i have frequently, in my career, found of whatgreeing with 80% the president says. i find myself agreeing with 80% of what he does. -- disagreeing with 80% of what he does. >> another question -- there are a number of things in your path act proposal that deal with dodd frank. is there a likelihood that as a -- of of this ross us this process that we might see dodd frank reform? >> i am encourage. it is clear as a conservative republican, i have not been a of dodd frank although i certainly have a great amount of for its author, chairman

frank, who is clearly one of the smarter people i have met which does not mean he is right or correct. you would have to ask my colleagues on the other side of ae aisle -- i fear some have more religious adherence to the brands then perhaps the named authors of the act have. when you look at what the

regulators have done with qm, what is calm -- contemplated by qrm, i think that is unsustainable. i do not know how you could ultimately sustain a housing finance market if you cut the number of mortgages in half and doubled the price on the others. that clearly could be the outcome, perhaps the worst case scenario. i think there are a number of democrats in the house financial services committee although they are committed to the fundamentals of dodd frank, are certainly looking for room for improvement. i have been in congress for a few years. if you're not an optimist optimist, it is not the job for you. i prefer to remain optimistic about these matters. >> chairman, thank you for your generosity of time and i hope you enjoy the rest of the time in your home district which you prefer to washington but we look forward to having you back there for the important work ahead. thank you. [applause] you look at what the regulators have done with qm, what is calm -- contemplated by qrm, [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] you look at what the regulators have done with qm, what is calm -- contemplated by qrm, i think that is unsustainable. i do not know>> beginning live e will go to the center for american progress for remarks president obama's half- sister expected to talk about the importance of ending trafficking and exploitation of women and children. from the associated press --

egypt and government has slept a nighttime curfew on cairo and 10 provinces which was announced shortly after the interim president declared a month-long state of emergency and urged the army to back the police to restore order. violence spread across much of the country after police wept and with vehicles and bulldozers and helicopters to clear two encampments of supporters of ousted resident mohamed morsi. many have been killed. the white house briefing today is currently underway with deputy spokesman josh earnest at martha's vineyard. there is a portion from earlier today. -- the white house has condemned the violence. >> good morning, everybody. let me take a minute to get settled here.

before we get started, i want to read a statement about the violence overnight in egypt. the dates strongly condemns the use of violence against road testers in egypt. we extend their condolences to the families of those who have been killed and two the injured. we have repeatedly called on the egyptian military and security forces to show restraint and for the government to respect the universal rights of its citizens just as we urge protesters to demonstrate peacefully. the violence will only make it more difficult to move egypt forward on it path to lasting stability and democracy and runs directly counter to the pledges by the interim government to pursue reconciliation. oppose theongly return to a state of emergency law and call on the government to respect basic human rights such as freedom of peaceful assembly and due process under

the law. the world is watching what is happening in cairo. we urge the government of egypt and all parties in egypt to refrain from violence and resolve their differences peacefully. statement, ining will go to the first question. statement for the last six weeks about calm. can the united states exercise and eight leverage here? sending 1.3 ilya and dollars to the military. there anything we can do to stop that? >> over the course of the last several weeks, senior officials in the obama administration have been in touch with their counterparts in egypt. there has been a number of calls that secretary of state kerry has done to his counterparts and there has been calls from secretary hagel and his

counterparts. deputy secretary of state byrnes was in egypt last week and was joined by his counterpart from the eu and diplomats from the all havingr, meetings with egyptian officials. senator graham and senator mccain also traveled to egypt last week. there are open lines of medication -- communication between the united states and egypt. clear ourment makes view that the government should respect the basic human rights of their people is unambiguous. we have been very direct about that. we will continue to hold the government accountable for the promise they have made, to speed the transition to a civilian democratically elected government. that is what we would like to see in egypt, not just because of our firm belief in universal

human rights but also because it is the will of the egyptian people. we will continue to be in touch with their counterparts in egypt and continue to urge them to follow through on their commitment to transition to a democratic civilian government and to do so through an inclusive process. those messages are pretty unambiguous and sent by regular basis. are you reconsidering the position whether this was a coup? this have determined that is not in the best interest of the united states to make that determination. as we have said throughout the process, we are reviewing the aid provided by the united states to egypt. we will continue to do that. >> how has the president being kept updated? >> the president has been briefed on the violence that occurred overnight in egypt.

as you know, the national security advisor, ambassador rice, is traveling with us this week and the president will stay up dated. he is closely monitoring what is happening. you have been calling for an inclusive government in egypt for weeks. why should the muslim brotherhood be prepared to talk to you? >> part of the commerce asian deputy secretary and burns -- part of the conversation deputy secretary earns is in the interest of all sides to put an end to the violence and respect basic human rights. a government place that reflects the will of the egyptian people. that is the clear view of united states and something we have urged them to do for quite some time but it is also in the best interest of the egyptian people. that the interim government will take the steps

necessary to effect that transition. range in thea death toll from 95-800. do you have a clear picture on that? >> there are folks monitoring the situation and are working to get more details about what will happen. they are trying to get greater clarity on what has happened. you held the government accountable? >> when the interim government took control of the country, was onlyised that this an interim step so they could transition promptly to a civilian democratically elected government. that is i promise we have made and we will encourage them to keep that. we will remind them they made that promise and encourage them

to keep it. you give us more specifics about the mechanics and timing of the presidents read things? is there anything that required him to be awakened overnight? >> he was briefed this morning by ambassador rice but i don't know what time that occurred. we can get more details for you but he was briefed on the situation this morning. has beentuation building, the interim government lastending signals for the 72 hours it has been moving in this direction -- was there any last-minute efforts by the united states government to urge the transitional government not to take violent steps? i don't have specific conversations to highlight for you. all along, you have heard me and jay and others in the government in the interim

government to respect the rights of their people. there is no ambiguity about the people in this government. the united states government -- of respecting basic human rights and that includes the right of peaceful assembly and protest. that has beenage communicated directly to the egyptians at a range of levels. our position is not unclear. >> how anxious is the administration that this is pitching toward civil war? the muslim brotherhood has had two episodes. there have been dozens of deaths of their membership protesting peacefully. how can this end up in reconciliation? >> my statement alluded to this

concern which is that violence will make it more difficult to move egypt toward on a path to stability and runs directly counter to the pledges by the interim government to pursue reconciliation. there is no question that the violence we saw overnight is a step in the wrong direction. it is an indication they're not currently following through on their promise to transition back to a democratically elected civilian government. that they are not committed to an inclusive process. it is time for them to get back on a path of respecting a secure rights of their people, to include a variety of perspectives and conversations about what the future government of egypt looks like. that is important not just because of the importance of respecting the basic universal then rights that we in united states hold so dear, it is also important because it is what the people of egypt are demanding. >> white house debbie spokesman traveling with the president --

deputy spokesman traveling with the president. we will continue to bring you updates on the situation in egypt. live now with president obama's half-sister maya soetoro-ng, she is expected to talk about stopping a trafficking and explication of women and children hosted by the center for american progress here in washington. she will highlight the challenges and successful strategies international organizations are currently using and rescue them or republication, and prevention of human trafficking. this is live coverage expected to start in just a moment.

, awe are live this afternoon winning comments from president obama's half-sister maya soetoro-ng, where she will talk about stopping the trafficking and exploitation of women and children. this should start in just a moment. we have some sad news to pass along, the columnist and pundit who covered 10 presidential elections and sparred with colleagues has died.

he died wednesday morning, this morning. he recently had finished his first novel about a reporter investigating political intrigue, being published today. he was 85 years old. center for american progress, awaiting remarks from president obama's half-sister maya soetoro-ng on the trafficking and explication of women and children. this is hosted by the center for american progress.

>> good afternoon. turn offeryone to their cell phones, ipads, anything else that might make moisture in the event. thank you very much.

-- that might make noise in the event. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i want to thank you all for joining us today for a

conversation about a topic that doesn't get nearly the coverage it deserves, human sex trafficking. an estimated 3 million children are currently exploited it india's sex trade, the vast majority are women and girls usually coming from the poorest, most is abated backgrounds in india. every day in india, 200 women and girls into prostitution and 80% do so against their will. the numbers are daunting and the problems are vast, but good work is being done. there are voices that refuse to be silent, who speak up in the face of persecution and are fighting to save the lives of women and girls. today we're going to hear not just about the challenges, but also a positive stories and about the work yet to be done. we are thrilled to be joined today by dr. maya soetoro-ng, a renowned advocate for global peace as well as improving public education. she is currently an assistant

professor at the university of hawaii college of education. she has written a picture book and curtly writing a book about he's education as well as a young adult novel. there copies for sale in the lobby and she will be signing books after the event. moderating today's conversation will be christina lagdameo, board president of an organization that seeks to create a global movement to combat human trafficking, child exploitation, and sexual violence. before we hear from them, we have a special performance from omékongo dibinga. he has dedicated his life to inspire all across the globe to take a stand when they witness an injustice no matter how small or large. omékongo dibinga is a , sceniconal speaker conservator, tv talk show host, and rapper. please join me in welcoming him.

[applause] >> good morning. haveof the reason why we this issue with sex trafficking in india as well as china is because there is a great absence of girls missing due to the gender by policies taking place. this poem is entitled "it's a girl." 200 million missing not talking about money, see talking about something worth more than currency i'm talking about missing girls, the foundation of the nation who were born in india and china for detonation, desperation, having a girl and trepidation being born a girl eats to the devastation baby girls bouncing from womb to the tomb how have we forgotten that the woman is key to open the future store for our children to see the phrase, it's a girl, should bring cause to rejoice but we kill innocent victims who have

no choice no say in the way they will die today we are killing our seeds we got to tell the world so parents can say proudly it's a girl can't see women as a burden got to save the people who hold up half the sky because they think having a girl is a burden it is not about condemning cultures but saving lives dowry deaths for those left wondering why why oh why practice safer sex than kill a child who has nothing india and china, what to going to do when there's nothing but men in your country to can't import wives like you might do food see the value of your girls, don't kill them too soon a woman's body is not a boy factory we got to get our girls the

right to be born and be free. thank you. [applause] . >> please join me in welcoming maya soetoro-ng. [applause] thank you, thank you, thank you. we were just talking about how we have some guests in the house. i had a little cap and my husband try to fix it and he got all documentary called gap tooth woman. anyone of you seen it? it is about all the cultures in the world that revere the gap. supposedly, the moonlight shines voice. and gives me the there are people who adore the gap and so he said, you just have to change the way that you

see, not the way that you look. point taken. , gapt me a domain name tooth woman, for my 40th birth day. at any rate, first i want to thank omékongo dibinga for the powerful performance and for the writing, speaking that he does, for being an advocate of multilingualism and an advocate for women and girls. i do believe we need more artists and activists willing to address this issue in powerful ways. i know we both have daughters and that that inspires much of the passion that we witnessed from you. i want to thank you, daniella kind intro, for your and your leadership and for the center for american progress for who dothe people here

important and meaningful and impactful work. i believe the center for american progress is an example of what we need and i'm very grateful for the space, for the nourishment of the opportunity to get together and the technology that will allow us to ponder a future solutions. i would like to also thank omékongo dibinga for inviting me to -- i would also like to thank you for inviting me for this anniversary of restoring, rekindling, renewing emma and of the survivors of trafficking in india and i'm honored to be in the presence of so many of you who have risked and devoted so much. i want to extend gratitude to the residents watching and congratulations to you for your abolitionist work. my brother's administration is

committed to addressing this issue, and you can review the policy side of this issue at whitehouse.gov, but i want us to consider some proactive, preventative and educational solutions. policy -- or in addition to policy, because you may have a great deal of expertise in policy that i do not. my feeling is that it is possible that most or at least many of you have more knowledge about trafficking that perhaps i do. as i see it isay to encourage all of you to begin dialoguing and to insist upon the collaborative and inventive vision about how to move forward. i would like to begin actually with words from, who because i thought it was appropriate.

i was reading this morning that he said that great ideas come into the world as gently as doves, perhaps then if we listen attentively, we shall hear amid the uproar's empire a faint flutter of wings, gentle stirring of hope. some will say hope lies in the nation others in a person rather it is awakened, nourished by millions of solitary individuals whose deeds and work every day negate the crudest implications of history as a result, there shines forth the truth that each person on the foundation of his or her own suffering and joy builds for all. i think that is an appropriate quote to begin what i hope will be a discussion as i hope you will also bring forth your ideas and begin a conversation with those sitting beside you both during this event and after. i believe you're all builders.

you all have important things to contribute. and opportunities like it's about building those foundations, collecting the raw materials for the scaffolding in both aspiration and deed a sturdier edifice to house and harbor the victims of trafficking. i think even if you don't have a background in policy or law enforcement, perhaps you can build greater awareness or strengthen pro bono networks, build resource centers, training centers. you can do outreach and educate. and very important to me, you can engage in powerful acts of storytelling, one and all. profits hasng, the

information, but we can also get information from myriad resources. given the profits are in the billions for trafficking and given the fact that so many we have are impacted, to begin facilitating stronger relationships i think between national and international, not just governments, but ngos and businesses, private and public partnerships as well as educational organizations. i teach peace education every semester. some of what i do isn't .ecessarily relevant to this part of what i am tasked to do history and current events from multiple perspectives, and i do that using the tools we have today to access english language newspapers and media from all over the world to make comparisons and to reveal a more multifaceted version of the truth.

or i look at textbooks and historical documents from all over the world to show history from a multifaceted perspective. weinstead of doing debates, will do structured academic controversies, which involve having to argue for one side and thenargue the other side, to negotiate an agreement or compromise between sides in order to move forward. so those are some of the things that happen in peace education. we of course learn about the great folks engaged in nonviolent acts of -- activism in transformation and we learned about conflict, current and recent, and the role of poverty and the international community. ,hat does the artist engineer the researcher, and the

physician, what do they contribute to both conflict and solution building? in that sense, one thing that i want to say pretty early is that we have to be nuance in our thinking. trafficking is a complex issue and sometimes that word is used to mean only a movement across borders. sometimes it encompasses a much larger set of circumstances. and what is clear is we can't simply think about public policy and the role of government, but we really have to be broad- minded in our thinking and to us both can each of do and how we can stir contributions from every facet of society. one thing that we do in peace education as we create faces --

spaces, external spaces, gardens. canrnational peace gardens be many things, but i think there has to be a sort of pathway to peace. there has to be symbols of peace and words are present, perhaps a under which people can sit in a bench where people can engage in conflict resolution or mediation. perhaps we can think about our role in the environment and have sustainability and farming, things that can nurse our bodies. if we can't create these gardens, sometimes in inl, we can design them small gardens replace in our classrooms or our homes. endeavored did was i

when there was an issue of conflict between a muslim and had then community, i muslim community school right down what they felt would be the shapes andn, the sounds and images that warmed them and brought a sense of peace. then i had the christian community to the same. then i had them actually create each other's garden, literally tending each other's garden. i think that kind of work is very valuable and can be a tremendous source of healing. you think about any kind of trauma, not simply war, but natural disasters, the idea of ringing aspiration to action and doing things for others i think is very important.

one thing i wanted us to brainstorm together in addition to some external places and spaces we can create, i think there is some internal spaces -- that we can build nourish through things like spoken word, giving victims and the people around them restored sense of voice. obviously, journals, theater, music. there are a limitless set of options. i think one thing that has been very effective for me in working with the victims of trauma has been to have them not only write their own stories -- someone gave me a book yesterday that was a very good book from what i have been able to see called "sold."

it was perhaps for young adults. it is about a girl who was trafficked from the paul and it was very powerful. the young adults themselves writing the stories. way for peopleg of every age to begin that process. or perhaps they can take a story -- what i have my students do is change the endings of stories. it gives them a sense of empowerment, helps them to that they can alter what they perceive to be inevitable. strength inat giving voice in these ways and others. it is no small matter. there is an indonesian phrase that i conjure on a regular basis.

it means, to wash the eyes. you will see that phrase in my children's book and you will see in the book that the very talented illustrator opens the book with a view of the moon from the earth's perspective and closes it with the view of the earth from the moon's perspective. the idea is to constantly shift perspectives not only so we can empathize and build peace in those ways, but also so that we can change the way we view ourselves. we can name ourselves differently. we can do identity the link and find a future that is more robust. and perhaps by virtue of changing our own stories, it means "to wash the eyes" and indonesia they use that phrase to speak of the need at the end of the workweek to go and get a

different view and to relax and to recline. but it can be used to think about something even more powerful, this notion that we can see ourselves in the world and our own potential and the beauty that resides both within and externally by washing our not, by changing necessarily the way we look, but the way that we see. a gap toothed state of mind. i think it is a powerful part of the work both to prevent and to heal trafficking. work, see visible in the we can see as their bodies become stronger that the people who are doing yoga and who are working together in one place, having an opportunity to find

strength through peer resources as well as mentorship, that they have changed the way they see. having given an opportunity to wash their eyes. i think we can do that in an organizational level as well as an individual level. conflict -- we call the conflict resolution then, now we call a conflict transformation. some conflicts never resolve, but they can be transformed into something more productive and perhaps.ng and useful, i would always have the kids who were the bullies, the gang leaders and the class clowns, be the negotiators are the mediators. the reason was because, as many

it allowedably know, them to see themselves differently. they were already hungry for attention, already dynamic and charismatic and leaders, but the idea of giving them the tools to engage in benevolent readership, to remind them they can do that, too, and there are those who will listen and follow and who if theyinterested, even is aneaking softly important one. the work they do to also bring in the traffickers, the perpetrators, i think is therefore very important. we mustn't forget about that. i think that -- excuse me.

i think that is part of culturally competent work. we need to meet the community where they are on some levels. we need to build bridges between schools and organizations and businesses in the community and if families that exist and we are going to be culturally responsive, then we have to address the culture that has created this. we don't have to be arrogant about it. we don't need to come down and tell other cultures what they're doing wrong. the idea is to bring local knowledges to bear. it is to also unearth and explore and truly excavate the reasons why you have perpetrators. what is happening here, how do we empower them to behave differently and to see themselves differently in their task in the world.

