done the things that we know with the case in new york and the case in ferguson. from the coverage i've seen, it essentially silenced the debate and shifted it to something else. so i was wondering if the panelists can comment on>> his job is to defend his officers at all costs. union leaders, even when they know it was absolutely heinous and wrong, they are going to defend. that is what he is paid to do. he is not paid to offer an objective viewpoint. problem is when those of us in media are unwilling to challenge him when he comes on the air with his comments or unwilling to say, in this particular case here, because you know if he has

not talked about much about the in media are unwilling to challenge cups in the hallway, it is hard to defend that one, but he might try. that is what you have here. is this understanding that i understand what somebody's job is. we have a job as well, and it is our responsibility to also the aware of the issues to know what questions to ask. i am going to tell you right now, that is part of your problem. when you're watching television shows, it ate like you -- ain't like you got the most well heart, what if we do not get to book them again, because

if come across as too hard, some of us they not want to come on the show because i pressed too hard, and they pull their punches. you get these conversations, and are sitting at home because it is not a real interview. that is a fundamental problem we have in the media, but also why you have got other voices there willing to challenge. when i was doing soldedad's o'brien shows, they would not take questions from me. they did not somebody coming out of the box who is not worried about whether or not i get other interviews. all those things happen. you need to realize that is what is happening because what the media does not to tell you, most folks to media crave and desire access. we are unwilling to challenge

power because that might cut off our access, and we crave the axis. -- access. >> we are going to 8:15 because the questions are so good and the answers for their responses. are we agreed? please keep the questions as brief as possible. >> hello, everyone. i am a producer at the department of defense to 40 video operations. my first question is about newsroom diversity. thank you to april for asking the president at his last press conference the state of black america what he felt that was, because if it was not for you, no one but have asked that in the room. when i worked in news, i was one of the only lacks in the newsroom -- blacks in the newsroom and we were the only

once asked to report on those stories. what do you think is the most pressing barrier to diversity in the newsroom? second question is race, coverage, and national security. recently people noticed the lack of coverage of local home wrong in nigeria as well -- boko haram in nigeria, as well as compared to the attacks in paris. what are your thoughts on that? >> i want to see the issue of diversity when it comes to the white house. thank you for that compl iment. there. unfortunately that is a room that has historically been a white male dominated room. i do not know why, that has been the case. [indiscernible]

seriously, during the clinton years, and this is the crazy years, clinton was the "first black president." there were more african-americans there, reporters that was there in the seat constantly, i mean, not moving around, with the senior important. george w bush came, everybody left. obama came, all the black journalists came to the white house, they were so excited they wanted to support the first black president. i was happy to let reporters there, even if it was not main stream. there is an internal problem and an external problem. external problem is a lot of the networks want higre white women now. there's anything in tv, white

women with blonde hair. am i telling the truth? is the new trend. -- that is the new trend that. there is a resurgence of it, let's say that. i am definitely not a network material. i'm too old and another shade of dbeing. the structure internally does not support people just coming in athena, it does not support people who are not there to have a seat in that room and have a workspace in that room. i have been less. i was sitting in the back of the room second round from the back, let's see, and i moved up. that room does not support you in your effort to cover the president. is not easy in that room. it is not easy for someone who raises their hand -- the front

row is the knowingly un-dollar or -- the front row is the million-dollar row. my issue is urban and black america. i asked questions about china, anything, but primarily urba n issues. that room is not necessarily friend in reporter. when you are coming in behind the curve, it is rough. it is me now. we took a picture in cavity when obama first -- we took a picture in "beebony" -- >> four people who do not know, "ebony" is a black magazine -- >> there was a time of people in that picture. a lot of them were reporters coming to cover.

>> african-americans are not underrepresented in the news media. they are underrepresented in the decision-making parts of the news media. there are lots of reporters, hispanic reporters. the diversity of -- the number is representative of the population. what is underrepresented again is the people you are calling the shots. that is that diversity of -- >> i think there is a lot under representation of minorities in general and the news media, and i think a lot of people would agree with that. i think it is important to note progress has been made, is being made. when i worked at cnn in new york, i do not think there were other black women on my floor when i was a producer, and now there are a few more. the issue is you have to keep

having people wanting to be journalists, you have to have mentors who say keep at it, keep trying and enters do not have to be black, but they do n our helpful if they are. everyone who has an interest in this has to be constantly paying attention to it and fighting for it and some of us are not in a hiring position, but that does not mean we cannot be an encouraging position. the forces of the status quo are hard to beat that, but that is what you have to keep going. it is women as well. >> this is critically important. who remembers "the new york times" story from a few years ago of all the generals who were picture murders on the networks -- who were

contributors on the networks? i talk about kevin hart, access to resources, hiring, the exact same thing. on president george w. bush, they created africom, a black general, the four-star general. that was one network show that interviewed general ward operations against boko haram me. you would think that somebody in the newsroom, somewhere in america, would say i wonder who might be an expert on affairs on the continent of africa from a military perspective, and maybe we can talk to them about how we tackle boko haram.not one called. he was a commander , over all of africom because

he did not have somebody in the newsroom who knew he existed. if you do not have anybody in the newsroom who knows it exists, you do not have anybody saying we want to call on kip ward. understand, i have started every job with the understanding you are going to get -- anyway. you do not get -- you can all look at the newsroom number some and you can play it safe and giveet layed a get mad or get layed and say i did what i could do when i was there. i would often communicate to the worldwide ceo, communicate to john cline, and i said when kit

was retiring, we need to hire him as a contributor because it is not say the only black general you could think of today is: powes colin powell. they have access to the pentagon, and if you do not have any minority generals who are pictures, they do not have access to the pentagon to get information. my point is just that hiring create other opportunities and creates other opportunities for the next folks coming in, and that is what i mean when we get shut out of this power positions it has a trickle-down effect that is vertical and horizontal, and what it does it for the creates more division and keeps us further away from these private opportunities because the reality is when -- becomes editor, when you have an african-american become standard, you got somebody who knows who they are, they are going to understand that let me

bring more people into this mix to broaden this and not worrying about you do not have this particular degree, you have the skill set. that is what matters went we are in leadership positions, but not in additionparticular positions or secular positions or the third or fourth level, but ugly staffers, so basically we are to help. >> ok, let's take one more question from each site, and i would like my friend to make a comment about a special group of students we have here. it is ok with you, could you ask a question? we could keep it short and responses short, to the point we might get a next her one in. >> hi, i'm a sophomore broadcaster at howard university. and my friend are starting a campaign about going out into local d.c. high schools and making students, lack and

minority students, more aware of being conscious of the situation. people in our generation, i feel like there is a break. we talked to our students back home -- i grew up in st. louis so they did not go to college, and we talked about other things other than the ferguson situation with them like other systematic racism like health care, and they are not aware of that. so to change everything happening, do you have tips that could help us tell them you can be the they did not go to college, and we talked about other things other than the ferguson situation with them like other systematic racism like health executive social political

commentary on a rat video show there was not anybody doing that before that. the ability to connect with the audience was not about how can i create this list of things to talk about. was how is there a and forth relationship so there is trust and consistency? first thing you have to do is create relationships and as you build relationship you build trust, credibility, you can about anything. i knew what i was doing was working, because of ratings. i was at dream when dream was dream. some of you understand what that means. some of you do not. a dude rode up on me and said i

