host: we are talking about the republican budget. it was a big topic on capitol hill. our guest is with the concorde coalition. you can join in the conversation if you have a conversation or comment about the budget resolution. sac is calling in from texas. good morning. caller: i was going to ask when things are going under international and domestic spending what can we grow by

that definition? it's easier to say you can have competitive effort. whatever it comes to the domestic budget we can do this but we have to get back on this. we can do it cheaper by doing things this way. whenever we try to cut the budget, it's not doing it differently and getting the same results. it's always we have to cut something. why is it always the we have to cut something else instead of growing the ceiling. host: is that your concern with just the republican budget? caller: it's both. as an independent, i watched both over the years.

it's in both budgets. it's the same way with every budget. host: thanks for the question. guest: there are a couple of good points there. government doesn't look enough at doing things better. they tend to look at budget totals and not review programs and do what's called oversight. one of the things we have advocated over the years is to cf you could appropriate the money and see if the programs are working. one way to do things and save money is to do things better or more cheaply as you point out. the other point i would say is it's important to try to find arguments that you're going to spend more in one area and you want to find cuts in another

area or raise revenue. if part of that can be done through a more efficient administration of a program that's fine. i think you can do both. i think you can blend both. host: how does your coalition feel about investment that may not have specific offsets? are you in favor of always finding them? guest: i think there is a distinction to be made between money that is consumption and money that is investment. the federal budget does not have a specifically designated investment budget. maybe that is something to look into. i think within a balance, you don't need to have a balanced budget every year. you don't want one and a time of recession.

there are times when it's appropriate to have a deficit. host: should it take a decade to get back to a balanced budget? guest: it's going to take some time. that is have the whole is. you would not want to do it that quickly. the goal of getting back in 10 years, there is a dynamic and play a lot of people don't focus on. the appropriations bills are determined one year at a time. those not the problem. most of the budget is mandatory spending, social security, medicare medicaid, interest on the debt. the major entitlement programs grow every year because the population gets older and there are more beneficiaries. health care is an expensive thing to consume. if you look at the dynamics in

the budget, that is what is growing. even defense shrinks as a percentage of the economy. budgetary challenges are the growth of the entitlement programs and the ones having to do with health care and retirement. when you talk about getting back to a balanced budget, it becomes more difficult. you're always bumping up against that headwind. it's not a simple matter of looking at the appropriations bills of year insane, we can get back to a balanced budget getting tough if we ignore the entitlement programs and at interest on the debt . host: do you think congress will adjust that this time around? guest: i think the next

opportunity for that is probably going to do with the first budget of the next president did that is why they are spending a lot of time in iowa and new hampshire with my friends to campaign that the next presidential candidate will talk about this issue as well. we are doing a project called first budget for that very purpose. for the upcoming year, i think they're probably going to focus on the appropriations bills. i think it will be difficult to pass those. if they pass them at the level that the republicans have recommended, the president has said he will veto them. for those who enjoy government shutdowns, it could be something like that will happen again this year. that might force a negotiation of some sort. host: daniel is waiting in hastings, michigan on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i've have a question on the budget submitted by

republicans. it calls for the elimination of obamacare. i was wondering why they are including the savings from it in the budget? i will take my question off the air. host: why they are including the savings. guest: they are including the savings from repealing obamacare in the budget and the five children dollars with the savings includes that because -- $5 trillion with the savings includes that because that's what they want to do and that's the plan. host: does that factor in the cost of a replacement plan? guest: no. it assumes that the gross spending and obamacare would be repealed which is the exchange subsidies and the medicaid expansion primarily. like i said before, one of the curiosities of this budget is that it assumes that the revenue increases of obamacare would remain even though it says they

will repeal them. host: let us go to dan and saint petersburg -- in st. petersburg, florida. good morning. caller: as far as finance reform, it seems that a simple solution would be to make all contributions regardless of size anonymous. that would take away all the questions about propriety and who owes what to whom. i don't understand why people are talking about that. have a give all politicians polygraph exams and that would take the problem of whether they are telling the truth or not. most federal employees on the lowest scale have to take a lie detector test, but why shouldn't people elected office do so also? host: talking about campaign finance reform, but not really the topic we are discussing.

if the system went to publicly funded campaigns, any idea how much that would cost and how much that would impact the budget? guest: i have no idea. [laughter] i would hope that if we went to public financing that it would not cost as much and that we wouldn't use taxpayer money to the extent that you get private donations because that is quite expensive indeed. i have no recommendations in that regard. host: robert bixby is the executive director of the concorde coalition. he is with us for the five minutes or so. if you want to talk about this budget voted on the house late last week and taken up on the senate today, our phone lines are open. you can ask your questions or comments. phone numbers are on the screen. one issue i want to bring up is how the budget relates to that debt limit conversation and the ongoing concerns about surpassing the debt limit. guest: it leaves that on a

dressed. we will have to confront the debt limit again in the fall like in september or october. technically speaking, we are at the debt limit right now. the treasury department is doing the extraordinary measures as they call it to keep us under the debt limit, but that will run out after a wild. -- a wild. we are going to have to deal with the debt limit. that will be part of the deal at the end of the year. i suspect that because the appropriations level are so different than the president would want and the democrats would seek to approve -- i think that there's probably going to be some sort of negotiation at the end of the year that would involve somewhat higher spending, a little bit of cap's made up for cuts in mandatory spending or tax loophole closures. i imagine that deal would include the raising the debt limit because there seems to be

consensus on capitol hill that the debt limit has become something of an embarrassment in the sense that it really is not an effective way of controlling debt. it doesn't control debt. it does more harm than it does good. i think it confuses the public and i think we need a better mechanism. i think we need a better debt limit them one we have now. host: kerry is waiting on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. one of the things about the budget does everyone expects the money to be spent in the same year. i suggest that they do the capital spending and continuing programs and then do the new programs. the capital spending takes five or six years to complete, but the new programs -- i agree with our guest that we should do our