all know organizations that have succeeded by virtue of using this method -- second chance is one with gangs. they have former gang members who go out and persuade. it is not about being scared straight or instilling fear, but with about really working , aar and powerful knowledge deep-rooted knowledge of the problem. and only then can we have, i think, a full and effective set of solutions. i think there are two important tools for helping the victims as well as their communities as they reintegrate into society, to feel empowered, to find meaning in helping others, to feel safe in their new circumstances for their worldly

-- for they will be forever changed, but not necessarily forever damaged. think,oes need to be, i this work together, building bridges to eliminate isolation, alienation, and to find a sort of future orientation. i think we need to bring in their own personal history in orderto move forward, in to first grapple with it and then unearth something brighter. this resilient poet -- a talks aboutet planting dates, even though we will never meet those who are tasting our dates, this idea of

being disciplined about the future. and giving to our children something that emerges from our own creative acts. it, thise can't see sort of disciplined love, as he calls it, is what makes profits and revolutionaries and saints so effective. they have the kurds to die for things they will never see. i'm not asking any of you to martyr your self for the cause, but i am asking you to perhaps sacrifice and find others willing to do so and then work hard to build something and work hard to help young people to do something as well for something perhaps we will never see, having a long-term vision.

i would like to close as i do believe my time is winding, and we can talk some more after this in conversation, but with a tradition --he in because i was just in the four corners area a couple of weeks ago -- it goes as follows. in beauty may i walk all day long may i walk through the returning seasons may i walk on the trail marked with pollen with grasshoppers about my feet may i walk with dew about my feet may i walk with beauty before me with beauty of the meme i walked withbeauty below me may i walk with beauty all around me trail age wandering on a of beauty lively may i walk living again may i walk

it is finished in beauty it is finished in beauty so thank you very much and let us help these stories find a different ending and we will help them be finished in beauty. andk you for being here talking to one another and for the important work that you do. [applause] >> thank you. >> and thank you for all you do. >> we both practice yoga, so we're not going to do yoga right now, that we are going to stand and have a moderated discussion because we don't like to set all the time. was saying, we do events, we do healing through yoga and meditation at odanadi. it is quite ironic in the home of yoga, in india, because of stillste system that

continues, they themselves are not able to participate in yoga because you have to be of a certain caste. it is ironic that westerners are coming in to teach them yoga, but, alas, this is the paradox of our life. we are just doing yoga together and i really appreciate that you were speaking about creating the spaces inside through gardens and having quiet time for healing. can you share your own personal experience as how that helps you in your very busy, busy life? >> i didn't know what question she was going to ask me. i can. there is another indonesian means "to be silent in a thousand languages."

it is sort of beautiful, but sad, melancholy and away. indonesia, i was granted many gifts. i was granted a community by and large of tolerance, of artistry, of sweetness and i was there and tell age 14. i was born there, though my brother, the president, was not. [laughter] >> for the record. again. [laughter] you had to. but it was a place -- it was a place of great diversity. diverse cultures within indonesia. we're talking about thousands of islands. possessing its own

cultural artifacts and moore\s. conflict whent of i was growing up in the 1970s between the chinese, indonesians and the malay indonesians. my father was malayan. the chinese were often because of times of poverty, the perception that chinese folks owned businesses and were doing better. it is not an unfamiliar story. but i remember several riots where cars would be overturned and i would watch from my window as people would be pulled out of their cars and harmed. have theirould

windows busted. ,nd i remember the next day there would be, perhaps in the papers, nothing about it. it was censored. it was a time when folks were not that embarrassed about censoring because i remember in the international herald tribune we would have big black foxes -- boxes covering like, something must've happened. but it was shocking to me the silence that surrounded these events. silence that does surround this trauma. and when we talk about gardens, there is a valuable silence, a

stillness that can help us to sort of recognize our own feelings and thoughts. and it wasn't that kind of silence. it was a different sort of silence. there are many kinds of silence, and i wanted to think about how we can provide places for reflective silence and then of , theoice, the stories activists and the s'words that must necessarily follow rather than the silence of shame or the silence -- so for me, practices like yoga, creating the spaces, are about a thatratory silence proceeds sound, cacophony even. the -- my that one of

mother came across all of these unmarked graves from 1965. indonesiaconflict in about the communists coup and counter coup and there was a lot well, thewho were -- united states went through things in the 50s. there was a lot of silence surrounding that era. toldy mother wasn't really when she arrived what had happened. were whispered in hushed ways. i think the idea is we have to be sensitive to why perhaps cultures or individuals to remain silent. we have to do a lot of work to make them feel safe.

so a lot of these practices i think are about building safety. >> thank you. thank you for bringing silence to the very noisy washington, d.c. it is so refreshing because often we just hear about policy all day. >> it is important, too. >> it is. i'm not going to put your brothers worked down, but we need to get back to connect, right question mark and come back to the human part of it. i'm wondering as an educator if you can talk more about the importance of empathy and how do you instill that in others who maybe don't want to connect? as anot of what i do educator is about building empathy. so we will do things like rather facts ofly having the the civil war, for instance.

facts are important to building narratives. it is important they are accurate. there are some things that perhaps -- i'm not saying everything is relative, but what we do is we sometimes do things ake pick a pill -- pick picture and build a life. the civil war was an important time in this country because it was a documented war. there are amazing photographs. i'll have my students find any picture and begin to tell the war from the perspective of been sort ofas not featured in the textbook. so they will have to imagine what is this person's greatest fear or desire? what does this person need for breakfast? do they have a family? you begin to build/, add flash to the skeleton, build dimension is what i mean to say.

rapid is the same thing. you take a story and ask questions to address the things that are not said it is an important way i think to build the realto remember work of an educator is researching. and then coming up with understandings, not simply information. molding that into wisdom. a story where you wrap with additional information and research and emotion. that is a good way to empathize. poetry where you write a poem about another medium, like a painting or photograph. the idea is to begin connecting with history. one of the things i often do my classroom is i will create a visual bridge. i will do an outline of her bridge the goes from one end of the room to the other, and i'll have students outline bricks

through index cards. in each brick that will write from the perspective of someone who is not seen, someone who has been rendered invisible. they will write poetry, prose, letters, journal entries, you name it. then they will put that as a brick on to the wall. by the end of the semester, the bridge is filled. it has been finished. they represent sort of a connection between the past and the present and the future, between our lives, the hallowed halls of learning, and the world outside between school and community, between the self of the learner and the many people residing in the world. so those are some ways that i think we can help with empathy. >> how lucky are those students

to have such an amazing teacher? >> oh, thank you. >> we will have a couple of more questions than open it to the audience. we want to shout out to our folks in india who are watching the survivors. they are also so grateful, it is amazing. they have so little. you come here and there so much materialism and there is nothing there, but they're so grateful for our presence. what is interesting is when our board members who are back there -- you can meet them later -- we try to go back annually to work with the survivors. we are the ones who are transformed. that, don't we do more of kind of service component? >> we should. why don't we? i think we should. when i was teaching on the lower east side of manhattan, we would

have service day on wednesdays. wednesday morning the students would create service projects. they would decide what they wanted to do. some would work in public old folks homes to work with the elderly, to bring the connection with the elders and the youth. there's a wonderful thing that happens between the two. we would also do things like the first recycling project in the projects, on the lower east side. or they would go and read two younger kids. school beautification. we had a project where there was an abandoned lot next-door that we transformed into immunity garden -- community garden. teachers would take care of the composting and the paneling and our teachers would create the murals, in which teachers would

have workspaces where poetry could be read later. the shop teacher could build the benches. math teachers would figure out how to make a basketball court level. i still have a blister from laying down some of that sod. service to ourselves, service to our community and in service to the wider world were very important. we can have global collaboration, have people work together. when we had the japanese tsunami createdof our students projects and plans to think about what would be needed to restore a sense of strength to that part of japan, to rebuild the schools, infrastructure, and other things. the projects were largely aspirational.

they did not have the resources, necessarily. but these are things they can do later. there were an assortment of things they could do to reach out to make people feel connected, scene known, cared about. they did that. they raised money. as well an important part of service is what christina was talking about, which is i think you have to not simply get kids to do good rings -- which is wonderful -- but you have to help them reflect afterwards on what they accomplished, whether they might have a compost more, how they were impacted by the service they did and how they were transformed. at that of looking reciprocal effect i think is very valuable to make service both relevant and enduring. >> we are so grateful for your service. >> thank you. >> you are a tireless leader.

she has been nonstop since she's been here from hawaii. i want to open it to our audience. we have some members of the press, too. we have a microphone here. >> thank you very much. my name is jenny. i write for an asian paper. i would like to suggest a fundraising project about what you said today. i was born there, though my brother was not. a t-shirt or bumper sticker for a fundraiser. they said you're currently writing a book. >> it is a young adult novel based on the robert frost: that had to do roads to verge in the yellow road and i took the one less traveled and that is made all the difference. it is about a 16-year-old girl in the world of war.

a lot of it looks at the themes of conflict and a lot of it also brings in a sort of easter motivese, images, and into a western narrative construct. i'm trying to create something that is a cultural hybrid. it is hard to finish. you don't want young adult novels to be pedantic, yet you want them to be instructive. i keep thinking, well, how much burgeoning romance johnny to include in order -- [laughter] to make 14-year-olds interested. so i have a little bit of that. i try to find a 16-year-old within. but i'm also doing some work with a colleague.

she does elementary education. .e do a workshop in hawaii work withbeginning to people nationally and internationally as scarlet lewis is coming tomorrow, the mother of jesse lewis who lost his life at newtown. she is thinking about how to heal her community. we make these connections. but the idea of seeds of peace is to work with educators and create lesson plans connected to the standard. how do we have them teach what there are ready teaching but with in eye toward building ?mpathy, moral courage your organization is called upstanding? >> up stander. >> rather than a bystander.

that is an important part i think of the piece of work we can do. if you can have educators who leave with unit plans or portfolios, that is wonderful. what we do is for parents we create little refrigerator magnets, reminders of activities, things they can do with their kids. the book i wrote is basically a book that is meant to be shared. my nine-year-old daughter was very honest. we were walking one day last month and she asked me to tell a story -- which he often does. it was fanciful and there was magic and she said, wow, that is such a good story, you should write a good book like that. [laughter] i thought i wrote a good book, when the kids would like. point taken. the idea is the book is really meant to be a means for opening -- the children might like some of the illustrations.

there are certain images, certain words or phrases in there, but it is meant to open up dialogue with your children and the children in your community about what came before them, about their own inheritance, about their own power, their strength, their ability to impact. so in the book the young down andst reaches learns how to help others. they go to the moon and it becomes a sanctuary, a place of sweetness and connection. the reason i wrote the book is because my mother used to wake me up in the middle of the night to go look at the moon. i would call her a lunatic and tell her to leave me alone, but i really enjoyed those times. mom really loved the moon because she said everywhere in the world it is the same. the constellations can change, but the moon that i experience here is going to be the moon that is the same on a fire

-- on in new york, in the a stoop in hawaii, on any given day. so the moon became this image of connection. when she was dying, she decided she wanted to have her ashes scattered into the water because she said, how else can i get to all of the wonderful places that i love so much and see all of the people i care about so profoundly? the moon i virtue of governing the tides is also sort of, i think, a connecting force. peace education book sort of hope -- a lot of -- i the activities that have been also --ective, but will i hope -- inspire other

teachers read i can only do so much in terms of pulling a poem, a phrase, a film clip, and narrative. the stories are in less -- endle ss. , which is the book emerges from the seeds of peace, is just or starts a kind of inspiration from the same level of connection, global competence, a sense of fearlessness so that we do a little less othering and perhaps opportunities for international, national, you know, all kinds of collaboration. out --ks for shouting >> i am working on both

simultaneously. i promise you they will both the birds, but i can't tell you. i look forward to seeing you when the time comes. >> thank you for a member in our folks in hawaii. it is 7:00 there, and some are watching, including my husband. >> thank you very much. i thank you for your presentation. i am very touched when he talk about empathy and connection and you even make a point that i think is very powerful, that to put the power into the bully or the people that are out there, the traffickers, the human traffickers to my because they are the ones that if we help abouto change, you talk conflict transformation. i think that is very powerful. i am from vietnam. i am bit newbies-american now. -- i am vietnamese-american now.

the situation in vietnam is her rent this. -- in vietnam is around us. is horrendous. just two days ago at the center for international strategy and international studies, the director of the labor, the international labor organization theres that she knew that were young man in vietnam, the fisherman being trafficked because others around the area, chinese people, that do not have good fisherman, and they capture these men and made them. power problem because the

of the, you know, sometimes even the state power that concern us. i was thinking, is there anyway that we can work with you, collaborate, so that we can build some kind of new program involving the stronger nations, india and china, and maybe indonesia, in the area, because indonesia is a strong country in asia. i also wanted to ask you a question regarding the economy actually it because the main problem is the job situation, many people volunteer to be kidnappers, sell their own because of survival and lack of living ability. is there a way that we can turn man trafficking into a new sort of an area, a glazing

the workforce. areas that need more younger workforce,nger the lack of young generation, and areas that somehow -- you talk about global collaboration and conflict transformation. is there a way that you can do this? >> i do think that you have a lot of good ideas. i think that there should be a lot of conversation. can be cases, there active partnerships, but in some cases it is also about information sharing. those placesinding of innovation where things are duplicate book. -- duplicable. we need to be informed because we have a nuance and rigorous understanding and not simply you

know, placid. understanding the role of poverty, finding ways to offer economic solutions, and alternatives. it's critical. our mother did a lot of work with micro-finance, and at the time that she did it, it was not abundantly available the way that it is now. it was the solution of that time to give a sense of strength, to -- to fortifyage village economy and people at a time when it was sorely needed. there are other solutions that are sorely needed now and that are both culturally relevant but also perhaps have universal -- some of them, applications.

and in terms of economics, i am definitely not the person who knows the most. necessarily even the person in the first two rows. i do know that there are a lot of very competent people, and we can engage and change both top- up, bottom up, rather, top-down, and we can lead around and behind. taking ahe idea of and at grassroots educational options in all of those countries and seeing ofldings, a pattern understanding about what is the same and what is different is something that we should do. wrap up, we're going to do

a little bit of, you know, take you back to new york, "inside the actors studio." bitant to know a little about you, so just some quick questions, and you can answer, stream of consciousness, so people can get a segue into the artistic clothing. -- closing. what is your favorite book? >> that is impossible. love "100 years of solitude." i love the book, but i have not read it in so long. love magic realism, i like this idea of being able to sort of magically move beyond our physical limitations and guide characters in ways that are astonishing.

>> ok. who is your role model? >> practically speaking or ideally? you want to answer it. >> i could never be like don because they are just way more than i can master or muster. as sort ofe them idealized role models in the sense that people who really were willing to sacrifice that daughtershave my two that i love too much like him and i would love to see them grow up. i can't quite get there, but this idea of being able to take something soft and to make to somethingges jagged, sharp, and explosive, i

think, is an extraordinary idea. what perception other than yours you would like to attempt? >> other than mine? >> you are very much a renaissance woman. >> i think that we -- i think i would have really loved -- michelle does the "let's move," and occasionally -- i used to teach global dance, bringing a little salsa and a little, you know, dancing and all of that stuff. i would have liked to have done something very physical. this belly is evidence of too much sedentary, too much a similar verbal -- too much cerebral work. i think gosh, those extraordinary athletes who put in those hours are amazing because they inspire levels of discipline and commitment of a

different sort, so different from what i possess. olympic athlete, that is what i would love to be. >> do it, you still have time to read your favorite word. >> one word. it changes. i know i can do one word. i could do a hawaiian word, which is my current favorite word and it means both light and responsibility. responsibility and carrying out your responsibility to others, you earn our rights. aya's orrow is my is birthday, and what is your favorite birthday activity? hopefully her husband is watching.

that, again,ink that changes, but i think we are doing well if every single day have a little bit of friendship, a little bit of conversation, some good grub, a little bit of , andture, some novelty some good words to sit with. so i would like to do all of those things. tomorrow, thank you. community. thank you also much for being here. i am looking forward to meeting you. wife yeah, thank you. [applause] and a small birthday gift we have for maya is a yoga stops traffic teaford -- t-shirt, so we do one day of yoga together with survivors in india. and happy birthday. >> thank you. >> and we will close.