appreciate you talking about the nuclear option. i am looking around, looking for the cameras about to punk, because i cannot believe this young dude is talking about the nuclear option and the supreme court. he said nobody ever talks to us about that kind of stuff, and you came to us honest, and me and my wife started looking it up, a young brother, and at first i was irritated, i was at the club, and then i am quite imagery, needing to tell them why this happened. it happened because we had created relationships. create relationship with the young people you want to engage, and as you listen to them, and they listen to you, you begin to have conversations because they are a whole lot more there and you think they are. it is really about listening to the things that they care about

what they are concerned about which gives you a bridge to start talking about issues with them that they may not know about. >> i am scared for 2016. the reason i am scared for 2016, it will not be anybody black running. follow me here. if you look back to 2008, you saw folks you have never seen in your life. you saw hispanic contributors, you saw african-americans, you saw more women, because senator obama and senator clinton running. after the 2009 election, we were back to business as usual. those folks disappeared. it is something amazing when a

14- or 15-yaer-ear-old said i never thought about politics until i heard you talk about it. amazing when a 14- or 15-yaer- country? that is a fear that goes to the issue of race in america. bill bennett 2008 said this, and you can pull the tape. he said when obama won in south carolina, when reverend jackson won, it was black history. but obama winning is american history. and i said, did he just say that on the air? nobody else said a word. no one else was willing to check the former defense secretary of

education. i said, within minutes, bill, do you know on black folks who ran for county commissioner and sheriff when reverend jackson ran in 1984 and 1988? i'm beginning to watch it like an he tried to come back and say it again. i said wait, donna does not run her campaign without brazile jackson running. i went down this whole line of people who came through politics because of reverend jackson's run, so how dare you diminish his two runs as being black history and on american history? the point there is nobody was at the table when it came to challenge him on that. imagine if that comment had gone

unchecked. without about recent america, we looking at a presidential campaign, i am looking at who is going to be on those networks because we are going to go back to business as usual instead of looking at the numbers. we are more black, more hispanic, so why is our television looking more like 1950? >> we talked about the increase in black and hispanic reporters. did we do our job? one of the first questions i asked a civil rights leader, what do we knew now that we have a black president, and he said we must seek truth to power new matter what color power is. have black and latino and other reporters held this president to the same level of accountability on race that we have others?

speaking to the mike? as reported, just individually. >> globally, but when i think about the white house press briefing room, i think people are asking the hard questions it will to ask him the hard questions, i think it is difficult to know generally speaking everyone is holding the proper people's feet to the fire, but if you move away to the president, when you speak to -- >> on the issue of race? >> not enough people are doing that, but there are some people who are doing that. april talked about how she was lonely in there. i think as you mentioned, she is not just, she asked about other issues as well. >> it is not as if this white house has given the same amount of access -- this white house

has not given the same amount of access that previous white houseess had. it best and i got an interview with the president, so i am not saying it has not happened. think about the fact that over the course of three years there has been three interviews, tv interviews, the president has done with the black press? >> i know bet has got some -- >> there have been three. >> robin roberts has gotten several. >> time talking about black press on tv. that is not an indictment. i think there -- there has been fewer opportunities to have direct one-on-ones with the president to give enough journalists the chance to ask their questions.

i think folks like april are doing an amazing job in the position they are, but to her point there are not a lot of people where she is. >> that is what i am saying. i am encouraging them hazel, jeff roll it is easy to get into the white house press briefingi,n -- because when it comes to katrina, ferguson, all these issues that affect latin america, -- lack america, it needs more reporters to ask -- sometimes i'll ask questions. it takes follow-up questions to make a difference. sometimes if it is just me, it will not be a follow-up. we need that continual pressure to ask the question if the story is going to be above the fold, make the a-block of the network evening news. also if you are talking about media making a difference, has got to be continued pressure from the community en masse for us to say this is something.

that kind of think it's attention -- that kind of thing gets attention from the media. >> thank you. we have three people standing create with you each ask a brief question and the panelists can respond all three in a way that -- is it four? four ok. four good questions, please make them brief. >> i am from the scientology national affairs office. i was hoping somebody could speak to where we go from here, and could there be somebody in the media that could take the lead as to where did we take this conversation, and who could that be and how could that kind of go through? >> thank you. let's get the other three questions. yes, sir. >> i work at a middle school, teaching computer applications. we lost have the first middle school

program. they are right there. as we begin to wrap up, because our parents are texting me know, and, hazel, has a nice think-ut your students. -- thank you to your students. >> i need your help. a lot of kids campaign to interview the present. i have letters of support from congressman john lewis congresswoman eleanor holmes norton. i have one from senator al franken, that we conduct a live broadcast on the 50th anniversary of the march on

washington. we have done our homework. we have interviewed so many prominent people. we have been featured on channel 7, "aqthe washington post." >> [indiscernible] >> absolutely. >> pass it along. >> we already have a response, and i am sure they will follow through. >> we got you. >> the last two questions, and we will answer them. >> you briefly touched on the if there is a crisis on sunday or over the weekend in the media, i guarantee that on monday i have to go to work and explained that charles barkley, kanye west are not my leaders. they do not speak for me. as far as perspective and getting decision makers in the newsrooms and in media how can

we make that breakthrough to feature prominent and experienced, well-educated experts to address the issues? >> in the last question be asked, and then the panel will respond. >> good afternoon. i am representing women for a positive change. i'm a teacher, a community leader. also i want to go back to rollin. we have to seek our leaders. what i want to know, back in the summer, i was running from the bullets.then my community, my mother was running from bullets, my great-nephew, 2 years old, hiding, that sign, "black lives matter they do

matter, but why is it," that we as a community continue to run from bullets and nothing is done about it? so when you talk about black lives matter, tell me how you are going to tell our youth -- i'm a teacher -- how do we get these youth to let you know, why do you want your mother to run for me bullet? my mother's house has been shot income and nothing has been done about it. we've got to do better. we have got to, and it is not just about police. it is about the diversity the jobs, everything. we've got to do better. >> can i ask each of the panelists they want to give a concluding remark and respond to these last questions. how would that be? we would give everybody a chance for a final response and in

doing so, i wanted to thank you on behalf of hazel and the your participation and the audience for their excellent participation. >> i will deal with the question, where do we go from here? where do we go from here is these media executives, calling them to the table to literally say you are ahere? leader, what exactly is your plan, and that can be done with the national association of black journalists, national association of hispanic journalists, and others. from a networks to import, no one is perfect, but when i look at what abc is doing, look at that kind of on air hires they have made, i want to see in terms of producers or executive roles that is.

