foundation discussed the study's findings. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> hello and welcome to new america. i'm the managing editor at new america which means i edit the digital weekly magazine. i'm here here to welcome me to this event. the obama administration and the press surveillance post-9/11 america. if you haven't had a chance to see this report which i have you may want to rename the group that -- to protect sources say those of us who have done the job of investigative reporting the sources are our lifeblood and if they come to the sources we had better. i'm also familiar with the court cases against sources. it's a bleak picture of to and including u.s. attorney in chicago who was the hero pat fitzgerald. they put a lot of guys away who were investigating but when it came to -- blankly asserted that journalists who get leaked information is our witnesses to a crime which puts us in the crosshairs. thanks for coming here it is a great report and if you haven't read it please do. these guys will have a fine discussiodiscussio n on it and we are pleased to have them. therefore introduce moderator one death of his nest. it's being webcast and also c-span so if you have a question please be sure to wait for the mic and speaking to them it. your moderator kurt wimmer. he gave us a briefing yesterday which was helpful. he was general counsel of kinect and represented a 70 member advocating for the shield bill. thank you all for coming. >> thank you. let me say it's a great honor to be here along with these experts. i think among the only person on this panel i have never heard of. let me give you just a brief and this is one of those panels were everyone needs no introduction but we do it anyway. to my left is lin downie junior at the concord school of arizona state. very well-knowwell-know well-known to this audience and vice president at-large of the "washington post" where he was executive editor from 1991 to 2008 and spent 44 years in the "washington post" newsroom. to his left is my apologies joel simon. the executive director of the dash organization that published this exceptional report we are talking about today. since his appointment as executive director of c. cj 2006 joel has led the organization through period of expansion including watching the global campaign against impunity establishing a journalist assistance program and spearheading the efforts to defend press freedom and digital space and finally to joel's left is rajiv chandrasekaran also well-known to this audience from his long-standing work at the "washington post." he is currently senior correspondent and associate editor of the "washington post" and also the author of imperial life in the emerald city a best-selling book which became the basis for the movie the green zone with matt damon and a terrific piece of work both in film and on paper. he has also been the post through chief in baghdad and journalist in residence at the johns hopkins school for advanced international studies in shinkman. today i would like to start off asking if he would give an overview of the report that we are here to discuss. >> it wanted to say quickly at the outset because there's a question of reporters being subpoenaed was brought up just yesterday or the day before. james ricin of "the new york times" on the appellate court case to not have them and forced to testify about a source. it's in the report. you will see it was up to the point of the appellate court decision which now has gone against the case and will probably go to the supreme court which will be a major test of relationships between reporters and their sources and what rights do reporters have too not be forced to give away their sources and the shield law plays into that. if there were shield law that case might be different but there is no shield law so that could be a very important supreme court case in a year or so or however long it takes. i was asked to do this report because i had written a couple of pieces for the outlet section of the "washington post" late last year ended may of this year about the obama administration's war on leaks the aggressive way which they been going after government officials who provide information to provide reports particularly classified information but not exclusively. so that was asked by the committee to explore the whole relationship between the obama administration and the press in the context of the kind of work a journalist does worldwide between governments and the press and the press is right to work. i was very surprised at what i found. it's a lot of other areas in which the administration has been remarkably controlling and i will tell you about how that happened. the report and my findings are based on several dozen interviews with reporters and news executives and government transparency advocates in current and former government officials plus research that i did in this era route ski of -- the leaks investigations which goes to the most complete accounts of those that anybody is come up with. during the bush and obama administration patriot act the fisa law court and national security agencies communication surveillance programs. in summary of that big long record is that the obama administration's aggressive war on leaks and determined efforts to control information that the news media hold -- needs to hold government accountable for its actions are in direct conflict conflict with present upon his often stated role of making this administration the most transparent in american history. i should add him old enough that i was one of the editors on the watergate story in the early 1970s. i make that comparison with the college. there's six components to what i found. the first is the chilling effects of these unprecedented number of investigations on prosecutions along with the concerns about the nsa surveillance program. obama's industries and officials and employees are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. every single journalist i talked to said that's the case for their sources whether or not they deal of classified information but especially if it involves classified information. six government employees with 2000 contractors including edward snowden have been prosecuted for leaks of alleged classified information in the press and prosecution has been done under 1917 espionage act enacted during will for one to punish people for spying on foreign entities. it would have government talking to reporters. they're only three such prosecutions in the 90 years from 1978 until 2009 when they began during the obama administration. several of these investigations the most frightening thing for government officials the justice department the fbi were successful and subpoenaing and seizing e-mail traffic between government officials and reporters from news organizations including "the new york times" "fox news" and the "associated press." there were revisions made by the justice department and the guidelines of subpoenas after an outcry in most cases but they still allow the attorney general to refuse to notify news media about their communication records and also still contain a concession for any leaks the government thinks is potentially harmful to national security. that is a very big loophole. the journalist sealed legislation endorsed by the president and has a similarly broad exception for national security information although it would require a final decision by the attorney general. congressional passage is still very much in doubt and also in doubt is how it would define journals covered by the law. the digital age obviously the definition of a journalist is very broad. anyone can be a journalist of one kind or another. there is a concern and joel may talk about it, that by defining who is journalist is it leads to government licensing saying you're a journalist but you're not a journalist depending on -- washington reporters worry about compromising sources when their contents could be traced to surveillance and investigations following e-mail records and as a result they will no longer talk to them at all. we are not just talking about disabled investigations. there have been routine lie your tests and reporters naturally don't want to get their sources in trouble. number two is the insider trader program. in the aftermath of documents in the news media present news media president obama ordered the establishment of a pervasive insider threat program throughout the government and not many people know about this. employees of all federal departments and agencies have been ordered to monitor reports and i quote any suspected insider threat activity which includes communications to the press. via the director of the project the federation of american scientists is one of leaking government transparency advocates in washington told me this has created heightened degree of paranoia in government and made people conscious of contacts to the public and the press. the third issue the obama's centralized control. all incoming demonstrations use of ver ploeg was advantage but senior officials from the said administration have what they call unauthorized contacts with the press are discouraged. instead they make it clear that they don't like any kinds of leaks to the news media and not just those including classified information. routine inquiries that reporters have referred to as public affairs officials. they fail and they -- they sometimes refused to provide public information that we all have a right to. the government transparency that present upon as promised his turned out to be a sophisticated hoblick relations strategy honed during his two campaigns of creating government web sites and social media operations dispensing large amounts of april information generated by this administration while restricting governments exposure to the press. those web sites are full of governmengovernmen t created content. photos of obama taken by the white house press photographer when all other photographers are banned from white house activities. of administration produced videos and even a photo newscast one of my favorites called -- above activities closed close to journalists and the white house gets news coverage of the same events. ubiquitous