view on those. these programs have to be justified and see if they are replacing the program that is already in existence or if it is really new. host: he is in favor of the approach you recommend. guest: i think there should be some more oversight. because there is a difference between just consumption spending and capital expenditures -- that would be more of an investment and perhaps there should be a way of reflecting that in the budget. host: how often does congress kill a program that is not working well? guest: very rarely. there is a proliferation. the government accountability office does a great job every year of putting out a report that talks about duplicate of programs -- it will get programs

and very rarely is any action taken on them. and as part of the political process. people like to create programs and do not like to defund programs once they are created. so you get a proliferation of programs. we should not leave people with the impression that that is the major problem in the budget. it is a problem that needs to be addressed, but you talk about unsustainable budget, which is basically what we have now. it is driven by health care costs and the aging of the population. host: tennessee is up next. dave on the line for democrats. david, are you with us? he might have stepped away. we will go to cairo and boca raton, florida. good morning. caller: yes. host: you have to turn down your tv before you ask your question on our we will not be able to hear you. caller: the affordability health care act is $1.27 trillion by

2025. can we actually afford this? is there anybody who is running who agrees with the flat tax or the fair tax? those are my two questions. thank you for taking my call. i've never called before. host: you did a great job in boca raton. guest: the affordable care act -- some refer to it as obamacare. the figure that you cited is correct. that is for the spending for the exchange subsidies. there's a lot more to the affair will care -- affordable care act. there's more's ending for medicaid expansion, but there's also in the affordable care act cuts to medicare and tax increases. so when you put them all together, it was designed to be

deficit neutral. it is higher spending and higher taxes, but it was intended to be deficit neutral. a repeal would have to be scored somehow. a full repeal would have to take out the revenue increases as well as the spending cuts -- spending increases. you may well come out with a deficit neutral result even if he repealed it. host: let us go to john in cleveland, ohio. john, you are up next. caller: two-part question -- what happened to last year's budget by ryan? ryan and the democrat center -- senator -- what happened? there is a double count of medicare.

they only use the revenue neutral. once you budget like colin powell said, the supreme court is going to decide on the obamacare. they call it dynamic scoring. i would call it biggest lie in the world. it is the best fiction in the world. what do you think? what he think of the account beyond what they asked for? -they get away with this thing -- how can they get away with this thing? the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. host: lots of questions. start to explain what the ryan-murphy deal was that he referenced in the beginning. guest: the ryan-murphy deal was a couple of years ago. paul ryan, who was chairman of the senate budget committee, and patty murray was the chairman of the senate budget committee and they reach

an agreement to slightly raise the domestic and defense caps on we have on spending and found some offset in mandatory spending and a very small amount of revenue through loophole closures. anyway, i think they were called fees instead of taxes. at any rate, it was not really a big deal, but it was a big bipartisan agreement that got them past the shutdown. i think the same thing might happen this year. as the caller suggested, the ryan-murphy deal was not a big deal when you think about long term about getting the budget on a sustainable track. it did get them through the night. i suspect we w are probably

heading in that direction this year. host: speaker john boehner referencing that deal speaking to folks who want to raise that question again. guest: the cast that are in place are very, very tight. they apply to a particular part of the budget, which is so-called domestic discretionary spending. it is the appropriations bills education, transportation, health care, non-medicare -medicaid stuff. i think there's some sentiment on both sides of the aisle that some of those caps are too tight and that they might want to come up on them a little bit. but they would want to find savings someplace else because the capture pertinent place to help reduce -- cap's were put in place to help reduce debt. host: are you ok with the raising of those caps? guest: we be ok if a were to

find some off set savings. whether it is ranges from tax reform, we are always in favor of some grand bargain but there are many grand bargains. the problem right now is that congress is taking actions that are making the best fit worse. -- debt deficit worse. they said one that cured a little glitch in the law. it is a long started host: story. host: we talked about it on "washington journal quote" quite a bit. guest: the house is been passing tax cut bills that would reduce the state passed -- tax and other things that would reduce revenues. the actions that have been taken have been things that would increase the deficit. what we would advocate is a bipartisan agreement about things that would reduce the

deficit. host: we have about 15 minutes left with robert bixby of the concorde coalition. if you have any questions or comments about this budget bill in the house last week and in the senate this week, the phone numbers are on the screen. alex is in florida on the line for independents. good morning. caller: a simple question. why have the bush tax cuts not repealed in 2010 and they were delayed? they were unnecessary tax cuts even back in those days. i wish we would have more taxes applied back then. most of those credits that went back into the economy really want to the corporations. companies like ge, which, what do they do? they use their five -- $5

billion in tax returns to invest in china and the other 10% in stock buybacks and so did many other corporations. in other words, these tax cuts -- they do not bring the money back into our country. thank you. guest: the bush tax cuts were made permanent a couple of years ago. you might recall that it was something called the fiscal cliff. part of the deal was to make most of the bush tax cuts permanent except for tax cuts for the people at the very top. the ones that you presumably were most concerned about were allowed to expire. that is the end of the bush tax cuts. most of them were made permanent for the upper -- i forget

exactly what the cut off was. it is the upper ashlock. they were allowed to expire. host: we mentioned several times of the house voted on this the last week. the senate beginning to take up the budget resolution today. do the house and senate approaches to this differ at all? guest: not substantially. they were pretty similar. reaching an agreement between the house and the senate was not all that difficult. they had differences in their approach to defense spending. they kind of worked it out. the real tension is on dispense spending. -- defense spending. you want to raise the cap storekeeper caps off how much do you want to avoid the caps by putting it to the overseas contingency operation funds? host: let us go to carmen and in in illinois. caller: i have a couple of