requires. the media loves to talk about transparency. we love to tell these media institutions have a public trust. told them to reveal their numbers, reveal hiring numbers. but do not stop there. review diversity numbers. who do business with? brought in it beyond who is -- broadene it beyond who is writing storie. what are they doing on the business side? because you can hire us to be reporters but if you are not spending money with black businesses, or you are doing is continuing the exact cycle. is a community, that is what you

should be doing to every television station and newspaper. if they tell you those are private numbers, say i guess you do not believe in transparency. >> thank you for coming from st. louis. >> for us it is a local story. we did and investigate and use open records. we ask questions and probe and put pressure from the editorial page for change. that is where we go from here. i think what i have heard tonight is to hear some of the people we have not heard from before. we are not talking to the young people in the community. we need to find out what they are doing because they are not the leaders yet when dealing with before and that is a challenge for us -- we have been dealing with before and that is a challenge for us. tell us what to write and think and blog and do opinion pieces

for us. is the only way communities outside of your own to hear what you have to say. >> as roland reported earlier we have to cover events that are happening. cover campaigns that are getting started. i will not be to advocate -- our role will not be to advocate. when we don't about were originally from here it goes to my earlier point which is that we have to keep asking the question about what is next. is there something afoot covered on a local level? something does have to be happening. i think in terms of making sure there are more diverse voices, that is the same old fight. we have to be the ones that can make these suggestions to

workers that may be busy or used to going to a certain person. because that person will answer the phone and be available and speak in good soundbites. we as individuals can help by continuing to look for other voices and pushing the other voices but it is a studies log -- steady slog. >> thank you again for the invitation. when we thought about what is next, we need to look at the business. we need to begin bolstering with financial dollars some of the outlets, whether they are bloggers that have proven themselves credible. if we can bolster them to amplify what they are doing they can serve as a best actress young people -- best practice to young people that have the

ability to blog but do not see quality bloggers. the other piece around se eing more voices, cap communications firms that already have people to represent the way better job of creating stables of voices. the firms that are doing work around national security and armed services, you can have them building stables of voices. the same thing around education and electoral politics. because brokers will book what was calling them the most dutch dutc -- bookers will book whoever is calling them the most. we have to understand that because you are smart, that does not mean you are good for tv. we have to understand the difference between people who work for radio, people that are

good for print, and people that are good at television. we have smart people that are horrible to watch and it makes it difficult to get the next person because you have a track record of getting someone bad for tv. last but not least we need to begin developing young people. how do we identify storytellers? storytellers that are getting support from us and getting airwaves. i think roland is a good job of that. -- does a good job of that. if we can find a way to be talent scouts and give internships and opportunities and the ability to write pieces, finding ways to support the things they are already doing demanding the raise the bar of what they are doing i believe we can create a feeder of not just the local papers but a whole community of new media that is not looking for the older outlets to validate them

by giving opportunities but doing good work. >> april, please. >> i have found that please does matter. -- race does matter. at the presidential level and globally. but the problem is, does it make the news? no, not always. how do we make that change happen? you have to make the change, you have to demand it, you are to get up and pushed for it. for my book, shameless plug, but i am telling you -- [laughter] i learned it from you, roland. [laughter] anyway. anyway. no, but seriously. what i found in this book, the

most successful movements that came to race for those that were done with pressure consistency and massive numbers of people. why don't things change? this is from the observing from the highest level in the land. ipeople come to the white house, have a large grou pushing the issue. you have the an array on the other side. -- the nra on the other side. that is what we report on. where does the movement come? if you want more blacks in media, if you want more stories in media, it comes to you. you have to make the change. thank you. >> my wife is an educator and one of the people she has educated has been teachers. and one of the things she does is equity training.

should restrict futures or not -- she tries to make teachers aware of their white privilege so that they can teach children were not like them. -- who are not like them. it would be a good idea if reporters have equity training. [applause] to become aware of people were not like them. listen, we can't be what we are not. we are all born a certain way and have certain experiences. but we can become aware of the things we are not and that is what we might be able to bring about some kind of concerted effort at training ourselves. [applause] >> finally, thanks for having me. oh, no problem. thank you for having me. the thing we have done as

americans over the past 90 years is that the only do we report the stories and encouraged through our recording people to engage -- our recording people to engage -- reporting people to engage. i saw people who look like me doing something i wanted to do. it is of extreme importance that we show our people, the people that look like us, it makes it attainable, it makes it real, it makes it an authentic dream. i never thought, edgar never been the other outlets -- had their never been the other outlets, i would not be sitting here.not only were not affected platform , i would not have thought it to be real -- would i not have have the platform, i would not have thought it to be real.

most of the people that saw the ferguson arrest outside of ferguson, all they saw was the violence, the looting. there were only six days of violence and the people are protesting today, they are still at it. the vast majority of the protests have been peaceful and the fact that we were out there telling the story of the peaceful protests, i dare to say that is encouraged the people that might have thought to be violent to go ahead and be peaceful because they had a place for their story to be told. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of the evening i said it would be a historic event. thanks to all of you it truly has been. i do the opening remarks and i would like to call on hazel to give the concluding remarks and acknowledgments. >> hasn't it been wonderful? let's give the panelists, my

dears, a great thank you. -- peer, a great thank you. [applause] i would like to issue a challenge, as the young people would say, to get it turned out. am i saying it -- turned up. am i saying it right? everything we talked about tonight, turn it up so that we can make an impact in this country. i know it sounds trite but afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. that is what we are here for. if you would just indulge me another moment, we would be remiss if we would not acknowledge a few people in the audience. mr. clarence page from "the chicago tribune." [applause] joyce jones from thebet.

ray baker is somewhere in the audience and i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge my capital press club executive robin, kristin francis. on behalf of the capital press club, we want to thank you. we want to lift up the young people in the back, from elliott hine middle school, trying to get a question to the president, we are going to help them. [applause] be sure that when you go out the door, that you buy april's book. she will sign it. & up to become a member of the capital press club -- and sign up to become a member of the capital press club. leave your card if you want to be invited to future events. picture we have your contact information because we will be having more -- make sure we have

your contact information because we will be having more. [indistinct voices] >> tonight on c-span, congressional budget office -- budget office director with an outlook on the federal budget. then panels from the harvard university internet conference. first policy and then the impact

on internet startups. and that a case to decide whether judicial candidates can directly solicit campaign funds. >> the congressional budget office is projecting that the deficit will shrink to its lowest level in the last six years. director douglas elmendorf held a press conference to release the cbo budget projections through 2025. this is an hour. >> hello, i am very elmendorf.

the cbo has released its outlook and i will summarize the report and then we will take questions. the federal budget deficit which has fallen sharply in the past few years, is projected to hold study relative to the size -- steasydy relative to the size of the economy. the on that, the federal debt will increase relative to the size of the economy which is historically high. that is based on assumption that current laws governing taxing and spending will remain the same and are built upon economic forecasts. according to the forecast, the economy will expand at a solid base in 2015 -- pace in 2015 and following years. the gap will be eliminated by

the end of 2017. as a result, the unemployment rate will fall farther and more people will enter or stay in the labor force. beyond 2017 we project inflation adjustment to gross domestic product will grow at a rate notably less than the average growth during the 1980's and 1990's. with me address the budget outlook first and then turned to the economic -- let me address the budget outlook first and then turn to the economic outlook. the deficit will be less than 2014. this year's deficit is projected to be the smallest relative to output since 2007, close to the 2.7% they are averaged over 15 years. although the deficits remain roughly stable as a percentage of gdp through 2018, they rise after that.

