ran out. what ends up happening is nothing happens and nothing happens and nothing happens and then over the course of a weekend, you get the explosion in the bond markets. then you wake up and you have no then you wake up and you have no banks, no credit, you have a system where all, people realize you are broke because you spend more money than you had, not for a month, not for a year, not for a decade, but for several decades. part of what the u.s. is doing right now, which is very healthy, is just recognizing how big the problem can be before we reach a situation like that faced by iceland or ireland or greece or spain or portugal or perhaps italy and france. if we can solve this, if we can get democrats and republicans to say, ok, look, we do not like the increase in revenues, we do not like the cuts in the programs, but we will have to blend these two alongside economic growth.

if we can do the three things together, it is manageable, with some pain, but we get on with the debate. if the u.s. were able to do that, if it could just show the sign where it is bending that deficit curve, this becomes the world's reserve currency again and we can get on with funding our schools, funding our infrastructure, funding economic growth. the other thing we have to do is, frankly we are spending so much money in the last three years of life, the last five years of life, the last 10 years of life, versus what we are spending at the beginning. we are not spending the money on basic nutrition, basic vaccines, basic preschool, basic education, and it is the difference between investing on compound interest in 50 years versus in months. >> i want to get your reaction from a comment on laura on

facebook who said the adaptation is to invest in carefully credentialed science investments >> your quick thoughts on that? >> i could not agree more. we have to discover new things, as opposed to, many scientists are very conservative. they move in these incremental steps because they do not want to be wrong. there are a few who are just great radical entrepreneurs. they are the steve jobs, the benjamin franklins, the creators who take these wild bets and sometimes the bets pay off.

i completely agree with laura. we should be funding a whole series of things that are carefully researched science but are mavericks. there are institutions, like some of the stuff the pew foundation does, that do exactly that. they have some of the highest payoffs. >> let's get some quick comments from our viewers. >> i agree with the things you said about organic and the same people that want to promote organic also want to preserve the amazon. but if you have a 6000 cow dairy, 2,000 gallons of pure protein. that is a benefit, and if it is usable, the bottom line is, the mothers of america by the milk, the consumers drive profits. how we educate them?

had we combat emotion in perception with science and education? >> what is happening in iowa, which is really interesting, it used to be your choice as to what you create per acre. it was pretty limited. you were a corn farmer or a soy farmer. there is so much more opportunity to create the, fiber, medicine. we are able to transform life. i think some of the richest areas of the country are going to be those that can produce the highest value added per acre. but the options are tenfold or

hundredfold. that is why education is so important. the choices for every kid in iowa or in north dakota, for every kid in south dakota, are so much more varied, so much more interesting and productive per acre that we are going to see some very large transformations to come. i suspect these will be some of the richer areas in the country, if they apply the science and technology. >> let's go to one more call from kentucky on the republican line. >> the deficit and all spending by the government must be appropriated within the house of representatives. within that body of 435 men and women, there is only one real scientists, one from mit. most of them are lawyers. this seems to be part of the problem. if only we could get more scientists like yourself and

others in positions of power within the house to appropriate or not appropriate and reduce that deficit, i believe that we would find a broader pass in the future. your comments, please. >> i think you are absolutely right. i think science literacy is becoming more and more important, in the same way as somebody needs to know basic geography or basic history or basic music. the ability to understand why robotics is important. it is the difference between a region having a rich, robust market and not having it. absolutely congress should have more people who are science literate. people in congress work hard and work long hours.

they are faced with very hard decisions. but i get really upset when 90% of the debate that comes about, either cut it all or raise the taxes on everything. all the oxygen goes out of the room and you stop debating all the stuff that is really important. let's just get on with it. we have had two major wars and have been promising people a lot of stuff. we do have to cut some programs, but whose programs? we promise people too much. but we have to get on with this and start growing in taking the opportunity of all these incredible young brains in the united states or that want to come to the united states to continue to build the world's greatest economy. >> juan enriquez, joining us this evening from newton, massachusetts. thanks for spending time with us. >> thank you so much. >> the conversation continues on

line with our facebook question about the deficit and the growth of scientific research. you can go to facebook.com/cspan to post your comments and questions. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> hello, everyone. welcome. this is your brain on the internet. today is monday, april 8, and it is just after 3:00 p.m. my name is alan carmichael. i work with the boulder weekly. i would ask you to please check your cellphone and make sure it is turned off. we want to be sure that all cell phones are turned off at this time. thanks for coming. i will briefly introduce our panelists and we will get underway. to my left is michael, he is a

writer and philosopher. he has written many books and published in lots of amazing magazines. further down is thomas hardaway, a u.s. army veteran of 31 years. he now works as a child and adolescent psychiatrist and has a long tenure of working with children. charles love is right down there. he is a field professional in both geology and anthropology. he spent over 36 years practicing archaeology on easter island. our fourth panelist is not going to be able to make it today. for that information, check the website. we have a great panel and to start things off, i will hand it over to michael. >> the good afternoon.

i am going to stand up because i am too short for people in the back to sea. let me ask, can the people in the back hear me ok? the people in the back, can you raise your hand if you are hearing me clearly? thank you, much better. all right, so i am going to address that question, this is your brain on the internet, by first asking what that word "on" means. what does it mean to say your brain is on the internet? there are a two usages. you are basically looking at your gadget, transfixed to your iphone or your computer or

whatever other gadget you are using. there is enormous literature on the impact of that. there are dozens of books are doing whether our use of smart phones and the internet are making us dumber, more isolated, smarter. for most people, i think that is what it means to say that your brain is on the internet. that the internet is doing something to you as you are using it. but there is a second usage that is less common, which i have spent the most time writing and thinking about. that is the physical integration of humans and machines. let me explain where i come from.

i am a dual cochlear implant user. i have been truly deaf since 2001. at that time i got a cochlear implant in my left ear. there is a string of 16 electrodes that are surgically threaded into my inner ear, lying flat against the auditory nerve of my inner ear. there are extra processes with this device whose job is to pick up sound waves, digitize them, and send them to a radio transmitter that is in that little round thing. here is the battery that controls the system. so what i have inside my head and outside my head connect and work together a bit like this.

that just sticks there. stupid implant tricks. [laughter] what it is doing is sending a radio signal through my skin to the implant and it is embedded in my skull just underneath the skin. you cannot really see it from the distance you are sitting at, but the 16 electrodes are inside my ear. i wrote a book about this that came out in 2005. the basic outcome of that book for me was that it is possible to put electronics into a human body and make that body believe that it is having a sensory experience. that is what happened to me.

that is what a cochlear implant does. it makes my brain believed that it is hearing the sound. when i think of putting your brain on the internet, is it possible to put devices inside the human body that allow us to physically, in terms of the brain, connect to the internet? can we connect our actual brains physically to the global internet? is it possible? is it feasible? is it desirable? what would it do to us? let me quickly outline some of the things that it might do to us. i spent a lot of time investigating the physical possibility of doing this. with today's technology, we cannot do what we would call mind reading in any real sense. it is difficult to look at the

nerve firing of neurons in the brain. it means the brain is thinking about an apple. that kind of thing is possible to a limited extent with things like magnetic resonance imager is. it is impossible to think of a person -- to tell if a person is thinking yes or no, if they are making a decision to add or to subtract something. it is possible to reconstruct what they are actually seeing by looking at the neural activity in the back of the brain. but that is not really mind reading in a real sense. that is an attempt to correlate your activity with something that user is doing. but the second book that i wrote, i try to push that further, and to outline a scenario of how could actually put our brain on the internet.

i said at the outset, it doesn't mean that you can read minds. the only way to know the inner experience of the brain is to be the owner of that rain. nonetheless, i argued in my book that it is possible, in theory, to extract information about neural firing, infer from that what experience the brain is having, send that signal to another brain, and repeat the sequence in reverse, so that person has a simulacrum of what the center experienced or felt or salt. person experienced or felt or saw. it is conceptually just beginning to become possible to talk about doing such a thing. if i have electronic implants in

my brain, i can send the word apple over the internet to your device, which would make your brain believe that you are seeing an apple. the question is, what is the point? it is a bit like talking about e-mail in 1993. when i first thought about e- mail, i thought it is just a faster way to send letters. which is true, but it also profoundly transformed the way we communicate. in this book, i try to be a leading edge of discussion, saying have some way to imagine technology like this. it is hard to do because we are trying to imagine uses of the technology for which no social context exists at the present. i imagine is like kings working together extremely closely, where someone had a sensation or saw something important, everyone else would immediately

know that. when i hear the phrase, this is your brain on the internet, that is what i think about. i try to imagine these kinds of leading-edge technology and where they could go and what that might allow us to do. thank you. [applause] >> am i on the air yet? this is an opportunity that for me has been a little bit unexpected because i come from more of a medical and developmental perspective here. certainly not an electronic one, as my wife will attest to. there is now a rule in the house that i am not allowed to be too

close to anything that has buttons on it. [laughter] from that perspective, i probably would not have very much to contribute. however, as i began to -- the joy of this kind of meeting, the cwa, is it brings people of various backgrounds, and you would not believe the things you get dropped in as a participant. i began to realize just how developmentally for children and adolescents, this has a profound effect. that came home to me a couple of years ago when i was on tour with the children's choir that i work with, and we stated a dormitory which had a lot of odd eccentricities in the cafeteria that were on the wall. it was things like slide rules,

and all my kids all the way up to a senior in high school did not recognize a slide rule. that seems kind of odd to really perceive that. in addition, they had a big cabinet on the wall, and it was a card catalog from a library. my seniors and juniors recognized that, but i did not ask them. i said anyone under the age of 12, tell me what that is. all sorts of interesting answers. nobody even began to get a clue to what that was. they would say it obviously has drawers in it, it could hold letters. is it a letter sorter? to listen to this conversation going on was very interesting. when we finally tell them what it was for, that you had little cards in their that was each a link to a book or a journal of

some sort, there were absolutely amazed. really? you mean you made a card up for each book in the library? there was this kind of thinking that you could tell from people who had already been exposed to something where linked to something that is almost real time. it is reflected in the way they perceive other things that i had not really thought about before. i asked everybody under the age of 10, what was the big books, and they stared at it and not quite sure. it was a telephone book. [laughter] the older ones, some of them had seen one because they still get distributed from time to time, but practically speaking, at least where i am in texas, they serve no practical purpose the way they used to. it was just such an anachronism, something that was just a question marks for these kids.

