>> were just about out of time. as we close, what's next? the hearing happened last week in the congress. the proposal has been made. the secretary's going. what's the next step? >> there may be more hearings. it depends. they may have -- they just had the secretary to ask these questions to this week. they may have other witnesses in the future. but pretty soon we'll start to see a bill emerge in the house. and there will be a lot of negotiationings going on behind closed doors that are already underway. >> thanks to both of you for your questions this week. i appreciate your time. >> the federal aviation administration proposed new policy for commercial drones. it will set new rules for how a drone is used and how to operate one. the proposal is open to public commentary for a 60 day. . the faa says it will take into

account before publishing the final regulations. that is unlikely to happen until sometime next year, according to the wall street journal. transportation secretary anthony foxx spoke about the new rules in a conference call today with reporters. >> from entertainment to energy to agriculture, there are a host of industries interested. for us, the first threshold is keeping the american people safe as we move to integrate these new types of aircraft. while today we are announcing a proposal that will help us to just that, it addresses to basic safety issues. one, keeping unmanned aircraft well clear of other aircraft. two, mitigating any risks to people and property on the ground. as a result, we are proposing common sense safety measures

keep everyone safe. things like not allowing flight of these aircraft near an airport or more than 500 feet above the ground. if you're operating one, they have to be within line of sight at all times. you have to be a will to see them with your own two eyes, not binoculars. the aircraft must weigh less and 55 pounds and you can't operate it at night. this rule does not apply to recreational users. there are already rules in place for that. safety issues aren't just the only issues associated with unmanned vehicles. these vehicles raise privacy issues as well, which is why the president has released a memorandum on privacy there will guide how the federal government uses the aircraft in our airspace. our use of this technology will be used in a way that follows

the law and does not infringe on civil liberties. >> c-span, created by americans 35 years ago and brought you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> coming up on c-span, jim webb talks about politics and the possibility of a presidential run in 2016. then, house speaker newt gingrich discusses threats posed by isis. at 8:00, a conversation with, allen harris on q&a. >> guest: let me ask you about your own thinking about a potential bid for the white house. you're looking at it. you will be in des moines, iowa later this spring.

host: when i left the senate i took a year where i did no media, no op eds. i used to write a lot of op eds. just to regain my political independence and think about things. and when i came out with my book last may, there was a very strong response when i went into -- on two onto different media shows and started talking about issues. over a period of several months we decided that we would put together an exploratory committee to be honest with you to see whether even possible in today's age of campaign finance which is so different than it was even when i ran for senate. to put together a viable presidential campaign that can be competitive on the one hand and still not have to concede on a lot of major issues to the financial interests that are so active right now. here as good example of what's happened if people want to think

about it. on my exploratory committee, the maximum donation i can receive is $2600 by law. the pac about $5,000 max. i'm getting a lot of 100, and 150s and very grateful. but under the current policies after the citizens united case someone can write an individual a check for $26 million. there's absolutely no control in terms of how the money is going into the overall political process. we've seen jeb bush has said that his people have said they want to raise $100 million in three months. there was a piece in the "washington post" yesterday that said that people have to pay $100,000 just to walk into the room to talk to him. so we've had this bifurcation between what the law says and what the reality of politics is. so we're looking and the exploratory committee, listening, talking to people about the issues but also having to make a judgment about whether you can actually put together the type of funding to compete and still be independent.

host: money aside, what issues would motivate you? what are your passions? guest: the themes that i ran on when i ran for the senate in 2006 are the same themes i focused on during my entire time in the senate, which were issues of economic fairness. i was talking about the preakdown of this country into three americas, not two americas. during the campaign throughout the time that i was in the senate, the people at the very top having moved away from everyone else. you can see this most emphatically in what's happened in the stock markets since our economic recovery began after this last recession, since april 2009 the stock market has almost tripled. it's actually gone over 18,000. it was down about 6,000 in april 2009 when the recession bottomed out. and yet average wages and salaries have declined during the same period.