the deficit in 2025 is projected to be one point $5 trillion -- $1.5 trillion. we expect the federal debt held by the public will amount to 74% of gdp at the end of the fiscal year, or than twice what it was at the end of 2007, and higher than any year since 1950. by 2025, in our baseline projection, it rises to 79% of gdp. when cbo last issued projections in the summer, we projected that under current law, that would exceed 100% --debt would exceed 100% by 2025. such a large and growing debt

would have serious consequences, including increasing federal spending on interest payments, restraining economic growth, giving policymakers less flexibility, and heightening the risk of a financial crisis. why will deficits and debt increase under current law? on the current production, outlays rise from 20% of gdp this year, which is about what federal spending has averaged over 50 years 222% in 2025 -- to 22% in 2025. the retirement of the baby-boom, rising interest rates on the federal debt. consequently, under current law spending would grow faster than the economy for social security,

for the major health care programs including medicare, medicaid, and subsidies offered through exchanges, and for that costs -- net costs. in short contrast, mandatory spending other than social security and health care, would shrink relative to the size of the economy. by 2019, outlays in the three letter categories would fall below the current -- latter categories would fall below the earliest year for which comparable data have been reported. revenues have been projected to rise significantly by 2016. bouyuoyed by the economic expansion. projections based on current law, revenues equal 18.5% of gdp

in 2016 and remain between 18% and 18.5% in the coming decade. revenues at that level will represent a greater share of the economy than the 50 year average of 17.5% of gdp. it would still be less than outlays by growing amounts in the coming decades. revenue from individual income taxes are expected to rise relative to gdp because incomes will move into higher tax bracket as income gains outpace inflation to which the brackets are indexed. but those increases are expected to be offset by reduction in the corporate income tax and other sources. turning from the budget of the economy, we anticipate that economic activity will expand at a solid pace in 2015 and the next few years, reducing the amount of underused resources or slack in the economy.

in our estimation, increases in consumer spending, business investment, and residential investment will drive the next few years. the growth in those categories of spending will be run mainly from increases in hourly compensation, from rising wealth , from the decline in crude oil prices, and from a step up in the rate of household formation. as measured in the change from the fourth quarter of the previous year, real gdp will grow by 3% in 2015 and 2016 and by 2.5% in 2017, we expect. the difference between actual gdp and our estimate, which is a measure of slack, was 2% of gdp by the end of 2014. during the next few years we expect actual gdp will rise more rapidly than its potential gradually lead eliminating --

gradually eliminating that slack. the labor market, we anticipate that will disagree -- disappear by 2016. this is close to the expected natural rate of unemployment, the right arising from all sources except fluctuation in the demand for goods and services. the increased hiring will make people stay in the labor force, boosting the participation rate, which is the percentage of people working or actively looking for work. our projections are not based on estimates of cyclical developments in the economy. the cbo does not attempt to predict fluctuations in the future. they are based on estimates of underlying factors that affect productive capacity. 42020 through 2025, we project

real gdp will grow by 2.2% per year, which matches the estimate of the potential growth. potential output is expected to grow much more slowly than it did during the 1980's and 1990's, primarily because the labor force is expected to expand more slowly than it did then. the growth will be held down by the ongoing retirement of the baby boomers, by relatively stable labor force participation rate among working age women after sharp increases from the 60's to the 90's, and by policies in current law. the elimination of slack will eventually remove the downward pressure on the rate of inflation and interest rates that existed in the past several years. by our estimates, the rate of inflation as measured by the price index will move up gradually to the federal reserve

goal of 2%, hitting the mark at 2017 and beyond. interest rates on treasury securities, which have been low since the recession, will rise considerably in the next few years, but remain lower than the previous decades. between 2020 and 2025, the projected interest rate on treasury notes are three poi -- 3.4% and 3.6% respectively. we will be happy to take your questions. please do it by identifying yourself and the publication you work for. >> william hall. do any of your projections [indiscernible] >> our baseline economic projections and budget projections are consistent with each other and that the budget projections are what we think will happen to the federal

budget given the economic outcomes we projec -- predict. and the outcomes are what we would expect given the baseline projections. the baseline projections are always dynamic in the sense in which you mean that word, in which the budget and economic effects are calculated and projected together. >> if i may, i guess i am using a term [indiscernible] >> the interest of people in congress is focused on the cost estimates and not the baseline. cost estimate there has been a long-standing -- for cost estimate, there has a long-standing tradition that they have not included the effects of the proposals on overall macroeconomic conditions and the feedback on the macroeconomic changes to the federal budget.

however, we and jct have produced studies on the effects of those overtime and reported goes to congress. nearly every year, we do an analysis of the president's budget that starts with the revenue provisions without allowing macroeconomic conditions to change. then we go back into an economic analysis including the feedback to the budget itself. we have done that essentially every year for a dozen years. we also do that sort of dynamic analysis when we do different paths for federal debt and the long-term outlook. we did it for comprehensive immigration legislation a few years ago. and our colleagues at jct have done it for tax legislation including the tax reform proposal last year. we and jct are accustomed to

doing analysis of the economic effect of major pieces of legislation. what is different in the role of the house has adopted is that the budgetary feedback of those economic changes would be included in the official cost estimate rather than being presented as supplementary information which is the way it has been done in the past. and we are prepared to deal with the dish -- do what the house rule asks us to do. >> two things. one, you have verbiage about interest costs. there is often concern that those will skyrocket. will a run down before you see what treasury will be paying? also, much is that -- how much

of that slowed inflation is people, for lack of a better term, being cowards. >> the first question, about interest payments. as you know, interest payments on treasury debt have been low the last several years. as a consequence, even though federal debt is historically high relative to the size of the economy, interest payments by the government have been quite low. so interest payments this year, 2015, we project will be 2020 $7 billion, 1.3% of gdp -- $227 billion, 1.3% of gdp. but we expect that interest rates will move up and as the treasury needs to finance new deficits and rollover the existing debt, the interest rate it pays all the outstanding debt

will rise. -- on the outstanding debt will rise. with that as high as it is, interest payments will rise significantly. interest payments that this year will be tortured $27 billion will be a hundred $27 billion -- $227 billion will be $847 billion in 2020. as for wage growth, compensation growth since the recession has been a good deal lower than it was before the recession. those of measures of compensation growth picked up last year -- although some measures of compensation growth picked up last year, they remain below. that is a consequence of the slack in the labor market. when employers are trying to

attract, if a lot of people are looking for jobs, employers do not have to offer as high of a as they would -- of pay as they would in a tighter market. as it continues to tighten, that will put pressure on employers to raise compensation. using the compensation growth will pick up. -- we think the compensation growth will pick up. the share of income going to labor has fallen and we think it will rebound but not to the level that it was 15 or 20 or 30 years ago. >> is a permanent structural change -- is that a permanent structural change? >> there have been permanent structural changes, but knowing how important those will be is of course very hard. certain technological changes globalization, or the forces

that people look to a lot. but there are others at work as well. how important those factors will be in the future is very hard for us to know. the labor share of income tends to fall during the initial recovery from recession's, so we have a good basis for expecting it will come back some. how far back it will come is hard to know and what we have done is to project it will come back way towards the normal average of the previous decades. yes? >> paul, "roll call." two-part question. number one, do you have a view on the house rule on dynamic scoring being a good idea? number two, will there be a greater level of uncertainty to a dynamic score?