when i read the topic, the brain on the internet, i was thinking about those old commercials where they had scrambled eggs and it is your brain on cocaine or whatever it was. i thought maybe this was something about the evils and the toxicity of the internet and the like. it brought home to me that as children and adolescents begin to think in terms of how they organize information, how they access information, this really is a different way of accessing and organizing information in many ways. when we think of the developing brain, the critical element of development of course is accessing information, adapting to get, using it to adapt to something out, and going back

and kind of a circle, getting more informations organizing it in your brain and and synthesizing it to go forward. when you think the terms of now how one would access that information, i was thinking more in terms of middle schoolers beginning to learn how to do research in a different way from the way i learned. the biggest trick there would be helping them to discriminate between noise -- and who defines noise? we would define noises being information you don't need. some people would say that is noise. others would say that is very important. the idea always has been when we have a research project, we go out and had a list of references, which over teacher had made for us, or we try to get those references out of other articles. we would go and look for information and we would spend afternoons and morning discriminating and making little note cards of what is and

-- what is noise and what is not relevant to what i am studying, and what is extremely relevant. because i am a middle school, i don't know what is relevant or not. at any level we begin to think in those terms. i am not trying to present a discussion as a lecture as much as i am just throwing things out that might stimulate a question or two that would make some interesting discussion. as i see children who are disordered, who have various psychiatric disorder, from personality to biochemical disorders, is the way they perceive people are interacting with them, how they perceive information that they read and alike, and how they learn in general. i think the idea of being able to discriminate what is important and relevant is important socially. when you think of what we are

really doing, we are editing. those of us who had cameras, we always wished we had enough money to buy tons of film so that we could take all the pictures we wanted to of the interesting things we saw all. but in fact we had to do our editing up front, because we knew we only had three rolls of our kodak film and we have to be careful what we take a picture of. now, of course, with infinite digital photography, you go out and take five pictures of literally everything that comes your way. they say it is easier now to store, but there are thousands of photographs being shared and no one has edited them. you have to take an extra step to edit retrospectively if you want anyone to look at them. so the idea of editing are discriminating are thinking ahead of the information not

only going to procure, but then how are you going to archive that information? when you need to access it from where you archive it, you will run into the problems that i have, and that is that i am of two minds when it comes to whether i have my old notebook. so i write it in here because it is easy to get at. takes so long to push the little buttons there that are not always spelled right. as you are talking about where we have so much available to us that it is overwhelming for us in terms of accessing in using the internet. think of what it is for our children and adolescents. i have a hard time teaching them. they are teaching me.

i had a 4-year-old who came in with adhd, but he was very focused on his new little thing. he was playing all sorts of things and going back and forth from one to the next. i was amazed at the 4-year-old, and i would not have known where to start on his little game. i thought that perhaps of any of you have a question, it might make for good discussion. [applause] >> welcome this afternoon. i want to start this out in any number of different ways. my father always required us for children to be observant, be observant, be observant. and after that, think, for god's sake. the problem is, you never knew what you are supposed to be

observant about. let me give you an illustration of that. here was a man whose mother was a classics graduate from wellesley college, wrote both latin and greek, and she married a sheep herder in central wyoming. only in america. and raised a son who would go on to get his ph.d. from yale. he had a pieces professor named richard foster flint. he took his little nine graduate student slaves and said all right, i want you to be observant. do exactly as i do. and on the table in front of him was a beaker full of a yellow, foamy fluid. he said this is a glass of human urine. i want you to do exactly as i do.

so he reached forward and he stuck his finger in the urine and then licked it off. the nine graduate students lined up and did as they were told. at the end, he said you have all flunked. you are not observant. i put my middle finger in the urine and licked off my forefinger. so not being observed has its payments. that is what i was taught to do. my father said the reason he chose being a geologist in central wyoming was because he did not see much future in the back end of a cow. the only other profession he had ever seen out there were geologist looking for oil, of course, so he did not have much of a choice, he had to become a geologist.

tailor best coat you've ever saw. i want to mention this because of although i do have a variable background, i have taught for 40 years at the college level in rock springs, wyoming. one of the chances that i got was to realize, by being observant, that a handful of wyoming in the end chippings has a certain limitation, at least it does for me. there were 286 registered archaeologists back in about 1975. to do archaeology of wyoming. that was the year that a first went out into the cell pacifica. -- i went out into the south

pacific. i got out there and lo and behold, there were not 10 archaeologists for a third of the plant. if you have a choice, what would you do? do archeology in wyoming which is cold and windy and yellow and frosty and kind of harsh, or would you rather be in the south pacific, which is warm and breezy and green and colorful and sensuous. i did not see much future in a handful of flakes. at any rate, that is how i got involved with the easter island archaeology, and it is on the internet, a lot of it. if you are desperate for entertainment, you can always google easter island charlie love, and you will have more than enough entertainment. i was involved in an excavation on the island that found the first trees. these are giant palm trees, and

only a geologist would find them. nobody had bothered to look before. they were not being observant. i am not extolling the virtues here. when you get enough, the entire island is covered with the palm root molds. they are all contrived. i have not found one that was not contrived. you have to have mystery in the title or it will not sell. so i am sorry but i am really sanguine about documentaries of any source. what i want to get across is that there is a propensity in american culture to seek after mysteries. it is a bottom line. if you want a mystery, it is not how the statues were moved. we have already done that.

we did that 26 years ago. we made up a nine-ton replica, and we moved it standing upright like this, not lying down. that was the first time one had ever been moved in the entire united states. we moved it with 25 people. we put it on a bobsled-like thing and we rolled it forward. we moved it 150 feet in two minutes rolling time. now they are starting to to walk statues. they have not done the archaeology of the roadways. 27 of my students and i went down there and excavated 1,000 feet of roadway, looking for clues as to how they move the statues along these roadways. these young upstarts have not

done the background archaeology on that. the point i am trying to say is, when you see the new documentary on easter island, they will cover the island with trees. the mystery is how and when did it get to easter island in the first place. it produces a coconut a little smaller than a golf ball. and they take two or three years to germinate, and another 800- 1200 years to grow into a mature palm. you cannot recycle them. when you cut one down, it is down forever. easter island is as barren as the desert of wyoming. that is why was a mystery as to how they moved these colossal statues across the island, some of them 14 miles. some of them weigh 86 tons. whenever i give a little talk to engineers, i challenge them.

you can make it five times if you want, and i want you to move in it vertically. the bases of them are always perfect. in order to be an archeologist, you have to be observant. you have to think. don't we all have to do that? everywhere in academics you should be being observant and think. that is the sole contribution i think i've made for four years worth of students, let alone being of field man. get them out there. when you see it in the field, then you have a much better perspective overall of what you are dealing with when it comes to research. i yield the rest of my time. [applause] >> thank you to our panelists for all that. we will open that up to

questions and answers in a moment. if anyone wants to ask a question, you can line up by the microphone in the middle of the room right there. in the meantime, all last a question of the panelists to kind of kick off this portion of our presentation. to borrow a phrase from the late, great roger ebert, we tend to kind of get into our own world as we move along in our careers. for me personally, that in the media business. the rise in popularity of the internet has been a huge factor, and one of the more interesting debates that we have includes long form journalistic stories in the boulder weekly. our people with their of minute

thought patterns that are in general, less attention to detail, more a.d.d. in general, with the internet form. is there room for long stories about important topic anymore? how do we get them to pay attention to, if the keynote speech this morning was written down in a 45-minute speech, excellence. are going to get people to pay attention to this? i just wanted to get some panelists' take on the idea of long form journalism and how you see it being affected by the internet. >> this has been a subject of great debate, how the internet is transforming not only

journalism, but the world of books as well. it is relevant to both of us professionally. you work in the media and i write books. the question is, what is the internet doing to us? i don't know if i am the best example because i constantly read long form journalism. i read more than i ever did because i have access to things on my kindle and ipad. i read more than i did when there were only paper books around. i don't know if i am typical or not. we have a proliferating media landscape with so many different things competing for attention. it's hard for one thing to command national participation. when i was growing up, there were 13 channels on tv.

the weekly news arrived on the doorstep in the morning. i personally am not really one of those people who are scared that the internet is damaging along for. i think it is alive and well. it is so easy and fast and i actually read them. that is my take on this. i did not see it as hurting long form journalism. the question is that the media is changing. i see a bright future here, because it is so easy to distribute books. that can only be positive in the long run for the book industry. but because the meaning has changed, the form has changed. the thing about writing my third book.

i know that the first chapter really has to grab an audience. that is the sample chapter that we download on the candle. i have changed the way i think about the book. >> i think the idea of children and adolescents, and when you think about it, we really are the children and adolescents ourselves, have always had a problem with looking at a long, full story in terms of media. but i recall as i was getting older taking a newspaper and wishing there is more information about something i was interested enough to read. you remember you would start the

first six paragraphs and then it would say continued on 4a or whatever it was. you read some more and then unfortunately it would fizzled or stop. you always want to continue it some more. when it was presented in that kind of format, perhaps that was more enticing than going on to an internet format. we kind of dart around to something we think is interesting, and we try to absorber it completely in quickly and then move on to the next thing. many times i see this happening with children and adolescents, with their perception of a given topic tends to be a little more superficial.

i am not sure i can explain that. i think you bring up a really good point, that to encourage and really push our children and adolescents to look at things critically and to look at it at another level. i believe the internet provides that opportunity, but we as adults, and helping them to develop, have to develop the critical thinking in them and not have them go from topic to topic as you see when you do a google search. you will have 13 of these on a page. the internet affords us the requirements to push our developing young adults to do more critical thinking and look more in-depth and to value someone else who has done that for them and written a long article. >> i certainly agree with the comments you folks have raised. after teaching for 40 years, i have developed some thoughts of my own about that.

over the last two decades, i have watched the ability of my students kind of lower down a little bit. things are not as intense. that have shoveled too much stuff and they don't know what to believe and what not to believe, in part because their parents are not there to question them on it. you have gone from 40 years ago when you had one parent who was employed and the other really taking care of the youngsters and doing other things around house. we have now gone to two job workers, and the kids are left by themselves. the end result is they find other ways to entertain themselves. certainly by television, which is abysmal as far as i am concerned, in terms of content. you do have some programs that are okay, but they are scientifically abysmal, too.