if you own stock, if you're on one side of the financial benefits, economic benefits in the country you're doing pretty , well. if you're on the other side we -- you are not. we have focused on this throughout the time that i've been involved in elected politics. the second one is the issue of our national security policy. how we articulate our national security policies around the world. when do you use military force when do you not. and other issues include social justice issues. we led the movement toward fixing our criminal justice system from the time i was running actually when i was running for the senate i had political advisers telling me it was political suicide to start talking about the breakdown in the different components of our criminal justice system not simply mass incarceration but how these people are able up up -- able to reenter society in a productive way. when i first at a talking about

this, we did not get much attention. after two and a half years of hearings, we've brought the issue to the forefront in terms of political discussion. it's a republican issue in many cases right now. we will continue to focus on those sorts of issues. the other is basic governance. i was in the pentagon. i spent four years on the committee counsel and the house. six years in the senate. i think we have a real breakdown in terms of how we manage the most difficult and complicated bureaucracy in the world, the federal government.

host: is america stronger or weaker? guest: i think clearly since 9/11 we've become more adept in terms of protecting ourselves from issues of the types of things that happened on 9/11 international terrorism i think our people have done very good out in the areas where those who wish us harm train and prepare. we i think are pretty much on top of issues like cyber warfare and these types of things. but what we have lacked since the end of the cold war is a clearly articulated doctrine that determines when we use military force, when we decide to put large numbers of people on the ground and keep them there, and i think we're still struggling with that. i think you can see that from the results of the arab spring. the situation in libya has been characaterized frequently by benghazi by what happened in

benghazi, but the real story on libya -- and i was talking about this well before benghazi was when can a president unilaterally use military force in a situation where there were no treaties in place that compelled us to do so, no americans at risk, and no clearly defined threat to the united states? tried to get to the airport at tripoli today. they lost thousands of weaps from karachi's weapons storage areas that have spread through the region. and the doctrine of when we use military force has become extremely vague. this notion of responsibility to protect or humanitarian intervention. it's not clear. we could -- the president would use that in ireland tomorrow for all we know. it's a very loose doctrine and it's not healthy for the country.

host: a recent national journal piece, which is available on line, here comes trouble. do you think -- do you consider yourself trouble? guest: i read the piece. but my participation in the electoral process -- i spent a lot of time as a writer. when you write, you have a duty to get to the gut issues and write about them in as powerful a way as you can. i think we showed in a paralyzed environment how you get things done. the greatest example was the give bill. i wrote the g.i. bill before i was sworn in. i sat down with the committee counsel and wrote the bill. we worked across party lines. in 16 months we got the most , important piece of veterans legislation since world war ii through the congress, and the bush administration opposed this the whole time. this was not an easy lift. so we know how to work across

lines. you know, i haven't read the a. -- article. i don't see what we're doing is trouble. i see what we're doing is trying to show that you can have a formative leadership that's independent of this -- these financial processes and maybe get something done for people. host: our guest is jim web who served one term in the u.s. senate. he is here to take your calls and comments. let me read a portion of what bob moser says about you. he is an incurable romantic with an old-fashioned sense of patriotic duty. it may sound crazy -- it may be crazy -- but jim webb seems to believe he's being called to duty one last time. he was a save america from neoconservative foreign-policy. he wants to reinvent the democratic party as a true people's party. he wants to transform the way americans think about race class, and poverty.

guest: i think that's a little hyperbolic in terms of what i would say my objectives were. i think what this country needs is leadership. it needs leadership that can get things done. and i think we've been able to articulate issues get into the depths of them. the criminal justice situation being another one where we brought more than 100 different groups from across the philosophical spectrum together to listen to them. we weren't talking at them. we were getting information from them. and got a buy-in on how to put together a commission, a sunsetted commission to examine all the components of the criminal justice system all the way from the international association of chiefs of police, the national sheriffs association to the aclu, the naacp, and the american bar association. i don't know other people up there who are working in that kind of way. so i don't think this notion that i'm here on some horse to

try to save america is what we're doing. i feel very strongly about a lot of issues. but i think when you look at what we've done, it's providing leadership and what i hear over and over again in the thousands of e-mails we receive is that i don't agree with you mr. web on everything but i trust you. and i think that's what we need in government. host: our guest, a graduate of naval academy. the autor of nine books. served in the reagan administration and served from 2007-2013 as the senator from the commonwealth of virginia. we go to tennessee. caller: good morning. >> good morning. senator webb, i've got to ask you this question. suppose i come to your house and i bring my kids and i bring my wife and she brings her parents and i bring my parents.