compared to the conventional score. >> we do not have a position about whether the house rule is a good idea or not. we think it is natural for the members of congress to be interested in the macroeconomic consequences of major pieces of legislation and that is why cbo has built models to estimate goes macroeconomic consequences. we have in the past few years devoted effort to improving those models, getting feedback from outside effort, revisiting -- experts revisiting the assumptions, and writing a collection of papers that spell out fiscal policy. there is a set of eight papers that go through the key aspects of the model, one of which is a dozen years old but the others written in the past three years. have understood the important

better now -- we have understood the importance of that analysis to congress bought it is up to congress to decide how to use the information. if it wants to use that information to come in a supplementary form and not in cost estimates, we are happy to do that. if the congress wants that extra set of estimates to be included in the "cost estimates as the house will not require is for certain legislation, we're happy to do that. it is up to congress to decide the form. as for uncertainty, the macroeconomic effects of legislation are quite uncertain. it is also true that the non-macroeconomic effects can be quite uncertain. it is always important for readers of our work to understand that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the numbers and we give point

estimates because the budget process basically requires point estimates. things have to at all politicians are given to community -- add up, allocations are given to committees. but we understand there is uncertainty. in some cases, the macroeconomic effects of legislation will be more uncertain than the effects we estimate holding the macroeconomic conditions fixed but i think that will always be the case. it depends on the legislation we are analyzing. as a general matter, legislation that makes all changes and programs of the tax -- small changes in programs of the tax code or programs, analysts have a reasonable basis for making an accurate projection. but for major changes in policies or comprehensive reform of the tax code or on immigration policies or the

health insurance system, there is a great deal of uncertainty that accompanies the estimates we provide for that as well. i think that is a general feature of that people need to understand and that we need to continue to convey. as clearly as we can. for a number of our macroeconomic analyses, we have provided close to a central effective convey the uncertainty -- the fact to convey the uncertainty. >> "new york times." the changing major health care programs -- can you talk about the changing major health care programs? >> yes.there are a few components of the major health care programs i think we are discussing. for the coverage provisions of the affordable care act, and to be clear what we mean about that, the affordable care act

changed features in the tax code. we don't about them in large pockets, one being the provisions that expanded health insurance coverage, with the expansion of medicaid and the offering of subsidies. four other provisions, -- for other provisions, changes to medicare and the tax code, the provisions we are focused on are the expansion of health insurance. for those provisions, we have made a significant downward revision to the estimated costs over the next decade, about $100 billion against 7% less than we expected last year. relative to our projections, in march of 2010, the cost of those insurance coverage provisions between 2015 in 2019, which was the last five years -- and 2019,

which was the last five years amid estimates in 2010, we have revised down the cost my about 20%. -- by about 20%. that has been the collection over the past five years. there are a number of factors that underlie the set of revisions. perhaps the most important one is a 20%. slowing in growth of health insurance premiums. but there are others as well. including the supreme court decision of a few years ago and other external factors and improvements in modeling. we also have revised down over the past several years our projections for meta-eight and medicare's funding -- medicaid and medicare spending a great deal. there are a number of factors that have fed into that. there are, apart from economic

changes, for medicare that has not been significant changes in this projection relative to the last one of art from things related to the economic forecast. in terms of technical revisions not related to economic conditions but focused on developments in the programs and our interpretations i would not make a significant downward revision to the medicare production. but -- projections. all told since 2010, because of this assessment, we have marked on projections of federal medicare -- download projections of federal medicare spending and premiums by 15% each for 2020. some of that has happened already and some of that is projection of slower growth. we have gone farther in that direction this time in our

projections of health insurance subsidies and the cost of the aca expansion and and medicaid. no movement in medicare. robert. >> "washington post." you have figures on the decline in discretionary spending and the share of gdp. only figures adjusted for population -- were the figures adjusted for population change? >> we do have a continuous series. there are spots -- do not have a continuous series. there are spots that talk about that but i do not remember those numbers offhand. they are spot references and we do not report anything that

adjusts for population growth. i am happy to 10 and all for a moment while youth -- hem and h aw while i sort through this. for example, in 2010 and 2014, on page 79, and quite down in 2014, pending for defense -- between 2010 and 2014, spending for defense declined from constant $2010. excluding the funding for -- constant 2010 dollars. also between 2010 and 2014, on the same page, funding for nondefense discretionary programs defended -- declined by 4.5% or 11% in constant 2010

dollars. >> "wall street journal." i was wondering if you could talk about what prompted the downward revision on potential output? >> we revised down our estimate potential output by about 1%. from what we had in our august economic forecast. the primary source of that downward revision was a reassessment of productivity growth and especially productivity growth in the nonfarm business sector. we had previously thought that the slow growth of an actual productivity, these loans are growth and productivity over the past several -- the slow observed growth in productivity, was due to a shortfall of growth relative to the potential productivity. we thus anticipated that actual

productivity would rebound to its potential level over the coming years. and for some time that seemed like a reasonable expectation because productivity often fall short of its potential level when the economy is weak, when demand for products is weaker. firms do not push workforce is as hard as they do when demand is -- workforces as hard as they do when demand is strong. we had growth in the non-foreign business sector. as the economy has strengthened over the past two years, when we would expect the actual growth to not be falling farther away from our projection of potential, but it was. that did not seem to us to be the best forecast in the economy that was strengthening area.

so we lowered our projection. it is still above actual growth we think there will be a rebound but not as long a rebound as we were expecting. this problem that we face, in trying to understand how much of what has happened to productivity over the past several years is due to a business cycle and how much is due to underlying factors, it is hard and becomes harder as the length of time during this week economic condition lasts longer. there are people who observe that productivity growth seemed to slow before the recession. that was a pretty short period. and then we had a short recession and rebound. it is hard to know how much of the past dozen years has been because the economy is weak and

will go away as it recovers farther and how much is underlying structural condition that we face. on this particular variable, productivity, we think that the persistent slow growth in the face of an improving economy suggests that more of the slow growth is due to structural problems rather than cyclical. because of that we have marked down expectations for productivity growth going forward. >> i have a technical question. on page 98, you talk about the erosion of tax, over 2.5%. you see that, it is in the right-hand column? the final factor, the subsidies talks about pushing tax -- corporate tax revenue up and you expect the average tax revenue

closer to the historic average. how does it offset? >> i think the way to think about or projection of corporate tax receipts -- our projection of corporate tax receipts is how much will be earned by corporations in this country. does the profits earned in this country are taxed with more than profits of u.s. corporations earned overseas. we focused on the domestic profits. the question is, what share of that is paid in tax? one cannot tell by looking up the statutory corporate tax rate because the tax paid depends on the expense of the deductions and salons that companies will make -- and it's so on that companies will make. part of what is going on is that

the effective tax rate on domestic profits, the total amount of money the treasury has collected, expressed as a ratio of domestic profits, fell during the recession in a way that we cannot entirely explain. part of the reason we cannot explain it is that all we have for the past few years are the total amounts of money, the details before help unravel the puzzle that are only available to some. we have seen this tax rate, defined as the tax collection divided by profits, it has been low. we think there will be recovery in the long-term average because we are making an educated guess that what happened in the last few years was partly due to particular economic circumstances so there will be rebound from the phenomenon. there's a different thing going on which is that companies are trying to find ways to reduce the corporate tax that they pay.