>> thank you so much. life thank you all for coming out today. we were talking about trafficking in india, but also remember it is an international problem. when you walk out of the door, we are living in a community in a country that is also dealing with sex trafficking. this column is entitled "don't sell bodies." you see, all she did was run away to get some attention. he said he would give her love if she just did what he mentioned. but what happened next she is too embarrassed to mention. he pinned her out of locked her up and attention. this was not supposed to happen to her, she knew the guy. it was supposed to happen in a faraway land, she wants to cry, want to die, anything but lie with another stranger violating her side. she heard she was bought on the internet so easy as pie. this country preaches freedom, why would anyone try? she be.just let a runaway should not become a

sex slave. why her and her pimp, but is she the only one at the arraignment. press hitting her and letting him go ye? she's as a kid, what did she do to feel so hate? most of them anything -- sex trade, men, i am for you to listen closely because we are selling bodies and act most ungodly to anger everybody. this $90 to buy a kid in trade, and i am not just talking overseas. it is happening right here in the usa. you have got to pay more thention to m-a-y-a, for sake of our children got to end this today. how much is your daughter? you thought you could not imagine. but they are stranded. we import drugs, diseases, and girls, but flavor we ended with the 14th the memo to because of an amendment to the constitution did we have got to do more to protect our children

are too many end up sex slaves, too many missing third we track down traffic. release internet, restaurants, does not take magic. most of you will not understand if i do not bracket. 86% of those born in the states are born in the state, not some other slaves. out, hethem are pimped went to invest in the destruction of children heard what we need to do is invest in the presence. yes, they are on a mission to break all those enslaved. we've got to work together for the sake of our seats so they can blossom into flowers. beautiful and free. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> this program is available for watching anytime in the c-span video library. go to www.c-span.org. collated in at egypt between the country's military and police and protesters loyal to ousted president mohamed morsi. the associated press reports 149 people have died in clashes across the country. earlier today, a cameraman from britain's's sky tv was killed in conflict. in this new, the associated press reporting mohammed elbaradei has resigned to protest the deadly police assaults against to student protest camps. dei submitted his resignation today. the white house released a

statement on the fighting thing and strongly condemned the violence crackdown and opposed the country's state of emergency law. white house deputy spokesman talked about the administration's response to the situation in egypt during today's briefing with reporters. here is a look. >> the united states strongly condemns the use of violence against road testers in egypt. we extend our condolences to the family of those who have been killed and two the injured. we have repeatedly called on the egyptian military and security , ands to show restraint for the government to respect the universal rights of its citizens, just as we urged protesters to demonstrate its silly. -- demonstrate peacefully. the violence will only make it more if called to build a lasting stability and evocative. tois rightly countered pursue reconciliation. we also strongly oppose a return to straight ever merges the law and call on the government to respect basic human rights such

as freedom of these full assembly and due process under the law. the world is watching what is happening in cairo. we urge the government of egypt and all parties in egypt to refrain from violence and resolve their differences peacefully. >> we will update you on any changes on the situation in egypt as we get them. a federal judge has sentenced former congressman jesse jackson junior to 30 months in prison following his guilty plea that he engaged in a scheme to spend 750 thousand dollars in campaign funds on personal items. according to court papers, he used campaign funds to buy a goldplated rolex watch. was supposed to live up to a higher standard. be with us this evening for another of our town hall meetings with a focus on

implementation of the affordable care act, also known as obamacare, including this would pose the news that the administration -- this week's news that the administration would delay another section. we will check on town hall meetings across the nation. an update ongive court challenges to the law and check on the rollout of health care exchanges, which were supposed to take effect by july 1 of next year. here is a brief part of tonight's program. >> i think you understand the --, you are understanding you are in charge of enforcing it. the problem -- the club where you describe somebody limit the much is paid back, that is only somebody is eligible for an city of income changes in alere that the subsidy takes place. but if a person, this zero lock him if a person if the subsidy am a they are not eligible for, which clearly will be the case and forced mental, the employer mandate, is not in place, the law requires you to

call back 100% of the subsidies to which they were not entitled to. apologize, the hypothetical you gave have a lot of me when -- of moving places, but you are correct. the one question i have is we discovered that this individual got an inappropriate subsidy, so we have made some connection with their employer to learn that information. >> which will be 2015 at the earliest. >> we could learn it in way 15, we will get the official employer report in 2016. either way, we will make the efforts with quite ok, so -- efforts. >> ok, so sunday will get two years of a subsidy that they sign up for unknowingly that they got, which the law does not make them eligible for. you will have to tack that back in two years time to all that. that is the law, correct? thee will havelp individual at the front end and we are navigating through the station understand whether they employer-provided client

-- >> i think you answered the question. if you do not have employer mandate, you're going to have a lot of people getting subsidies they are not supposed to get. then you will hit them with a big tax bill in about two years to quiet back because the law requires you to do that. i yield back. >> and again, tonight's town hall on healthcare will get underway at seven a clock eastern here on c-span. you can weigh in with your comments via your phone calls, facebook, and twitter. tonight on c-span's encore presentation of "first ladies." >> it is unusual if someone queencharm victoria. i think it was her charm in her effervescence. she was a take change from the road rather stiff royal court. her,w, having read about

she was a very happy girl. she gave her the official title -- which would not normally be given to a niece. the encore presentation of our original series first ladies continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. well after theo march was over, after dr. king had delivered that speech, president kennedy invited us back down to the white house. he stood in the door of the oval office greeting each one of us a beaming, like proud father. he was so glad that everything had gone so well. he said you did a good job, you did a good job good when he got to dr. king, he said and you had a dream. mark the 50th

anniversary, we will look back with congress and john lewis. afterward, your chance to call in and comments life sunday starting at one :00 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv every weekend on c- span3. our discussion now on what is ahead for pakistan after the planned withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan next year. we will hear from pakistan for the former ambassador to the u.s. and a former u.s. commander in afghanistan. post" columnist moderated. it is about one hour. [applause] >> thank you all. somebody said to me once, david, the only time you tell the truth is in your novels. [laughter] i am afraid i am stuck with that. this is a fascinating opportunity for me as a journalist to talk to the people i would most like to quiz on where that country is going. i am really grateful for the

opportunity to do that. i want to start with, in a sense, the fundamental question aret makes all of us c deeply, anxiously about pakistan. i will summon up with a phrase that many americans use, that this is potentially the most dangerous country on earth in terms of the potential risks of nuclear weapons getting out, of absolutely catastrophic events. and so i want to ask you to start, and we will get to questionsore detailed later, but i would ask you to start in saying first, do you think that assessment of pakistan is correct? and second, how, over time, would you see u.s. policy reducing that danger? what would a relationship with pakistan 10 years from now look like where we would not say that?

andould not say pakistan existential threat in the same sentence. >> thank you, david, and thank you for letting me be here. i had grown up reading david's novels, and i took a great comfort in the fact that when we actually went into the real world, it could not be that hard. he understated it. i think the question on whether pakistan is maybe the most dangerous place for the world, the answer is yes in my view. at least right now. but it is not all pakistan's fault. it is not a series of bad decisions. part of it is geography, and part of it is history. if you look at its location, particularly go back to the days of the great game, and then you ank at posted 1947 as independent nation, its relationship with india has been difficult, but then its neighbors are not particularly easy to be around, afghanistan, iran, and where it sits in the world. so that is difficult. then there are a number of

underlying problem -- problems that are there no matter what. there are economic problems, problems with water, electricity that can be fixed, but they still are difficult problems. they would be for any government in any country. anre are newer problems, internal set of insurgencies. there are more than one. there is the existence of al qaeda, the blue jays urgency, the pakistan and taliban on, then there is the turmoil that pakistan faces, sitting at this critical position with about 180 million people, the nexus between obviously india and much of the rest of the region. and of course you throw nuclear weapons on top of it. even if you took nuclear weapons away, i think my answer would stop the -- would probably still be yesterday what we need to do is ensure we have all the factors. pakistan is like a complex system that i could never solve at west point, too many variables.

if you try to grab one and say the problem is the army, the problem is al qaeda, you way over simple five. as we go through as americans, what we need to do is deal with pakistan in a very complex way. one of the things that used to disappoint me is we would go in 24 -- 2004, 2005, to deal with the president and we would go with talking points al qaeda, al qaeda, that is the be problem. and pakistanis we would deal with on the side, very close friends of mine, would say we have got a bunch of problems. about 10.s help us with all of them. so we can help you with that one. >> let me turn to the ambassador , who has thoughts as deeply about his country as deeply about his country is anybody i know, and ask you first when you hear americans say this is the most dangerous country on earth, what do you think as a pakistani?

do you share that evaluation? and maybe general mcchrystal could comeback in on this, it is sometimes said that nuclear weapons are under much greater control, much better command and control than americans realize, and to that extent, we should ratchet back our inside he a little bit that this is a better controlled system -- our anxiet y. believe that pakistan is a dangerous place. my second part of that answer is not for the reasons that americans think. the americans do not get pakistan. general mcchrystal and many other american diplomats going go too john foster salas pakistan and here one side and sometimes believe when pakistani officials say america must help a site that solve our problems. it is not america's problem to

help pakistan solve their problem. why is pakistan a problem you go it wa? it was a country that was created with little analysis. pakistan is only 66 years old. therefore it has essentially a lots of -- more than it has actual challenges. i, for example, i understand that pakistanis are concerned about india, but as a pakistani, i look at history, and of course i know that the american relationship to history is an usual. it is the only country in the world work with the because history, he means that is -- somebody says that his history, he means that is irrelevant. [laughter] it is important to understand yes, india has never publicly accepted the idea of pakistan,

but it has not been responsible for initiating any of the wars with pakistan, let's be real about that. afghanistan is too weak and too poor to attack pakistan. most of the problems that back then sees itself and is psychological rather than real. the real problems are we have 180 million people, we have 210 million people based on this morning's estimates are the highest population growth rate in that region. half the population is below the age of 21. one third of them will never see the inside of any school. forget about religious school, any school. one third of the young population. is third of the population below the poverty line. another one third live just above it. and yet the country has nuclear weapons. whoi am the only pakistani has had the guts, in my opinion, to say look, the nuclear weapons

should have finally made us secure about india. india will never invade us. well, guess what? we are now like the guy who keeps buying guns to protect say gosh, ithen cannot sleep because i'm afraid somebody will steal my guns. [laughter] now pakistan has created this new cycle that the americans are going to come take our nuclear weapons away. the real trick to pakistan is for to come to terms with its geography, with its history, and with having a direction for it as a nation. was assassinated had a new vision for pakistan. her version was we will focus inward, put the kids into schools, we will keep the nukes, but we will eventually sign up some kind of international agreement that will make sure that we are not looked upon as a pariah. we will join globalization, and if aid is available to us, we will use it like korea or taiwan

did. we are not going to live as an insecure nation because that insecurity then makes people think al qaeda, how can we use them against our enemy, india, instead of -- and that is why we have these problems in pakistan. so, yes, dangerous place, but americans sometimes don't get it. >> i was worried before, now i am really worried. [laughter] haqqani,ou, ambassador just describe a country with a deep psychosis about itself that has nuclear weapons mcchrystal and general mcchrystal, -- nuclear weapons, and the general mcchrystal, the question is how do we talk to a country that has this kind of psychosis, this anxiety about its relationship with india, america, so may

, making himtried bff,est friend forever, that ended up blowing up appeared other kind of tough talk, approaches have been tried. you have watch all of them in the last decade. what do you come out thinking is the right way for the united states to address what ambassador haqqani rightly says is the country with this psychosis? >> let me talk about national service. [laughter] >> no. >> yeah. this is great. here is what i don't think we should do -- i think that we have engaged with pakistan and a spasmodic way. 1971, we haves is a relationship earlier during the cold war because pakistan for the geography and the fact that they were essentially on our side made them very the partners there. when henry kissinger wanted to

go to china, they were very useful to help them get into china secretly, but then we pull back whenever we got something else to do, or we encounter a frustration. so it is spasmodic. when we go back any time, we go back with a fairly narrow, temporal set of objectives. we try to engage on that without understanding or trying to build the wider relationship you're it we have done a few really painful things. thepress or a minute, after pakistanis went publicly nuclear, stop the interaction between militaries essentially, so there is about a decade when pakistani military leaders did not come to the nine states for training. how big a deal is that? i would go to pakistan when i dealt with pakistan military leaders, those who having basement with americans had one view and comfort level, then there was a whole group that had incredible suspicion and frustration. i don't believe that what we

should do is immediately put our arms around them and say whatever you do is find. recoili say we should and say because you are dangerous, our way to not deal with you is to a nor you, it's kind of like covering our eyes and hoping pakistan goes away. because when you take your hands off whatever is there, it still is. so i think a longer-term, more consistent, very realistic policy that we cannot solve pakistan's problems, but we are rt, sometimes we can be a confidence builder to them, to help their confidence with their relationship with india and whatnot. so i think we can play an significant role. >> i am are murmuring in the i am remembering when you were ambassador, it seemed like pakistan was on the front page every day. part of that was you had a live visibilityhigh

pakistani ambassador in washington. i want you to talk about that, but my question really is this -- as we think about a stable, enduring, less dangerous, neurotic u.s.- pakistani relationship, is turning the heat down a good idea? be more remote from the pakistan and u.s. media, what do you think about the right way to play that role of ambassador? >> first of all, i think i did not do anything wrong. pakistan's point of view and pakistan's concerns and american concerns about pakistan had to be put out there. what we need is an honest discussion. for example, pakistanis have a legitimate question when they say why has americans policy toward pakistan been so asthmatic. spasmodic.-- so

on the nuclear question, let us be very possible -- honest. the reagan administration turned a blind eye to liberally, and then at the end when pakistan knew that that blind i'd meant we could go ahead with it, they immediately put all the sanctions. many of the administrations allow congress to regulate instead of being upfront and say why are you doing this, this is not right. because they needed the general, things kind of finessed with him. and in the end, when it was over, the congressional relationship had to be implemented. wanted someistan honest answers. we cannot say we are not making a bomb, and then by the way we are just testing a bomb that we are not making. morenk what we need is

candor in the relationship. it is not that what with those -- islam a bad. more functional relationship rather than an understanding of what you are all about. look, korea has received a lot less american aid event pakistan has peered pakistan is the second-largest recipient of american aid since 1947. $40 billion. how fores that have to store it? the korean economy did a lot with that aid because they open their economy. every american general who meets a pakistani general has to say to them, the reason why our investors don't go to your country is not because the american government stop them. is you have not completed the wiring for them to come. you open up, you come less than secure and your way of thinking,

and you will reap the benefits. that candor has been missing because of the need-based relationship. we need them for sort of having basis. ironically, the pakistan never gave the basis. they just give you one cia base, and a big base the american military was hoping for, you never got them. you let the big v actually get spoiled in the process. >> a general mcchrystal, we do the pagea moment where has been turned in pakistan. we have a new government, under the prime minister. a whole new set of personnel, new party, a new way of looking at the u.s. pakistan relationship, we think. does about india, and i'll be interested in your sense as a

pakistani leader, i will ask the samer haqqani thing, and then your thoughts about where the particular thoughts are in terms of >> itship with the u.s. is important, the first election pakistani history -- history from a civilian government. they've never been able to complete a term before. a being able to start tradition of civilian leadership is critical peered pakistan, in my view, cannot continue with on-again, off-again military taking over leadership of the country. i think it is an important inflection point, if the role of the military can be shaped into something more appropriate, pakistan for the military became viewed by many pakistanis with great respect. it became viewed as the essential organization.

we think of george washington at the essential man. he pakistani military view themselves as the central work of pakistani sovereignty, pakistani pride, pakistani freedom, and there is much less regard for the effectiveness of civilian pakistani government than we would like in a good balance. part of that is because pakistani civilian government has not been impressed. sharif has theaz opportunity to reshape that balance a bit. now, he is going to have to do it not just by controlling the military. he is also going to have -- because i believe, and i may have a different view from the antacid or, when i deal with military leaders in pakistan, i don't see a bunch of duplicitous, dishonorable people. i see patriots to see the world through their lens and are trying to do what is right for their country. it might be different than what might be viewed by others, but i

view it as pretty genuine. so he is going to have to shape that in a way that brings those two in better connection. the question is -- i do not know whether nawaz sharif can do it. i do not know him personally. i have read the history of him, and when i was springtime in pakistan, he was i'm a position we are askingbut an awful lot of a guy who's got a questionable background. oneo, ambassador haqqani, great thing about ambassador haqqani it seen as everybody in pakistani politics. chances are he as worked with them at one point in the past. so i want to ask you, you know a lot about nawaz sharif. what thoughts would you offer develop ahe can civilian government, make it work, and in particular what advice would you have about how to deal with the problem general mcchrystal said? how does he speak to the chief successoraff or his

is not goingr this to call the shots now. we have a civilian government. had we do that? ande must understand american generals look at pakistani generals and see soldiers. pakistanis, especially those who have been imprisoned by generals at one point or another, look at them as -- in uniform. is a very difficult -- different perspective. on the one hand, you want to establish civilian supremacy, president -- was on that front. he is to move two steps forward, 2.5 cents backward because he understood that the military does have far more influence, for example -- pakistan military runs the media and has influence thatmilitary -- over media

the american military does not. [laughter] >> wafers noted next week. -- wait for snowed next week. military is part of the process of defining american natural -- nationalist influence, but you are part of that process as well. in pakistan, the military wants national interest. that is my problem. my brother served in the military, my father served in pakistan military. so groups who think that they can actually determine national interest are going to be nawaz sharif the problem, and that problem is going to start very soon. it is not necessarily a priority, but he wants to do it could when he does that, he will run into some problems with the pakistani military. he has got to move carefully on that front.

quite i think you should focus i think he should focus on -- >> why should he do that? why did he do that? >> because that is who nawaz sharif is. i worked with him, i did not agree with him and left aside, he had a black mark against mining, and he tried to get even with me. he is a provincial politician who became national just because there was no alternative on the popular front at that time. the pakistani military -- in the case of spending on the supreme court, the supreme court supports them. you do not decades before that should be decided, but the fact .s he ran for office in 1990 that is like a presidential candidate in the united states running province with cia funding. you would never let that happen easily. [laughter] >> not easily?