and we bring our brothers and our sisters, and they all bring their chish and also bring their spouses family. and all the cousins. and we come to your house the law hasn't been effective. that job you got, it's not your job anymore. it is my job. host: on the issue of immigration obviously. guest: there are two questions we face in terms of the immigration policies that have been in place and how to fix them. the law was not effective in

terms of what it said it was going to do. we were going to accept the numbers of people who were here illegally and make the system more effective. the law has not been more effective. it's been loosely enforced. there are a lot of entities in the country including wall street and is big on open immigration that have worked against the notion of putting restrictions, proper restrictions on immigration law. , at the same time, when we look at this -- and number one, what we do have to do is fix the law to make it proper and fair in terms of the numbers of people come here and a lot of the other issues that are alongside it. the second part of that is the reality of the number of people who have come during this period of very lax enforcement. i live in bailey's crossroads

, virginia within a few blocks of my house are the comb ar area, the willsston areas, our number five child goes to jeb stewart high school the most diverse high school in america. it's more than 100 different nationalities. and when you look around and see people who have been here for 15, 20 years who have worked hard, who have learned the language, et cetera, we have to do something other than just saying they all should go. and that's the approach that i took when i was in the senate. i proposed an amendment in the 2007 immigration bill saying we need to fix the larger law itself. but for those people who have been here for over a period of time we put down a set of criteria. if you meet these criteria then , you should have a pathway toward citizensship. host: good morning from

massachusetts. caller: good morning senator. my name is evan. just calling from greater springfield, massachusetts, a city that i think is a quintessential rust belt city, economic deindustrialization stagnation, brain drain. my question for you is how do we reinvigorate our economies and our older urban centers? and i was wondering as president what type of agenda you might bring forward to do so. guest: thank you. well, first of all in terms of the economy writ large, i agree with those people who say we need to grow our way into a greater life, greater benefits for those who are carrying the hard work of society. we also need to fix our tax structure. i think that the -- hopefully this will happen in the coming year. but if not, it should happen as soon as we can get it on the table. to look at corporate tax reform.

i think we should reduce our corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes, repatriate a good bit of the money that is still being held offshore. and at the same time fix the biggest indicators of inequality of treatment here and that is the difference between people who make money on regular salaries, ordinary earned income, versus people who are making their money on passive income such as increases in the value of their stock. the income tax rate on capital gains of taxes and dividends is much, much lower in most cases than it is for ordinary earned income. i made a promise when i ran for the senate that i would never vote for an increase in taxes on ordinary earned income, but i do believe that we should be much fairer in terms of the tax rates on capital gains.

in terms of the larger issues of the manufacturing sector and the future of the economy i think we have two problems that we're facing here. one is to rehabilitate the manufacturing sector as much as possible by getting these companies back in and they know the productivity of the american worker is high and there are places where, for instance southwest virginia, the very -- far southwest of virginia where they have lost their , manufacturing base. they were big in textiles and furniture for so many years. coal had diminished. tobacco has gone away. people down there have a very high unemployment rate and a willingness to work hard. and in those places we can start bringing american businesses back and getting people to be productive again. when people want to invigorate the economy, just remember the people at the middle levels of the economy spend a larger percentage of their income and as a result really do help to

invigorate the economy in a very real way. the other piece though, of , what's going on in terms of our economy is that we're leading very heavily in many areas towards service oriented jobs and to sort of individual jobs. if you look at the generation behind my generation, there are a lot of people who are working as more as contractors categorized as contractors, like my oldest daughter, as opposed to being actually employed. they face difficult situations. their profession is portable. they move around from place to place. very difficult to get retirement. in many cases they have to pay for their own medical. we have to develop a formula that will protect maybe the portability of those kind of jobs so they can have those came -- same kind of protections in

health care and in retirement that we have had in my generation, the baby boomer generation. host: the president is asking congress for trade authority. he has a lot of support from republicans. not so much from democrats. what's your view? guest: i tend to agree with the president on this. i worked on a lot of the different trade issues when i was in the senate. i spent a lot of time in east asia. i spent a lot of time in east asia in my life before i came to the senate and i was one of , those who worked hard to try to bring about a trade agreement with korea, with the free trade agreement with korea. the difficulty with the present situation is it's almost impossible to get things through. at a time when if you look at china, china's making free trade agreements all through asia. just made one a year-and-a-half, two years ago with the ten countries. very economic system in those ten countries. but now they signed on trade agreement with china. we need to be in that ballpark.

