if you're going to do this, you're going to get into this mechanism of designing a guaranty, the people charged with doing it will be more independent from political affection, enthusiasm, influence than our system proved to be before. >> you're sort of talking about a pretty staged out wind down for fannie and freddie, it would be over several years. i personally think that's inevitable, you've got to do that. i think someone could look at that and say, you know, on both sides of the aisle, people complain about fannie and freddie. at the end of the day, they want those mortgages because they're so important to their constituents and you're going to put it off for three years, five years, six years. actually this is never going to happen. what would be your answer to that? >> well, i think it's a good question. of course, any framework, let's think about fiscal policy. any framework where you're promising future virtue is -- will suffer from credibility issues, but this is really the only way you can do it. what we're proposing, we laid out the first stage of more economic pricing, mor

monday the federal transportation administration approved $900 million for that project virtually guarantying the full federal funding for the project. but the gop has been critical of the president, very fierce criticism of the president's plan and they are vowing to cut where they are and transportation would be one possibility. live in san francisco, terry mcsweeney, abc 7 news. >> terry, thank you. it's 5:04 now. democratic lawmakers in sacramento are warning of widespread budget cuts in california if the state legislature or voters don't

with the exclusions so customers know what they are getting and it comes with a 30- day money back guaranty. as for cal water it says it's just letting customers know about the optional service. the utility, however, does get paid for handling the insurance billing. on the consumerwatch, julie watts, cbs 5. >>> and if you have a story idea or something you want us to investigate, just go to cbssf.com and click connect. >>> you don't have to wait until sunday to see some of the new super bowl ads. >> we have a sneak peek. take a look. >> give me a little space. you're parking a little close. >> i don't know why they make me laugh. but it's just fun to watch. this ad is from career builders. those beloved chimps are back making life hard for the working stiff. >> volkswagen rolls out its new black beetle ad without showing the actual car. at least not yet. they just show a hot woman? is th thee ad? >> frito-lay has an ad where anyone can make an ad. >> i like football. it's going to be a really good game. and then with the commercials, hey, it's just a nice sunday afternoon. >> and i like the

if you're going to do this, you're going to get into this mechanism of designing a guaranty, the people charged with doing it will be more independent from political affection, enthusiasm, influence than our system proved to be before. >> you're sort of talking about a pretty staged out wind down for fannie and freddie, it would be over several years. i personally think that's inevitable, you've got to do that. i think someone could look at that and say, you know, on both sides of the aisle, people complain about fannie and freddie. at the end of the day, they want those mortgages because they're so important to their constituents and you're going to put it off for three years, five years, six years. actually this never going to happen. what would be your answer to that? >> well, i think it's a good question. of course, any framework, let's think about fiscal policy. any framework where you're promising future virtue is -- will suffer from credibility issues, but this is really the only way you can do it. what we're proposing, we laid out the first stage of more economic pricing, more s

monday the federal transportation administration approved $900 million for that project virtually guarantying the full federal funding for the project. but the gop has been critical of the president, very fierce criticism of the president's plan and they are vowing to cut where they are and transportation would be one possibility. live in san francisco, terry mcsweeney, abc 7 news. >> terry, thank you. it's 5:04 now. democratic lawmakers in sacramento are warning of widespread budget cuts in california if the state legislature or voters don't improve extension of the temporary tax hikes that expire in the end of june. the state has to close a $26 billion deficit in the next fiscal year. a report from the employees would have to go down again while college tuition would have to go up. >> the battle over restricting where gang members are gather in oakland is coming to a head. a judge heard evidence on the controversy as the city police chief announces gang injunctions are working. amy hollyfield is live with more. >> the police chief here likes injunctions, kristen, but it's very controversial

one, it is the pension benefit guaranty corporation. we've seen over the last few years that the risk to federal government, risk to taxpayers of having to bail out entities is something that we really want to avoid in the future. and in our budget we have a proposal to give the pension benefit guaranty corporation the ability to set premiums which are now very low in a way that matches the default risk. this would give them the ability, participation is voluntary in the pension benefit guaranty corporation but it would shift the burden of the risk from the taxpayers back to the companies that get the benefit. and it would very much reduce the risk that there would be a need for a taxpayer bailout in the future. in unemployment insurance, this has been a very tough time for the unemployment insurance trust funds. each of the states has a fund. they have bp heavily, heavily burdened by the recession. we have a proposal that would have a two-year moratorium on federal increases in unemployment insurance taxes. and i should point out, beca

one is the pension benefit guaranty corporation. we have seen over the last few years that the federal government risk to taxpayers of having to bail out entities is something we want to avoid in the future. in our budget, we have a proposal to give the corporation the ability to set premiums, which are now very low, in a way that matches the default risk. participation is voluntary in the pension benefit guaranty corporation. it would shift the burden of the risk from the taxpayers' back to the companies that get the benefit. it would reduce the risk that there would be a need for a taxpayer bailout in the future. unemployment insurance -- this has been a tough time. each of the states has a fund. they have been heavily burdened by the recession. we would have a two-year moratorium in federal increases in unemployment insurance taxes. because the state funds have borrowed from the federal government, those automatically would go into effect without the moratorium. we would give the states two years to get their funds back into shap

we cannot guaranty 100% safety. in is regard, i believe we must continue to foster domestic resilience while highlighting the ultimate futility of al qaeda's fight. without your leadership and again without ms. harmon's leadership, we would not have made the strides we have. i very much look forward to takingour questions and working with you for years to come. >> thank you. i thank both witnesses for your testimony. secretary, napolitano,wo years ago when you made your first statement before this committee, i pointed out the fact you did not use the rd terrorist or terrorism once. today you used it more than 60 times. is that a reflection of the changing emphasis of the administration or is it just something that happened? >> i think my initial statement before the committee was one of several speeches and it happened to be the one that didn't use the word terrorism. the plain fact of the matter is that i spend the bulk of my time working on counterterrorism related activities. it can be in the tsa wod, the cvp wor