questions regarding the budget and social security. what is the difference between the revenues and expenditures for social security? why don't they just unlimited the caps -- eliminate the caps to resolve everything? guest: that's an interesting question. social security has a cap at a certain level of income. i believe is around $118,000 or somewhere in that area. as we baby boomers reaching our retirement years, social security is going up in cost. the expenditures for social security now exceed the revenue that is coming in from the payroll tax and that is projected to persist evermore. and that is -- it does create a problem for the rest of the budget because the gap is made

up to general revenues. -- through general revenues. at some point, the social security trust fund which is credits given to the system through cap surpluses will run out around 2033 or so. so the system is already running a cash deficit, which is a budgetary consequence. by the way, the disability portion of social security retirement is already running a cash deficit. it is projected to run out of trust fund authority before the next president takes office at the end of 2016. so, that is a very important issue for this congress. it is not something that they can put off. they're going to have to do something about that. one of the potential remedies is to raise the cap and thus bring in more money.

there are a lot of bipartisan plans that would do something to trim benefits, not necessarily right away, but things like gradually raising the eligibility age are making a benefit formula more progressive , particularly at the top end. there are ways that you can do both and bring in more revenue and scale back the projections of spending chairs. something like that will have to happen before too long. host: several callers waiting to chat with you. luis is in greenville, tennessee. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my question went along with the caller before the last one -- the bush tax cuts. my second question is -- why in the world do we continue to allow the wealthiest of the wealthy to keep offshore and theiring their money?

i can also explain in real simple terms why the social security budget is kind of going away. it is because all of our jobs have been shipped overseas. people aren't working here. a aren't getting paychecks to pay into social security. does it take a freaking brain to figure this one out? i don't think so. i don't think the wealthiest of the wealthy are paying their fair share. what prevents me with my little bit -- i retired, i don't have a lot of money, but a little bit. what about off shoring my money? how do i do that? guest: let me take your social security question because we had discussion about that. the problem there is simple demographics. this has been forecast for a long time by the social security trustees.

it is not a matter of the economy has changed for jobs have gone offshore or incomes have not kept up. those can be a factor, but it is really the dominant factor -- simply the aging of the population and many more beneficiaries and the text payroll tax not being sufficient . that has been projected. i've been doing the concorde coalition for 20 years. it was forecast back then. host: concorde coalition and off shoring. guest: we don't have a position on that. host: jean is up next on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a couple of questions. one is -- i'm wondering how they look at the quantitative easing that has gone on in the last couple of years. i know that affects the savings.

i'm just wanting his general comment. in the very cliff notes, could you explain to people why the deficit is twice what has been in all the previous years? what makes up those money? thank you and god bless you. guest: i do fiscal policy more than monetary policy. commentary easing is a monetary -- quantitative easing is a monetary policy issue. that is one of the tools that the fed has at its disposal to avoid an even deeper recession that we had a crisis atmosphere. it is certainly a legitimate topic. did it go too far or whether it should end down -- now is not something that i feel i have the expertise to comment on.

on the other part about the deficit, it is actually coming down. it did go way up over $1 trillion. it stay there for four years. host: a good time for a quick explain on debt versus deficit. guest: the deficit is the annual sum by which the government falls short of being able to pay its bills without borrowing. it is the annual shortfall. the debt is the accumulation of all the annual shortfalls. so that's the grand total. host: the deficit has been coming down, but the debt is still increasing. guest: that is exactly the point. when people hear the deficit is going down, they say it is really good. it is a good thing. but it really means that the debt is simply accumulating at a slower pace. the debt has to been going up --

still been going up. what you are referring to as the debt as a percentage of our economy is about twice what it has been historically in the post-world war ii era. a lot of that had to do with the huge deficits that were run up in the recession. it gets to your quantitative easing question in the sense that we had a very, very abnormal situation from 2008 to just recently. when the economy goes into a deep recession as we had spending goes up and revenues go down. and so you get what is sometimes called an automatic stabilizer because lower revenues and higher government spending are thought to use a recession -- ease a recession. the side consequences of that is a run-up of the debt. the check now that the recession

is over is to try to stabilize the situation and stabilize the debt to gdp and gradually begin to bring it down. host: susan in massachusetts on the line for democrats. susan, you're on with bob bixby. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment about how we are paying for our wars. evidently, we are taking out loans, which i guess never happened before. we usually raise taxes. but now we are so tax shy that we are kind of getting what we paid for. also, i think if we passed an immigration bill that that would help social security of it. having more people paying into the social security. many of the immigrants have more children. also, for the work. i do not know why they don't

pass a conference of roads bill or transportation bill to improve our potholes and are failing bridges. it would help a great deal. it would put people to work and you can't cut things like education and health. these are things that we need as americans. they have to find a way to invest in america. host: that was susan and blackstone, massachusetts. she brought up at the beginning there how we pay for our wars. have we always had an overseas contingency operation separate fund? guest: not always. this was made explicitly because of the budget caps and the decision that war spending should not be subject to an arbitrary budget cap. it does create a loophole around regular budget caps.

so i think she raises a good point though about -- and prior wars, we have raise taxes or cut other spending to fund them. it is a mix of debt. we had tended to get away from that. in more recent years, we have not raise taxes, even cut taxes in the priest -- increased face of military expenditures. host: we want to get to steve in winter haven, florida on a line for republicans. caller: good morning. my suggestion is that while we go to this budget why don't we go to chapter 13 to help with the budget problem? chapter 13 will help us get back on track and educate ourselves financially and help us balance the budget's and educate people

on their finances because you have to take success afterwards want to take the test. so you understand at least what is going on and you get yourself back on track financially. host: education of the american public. something that your coalition pushes for. guest: we do a budget exercise that is very popular and a lot of members of congress like to use the other town hall meeting for constituents. it is popular on campuses and with business groups. basically, people sit around the table like this, like our college today, and we give them choices for a better congressional office and they come up with their own budget plans. it is a very useful educating thing. if anyone is interested in that you can contact the concorde coalition. host: the website is concorde coalition.org.