and to give congress an up or down vote i think is fair. bring it over. if you don't like it, vote it out. if there's something that troubles that many people over there, vote it out and have them go back and work on it again. host: let's go to david joining us from new jersey. our line for independents. conversation with former senator jim web. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. the best channel on television. good morning, steve. it's a pleasure to talk to you again. host: now you know david calls every 30 days. we love to hear from you david. thank you for the compliments. here's your chance to ask the senator a question. caller: good morning, senator webb. you are a shining light and i want to thank you for your service.

i'm a world war ii vet mr. webb. and i would like to talk about the greatest generation as tom brokaw called my generation. we were the greatest generation because we all worked together to do what was best for our great country. our corporations, financial institutions, politicians, the american people, we all came together to do what was best for our great country. and the one word that described my generation was two letters. we. w-e. unfortunately, today, 90% of our corporations, financial institutions, politicians, and a large number of american people are not thinking of what is best for our country. the word that describes the current generation unfortunately, is me.

host: thank you for the call. thank you for your service. we will get a response. guest: thank you very much for that. and i do appreciate your service. my father was a world war ii veteran and was an incredible experience to grow up under the tutelage of those who had gone off in world war ii. actually also when i started working on the house veterans committee many, many years ago the mentors over there were the world war ii generation who had benefited from the g.i. bill. and i will say i learned as a marine in vietnam how people from this country can work together. people from all across the geographic and ethnic boundries coming together, having to work together, having to rely on each other is one of the formative experiences of my life to see how we can do that. and i believe we can do that in the larger sense as a nation. another thing that was very

important in terms of making the greatest generation the greatest generation was the g.i. bill. the world war ii g.i. bill. there had not been a g.i. bill for veterans until the world war ii g.i. bill. even before i decided to run for the senate i was saying those people who were pulling many consecutive tours we were calling them the next greatest generation deserved the same benefits from the world war ii generation. for every dollar that was spent on the g.i. bill in the world war ii generation we received more than $5 back in treasury remunerations because of successful careers that were built on this type of an educational opportunity. and i think we're going to see that. this g.i. bill that we put together as i said i wrote it

sitting down with legislative counsel, and the model was the world war ii g.i. bill. pay their tuition, buy their books, pay their fees, give them a monthly stipend. tell them that they really are going to be a great part of the future of this country. and i get letters every week from veterans who have been able to use that benefit and who are on their way to becoming the leaders of tomorrow. host: to david's point though that we have gone from the we to the me generation. agree or disagree? guest: i think there's a lot of truth to that particularly in , terms of how our society has been breaking down with the people at the very top. they are so separated from the rest of the country in terms of the income levels and other things. and i think the issues like the money that's being made on passive income -- if you look at the very, very top, actually i asked my staff to chart this out

when we're having some of the debates on the top 1%. how about the top top of the 1%? where does the money come from? and the money overwhelmingly came from passive income. where you hire somebody to manage your portfolio. and i have stocks and i like to make money off of stocks. but at the same time, if you don't have a stake in that, then you are getting separated. and people feel it in this country. i feel it everywhere when i travel around talking to friends from the marine corps, from -- i work in l.a. but different -- everywhere i go in america you hear this. that we're not pulling together and the notion of fairness has been harmed. host: from wyoming bonnie republican line. caller: mr. webb, thank you for your service. and i would like to ask you, what do you think of the health care system now that you have it all set up?

and could you tell me -- it is not helping the seniors. i know that because i am of your generation and i am a senior. and i'm retired and i'm also a widow. and my husband was a military man. and it has not helped me. there's just -- i would like to know your opinion of that. host: thank you. guest: thank you for that. i raised a lot of questions about the legislation when it was being debated. it was a very, very complicated and i think most difficult piece of legislation that i saw including four years as a committee counsel. and the problem i think was that this administration did not present a bill.

you know, as bob dole used to say, the congress proposed -- the president proposes, the congress disposes. we didn't have a bill to dispose. there were five different bill -- bills that came up through three committees in the south -- house and two in the senate and , 7,000 pages of contradicty information. i voted with the republicans 18 times trying to rein in some of the different portions of the bill. at the same time, when it came for a final vote i believe we did need to move forward. the benefits in the bill were better than voting it down so that there would be nothing out of a year's work. things like pre-existing conditions and areas like that. but there's a lot of room to make this a better bill. and with respect to having been