as we explain here, some of what they do involves moving business income from the corporate sector to the noncorporate sector, out of c corporations and into s corporations. there has been a downward trend in business income tax at the corporate level and we think that will continue. the second factor we describe is a set of effort by companies to increase income shifted out of the country. it is subject to less u.s. tax. there are various ways to do that. about -- we talked about inversions. corporate inversions are a part of roughly half of the erosion and that factor is at work in reducing corporate tax receipts over the decade. but that is offset in part over the next few years in an increase in the rebound in the tax rate so there are other

factors that we do not have a firm factor own. -- factor onh. >>we think that corporate profits will decline later in the decade because of rising interest rates and faster compensation growth will push down the corporate share. and that factor, which affects hundreds of denominators, we think those factors will economic profits down relative to gdp and pushed on corporate tax revenue expressed as well to gdp -- wealth to gdp. i will check with my experts to make sure i got that right. other questions. >> the updated revenue and spending outlook, you will be looking at the debt limit this

year? >> we do write about that in the report. the debt ceiling was suspended as you know, through the middle of march of this year. when that suspension ends, the debt ceiling, under the law as it stands, will be reset to equal the amount where the ceiling was before it was suspended, plus all of the data that have been issued since it was suspended. the debt will be equal to the outstanding debt subject to limit. the treasury will immediately in march be unable to increase its net borrowing. at that point, we presumably will deploy is customary set of -- this customary set of extraordinary measures to obtain funds without increasing debt. we think those measures will be effective through september or

october of this year. at which point we think they will have exhausted their extraordinary measures. shortly after that, the treasury will have run down its cash balance and be unable to meet all of its obligations in a timely way unless some other action is taken. that production of september or october is uncertain and depends on inflows and outflows of money over the next eight or nine months. so you know from previous rounds of this, projecting the treasury's cash flows is a very uncertain business. so we will continue to keep the congress apprised but we are not likely to know more precisely when the treasury will run out of extraordinary measures or run

out of cash until we get quite close to those events occurring. >> could you go over the major factors causing the deficit to follow in the next couple of years? >> the debt? the deficits? >> the deficit. >> will be happy to talk about the pattern. we think that the dollar amount of the federal deficit will be ordered $68 billion this year -- $468 billion this year and will begin to rise expressed as a share of gdp. the deficit will remain at 2.5% through 2018 and will rise beyond that rising from 2.5% in 2018 to 3% in 2019 and 4% by 2025. let pattern results from

accommodate -- that pattern results from a combination of factors. part of what happens is that tax revenues rise a good deal in 2016 relative to 2015 because of the expiration of some tax provisions in the improving economy. tax revenues we think that will be 17.7% we project will be 18.4% next year. there is an increase in tax revenues, a market increase. -- marketed increase. after that they remain the same relative for the rest of the decade. they move up quickly but then our flat expressed as a share of gdp -- are flat expressed as a share of gdp. the retirement of the baby boomers is putting an upward

pressure on spending for social security and medicare and medicaid throughout the decade. there will be more than one third more people receiving medicare and social security benefits that are receiving it today. -- van are receiving it today. that pushes up spending. but at the same time, the other thing is rising interest payments. we think interest rates will move up over the next two years the government interest costs respond slowly to that because the government does not roll over all of the debt in one year. the average interest rate paid on treasury debt responds gradually to mortgage interest rates. we actually reported in table 1.3 on some page of the report i do not have the page number, the average interest rate on debt held by the public rises. we have the aging baby boomers

rising health care costs per person, the expansion of health care subsidies, rising interest payments. all of those are pushing spending all. on the other hand -- spending up. on the other hand, there are declines in defense purposes and other purposes like highway infrastructure, r&d support education and training support health research and veterans health care. and in the non-social security, on health care benefit programs like -- non-health care benefit programs like snap and ssi. the particular pattern from year-to-year results in this combination of factors. again, the underlying point is that we have a handful of very large federal programs that

provide benefits for older american or provide health care benefits or both. and with the rising number of older americans and the rising cost of health care, those programs get more expensive. by 2025, one quarter of total projected -- projected spending will be for social security benefit. some of the other biggest pieces are medicare, defense spending, interest payments. those four things alone social security, medicare, interest payments, and defense spending, those four items together represent two thirds of total federal spending in 2025. the growth in federal spending is not coming from a growth across the board in federal programs is a handful of large programs. the other parts of the budget as i said earlier are getting smaller relative to the gdp and that damps some of the effects

of the growing spending. so it is a combination of these factors but the trend is clearly for rising deficit for reasons that are very well understood by analysts for decades. >> david reuters. could you clarify your status? are you a contender for the job as chairman? >> my current status is to be the director of cbo. my term ended on january 3 but under the budget act of 1974, directors can continue to serve until after the terms of expired until new directors are appointed. and i like the job a lot so i am continuing to serve. i expect to do that, unless and until a new directors appointed.

whether a new director will be appointed and one that would occur, i do not know. and i will not be the first person to go on the first person to tell you. that decision -- to know or the first person to tell you. that decision rests with the senate. and he will speak to it when they want to speak to it. >> liz. can you talk about your estimate that by 2039, public debt will exceed 130% of gdp? as of the last time that happened was after world war ii -- you say the last time that happened was after world war ii. >> this is a projection from the long-term outlook last summer, we look 45 years. -- 25 years. we thought that under current laws, that would exceed 100% of gdp within 25 years.

we have not formally updated the projections but the projection in this report of debt relative to gdp at the end of the decade is quite close to the production last summer in building longer-term projections. so we have not done anything since last summer that would change our view that unless some significant changes are made in spending or tax policy or both, that debt will exceed 100% of gdp within 25 years. and the on an upward trajectory at that point in time. -- be on an upward trajectory at that point in time. the only other time was at the end of the second world war. what was different then was that the debt ran up sharply during the second world war. but then started to come down relative to gdp.

that was not particularly, on that picture, because large surpluses were run, but because as you mentioned, gdp grew rapidly in the budget was close to being in balance. -- and the budget was close to being in balance. the run-up was because of the cost of fighting the war. the run-up that we have seen is heavily because of the financial crisis and recession and the policy responses. so those are, one hopes one-time events. but behind that, is this ongoing and highly anticipated event of the retirement of the baby boom generation and the movement of a large number of americans to an age where the federal government

provides significant benefits. and also underlying this is the rising cost of health care per person which has been less over the past have a dozen years than projected but we think the best projection is a continued growth. with many more people eligible for social security and medicare, and medicaid as time goes on, and with the cost rising, we face a it is quite different from the situation at the end of war. the fact that debt doesn't rise very much relative to gdp over the next decade, does not mean it doesn't -- that that is high-level doesn't have significant cost. with debt this high, there will

be significant interest payments or interest rate rebounds. there will be crowding out of capital investments. as time goes on. there is reduced flexibility for policymakers to respond to future financial crises or recessions or international events. there is heightened risk of physical crisis. -- fiscal racist. even if that was -- that was lessened. moreover, we don't think the debt will be stable. another point we emphasize is that even though the reason that that only raises a little bit relative to the size of the economy, despite the demographic changes and rising health care cost, is really because it is sent into current lot a very sharp reduction in spending everything apart from social

security. compare the historical experience. nondefense discretionary spending. the congress appropriate money each year. it is about the same this year as it was 50 years ago. this spending has fluctuated relative to the size of the economy overtime but it has shown no evidence trend over 50 years. over current law, given the cap it will fall to a lower percentage of gdp than we have seen. defense spending is a little more complicated. it has trended down relative to the size of the economy over the last 50 years. but not over the last 20 years. it fell a fair bit in the 80's and 90's. but, it has stabilized this year