>> on the next washington journal, how to reduce poverty in urban areas. the cato institute's michael tanner. later koerner -- colonel -- he will trust the training needed for u.s. troops in international combat zones. we welcome your thoughts by phone, facebook and twitter. boston journal airs live -- washington journal airs live every morning on c-span. >> seafood industry regulations are the focus of the senate small business hearing. senator of louisiana has introduced a bill to ensure foreign inspectors meet u.s. safety standards. you can see that hearing live starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> monday, google vice president vince cerf -- vint cerf spoke to the national press club on the future of the web. this is one hour. mr. hughes: i am john hughes. i'm the president of the national press club. we are the world's latest organization for journalism. we are committed to our professions future through programs just like this. we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information about the club, visit our website. press.org. donate to programs offered

through our journalism institute. on behalf of our members worldwide, i want to welcome people in our audience to today's newsmaker luncheon. i want to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter, using the #mpclunch. remember the public attends. after our guests speech, we will have a answer and -- a question and answer session. i'll ask as many questions as time permits. our head table includes guests of our speaker and working journalists. let me introduce them. i ask each person to stand briefly. from the audiences right, pender

mccarter, retired public relations director for ieee. jackie keizo, for me -- former presidential -- at white house, fema and gsa. bill, vice president of development. kim harbert technology freelancer and chair of the national press club free press committee. susan molinari, vice president of public policy and government relations at google. house in fitzgerald, managing editor at the center for public integrity and a member of the national press club board of governors. skipping over our speaker for a moment, laurie russo, managing director at stand

communications. she organized today's lunch. thank you, lori. haley sugiyama, technology reporter from the washington post. tom rison, technology reporter for u.s. news and world report. wayne rash, washington bureau chief for ely. joshua higgins, technology reporter for inside washington publishers. [applause] so a little more than 40 years ago, the first international conference on computer communications gathered in the basement of the washington hilton. attendees witnessed a demonstration of new technology that enabled advanced applications to run between computers here and washington -- here in washington and others around the country. a network created by the

advanced research project agency was the earliest version of the internet. one of those involved in the demonstration today is today's speaker. since 1972, vint cerf has developed the architecture of the internet and ushered the continued spread of the web and has become one of the most widely expected -- respected authorities on internet policy and governance. many call him the father of the internet. since 2005, he has served as the chief internet evangelist for google. he says he took that monitor because they wouldn't approve the title of archduke. [laughter] dr. cerf is well versed the values and capabilities of internet. the voice concerns that the 21st

century could become an information blackhole unless we find ways to preserve photos documents, and other digital content, which is hard because we don't know how computers of the future will function. his solution for now -- if you want to make sure that some important information survives for posterity, print it out. [laughter] dr. cerf's current project is the interplanetary internet which he is working on with nasa and it is likely what you sound like -- it sounds like. it is a computer network for planet to planet communication. his list of awards and commendations is as you can imagine quite lengthy. if you want to learn more about them, you will just have to look them up on the internet. [laughter] vint cerf: google it. [laughter] mr. hughes: please give a warm national press club welcome to google's chief internet evangelist, vint cerf. [applause]

vint cerf: well, first of all, thank you very much. this is number 208 which is if you feed them, they will come. that is my favorite zerotheorem. second, i'm not going to use presentation charts because power corrupts and powerpoint corrupts absolutely. you will just have to listen instead. i want to tell you a little anecdote which i think is relevant to especially this population. i worked on something called mci mail way back in the 1980's. we turned it on on september 27, 1983. among the first people to sign up for this electronic mail service or reporters -- one of them was william f buckley. i maintained a lovely correspondence with well before he passed away. i remember that had come and gone to join and then i rejoined

mci to help get into the internet business. it was very clear that charging people for e-mail was not a great business model anymore. we shut down the mci mail service and i got a whole bunch of angry e-mails from reporters who said that i had my mci mail address since 1983. how could you do this? the honest answer was that it was time for that service to go. i have two themes that i would like -- themes that i would like to address this afternoon. the first one is technology and i will drop into a geek. i apologize but it is the only way to be precise. then we will talk a little bit about policy. i have a point on the tech side and four or five points on the policy side. let me start on the technology side. i'm really proud of the fact that the internet continues to evolve. this is not a design which was mr. hughes: -- this was not a

design which was fixed in time 40 years ago. but rather it is one which has adapted to new technology and has swept in the communication capability and become an important element of the smartphone, both the internet and the smartphones are mutually reinforcing in many ways. one of the things that bob and i do not quite get right was the amount of numerical address space that is needed in the internet. when we designed it 40 years ago, we did some calculations and estimated that 4.3 billion terminations ought to be enough for an expanded. -- for the internet. we got it wrong. the -- we ran out of the ip address experiential address space around 2011. the ceo of america's registry for internet numbers is right over there. you can wait to him. if you need ip addresses, he is the guy to talk to about that. i am proud to serve as the chairman of the board, but we need ipv6 now which has 128 bits

of address space. it is to 10 to the 34th power of address space. it is a number that only congress can appreciate. it is absolutely vital to get all the isp's to turn on. the laptops and software is on. but the internet service providers need to turn on which is parallel with the service that you are using today. you can do me two favors give one as individuals, talked your eyes peas and demand an answer on when i'm going to get these addresses. i want dates and times. as reporters, will you kindly do the same thing? but do it with the megaphone that is afforded to you by the for the state. why do i care about having more addresses back no one answers the next wave of stuff is the internet of things. you know that. this is real. every appliance that you can possibly imagine is shifting from electromechanical controls to programmable control. once you put a computer inside of anything, there is an

opportunity to put it on the net. there are good things and bad things about that. the good thing about the internet is that everything is connected. the bad thing about the internet is that everything is connected. we really need the address space in order to accommodate this explosion of devices. cisco says that there may be 50 billion devices by 2020. it may not be as crazy as it sounds because every lightbulb could potentially have its own ip address. some of them already do like the lightbulbs made by phillips called hev. -- h you need. -- hue. we need to get that info mentor. the second one is even more obscure. the label is buffer bloat. you might think -- what is this?