they don't give enough detail on these things and you cannot find them. you have to have patience. your critical thinking skills have to be alive, and that is something we are not teaching children. look at congress. that is a grown-up version, and the end result is a rhetorical question, how many of you think the country is certainly on a downward spiral because we don't have a congress that does anything? they do have patience, right up until they get their pay check. so i am kind of discouraged. i think it comes from child raising. i think have the responsibility -- half the responsibility is on the parents to make sure their children do it. not only that, do what?

one of the things i've found over and over again, number one, i find the form kids to be the most responsible. that is because if you are on a farm or a ranch in your mom or dad says you have to go feed the cattle, you better go do that. if you don't, it is not going to get done, and you jeopardize the welfare of the family when you do that. ranch kids are the most responsible. you give them an assignment and it comes back the next day. but city kids find all kinds of ways of putting it off. that is because you have so many friends and peers. the ranch kids do not have as many. there are fewer distractions. another difference is in the actual ability. those parents who have taught the kids to read out loud in the

evening a story, read back to them. not only are they more articulate, they are less has a 10th over many of the words, and i eat out. doesn't get done? that is the problem. i think we have a lot of ills. it is a matter of being responsible and teaching responsibility. how do you do that? [applause] >> we will now open it up to questions from the audience. keep in mind this is just for questions, not statements, so go ahead. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you for speaking to us. my question s, now that devices

like smart phones have put the infinite storehouse of human knowledge in each of our pockets, the ability to immediately reference any skeptics that we don't know about or are unfamiliar with, has not undermined the necessity for learning in remembering information and underlining the value of critical thinking. >> is the undermining our ability to come up with things on our own? >> that is that a fascinating question that you ask. this kind of question has been asked for 2500 years. it is not a new question. 2400 years ago, plato wrote a dialogue where he complained that the existence of -- these new youngsters are going to someone and gaining knowledge,

they would rather read a scroll by themselves and learn that way and not talk to people. it is as old as technology itself in many ways. is it changing our ability to remember things? i would say yes. but again, it has always been constant, media driven change. in pre literature societies that did not have writing, it was a tremendously valued skill. you have to minimize risk of all your ancestors going back that far. it is a sign of spiritual dedication. we live in a time with instant access to facts. i think the tv show "jeopardy" is a really good example of that. it is the ability to memorize useless facts and spit them out of command.

ibm has developed a program which is as good as inix. what it does is free us to develop new kinds of skills. this is what technology has always done. it has always change the kind of landscape in which we live. you always have old-timers, while the youngsters develop new skills that are as powerful and more profound than anything that has gone before. i think the tv show "jeopardy" is a really good example of that. it is the ability to memorize useless facts and spit them out of command. ibm has developed a program which is as good as inix. what it does is free us to develop new kinds of skills.

this is what technology has always done. it has always change the kind of landscape in which we live. you always have old-timers, while the youngsters develop new skills that are as powerful and more profound than anything that has gone before. it has changed the way we think about information, retrieve and redistribute information. i think that is good in many ways. so what if kids grow up not remembering what the capital of florida is. i think more valuable skill is to teach kids how to look that up. we can now spend less time teaching kids how to minimize -- memorize and more time to think about the available information, including its

reliability. just the fact that is on the wikipedia does not mean it is right. [applause] >> i would really like to weigh in for just a moment on this really profound question. if i know where the information is, why do i need to remember it or memorize it? i remember coming through medical school and we had these big books. i remember looking kind of bewildered and people said you don't really have to remember all that stuff and memorize it, you just need to know where it is so you can look it up. >> i always thought, number one, i have a 15-minute appointment with a patient, so that is not going to work. information is something you really have in your brain for several reasons. one is that you are constantly synthesizing other information with what you have already got.

if all the information is not here, so that when you add additional information -- my dad used to say i will give you the skeleton upon which to add all the information you are going to get from now on. and that skeleton needs to be added to. one thing i've noticed in children of adolescence and other adults is that a lot of times we have a lot of disdain for things we don't need immediately. why should i have to read heart of darkness or play-doh? i am going to go out and be an information management technician. when i talk to kids about that, why do we really need this music? why do i need to select text that we are seeing? and the children come and say i

am going to be this or that, i don't need all this other information, it means that they lose out on all that thinking that will have to be done for the world around them. if they don't know who plato was or all these other things, or have not memorize the basic skills, that is how silly this sounds. you cannot really get into algebra and do that until all this operational information is at your fingertips. that is why it is so important that the pre operational information, which is facts, figures, are at your fingertips, so that when you do the more

formal thinking, you now have that information right in the unit in this casserole that keeps getting more complex and more contexture early integrated with what you are going to be doing all your life, which will be continuous learning and sharing the benefits of that with those around you that we serve. [applause] >> i find my students like these smartphones for really one reason of good use. where and when was magellan killed? they find out it was 1520. can you tell me why he was hacked to pieces? >> cannot find it, there is no analysis. you can find a point of information, but you cannot find an analysis. isn't there.

[applause] >> do we have anymore questions? go ahead. speak a little closer to the mike. >> your cochlear implant, that is a most recent step in advancement of more closely integrating technology with our other capabilities. that is only going to become more extensive in the future, which will have implications for learning or how we access information for adolescent development. when the neural system was more plastic, what kind of indications might that have for

how you think and process information? >> the question was, in relation to michael's implant and his one example of how new, modern technology is evolving us and the world, so just your thoughts on those implications. >> i have a lot of thoughts on that. i am just trying to figure out which stocks to pick up on first because it is a very general question. ok, here is one of the key points that i try to make when i talk with people about new neural technologies and what they make possible. i think that when a lot of people imagined a bionic future, that basically imagine what we

do today, only bigger, better, and faster. we get to see in the dark, hear the old resound, run in the dark. this is superhero fantasy thinking. the thing that new technologies do is they don't just let us do what we do now, only better. there are entirely new things that could not have been imagined before. this is the kind of thinking that i try to write about in my books and articles. i try to imagine different kinds of futures.

in a very specific way, gathering information from one brain, a person is happy, anxious, fearful, sad. that is the kind of information that we get for encrypting this. over the internet, that kind of information is fairly sparse. e-mail is prone to contusion. they have access to each other's emotional status. i think that could be very powerful collectively or in groups. we never know how a group of people feeling at a given moment. i visited a patient during the arab spring on twitter. there was a flood of tweets. outrage, fear, shock, anger, hope. that was the kind of collective communication that i had never

seen before. the collected feelings of a large group of ordinary people. brain surgery is no trivial thing. it would allow a form of collective communication. >> we can take the next question. go ahead. >> my roommate works at a montessori preschool. they don't do any sort of video recordings or even listen to recorded music because they think children need space to

come up with things on their own. my little cousins are light 4, and they have their little ipad. i don't really have a good way of raising that question, but what do you think? >> it is about cognitive development of young people with access to the toys that we have now. >> i appreciate that question, because i think that the question was asked in such a way that a decision would be implied that either this is a good or bad thing.

i suppose everybody has had problems with new things that have come along and said now what is going to happen to our children. plato bemoaned that with just the art of writing. many times people have that discussion on that level. that is we should not have any of these things, or we should. and what will that do? it has so much to do with what we do with that and what the parents and the teachers do with that. it is possible, like with anything else, if you don't have limits in your home. the toxicity that is potentially coming from the internet is mindboggling.

the beneficial nature of 83-0 or 4-year-old learning, it depends on what they give that kid. what kind of material, just like it was with paper and pencil and everything else. it is important for us to have that reading aloud and being read to and all those things. as mike said, if we can decide at the adult level, how can i use this technology to push us forward. that would be great. like anything else, once we put our eggs into one basket and say it is electronics that will make it happen or the lack of electronics that will keep us in good shape, then we are getting away from the real question. we need to pay attention to these children and constantly synthesizing and how best to do that. that speaks to a lot of parents

that i come in contact with that are now very unwilling or fearful of putting limits on any of these things. and i say, well, what does your child do if he's not doing his homework? he spends about phi hours on the internet or with his friends, he's got 200 friends. i don't think he's ever met any of them or talked to them really but he's got 200 of them, whatever they are. you would think this that would be a no brainer in terms of your response to that parent. and yet, many of us, the children have decided the limits. "i'm not finished yet. i've only been on for an hour." they get bent out of shape because they're literally addicted to that, or they're addicted to the television. and i think that we can teach our kids from the beginning, here are the elements. and it can start as a 3-year- old. montessori school, i'm surprised, hopefully that's not a montessori policy, all over mont sore re, i would think he mont sore rewould be the first ones to say, how do we teach the kids to utilize that and use

that in an efficient and effective way and then how do we teach them to use other things as well? so i think one of the big things we're going to be ending up teaching this generation is how to balance our lives. and it's really a metaphor. balancing our lives with electronics, versus the weas of learning we had before, only a metaphor for balancing our lives in so many other things as we grow up.[applause] >> i'd like to offer some thoughts on that question. i was sanguine in my last two answers about technology, it's new things, that's great, but there are also reasons for concern, as have always been the case with new technology. when presenting came out, the

catholic church was concerned, and they were right to be, because the protestant reformation detieror ated the power of the catholic church. there's always things to be worried about. but today the things to be worried about, i think, is how people form intimate bonds. i think smart phones are incredibly addictive. we are addicted. my wife is always trying to pry me away from my iphone because it is so end lessless fascinating -- endlessly fascinating. there's always another story to

read, another emale, at "new york times" thing. it's compelling. so you just stare at your iphone. there are a number of bobbings that have accumulated some data that this is changing the way we form intimate relationships. enge of sherry turkle's book, "alone together," she talks about psychological profiles of children over the last 20 years, examining the way they form friendship, the number of friendships, the way they

interact and she sees a declean in the quality of relationships, which is well worth worrying about. so this is something that i talk about in my own writing. imagine this high tech future, all these really -- all this realy cool stuff, the problem was that that would be even more addictive than the iphones we have now. it raises the possibility of a future where people live in synthesized worlds and sit alone in their own rooms having virtual relationships and nothing else. i think we really do have to be concerned about a future like that. i was thinking about this when i

was writing the book. one thing i stated was, i took meditation workshops. weekend workshops where you go away to a resort in northern california which is where this was happening, and do exercises with other participants like, sit down, face to face and lock someone in the eyes for 60 seconds. that's actually really hard to do. it's valuable to me to have that coined of practice in encountering the other. i was trying to juxtapose a high tech, low touch future, with a high touch, low tech future and trying to say, it is possible to

forge a world where wen have both technology and the intimatity -- intimacy of human communication together. it is not impossible to imagine a future in which these things can happen. [applause] >> i would add only a rhetorical question to that, and that is, can an iphone or -- excuse me. or a smart phone build word pictures in the mind of a listener? or are the pictures already shown you so you are forced to

see the images that are built rather than to manufacture them yourself. which would you prefer? one is fast, the other takes a little skill. >> thank you. next question, please. >> thank you. do you think -- because i've heard reports that a lot of young people, this is, there's more suicides. do you think too much technology might be -- hoith be one of the problems to that? >> the we was, you know, being there's a supposed rise in suicides in young people, you know, do you think technology plays a role in this trend?