post by obama aides on blogs twitter facebook and other social media to promote the administration's views. frank sesno the former cnn reporter and now director of the school of public media public affairs at gw university told me the administration uses social media to and news media can put it. open dialogue with the public is good but if used for propaganda purposes to employ contracting journalist it's a slippery slope. the fourth issue is the excessive classification of government information. part of the problem reporters have is they call someone up to ask them a routine question expecting a routine answer and it turns out that information is classified even though there's no good reason for. upon administration has taken credit for declassifying and posting on the new intelligence committee web site some of the previously secret documents waiting to surveillance program but it did only after revelations that the press sells stories based on documents. the administration has not acted on the december 2012 reports to the president by congressionally authorized public interest classification board which recommended many specific steps to carry out the president's -- overclassification. free government officials can discuss more of the public's business in the press pit the fifth issues that the agent through the freedom of -- the obama's is made little progress in one of the presents for his promises and in fact his first day in office of january 2009 to improve government responsiveness to foia requests. reporters and government transparency found that too many government departments and agencies reject far too many foia requests or delay forever responding to or demand excessive fees to fulfill them. a press survey earlier this year found the number of foia requests from the press they were turned down on the grounds of national security or internal administration deliberations had actually increased during the obama administration. britain and a prominent organization frank reese government transparency last week in washington to work on new recommendations for the obama's for how to finally make foia work better for the public that i've talked to some of their leaders and their very worried about was whether the administration will listen to their recommendations. the fifth issue the treatment of whistleblowers. president obama also has said he supports encouraging and protecting government whistleblowers who revealed bureaucratic waste fraud and abuse. he and his of administration -- between that and revelations to the press about government policies and actions which they leak to investigations. president obama signed the whistleblower act in 2012 along with a policy directive aimed at protecting from retaliation government whistleblowers including agency employees but at the very same time this administration wanted and it till it court decision that takes away from many federal employees designated national security positions the right to appeal personnel actions by their agencies which include retaliation to whistleblowers. that -- under the espionage act to provide information to the press leaves the presents real position on whistleblowing very unclear to me. lastly the international implications. in addition to the threat posed to journalists by nsa surveillance which of course they're not supposed to spy on american reporters with americans that they can spy on the communications of non-american citizens obviously including foreign reporters or foreign sources for american reporters. giovan administrations press policies provide an example for other countries at a time when this administration has been outspokenly advocating for press internet freedom to the rest of the world. president obama's facing many challenges during his time in office obviously. the outcome of which will shape his legacy. one objective we could accomplish without outside opposition is fulfilling his first promise to make his administrative and most transparent in history beginning by opening its closed doors to freedom of the press. that's my summary. >> thank you so much. i would like to invite anyone who is tweeting about our discussion to use the hashtag obama and the press and thanks again for the summary. it's really a terrific work and it seems to me posting threads into a fabric that talks a lot about the overall threat to the administration. let me start by asking for many years there seemed to be a detente between government and the press and that we recognize the government says secrets and we try hard to keep them and we try hard to get them and the ones that are newsworthy and relevant and should be published. it seems in your report we are talking talking about an administration that has stepped over a line between those two areas in essentially chilling the ability of any of this. >> three things to say about that. give me prior restraint impossible and if you are an administration you are facing the fact that you can't stop it and you can only punish us and our sources afterwards and that's important. secondly is 9/11. all a lot of things changed after 9/11 including the whole balance between exactly what you were talking about between revelations of government activity and national security and that balance. i live with that balance through the bush administration when we publish stories including -- it required a lot of -- about whether we would publish that story and what the stories would obtain. the conversations were useful when they do continue during this administration but in a somewhat different atmosphere. the third historical thing is when obama administration came into office they were put under great pressure by the intelligence agencies who are upset by the previous stories are secret prison stories and the nsa surveillance stories. they put a lot of pressure on the administration to do something about it. some of these investigations have gone under bush under pressure from the intelligence agency and i should say both democrats and republicans on the hill in the intelligence community has put great pressure on the administration. also i believe the president himself also has a -- he exosaid something -- some things about he does not want secrets revealed that put our boys at risk. at the same time i think he has a strong -- tendency. >> rajiv and joel what do you think of explanation? pretty compelling. >> is most certainly and they think the point len makes particularly as an editor is overseeing implication of some of the stories over time and if you look back at the cia story and you look back at "the new york times" reporting on warrantless wiretapping and the bush administrations sponsors to to -- responses to those as well as the decisions and discussions that led up to the publications of the stories particularly how previous administrations have responded to the stories they have liked and have compromised their view national security and yet in most other cases previous administrations there have been expressions of disgust if you will. there have been perhaps some personal investigations but nothing of the sort that we are seeing now. when you look at some of the investigations that have taken place over recent years and you compare them to some of the previous stories it seems like it's pending anti-stuff. going after tom drake at the nsa which you write about or even the verizon case. in the grand scheme of things if you talk to national security experts those stories did not have a meaningful impact on american national security but yet those are some of the cases that are being pursued or have been pursued with particular vigor so they really has been a fundamental change in my field in the approach taken by the government in recent years compared to the preceding decades. >> also these were classic whistleblowers. it wasn't about whether the surveillance program is too expensive. it wasn't about the content of that whatsoever. >> and argument drake made was that documents found at his home were not actually classified documents led -- but eventually the case fell apart. >> with a report i mean obviously i think it's made very significant contributions with the attention it's gotten and i think some of these obviously the investigations are where the mint people are aware of the policies for putting them all together suggest that this is not a haphazard response to particular events. there's a systematic effort here to marginalize and undermine the work of the press. i think that is what the report really accomplishes. and what i want to do also is to talk about why we undertook the significance of that. we started out as a small group of u.s. journalists focusing on the life and liberty if you will of journalists around the world who work in dangerous environments and fear for their lives when they go out and do a story. the framework in which it was founded was the wreck ignition that we have journalists in this country have unique protection of the first amendment. and so throughout our history and particularly in our early years when we are a small fledgling organization we focused on frontline reporting efforts but you know the recent events in this country and also our conversations with journalists covering this administration led us to conclude that the atmosphere was fundamentally different than that had an impact not only on the work of journalists here but potentially on journalists around the world for a number of reasons. one of them -- one of our colleagues wrote the u.s. presence -- any erosion here has an impact on the information available to people everywhere in the world and secondly the u.s. media and the work of journalists inspires other journalists around the world so they are threatened and thirdly because governments take solace from any deterioration in press freedom standards in this country and give potential cover to take repressive actions on their own. we saw this pattern and then we asked len to carry this -- to do this report and we asked him to provide research reportedly helped edit it but these are his independent findings. we took the report and reputed among our staff at our board and provided recommendations based on the report and those were also done independently. >> this is an