when you are watching streaming videos have you ever noticed that a get real jerky and things slow down and the delays are going up and used that they are for things to reload? it turns out that it is not true that having more buffer memory space is always a good thing. le you have a router home typically. maybe is supplied by a table -- cable or telephone company or you bought one and installed it or hired a geek to do that. so this thing has memory in it. imagine for moment that you are running a local network at home and it is running at maybe 100 megabits a second or maybe 10 megabits or even a gigabit per second, but the connection that you have out to the rest of the world is not running that fast. unless you happen to be on one of the google fiber networks which is a gigabit per second, but most of them don't get to that speed. what happens? the programs that you have running inside the house are pushing data like crazy into this buffer is is filling up an empty and slowly because of the

data rate on the other end lower than the rate at which your pumping it in, which means that there is increasing amounts of delay from the standpoint of the sender over here, waiting to hear acknowledgments coming back from the other end. at some point, the program inside your house is saying, oh my god, they didn't get what i sent. i better send it again. you keep retransmitting and producing and creating a highly congested conditions. it is counterintuitive, but when you have to do is design the system so that it does not put too much buffer space in the path. it should put only enough to deal with the differential between the high-speed and low-speed side. this also works in the other direction. here's the code word for you. the letters that you want to refer to are called codel-fq. that is the kind of thing and technology that you want in your routers. while you are pounding on the table for ipv6, i want codel-fq in my router and i want a pony. [laughter] next point.

all of you are familiar with the fact that we are bad with picking passwords. some of us still use password for password because it is easy to remember, but everyone else does that so it is not a good thing. so you're told to make a complicated password with punctuation and other stuff and keep changing all the time. you can never remember them and you a list and stick it on your computer, or you put it in your wallet. ok, so at google, you will remember, and some of you reported that we were attacked in 2010 and penetrated. so we decided that we needed to do something about that. in addition to username password, which we still ask people to change on a regular basis, we also have a piece of hardware that is called a gnubby. don't ask me why.

it is a two factor authentication device. it creates a one-time password using an algorithm system. and i log into my google accounts, and you can do this to if you are gmail, when you log into the account, if you're asking for two factor authentication, it will do one of several things. if you have this little device you will take a live because the light will come back on and it will send the data back and forth. or it sends a random number your mobile or you have an algorithm running on the mobile which generates the number for you. all those cases imply that you have to have this other thing in your mobile or gnubby or a message coming from google giving the latest password, in addition to knowing the username and password. that is why it is two factor authentication. if they have your username, they can't get in because they don't have the second factor. we would like to encourage everyone to adopt that practice because that would make it safer for you and for me. the fourth point -- security and

safety and privacy are really important. one way to achieve that, in part, is to use what is called https. hypertext transport protocol was invented in late 1989 and released in part of the world wide web. there is a secure version of this called https. and the purpose behind it is to increase the traffic between you and your laptop and desktop and mobile or tablet and the server on the other hand -- google in my case. the ideas that everyone should be making use of this cryptographic means of the transmitting data back and forth. while you're using web-based applications, the information is kept in encrypted form and only decrypted on it reaches the other end. this is called encryption for transmission. which leads me to the fifth point, which is that google and others believe that all transmissions, regardless of whether it is from your edge device to our services, or between our data centers or any other place, ought to be encrypted in order to protect

confidentiality. we see crypto as a very important technology, which should be incorporated into normal use on the net. no, i don't have a much time, so i won't tell you stories about how i work with nsa back in 1975 to design and build a secured internet. the only problem was that the details were classified at the time and i could not share it with my colleagues. so i felt schisms rent for a long time, but now we have the technology available to make it so much more confidential and environment. we think also that it is important to encrypt data once it lands in place. your laptops should be encrypted. your disk drives should be encrypted. your mobile should be encrypted. we will encrypt data as it lands into our data centers as we move it back and forth between the data centers. we keep getting credit so if the data center were penetrated or you lost your laptop or your tablet, the information would be very hard for someone to extract. crypto is important. the seventh point is another geek thing. it is called dns sect. use domain names all the time.

it is the security extension. how do i do this in a couple of seconds? when you do a lookup of a domain name, you may not see that happening, but when you type www. google.com, your computer says, where the hell is that on the net? it will look it up on a big database. what it gets back is an ip numerical address. these two pieces of information, domain name and ip address, are very important. what happens if someone can go in and change the numeric address associated with the domain name. you may think you are long into bank of america.com, but if someone has hacked the system, you're off to some bad site, which is extracting your username and password in every thing else. the solution to use is the digital signature. some have heard public cryptography. digital signatures arise out of that technology. we can digitally signed a binding of the domain name and ip address.

when you get that pair back from doing a query, you can check if anyone change the binding or alter the numerical part. i checking the digital -- by checking the digital signature, you can verify it has not been modified. this protects against all kinds of attacks that would otherwise be harmed. we think it should be a -- it should be implemented. it is being implemented throughout the domain name system, but we need more of the mentation as a goes down into the hierarchy. the a thing on the geek side -- you're going to love this. it is bcp 38. what the hell is that deco it is -- what the hell is that? it is basking indications practices number 38. -- what the hell is that? it is best indication practices number 38. if you are operating a network and accepting traffic from people that will eventually be set out to the rest of the internet, the first thing that you should do is check to see whether the source internet address -- the miracle internet

-- the numerical internet address is coming from a legitimate source. is it coming from a network that owns that address space? bcp 38 basically says don't let traffic into the net that has fake source addresses. it is possible to fake the source address by stating that this is coming from that place over there even though it is common from here. we don't want people to do that. we think the isps should be executing this bcp 38 thing. you can tell that i have a very strong message, which i ask you to amplify, to tell the icp's to -- to tell the isps to get on the stick. improve the safety, security and confidentiality of the net. now we switch over the policy. they told me they were going to tell me when this thing was going to die. it says i have 19 minutes left? >> it is 19 after, seo got -- -- so you have got vint cerf: seven minutes. eight things and seven mins.