>> i was just saying that there's a kind of clinical or practical aspect, answer to that question, or discussion of that question. but i'm very interested in knowing about mike's philosophical take on it in general as well. when you hear of a high profile suicide, they been in the context of someone being cyberbullied, i think is the term now, where the essential herbal -- social interactions within something like facebook and the like, are so out there and open that what used to occur, back biting in the halls of our schools among children or among high schoolers or middle schoolers, that remane there is, so that it was more of a rumor thing, very painful and destructive even then, but now it takes on the role in terms of

the facebook type of socialization where any time anyone feels something, it just splatters, not to another person about the ore person but -- or not to that person directly. but it splatters to the hundred people that happen to be stopping in on somebody's facebook, plus, i dwess, the hundreds of friends of those friends. and the whole idea is, is that people -- one of my professors used to tell me when we were coming out with power point slides and i was able to make slides and put together a presentation very quickly and he said, you know, the bad thing about power point is that you take your ideas and you can have a very interesting and very beautiful looking presentation, but it allows you to be very premature and perhaps not even have thought about what you're going to say because you can co- it so quickly and ease he. we used to have to craft the slides and have to do our notes and you know -- a lot of research. he said, i'd rather you not add to the noise out there. do this again and think about it. and i was -- i was very insulted and hurt. but i think the lesson i learned was that he could tell that i had not really thought this through. even if it was an error or whatever, at least he wanted something that reflected some careful thinking about what i was going to say. on the internet, the problem with that is that there's so much -- i made a note here, of premature -- how many of us have sent an email in response to a message immediately and then we did it so quickly, that it literally did not necessarily reflect and perhaps done damage because we can't take it back. and the same thing even a hundred fold son social media in terms of the things that people say. when you think of the number of or put on photos. think of the implications of putting a photo out in public, i mean, we have parents that cringe at somebody else having a photo of their kid if they don't know who it is, think of millions of people having access to that and not being able to take that back. if anything, i think that from a clinical perspective in terms of increase in suicides, i wondered, how can you be cyberbullied? it's one thing to be on a playground and have somebody bigger than you are beat you up,

i understand that, but i can't quite understand how you'd be cyberbullied because you don't have to listen to that, you just turn it off. how can somebody cyberbully you to the point of suicide. the way that happens, after i thought about it, is the humiliation and anything -- even if it's not true. there's no way to take that back. and now enstead of being humiliated to yourself and to your fantasy about who else knows about this or who else has heard this, you don't have to fantsoys, you know thousands of people out there have seen this. and that is one of the tox exthings i see in the social media the way it's organized now and the tox exthing about being able to speak your piece on mail and on that media, immediately before you've even had a chance to think about it and the destruction possibilities are very real. >> thank you. >> i have a followup on that same point, google is coming out with -- fwoogle is coming out

with their new google tpwhrass, life with subtitelts as they imagine it, with your camera and recorder on and we already have the memory capability now that not only a goog -- not only google takes a picture but google records my every weaking moment and everything i see. i'm wondering if we as people are going to put up with any time we step out on the street, every action, every word we say in peculiar, may be recorded for all time, may not ever get looked up but now every gaffe, every stupid thing you to, is now recorded and i'm wondering what your thoughs are, if we're going to be able to put up with that? >> thanks. the question related to the new fwoogle tpwhrasses product, and what your thoughts are on the ramifications of a product of that nature.

>> well, i'm fascinated by google tpwhrasses. i can't wait to get a crack at it myself. i think it's a thought experiment, you can't imagine the uses to which it will be put. the practical experience i have for this is that, i interviewed a guy who has been using a version of google glasses for many, many years. he built himself a rig where he's got these glasses that he can see a projected computer screen hanging in front of him

in space. he has a keyboard in his pocket he can take notes on any conversation and then look up those notes when he meets that person 10 or 15 years later and pick up the conversation where it left off. so i think that kind of technology which gives you that incredibly instant access, you don't even have to remember, it's going to have positive effects and negative ones. i think one of the potentially negative ones is that kind of distraction. so this guy is kind of hyper. when i was talking to him, i just knew that he was reading stuff off the screen that only he could see while talking to me at the same time. so he had kind of a permanent case of adhd that's entirely technologically mediated. on the other hand, a deaf person, that could be useful, i would love to see live, accurate captions of what people say in noisy rooms. i think the way things like tra

gone naturally speaking, the way that works, it's not impossible. when somebody asks a question that i can't entirely peck up, i'd love to see something like that. i think it would be great in the way individuals and groups can collaborate to give're people access to your information, to create new kinds of teamwork that today would seem magical to us. it's really, as with any technology, there's dangers and benefits at the same time. google tpwhrasses, i'm pited about the benefits and really interested to see what the dangers are. >> i wanted to touch on one point that isn't specifically along the google tpwhrasses but

along the idea of children, adolescents, who are not aware of the implications of what they put on, in terms of photos or maybe keeping track of min-to- minute what they're toning with their -- minute-to-minute what they're doing with their lives and now i suppose everybody has had this experience, when you go in for an interview for a job, you've been googled. i had an attorney we were going to do business with at home and i set it up and so i was talking to the lady at the desk, she was an assistant, and she said, oh, hello, i said i'm going to send the information you need. she said, i've already got it. i said, what have you got? well, i've got your address and everything and where you're working, that kind of stuff. i looked at some of the things you've written, very interesting. i began getting kind of chilled. i was just trying to think, what else have i put on the internet? and when i think of some of the kids who very playfully because they could do this playfully before, put up crazy pictures of themselveses or share that with a friend, what happens when the

12-year-old texts something or puts an increept -- but puts a picture they western they had never done and the person applies for a certain school or applies for any kind of job and revels in the indiscretions they've had at a certain point. that's the toxic, scary things i think of in terms of recording every event and having it for the peculiar. >> on the subject of scary and hopeful, is there any use of the technology being used to partially rewire, partially help the children you find that have problems? it seems like some of the things that -- some of the problems children have are a wiring thin in their brain almost. is there anything being done that's hopeful? >> the extent to which neurorow transmitters and pathways are getting -- become more crystallized in ters of the assessment tools that are used, in terms of the use of glucose in the brain, lights up certain pathways which is just incredible.

it hopes -- opens up whole new ways of thinking about brain disorders. and certainly the idea, i don't know if it was you that mentioned brain mapping earlier, but somebody did, but that whole idea lends itself very much to the use of technology in terms of the way we're changing the effect on the receptors in certain pathways, we do that with medications right now and a lot of times it's extremely helpful, almost scary how helpful it is to take someone in the midst of a bipolar man exrage, an episode, and it's not a matter of calming them down, putting them to sleep or

drugging them out, it's a matter of the mother the next day says i've got my child back. it just totally, it's gone. and so the extent to which the represent re-septemberors are affected by neurotransmitter replacements is a very real phenomenon. the idea that technologically we may be do a parallel to what's been described by mike, in materials of ideal odgic and other devices, the vista is wide open but wru to the talking to an expert, i'm talking philosophically, as i say, anything that has buttons on it, i'm not supposed to be close to. >> context, microphones, is my mike snon let's talk about context. there was a study that asked how many neurons is it possible to

track, between 1960 and now. he went through literature and found out the number of neurons that can be individually watched in the brain is doubling about every seven years. that's an obvious analogy to moore's law. in stevenson's law, the number of trackable neurons doubles about every seven year. it's hard to track now -- it's possible to track between 60 and 200 neurons simultaneously in the brean. but even -- but every seven years if that number doubles, by 2040, 2050, it may be eable to track thousands or tens of thousands of neurons in the brain and have a much richer understanding of what gos on in the brain in devastating disorders like par kenson's epilepsy and others and be able to treat them. >> we've reached the time limit. give a warm welcome to our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up a look at the potential effect of the health

care law on insurance premiums. and the c.e.o. of america's natural gas alliance on natural gas export >> live coverage at 9 -- 9:15 a.m. eastern on c- span2. friday, jack lew leads an event examining a report. you can see it live starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> when you first arrived four years ago, i'm sure you never imagined that at the end of that

time, there would be a lady behind a podium talking to you in a funny accent.[laughter] this accent has been the bane of my existence until in 19 0 i-- 1980, imoved to new york from england and met henry kissinger and he said to me, don't ever worry about your accent. in american public life you can never underestimate the advantages of complete and total incomp rehenceability.[laughter] >> this weekend, more stories and advice for a new graduating class with commencement speeches from government officials friday neeth at 8:00 eastern, f.b.i. director robert mueller, fed chairman ben bernanke, maryland governor martin o'malley, florida governor rick scott, attorney general eric holder and newtown, connecticut, selectman patricia llodr. on saturday, c.e.o.'s. apple co-founder steve wozz knee yak.