organization that normally devotes its resources and still does to investigating and seeking action to journalists murdered in the philippines are jailed in zimbabwe. foresee p.j. to want to devote resources to shine a light on these issues to thoughtfully investigate them is a remarkable step for an international press freedom organization. >> the obama administration and many administrations before it focuses a lot on trying to promote free expression in other countries. what do you think the types of issues that we cataloged here due to our credibility? >> i can think of a specific example. we have been advocating for a very long time for president obama to raise a directive to mr. erdogan in turkey concerned about the countries -- turkey is the leading jailer of journalists. a jail more journalists than any country in the world. they have a very deep relationship with the united states and a strategic relationship. president obama and prime minister erdogan have a personal friendship. we have been advocating for some time that president obama interactive and raise concerns. they had a bilateral meeting back in may and the day before that meeting took place news about the seizure of the phone records to place. i don't know whether it was on the agenda. i had early indications that might be but i'm recently confident that it did not have because if president obama had raised that i think it would have been very -- and the same thing happens with the nsa surveillance and the stated policy that president obama had articulated in aggressively challenging china on its government orchestrated surveillance program whatever you want to call it traded i don't hear that so much anymore. i don't think that's the case. >> i don't know how many of you here have worked for the government. in leaks investigations the constant pressure to stop leaks of any kind in the constant pressure to not talk reporters at all and rip referred to public affairs officers and then just the presence of the nsa surveillance was so far there are no examples of sources are reporters having the communication surveillance process. all those things have this tremendous killing effect on government officials talking with the press. since the report comes out i can stop their reporters. i wish he would have talked to me. i have 12 other examples. this is their daily life. their daily life is trying to -- that's not the way it should be. >> there is a link between nsa program and other sources government surveillance issues that come up and reporters not feeling comfortable sending e-mail to a government source. let me ask, the post had an exceptional story a few weeks ago about the effect of these leak investigations on the whistleblowers and what is really cataloged. going up against the mechanisms mechanisms of the united states government as one person can destroy lives even for the pose for whom the prosecution fell apart. do you think some of these early prosecutions that didn't seem pointed towards true national security information that would damage the united states were really done to make a point in to say this is what can happen to you? >> we don't know about that motivation in terms of the justice department that we do know becau they said so that the intelligence community -- the previous director at the beginning of administration told the "new york times" on the that this was his intention to prosecute people so would have a chilling effect on others. speak and you about the insider threat program? you can imagine how the government would have the program after the disclosure that chelsea manning had taken the scope of the documents he had. >> the original presidential if set up a study which they started rolling out late last year. it did emphasize the national security aspects of it but then it was left up to -- to decide if it carried out. one of the news bureaus in washington did a very good job of surveying various government agencies to see how they were there during the sale. sale. in number than make clear that any kind of glee to the press was the same as -- and also you're supposed to be monitoring fellow employees. monitor your fellow employees to see if you see any signs of leaking documents being unstable or anything like that and you are required to report that. you could get enjoyable for not reporting something that somebody else is doing that you may find suspicious. census just now being rolled out it has to be very chilling. >> seems to have a chilling impact already on day-to-day routine business. the sorts of work that journalists in this town do every single day that in many cases has nothing to do with top-secret or classified at a lower level or anything to do with national security matters. simply calling up an official in this administration in the white house or cabinet agency and wanting to have a discussion about a subject that perhaps the senior official has spoken out about publicly the day before is the sort of thing that now routinely commonly government employees will refuse to engage not just on the record but in many cases on backgrounds. i can't speak to you about background until it's cleared by the press office. a lot of times they say we will talk to you or in some cases they won't talk to you. it's creating this chilling effect across government and its impeding the work of journalist to provide the necessary accountability functions into our government. we were talking about overclassification is one of these problems and that is rife throughout her government particularly the parts of government that i cover the military and the intelligence community. one way people at all levels are simply trying to in some ways defeat or impede freedom of information act request is now routine correspondence is slapped with the for official use only label. when you are trying to get that document it may not be classified and even if it is classified in many cases it's not all that sensitive. we can't release it. it's for official use only did what i want to do is bring that press course to my office and show them hundreds of e-mails from military officers stand for official use only saying what you like to come to this lunch with general odierno next week rex for official use only. [laughter] the system on the default again shows people making legitimate foia requests of government. this also comes back to it's all about selective enforcement. there is -- there was a piece reported the other day off of the senate intelligence committee in the wake of the administration's rules on reporting the disclosure of information of what is authorized leak and unauthorized leak. the senior officials shared material that is classified or that is otherwise sensitive that serves their own purposes for which there is no sanction. numerous military senior officers were shown classified slides. it's serving the military's purposes and they are willing when it's a help to them. >> this is all about government accountability. the president believes in government accountability and he is a rolled in keeping it accountable. the rules don't allow the government to be accountable. the administration puts out its message and you are -- from reporting other things. >> it seems like it's almost detailed up to. one assist staff and and the other is the day-to-day business of government. i was struck by your quote that this was the most difficult administration to cover in the seven that she is has covered which is saying quite a lot. >> access to beginnings and endings of meetings at the white house and who is attending those meetings is the subject and it's impossible to find it that less eager the white house web site and other british television said whenever calls the white house to ask them something they say go to this web site. you can have that video and those photographs and that information. we are not talking to you. speier example about the epa how much of what the epa does is classified? try getting meaningful information. >> i also found something that that -- about the the that jim rosen cae and the james ricin case and the james rosen case but about the rosen case was the use of the term potential co-conspirator under the espionage act there as you pointed out basic journalism. >> there was a technical legal reason for doing that it still was very alarming. while the repeatedly said in the guidelines we are not going to prosecute journalists were doing their job reporting. it's frightenifrighteni ng to reporters. there are reporters that work in the national security area who are worried about it still who are taking extraordinary measures and we know that the nsa is trying to solve that riddle. secret rooms where they do their work and so on which is quite amazing. also i point out in the gym ricin case the decision that the appellate court judge that said he still must testify or go to jail also said this crime could not have been committed without him. in other words they are still treating him as a criminal as well. >> is this something you see in terms of the types of newsgathering? are we going back to the basement of the arlington parking garage and not using these electronic tools that we have used in the past decade? >> i joke that this is forcing me to going back to being a lot more low-tech. i a lot more face-to-face interviews. a lot more notetaking ink of paper. only for completely routine not big stuff and in that case i'm not doing a lot of typing and putting stuff in the cloud. i'm not keeping my sensitive contacts on my iphone or any sort of electronic space. i have colleagues who go further working on machines that have no internet connection working in rooms that are the journalistic equivalent of a compartmentalized intelligence facility to prevent outsiders from trying to identify sources. >> there is nothing that i'm working on and my many of my colleagues that if the government were to learn a substantive story that i'm building that's fine. what i'm i am wearing about is protecting the sources. i'm protecting -- worried about people -- getting hauled in front of the court and jailed for in almost every case whether it's a well founded reason for mitigating. it's not people who are seeking to burn down the government or engaging in a wholesale