-- the military proxima, and then you want to secure priority from the histary, which made him and general -- rivals. on solvinge focusing pakistani internal problems. the educational system, scaling down the hate that pakistanis learn from their schools. hatred against jews, against hindus, india, there is no such that they i have read are a blessing threat, but you know what, nations change their perception of threats, and there might have been a time when the mexicans and americans were fighting, guess what, now the americans are figuring out how to have more mexicans work in america. that is how the world moves. so pakistan -- this view that somehow india was -- will always be our enemy is a wrong view. we need to open up on that.

and those are the things we should focus on rather than settling scores. is associatedf with the idea of opening to india's famous double my neck -- a diplomatic opening and he visited to lahore. a lot of people that that is the area will you or see a lot of significant movement. the relationship between india and pakistan already is better than i think most americans realize. what do you think about that? is there an opportunity to try to quickly do something? what you think, mr. mcchrystal? narrativeght is change in pakistan. as long as the narrative is that these guys never wanted us to be a country, they will never let us be a country, and they are existential enemies, they will not be a move forward. nawaz sharif will be pulled back his of the previous president was. he opened up to indiana big way in the beginning.

the way it worked is what rumors hard floating, look, it is that the overwhelming majority of pakistan is -- an opinion polls to not accept the official version of what happened on 9/11. they believe the 9/11 was an inside job. who don'tpeople believe the americans actually killed bin laden. know, i'm not talking about 15%, 20%, i'm talking about larger numbers, 60%, that is to be changed. a narrative change will have to proceed policy change in relation to india, otherwise we will have a lot of shaking of hands, decisions, and then they will all fall apart within a couple of years, a little incident on the border, some guy gets shot, a bombing in this -- incident in india, and it all falls apart.

this is to be based on more solid footing. >> i would probably fit it -- flip it. i agree with the master, but i think you need to do the steps first the have i think the attitude and the narratives are going to follow that could i think forcing -- there have been some talk recently about lowering tariffs on textiles for india and pakistan on the condition that they increase their trade between the two countries. i think if you force interaction, i don't think you first convince somebody to like somebody else and then they're going to hang around them. i think you force them to deal with them and then i think you change attitudes over time. >> i want to change gears just a little bit. i want to ask general mcchrystal to step back to the time that he kabulhe commander in in a 2009. as we know, general mcchrystal put together a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the

taliban insurgency and a stabilizing afghanistan. what drove the policy was that if we do get afghanistan right, we will stabilize pakistan as well. i would like to ask you, general mcchrystal, to look back at that honestly and critically. we have now had four years of experience with that strategy. i think we would all be interested in your evaluation, white went the way you thought it would, what, as you look back, would you do differently, and obviously where do you think we are now as we head towards 2014 and the departure of american combat troops from that country? afghanistan flying on its own. >> first on the counterinsurgency strategy, i had been in afghanistan for part of every year from 2001 on. i had been commanding special

operating forces going after al inda before i took over 2009, but i so most of my time in iraq. i had come to the conclusion from my experiment and the us in afghanistan that the only way to be successful was not to be just enemy focus and killing people because the russians killed 1.2 million afghans, and i did not work. so i became convinced that we had to get something that won the coveted support of the afghan people. i had studied it for years, but it was proven in front of my eyes in iraq. i came in in the summer of 2009, and the psychological situation in afghanistan was devastating. philosophically, we had been there for eight years, and huge expectations which many afghans had that we would help sort things out had not been met. unrealistic,were but the reality was what the west had been able to do was not very effective, and what the afghans had done for themselves was not very effective.

so by 2009, they had grown cynical. they were losing hope, and the taliban were leveraging that to say look, this thing is not going to work, and we are about to be back. the taliban were not popular, they still are not, but the very weak sense of government and weak other institutions, police and military, gave the sense of gloom and doom. so when i took over in 2009, i knew we had to do several things. first, we had to change our strategy so that we could implement counterinsurgency. we can start getting the support of the people, actually protecting them because you cannot separate them, everything -- because if you cannot support and protect them, everything else is not important. the great question for me was did we have enough time. america was already tired, our nato allies were tired of it, pakistan has grown convinced that we were likely to fail in the region, so we were trying to do this against this big wall of skepticism. so as i dealt with afghans, it

was really a case, can we get people to believe? can the mets when the 69th minute? pennant?e 1969 can doto say listen, we this. it is in your interest that we succeed. because a taliban-run afghanistan is a worse possible outcome to pakistan's ability. i don't think any of that was wrong. i still believe that that assessment was absolutely accurate. now what did we do? we went and we pushed, i spent a lot of time in pakistan with general kayani and other leaders to try to get them to believe. i think i had the moving to where they believe that we had a chance to be successful, but on 1101 mama, general kayani looked at me, we laid out our shortages, i said this is what i try to do, he said stan, i think it is right, but i do not think

you have enough time. i do not think you will succeed because i do not think you have enough time. what other options i have? except i had been given the mission. where did i think that it fell short? of -- i thinkhead a heck of a lot of it succeeded. i think afghanistan is a lot of better than people think. their problem is political not. they can solve their other problems feared their big problem is credibility of politics, and they have to do that themselves pure we cannot do that. but we did make some mistakes. i made some mistakes. as we push forward, one thing is the american people and others like quick successes. so if you come in and you say you have got to believe, i get a call the next day that says did you do it yet? [laughter] and i will say no, you have to believe i can do, we will do it, not that it is done, so that makes asian -- so that the

expectation that if we do not do it immediately, it does not work. that is a problem. i personally did not navigate d.c. very well. as we went and asked for more forces -- when i first got there, i did not want additional forces. i do not think we need it appeared we do this big assessment, my staff -- we played in all kind of computer games and everything, and we laid it down, the only way to you can do this is you have to have enough additional law u.s., to be a bridge forced to build the afghan military up. there is no other way. so i knew going to d.c. for additional forces was not going to make me mr. popular, but i did that. as we do that, that was very difficult political science, all of 2009, new administration, all kinds of reasons. was not a popular war. we push that through, but as we pushed that through and were successful in making that argument, i think that there were already people who were skeptical about -- here we go again. we will have another iraq,

another vietnam, whatever they wanted. we werenot think that as commencing to all the other constituents and supporters as we needed to be. so i think that it has got a great chance right now. unfortunately, i'm still an absolute believer. but i am probably biased. in,i want to turn to hasan but i want to push back. there was a way in which you were building on quicksand because of the corruption and incompetence of the karzai government him and building on quicksand is not a viable strategy. how would you respond to that? is "montyrite movie python and the holy grail." [laughter] dear member the thing when they go up in the tower and say we built this castle and if they

get a slob, and a six castle felonies on, and we lb seven castle and estate. we build the seventh castle and it stayed. we did not have a lot of time, so i thought we had to do was first convince the afghan people it was going to get better, provide enough security to convince people it is different this time. i absolutely knew we were standing on quicksand because if people believe money is going out the back door, it is actually put in the front door. at the same time, it takes a long time to fix those problems feared it is cultural as well as physical. we were, dave] and i, one of the officers i admire most, we used to get in my office and we would look at each other and say can we do this, and he would say we are going to have to pass on every down, and then we have got a 50-50 chance.

then we looked at each other and said but this is our mission. and i think we can. so that was the mindset that i had. >> powerful answer. >> i have to rise to the defense of president karzai. part of the problem is also the expectation of american liberals, in particular, that a modesty should be like scandinavian modesty. instead of accepting the fact that it is probably going to be more like chicago and mayor daley. [laughter] [applause] and so just cut them a little slack. here is a tribal society that has come out of -- it is still at war. any state in the united states that have been a war for 30 years? it has been at war. they were refugees.

so coming back and rebuilding and rebuilding political organizations and getting people together -- you know, you have got to do it in many ways. i am not supporting corruption, i have never supported corruption, but i think sometimes these standard by which afghanistan is measured our little too high. i think in that sense, afghanistan, if i were running takenistan, i would not money for myself, but i would probably also turn a blind eye to some of the building -- dealings that are happening because i need the support of this tribe or that ethnic group or that political faction. stories, we went on a trip one time down to --dahar, anyplace that we and the place that we met, president karzai says it was not a good shave. andprevious governor there pretty well known to have a fair amount of corruption, he said he would have never let it be like

that. what is mr. dennis -- one of his inisters said yes, but you would have stolen it from the government. in the president said, well, we would just have wasted it. i took senator levin down shortly after the election, and everyone was upset because they thought it was -- president karzai was going to win anyway. the posturing candidate was going to run -- to win, and it was going to be him. we went to a village, and senator levin and i sat in this room with about 50 big eared guys adding on the floor, and at one point when he is pretty common, senator levin says you know, i got reports that everyone in this village voted karzai,dents cause i -- how is that democracy? one guy stood up and he said i don't get it. we all got together, we talked about it, we decided that president karzai was the best

person for us, why would we split our vote? we are not stupid. so, ok. >> before turning to the askence for your questions, you the baseline issue that's we are all going to be struggling with, which is as american combat forces leave next year, s afghan thing or two look like, and by extension, what is pakistan going to look like? you hear a lot of people that say for all that we have done, for all of the landing efforts, lifese struggle, loss of that forces put in, that afghanistan is going to go back into a civil war. you hear a lot of people, ambassador haqqani, who say whatever nawaz sharif is saying,

the pakistanis are going to go back to gaming afghanistan and using it as a rear buffer in dealing with india. we are going to have the same crazy stuff we

the ones that i met are not -- the young people, they deserve a hand. the millennials are disdainful of my generation. of our generation. they think that people of our generation have made huge mistakes, been crept, and they want this generation to move on and they're probably right. at a certain point you've probably got to move this generation out so that young people who have a different view on things, they'll make a lot of mistakes, but i think what happens, i think afghanistan holds together, i think it probably still suffers from periodic insurgencies. i don't think if we're smart that al qaeda goes back there in significant numbers, but if they are and if afghanistan holds

together i think it latest be easier to address. so their challenge of course is politics in the very long term economics. >> i think, i share the view of general mcchrystal about afghanistan. i i think that in any case the taliban are now restricted to the southeast and the eastern provinces of bordering pakistan. so basically there i think we should stop worrying so much about the fire and pay more attention to dealing with arsonists, and i think i've already said what i wanted to say in that one sentence. the taliban, to think that the taliban had a popular after began phenomenon is a wrong idea. somebody support the tail ban in afghanistan because they want to have some influence in afghani politics because they think -- pakistan is going to be for complex. i think that there are many

fault lines in pakistan, an ethnic fault line. there's one purely by penjabi votes. the military civilian fault line will still remain. and the bigger fault line that nobody wants to pay attention to is the islamist, the modernist fault line. so that is something that needs to be worked out. i think that pakistan will have problems. it will have difficulty. if it remains on the democratic course, most probably there may be a democratic alternative that will emerge up in the next election that may say enough of boating about the bush, these are our real problems, this is what we are going to do. we are not going to try and conquer afghanistan, we're going to make friends with who ever is the government in afghanistan. we will stop worrying about kashmir right now, yes we will have a right to it but we will not try to get it right now.

wee will start dealing with indy a. we will grow our economy, put kids though are not in school into school, and move forward. that may happen five years later, but the next five years we will have añi mixture of bad news and worse news. >> so i... >> that is honest and helpful. let me close this out by offering a brief comment from the moderator. ambassador was careful to speak of the arsonists without being specific as to who that might possibly be. but if you assume that what we're hawk talking about here is whether the pam stand i intelligence service will continue to metal in afghanistan so as to protect its security interests, it's interesting that the i.s.i. from what i report has been working pretty

intensively and effectively with the taliban negotiators who have come to qatar to begin yesterday negotiations with the u.s. representative. it's a broad group, it is representative of the breadth of the taliban, it has members of the haqqani network, who are the scariest people of all who seem to be included. so that is the work of theçó i.s.i. and if you looked at that take you'd say that they are at least now trying to give this peace process a chance, and on the question that i put to the two panelists, the idea that afghanistan is just going to fall back in time, with so many americans have, this idea that this premodern country will just fall back into the dark ages, don't believe that. in the years that we've been in afghanistan, it has become a largely urban society, the size

of kabul, kandahar, all these cities have doubled and tripled. the electrical connections between people and media, the education -- when i look at the numbers, the one thing i know is it's not going to be the same as it was. i don't know what it latest be. so let's turn to the audience for your questions. we have microphones. rather than recognize people, i'd ask you, bob and everybody else, if you'd just go back to those microphones and we'll call on people in turn. there's one here and one here. and yes, ma'am. >> hi. shelly porgas, washington d.c., i'm the cochair for the ready for hillary pack. i would like to, you've presented on one hand some optimistic viewpoints, on the other hand some perhaps not so optimistic ones. but if you had a chance to ask the president, current or future, for one thing in terms of moving, you know, making progress in the recent on, what

would that be? >> do you want to direct that at one -- >> i'd love to hear from either one because they represent such diverse point of views. >> i think a strategy, i think what we have not done well enough is to be able to articulate how we would like this to come out. i think we have to be very realistic. you can't make a river go 90 degrees different from where it's flowing. we have to be very humble about the changes and the impact we have in a region. but i'm not sure we sit down ever, and for the american people as well as for people we're dealing with,ñi paint a picture of how we'd like it to come out, then the pieces start to -- i think sometimes we execute that without the picture. >> my quick one liner is, don't give the impression that you're too desperate to get out. even if you are. because then you do that, then you're encouraging the enemy. the taliban have always said we

ths have the watches, so then you start, and that's an american, it's a political problem here. the administration didn't haveñi to announce a date for its final withdrawal, because then you're just telling them to, how long they have to wait and that the -- not to actually get the peace process to bring the result, but to get the peace process going so that you don't pay attention to anything else. it could be like the vietcong who engaged in a peace process aetna meez how to take over saigon. optimism is a great thing, but since i moved here i realized that there is op timism and then there is optimism based on realism. and i think the latter is a lot better. >> sir? >> hi, i'mñr amir sheik, i'm an

american of pakistani and indian descent. i do a lot of traveling and when i travel sometimes it's more convenient for me to be pakistani than american, because there's a big trust deficit in the muslim world against americans. now, my question is related to this. what's the growing role of china in pakistan? i feel like pakistan is looking for alternatives than engaging with the u.s. and china, one of its neighbors, is starting to increase its engagement. if we're talking about economic development and pathways to resolving conflicts, what role is china playing and what is the u.s. perception on that issue? >> great question. >> my short answer i to that is that china and pakistan have been close since 1950, actually, but the fact remains that the real thing that pakistan needs is largeñi capital input. chinese businessmen make decisions just like american businessmen do. so i don't see large amounts of chinese money coming just, i mean it's a great fantasy that the chinese will somehow come and bail us out.

nobody will bail pakistan out except pakistanis making the right economic decisions. china does remain engaged with pakistan for closely, but frankly the chinese have been advising pakistan for almost 15 years now to put down the jihaddists and move on and to make peace with india. so i think there is the chinese policy, and then there is this little romance that pakistan is have been china being the great redeemer that will come and help them. and i don't think that the latter is all that realistic. >> bob. >> general and ambassador, would you address more fully pakistan al qaeda and pakistan taliban? >> pakistan taliban is quite obvious. most people understand it, i think, because pakistan is always wanted influence in afghanistan. first they had the mujahideen groups, and when those failed they ended up supporting the

taliban. officially pakistan says we have contacts with them, but we do not control them, which may be true, but if that's the case then pakistan should not support them at all. because if you have contacts with people who don't listen to you, then why take the responsibility for their actions, when you have no control over them. but most taliban leaders are based in pakistan, everybody knows that. and that's how they have been brought to doha for the peace process. so that is easy to understand. pakistan al qaeda, more complicated, there are too many fundamentalists and jihad i groups in pakistan that the state tolerates in different degrees, and could they be the ones who have been supporting al qaeda and not the government of pakistan? possibly. but pakistan needs to deal with al qaeda, otherwise the fact that almost all major al qaeda leaders that have ever been found have always been found in pakistan, is something that really does cast a shadow on my country, and i think that shadow

needs to be removed. >> i add, i don't think pakistan, i don't think al qaeda has ever been pakistani in nature, theçó leadership has ner been pakistani background. they've been there for a long time sox there are relationships and marriages that make it stickier than just somebody outside, but they are still a foreign entity that can be done away with. there are multiple talibans, there's an afghan taliban, a pakistani taliban. the pakistani taliban is focused really against the government of pakistan. the afghan taliban are focused and they are largely afghan in ethnicity, theugáq focused against the government of afghanistan. the i.s.i. when we talk about the relationship with the taliban, that's largely with the afghan taliban. now we captured a lot of people, i was in a lot of detainee interrogation asks what not, and the least popular people to the afghan taliban are i.s.i., so

when you think about it there is an unholy relationship, there is help, there is, david is exactly right. but it's not one of these things where they are best buddies and they watch sports together and drinkñi beer. it is very much one of using each other and coercion. and threats and what not. so it's very important to understand that. so, again, it's so complex that it doesn't allow a very short answer. >> a question where i'm going to ask you, knowing i would be get it, for a one word answer. do you believe that osama bin laden hid for five yearsçó in pakistan without anyone in the pakistani military intelligence knowing about it? >> no, i don't believe it. >> okay, then i'm going to ask you for a 10-word answer. ( laughter ). >> i don't think, now this is my opinion, i'm not backing this up with hard facts. i don't think general kiani knew

that, i don't think there was a plan on where he was. but this was 700 meters from the gates of west point. now who know what is 700 meeters from the gates of our west point. but the reality is it was a very distinct come pound, it was like that funny house at the end of the street where people didn't act the same as everybody necessary the neighborhood, in an area why people are not naturally trusting. so somebody facilitated something. now, i sort of buy into the idea that the ambassador and i were talking, it probably was not official, but it could be someone who's got relationship with an official who is providing the help and there is a failure to ask questions that needed to be asked. there's a failure to due diligence. >> short answer, if you read president mushareff's book, he talks about a... he said at that time there were three houses that were al qaeda houses that 3@pq discovered. well, if this was one those houses, why didn't they keep

monitoring it subsequently is a big question. that said, it is not conducive to my health andñi well-being, d well-being to answer this question -- >> you're an american professor now. >> but i'm still a pakistani citizen, you know. and that's the only citizenship i have. so i think i've said enough. >> general mcchrystal, thank you for your service, and ambassador, thank you for your great sense humor and insight into pakistan. my question is, you brought it up at the start, 100 nuclear weapons in pakistan. i'm still scared that it's 100 nukes in an unstable society. can you give me, scare me more or give me any confidence or insight at all? >> i think you're right. should not have that many nuclear weapons. and pack stab's nuclear deterrence needs a better

concept and better practice. and last but not least, the real bad scenario for pakistan would be an islamist take over of pakistan, that would be the worse. right now in the hand of the pakistani military and general mcchrystal knows many of the pakistan generals, they have a, there's no loose nukes in pakistan, that you need to understand. pakistan does have a command and control system and it's a pretty stable one. but is the country stable enough? perhaps not. but then people would argue that if that's the only criterion for countries to possessing nuclear weapons, then what are the alternatives, you can't take them away. you couldn't take them away from the soaf young, china, so how will you take them away from pakistan. so in the end the best course is for pakistan developing the trust of the rest of the world, where by pakistan can have a minimum nuclear deterrent, which ensures its security, but takes away the fears that you and i and everybodyñi else has about n

unstable country having nuclear p& mcchrystal do you want to speak to that?ñi >> no. >> we have time for one last question. >> my question is much broader and directed to the general.ñi it seems to me thatçó presidents come, presidents go, we still have the same policy, call it robust, call it the continuation of the british empire where the sun neverçó sets, where in the bowels of this government to washington and elsewhere, where is this continuous streak ofñr military warfare, et cetera, et cetera,ñi coming from? where exe1e are the power lovers that can continue our robust approach? >> i think i know where you stand based on the way you worded the question. it's on the first floor of the e

ring of the pentagon -- no. ( laughter ) it lies in the fact that america has defined certain interests, and certain interests in the world be it the flow of oil, be it the protection or the security of certain allies and what not, we have a unique role in the world and we have identified certain interests. we then make decisions to either use or not use military force in that case. now sometimes we get it wrong. sometimes we think that i'm not sure we get the interest wrong, it's kind of hard to argue with some of the big broad interests, but the way we go after them, you can pick up the post are child for this, the invasion of iraq, you can ask yourself whether that furthered american interests or doesn't, and people come down both side. but i don't think that it was a kabul of evil people trying to do world to jemini. i think it was a bunch of good people who did an assessment that came out with a different

conclusion that you or i or anyone else. i never buy into the conspiracy theory in d.c. because i never got in a room where the conspirators were there. >> let's poll people in washington d.c., each one advancing their own career, so them conspireing together to change the world is very difficult to accept. but here's what i think. you see, the problem does not lie in america having all this power and being able to use it. in some cases for a lot of good. and i'm giving you a nonamerican's perspective. the problem lies in the fact that americans as a nation just do not know how to do things on a small scale. so, for example, when you go to afghanistan, you're not, you're trying to change everything, and from how they run their schools. so president eisenhower used to talk about the military complex, now you also have an engineering

complex whivment was ambassador one of my favorite complaints used to be that the aid to pakistan includes studies on how to run schools in pakistan, which are conducted by americans. why should they do that, why can't you let me be the judge of how to run a school in my own country? if that was the case then you would need a lesser fit print abroad, you would have more friends abroad and you would be using your military power a lot more, shall we say, methodically, but with less of the fallout that you complain about and everybody feels strongly about. >> so one problem in having a discussion with former officials is that i always end up, on end up wishing nay were current officials. [applause] so i want to thank them for this.