arianna huffington. and former president bill clinton. >> the group center forward coming up on "washington journal," scott paul of the more than aleeps for manufacturing on the state of manufacturing and job creation in the u.s. thullingfrut ever -- then federal regulatory commission chairman jon wellinghoff. then a look at the trends of school violence, crimes and safe the. our guests are my call planty, and nirvi shah. washington journal live every morning at 7:00 eastern. >> the group center forward released a study on the health care law's potential impact on

insurance premiums in sex states. next, a discussion of that report with former congressional budget office director douglas stafin and earl pomeroy. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good morning. i'm bud cramer, former member of congress, chame of the board of center forward. we welcome you to our program this morning. as i hope you know, center forward as existed now for three years, we're all about discussions, we're all about across the aisle conversations in this hyper partisan atmosphere we have up on the highlight here. we think it's important for an organization like center forward to bring panel discussions together over issues that are currently very important to the american public, very important to those policymakers on the hill as well system of we view our role as aiding and assisting and providing information and today is about providing information as well. we bring together in other, smaller programs, we bring together members of congress from both sides of the aisle,

beth sides of the hill, we bring together staff we invite associations, not for profits, corporations, union representatives as well to come in with topical conversations. our stake holders support us and we appreciate that support. this has been a die nam exeffort on our part, those of us that left the hill and moved downtown are eager to see that centrist conversations occur this this particularly difficult atmosphere. so today is about education. we pvide educational lambs for the general public as well. as i made reference a few seconds ago work elike to produce information. today's issue is health care. center forward has come together with milliman incorporated to produce a study looking a how

certain aspects of the affordable care act will affect health care premiums for americans going forward and already there's a lot of demagoguery, a lot of information out there, slants on that information about the affordable care act and health care premiums as well. we will see today a presentation. jim o'connor is here to lead that presentation he flew in from chicago to lead the presentation this morning and then essentially we will have a reaction to jim's presentation as well by our other panelists. is i want to make you awear of who is participating in this pral. at the end of the program, there will be time for questions from

the audience and we'll make sure we fwrd our time to a certain extent to make sure that that happens. but the first panelist is jim o'connor, to my immediate left. let's warmly welcome jim and doug and earl pomeroy as well to our program this morning. jim is a principal and consulting actuary with milliman he has considerable experience consulting in the individual health and small group insurance markets and has been very involved in assessing the potential impact of health care reform and the various provisions of the affordable care act. so it's very relevant to the conversation this morning. he has provided insight with -- insight with regard to the implement eags of the affordable care act, to the national association of insurance commissioners, the and the society of actuaries among others. briefly, before jim presents, we have doug holtz' kin with us this morning. doug currently serves as president of the american action forum, having previously served

as the chief economist of the president's council of economic advisors. he was the sixth director of the nonpartisan congressional budget office and also served as director of domestic and economic policy of john mccain's effort to be president. doug, welcome to this program this morning. then we have earl pomeroy joining us, earl, a former member of congress, currently serves as senior counsel at austin and bird, brings 26 years of regulatory and legislative experience to today's panel. proof perfect that we continue to learn information that we don't know as well as i know this nine-term former member, i

did not know he served as north dakota insurance commissioner and he was president of the national association of insurance commissioners. so earl, a welcome presence here this morning. jim i'm going to turn the presentation over to you now. jim o'connor. >> thanks. the affordable care act, of course, we've heard a lot about it and what its potential impacts can be and what milliman has done is we, on behalf of center fwrd, they retained us to look at six specific states as to what those impacts might be. and the states we looked at were arizona, florida, illinois, new jersey, ohio, and wisconsin.

each of those states presents its own type of characterist exs. one of the things when we're talking about change going from 2013 to 2014, is regulatory environment, the current regulatory environment of each state right now. each of these states varies somewhat in their current regulatory environment. in particular, new jersey, is a has regulations different than the other five states that i mentioned. in that many of the reforms that are being required through the a.c.a., the affordable care act, are already in effect in states like new jersey. that's one reason we chose a state like that, to see a state that's already passed the underwriting regulations compared to those that have not yet passed those. and there's significant differences certainly in what we'll see as impacts. our analysis included looking at the men mum ben fete coverage, essential benefits required under the a.c.a. the maximum and step levels of member cost shares or the actual values you may here. premium rating restrictions regarding age, gender, the fact

that you're no longer going to be able to rate by health status and some other insured characterist exs and the fact that coverage is now going to be guaranteed issue that obviously is going to be a big impact in those states that currently allow medical underwriting, and federal subsidies. so what's the impact? the insurers come out with their premiums but we have federal subs des provide for people who have household incomes urn 400 pk of the federal poverty level level -- level. we look at that as well. that's what people will feel, the after tax effects and there are costs passed through inner it is of premiums. those are key driving forces that will affect premiums. we concentrated mainly on the vedge market because it's most affected by the changes. at the same time, the individual market today represents about 5% of the population. we expect that to grow considerably other the next several years because of a.c.a. we think it will double. so there's a lot of focus on the

individual marks for those reasons, number one, it is most affected by a.c.a., and number two, it's expected to grow the fastest as well. we also looked at the small group market. i'll have some comments on the small group market as well in terms of how it gets affected. and while the effect is not on arch as great as we might think it -- we might think for the individual market, there are certainly effects on small employers. and i'll have some comments on that. so, if we're talking about the individual market, the key observations we made is that certainly the -- certainly before a.c.a., other than new jersey, these states allowed medical underwriting, as i

mentioned, they allowed carriers to varier that premium rates based on the risk characterist exs of the applicants who were coming to them. so they did vary their rates based on health status, they varied their rates based on age and gender, geographic location, those things. with a.c.a., we're no longer going to be able to vary rates by health status or gender and our age rating will be compressed. so instead of having premium rates where the rate for a 64-

year-old is five times as great as the rate of a 25-year-old, a.c.a. compresses that to 3-1, so they can't be more than 3-1. and actually, in the individual market, because carriers are able to rate for health status and some other things, that 5-1 actually can be -- actually gets ex-panned quite a bit because of the premium add ons for poor health status. so we can actually see a much greater than 5-1 in today's market and that's all going to be compressed to 3-. so that really affects a lot of people. and we illustrate that in our report as to what those effects are. as i mentioned, those effects depend on the characteristics of each person.

so that certainly is one of the findings that we el strait in the report. the other thing that is evident is that the participants in the individual market, because they're paying all the premium out of their pockets, they're not getting any kind of help fromer that employer, they tend to choose lower cost policies that have much higher cost sharing. so a.c.a. has a new requirement that that cost sharing, the percentage of benefits that the health plan has to pay have to be at least 60%. in today's individual market, in a lot of states, the average is less than 60%. so what's going to have to happen is that the person who is today insured with a policy of less than 60%, say they're at 50%, are going to have to upgrade their coverage. so they're going to have to move to that 50% level to that 60 --

at least that 60% level and that's going to go twet -- ogoing to get reflecked in their premiums as well. they will bear the costs of getting those extra benefits. they do get extra ben fis with that but of course it's going to cost them more. they will see that in their -- in their preemyulls come 2014. those people who already have plans that are above the of% level, they're not going to be affected by that part. so they won't see that piece of the increase that will be coming through. so what we've done in our studies here is we've looked at two sample plans in 2013. so we looked to see what are popular plans that are being sold and from those plans, we chose two plans in each state.

one of those plans was a popular plan that had an actuarial value less than 60% and the other plan was a plan that had an -- had a value greater than 60%. because we wanted to impact the illustrate the impact of just that factor itself. is when you look at the details of our presentation, you'll see that obviously the total rate changes for those who have plans less than 60% value are greater than those who already have a plan with -- that pays more than 60%. so new jersey was different. because new jersey passed a lot of these requirements such as

guaranteed issue in the vedge market, such as unisex, -- the individual market, such as unisex, the changes in new jersey are far less than what we see in other states. new jersey also has standardized plans that are required in the individual market. that also reduces somewhat the tissue the actual value impact in that state. so we see in new jersey that will people can certainly get reductions in their rates. even before the subsidies. so the tissue the thing in new jersey is they have two different types of standardized plans.

one they call basic and essential, one they call stan card plans. the base exand essential are a little bit less regulated plans, less rich plans, those plans will get more impact in new jersey than the standard plans. even in new jersey we see people depending on where they are and what plans they have today, get impacted differently than people who have the richer standard plans. some of the rating characterist

exs, some of the rating provisions are different too for those basic and standard plans and that gets reflected in those new jersey rates. finally, we look at the federal tax credits. those are the premium subsidies. those premium subsidies can be very significant for people who call fi for them. people with household income under 400% of poverty will qualify for them. for a family of four, a household income of about $95,000. so people below that threshold, a family of four, are going to qualify for some consideration for premium subsidy. now, some of the things that we have noted, though, with the premium subsidies is while they can be very, very generous to people at the lowest levels of income and in fact they're so generous that for people --

because premium subsidies are beased on what's called the silver plan, that's a plan with a a 70% act twarle -- actuarial value, if someone chooses to purchase what's cowled a bronze plan, a plan with 60%, the minimum, some of those people can actually get their coverage for zero premium after subsidy. so we have a full spectrum of where the premium changes are going to be after subsidy, all the way down to zero for a bronze plan for some people and then for people above 400% of poverty, they get no subsidy relief and so they will see the brunt of the other changes that we've studied and are in our report. there are also some people, younger people, who after subsidy qualify for very little

subsidy as it turns out out -- out because of the way the subsity formula is, it's bested on household income. whether you're 27 or 57, you're at the same household income, for the same size family, you're going to get the same subsidy. well because premiums are much higher for older people than younger people, some of those younger people, their premium rates are actually less than what tissue less than what the threshold for their subsidy. so they end up not getting a subsidy. that tends to happen somewhere above the 300% of poverty. so it varies by age in terms of who gets the subsidy. it's not quite just the 400% level. that's when we start looking at it but in effect it's, for younger people, in a lot of situations, it's 00 or -- 300% or more that don't get subsidies. those are some things we looked at, the key findings we have, basically in the five states

other than wisconsin, before subsidies, the changes that we're seeing are going to be somewhere in the area of 15%, up to 60% on average. so those are pretty wide range of potential changes and certainly very high increases. now i need to note, when we're talking about these inveeses -- increase, we did the study just looking at the impact of a.c.a. on premium rates. in addition to these, there's also the normal type changes that happen due to the annual increase of costs -- of cost of care. what we actuaries refer to as

trend. so in addition to these, you should consider that trend will also be added to these and trend is -- varies state by state, plan by plan, but it ranges typically somewhere from 5% to 9% that we're expecting for next year. so those will be some additional impacts that people will feel as well. now, one of the things that we did in our study is we looked at 2014 plans, so the 2014 plans we modeled, we assumed that those plans would have the same type of provider network and managed care features as the plan that people were coming from. what is happening in the 2014 market, in order to keep rates as low as possible, health plans are introducing new plans that have alternative provider

networks. you may have heard the term narrow network plans. so a number of plans will introduce alternative plans with these narrow networks which can drive down costs because they're able to negotiate lower rates with providers if those providers want to be in this narrow network. and i think we've seen that that's been the case in rates that were released by california last week. that a lot of those plans are narrow network plans and have been able to support lower premiums than what we otherwise would have expected. so our study, though, did not want to look at what effect that might have, and that effect might be a 10% or 15% lower rate than might otherwise be affected.

so that kind of counters for people who opt for those types of plans, counters the trend increase i just mentioned, maybe a little bit more than that. so we see increases on average

between 15% and 60% in these states, new jersey, on the other hand, we see that their average is going to be somewhere between minus 25% and 0%. and that's where the tissue for the sample plans we looked at. there could be other results certainly, there's a myriad of current plans out there that will affect people. now, of those pieces, a good chunk of that is due to the fact that people will need to upgrade their benefits to that 60% level. so in our report, we give an indication of what that would be and it tends to be in the 10% to 25% range of that 15% to 60%.