theft in her commission. these are people talking about specific information in a narrow circumscribed way because they either believe policy is fundamentally flawed or they believe that there is an injustice that needs to be addressed. we lose sight of this when we focus so much on manning or snowden. the lions share of these cases don't involve individuals taking reams of documents and sharing them with the world. it's more often an individual wanting to share a specific piece of information because they believe there is a compelling public interest in doing so. they are not doing this because they want to make money and not doing this because they want to aid the enemy. they are doing this because they want to help in eight states. >> i would had from international perspective if you are a non-u.s. person you have no legal connection from nsa intervention. it's certainly been reported based on the snowden lakes -- al-jazeera was hacked and they did feel this was within their prerogative to do this. i have talked to editors for example the editor of the authority where the u.s. editor was talking about you now she does not communicate using the e-mail with reporters. does not feel secure in doing that. and lots of journalists that i talked to take extraordinary measures to ensure that they can communicate securely and i think there is a real question and one of the most essential things and elements of the public accountability journalism is it depends on the ability of the journalists. a lot of journalists don't feel they can make that promise. >> journalists care about that. rajiv people don't realize they care about the welfare of their sources. >> also the international perspective. it's been interesting to me to learn that many other countries have stronger protections for journalists in terms of not requiring them to testify in court cases for example they need and we have the stateside. we do have protection most of our states. >> the u.s. is definitely -- the first amendment and probably the world's most protected environment for what you can say. you cannot fully say just about anything but in terms of protection against being subpoenaed there are many other countries in the world that have stronger protections in the u.s. is definitely a leader in that regard. >> at this point there is no federal protection. its state-by-state and it varies state-by-state but if you are subject to a federal investigation there is no -- there is not yet any shield law. >> which can be very arbitrary in that district. the if you get a subpoena issued by the superior court you have great protection by the information act which is a good shield shield law and if it's issued literally across the street from the federal courthouse are looking at testifying in going to jail so it's a very arbitrary -- see even though the guidelines have padlocked technical changes you generally still have this intent involved because there is enough of a leeway for attorney general's decision-making the national security exemption that they can still by and large do it they want to do. >> up into the day guidelines can be followed or they cannot be followed and it's not enforceable by a reporter. you can't say to reporter the subpoena needs to be quashed because you didn't follow the guidelines. having the shield law seems to me would be a step forward. >> it would be. see why don't we talk about that for a moment. i know joel you have had concerns about the definition of journalist for example which is something is one of the reasons why we have never had a federal law because it's difficult to define and it's become more difficult in the past 10 years. >> a look at this from an international perspective. i look at this in the context of how radically technology has changed the way journalism is conduct that. you know i think that there is a very pragmatic line that journals can do their work to protect their sources in the shield law will help them do that. issue but will probably help most journalists who work for -- to carry out traditional journalism except for the national journalism which is a separate matter. in terms of cpj in this country but even more so globally not all journalists are covered because of lot of people who are engaged in journalism in this day and age are doing it informally. they are observers to newsworthy events and they are documenting those newsworthy events in a systematic way and disseminating that information to the public or they are blowing blogging about it are doing it informally or documenting events using video. some of the journalists that some of the people considered to be journalists places like syria or china or vietnam or cuba or places where people are using new techniques to engage in a practice of journalism and certainly any definition of the shield law which is being contemplated in this country would have -- that. we are advocating our recommendation recognizing that the shield law would help a journalist to keep the definition is wrought as possible and focus to the extent it's possible on the newsgathering process rather than credentials are professional status or anything like that. we think that would be the best. >> if a lofted have that cpj would be okay with the concept of the law? >> they definitely would be okay with the concept. we think the shield was useful. we are just saying we are going to monitor the debate and we are going to push it to the end for the broadest possible definition >> the definition is difficult now because literally anyone could be covered by starting the law and it would be difficult to imagine how congress would pass that law. there is a bit of a pragmatic -- >> pragmatic and you're balancing your philosophical approach to the decision and some people who i greatly admire say you shouldn't have a shield law at all because the first amendment is the shield law and the first amendment -- you are deep into these issues but that's the view that's out there. we take a much more pragmatic view of the issue. the shield law will protect journalists and we want wants journalists to be able to do their work that we would also like to see the broadest possible definition. >> one point was the first amendment law would be enough. how much do these sorts of issues play into your decision about whether the dash to a source? if you're looking at the end certain environment we live in doesn't make it less likely that you would say yes i will keep it confidential or has this become a more difficult nuanced negotiation about what the confidentiality really means? >> you now i've probably in this will make you the lawyer shutter a little bit and it may well make that post shutter. i grant promises of confidentiality pretty liberally. that is what we have traditionally done. now if anything the pressure against it over the past 10 plus years or maybe even longer than that and this is one land would know well, has been less traditionally in our newsroom about the threat of prosecution but more in terms of the desire for transparency with our leaders wanting people to know as much as possible who is providing that information and in some ways this is a response to government officials often wanting to look at the senior officials and it has over the years created this thought in washington that you can't even get the weather report from somebody with a name attached but on background they will tell you it's raining this afternoon. and so our pushback has been sort of against that. enter and now this new thread -- not just threat the reality it up investigations and prosecutions particularly in the world that i cover it certainly has come up in discussions with sources and when it does come up on sensitive matters it's something that we talk out but when i make an explicit promise of confidentiality it is just that and i will honor that. it's not a written agreement but it is part of what i see as my professional will. but even getting to that point it requires jumping through a lot of hoops that we didn't have to before. it's the old face-to-face meeting. it's not -- these deals are not struck over e-mail. not quite as convoluted as that but certainly adding a lot more complications. in fact a lot more meetings with people at their homes or in coffee shops or bars as opposed to offices communicating with people with their personal e-mail address is not the government was because of the threat program. it's not just the nsa but any agencies. their systems are going through part of the threat program looking at what e-mails are exchanged with "washington post".com or nytimes.com domains and were any of those messages in the public affairs shop but it does not let's flag them for further scrutiny. that stuff is happening routinely. >> also two other elements for the reader for the audience and that his actors and credibility. if you can't talk to the people that really know what's going on you're liable to find other sources who will tell you things. you will make mistakes and we will see that happening. national security reporting and law enforcement reporting when the authoritative people won't talk and somebody else will. they can create a credibility problem for media. administrations may have and it just in making them law seem better by denying inaccurate information but that serious for the audience. we have seen these issues and national security reporting across a variety of administrations. you mentioned this was the most visited administration. how would you compare to sum up those in between like the second bush administration? >> as sub 10 said they were not our friends and they weren't eager to have some of the stories we publish become public but by and large first of all the access to sources with much greater than it is now. and secondly you can have productive conversations with senior administrative officials sometimes the president of the united states about whether or not it's a good idea to publish the story about the accuracy of the story and whether not there is sensitive information that could have -- for national security. i don't recall in all of my time in the 25 years as managing editor of the posts i don't recall us ever not publishing a story that the administration objected to. i do know