[applause] >> some news this afternoon, the former congressman jesse jackson jr. will serve 30 months in prison charges related to illegally spending $750,000 in campaign fund on personal purchases. he pled guilty to the charges. federal judge amy jackson reprimanded the former jackson congressman for using his campaign as a personal piggy bank, as she handed down the sentence, which will be served in north carolina. jackson could have received as many as four years in prison. also this, georgia jer mond, who was a fixture on theñi american political scene for nearly 50 years, including nearly 20 of them at the baltimore sun's washington bureau, died shortly after 4:00 a.m. today of chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease at his home in west virginia, jack germond was 85.ñr >> it's unusual that somebody should crown queen victoria in such a way, but she certainly did. i think it was her youth and her evidencer investigate ends, and she was such a change in this royal court. and i know, having read about her, she was this very happy girl, that certainly queen victoria thought she was wonderful, and she gave her the official title of, which wouldn't normally be given to a niece. it would only be given to the wife of an ambassador. >> the encore presentation of

our original series, first ladies, continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, create bid the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and now you can watch us in h.d. >> coming up next, key members in the perry b. holdings worth supreme court case discuss the future of marriage in america. lgbt right and the effects of the supreme court decision to strike down the defense of marriage act and proposition 8 in california. moderated by yolanda jackson of the bar association of san francisco, this is about an hour and 15 minutes.

[applause] >> so good evening, everybody. i can't tell you how excited i am to be at a podium again with a group of such illustrious trailblazers in this area. i had the great opportunity to do this several months ago before the decision came down that, they never disappoint, they have so many nuggets of information to share, you will walk away scratching your head, ready to cry a little bit, ready to smile a little bit. and you'll hear tonight that even with these great decisions there's still a lot of work to be done, and i want this panel to really help you all sort that out, help us all sort that out and figure out what are the next steps and what does this mean for us nationally -- nationally for marriage in

america. i'd like to really take a quick moment to introduce the leader of the bar association of san francisco, dan burkehart who is here, and our president this is right here, we will come back to it. but we're going to go live now to the state department, secretary of state kerry is discussing the situation in egypt. >> i am convinced from my conversationsçó today with a number of foreign ministers including the foreign minister of egypt, i am convinced that that path is in fact still open and it is possible, though it has been made much, much harder, much more complicated by the events of today. the promise of the 2011 revolution has simply never been fully realized. and the final outcome of that revolution is not yet decided. it will be shaped in the hours ahead, in the days ahead. it latest be shaped by the

decisions which all of egypt's political leaders make now and in these days ahead. the world is closely watching egypt and is deeply concerned about the events that we have witnessed today. the united states remains at the ready to work with all of the parties and with our partners and with others around the world in order to help achieve a petitionsful democratic way forward. now, jen, we'll be happy to answer any questions. (inaudible)

>> secretary of state john kerry making comments today about the situation in egypt. so far 149 people have died in violent clashes between pro morsi

protesters and government officials. the military and police. there had opinion camps set up that were taken down by the military. the government there had slapped a month-long nighttime curfew on cairo and 10 provinces. also today's decision was announced shortly after interim president mansour declared a month-long nationwide state of emergency and ordered the army to back the police in efforts to restore order. violence spread across much of the country after police swept in with armored vehicles and bulldozers and helicopters to clear two encampments of supporters of ousted president morsi. again 149 people have been killed, many of them in assaults in those two vigils.

>> once again, violence escalating in egypt between the country's military and police, and protesters loyal to ousted president mohammed morsi. the associated press reporting 149 people have died in clashes across the country. earlier today a cameraman from bring taken's sky tv was killed in the conflict. also egypt's vice preçipq't andi reform leader al bar aday has resigned to protest those deadly police assaults against two protest camps by supporters of the ousted president. secretary of state john kerry had remarks about the situation in egypt, we'll show you his remarks right now.

>> sorry to keep you waiting, folks. i'll make a statement and thençó jen salky will stay and take questions and brief everybody. the united states strongly condemns today's violence and bloodshed across egypt. it's a serious blow to reconciliation, and the egyptians people's hopes for a transition towards democracy and inclusion. in the past week at every occasion, perhaps even more than the past week, we and others

have urged the government to respect the rights of free assembly, and of free expression, and we have also urged all parties to resolve this impasse peacefully and underscore that demonstrators should avoid violence and insightment. today's events are deplorable. and they run counter to egyptian aspirations for peace, inclusion and genuine democracy. egyptians inside and outside of the government need to take a step back. they need to calm the situation, and avoid further loss of life. we also strongly oppose a return to a state of emergency law. and we call on the governmentñro respect basic human rights, including freedom, peaceful assembly and due process under the law. we believe that the state of emergency should end as soon as possible. violence is simply not a

solution in egypt or anywhere else. violence will not create a road map for egypt's future. violence only impedes the transition to an inclusive civilian government. a government chosen in free and fair elections, that governs democratically consistent with the goals of the egyptian revolution. and violence and continued political polarization will only further tear the egyptian economy apart and prevent it from growing, providing the jobs and the future that the people of egypt want so badly. the united states strongly supports the egyptian peoples' home for a prompt and sustainable transition to an inclusive, tolerant, civilian-led democracy. deputy secretary of state burns, together with our e.u. colleagues provided constructive ideas and left them on the table during our talks in cairo last week.

from my many phone calls calls h many egyptians, i believe they know full well what a constructive process would look like. the interim government and the military, which together possess the preponderance of power in this confrontation, have a unique responsibility to prevent further violence and to offer constructive options for an inclusive, peaceful process across the entire political spectrum. this includes amending the constitution, holding parliamentary and presidential elections which the interim government itself has called for. all of the other parties, all of the opposition, all of civil society, all parties, also share a responsibility to avoid violence and to participate in a productive path towards a political solution. there will not be a solution through further polarization. there can only be a political solution by bringing people

together with a political solution. so this is a pivotal moment for all egyptians. the path towards violence leads only to greater instability, economic disaster, and suffering. the only sustainable path for either side is one towards a political solution. i am convinced from my conversations today with a number of foreign ministers including the foreign minister of egypt, i am convinced that that path is in fact still open, and it is possible though it has been made much, much harder, much more complicated by the events of today. the promise of the 2011 revolution has simply never been fully realized. and the final outcome of that revolution is not yet decided. it will be shaped in the hours ahead, in the days ahead, it will be shaped by the decisions which all of egypt's political leaders make now and in these

days ahead. the world is closely watching egypt and is deeply concerned about the events that we have witnessed today. the united states remains at the ready to work with all of the parties and with our partners and with others around the world in order to help achieve a peaceful democratic way forward. now, jen will be happy to answer any questions. thanks. >> secretary of state kerry on the situation in egypt. 149 people are reportedly dead, as a result of the clashes between ousted president mohammed morsi and the military and police. the white house has trongly condemned the violent crackdown and the state of emergency law. we will continue to watch the situation, we'll bring you the latest as we get it. we will now go back to the program on the future of marriage in america, hosted by the bar association of san francisco. we join it in progress.

>> what you might not realize or maybe you remember now that most of the marriage cases if not all as a nonlawyer i can't tell you this with 100% certainty, but i'm almost positive, marriage cases in california have been handled through a somewhat administrative process and plaintiffs weren't really visible. they certainly weren't -- they might have had their names lended to the effort and made some appearances, but in this case we thought we would be doing that. that was what we thought we signed up for. ( laughter ). >> surprise. >> and it really didn't turn out that way. in fact, i can remember when we went to court to hear about the calendaring and scheduling that the lawyers needed to know about in order to file their briefs, and do all the work they do, and boy did they do a lot of work and you're all amazing, if you helped with briefs or came to watch or lent support to the

lawyers on our team in some way, thank you, because it took a team much dozens and dozens of attorneys over many years and not just these attorneys, but attorneys before that on other cases. the challenging part was that there was a trial and then having to sit through almost three weeks of testimony, and arguments from the other side that were very familiar because they sounded like the political rhetoric that they used in the campaign. and as you all recall, the strategy they relied upon in the political campaign and in court as well was this sort of cast lesbian and gay couples as different and even deviant and not worthy of something as special as marriage, and certainly not good enough to be parents. for sandy and i with four children who we love dearly and their friends who we love dearly and all the other children in california who we want to help, that was just too much to tolerate, and it was hard to be in court when that was gone back over again. we watched the ads again, listened to them, talked to the

judge about how we weren't worthy and our children were there and they heard that as well. i think it was a really difficult experience, and i hope some day the video is unsealed and all of you can see what we saw and heard in that courtroom. because even though they wanted to convince the judge that they were right, they had no evidence and they couldn't back up any of their claims, and i think it's why we won, is that the 17 witnesses we had compared to the two they had were using data. and evidence. to explain how meaningful and helpful marriage is, that people who are married are healthier and wealthier, that they're happier in many cases. and that their lives are enriched by marriage. and certainly knowing that you have the option to be married whether you choose to be married or not is even helpful. so that was the great part about the trial, the good news that came out of our side and the hard part was the news that came from their side. >> thank you very much. enrique, what made you decide to, what made you choose these

particular plaintiffs since they have pointed out that they didn't get to choose to be the plaintiffs, and in other words what made them the perfect test case? attorneys who fight for civil rights ten to choose case where is their facts only e deal with the key civil rights issusr in the case, and did that factor into your decision to choose these two? >> our plaintiffs, chris and sandy and paul and jeff are heros in our nation's fight for equality. but for their courage and their tenacity and their true sacrifice, california would still be forcing proposition 8 and people would be denied their fundamental rights to marry. we didn't have an official search party for play-offs, as chris alluded to. chris and sandy and paul and jeff, and chad griffin, a former chair of the american foundation for equal rights which started this litigation and is the current chair for the human rights campaign, he asked them and they agreed.

what we were looking for were couples who were in loving, committed relationships and who were willing to make the sacrifice, willing to take the step forward towards a litigation where other people weren't ready to do it. we were so lucky to find chris and sandy and paul and jeff, because i think their stories rang so true and were so moving, you just look at them and you feel like they should be together. and the happiest points of my life was being able to go see paul and jeff get married once the -- we were in l.a. and we ran down there and saw it happen, it was a beautiful day. and congratulations, guys, on getting married. >> thank you. >> so chris and sandy, where were you when the decision came down? >> we were in the supreme court. yes, we were, and in fact so happy to be in the supreme court on that day. we were also there on the day of the arguments in march.

and again, i'll say as lay people and not attorneys, we've really learned a lot about the legal system and come to respect it even more than we already did. the protocol, processes, and frankly the decor expum the formality of it brings a lot of respect to couples like us who often aren't treated that way. and so to come and do a, into a place, our nation's highest court and get treated in the same way everyone else is treated in that room i think was a very personally meaningful thing for me and i was really happy we were able to be in the courtroom both days, argument day and decision day. because not only were we in a room with people who care as deeply about this as we do, and are as being helped, i think the whole country is helped by these decisions, even though i think there is some public opinion and the court opinion, they are slightly different, i think it brought us today together as a country, as a state, up like any

decision recently. even just that week had really pulled it apart. so what i loved about being there was forever remembering sandy by my side, jeff and paul, chald, and all the people who had been with us for four and a half years waiting for the day that it would be over. because even though it ended differently than we might have hoped, it was over, and that was really a good thing, and every time we thought something was over our lawyer said no, it's not over. ( laughter ) and i knew thought, well, okay, so we'll go back again on an unknown date. but it was over, and we walked out and people were so joyous and celebratory outside the court, and the entire day, i felt like we were riding on this cloud of happiness and relief. >> chris, is there any way that these two decisions can be undone in the future? >> well, fortunately that's an easy answer. think you the chances is

essentially zero this these cases could be undone. one of the nice things about being in the supreme court is that when you're interpreting the federal constitution, your decision is about as final as final gets. so the only way that the supreme court's decisions could be overturned would be either a federal constitutional amendment, which is very, very difficult to do, or a future change in the composition of the court that causes them to reconsider their decision and overrule themselves. neither of those is very likely any time in the foreseeable future. >> so, chris and matt, can you briefly describe what you believe the national impact of the two supreme court decisions is? and from a legal perspective, can you respond to that, from a civil rights perspective can you respond to that, and then from a societal perspective. >> well, from a legal perspective, as i said, in some

ways the cases are modest. the prop 8 case, you know, judge waller -- walker's decision is in place, i think judge walker's decision is the best decision there's been in i marriage case so far. but the decision of one united states district judge is not binding on any other united states district judge. so from a legal sense, it's modest. the article 3 question is pretty uninteresting. i think judge walker's decision because it's so good will be valuable, persuasive from a legal standpoint. the doma case gives us a little more. for the first time the court really suggests that even when ... the court has two basic ways of looking at equality. most of the time it says we'll leave questions of whether two groups of people are equal or unequal to legislators in congress, spritessing to most people, but that's basically what the rule is, we'll presume that different treatment is constitutional because people

are really in a totally different situation. and quite rarely they'll say we're historically suspicious of certain kinds of classifications, race, gender, nationality, and we'll always look at those very carefully. the doma case doesn't say we're going to treat sexual orientation classifications aifl my, it still leaves it, as near as anybody can tell, back in the presumptively constitutional. but it does say that when there's evidence that you single people out for different treatment based on hostility or a desire to treatment them differently or a sense that they're really different, that that changes the calculus, and makes the court take a closer look at it. and i think that will make it helpful for us in taking down anti-marriage laws in other places. but i think it means we've got to be very, very smart about how we do it. we've got to look for the best targets out there, and there are a lot of targets out there,

about 45 targets out there. and we've got to look for the best of them and there are great differences from, between them. from a several rights perspective, because the prop 8 case doesn't really get to the constitutional issues and the doma case does so languidly at best, i don't think they're much much a boost. from the court that the day before decided that its judgment about voting right was more important than congress' voting right, more important than the unanimous united states senate just a few years earlier, i don't think they're a great boost in civil rights, i really don't. politically, they're fabulous! really, i think the sense you've been conveying is exactly right. the political sense of this is, this is a train, it's not going to be stopped, we're on it. and the key to me politically on how you follow up is to make sure you make maximum use of the political traction and smart use of the legal traction, which is probably at this point a

somewhat modest pick the next best cases and get things lined up. you know, justice scalia's dissent, wades a very important thing to read. justice and a lee appears dissent in the windsor case sews there are enough votes to strike down marriage, get the case here as quickly as possible. now, you may think that justice scalia has had a sudden converse and he's our friend and telling us what to do. you may think he was totally exasperated. or you may think that this is his last chance to say that states don't have to require same sex couples to get married and wants to get something crafted there as quickly as possible to he can use it to see if he can get anthony kennedy. and kennedy says not a word in any of the opinions about how he feels about that question, and if you look back at the argument

he's deeply tormented. so make as much out of this politically as we can, be as smart about it from a legal standpoint as we can. >> so can i ask you where you think the next best target is? >> there are a bunch out there. i'd go after the most extreme amendments, and doma's that are out there, virginias. people think, for example, even invalidates wills between same sex couples. i think that's really extreme. there's a case in north carolina that frames the marriage question up in terms of recognizing people as parrots, i think that's a great way to do it, especially with justice kennedy. generally speaking i think statutory defense of marriage acts are better than constitutional ones because they give you better legislative record to work with and you don't have to ascribe a bad motive to the entire populus of the state, it's easier --