and then finally we also look at the subsidies again and as i mentioned, they can be anywhere from 0% to 100%. so the subsidies can vary quite a bit. what i encourage you to do is read the reports, the reports are out on the center forward website, but don't just read the report. read the appendices. it's in the appendices where the real detail is. in that appendix, we look at the effect both before and after subsidy, based on sample ages, so we look at ages 27, 37, 47, 57, 62, for males and females, we look at different health status levels, so people who are very healthy all the way to people who are quite sick. who are getting large rateups right now on their premium rates. and we look at different income levels.

s bied on all those come by faces, you can see in our appendices how those rate changes might be expected to come out for a person at a given situation with their characterist exs. that's where the real value, i think, of the study is, is it gives you that kind of detail that you can get a good sense of that, it's true that there are winners and losers and -- in this, and that kind of illustrates who those people may be in terms of who is going to pay more, who is going to pay less than what their current premiums might be. finally, i want to talk about the small group market. in the small group market, we see that, you know, most states, there will be increases. one of the things that most states a i lou is to vary rates for small group based on its composite health status. that's going awaif. so we took a look at what the

distribution of those rateups is in each of these states and based on that, we're able to take a look at what impact that has, and that was our key focus in the small group market, what impact just that one single change is going to have. it averaged somewhere around 6% to 12% for most tissue for each of the states. and what's real key, though, is that that's just an average. and if we look at, you know, who the -- what percent of fwroups are going to have increases for that, versus what percent are going to have decreases, we see that typically, somewhere from 70% to 80% of the groups will get some kind of increase for that. and those encreases will vary, the averages in our -- and the increases will vary, the averages in our study tend to be between 10% and 25%. again, new jersey had the least increase of all of those.

included in those increases is the addition of the taxes and fees that are also going to impact those. and they tend to be around % to 5%. -- 3% to 5%. and then the -- another percentage of the small groups is going to see decreases. and those decreases tend to be somewhere in the range of 10% to 15%. actually, one of them, ohio, is in excess of 15%. it's less than 20%. so small groups will also see differences based on their characteristics. what we didn't factor into our study for small group, though, is small groups will also be affected by the age changes and the unisex requirements of a.c.a.

because, you know, an employer group can differ in its makeup in terms of its age and gender, we realy couldn't look at that in too much detail, but certainly, groups that are made of younger, healthy males, will tend to have higher rate increases than those groups that are unhealthy or are comprised mainly of older people. so the age-gender impact also

plays a role here too. so those are our main findings and with that, i think we're ready to open our discussion. >> jim, thank you. >> thank you, jim. we are ready to again our panel discussion and doug, we'll start with you. if you're comfortable there, absolutely. >> first of all, thanks to bud and the center forward organization. i've worked with jim in the past, i have a lot of regard for his efforts, i worked with earl

when he was on the budget committee and i still live in terror of him. i love this work. and there are a number of reasons. first, it accords with everyone's intuition about what some of the features the affordable care act has to produce. if you put in the age rating bands and tighten those and say you can't charge higher premiums to the older paired to the younger, without question you expect to see increases among the young and relative decreases among the old. this comes through in this analysis and it ought to have a differential impact depending on whether you had those regulations in place. given that we have had so much speculation about how the affordable care act will play out, it's nice to see a study that cements everyone's intuition about the pattern of increases and the level of increases that are likely to prevail. the second reason i love this work, of course, is that it gets the sameances that our work got. what could be better? in january, the american action forum put out a survey which was a survey of insurers and asked them actually a very similar question. not identical, but we asked them questions leek if you have a 27- year-old healthy male in

chicago, illinois, and this is the policy they have right now and we add these age wands and guaranteed issues and the variety of other regulatory restrictions that are placed on insurers in the plan, what happens to the premium and we got anns that looked very much like the appendix that jim recommends you read. there will be very different impacts depending on who you are in the affordable care act. averages are not going to tell the story. the young and healthy will see beg increase, in some cases, our survey says 200%, their number for illinois is 197%, very close. these are sharp premium increases. and for others, they'll get relative the creases as a result of the regulatory framework. so there's -- you just don't want to rely on an average. there isn't a single number that's going to tell you the story about the a.c.a. implementation. some people are going to get quite a bit of impact and others a lot less. that's important and raises a couple of wild cards that i think deserve some further work. we did a second survey, which we put out more recently last week, that surveyed young americans,

18 to 40-year-old americans who have insurance. and we actually took the time to find out their monthly premium and as a result turn into dollars what happens if their premiums go up 10%, %, 30%, which based on all the work that's been done, including today's, are not crazy possibilities under the a.c.a. and the answers are quite striking. in a group that basically looks at the law and says, i like some of it, i don't leek parts of it, it's not an act of political or partisan calculation, it's a consumer pricing decision, they look at what happens to the cost of a product and there's a certain price point, they just say, we're done. if you look 10%, it goes from 100% of the people having coverage down to 8 %, they lose 17% they pay the penalty.

raise the payment 20%, it drops to 65% who retain coverage and 0%, it's down to 55%. those are quite striking results about the price responsiveness of the young folks who are important parts of the pools that are going to be on the state-based exchanges. and that leads me to a final point, which is, this is going to depend a lot on money. the way you solve that problem is easy. you throw money at it. either by having subsidies, and this raises the importance of the subsidies jim talked about, you have subsidies for those young people so their net subsidy premium doesn't go up 10%, 20%, or 30%, they get a smaller increase and continue to purchase and stay in the pools, that's one way to solve the problem, or if they choose to exit and we are left with much more expensive pool, the preshurns -- the reinsurance provisions and other ways of insuring are going to become important. how that plays out is something i don't know the answer to and i think merits a lot more consideration.

it's at the heart of having this be an effective, functioning expansion in insurance for americans. last piece i want to emphasize is something that i'm glad jim mentioned. which is, there's a big difference often lost in the public debate between health insurance coverage and health care. and the choices and care that people actually receive.

>> i looked at everybody and said regardless of how this turns out with regards to money, we will do this mission. it will be 192.1. excuse me. 181. my math is not good. 181.1. we will do it. we are working with the state department right now. there are six embassies that will receive marine security guards in the next little bit. we will slowly build that capacity. canuilt a small force that be rapidly flown in.

that is called the security unit. we can fly them anywhere in the world. we have that. >> second row. >> good morning, sir. i'm betting that [indiscernible] you don't have to tell us unless you want to. you have got to develop some -- i'm wondering at the look at some of the lessons you have learned over the past few how do you see the dirty

fiber that 22 and how it will change how you work in the pacific in particular? >> it will likely be in 2015 and 2014. 10 airplanes and 10 crews. they have been trained to do missions. that is the definition of ioc. at squadron itself will be full 16 planes. we're planning on that toward the latter part of 2015. the concept of operations, i

think if you take a look at how then tedious ships of late have -- ampibious ships of late have been used -- a stock of late how they been used -- let's talk of late of how they have been used. this is under the secretary gates era. the repressed into the gulf -- they were pressed into the golf. we still had other issues down in the gulf. needed a craft with precision weapons where you could do percent asked targeting -- precise targeting. the ships became almost surgically capability for the

president and the secretary of defense. since that time, it has been used in awful lot in that regard. we have a squadron on the ground and carriers. you remember the terrible attack we had last september. we lost six airplanes out of that. nevin flying in support of the coalition forces for at some time. -- they have been flying in support of the coalition forces or sometime. if you turn the clock back a little bit, we were not sure what would happen with qaddafi. nato and the u.s. were trying to figure out, what is it that we should do?

26 marine expeditionaries. they turned left. went off the coast of libya. what are we getting do no fly zone. no-fly zone reinforcement. downed to get the tankers from europe so we could tank the aircraft. there is a great example of flexibility with the airplanes. when you go back to the iraq war, we had 72 carriers. we move them to shore.

i have got pictures of them. i landed in a helicopter off the highway. what do you need? i need air support. we started landing carriers there. we armed them and refueled them for the attack on baghdad. i expect we will do the same thing for the -- >> i want to pick up on this point. you made a solid argument for the value of vertical landing aircraft. you are only the service was such thanks.

air fields are becoming potentially vulnerable. >> i will not answer that. [laughter] it is interesting. the u.k. sir david richards approach me and said, if we decided to come back in, will you be ok with that? the answer is of course, yes. we're putting u.k. pilots back into the squad. we'll put a u.k. pilot or navy pilot in each one of the squadrons.

they are in it. if you look at a picture the world as a satellite flies over, take a look at the image of where the runways are versus the 3000 -- that is just runways and not highways or parking lots. about 10000 and times as many. be places we will probably operating in, that is important. whether the air force should buy them or not, it is important for us. that is what we do. we are more than willing to live hard.

we do not need fancy air- conditioning. we can live off -- we need to operate our equipment off it. i've got hundreds of pictures refueling airplanes and vehicles. off of highways on the way to baghdad. >> thank you. next question. in the back. >> general, i do not want to get you in trouble. but i'm reading a book right now that is a brookings book. really interesting. he talks about the time he served as secretary.

we have something like for additional undersecretaries and 12 additional secretaries in the defense department. he made a strong argument for getting rid of the secretaries. can you talk about the bloat and the pentagon leadership? >> you guys really are trying to get me in trouble. [laughter] it is recognized that there has been growth within the pentagon. the joint staff and the commanders. thes kind of but we called fourth estate. thefolks that support services.

that is one of the things i'll be half -- that is one of the things that will have to be addressed under sequestration. i can do like my server secretary. i like what he does for the u.s. marine corps. a formal naval officer himself. he understands this. how much is enough with everything else? as the staff grows, the activities grow. the services have to respond. we have to. we grow. our service headquarters grows in response to the growth of forces. it is a natural tendency. the question we are facing right now is how much is enough?