i've had productive conversations and we did this whole technical observation countries of origin that would harm national security but not deprive the reader of doing what they need to know but a government program or policy to hold government accountable. you cut off those conversations and then you are left without talking to anybody including names of people who could cause harm because the names appear in those diplomatic cables. that's the other side of this and also it emboldens people. snowden does believe he has done an important public service. nsa surveillance that we did not have before the information but at the same time it makes them feel more her road if you will when they know otherwise rajiv chandrasekaran wouldn't woodinville to get the information through regular channels. >> look at the front page of the the post today in the top left column about the nsa's role. in the fifth or sixth paragraph it says the post without technical details based on discussions with administration officials and intelligence community officials to avoid divulging sources and methods but at the same time it was able to add to the national debate over the role of the nsa. >> i always think of the series on black prisons being a great example of that. the issue was reported in the specific issues were kept confidential. the secrecy of the government was maintained that the public is informed about the issue. >> that's a good example to cite. first of all was not a leak. it was based based on a long period of reporting and discovering certain officials were worried about something. what were they worried about? find out a little bit from you and take it over and find a little bit more and take it back it was reporting and not a leak. she was able to do that kind of reporting with access to the reporting that we were able to put the whole picture together including the fact that there was a lot of other counterterrorism cooperation going on with eastern european countries are the sites were located that when the demonstrations had please don't name those countries we knew why they were asking and we could reason. we don't want to have cooperation set off so therefore we publish the stories and the only effect of them was by the intelligence community was that they had to close those sites in the prisons of guantánamo. at the same time -- even though they have been bandied about in there've been investigations and so on we have kept our promise not to name them. that's an important part of the story. david sanger of the reporter from the times talks about the trust factor between you and the government when you go about doing this reporting. they trust your motives and can you trust the government's motives? that makes it possible to bring this information to the mac in public in a way that's responsible. you start to cut off those avenues and they are very worried. he will have a lot of irresponsible reporting. >> lan is talking about the story which is incredibly important. there's a perception that national security reporter said around their offices and wait for the phone to ring. here is your leak today. it doesn't work that way. >> a little bit of shoe leather in both. >> snowden is the exception not the rule. people think -- i would be blessed with something like snowden coming in but in most cases you are going on small pieces of information learning more and learning more and part of this is convincing people that would be the public interest to help provide context to help explain and to add another piece to the puzzle. and so it would be wrong to think that all these individuals are there ready to hand this stuff out. often it's the result of a thoughtful discussion and sources understanding what a journalist is trying to do and seeing what they are doing as coming back to a point earlier i really do believe for the vast majority of those people who keep administration would call leakers. these are people who are acting out of a sense of altarism out of a sense of a belief in our system and a desire to want to make the united states a better country. it's not anarchistic a very even though one could point perhaps to some higher profile recent cases and tried to use labels like that. i think that obscures the reality of what is happening in the lion's share of these interactions between journalists and sources. >> you to see the threat of patriotism through many of the dash that you describe. >> and if they are investigated persecuted fired or prosecuted for it you then wonder if there is patriotism in place. >> i was struck by something in "the new york times." there was an e-mail sent out from the white house to the intelligence agencies saying please retain any e-mails to david sanger. >> within the white house itself >> as he said he called somebody up and asked them a question and they said david we love you but we just can't talk to you right now. they know he does responsible reporting but they just can't talk to him. .. and was discovered by the fbi after wards and the previous administration during the bush administration. and molar called me and the editor of the "new york times." and first of all, revealed it happened. which we didn't know. then apologized for it. because he was outside the department gliends. he regarded it being wrong. people were disciplined for it. and it's -- i thought that was the proper way to handle it. >> pretty extraordinary story. there's a lot of talk about subpoenas of phone records, which was you're talking about there. and i was wondering about the associated press issue that, you know, that the subpoena seemed to cover it a lot of phone lines including one in the cap top i.t. did you have a sense that was narrowed or if a judge hadn't been involved there may have been a different result happening up to -- >> yeah. they did it without notifying ap in advance. in my experience, for the administration, quite often if the justice department was contemplating a subpoena in a criminal investigation or civil case, they are some other way which they want to demand something from us, they would call us to say they're contemplating this. we would have negotiations. and usually we were able to satisfy their law enforcement needs and our protection of our recordings techniques. and work something out. sometimes it took a lot negotiations. painful negotiations it worked out. in this case, they didn't notify it. the ap would have said, 100 different reporters, four with the phone lines and it was -- switchboard and the ap in the cap tom. why do you need that? let narrow it down. we don't want to cooperate with you. we don't want our reporters governed. let's narrow it down. you are exposing all of our recordings by the government. we don't think it's a good idea. if they couldn't have worked it out they probably would have gone court. that's something that the government didn't want. even though the investigation was years old, they didn't want to take the trouble to do that. they proceeded in a way there was no way to negotiate. there was no way to go a court and have a court decide whether or not it was a good idea. >> you've been patient, i thought it would be a good moment to turn to the audience for questions. in the back then we'll move up the front. [inaudible] it seems the track the dwo. media i.t. way back then there were so few channels for an administration to get the message out. they sort of needed post and the times. the posture was they had to be cooperative. now between echo chamber media and the ability to mention to get the the report out themselves. you no longer have the institution to sort of force that posture on them. is there any way to regain the throanch change their posture to be more cooperative or sort of -- unless the public is confronted with it and appeal. this is why i do this report. they're going to go to the administration with the recommendation for improvement. this is a president who prompts -- promised to have the most transparent. he still has more than two years to carry it out. and today to the legacy. we are essentially appealing to the better nature to do what you said you were going. it was repeated this when he's confronted with some of the issues. he said i want a transparent administration. i want the press to be conditional. ic by proving it's not happen to him. i'm hoping he'll take the other steps. the next would be let's see how sophisticated we can be in keeping the press at bay. thank you. >> way in the front. >> okay. thank you for bringing out the very important information, from downey. i'm going follow a little on the gentleman's question or concern with the impact of how the federal whistle-blower is going to flow down to the state and local level along with the increase in westbounds. i think we can thank bill for that. i don't know. as newspaper become more difficult to hang on to -- i don't know what is going to happen with the post when amazon.com take over, and you're reporting -- to some degree i think it's nice if you talk to someone in person rather than via e-mail you get a better picture and story. i hope you're not being followed. what impact is our website now having on reporting the news and giving accurate news with so many different websites and channels -- >> right. >> you name it. >> it's good news and bad news. the bad news, obviously, is the disruption of economic model that supported the legacy journalistic organizations. and we're all struggling with that. , by the way, the post is not now owned by amazon but jeff personally. therefore, it's not a public company. and which gives people a great more financial leeway in trying to deal with the particular issue. at the same time, there are people that started for-profit, and non-profit. the founder of ebay announced he's going start a new one from the edward snowden papers. a lot of new start-ups are competing in that space. they are even though they are much fewer resources. some are doing good work. it's another thing i spent a lot of time writing about. they are fragile. they need support. some are stronger than others. they're public interest organizations, if you will. their future and individual one future are they going there. that's very helpful, i think too. they also collaborate with the