you've seen those state legislatures, it's easier to do it there. >> okay. chris. >> i would say i take a slightly more optimistic view of the decisions, legal effects than matt does. we had this amazing language, by the way i should mention windsor was an aclu case, so we have something, to thank for that wonderful decision. it really is the most sweeping affirmation of lgbt equality we've ever seen from our supreme court, you know. the first time we've ever seen language like justice kennedy's language talking about doma as a law that den great send sex couples and their children and sends this terrible message of inequality to their children and marks them as second class,

their relationships as second class marriages. and i think all of that language and all of the reasoning behind it is going to be tremendously helpful as we go forward because , a law from a state that says we're not going to recognize your marriage if you move here from california is every bit as denigr aating and every bit of a marker as second class status as doma was. and i think we'll find that windsor is a big driver of equality as we move forward, legally and socially. >> okay. enrique? prop 8 supporters have been quoted much making statements such as these supreme court decisions were not sweeping victories for the lgbt community, it did not create a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage as it did for abortion in 1973, and it did not declare same sex marriage as civil right, along the lines of ethnicity and nationality. how would you respond to those

statements? >> i think that they were, i think that the perry case, we defeated proposition 8 in california, one of the larger states, it's now the 13th state to recognize marriage e quality w. california now in the mix that means 94 million americans live in states where same sex marriage is allowed, that's 30% of our population. as we look at the political as respects of this case, i think that's huge. a big part of our case was the p.r., getting to know chris and sandy and paul and jeff and getting to know our gay neighbors, you're not afraid and you recognize that they're just like everybody else and that allowing gay people to get married is not going to affect anybody's heterosexual marriage. so when we have a state like california that is so large allowing more same sex couples to get married and have families, i think that pushes forward the discourse and marriage equality is going to come down much sooner. >> matt, what's your response to

that? >> technically right, socially wrong. that they are technically right that it doesn't establish a nationwide right for same sex couples to marry. they are technically right that it's not the kind of legal water shed that row against wade is, but that's just people trying to deny what's going on in the country. if you go back to 2008 when proposition 8"u(ááq", right, we had two states that allowed same sex couples to marry at the time prop 8 passed. within a week after it passed we picked up connecticut and iowa, i think, in 08. since then we picked up, enrique said, the numbers that get us to 13 was california and most of those states most recently, three state legislatures acting, not through the courts doing it. anyone who misses the significance of this becoming, i think, in america since something that needs to happen, something that historically is going to happen but needs to

happen soon, in that sense it's just to underrate the scope of the victory by focusing on the technicalities. >> okay. kristin. many will tell you that achieving marriage equality in california is just the beginning of a much bigger challenge. next up are issues like employment discrimination, for example in 29 states lg employees are not protected from workplace discrimination. in 33 states transgender employees are not protected. protection against bullying and adequate punishment for bullying is an issue, there's been an uptick in violence in the lgbt community. and no marriage equality in other states, just to name a few. what do you see as the next most important issue on the path to equality for the lgbt community? now that we have the marriage thing worked out. >> well, first of all, enjoy the fact that for now we have -- no, no, no.

florida re-- resolved one of the problems in california, which was this enormous problem of our government tell us that we're not equal and the harm that that was causing sandy and i and literally tens of thousands of other california residents. and most importantly children. i think when you look at any of the other laws that discriminate in employment, or in schools where children are permitted or even en couraged to be mean to other children. what that really all reflects is a very big problem with homophobia, still, in america. and the policies are really just formal sort of mandates of that homophobia. what was really important about the trial, and i do believe that the decision is incredibly powerful and so is the record, is that it shows how insidious and painful homophobia is and

even internalize homophobia inng to ourselves as gay people and lesbian and gay people, transgender, queer people, that people aren't doing to us. and if we're doing these things to ourselves, telling ourselves we don't deserve to have certain jobs or live in certain places or be happy or be in love or be parents, and we're transmitting that to another generation and another generation and another generation, of course there are policies and of course there are laws that formalize those beliefs. so i think the work may to be go out and undo a bunch of laws, or it may be to go out and have new better laws that override those old bad laws. but my passion is more about humanity, and human development. and the capacity to be more loving and accepting versus be so separate and exclusive. and with that is a state of mind, i think you can make great policy itself, you can do great

things and as a lawmaker, an elected official, you can do great things as a teacher, as an employer, that someone has to get through to you. that you are harming people in your workplace, in your school and in your home or neighborhood. and i really see that as the work sandy and i still have to do. it one thing that we got to be married, and it feels great. and i really can tell you being equal feels better. it does feel better. our children can tell us it already feels better, we're so sad that they are already 18 and older and didn't have their parents married when they were growing up. but they saw something historic and momentous happen, and that will change their lives. and i think that they'll expect more of themselves and other people as a result. and i hope all of you, and young people across the country and the state, will see this as an inspirational moment that helps them aspire to lead in their own lives. and that's what changes all of

that other nonsense, actually, that's going on out there where people get away with putting these terrible laws on the books and then we live with them. >> just behaving badly. >> behaving badly. >> so, sandy, what do you think is the next most important issue on the path to lgbt equality? >> well, after this inspirationalçó talk about humanity, wow... ( laughter ) i think we have to have a country where you don't have to live in a certain state to get your rights. i think that the fight is not over, i'm from iowa and i cannot tell you how ironic i found it to be, truly, with my mother, my very conservative mother saying can you believe iowa has gay marriage, and california does not? and i actually kind of couldn't believe it. but i feel like marriage

equality, workplace discrimination law, it all matters,ñi anti-bullying, transgender rights, they all matter. but we cannot have a country where just because you were born in a certain state that means you just have to live a second class existence your whole entire life. we have to have more balance in this country. and we have to find a way to support our southern brothers and sisters and families so that we might have more balance in our country. i feel like we have such a divide between urban and rural, sometimes coastal and noncoastal, and right now we certainly have a huge divide over how we are perceived in terms of the government. and the fact that the federal government now recognizes us, which is a fantastic wonderful achievement, makes it all the more painful, i think, for individuals living in these other states to get past their

own state laws to try to reach the same benefits and the same rights that people who maybe live 10 feet away have. you shouldn't have to move. you shouldn't havoi to leave. you should be able to grow up, raise your family in the place that you want to be around your relatives and your home, and have the same rights as anybody else in our country. so i think we have got to bridge that divide that we have geographically in our country, and i absolutely think we have to address it as a human issue as well.

for two weeks i've been married. and so i wake up every morning and i don't believe it, actually. until i see sandy and then i smile and i remember that i really am married. i can tell you that everything that our heterosexual lawyers, married lawyers told us was important about this institution is true. there is a sense of responsibility, and commitment that deepens with that day, for me. and we've talked about it, think we're both a little in awe of how it shifted us from this sense of temporariness, and also worry that the outcome wouldn't be one that would be one to celebrate, that we would have taken a big risk and not been successful, so the worry of that was very big. having that lifted and then be replaced with this sense of great permanence and a bright

future was, has been wonderful, absolutely wonderful. i want it to last a really long time. >> i had this interesting experience a couple days ago, we were in wowed and i was renting a car and chris wasn't with me. i'm filling out the paperwork and they said are you the only driver, and i said know, i want a second driver, do they have to be here, and they said oh no, as long as you're married. and i said oh, i'm married. i kind got used to it, ka khing, and the guy goes okay, i'll just put your husband's name down, and i said no it's my wife. and he said oh, i'm sorry, of course, of course i'll put just that down, i'll put down spouse. and i left that, put down spouse, and change your forms and change your business practices, and don't ever ask

anybody that again. [applause] but we're so used to, i'm so used to using the word partner, and having that feeling about that, like oh, it feels sort of bad, or just feels, it does feel second class, it is second class. i'm not a lawyer, i never aspired to be a partner in my life. you know. but the word wife is working out pretty well, i like that one. so it really does change. the day that we got married and i got my fourth ring because we're gay people, we need lots of rings to commemorate our marriages, the day we got married i honestly felt calmer. i felt like my heart rate, my blood pressure just went down a little bit, like yeah, things are going to be okay, this is real, it's the real deal, and our families are going to understand it better, and we can stop fighting for it and stop being in court over it. and it just, we both felt a lot

calmer and i feel more legitimate, because in our country and our society marriage means something. and like one of the other plaintiffs said, if i doesn't matter so much we wouldn't be here, you know. and it does matter. and that's why somebody spent $84 million to try to keep this from having to matterth tomorrow this a different way. it matter to us, it's benefiting us, it's benefiting other people. and we've heard stories about couples who had they just been able to get married, you know, one couple we heard about from our lawyers, a couple in california, one of them passed away right before you could get legally married and before doma came down, and because of that her partner of many, many years will just suffer from the consequences of that, and they are very severe for their family. the bread winning spouse passed away, and the stay at home mom was left.

these are significant consequences, and like he said in court, every day that you do not undo this wrong, people suffer, and it's true, they suffer. it's not just emotional, it can be financial, can there are horrible consequences, and for us it's wonderful to be matter, we feel so happy expwit i feel less worried about our future, but i also feel like good. there are people out there that got their just reward today and that matters so much, it's not even funny. we're so happy about that part. our children are now now adults. i think they've all had friends tell them how impressed and

happy they are by this struggle we've been in and that we made to it the other side. so i think for them peer recognition and support has been a huge part of this. they in some ways feel admired, i think, for having been involved in something that has effected lots of other families. i believe they're so happy for sandy and i that we're done with this, that this is just part of our lives that was full of uncertainty and is now, now it's so possible to map a future. while they start their new lives we're starting our new lives. >> matt and chris. by disposing of the california case on narrow procedural grounds, the supreme court avoided the necessary reckoning about the fundamental violation of equal protection created by state laws that prohibit same sex couples from marrying. it has perpetuated an

irrationale patch work in which dual i wed couples can not be considered married when they cross state borders. therefore, if a couple is married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage, like california, what are the implications of that couple moving to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage? such as tax filings, getting divorces, hospital visits, et cetera. >> now that we have doma gone, one thing that's very clear is that couples that are married in a state like california, that permit same sex couples to marry and live in a state that permit same sex couples to marry, those couples will be en titled to every federal right and benefit that any married couple has, that's very clear and just a matter of time before the federal government implements all those things as they moved quickly to do. that's absolutely clear.

a situation when a couple married in california or another state moves to a state like florida or texas that does not respect their marriage, and until we succeed in getting rid of the remaining marriage band in these states it's clear that those state governments will not recognize these couples as married, and they will get some but probably not all of the federal benefit that they would get if they were living in a state.

>> we are all wise people. i would hope that the lgbt community would recognize that the key to continuing that progress is the key to the progress we have made so far which is engagement, political engagement. both the supreme court and elsewhere around the country, we have systematically been limiting what was a limited democracy to begin with. making true self-government harder and harder. it has been tied to make this a self -- functioning democracy again -- a self-functioning democracy of again. to recognize that

issues of race, class, sexism are lgbt issues. only in cases like this one but and comprehensive toigration reform, access healthcare. all these are lgbt issues the cousin they look like the rest rejigged because they look like the rest of the country. -- all these are lgbt issues because they look like the rest of the country. are awing that you minority and you will always be a minority, being a lesbian , the constructive thing how muchs recognizing struggle and how hard it is to be different all the time. be compassionate was greatly increased by this struggle. were standing on

martin luther king's shoulders, rosa parks, cesar seanez, those that tried so hard to make the point that it is hard to be treated differently. you can grasp the civil rights movements over many decades, we are just a dot on this line. lesbian, gay, and queer people got their day in court. we don't want to be treated differently either. fewe will open this up to a moments of question and answer. just raise your hand. in the back, they have microphones.

>> thank you. a very interesting panel. the prop eight case came down from the supreme court, i had the uninformed thought that it would only apply to the named plaintiff couples. was there any question about that >> how did the ninth circuit handle it >> -- about that? how did the ninth circuit handle it? >> you are technically right that the only person that can benefit from judgment in a federal court case are the plaintiffs. action,not a class- technically they are at the benefit of the judgment. i am not sure that they have the power to do that.

h never stood in his wa before. power tohey have the do that or not, nobody objected until the time to file the notice of appeal ran with the final judgment. the case ended in district court. perhaps you could have objected to the scope of the order but once the governor did not, you is in effect -- i think it entirely right. i was surprised how fast the ninth circuit went. the parties bound by the order said they did not want to stay back in district court. it made sense that when they said they did not want to say prolific.

>> thank you for your fabulous work. [inaudible] >> sure. parting with the second first, we have both marriage and registered domestic partnership available to same-sex couples. they can choose to do either one.

each of those has more or less or less the same legal consequences under state law but may have different consequences under federal law for purposes of federal benefits. it has not yet been tested in very many contexts if the government will be providing registered domestic partners with any sort of federal benefits. most of the statutes talk about spouses and married couples. but there are some exceptions. there is a provision that says, basically, a couple will be in recognized as married if they are married in the state where they live or if they have the right of contesting succession under state law. be that in certain circumstances where the federal statute has particular language, that there will be some federal recognition for domestic partners.

>> another question? i was wondering if there are any plans for them to be moving or nebraska. [laughter] >> we don't plan to be plaintiffs in any -- [laughter] i think i am answering your question. >> but be careful when you are traveling. >> we prefer flying.

>> i want to thank all of you for your presentations and your work. on,thing that sandy touched the educational experience of being able to tell other people that you are married. you mentioned it at the rental but we did get married in the window in 2008. difference, the that is my husband and we are married. their response and their understanding of who we are and how we behave changes when we do that. suddenly realize, many times, that they don't care. that there is no issue. fine. >> it is like being at the grown-ups table, right? it is the single most important

decision. to be denied that ability to make that legal decision is a great disservice and it is a humiliating situation. that able to make important decision to be legally married is very validating. people that experienced that have somewhat of a similar feeling. it is a very profound experience to be able to make the decision, propose to somebody, and have it be real. it is very different and we are loving the difference so far. >> thank you all so very much. we heard a little bit about the current administration setting up some benefits for couples who are married in one state and move to another state that does not recognize that marriage. if it is up to the administration to set up those

benefits, can the next one undo -- can the next one undo that? >> by statute, the state that performed the marriage -- i don't think the subsequent administration can bypass couples that come in and get married in a state that recognizes it. also think as a practical matter, what you start doing when you unwind recognition -- it is the kind of administration that people suggest getting rid of it and bringing it about. i think that you have to be ideologically set, and i think it would be a bad situation. >> i agree with that.

these things are determined by administrative rules that have to go through a rule-making process to reverse it. i think it is pretty unlikely that a future republican administration will have much of an appetite to try that. >> it is a little unclear to me worksis problem with doma in non-marriage equality states. what happens if you need food orp's, a wick program, something that does not have marriage equality. marriage equality? >> the federal government recognizes if you are married in a state that recognizes same-sex couples, i don't think the state

can start treating you, for federal purposes, as if you are unmarried. it will be program by program, i think. faq, thereo to the are various ones about the state programs. awaiting guidance from the administration and i am sure they will do as much as they can to make sure that couples are treated equally to the fullest extent the law will allow. >> another question over here? >> is there any concern among the four of you regarding rejigent to standing resident -- precedent to standing reservations? the way that i read it, there

is no standing decision in the windsor case. the way that i read the constitutional question in the if all of the state's oh elected officials -- if they don't appoint someone who has some responsibility to defend it for it, you can't go to federal court. no, it does not concern me terribly. >> is that it for questions? >> i will speak loudly. haveat impact will obama coming out in favor of lgbt and gay marriage during the pendency of the case had on the political decision and the legal impact of

the decision? well, the president's decision that he was going to sex couples and that it was unconstitutional to deny benefits meant that the government switched sides. changed the calculus and all the federal courts. i think that would be the least of it. that in theident same election where barack obama won a second term, the voters of minnesota became the first to reject the constitution to ban same-sex couples. the voters in maryland and washington state voted to have marriage in same-sex couples.

was a majorresident help making that happen and i think the importance of it cannot be underestimated. micro, heeta-and talks personally about how long it took him and how he got there from not being supportive to being supportive. he referenced his own kids, that day talked to him and said you are not on the same page we are on. you will have to be more like us. this is what happens. you do change over time if you let yourself. as a world leader, you can see world leaders changing they way they are running their countries. it happened today. it is happening because he is a world leader and he is also a dad.

those things are really powerful and profound. took -- country's people saying that i am going to be a leader, too. he is a remarkable leader. >> this is going to close our program this evening. there is a reception on the can continueso we to celebrate the great work that the panel has done and some of you have been part of. you will be taking elevators down to the second floor, so please be patient with the number of operational elevators. filled with great folks like yourself. these be patient and join me in thanking this wonderful panel. [applause]

thank you all for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we will check in on congressional hound rejig -- town hall meetings around the country and we will check on the rollout of the healthcare exchanges that are supposed to take effect on january 1, 2014.

i don't think you are understanding the law you're in charge of enforcing. the act were you limit how a person pays back, that is only a person eligible for a subsidy if their income changes in the year that the subsidy takes place. if a person gets a subsidy they are not eligible for, which will clearly be the case, the law requires that you call back 100% of the subsidy they were not entitled to. the hypothetical that you gave have a lot of moving pieces, but you are correct. we discovered that this individual got an inappropriate subsidy. we made some connection with their employer to learn that information. >> which will be 2015 at the earliest. >> we will get the official

employer report in 2016. either way, we will make the effort to validate coverage for individuals. >> they will get two years of signed upy that they for unknowingly and you will have the tax that back in two years time? help the individual at the front and to understand if they have an employer- provided plan -- data,you don't have the you will have a lot of people getting subsidies they are not supposed to get and you will hit them with a tax bill in two years. i yield back. >> tonight's townhall on health care gets started tonight at 7:00 p.m.