[laughter] some of you may be reading and writing about this idea that the ntia has to transfer whatever responsibilities response -- whatever responsibilities it still retains to the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers. this is called the iana transition. the multi-stakeholder bodies of the internet, all of us, become part of the operation and policy development for the internet rather than having a specific agency of the u.s. government taking responsibility for that. when it was created in 1998, that was the intent. it was supposed to be a two or three year period and then it would settle down in the ntia would relinquish response -- relinquish responsibility. it has been some years since 1998. it is now time. the ntia has proposed to do that. it would show how to operate

without the benefit of this oversight. although there is controversy over this, i am a strong believer that we should -- the government should step away from the special responsibility or authority and return this to the community which has created and operated the internet since its inception. that is point number one. second -- i cannot imagine that you would disagree that freedom of expression and access to information is absolutely fundamental to our democratic societies and we need to make sure that the internet continues to support that. i would like to add one more freedom to this and that is freedom from harm. we don't often speak about that but unless people feel that they are safe in using the internet and they will not use it. if they don't, and some comedies -- some companies business models including mine, may very well be undermined. it is very important in addition to freedom of extortion and assembly and access to information that we do everything we can to protect

people from harm, which is why i was talking about all those other geek things that little while ago. point number three has to do with nondiscrimination. in particular, none of the isps or broadband providers should have a say on where the traffic is coming from or going. everyone should have equal access to the net. you should have the ability to go anywhere you want to on the net, and in principle, do whatever it is you want to do. if it turns out to be a legal, that is a different problem. none of the providers who have access to the system should be telling you what you can and can't do. that is a nondiscrimination element and trolling up in the net and trolley borders -- net neutrality borders from the fcc. user choice is fundamental to the internet's utility. the fourth item on the policy list is equal access to performance features. if you have the need for low latency because you are playing some kind of videogame or you need high bandwidth because your streaming video, you should have access to that.

it should not be possible for the broadband provider to pick and choose who gets access to that and who doesn't. it should be openly available to everyone. i do not say free. but what i said is that everyone should have equal access to those capabilities. and finally, i think it is very important that we encourage not only here in the u.s., but everywhere around the world, the adoption of policies that would encourage the creation of more internet. of course, i say that, but look, here's my problem. at google, my job is to get more internet built all around the world. and talking to eric schmidt the other day, he said, you cannot retire. i said, why not? he said, you're only half done. we have 3 billion people, but we have 4 billion people to go. i could use some help in case any of you are interested. we really need to help countries recognize the importance of an internet infrastructure for the benefit of their citizens. that is the fifth and last point of my internet policy.

since i am out of time, i will stop there. i will turn the floor over to you to ask grilling questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. the internet was created by the u.s. defense advance research projects agencies or darpa. now it is global. no one owns the internet. is it possible this will work? >> first of all, darpa did sponsor this initially. the answer is absolutely yes. we turned the internet on on january 1st, 1983. 32 years. now who do you suppose was actually running it at that point? it wasn't the defense department.

i left and was at mci at the time. my colleagues were parts of universities and in the private sector, running and building and operating pieces of the internet. it has been the private sector's role to build and upoperate. the national science foundation and nsf -- they don't run it anymore. they started in 1986 and shutdown in 1995 not needing any more because of commercial services available. the private sector and civil society and technical community and academic community and governments all have a responsibility including you to be part of the policy making apparatus for the internet. the things you do to protect your own safety and security and privacy affect me, too. if you don't do a good job you

become an avenue which attacks can be made, and fishing attacks occur and access to things that should not be accessed by their own parties will happen. we all have a shared responsibility to make policy decisions about the internet. the enforcement of policy could be the responsibility of specific organizations and individuals in the light. but the policymaking thing should be multi staple and that has been working and it can continue to work if you let it. several questions about hacking. will there day when such attacks are not possible and someone else wonders who is responsible for cyber security? . who can stop the hacks from happening question mark?

>> we are all responsible for improving the safety and security of the internet. there is a visual model i have in my head. imagine if you have a set of homes who backyards are shared in the front doors go out here. imagine there is some nincompoop who keeps his house unlocked. that is a risk for you. i see this internet as we all have a role to play to make it more secure a and save. there are different places in the architecture where it is a very large system sold mechanisms my workout one layer may have no effective and other. suppose somebody said the

solution to e-mail is reshooting -- we should crypt everything progress long as we do that everything will be okay. analyze this a little bit. the source of the e-mail of the laptop which has become infected somehow. maybe they went to a website or so this computer and doesn't know it's affected composes a bill that has malware that we in cryptic. great than nobody can see anything. then it does this not solve the problem. so it is everybody's responsibility but each layer

and provider has a responsibility with the application space and we're doing everything we can with the attacks with the layers of architecture that also need to contribute. >> we use social and credit history to verify of the golden age. -- to identify our identity. what does an identification and verified look like? >> the short answer is yes. would you like me to elaborate? [laughter] so first of all, social security numbers are not intended to be a

defiers used in commerce but they are. or the last four digits which is almost worse. second they don't check the digits it is just nine digits we can do a lot better. and a certificate that identifies the key so this is a weird thing it is late the door with two keys one locks the door but does not allow it. so you have these two different cryptographic key is that work together to create security.