traditionalist organizations. "the new york times" and "the washington post and other newspapers around the country have published a number of things that provided them by non-profit investigative reporting types which is useful. to come back, some states are -- one of these non-profit the state legislature tried to their offices are inside the university of washington. and some of the people running around the university of wisconsin university. nobody owned up to it . they sneaked in against state funds or university funds used to be -- and finally after a -- vetoed by the governor but it shows that, yeah, individual states are trying to fete involved in managing the news as well. >> how long -- [inaudible] lflt. >> what is holding up? why aren't you moving ahead? grt movement on the senate side to be good so far. we need to get to the floor of the senate and the senate has a lot going on. [laughter] it's been a little bit difficult get their attention on this one. we are optimistic we should be able to get more of the senate if not before the end of this year and early next year. there's a house bill introduced by representative ted poe and representative john conyers moving ahead awell. i think there are at lough hearings on that one. it may take a little longer. we have had some success in the past. we passed the house twice. we're optimistic. >> it actually is bipartisan. for many years our greater champion was a republican from indiana who basically said, look, i'm not doing it because i love the media. i don't like you guys, but i believe in protecting this whistle blowers. >> to et the -- constitutional issues. many see it as a constitutional issue, as they should. [inaudible] >> the apps on the past two questions. and i don't want you to shudder here, but there is -- [laughter] there is a defense to be made of a group that everybody at least part of the political spectrum loves to hate, which is the main extremely media. there's a proliferation of new state websites, state, local, and national levels. citizens journalist. all that have is to to be applauded. when you look at the cases, "the new york times," "washington post." [inaudible] "the wall street journal," fox news. they're part of the main stream media. don't listen to how they brand themselves. they are mainstream in large. -- journalism that this is not and so -- the track record of the large organizations. i would like to think. i know, i have friends in the military and the intelligence community laugh when i say it. who put you in charge of determining what the public should know but, you know, when presented with sensitive material, particularly national security nature, the mainstream news organizations have almost always undertaken a thoughtful examination of how to publish -- what to publish. when agonized with. and even when provided with the entire wicky leeks, we -- wicky leaks. we used it as a basis for journalism then going out -- "washington post" through bart in the receipt of material -- which they're used to engage journalism and portions of it are being pickup truck there. you are only somebody with the expertise can thandle way too. i can't let the event go without noting. all classified, you know, top secret, no foreign two of those are material that they stole from the electronic foundation. say that slapped it in the frame of an nsa powerpoint and slapped top secret on it. [laughter] so again, there are legitimate -- people talk about the classification. there are legislate mate questions to be asked. >> on the basis of documents that chel seamanning gave to wick question -- wicky -- it's crazy. okay. why don't we go here and here? thank you. >> in any kind of federal law you're probably going to get national security exceptions. so in that particular field, is it really going help you? maybe you get prior notice, maybe you get judicial involvement, but how much is it going to contribute in the national security field. >> i don't see it the law as fundamentally changing the game for national security. it's an issue of prosecutorial discussion. it's an issue of how an administration at the senior level chooses to address the issues and whether it wants to create a sort of effect across the defense department and the intelligence community or whether it believes that in our system and for our system to be healthy. every now and again you might get something on the front page of the post or "times" you won't really like. our country is strong enough, resilient enough to move on from it. and that some of those disclosures actually help to stimulate the national debate and look, the real city while the administration likes to talk about congress paying a great oversight role. it therest a key take away from the snowden affair is that congress wasn't doing a lot of oversight over the nsa. >> thank you, first. a very good job of showing 1986 than 2013. a little chilling on the afternoon. my question is this. we have president obama and i think maybe a secretive person. and now he's head of an administration which is very secret. how much of that to -- [inaudible] how much of is that him leading and how much is following. post 9/11 and post what the security field. doesn't matter the end result. the only reason it matters is because for those who feel it's wrong and needs change it. we first need to know where to focus the change on. is it more in the general belief of, you know, directors than type of thing, we think it's coming directly to the white house. whether would you assign -- you're doing a pie chart. >> it appears to me it comes from a combination of the factors, the most 9/11 world. pressure in the intelligence community, and both parties particularly in 2012 which the president was running for reelection. and he was doing leaking in order to get re-elected. the response was to conduct investigations whether they should are been conducted or not. the second part of your question is what can you do about it? he has the power to do it. he has the power. he has the tower see those directives are actually fulfilled and haven't been yet. he can do it. >> i'm the original editor we played a central role on wiping out nixon on the income taxes. the crooked lawyers of his faked a gift of his -- [inaudible] who is a journalist. i favor the most broad definition possible. who are those things? >> well, i'm with you in term of a broad definition. if it is so broad you are giving a privilege to everyone in the u.s. which is something the congress would pass. the way it's set up now, it's essential lay three-tiered definition. as it became longer and longer as it went on. the idea was to capture more people who really committing journal pitch the first test is a straightforward one you tend see in state shield law. are you work for, have a contract with ab or an agent for an entity that publishing a news website, a mobile app, a tv station. it's quite broad. i think most who have an entities when you think of blog like the memos or others -- they would be covered under along with the "washington post" and "the new york times." there's a second definition that said if you don't fall to the bucket, you can be covered if you have engaged in journalist in the past. that's one pointed out in the report. if you worked as a journalist for one of the entities for one year or contributed significantly to a product of the free laster you can be coffered. there's a third that said even if you're not covered under one or two. if the judge decides in the interest of justice you should be covered you will be. that's the way that the senate bill has the structure. it's a straightforward structure that basically said if you're engaging in the journalistic activities, for financial livelihood you are covered. that's something a little bit controversial in the past because you have people who are doing it for non-profits. and we need find a way to cover that too. but the three bucket structure in the senate bill, and we think that's the one that will end up on the floor. >> i should have said that before. say your affiliation since we're on c-span. [inaudible] i'm the great teaching. i used to be a columnist in a small newspaper. this report has been rolled out, and it is an important report, i believe. how far have we come since the pentagon papers? some distance. what are your plans to roll it out in term of connecting directly with the public. the true test whether it's going reverberated to the white house and back how the public is going react. there's a national security issue that is lingering as it says since 2001 i think you may get some push back. how are we going know how it's going resonate with the publish? -- public. first of all, we have been pleased it has resonated. a lot of discussion and engagement. that's great. that's what we're hoping for. in term of the strategy, if you go to the last page, we have a recommendation. as i mention the recommendations were developed by the board of directors in consultation but we sent the report and the recommendation to the president in that letter we also asked for meetings we're are going to be following up on the request. we hope have a face to face dialogue about the issues with a senior figures in the administration. and we're obviously not the only group that is working on these issues. we're looking where we can to build coalition and awareness, and, you know, one of the things said when we had the press conference. i think that the changes that the administration -- [inaudible] they haven't. what the report is saying you're wrong. this is a problem. a significant problem. it has to do with your legacy, it has to do with the kind of government that this country has and deserves. s that's the strategy. you are right that the overlying change is -- challenge is the national security environment. it's true here and many countries around the world. we're willing to engage with the government issue they have significant challenges. but national security, in this cub, or any other country can never be used as a pretext to give the government a authority to prevent people from getting the information they need. that's the push back. >> talking with the media regularly and the appearances of various kinds and well covered in the news media. this