and now a discussion on the rules and regulations of unmanned aircraft technology from today's washington journal. joining us for this conversation, thanks for joining us. your title suggests the use of the term unmanned vehicle systems, people call them unmanned verio rejig aerial vehicles -- people call them unmanned aerial vehicles. unmanned aircraft systems is the term that congress and the faa uses as their official terminology. international organization calls them piloted aircraft systems. the key word is the word systems. is what most people have

when you talk about unmanned aircraft systems or they say the word drone. people will think of something large, military, and hostile. that is not what these systems are. many of them weigh less than 55 andds, only 400 feet high, they are used line of sight during the day. but rather, environment operations where it is very safe. what you have is a thing that flies about 30 % of the overall system. you have a communication link between the two. you have a ground station and you have a human being.

that is part of the overall system. that is important whether they are on the plane or on the iound operating it. understand the difference, but most people don't. it gives them the wrong impression of the technology. >> what are some of the other issues when it comes to surveillance? applications, 80 % will be agriculture. -- 80% will be agriculture. understand that it

doesn't mind if you're watching awayhe privacy issue goes and there are not a lot of human beings that will be there as well. it is very safe and it doesn't have the privacy concern. >> if you want to ask him questions about the use of these systems, here is your chance. the numbers will be on your screen. you can also send us tweets about this. arerding to the faa, there three types of operators of these systems. one is known as the private recreational operator. there is also the public

operator. and you break down the industries that represent these groups? >> the terminology goes back to operations. predominantly, we have had military applications. mention the americannal use, the modelers association has been .round more than 80 years that is the recreational side. there are no restrictions, and they have been doing that safely for many years for the purpose of a recreational standpoint. when you get to the civil and commercial applications, again, right now it is prohibitive to use them in a commercial way.

that determination is done by the faa right now. and those are restrictions from the standpoint of safety. host: what decisions does the faa have to make? guest: within the unmanned aircraft system, safety is paramount. there is really only one responsibility, to make sure that anything that goes into the natural -- national airspace does so in a safe manner. it has to detect in the void if it is an unmanned system. if it goes in to the national airspace, it can do no harm. it cannot fallout of the national airspace and do harm to anyone else. i will tell you, they are doing a very good job. we have the safest guys in the world. host: what is the deadline that the faa has to make sure when this is supposed to happen? guest: congress mandated in the faa reform act in february of

2012 that by september 30, 2015, the faa had to integrate unmanned aircraft systems and to the national airspace. it did not say fully integrate, but just recently there has been success with the faa, and also of in the arctic with systems that were flown for oil and gas exploration, as well as wildlife monitoring. the test went fantastic. it was done in a safe and efficient manner. host: so it is possible for these systems to interact with planes and other aircraft that are used and flown by people? guest: again, look at where the operational spaces.

because the faa knows anything going into the national airspace, they can control that. the predominance of the use that you will see as we start integrating the systems will not be where normal commercial airlines are flying. when you look at the band the bears place they're flying in, anything from 1,000 feet or below is where they will be able to operate the unmanned aircraft systems we're talking about. for the most part, many of them weigh less than 55 pounds. host: with the safety regulations, will they be brought in nature or specific in nature? is there concern about how specific they become? guest: i believe the faa is working towards the right mix to ensure safety and the national airspace. the integration of manned and unmanned systems will be done in a very safe matter. there's a lot of attention on this, and that is the job of the faa. host: michael toscano, president and ceo of unmanned vehicle systems international will be

with us to talk about these issues and take your questions. the first one is built from ohio, for our guest on of the independent line. go ahead, please. caller: i was wondering on the air space thing, 400 feet is supposed to belong to the citizens. anything below 400 feet is considered trespassing. that was my question. i was wondering how they are going to do that, and if they get caught trespassing, what someone gets in trouble if they shot it out of the sky over their property? guest: 400 feet and below is the restriction for fixed wing. helicopters can fly below that. as far as where the domain lies for air that you own, that is a

discussion being made. you have to take responsibility. that would appear restless -- reckless act. i would caution you. host: jim asking will crash, caused damage? guest: first of all, and the operational environment is well known in many cases certified by the operator. if you are going to do a search and rescue, and 8 of hundred thousand people go missing every day, this is a capability that allows you to find them in a much more affected and affectionate -- much more effective and efficient manner. what i am saying is the boundary of the search envelope is identified.

the precautionary experts -- the precautionary tales are anything that goes wrong, these systems are programmed to go to a designated spot to either land or go to a certain spot where they can establish the link in communications and operate in a safe manner. safety is paramount with unmanned systems and you will not launch them and put them into the national airspace of us they are safe. take a weapon showing the folks the convention center. i do have ahibitors. directory that has that number in it. host: so international people

build these as well? guest: this is a global technology. we mentioned agriculture being one of the biggest things you will see as utilization. also, when you look at wild fires, monitoring weather. hazardous conditions. recently obviously with fukushima and katrina. when you need to have situational awareness or the ability to provide a capability to an individual that may be stranded or in need of help, this is a great way to do it in a very cost-effective and safe manner. host: who is the largest builder in the u.s.? guest: 1 from a dollar standpoint and one from volume. the ability to have situational

awareness. many of the small ones that we less than 5 pounds, they operate for 20-30 minutes. if you have a situation where you had a critical incident that took place. when the first responders got on the site in oklahoma with the debris and smoke, the individuals could not go in and do their job because they did not know if there was a bomb, and did not know if there was a gas leak. if they have the capability of flying it up to the building, it would have made the job of a lot easier. anytime you see where the men and women that are trained and responsible perform these missions, this is a tool that allows the to do their job better. host: cameras typically attach to these systems? what else could be attached? guest: in the farming industry, there will probably sensors that understand photosynthesis or the

chemical makeup of the soil and things of this nature, which those devices exist in developing even more of them. so if you are trying to get pictures, you will have a camera on then -- on it. if you are trying to find out when to pick something, you may have fermenting the vice. so now farmers can know exactly when they should harvest the crop. maybe they do have at one point in time and wait a week or two. which means they get a higher yield, do not waste as much of the fruit. you get a better product. host: cameras are privacy concerns.

how do you answer people who are concerned about this? guest: with any technology, you have to use it in a responsible way. that is no different than the internet. we are at a point where we are writing bullying laws because some people aren't as using the technology to do things it is not supposed to be done. we have had privacy laws. peeping tom laws and privacy laws. it says if you break the law, you are held accountable with -- whether you do it with a man that system, unman the system or binoculars across the street. if you break the law, you are held accountable. host: specific laws are needed for this industry? guest: the fourth amendment has

been around for 422 years. a lot of technologies developed during that timeframe. he looked up phones, cell phones, satellite technology. usually when we talk about the privacy issue, it is about the collection of data. it is the collection of the data and how it is being analyzed and stored and how it is being disseminated and how it is being destroyed. that is true with much of the data we're talking about. so it is not how you collect it, it is what happens after. host: dave from texas. independent line. caller: you mentioned 1,000 feet feet and below for the ranch land. any type of height restriction over residential or will they be able to fly to feet above the roof of your house? you say about the privacy

issues, that is the government that has gone to process privacy issues. if they are the ones pricking privacy, how will we hold them responsible? guest: again, and the operation any operation and all of the private citizens are getting involved with. you may say we will of the use these systems for these particular applications or if you are going to use them, this is how you have to do it. you have to do it in a safe matter and all local walls of the rules. that is what they're there for. host: our guest is michael toscano. our next guest is jordan in maryland. caller: what do you think the unmanned vehicles are used as far as the fire department, police department and other local government?

guest: again, a lot of the civil applications are ideal. the men and women are trained to do their job better than anyone else. obviously search and rescue is very important. fire fighting very important. a lot of them in the park ranger were that the do monitoring of the environment or the condition. when you look at noa monitoring weather and the tornadoes throughout the world, hurricanes, floods -- all of these things that affect us as human beings, this is a better way for us to understand the operational environment to the environment for which we live and other species here as well. monetary the wildlife to be able to understand so we do not disturb their habitat or make sure we can live in harmony. this gives us more situational

this gives us more situational awareness. host: you talked about training that goes for the operators of these systems. is there a standard training done as far as time and technical capability and things of that nature? guest: we're still in the process of determining what the standards will be. because this is a family of systems -- obviously the training of something that is 2 pounds will fly 40 feet high and line of sight will be different from something you fly that will go beyond the line of sight in much different altitudes. there is no one answer i can give you. depends on what operational environment is. host: jordan in maryland. i think we lost him. talk a little bit about your

role, especially here on capitol hill. i suspect you and others in the industry talk to folks on capitol hill. what has been the basis of the issue? what do you talk about most? guest: the association for unmanned vehicle systems international is the advancement of unmanned system. so we're talking mostly about unmanned aircraft systems. we had many conversations with lawmakers, stakeholders. this is to make sure people understand how technology can benefit their life. there is a lot of information as we talked about the beginning of the segment that even the word drone has a negative connotation to it. that is not with these systems are.

anytime you have had a system where you needed the information to have this, if you have ever had a lost child, you want them to have the best tools possible to be able to get a good result in a timely manner. that is what this technology brings. there is a human being that is in the loop or on the loop that is making the decision. this is just an extension of the eyes and ears of the human being in order to do their job in a much more efficient way. host: it comes to congress, are there specific laws you are talking about? guest: the privacy issue is something we talked to them on a regular basis because no one wants their privacy to be invaded or taken away. this is just like any other technology we have to deal with. we meet with the congressional and decision makers. many will tell you they

understand the economic impact this technology can have in their states and from a national standpoint and global standpoint. within the first three years when we get into the national airspace, you will have 70,000 new jobs created. $13.6 billion of economic impact. the first 10 years the numbers will go up dramatically. over $90 billion in impact. this can help grow the economy, create new and exciting and good paying jobs. it allows people to be more effective and efficient and what they do today. host: 39 states so far have walls and bills that specifically deal with search warrants. what does it say that some mistakes have some type of law dealing with this issue? guest: again, this is on the minds of some of the people because they recognize this technology is something different.

that is because it is new and revolutionary, and some call it disruptive. once you explain to them how this will be used and how the technology can better their lives and make it beneficial to all of mankind, 20 of those states have defeated the legislation. yes, there are some that are put in place. should make no difference. the operation is technology agnostic when it comes to the laws we have when it pertains to privacy. that is one of the biggest things people miss. it is not about the aircraft that flies. this is about data collection. we should address the issue of data collection and let the technology be available for everyone to take advantage. host: this pretty much has to come down the pike in your mind? guest: correct.

host: josh on the republican line. caller: i was in the marine corps infantry for five years, and what of my jobs was to get trained on a small two-person drowned. i think the largest part, we used it for reconnaissance. one of the problems or confusions in the popular discussion today is the lack of knowledge as to what is the difference between a war fighting drowned like a predator drowned or something like a global hoc or something like this and what is of reconnaissance drone and what would be used on domestic soil? we envision predator drums with missiles flying over the communities, which would not be the case at all, which would be incredibly expensive. here is where i disagree with you.

he said he would not need specific loss but you were referring to statute laws that would be specifically about drones and privacy and things like that. the vast majority of the fourth amendment protections as technology has increased from wiretaps to registries to infrared detection devices has been jurisprudence. i cannot imagine we would not see massive litigation based on privacy issues in relation to unmanned drones.

host: let's let the guest respond. guest: i am not a lawyer, and it did not stay at the holiday inn. the answer i will give you is yes, we will see the legislative body interact with the technology is used in a more expansive way. it is 50 years after the internet has been introduced that we are now writing bullying lolls about the internet. the technology has to be utilized and we have to go through the normal process of

finding out exactly how this technology will be integrated in safe and acceptable way. here we are five or six or seven generations later. in the technology has evolved into what we want it to be in order to be able to do the things we feel are important to us and do it in a safe manner. host: one tweet saying they can be used but our way to undermine our liberty and freedom. guest: i disagree. if you use the technology in a very responsible way, you will make mankind a better place to be. when you do not have to send men and women into the dirty, dangerous, in difficult places to be -- you look at fukishima, they knew they would not live much longer.

we at technology today that can be utilized. windier about the natural disasters that take place. that did not have to happen. we have technology today that can be utilized. when you hear of natural disasters, when you look at places on this planet where we just physically cannot go because as human beings we are too frail, now you can do exploration and find out wonders of the world that we dream about at times. host: long beach, california, democrats line. this is edward for our guest, michael toscano. caller: yes, hi. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am in california, so i wanted to say good night. guest: yes, you're up early. caller: i had two questions for

the speaker. what is the outlook for california, and have they done any studies on hacking into unmanned vehicles? guest: well, the issue of safety is important, but an electronic device that we have has to have the connections built into it so people can not hack into it or it is not in and certainly disrupted from operation. we go through great lengths, whether it be in the inking industry, the electronics industry, to make sure anything using electrons back and forth are done in a safe way. when you look at it, there is no leap ahead technology. the centers already exist. you can buy them at walmart or any electronics store. would you are doing is you are having a mobile platform that allows you to do it in a much more safe and efficient way than

we were doing things before. host: our guest, michael toscano, he is the president and ceo of the association holding this event in washington, d.c., and he will be with us for a half-hour. if you want to give him a call, he will stay with us. we will take a break, look around what is going on at the convention center. we have been talking a lot about unmanned vehicle systems. some do work on the ground as well. host: you are talking about technology with michael toscano. we are here with michael fleming, the ceo of torque robotics. what have you invented? guest: we have invented a mode control and self-driving kits for any ground vehicle, so whether it is an suv, or a

construction piece of equipment, we can convert that into an unmanned vehicle. that means the vehicle can be operated without anyone in the cab and we can place an operator and a safe distance. like mike mentioned with fukushima, that was an instance where we could not send workers into an area that had a certain amount of radiation. what we can do is send a vehicle like the skid loader, have an operator miles away, and be able to perform the work necessary to mitigate the fukushima incident without exposing to radiation. host: you have partnered with

caterpillar, and is this technology being used by the company? guest: we have a great relationship with caterpillar. we have worked with engineers to make sure our robotic kit can be quickly implemented, and by quickly i mean 30 minutes. host: how did you go about inventing this technology? guest: the origin was developed from self-driving technology. this was commercialized for the mining market and the military market. there was technology adopted out of carnegie mellon. host: the defense advanced research program agency -- they do this type of technology -- creating the internet, advancing technology as we know it. so, the on what you just talked

about for the government, what are the commercial uses for this technology? guest: we did work in retrofitting an suv to enable the blind to drive. there was an event at the daytona international speedway where we have blind drivers racing around the speedway. awareness to this technology, and how it can reduce the threats and enable those that are disabled to do what you and i do every day. host: you were at virginia tech. who competed in the competition? guest: there were 89 teams. they were selected down to 11.

three teams finished the competition, and we were lucky enough to have the technology and pardon the -- pardon it here at -- harden it. host: you were a student? guest: i was a student, and i was very fortunate to hire those students. we could not have done it without them. host: what about the cost? guest: the base camp cost about $40,000. you can operate the skid loader several miles away. host: do you have a government contract yet? guest: we have a lot of government contracts. the military is excited about using this technology.

anytime we create a distance between a war fighter and a major situation, it is a promising thing. host: are you using this in afghanistan? guest: yes. host: how is it being used? guest: rather than having a war fighter get in close proximity to an ied, they can perform the function robotically. host: michael fleming, ceo of torc robotics, thank you. guest: thank you. host: it is an event sponsored by the association of unmanned vehicles international. president and ceo michael toscano is joining us. the previous guest talk about work with pentagon. does your association talk to the pentagon? guest: very much so. it is worked on in research

labs. there is tremendous research being done. there are a lot of elementary school, high schools, colleges involved in the research of unmanned systems, and this is one of the great ways of getting young people involved in the science, mathematics and discovery process. we do work with darpa. host: ross. thank you for holding on. caller: good morning. i have to share some concerns about this technology. there are a few reasons i have concerns about this technology. as we all witnessed over the last few months here, with the nsa and what has happened to our computers, cell phones, and information being stored, this appears to be another technology that could be abused a bit.

i think if we do not have more laws in place there could be some very serious concerns in regards to these unmanned vehicles. guest: ross, i has an individual, understand the concern from a big data standpoint about how data is collected, stored, disseminated and destroyed. that is what you are talking about. this technology, unmanned systems, has a large capacity to make everyone's life better. that is a tremendous upside you

have to this technology. the technology is agnostic to the issue you are talking to. it is a different issue when talking about this capability. if you have ever had a situation with fires, floods or natural disasters -- 80% of all firefighters are volunteer. you want to make sure those men and women have the best tools for them to use when they execute the job they are given to do. in many cases, other people's lives are on the line. i understand your concern and it is something we have to address in the big picture, but when you look at this technology, do not link them together into you have to hold the data because of those concerns. host: there was a story about a south african outdoor rock festival where people could order a beer and have it delivered by a drone. that prompted a response from rand paul -- "perhaps i am not

against all drones." what does rand paul bring to the discussion in your opinion? guest: when you look at this technology, you can pick and choose the point you want to make, but let's look at delivering pizza or tacos or food, but when the monsoons and, regions are wiped out. how do you get medical supplies, their essential's, -- the bare essentials to people to keep people alive? using an unmanned system, you can do that. delivering in a more effective and efficient way, that is a good capability to have, and if you use it in the appropriate way, you can save lives and make sure we do not have pandemic diseases around the world. host: and about senator paul's contribution to the conversation?

guest: i will leave it at that. the senator has his viewpoint, and i am not sure what point he was trying to make. i know the capabilities of the technology and what it can do to help mankind. host: oklahoma city, oklahoma, republican line. bonnie. caller: did i hear the man say these drones are being used for crop surveying? guest: they can be, yes. caller: i do not know if it was another gentleman or not, but america, you had better wake up. this surveillance program is going right to the mark of the beast. why do you think they need that surveillance thing?