we get into this thing of truth and tell. i could be cyber and airplanes and ships. whatever that is. how much? there has to be some kind of tail. if you look at the department of defense, there is tail that will have to go under the magnifying glass. it will have to be scrutinized. what we cannot have is continue to allow growth to happen at the expense of war fighting capabilities. we have a department of defense for one reason and one reason

only. it is not to do paperwork and answer questions. we defend the united states of america and defend its interests. that is why we have it. we do not have a for a whole lot of other things. without telling you but we have looked at, i have looked outside and inside as well. >> in the same row. >> thank you. i hope my question will be less controversial. mentioneding -- you how the post-world war ii

brought on how we had to build back up for korea. does the marine corps have a plan for sort of being able to suddenly draw up if we get another strategic surprise? there is the possibility of it happening earlier. how would such plants be affected by sequestration? >> thank you. when secretary panetta called me about six months or year before he gave up his job, this is when the budget control act was signed and sequestration was out there, as we do this and to reshape the force, there are several things we need

to keep in mind. we need to build a taxable force. we have to build -- we have to build a flexible force. as you reshape the force, you have to build in reversibility. toalso said, i don't want build a larger force. it is probably of worth talking more. he said reversibility is a key factor. what does that mean? a ship mate is worried about the industrial base. we do not have a lot of them anymore. the ones we have are pretty important to the nation.

we do not have a lot of aircraft manufacturing anymore. that is pretty important to the nation. regardless, as you draw the force in, this matter of reversibility is industrial based and what i call blowing the balloon back up. there's some things if you decide if something were to happen any say, that is it, we will not do it, that is an irreversible decision. building the world is for short takeoff and vertical landings. not another nation. we have built them. the u.k. did. the soviets built them. i think is called the f-28.

but nobody else. there are some things that become irreversible. there are some units that we could blow the balloons back up in a reversing effort. you could probably rebuild. it would take you a couple years. we have experience in doing that. reversibility is in my miss national reversibility is -- reversibility is in line with -- sequestration does affect that. one of the things on the wall is the term reversibility. or talk about people and equipment and capabilities -- when we talk about people and

equipment and capabilities, we need to remember that we might get this wrong. we might need to turn this back around. if i'm going to take the capability away that needs to be purposeful decision, i need to say to myself, ok. i will never get that capability back again. >> next question. in the back. second to the last row. >> hi. thank you. could you address the status of the acb? have speed requirements not yet been addressed. >> can you we ask your question? >> sure.

government accountability office. gao. can you adjust the analysis of alternatives and the status of it of the amphibious combat vehicles. my understanding is that water speed requirements will not be addressed until the fall. >> i will tell you where we are. the officer secretary of defense in congress directed that we do an analysis of alternatives last year. that was completed. it was held at the secretary of defense level. that completed in june of last year. what it did is that it confirmed the requirement for an amphibious vehicle. capability you could use both

in a combat environment and forcible entry kind of thing if he had to do that. it certainly became the follow- on. it is a replacement for the current tractor. it confirmed that. we took a look at that and said, ok. it did not say anything about high speed or slow speed. likeyou have a vehicle that, it had the capability to get up on the plane. once you got up on the plane, you could go significantly faster. the fighting vehicle was summer around 28 -- somewhere around 28 knots. you could leave the ship and go

someplace where the enemy is not. the current vehicle we have is what we call a replacement vehicle. that is a vehicle that goes about -- it becomes a vehicle that stays and swims. it is not below the surface. you cannot push a heavy vehicle through the water any faster than about 8 knots. let's go back. we only get one more by at this -- bite at this. let's make sure we understand the difference between a high water speed and displacement vehicle.

the analysis of alternatives is done. we are working with industry to get two corporate partners that are teamed together. they will report to the marine corps this fall and they will tell us what is possible with regard to our water speed versus displacement vehicle. and also what the cost is. i have made a leader to everyone that cost is a variable in this -- i have made it clear to everyone that cost is a variable in this. there are host of other things. we want to get it right. fall, time we get to the i'll have enough information to make an educated recommendation to the secretary of the navy as to how to proceed. my sense is that will make a decision in the fall and probably around the beginning of next year and released a request for proposal.

we will have money available to do that. we have money for research and development. >> to the third row. >> good morning, general. i wanted to ask about your special operations. you have been an -- they're moving in transition in a more maritime field. what do you see the role being in the future? how about affect reconnaissance communities? >> thank you. the very proud of marine special operations. north carolina headquarters.

they are an integral part of special operations. we provide the marines. we provide all of the equipment, the standard equipment. allrovide the salaries and that stuff. we have done well. if the admiral were here, he would confirm that. the future is bright and that kind of decade that i described. there is plenty of work available for special operations. we are partnering in it. i have got no intention of downsizing special operations. i think the value added for our nation is one of those things

that is good for our nation. a are looking right now on concept. we will prototype it this fall. training with special operation forces again with the units that will go to see on those ships. the beginning of the turn-of- the-century, every aircraft carrier had a group of seals that would be aboard it. ofry marine unit had a team seals onboard. in 2001, that changed. the war in iraq broke out. they became preoccupied. aboardve not and back

naval vessels except for unique situations. we have agreed to a concept that we will try out this upcoming fall. we will have marine special operations forces that will train. we've also put marine special operations teams -- excuse me, liaisons -- the theater command. we will have a relationship and know exactly what is available in and out of theater. operatorsve special on board the ship. they will be our eyes and ears. we will know their capabilities. we think this is a pretty good

installment to provide relevance. that is where we are heading. we are reemphasizing -- we will wait and see. my expectations are positive. >> we have time for two more questions. coming up on "washington journal", scott paul on the state of job creation in the u.s. then federal regulatory commission chairman jon wellinghoff. later, a look at the latest trends in school crime, violence and safety. -- "washington

journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the annual report detailing the fiscal health of social security and medicare is released. today, jack lew and kathleen sebelius lead in the event examining the report. you can see it live starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. new york city's police commissioner raymond kelly sat down for a conversation with campbell brown about terrorist plot against new york city reported since 9/11 and what the city is doing to protect itself. this is part of the atlantic magazine's new york ideas festival from early may. it is 20 minutes. >> good morning, everybody.

[applause] commissioner kelly, welcome. it's wonderful to have you here. we are going to get right into it. i think we should start with boston. it was a wake-up call for a lot of us. for a lot of us who maybe have taken for granted changes that you made here in new york post- 9/11. tell us what your take away from boston is. >> first of all, we were not surprised something like this happens. frankly, we thought it would happen sooner. people talk about the new normal. actually, the new normal is our old normal. after 9/11 when mayor bloomberg came in, we knew we had to do more to protect this city than just rely on the federal government. so we have invested heavily in personnel, money and we have been able to receive federal money that has helped us put in defensive systems that i believe is more than any city.

we have 1000 police officers every day that work on our counterterrorism efforts. that's a major commitment for us because we are down 6000 police officers from where we were 11 years ago. but we have been -- >> just due to budget cuts? >> yes, budget cuts. we have been the victim of two successful terrorist attacks -- 1993, 2001. we had 16 plots against the city since that time. they have been thwarted as a result of good luck, good work on the part of the fbi and nypd. no other city had that target on its back like we have. so we have made that investment and we are going to continue to do it. >>what do you worry about most being under threat in this city subways, landmarks?

what keeps you up at night? >> i don't think we can single it out. this is a target-rich environment. we have a lot of iconic and events where large numbers of people come together. we are concerned about certainly the event in bostin. we have had these types of radicalized young man trying to attack us in the city. most recently, two individuals were arrested in miami for scouting out targets in new york city. it received very little press, but it happened. they were arrested this year. we had an arrest and conviction for attempting to blow up the federal reserve bank. he thought he was detonated 1000 pounds of -- when it was an fbi sting. so, a constant stream of

individuals trying to come here and kill us. when you say what do we worry about, we worry about the whole spectrum. we are paid to think the unthinkable. we have to worry about a nuclear event happening in new york. we have worked with the federal government. we have a program called securing the cities. we have 150 other jurisdictions in the area that we signed on with provide a radiological detection ring around new york city. so we are not able to say we are worried about that thing only. it is a whole array of threats that are out there. we don't see any diminishment of threats. we see it as being relatively constant. >> can you be specific about what you are doing, what

measures you are taking in this city that other cities could implement? that boston could be doing? what measures do you think have been the most effective? >> we are not in a position to advise anybody. they have to make their own decisions. it depends on the level of the perceived threat, the culture, a lot of things. but we have done more here than any other city because we felt we had to. we have a security initiative, 1.7 square miles south of canal street. we have thousands of cameras, license plate readers, radiation detectors. we monitor it with public and private sector people, stakeholders. we have taken that concept and migrated up to midtown

manhattan. 30th to 60th street. we are increasing the numbers of cameras we have in place. now tying in cameras in other parts of the city. we do have our own investigations. we have the most diverse police department probably anywhere now. to highlight that, in our last seven police academy classes, of 1000 or more recruits, each one of those classes have recruits born in 50 or more countries. that diversity gives us a lot of flexibility and helps us interact with the many communities of this city but also enable us to do investigations in an effective manner. so we have personnel and we have the technology committed to the issue. you will see uniformed personnel, critical response

vehicles. you will see them deployed at iconic locations and other sensitive locations. we do that on a daily basis. mostly in manhattan. uniform, plain clothes, technology. on september 11, 2011, we had 17 investigators working with the joint terrorism task force. now we have over 120. we have our own personnel stationed abroad in 11 cities. they act as tripwires and listening posts for us. abu dhabi, jordan, tel aviv, paris, london, madrid. >> is that repetitive with what the cia is doing? do you feel like you need to do it yourself because maybe the federal government is not providing information given what you are trying to do? >> we are supplementing -- we

need the federal government to continue to do what they are doing but we see ourselves at a higher risk than other cities. these officers are funded by the police foundation. these are not taxpayer funds. our offices are embedded in these police department. u.s.are not in the embassies. it is a unique experience for our officers and very much welcome on the part of the host countries. they send their officers here. we do training with them. and a lot of interaction takes place. >> you mentioned radiation detectors, a dirty bomb being a potential threat, something you are obviously thinking about. port security has always been an issue. i know that's something you spend a lot of time working on. do you think there has been progress on that? is it still a huge concern?