can go out of business and they dump their liabilities for their pensions on the public benefit guaranty corp. so the federal government does not have to bail out the private company and pay those liabilities. it insists on a more public -- more reasonable rate. but the public can adjust its taxes and expenditures. it is going to be an ongoing entity. there have been gao reports and most people who have looked at this say that you do not need as stringent standards for a public company has to do a private. >> would be riskless rate precede the tent -- the pension shortfall? >> yes, substantially higher -- with the riskless rate increase the pension shortfall? >> yes, substantially. >> how would it raised its? >> 60% of return assets come from investment income. if you say you are only going to get 4% from that investment income, and you are projecting that 30 years into the future, you make up a much larger hole that you have to fill. but if you say you get 4% and you continue to invest in equities, then you are saying something that is not true. you are saying that you have to overfunde

in our budget we have a proposal to give the pension benefit guaranty corp. the ability to set premiums which are now very low that matches the default risk. this would give them the ability -- participation is voluntary, but in which is the burden of the rest from the taxpayers' back to the companies that get the deficit. it would reduce the risk that there be a need for a taxpayer bailout in the future. in unemployment insurance, this has been a tough time for the unemployment insurance trust fund. each of the state has a fine. they have been heavily burdened by the recession. we have a proposal that would have a two-year moratorium on federal increases in unemployment insurance taxes, and i should point out because the trust funds of the state funds have borrowed from the federal government, those would go into effect without the moratorium, and we would give the states two years to get their funds back in solid shape. that means that going into the next time they need to draw down because of unemployment being an issue, they will be in a condition to do s

>> transition from military civilian, how do you guaranty this? >> the question over here what about has the regime changed and will it change if the military is still there doing these things? i think the change will come to egypt. the question is will it be the change that everybody wants? will it go far enough? will it go as far as we want? it certainly will not end up to be a jeffersonian democracy. it will be something that the egyptians evolve on their own that meets the need of their system. what you really, i think what you should hope for is that the military goes back, lives in its isolation and sits on the sidelines in case things fall apart. they can calm things down again. what you don't want the military running the day-to-day life. you want a president who is civilian. you want a prime minister and cabinet responsible to the people who run the regime, who run the day-to-day life, address the problems of the country, with the military sitting on the sidelines and developing a different relationship over time with the rest of society.

we cannot guaranty 100% safety. in this regard, i believe we must continue to foster domestic resilience while highlighting the ultimate futility of al qaeda's fight. without your leadership and again without ms. harmon's leadership, we would not have made the strides we have. i very much look forward to taking your questions and working with you for years to come. >> thank you. i thank both witnesses for your testimony. secretary, napolitano, two years ago when you made your first statement before this committee, i pointed out the fact you did not use the word terrorist or terrorism once. today you used it more than 60 times. is that a reflection of the changing emphasis of the administration or is it just something that happened? >> i think my initial statement before the committee was one of several speeches and it happened to be the one that didn't use the word terrorism. the plain fact of the matter is that i spend the bulk of my time working on counterterrorism related activities. it can be in the tsa world, t

if you're going to do this, you're going to get into this mechanism of designing a guaranty, the people charged with doing it will be more independent from political affection, enthusiasm, influence than our system proved to be before. >> you're sort of talking about a pretty staged out wind down for fannie and freddie, it would be over several years. i personally think that's inevitable, you've got to do that. i think someone could look at that and say, you know, on both sides of the aisle, people complain about fannie and freddie. at the end of the day, they want those mortgages because they're so important to their constituents and you're going to put it off for three years, five years, six years. actually this is never going to happen. what would be your answer to that? >> well, i think it's a good question. of course, any framework, let's think about fiscal policy. any framework where you're promising future virtue is -- will suffer from credibility issues, but this is really the only way you can do it. what we're proposing, we laid out the first stage of more economic pricing, mor

in our budget, we have a proposal to give the pension guaranty corp. to set premiums in the way that matches the default risk. this would give them the ability and would shift the burden of the risk from the taxpayers' back to the companies to get the benefit. it would very much reduced the risk that there be a need for a taxpayer bailout in the future. in the unemployment insurance, this has been a very tough time for the unemployment insurance trust fund. each state has a fund and have been heavily, heavily burdened. we have a proposal that might have a two-year moratorium on federal increases on an employment -- the unemployment trust funds. because they have are from the federal government, those automatically would go into effect without the moratorium. give the states two years to get their funds back in solid shape. that means the next time that they need to draw down because unemployment is an issue -- >> to get to the rest of this briefing on our website, c- span.org. we go live now to the republican response is to the fiscal year 2012 budget.

we cannot guaranty 100% safety. in this regard, i believe we must continue to foster domestic resilience while highlighting the ultimate futility of al qaeda's fight. without your leadership and again without ms. harmon's leadership, we would not have made the strides we have. i very much look forward to taking your questions and working with you for years to come. >> thank you. i thank both witnesses for your testimony. secretary, napolitano, two years ago when you made your first statement before this committee, i pointed out the fact you did not use the word terrorist or terrorism once. today you used it more than 60 times. is that a reflection of the changing emphasis of the administration or is it just something that happened? >> i think my initial statement before the committee was one of several speeches and it happened to be the one that didn't use the word terrorism. the plain fact of the matter is that i spend the bulk of my time working on counterterrorism related activities. it can be in the tsa world, t