the antichrist is already here. the next is the black corpse, and he is famine. when you start to use the drones for surveying our crops and knowing where the food is, you're going to have to take the mark or starve to death. host: we talked about the issue of privacy. how often when you have conversations does the issue of privacy come up? guest: it comes up often, and we try do have people understand the concerns and how we are doing with this with lawmakers, civil liberty groups in the proper stakeholders to make sure fourth amendment rights, privacy

laws, peeping tom laws and all the laws that exist -- to ensure we are compliant with them. the me just say one more thing. right now, we have about 7 billion people in the world. by 2050, 37 years away, we will have 9 billion people. that is another 2 billion people on this planet. right now we do not have enough food to feed everybody. if we do not increase our yield and output in a more productive way, we will have difficulties in the future that will be tremendous in size. when i talk about using unmanned systems for agriculture, it is to help the farmers to know how to grow crops better than anyone else, do it in a much more effective and efficient way to make sure we have food for the next couple of generations.

host: orlando, florida. dan. democrats line. caller: as you are aware, there are tons being used overseas at home, with recent testing in operation florida and operation washington. i'm curious if you can give the difference in how small, tethered air stats compared to unmanned vehicles? guest: with an arrow step that is tethered, you have determined a cabling system that limits its mobility, but allows you to have a more but -- more continuity or the carrying of a sensor package. the communication kit is now a hardwired. there is still a ground station and there is still a human being involved in the process. it is just a different version of what we are talking about,

where the only difference is the communication link. it is an effective, capable system, but it does have limitations in how far you can fly it or how you would utilize it, but it is a very effective technology and we are finding more and more use for the aerostat. host: our guest was the program manager for research and development for nuclear safety and security for the secretary of defense, and an advisor on the roles of unmanned vehicle. he has bachelor of science degrees from the university of rhode island. cottonwood, alabama. independent line.

caller: thank you. i was wondering how this works with policing agencies. could they do surveillance on a possible person they suspect of committing a criminal act such as developing a drug or whatever in the home, and is it possible for the agency to use this technology to procure video and stream it to a judicial official? it would be very easy. you could even use the current one you could buy now and an ios and at a microphone to it. i wonder how effective that would be and how that would impede on the constitutional rights of our privacy. guest: ok. i hope i understand the question

correctly, but the law that exists today for either warrants or any of the search matters, regardless of this technology, they are in place and they would have to abide by those same laws. the same laws that exist for manned systems or police helicopters, would exist for these. the only difference is the pilot is at a different location -- instead of being in the pilot seat, he or she is at a safe location. whatever laws that exist, those are the ones we will have to follow. i am trying to make sure you understand the separation of the capability that is here and the concerns that we are having.

again, from a law-enforcement standpoint, you have to remember the usage of this will be less than 5%. on the public safety side, when you're talking about firefighting, and i think everyone wants to make sure firefighters are given the best tools to put out the fire in a safeway, do their job and make sure they come home at night as well. the search-and-rescue, park rangers -- there are a lot of applications, and everyone fixates on the law enforcement. of the 18,000 law enforcement entities in this country, less than 600 have air assets, helicopters, and it is usually big cities that have them. the rest of the folks that need to have that when you have a small police department that does not have the manpower, but basically the same crime, they still need to have the best

resources to protect those men and women and the people that they serve. again, we have a structure in place. this is just one more tool that allows those men and women to do the job they do in a much more effective and efficient way to help save lives in the community in an appropriate way. host: mr. toscano, if more laws come into place, when, in your mind do the laws get to restrictive? guest: i am not sure i can answer that. i am not a lawyer, but i know the technology has a tremendous upside. we are fixating on the law

enforcement side. even if that was taken off the table, you will have 95% of the technology utilized to help mankind eat, enjoy life in a much more effective way, finding discoveries we never had before because it was too difficult to explore the bottom of a the ocean. host: bob. pennsylvania. caller: good morning. mr. toscano, how many times has a company like yours shown pictures like this to high school students to get them interested in the fields? why not get kids interested in the positive ways of helping one another? guest: you are spot on. these generations that are coming up -- i have a two and a half-year-old grandson. he is a digital native. he has no apprehension. he can use an ipad easily. he will be utilizing this technology in elementary school, high school. we will have a couple hundred young, high school folks at this convention this week.

we have a foundation that there whole purpose in life is to help educate young men and women on the science, technology, engineering and mathematics that exists around this technology. it is fun. it is the kids played with big toys. there is a passion people have an understanding how how it will make life a better place to live. host: we have found several websites where you can purchase this type of technology. on twitter there is a question about an entry-level cost as far as the drone is concerned. what could someone get into if they were interested in buying one themselves? guest: if you go to our foundation, www.auvsi.org, we will get you the information.

there are demonstrations here of what is being used in classrooms to help people understand how they can take three motors with piping and a flotation device and create something that they can operate in water tanks or in the ocean to do exploration. it is fascinating. you watch the young men and women pick it up very quick. they are adaptable. it stimulates their minds and it is exciting.

there are tremendous progress. if you get to the website, we can get even information. host: there is a link on our c- span site. don is asking -- once the technology becomes common, what prevents drone from being completely automated? guest: i do not like the word automated. there is only human being involved in it. we might tell something to do a particular mission. this is part of the evolution that we have. elevators have become autonomous, i guess, because you do not have a person taking you up and down. this is happening more and more. in a different realm, looking at automated vehicles, in the future, you might have the ability to get from point a to point b, just by getting into a vehicle, telling it where you want to go and it will do it. right now in this country we have 87 billion hours of congestion -- man-hours -- lost to congestion. we have 32,000 deaths, costing

us $256 billion a year in medicals -- medical and damage associated with accidents. does that mean you will not be able to drive your 1964 mustang? the answer is no. just like when we introduced the automobiles, we did not do away with horses. people like to ride horses and have horses. the same would be true with cars. you will still have a car, but you might not have a car that drives that -- that you drive physically both ways, and now you can do more productive things like reading, exercising or texting, let young people do good -- people do. host: independent line. north carolina. good morning.

caller: yes or no, can these unmanned vehicles the armed? guest: the answer is no. they cannot be launched from a civil aircraft. host: alabama. democrats line. caller: hi. mr. toscano. guest: good morning. caller: something has me rattled. you found a way to get around the privacy law, the 400 foot policy law by going from fixed wing and non-fixed wing. what other long can you get around? guest: i am not sure what you mean. the faa has regulated that there is no -- has mandated there is

no fixed wing. -- fixed wing that can fly below 400 feet. what we are saying is below 400 feet is safe for operating the systems. safety is paramount. we need to make sure anything we put in the national airspace is done so in a safe manner. host: mr. toscano, we see demonstrations of the types of things, what does the future hold in their size, shape and capability? guest: you hear people talk about moore's law, which is the computational capability to double at half the cost. we have seen a tremendous amount

of advancement in high definition television, cell phones, automobiles. this is happening on a continuous basis. if i were to say to you go back and look at 10 years ago, which is five evolutions of moore's law, look at where we were. i will pick up my cell phone. the cell phone in the year 2000 2% of the world had cell phone capability. 13 years later, 70% of the world as cell phone capability. that is a huge increase. i am asking you now, if we were to go five more evolutions in the future, the, what we would have with these capabilities. it is exciting and promising to have a better place to be on this planet and there is a

tremendous opportunity for these unmanned systems to give you that capability. host: domestic sellers -- are they mainly produced in the united states and which states have the most type of these companies? guest: depending on who you talk to, i would say the united states still has an edge on this technology but it is a global technology and there are many other places that recognize this opportunity for the manufacturing of the systems and are doing so as well. host: washington, d.c.. independent line. caller: good morning. i am a pakistani situated in the seat and i have spent the past few years doing research on drones, particularly the use of drones in pakistan.

i was wondering if you could speak about the role of auvsi in the use of drones over places like pakistan and yemen and if you feel any responsibility for the loss of life? guest: that is a question that needs to be answered by our leadership, elected officials and military. this technology has a tremendous ability for saving lives and producing a better quality of life. i would say there are situations where the military has to perform to protect the freedoms of this country and of the world. that is decisions that they make. host: at your event there, you have been greeted by protesters. there is a photo in "the washington times" of code pink.

what has been your reaction to their presence? guest: i value the right of freedom of speech, and that is a prerogative and a right that everybody has. i do not think they have their facts and figures right. i cannot believe they are against feeding people in the world and having safer operations for the men and women that in many cases might have saved their lives in the past. host: what you mean by getting the facts and figures right? guest: the ability to use this technology in appropriate ways would allow life-saving capability. host: there is a viewer asking about the possibility of interception of the controlled vehicles. is that a concern. guest: any electronic device has the ability to have situations that interfere with the technology, but we go to great lengths to make sure the precautions and safeguards are

put in their. host: fill up venice, florida. democrats line. caller: keeping with moore's law, with the increase in the tech savvy generation, some of them going to a field somewhere, putting weaponry on it, and committing crimes -- how do you prevent that, the same with the submarine robots, a dirty bomb or something coming in that way? it is just a thought and a concern. guest: this is obviously a valid concern and something that has to be addressed, and it is no different than the world we live in today. you can do the same thing with a man system as opposed to an unmanned system. we under stand the concerns -- we understand the concerns. again, these are illegal acts. we need to make sure bad people do not do bad things.

that is what causes us -- in some cases this is technology that can prevent those people from doing that stuff. host: as far as the event, we heard from you, we have seen some forms. what other things happen? guest: a lot of good interaction. we spoke about the young people. these are just big kids. when you have the conversations taking place, these men and women are going through discovery for many, many years. there are business-type opportunities. there are educational aspects with people having a better understanding of what this technology can do. it is an outstanding forum.

i encourage people to look this technology up, understand how it can make your life better. you have our website. host: randy. michigan. independent line. caller: my opinion is these drones will be armed and used against the american people, and mr. toscano, you are making dollars to sell us on these drones, and i wonder if the american people have gotten on start pace.com to look at the blimps that are looking at us every night with reconnaissance research being done. do a search on the homeland security blimps. what are they doing in the sky every night? host: caller, thank you. mr. toscano?

guest: we have government officials, people we entrust to protect our rights and make sure they are not violated. this is a safe, free place to live, and i support those individuals. host: glenn. new york. independent line. caller: i watch glenn beck. i recommend everybody watching. he had a young man on there that knew a lot about drones. you are not telling the whole truth here. you're making it sound really good. it will help things. they will not back the technology up, and everyone should understand that, but the thing is you do not need a pilot. all you need is a computer

technician. you can computerize these things, and they have done it, and program them with a gps, and they will do anything you want. you can go have dinner, come back, and they will give you your pictures or whatever. they will be weapon is my somebody. in fact, they're already have been. there was a guy who had a drone that was specifically built to shoot down a government drone. host: do you have a question for the guest? caller: we have to get the laws in place, but technology has outstripped our ability. the nsa, everybody -- the technology is way past what humans are capable of doing. host: what about the idea that

technology sometimes surpasses laws put in place and how does that relate to your industry? guest: i cannot disagree that the technology is fast moving and sometimes our laws take more time because we have to make sure we get them right the first time so that we do not have to change them. it is no different with any type of revolutionary technology or evolving technology that we have seen. i can agree with that point, but i cannot agree with anyone that and they will weapon eyes these things. if you fire one of those weapons, and you cause any damage, first, you will be sued, and you will be thrown in jail. that happens today. you can have an automobile that can go 120 miles an hour. if you do, and you kill somebody, you'll be thrown in jail because you missed use that technology. obviously, you can tell i am passionate about this. you cannot break the law. when it comes to the utilization of any technology. host: michael toscano is the president and ceo of the association for unmanned vehicle systems international and he joins us from their event in washington, d.c. thank you. guest: thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] when the town hall, a look at implementing the affordable care act. we check in on congressional town hall meetings. also, your calls and tweets. c-span townhall live from 7:00- 9:00 p.m. eastern. drones from today's "washington journal." this is half an hour. law enforcement is adding their voice. joining us,alan frazier, who is not only a deputy sheriff at the grand forks, north dakota, sheriffs department, but he is also a science professor. welcome to "washington journal." how departments like yours are-- guest: good morning. thank you. host: from your law enforcement hat, can you give viewers a

sense of how departments like yours are using drones? guest: it has been in public safety -- looking for lost persons, assisting fire departments with assessing fire scenes. as far as i know there has been no overt use whatsoever -- covert use whatsoever. it has been assessing damage after natural disasters. host: how many drones do you have and how often do you use them? guest: we have four. we have only use them on two occasions to date. host: y two years of training? guest: we are using a variety of systems for distinctly different aircraft and doing a lot of situational training. prior to using them in actual situations, we wanted to make sure personal was comfortable with the operation of the

systems and comfortable with using them in simulated law enforcement and disaster scenarios. host: is having this technology cost prohibitive? guest: i would not say it is cost prohibitive. it is one of the great advantages of small uas. you have to understand these are completely different systems than what the department of defense is using. these are small systems. think an rc controlled aircraft. they're much smaller and more affordable. the 19,000 law agencies that mr. toscano mentioned, those agencies have access to some type of i in the sky to be able i in the sky to be able to do that disastrous assessment. host: what was the cost? guest: the most inexpensive is

approximately 25 thousand dollars, and the most expensive is about $170,000. depending on which system we were discussing, that is the price range. host: our guest is joining us for a half-hour, maybe longer, to talk about law enforcement concerns when it comes to the use of this technology. alan frazier, from north dakota. you can asked him questions on three lines. mr. alan frazier, one is a warrant or some type of legal document come into play when it comes to the use of this technology? guest: at any point that we feel we would be infringing on a reasonable expectation of

privacy of the public. it is interesting, pedro, is the use of this technology in a domestic situation is so new that the cases have not filtered through the court system, so we are relying i merrily on man air support cases -- primarily on demand air support cases. ishares department in florida and utilized amanned helicopter to conduct observation of private property from about 400 feet above ground level. we are using that as a guideline. if we were a to conduct surveillance below 400 feet, we would seek a search warrant. we have not had to do that because we have not used it for those type of your law

enforcement purposes, but were that type of situation to come up, that is the guideline we are currently utilizing. host: who would be the person you turn to for the one? -- weren't -- warrant. guest: we would go through our detectives. host: what you think about the idea of moral laws put in place on the federal and state level, and how does that affect activities? guest: it is premature for states and the federal government to enact laws at this point. i would compare it to telecommunications. telephone technology was in place for many years before laws were enacted to provide detection. at this point, enacting laws at the federal or state level would have a chilling affect on the expansion of this technology.

to my knowledge there has been no problems with the use of technology and that law enacted now would be fixing something that is not broken. let's let the technology evolve and expand, and if and when problems are identified, that is a time to start legislating and enacting laws that might prevent future problems. host: as a law enforcement official, how do you talk to people about privacy concerns? guest: i tried to tell them about the protections that we have. at the grand forks sheriff's department, there is extensive policy directed solely at our unmanned units, and a significant part of that policy directs deputies and personnel to respect the rights of the public, the fourth amendment and case law in the area of aerial searches. we also utilize an outside committee of 15 that was put together by the university of north dakota and it involves the community, but with safety,

university personnel and even the government officials. every mission set has been added through that committee -- vetted through that committee and received approval in we look at that committee -- approval. we look at that committee as our guidance and for what meets standards. host: who chooses who is on the committee? guest: it was chosen by the vice president of research at the university of north dakota, and objectively be trying to make it diverse. host: would you say there are those on the committee that are skeptical about drone used and offer their opinion as such? guest: yes, i would. especially in the beginning, there were some misunderstandings. with some of the members, they thought what we would be using

would be akin to a global or a predator. there was -- global hawk or a predator. host: the law on one enforcement the role in law enforcement for the use of drones. our guest is alan frazier, a professor of aerospace sciences at the university of north dakota. chuck. auburn hills, michigan. caller: i am 63 years old. i am no spring chicken. when i hear about these new devices for law enforcement, military, and so on and so forth, i flashback to a poster i saw when i was a young kid about the berlin wall, and it was about a russian soldier running across barbed wire to escape communist russia. the big caption was "isn't it strange that they have to have guards to watch the guards?" my question to you is you say you have a committee to check on

the people that are in control of these things, but what happens if one person decides to do damage? the damage is done before you come to your committee. should this type of power be put in the hands of people that might have emotional or mental problems and they are in a powerful position? guest: you have a two part question. let me address the screening of the personnel utilizing the technology. every law enforcement entity in the nation has a screening process, and in most cases, a robust psychological screening. we are utilizing law enforcement personnel supervising the operations that have been through this weaning process. so, hopefully, -- been through that process is so, hopefully, that is limiting or reducing the

amount of people that would have the ability to use this technology inappropriately. secondly, with any type of technology or tool, there is the potential a law enforcement officer or someone in public safety would misuse the technology. yes, there is the possibility. what would happen if that is detected? as a law enforcement agency, we would investigate that as we would for any allegation of misconduct, and if the allegation was sustained, we would discipline the deputy with anything from a reprimand, to potential criminal prosecution. we take the trusting of the people -- we take the trust we have been given very seriously. i am the chief pilot. i would be the line level supervisor. i work for a lieutenant who is the first up in the administrative chain and he answers directly to the sheriff. host: tim from wisconsin on the

democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: the question i have -- host: tim, go ahead. caller: sorry. how would a person from a ground-level identify these unmanned vehicles? would they have numbers written on their like they do on a plane, and if so, how could a person without binoculars be able to see them? guest: that is an excellent question. the altitude at which most of these aircraft are operating is at or below 400 feet above ground level. we comply with the police guideline in that our aircraft are easy to see as far as the coloration of them. they are in bright colors. there is no attempt on our part

to make these aircraft covert. our policy at the grand forks sheriff's department prohibits covert use of the aircraft. it would be relatively easy for someone on the ground to see the aircraft. they do not currently have numbers on them. that is possibly a good idea as the number of vehicles increases, a right we are you the only agency in the entire state -- but right now we are the only agency in the entire state operating these aircraft, so anyone who saw the aircraft could make a reasonable guess it is associated with our program and it is widely known we are the only agency operating the aircraft. at this point, it would be natural for someone who had a concern about the aircraft to call the grand forks sheriff's department.