you can imagine having an identifier that has been digitally signed -- from the authority that would identify those issues that could be a state government does anybody know a correct the answer? does the state issues of social security number the federal government? so the federal government does bin with the signature somebody could send you a challenge. only i can decrypt it. then i could send it to the party so each of us has a credential issued by the federal government that has the public and private key associated with it. it is more comprehensive than

that but that is the essence if we could agree on the international basis that has to be shown before these credentials then we might be able to make a digital signature as assorted as the wet signature is today. with these digital signatures a of certificates also against abuse of social security numbers. >> in addition to printing or photos where should we be doing to preserve information for our culture for future generations.

>> i really didn't say print everything but those who were in the business of printing photographs decided that is what i said. [laughter] you can blame them. printed photography has gotten different from all the stuff you see. here is the problem every single day you create complex files the file that you created is pretty complex and in order to correct the and render or allow those documents to be edited you need a piece of software. now imagine it is the year 2158 you were doris kerns good wyn's great great granddaughter a eddy want to write about the beginnings of the 21st century.

the dialog seemed a very plausible with the words that reuse made it seem like to be a fly although all going to 100 different libraries and use that to reproduce the dialogue. you are her great great granddaughter trying to read about the 21st century and you cannot find a daily thing because all e-mail has evaporated or worse discs full lowe's ditz that represent the e-mail but the application program in the operating system that iran on a and a the harder -- hardware don't work anymore. nobody supported them you have a pile of rocks and bits i want to prevent that.

they're only a few ways but the best way that i have seen so far it has been developed a virtual machine capability to allow him to emulate hardware of almost any kind then run the operating system on that machine then run that application on the emulated system. he showed 20 different emulations of different operating systems and show we 1997 turbo tax running on the of mcintosh including the crappy graphic it was phenomenal. so the ability to preserve software and emulate the hardware is the best to answer

so far this is not a trivial technical problem also intellectual property issues what rights can i get? when somebody says you cannot do that because they did not pay? it is 150 years since you did anything with that software. give me a break remember when xerox was created librarians said they could copy of limited amounts but they would say no. but it didn't happen and the ability to employ a fair use was important we data preservation associated with copyrights so not only sanctioned but encouraged to survive over long

periods of time. >> in 1979 bob cahn urging you to have of braintrust that could not continue your work who is your brain trust today? is there enough technical expertise or even with technology experts for those to kraft a policy? is that braintrust being consulted like it should? >> the answer is no to the last part but the first part is the original group that i created with the internet configuration control board we've made at as boring as possible for those lead researchers so they would

morphed into the internet activities board when it became part of the internet society with that task force all of which are housed with the internet society is the braintrust where the bulk of the protocols are coming from this is various corporate entities for protocols but it still comes from the braintrust i was in washington since 1976 it is a privilege and responsibility to help policymakers understand enough to make some sense i am looking for simple cartoon models sunday will reach those

policies in the last thing we want is the policy that a bid is the law of gravity so our job is to be helpful to help clear expurgate -- explanation how works and the worst thing in the world those that cannot be implemented. >> looking over the past two decades, what are the one or two developments of the internet you are most pleased or most disappointed ? >> starting with the last one span is a disappointment and i

am very proud of them to do a very good job if you look at your spam folder it is amazing how much stuff you did not have to look at. so it is the annoying side effect so for those who don't have to pay for what they do so if it is not enforceable is annoying but what i was most astonished by if we go down the alleys of you have kids you might have learned what i learned is don't take too much credit when they do well when they screw up you don't have to do too much blame.

proud is the word that i use for the internet. however with regard to surprises nobody really noticed the when the mosaic browser showed up this was absolutely astonishing because it had imagery and color and eye opening but on top of that if you want to see how the well-paid church was built it -- how the webpage was built it has the html everybody could cop the everybodies web pages so the web master it was enhanced that of the betty could share all their web pages so what astonished me was the amount of content from when html was

available it is astonishing how much information and people wanted to share their information was useful to someone else nonsense information in sharing is power and we will see that over the next 20 years as well. so what i like the most if it is a scalable 1 million times bigger with too many protocols has invited creativity you don't have to get permission from

every isp in the world to put it up on the net day and it should stay that way. >> you are said to have been in candidate for u.s. chief technology officer but of larger question is if you consider moving to the government side to sort out these issues in the ec -- in some kind of senior role if offered? >> this is the hypothetical. there were news reports i was on the list but i don't know. i consulted with my friends and he said why don't you just the the chief technology officers best friend? so now make is there i thought that was pretty good if i

-- i served six years in the government. i enjoyed that time it was up period where i worked with incredibly smart people but my whole career has been that way. i met google is surrounded by incredibly smart people more smarter than i am. i hear that every day. then i think we tried that 25 years ago than i remember the reason why it didn't work that reason may no longer be valid now is cheaper and faster now is economically feasible i have been forced to rethink my own view is over and over nothing makes you rethink your old -- our own position so i don't feel the need to become a part of the

government but i want to have the opportunity to provide support in and help if i can and i will do that. >> do you want to see congress pass the u.s.a freedom act? vs loss enforcement's desire for the back door with the cell phone? what should congress do? >> first of all, the back door idea is indicative of the real tension with a global system to be used in the views like a lot of technology there is nothing about that that determines agues says some people would use that so we have to do something at if we wish you protect the citizens of our country and others from harm in this network so ask

yourself how can i do that? and the tension is if you use cryptography which i assure everyone of you cares about what can they do? it is reminiscent the report to don in the '90s i was adamantly against the clipper chip idea and the reason was simple if you have a back door somebody will find and it could be a bad guy who will intentionally abused their access. so that technology is super risky. at the same time i except the government wants to protect citizens from harm. how do you do that? there is the spectrum so imagine

rehab a society with no privacy everything is known it might be a very safe society but maybe not one the you want to live but what if there is absolute privacy and bad stuff happens to you feel your privacy is protected but safety is diminished there must be someplace for every one not the same place every culture or the nation but figure out where is the balance. congress is forced to struggle with that with privacy and confidentiality of the other item not persuaded that building the back door is the right way. >> the way the fcc that