is also administration that wants the american people to -- let me put it differently. the president -- the nation getting attack the in the way it did in 2001. this is a president who said we are at different periods. so should not the way the administration addresses some of the matters also evolve. >> could you say a few words about the administration's reaction. there's been a little bit of an they issued an statement reaffirming. i hope by looking for direct engagement we are discuss the issues. i'm hopeful that the report itself and ongoing outreach and media around make a case this is a critical thash is not going away. it's the best responses to engage and try to address it. >> gent theman in the blue shirt. [inaudible] can you tell us something that give us a little bit of hope -- [laughter] and decides he's going put more transparency to the administration to set a different kind of example for the next administration. whether it's democratic or republican. i think the main reason i'm not hopeless that the meeting will push back. continue to push back. the reporters who have to deal with the white house every day what he is saying is the most control-freak administration in my experience he knows he has to talk to them the next day. they clearly are pushing back. the media is pushing back. i think it will help the balance out. needs to be more controlling. thank you very much. please join me in thanking or wonderful speakers today. thank you for all of you. [applause] coming up on the next "washington journal." over the years, when you look back on the books that had an impact on a president, you know, what did you find? >> guest: well, -- >> host: and impact an us as people. >> guest: that's actually one of my inspirations for writing the book. i was curious to see whether books had an impact. one of the famous book is michael hairington wrote a book about poverty especially west virginia. ken i can is supposed to have read the book and it lead to the war on poverty. it didn't happen quite that read. he read a book review by dwight mcdonald in the new yorker. and kennedy tragedy -- tragically died in november. and johnson heard about the program and pursued it. 200 years of popular culture in the white house. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q & a. the american enterprise institute hosted a look at the housing market and the future of mortgage lending. the panel of bankers and economists took part in this two-hour session. .. >> there are burning lessons of the collapse that are already starting to fade. for example, we had a clip today, investors turning attention to putting high-end houses. unquote. and we had six years of falling house prices from 2006 until 2012, and now we have a strong rebound over the last year. with, of course, different views of how that will continue. this adventure is over, but the effects live on red among them, the federal reserve, as we all know is practiced in previously unimaginable, credit allocation to housing and monetization of mortgages. we now have about $1.4 trillion. in mortgages on their own balance sheet. and this is part of the largest savings and loan. the fed's goal is to push housing prices higher and now they have overachieved including a much longer perspective that we are trying to gain, in the hopes that we can see some of this chart. he goes from 1953 to 2013. u.s. house prices and what you can immediately see, you can't read any numbers and there is an extremely strong correlation of house prices and obviously what the bubble when you went far off that underlying trend, you can touch this trend and it now has bounced up and again, indeed and now we have these trending house prices and where they were in 2001. there is another way of looking at the same underlying data. and this includes the% deviation of house prices from the general inflation in the trend deviation is about zero about now. as we said, back to the deviation of 2001. when the bubble, being stoked by the fed, was taking off. and we are now and this includes the over peaking of the 1970s and 1980s and global the post ben bernanke world brain? it's a very hot topic of late. not to be forgotten with the ongoing travails of this. let me briefly introduce our guests in order in which they will speak, which will be right down the desk for me. first obj, the chief economist and senior vice president at the mortgage bankers association he joined us in 2001 as the head of the research group after having worked in portfolio strategy on the dark side for fannie mae. he has also been the deputy chief of staff with the governor of louisiana and top financial institution regulation at the university of houston then we wonder if he ever imagined the extent of regulation and next will be mark fogarty and he is the director of national mortgage news. he has covered the mortgage business since 1934, so he is now on his fifth real estate cycle and brings us wisdom accordingly. he will won the award for financial journalism and has one awards from the american society of business editors and the native american journalist society. third is desmond lachman, a resident fellow known for his pessimistic accurate forecast. [laughter] previously he was a director and manager of the chief emerging market at salomon smith barney and a deputy director of the international monetary fund's policy developmedevelopme nt department. focused on the global economy and global currency issues and he has written with great insight on the international economic crisis and the u.s. housing bust and the u.s. dollar and the strains of the euro area, which he will touch on her for us. next is chris whalen, an executive vice president and managing director of risk analytics. he is also part of risk management tools and provides consulting on the financial services industry and the author of the book inflated, how money and debt built the american dream. and he is the cofounder of this series of conferences which go back to march of 2007 when the bubble was just starting and starting to shrivel. finally we will hear from john makin, a resident scholar and former consultant to the congressional budget and international monetary fund and he specializes in international finance and international markets, including the u.s. and japan and the european economy. the author of numerous books on financial policy, he also writes the monthly and insightful economic outlook, which i recommend to you. each panelist will speak for 12 to 15 minutes and then we will give them a chance to respond to each other or clarify. and again, we will open the floor for your questions. ask the questions run out sooner, we will adjourn promptly at 4:00 p.m. jay brinkmann come you have the floor. >> thank you, alex. when i was looking at the title of this conference of post bubble and ben bernanke world, i was thinking it has been five years since the gst is to have put this into a conservative ship. i would forecast that this would've been housing finance in the post-gse world and it goes to show that the accuracy of my forecasting ability has marked my entire career as a chief economist. [laughter]. so what i really wanted to talk about is, and i'm skipping around here little bit, is the purchase program going forward. what we are currently seeing in the lending market and show you a new tool rolled out looking for mortgage credit and the availability of crediting the market and a discussion of a new bubble since bubbles are part of this title and i thought i should come up with something on that end. there is a massive growth in the makeup of that balance sheet and this goes back to may with the gray and blue area being mortgage-backed securities, something they did not hold prior to 2009. but increasing with and influence in the market. and if you look at this, this is a topline and you can see where we are, the change is about 11 months, 170 billion outstanding is the total growth in the nbs. of that over this. maximal we have picked up about 480 billion, which meant that other sectors have had to give up their holdings. certainly the gse portfolio runoff, which is part of the plan includes overseas investors and mortgages pulling back from their holdings of mortgage-backed securities and all other money managers. including other portfolios. and including this and forcing us to look at this. so when you look at them, we have included the crowding out of private capital and at what point is this fed the market. and we have roughly one fourth the mortgage-backed securities that are outstanding. they have purchased about 30% of all the mortgages originating since last summer. that is not secured, but the total mortgages originated in the monthly fee tapering through 2014, we will be buying more than half of all the mortgages originated there, not just securitizing it, but those that are originating the. so that raises the question of what happens if the mortgage market tapers and the fed does not. do we want them to have that as part of the role in purchasing this many of the mortgages that have been originated and i would defer to my colleagues here and what would happen at some of the other countries of the central bank's staff in and then we make these purchases for a large share of the lending that takes place. and finally, what is the exit strategy from esperanza are they've they then going to start selling these at some point with upward pressure on interest rates? i do not think so, that would defeat some of the purposes of what they have been doing. but there has been discussion that to this extent they have liquidity. including repose. and what does this do in terms of the impact of the rest of the repo market for others who rely on us financing. including a lot of liquidity to the market and this is part of the private structure is the market. we are filling up a kids backyard swimming pool fire hose and by the end of it, the dog and cat and have your backyard is like just because of the impact because what this can have in different markets and we will see whether or not that has been observed and how carefully they go through it. and let me go through a little bit of what we are seeing on the mortgage market. some of these have absolutely collapsed and this included ben