, over the last 20 years. we think that need loan -- need depends on what you think will happen in international events. defense spending is also on track to fall to a smaller number relative to the size of the economy. so, there's this very sharp shift underway under current law, and what the federal government spends its money on. because of the appropriation process it occurs one year at a time the caps have been set without decisions about which programs will be provided. in the future it would have been provided under historical experience with those government programs. we highlight the issue in our report. at the risk going forward, that the caps have been set but the decisions about what will the cut and what will not be cut

have not yet been made. other questions? yes. >> can you go back and talk a little more about inter-spending on projections, and although it is lower than the past it is still substantially higher. i wonder whether not you consider the possibility that interest rates have declined structurally and are going to be lower in the future then anyone had predicted four or five years ago, and today what that would do? >> as i mentioned, we expect interest rates will rise considerably. but we do not think they will rise up to the levels they were at over the past few decades. we wrote about this at some length in our long-term look --

outlook. we had a brief discussion. we recapitulate in this report. we got about what would be different in the future relative to the 1990's two 2007. --period. in that era, we think that inflation adjusted treasury interest rates will be about three quarters of a percentage point lower in the future than they have been in the past. that three quarters of a percentage point difference is pretty substantial. we project that a nominal tenure treasury note rates will be 4.6% by the end of the decade. with gpi inflation of 2.4%, that means inflation-adjusted tenure rate of 2.2%. that compares to about 3% for real treasury tenure rate in the 1990's. we made a substantial downward

adjustment. that adjustment is the net effect of a number of factors. we list for. --4. number one, forward growth of the labor force number two slow growth of productivity. both of those factors we think lower interest rates because it basically affect the product of capital in the production process. we also think greater income inequality is pushing up saving which tends to lower interest rates. and we think they'll be greater risk premiums on private security. treasury rates will be held down because of their greater demand. those four factors alone would've argued for a lower revision act. on the other side, for --4 other

factors that will push up interest rates. one of those is greater federal debt. another one is slightly smaller capital inflow from overseas. a third is fewer people in their prime seating years. -- saving years. another way of saying baby boomers are getting older. people in their prime saving years. and also the higher capital share argues for higher returning cap that compete with capital for investors. as best we can judge, the factors pushing down rates relatives -- relative to this, will be more powerful than the pushing up rates. that is why we made this revision relative to history. nonetheless we think rates will move up from where they are now. that is consistent with

expectations of participants in financial markets and consistent with our own modeling of demand for a fund as the economy strengthens. again, these are changes we mostly made last summer in the long-term budget outlook and incorporated into our august projections. we made it further small downward nice to interest rates because of a declining interest rates in other countries that makes u.s. assets relatively more attractive. this is no doubt one of the sources of great uncertainty in our projections. we offer an appendix to the report, and a rule of thumb for how the projections could be different if economic projections were different. we have rules of thumb for faster or slower growth in gdp or higher or lower inflation and

higher or lower interest rates. not surprisingly, budget outcomes are quite sensitive to interest rates. as much marjorie then maybe a decade ago. -- that is much more true than maybe a decade ago. i think we have balance the risks in this production but the risk on both sides -- there is risk on both sides. >> and trying to get a better handle on it. people in the exchanges. reduce the little bit of your outlook for that. this is based on one year of experience. now, given the path, how confident you feel about your

original score? >> you are absolutely right. to say we have only observed exchanging relevant -- enrollment in subsidies and medicaid enrollment in people who are newly eligible for one year. we don't have detailed data in all cases. what happened only happened that year. we will learn a good deal more in the years to come. on the other hand, the source of the revisions that we made, i think have more foundation then just looking at last year would suggest. part of what we have done if they have more information about private health insurance premiums. over five years since we did these estimates.

it is true that insurance premiums could jump up next year. they could fall next year or rise that small amount. there is a lot of uncertainty. we have seen now for a number of years significantly slower growth in private health insurance premiums than expected in 2010. that is including premiums paid in the insurance exchanges last year. and the premiums that we see offer -- offered in 2015. i think we have a strong basis for making a significant downward revision for the protected costs although we have the amount precisely right now, we don't know. similarly for medicaid, we have seen a number of years of slower growth in medicaid costs for beneficiaries than we expected in 2010. although there are particular

aspect of the affordable care act we have only saw for one year, we had observed others for some time. we have a much stronger foundation with a cumulative foundations with the cost is the medicaid expansion than just from looking at last year's data. although once again there is considerable uncertainty. >> how important is that moving forward? >> as you know the excise tax on higher premium insurance plans have not yet taken effect. it is particularly hard to -- we don't even have the one year in that sense. there is anecdotal evidence of people reporting making adjustments to their plans. to keep premiums on a trajectory below what they think they will be subject to that tax. those are just anecdotes that this point as far as i'm aware. we expected that most of --

there will be a significant adjustment i am players to try to keep -- by employers to try to keep the threshold low. of the total revenue that we show occurring because of the tax, only a quarter of it is to come in the form of excise tax receipts. three quarters of the revenue comes in the projections because employers hold down premiums, and therefore pay more in cash compensation to their employees because they will be paying less than they would advertise in a nontax health insurance. the extra cash will yield higher tax revenues. record of the revenues will never show up -- three-quarter of the revenues will never show up. they will nonetheless occur because of the excise tax, if

that were to induce a behavioral response. we don't know what that would yield. it is true that this all equals the health insurance premiums in the economy of the whole. lots of other things are going on. we incorporate all factors in making projections. >> you popularized the term spending the curve. we have had five years now. you feel relatively confident at this point. how good a job do you think aca has done of spending the curve of national health expenditures? >> we don't know. the reason we shied away from using the term bending the curve is because people tend to do it as a permanent state of affairs.

what we do know is the curve meaning both federal health cost and national health costs, has been flatter over the past couple of years than we anticipated. the curve has been flatter. whether it is flattened -- and we think you'll stay flatter for a little while. but our projections don't show it being this much flatter indefinitely. it can be faster health and -- growth in health care costs again. but we don't know. we are trying to balance the risks of putting too much weight on a phenomenon that has gone on for a little while. or too little late on --weight. but the further question, is given that these cars have been flatter, how much is that is attributed to the affordable care act. we just don't know.