>> there has been progress. the u.s. customs commissioner before, we were concerned about it then. this was pre-9/11. some progress have been made but the vast majority of goods that come into our country simply are not searched. it would be impossible to. so there is a risk analysis in place. shippings, the containers are being checked in other cities. before goods come to united states. has there been progress in that area? yes. still a lot more needs to be done. in hong kong, for instance, there is an x-ray of all goods going in and out of the port.

that is a major undertaking. it would be very expensive for us to do that. but it's something that should be examined. >> i was talking to the google guys backstage about crowd sourcing and the impact that had particularly in boston and the investigation in those 48 hours after the bombings happen. talk a little bit about how you are using technology on that front to -- when you know there is a threat, a plot, to address it. >> you mean in the aftermath of the boston bombings, looking at films, that sort of thing? >> yeah, or the engagement of community through the social networking that took place. there are pros and cons to that, obviously, a lot of information that was provided was good, and a lot of it was bad. >> obviously social networking is a major factor these days. it is something investigators

look at all the time. i know it was examined right away after the boston bombings. the camera work of course was very important. our cameras, many i mentioned, are smart cameras. you can do video analytics. we can put in a formula that will set off an alarm if a package is put down for a set period of time. let's say three minutes, if the package is unattended, an alarm will go off. not all of our cameras do that with an increasing number of cameras can do that. or you can look at see somebody three weeks ago the path in front of a particular camera wearing a white shirt at 2:00 in the afternoon. we can do that very quickly. that is where technology is moving. it's getting smarter and

smarter. and more and more private sector companies have cameras. more public cameras are out there as well. what we have done is tied them together. technology has been a major factor in allowing us to operate with 6000 few police officers. crime continues to go down here. part of it is a result of technology. >> the city is also facing an enormous budget crisis and the stuff is not cheap. >> thankfully that federal government has helped with lower manhattan security initiatives. the federal government is facing its own problems with sequester. i believe other cities, i know they are coming here now to take a closer look at what we're doing. but it's not cheap. it's an expensive undertaking. more and more cities will look at aspects of what we do. >> putting costs aside for a second, let's talk about what you are up against. everyday you are under fire

from members of the government, city council, civil rights organizations, almost every candidate who is running for mayor, maybe with the exception of joe loda, yet you make no apologies for steps you have taken. talk about targeting mosques for intelligence gathering, go through those. what do you say to your critics? >> let me give you a number that i think is important. in the 11 years of mayor bloomberg's administration, there were 7346 fewer murders than there were in the previous 11 years. largelyves saved are people of color, young people of color.

we think we are saving lives. we know we are saving lives. stop and frisk is something -- that practice has been embedded in law enforcement throughout the world. not just throughout the country. it was validated by supreme court decision terry versus ohio in 1968. legislation or laws exist in all 50 states in the country. it's a practice not invented here. one of the things that has happened is we have started to record it more accurately. as a result, there is a perception that the numbers have gone up dramatically. they really haven't. we have done a lot of training. we are not unaware of the controversy it causes. it's an ongoing training program for a police officer but

it is a tool. only a tool in the toolbox. it is not the be-all and end- all. we are doing a lot more to address the problems of crime. last year, was the lowest year for murders in the city in 52 years and the lowest year for shootings in 20 years. this year, we are running 30% below that number. so something right is going on here. it translates into saved lives. we understand people running for office -- there is a perception that a narrow number will vote in the primary and their views are very against this type of activity, and that's how you get the nomination.

but we are going to continue to do what we think is the right thing pursuant to the law. as far as the allegations of spying on muslims, we adhere very closely to the law. we have a cadre of first-rate attorneys that can monitor everything that we do. articles a series of put out by the associated press complaining, in essence, about what we do. i believe those writers missed the authorization to do what we do, under the modification of an agreement from 1985. in 2002, we petitioned the federal court to change the agreement from 1984. they did change it.

it allows the new york police to go any place where there is a public meeting, any website available to the public and to do studies and reports to help us to protect the city. this is the most litigious environment in the world. i get sued literally every day. [laughter] it's the fact that we are being sued -- it is nothing new. we believe we are doing our work according to the law and we will continue to do it. >> but they are creating an inspector general for nypd, which you think is a terrible idea. why? >> we have more oversight than any police department in this country as far as i am aware. we have five district attorneys in the city, unlike most cities that have one. we have two u.s. attorneys. we have a civilian complaint

review board that exists totally to oversee some functions of the nypd. we have a commission to combat police corruption, headed by a commission general counsel, michael armstrong. they look at every case of corruption allegation that comes in. we have an awful lot of oversight. another layer of oversight is not needed. i think it causes confusion to rank and file. >> if we believe the polls right now, there's a good chance in november we will have a mayor who they are saying now wants to undo a lot of what you have done. how worried are you? >> i am doing my job. the citizens are the ones that are going to have to take all this into account and vote accordingly. >> it's not too late to run.

[laughter] it is not too late to run for mayor yourself. [applause] >> i'm focused on my job right now. >> classic politician non- answer. i think a lot of people may be glad to hear it. let me just say -- boston has made a lot of us think about this. so much time passed and nothing happened post-9/11, and then boston came along. how do you stay vigilant? how do you keep the nypd vigilant, your officers, when we go through these periods of calm? our memories are very short. >> we have had to confront against the city. >> to us, it is felt like calm. because you stopped them >> if it is prevented, it is a

one-day story. but what happens in boston, then right away, looking at the enforcement saying you should have done x, y, and z. we are vigilant, we have to be partly because of the number of cases that we have seen. we have had azazi in 2009. another tried to dumbed the formula down because he was afraid of being seen and recognized before the event took place. we have had jose, he built 3 bombs right here and was arrested by our intelligence division. these do not get much press.

thinksre the public things are looking pretty good. then when boston happens, it is a huge shock to the public psyche. not to us. we can see where these things could easily happen. we did -- two of our intelligence analysts, did an outstanding study in 2007 on the radicalization process. these two young men fit into it. wheret them to areas there are terrorist plots, and they put together a schematic of the process. a pre-radicalization period then a self identification where

they explore islam then they indoctrinate themselves. that's when they often times meet a sanctionor. in the boston case, the sanctionor is believed to be anwar al-awlaki. then they go into a jihadization stage and decide to act. we have been looking at this issue for a long time. we are alert. i hope we continue to be alert. new york is the number one target in this country. why? communications

capital. the financial capital. if you accept the proposition that terrorism is theater, this is the world's biggest stage. if they cannot do it here, they may go someplace else. that is our job, to prevent them from doing it here. so far, so good, but there are no guarantees. >> kelly, we appreciate your vigilant in your time this morning. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] coming up on "washington journal", scott paul on the state of manufacturing and job creation in the u.s. then federal regulatory commission chairman it discusses the regulation of electricity, gas and oil markets. then a look at the latest trends

in school crime, violence and safety. our guests stars. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. she makes the first speech by a sitting first lady, becomes the first president of the daughters of the american revolution, designs for china and established as the white house china collection and is the first of a christmas tree in the white house. beat caroline harrison, the wife of the 23rd president as we continue our series of first ladies with their questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter monday night live on c- span. >> the women's national democratic club presidents recently traveled to her home country of pakistan to witness the elections and the first

democratic chance for a power since the countries independence in 1947. >> let me introduce our

introducer, wendy chamberlin, a veteran diplomat who has served in the u.s. department of state, worked for the u.n. high commissioner on refugees, and now serves as president of the middle east institute. she has been there since 2007. a 29-year veteran of the u.s. foreign service, she was ambassador to pakistan from 2001 to 2002 when she played a key role in securing pakistan's operation in the campaign to boot out al qaeda in afghanistan after september 11. as assistant administrator in the asia near east bureau of the usaid from 2002 to 2004, ambassador chamberlin oversaw civilian reconstruction programs in iraq and afghanistan and development assistance programs throughout the middle east and east asia. other assignments included u.s. ambassador to -- director of public affairs for the near east bureau, arab israeli affairs, so she is been all over. a graduate of northwestern university, ambassador chamberlin earned a degree from boston university and attended the executive program at harvard. she serves on the boards of the american academy for diplomacy and the hollings center. she is a member of the trilateral commission. her pieces have been published in "the washington post." she has commented on pakistan and the middle east in interviews with "the newshour," nbc, abc, fox news, and al jazeera. please give a warm welcome for

ambassador chamberlin. [applause] >> thank you very much. that was far too generous an introduction for a mere introducer. we have a star performer today who we are looking forward to hearing from. ofeally do not need too much an introduction for your president, nuchhi currier, who has been president of your club, the women's national democratic club, for nearly four years. you are in for a treat this afternoon, because she will provide the insider's view on what has happened in the historic pakistan national elections only just last week. she was not only raised in lahore, but she was in lahore

last week as an election observer of the elections. i might point out that the winner of the election, who won a clear victory, is from lahore. nuchhi will be able to provide us an insider's view. she will provide a larger look at the political culture of pakistan, and she will be able to tell us about the significance of this election for not only regional stability and pakistan, but for the u.s.- pakistani relations. i am often asked as a former ambassador to pakistan why is it that we care so much, why do we talk so much about pakistan? for those of you in this room, from an educated audience, you know, as our troops and nato

troops begin this drawdown from afghanistan, the incoming government in pakistan will be consequential to the stability in the region, and this impacts us directly. pakistan is important to us because it is -- sharif will inherit the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world. we talked about iran. they do not have bomb yet. pakistan between 100 and 200 bombs, and it is growing, as is their delivery capability. it is one of the fastest- growing populations in the world in which over half, nearly 60%, are under 35, also consequential to us, and you want to know that we give our largest assistance packages to pakistan, nearly $3 billion a year in economic and military assistance.

this is a country that we do care about. we are pakistan's biggest trading partner. we care about this election. nuchhi will tell us more about it. let me tell you about her. nuchhi has had a very successful career in the private sector. she has worked in senior management positions in the gulf, in dubai, in south asia, but also here in the united states. she made a career switch when she returned to get her master's degree in international affairs at columbia university, and has worked very closely after that with various agencies within the u.n. system, writing and doing reports for unicef and the public affairs for the u.n. she did that before she became your president, and i have watched her here a couple of

times and watched as nuchhi has revitalized the women's national democratic club and put it active hub of debate and dialogue that your club certainly enjoyed during its heyday with eleanor roosevelt. i know nuchhi will soon be leaving and will turn over the presidency to the next president, who introduced me. and just a final note, anna's great-grandmother was herself eleanor roosevelt. to anna and to nuchhi, please join me in welcoming a most remarkable woman. [applause]

>> thank you for the kind intervention. -- introduction. thank you so much, wendy. downstairs i have a few blog posts that i have done on election, which are sitting at the table. you can read them. they are in great detail and depth. i will read from them, little bits and pieces, but i wanted to start out with facts of what really happened in this election. the fact usually in pakistan are a little hazy and a little fudgy and a little hard to come by. this was the first time a civilian-elected government completed a five-year term and handed over power at the ballot box. in pakistan's 66 years, this has never happened before. governments are usually