bernanke's press conference so that we are now down to our index levels in the purchase market has not declined as precipitously. the difference here, some represent the home sales in that has considered to go up in a couple of drivers have been a part of this. >> the applications for mortgage to make a purchase? >> applications to buy a home. so who is actually buying these and are they investors and what is behind some of these cash purchases. do we really think that these mortgages to purchase homes will continue to interest rate changes. but there are a lot of people if this is correct and what are the applications and what do they look like? >> let me walk you through, quickly of august 2001, august 2012, august 2013. shifting and sharing in the jumbo market. and in fact, when we look at the demand for mortgages, we are purchasing homes in some of the fastest growing segments, albeit small, are in the jumbo market. but the jumbo market is now up to about 12.5%, which is right in the range of the traditional 10 to 15% we have seen in that market year in and year out. this is a new index that we have created to try to measure the credit availability. this is something we have thought about and we kept talking about this. but we think it's a multidimensional shape and that is the one and we are getting the measurement of how this thing would expand or contract. my staff said what if we just count those and i said, okay, that will work as well. and what we will do is have a count of what they post in terms of the credit criteria. but they would use her correspondent lending. only short-term arms and so we look at this and talk about what is the outer boundary and has been offered in this measurement that we can get from all over the country. this sort of peaks in this june and july. matt. and this includes when the regulations were finalized. people were part of this. and as soon as these regulations came out and we started to see a continued tightening as we approached the effective date we also looked at builder applications and what is going on with their avocations reconstructions. where is an activity taking place we have a year over year comparison. it really shows the highest activity taking place to finance those new homes and those areas are still held back. the neat thing is what is going on in nevada. what is going on in nevada? they are still running a high percentage of foreclosure. so this includes the building of new homes. so if you look at the ones that are in foreclosure or 90 days or more that haven't really entered compared to the actual number of loans for sale, and as the new home building has come back, does that make sense that we have long-term demand and supply. we have regulatory constraints that limit your ability to get those foreclosed loans to get out of the legal system and get back on the market. it is new construction to be lower. potential buyers can see what that inventory is so they are buying new homes. but the long-term equilibrium, once those foreclosures come onto the market, it may be a case that the long-term demand is going to be less than the supply that is on that market. one of the loans in foreclosure, so then what is their ranking in terms of the year-to-date permits for new construction? i guess that comes out of commerce and homebuilders have it up on their site. in fact, it is random. it is just flat. but there are, if you look at that quadrant, states that have a high% of loans in foreclosure and high percentages of construction. potentially an area where you would see a bubble. so i'm not sitting here predicting that now we have a bubble. but if you are looking for one, you have to get beyond the state numbers and you have to look at local communities because it could be in new jersey or places like construction like at the beach where hurricane sandy took it out and similar stories and there are states like oregon and nevada and new york and maine in states that have judicial foreclosures and judicial systems that have this regulatory impediment clearing the foreclosure inventory out of the court system being delivered back to the market, yet high levels of new construction and are we now seeing negative effects of the judicial and regulatory holdups to the system. in nevada, it was a new law with restraints on foreclosures. it is part of the hype foreclosure rate and we have not seen the same level of construction. i'm not saying that these are a bubble, but if one were to look for a bubble like this, you might want to get looking at some of the individual communities. >> thank you, very much. mark? >> thank you for inviting me to this symposium. i want to thank my fellow panelist that we have worked with before and i am looking forward to meeting you guys. so the title of my presentation -- let's try again. a new metaphor. i hesitate to say anything critical of the fed because i know what really went play with an issue. but i had a couple of annoying things. those of you that know me know that i like to shine a light on today's financial terms. and i came up with this, if you remember, the doctor, doctor doolittle, the doctor that could talk to animals. and i am fine to look this up in wikipedia. it's a combination of a gazelle and a unicorn and it had feathers on both sides of its body. one exaggeration is a talk at the same time without being part of this. i think that the fed has been a little bit pushing and pulling in recent months. i mean, in, i'm getting out, i'm back in. it's along those lines. but they are starting to come in and we have seen the effects and we talk about tapering and the rates going up. and we have chase and jpm. wells fargo is down 63. a few of you have smaller regional banks that were reported yesterday and it hasn't been as great. and why is that? refinancing is really dried up. and you actually refinance.not really hasn't happened. for the reason that they have mentioned, talking about tapering mast and the market in the rates went up. so why am i slightly annoyed at this? i think that as we mentioned thousands of people got fired. and so at the top of the market, the mortgage market employed just a little bit over 500,000 people. at the bottom of the market, less than 250,000 people. students the way to run this devastation that has been. in more recent times it has come up to 260,000. and now we are seeing lots more findings and this is kind of something where people lose their jobs and i think it's a bad thing. it is something called mortgage city and how many people bought to work with the business and what they would correspond here. back 20 years ago it was albuquerque new mexico. the most recent one that i have done and this is what i was plotting at that point as well. thinking that if we ever get the population to move to saskatchewan, we will be in really big trouble. [laughter] hopefully it won't go that far. it is something we are going to think about. the rates have dropped slightly and it was 4.23 for 30 years and lower than the recent high. so we will see more refinancing during the fourth quarter and we will have to see about that and stay tuned. this is something that pushed me into the industry. let's talk about the purchase mortgage business and we will talk about this just a tiny bit. i was at a conference in detroit and a little bit about new orleans as well. i don't think i could possibly have perceived that we could have suffered as with two of our greatest cities, but we did with new orleans. and it was more economic with detroit. so i am happy to see some clear capital numbers there as well. detroit was number two for home price increases. it was up 4.3% for the quarter, 23% for the year. of course, that is up to historic levels. prices are still down two thirds from the market higher in the average price for home sales is 107,000, but it is really low as you know. the increase of sales indicates to me indicates that there will be more in of sales in detroit around the country as well and that will lead to an increase of the purchase mortgage market. and i was thinking about what could we do to help the city of detroit. there was a group that invited me call mortgage builder and they were based just outside of detroit. and they decided to have their meeting downtown. so i wanted to give a shout out to kevin smith and suggest that as part of the meetings and let's meet in detroit, it's a beautiful city in really one of the crown jewels of america and it's interesting to see how much it has been hurt. so the purchase of the mortgage business, this is the key. the key to success. including what causes the mortgage boom to bust. and jack jackpot is when you have this at once. so we have a steadier drop the we are working on now, and prices are up in just about every nsa in the country. and if there is no more push or pull, there could be a small chance of that happening. so i wanted to share with you what i was looking at and i have a copy of the honda numbers. a percentage of the minorities or 16.6% in 2012. and that's down slightly from 17% from 2011 and i think 2.7% in 2010. these are really good numbers. treading water might be a good response to that is always a little bit funky, is up 50% which is up from $4.4 trillion, so i think that is probably this affect going on. i haven't been able to analyze the data. so we are watching this and next week's newspaper as well. the final metaphor to push for you, and i think this is quite wise, if an animal has two heads on either side of its body, it will

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Louisiana , Japan , Philippines , Nevada , Turkey , China , Indiana , Wisconsin , Zimbabwe , Oregon , Washington , District Of Columbia , United Kingdom , West Virginia , Arizona , New Orleans , Maine , New Jersey , Baghdad , Iraq , Houston , Texas , Chicago , Illinois , Woodinville , New Yorker , Britain , Americans , America , British , American , Pat Fitzgerald , Lin Downie , James Rosen , Jim Rosen , Kurt Wimmer , David Sanger , Salomon Smith Barney , Chelsea Manning , John Conyers , Kevin Smith , Frank Reese , Ben Bernanke , Snowden Lakes Al Jazeera , Edward Snowden , M Jay Brinkmann , Matt Damon , Joel Simon , Desmond Lachman , Rajiv Chandrasekaran , Stephen Moore , Ted Poe , Dwight Mcdonald ,