so the slower growth of payments to a number of providers, even medicare, is a specific aspect of the affordable care act that we thought would lower medicare spending. belichick to the pre-aca -- relative to the pre-aca world. and it has. but, whether other provisions of the act have had other or more indirect effects on federal health care spending or national healthcare spending, we just don't know. >> anything else? ok it is great to have you here as always. thank you very much. >> tonight on c-span, two panels from the harvard university internet conference. first they look at how

government policies impact the internet. then a panel on the impact of government policies on internet startups. that is followed by the supreme court oral argument in williams-yulee v. florida bar. on the next washington journal congressman hank johnson of georgia, a member of the judiciary committee discusses his bill to change the process of investigating any death of a citizen by the police. then jenny beth martin president of the tea party patriots, is here to discuss the influence of the tea party heading into the 2015 presidential elections. washington journal is like every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with your calls, comments on facebook.com/c-span, and that c-span wj on twitter.

tuesday, u.s. trade representative michael foreman -- froman appears to answer question on president obama's 2015 trade policies. this is like a 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. here are a few of the comments we have recently received on the state of the union address. >> i heard a lot of great things about talking about science, and nasa. as a scientist i can really appreciate the president's position on expanding nasa's role. there are a lot of great people who do great science. class a couple of points i wanted to raise. i thought that rebuttal to the republicans off-the-cuff was really spectacular. i haven't seen a state of the union so improvised along time. i'm happy to see that after 50 years of doing something the wrong way we are finally getting our act together.

trade with a nation that has been very important in our hemisphere since our inception. the same thing could be linked to foreign policy, the fact that we have been doing the same thing in afghanistan and iraq. we have been getting the same results. some kind of blowback and the cia talks about it. he even mentioned had he said he was losing drones was honestly. the idea that he has killed many -- maybe hundreds if not thousands without congressional authority. >> i have a few things. about the president's state of the union address. some of the stuff leading up to it, i actually have to argue the opposite. they have said that unemployment has gone down. the economy is improving. i don't think that is the case. people have to remember, with unemployment, you can only have

your extension for so long and you don't qualify for unemployment and offense. when those people get dropped from unemployment, they are no longer counted as unemployed. that is not really an indicator of the economy going up. that is people falling through the cracks and being forgotten about. if you look at it from that perspective, the rate of unemployment is probably 10 point something higher than what is actually being estimated as as far as the figures of what they are showing. >> continue to let us know what you think. college that 202626 3400. e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. send us at three at -- tweet. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next, a discussion on government policies and their affect on the internet. representatives from google,

yahoo!, facebook, and ebay join government officials, hosted by harvard university's institute of politics. this is 90 minutes. >> good morning. i feel like we should both -- vote on something. but we're not going to. my name is jonathan and on behalf of the harvard kennedy school's institute of politics, the universities center for internet and society, and the internet association, i am delighted to welcome everybody here and in the virtual world because we are live streaming right now. we are live streaming as far as i know. i would give the url but if you are on a lifestream you already know it. if you are here, you don't need it. we are being recorded for posterity by our good friends

and neighbors at c-span. they will be putting this up against the friday night battle between the house of representatives'subcommittee on veterans affairs. and a briefing at the treasury department. i think we are looking pretty good. [laughter] be aware. we are broadcasting. we are in the penthouse on the fifth floor of the kennedy school. the school is named after john f. kennedy. the institute of politics here has been from the start designed to support the political aspirations and public service of young people, something president candidate was -- kennedy was also well known for. who can forget his speech? ask not what you can do for yourself, but ask what you can

do for your country. how prescient and farseeing it was to see the role of coding and the app ecosystem for the future of the country in the world. this morning, we will unfold as two panels. i will be moderating the first one on a will the government break the internet? the answer to any question in a headline is no, but we will have to investigate. then we will have a second panel moderated on why internet policy matters. this is a rare and special opportunity to gather the amazing group of people we have around the table today. we hope we make the most of it. before we start the first panel, i am pleased to turn the mic over to michael beckerman from the internet association. >> thanks to the harvard institute of politics for partnering with us.

we are going to ask the question will the government break the internet? i agree with you i hope the answer is no. but the policy issues we will talk about today, from reform to privacy to government surveillance, and net neutrality are very important to the future of the internet and the internet users and companies around the world. these are important policy issues that i you get into an election cycle, that voters care about. we're looking forward to a great conversation. thank you for moderating. >> i am going to take off the introducers had --hat to put on the moderators hat. i'm going to get into the middle of the well. this is where we need jeopardy music. [laughter] let's see if this will work. all right. as you may have noticed, i have called this panel.

that is generous. this is a roundtable that has right angles. we have approximately 25 people on the panel. there are roughly 85 minutes to do this. introductions would not be done before the time is done. we have a special configuration. i want to use this to our advantage. this is how we suggest we do it. to bear in mind and adopt the ideal as we proceed, we are speaking for posterity. don't forget that c-span is recording this. imagine that 20 years from now, when people have a jet packs and nick bostrom's ai has taken over. it doesn't look good for us. [laughter] they will be looking back nostalgically at 2014.

maybe the names of the companies will have changed. maybe the configuration of the network will have changed. but, i urge us as we discussed to think about what we would be saying to somebody in the future about the issues we are facing now. i think that will keep us at the right level of importance for what we want to say and it gives license to explain a little bit the issue that among many people here dealing with governments all the time on this who may represent government, we have shorthands for all sorts of things. to be able to unpack those shorthands, there needs to be a translation available for others. i think that would be quite good. that also means that since we are not doing introductions around the table, when you first speak up, feel free to introduce yourself and do an extra beat. don't just say ebay, say as you

may remember as... [laughter] our whatever it is that ebay does. or maybe not. electronic they. -- echo bay. we have already learned something today. [laughter] and where is echo bay today? crushed. [laughter] an extra beat on the introduction. the one other guideline i would give is often and especially in government affairs, our points are usually three in number. i like to adjust that to one. [laughter] give or take. how about just one thing with an elaboration and we can keep the conversation flowing rather than there being three different reasons.

that reminds you of something everyone else said tournament's ago. that will make it harder to follow. sound good? yes? as michael hinted, we have a mclaughlin group-esque set of issues. we will talk about liability and a surveillance and net neutrality, this is in the news recently. finally, net governance. the thicket from which there is no return. we want to touch and integrate on all of them. i want to think a little bit about the category of intermediary liability. which i understand to mean, governments often directly regulate people. at other times, they realize don't regulate people, regulate any institution in between the government and the people and put mandates there and then you

can still effectuate regulation in a more powerful way. copyright infringement defamation, these are examples. as the internet has grown in the american context, we've seen some balance struck in what the government may require of intermediaries. one example is coming from europe with a newly recognized right to be forgotten. adam, where are you? i don't know why it occurred to me that adam should be asked first to weigh in on the right to be forgotten. tell us what company you are from and how is it going? [laughter] >> i am adam and i lead googles >> i am adam and i lead googles u.s. policy efforts.

google is a search engine company -- was a search engine company that did a lot of great things. [laughter] >> humble. >> the right to be forgotten is an interesting issue that a lot of us in the u.s. look at the ruling of this european court of justice and think this is outside the bounds and not something that would gain traction here due to our first amendment and strong intermediary liability principles. i think it's important to acknowledge some of the feelings that motivate the desire for a right to be forgotten. there is more information about all of us online than ever before.