-- net neutrality rules are written to the offer equal opportunity download speeds while avoiding government overreach with content regulation. >> this is day interesting problem i think tom did not have a lot of choice. the fcc had asserted a cassette -- a set of neutrality rules intended to protect user choice. is essentially they were told by the supreme court you don't have the legal basis to reinforce network neutrality preferences so we either had three possibilities in one was do not think that that notion to the extent they agreed there helpful or useful would simply not succeed because of the of enforcement the second is to get

the congress to create a new title specific to internet. some of you remember there was a brand x decision that cable and telephone company said we're not regulated in the same ways. this is correct the yet they both provided internet service they say it is different ground rules it is not fare so what possibility might have been to get congress to adopt that internet title that was the appropriate. the choice was to treat the internet as if it is the information in service with no layer structure or telecommunications component of story but that is unregulated so the sec was removed but tom

chose a third path to and folk -- and that was to invoke title ii which the sec had the authority in my view to decide it is really title to but constraint significantly so now under this rule they have a basis for taking action however there is a potential forward-looking risk so if they decide to invoke the complex system for voice communication which is of far cry from tomorrow's internet at some point this tactic has to be

redressed so if we do anything at all in the reagan stowe -- revelatory space it needs to be tailored to add new products and services we should not constrain the network simply in order to regulate but to make sure it treats you fairly with adequate opportunity but at the same time allows the sec to protect your interest. that is where my head is and i hope you think i've managed choose straddle this reasonably well. >> i imagine we fight for press freedom worldwide imparted your job is to evangelize the internet what can you to shake that loose?

>> i wish i could say get over it everybody picks on china but they are an example i do have some sympathy for the chinese government there are 650 million chinese on the internet right now. so this means the private sector that was investing in the enormous amount building infrastructure they were very early on into that space so they made this big announcement at the same time they come from a long history of practices so they are scared of this large population of people becoming unhappy.

i am told the last seven times there was of major regime change it was preceded by a rebellion looking of conditions i didn't appreciate that the moves are scary for in the administration even if they try to do the right thing to make the fed and housed. so those that seek authoritarian control over the internet will discover if they do that they shoot themselves in the foot of -- they inhibit the creativity of the population which is what they need but to inhibit their ability to explore world markets the global economy is bigger than it you or don't cut yourself off the state message

needs to get to the europeans at the same time next family preventing themselves from participating to let the global market participate. it is in your interest to invest in the internet to allow your creative population to make use no country has a corner on creativity it is equally distributed they just don't have the upper with all to explore those ideas how many come from india to the silicon valley or seattle to reduce spectacularly well? it is just that they didn't have the investment infrastructure or the willingness to take risk we know there are smart people out

there if of rules could be made similar to what they are in the united states. >> we're almost out of time before i ask the last question i would like to remind about upcoming speakers for the first woman to lead to the air force academy will address a luncheon on friday. the ceo of american and delta -- united airlines will appear together. [laughter] -- what an opportunity. >> and garrison keillor will address the press club on may 22nd double presenter guest with the greatest gift of all the national press club mug the you can treasure for decades

[applause] >> mug shot. >> so the final question else sounds like it caved in over the internet you have fewer than 5,000 followers on twitter and you're not verified what is left with that? [laughter] >> i don't tweet that much. i have better things to do. and i get more than enough as it -- enough visibility as it is i don't need any more. with i don't know what you have to do to get verified? send your blood type? and i remember asking the guy he didn't think that was funny.

[laughter] >> why isn't there a nobel prize in computing? >> you will have to ask mr. nobel. the story is that his wife ran away with a good mathematician. in consequence, he told his committee under no circumstance will any branch of mathematics be recognized by the nobel prize. computer science tends to be associated with mathematics. so we in that field are not eligible for the nobel prize. we might be eligible for the peace prize, but that is a real stretch because that is a very big -- political kind of thing. there is a prize that is offered by the association for computing machinery founded in 1947.

it has now gone global. there is a chinese and indian and a european council in addition to the one which oversees the global operations. i am former president of acm. the prize is called the turner -- the tehring award, named an alan turner. many will know that prize is $1 million, fundses by google. and we're proud to offer that through acm after year. i did get that prize, along with bob kahn, and 2004. so i feel more than adequately compensated. it wasn't a million dollars back then and the aren't doing it retroactively. i asked, but that didn't work. so, it is -- it's a coveted and very high recognition of contribution to the computer science community. i think that's more than enough. >> how about a round of applause for our speaker. [applause]

>> thank you very much. i'd also like to thank national press club staff for organizing today's event, and remember, if you would like a copy of today's program, or to learn more about the national press club, go to our web site, that's press. press.org. thank you very much. we are adjourned. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> l in john and rick warren of the saddleback church are among the witnesses testifying on the senate hearing on global health. follow live coverage at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 3. the manhattan institute for policy research hosted a forum tuesday on the future of america's black community. the event marks the 50th anniversary of a study on black america conducted by johnson administration assistant labor secretary daniel pasha moynahan. who later represented new york and the u.s. senate. -- daniel patrick moynihan. this includes former maryland governor bob ehrlich. it is an hour and 10 minutes.

>> good morning. maybe we can get started. again good morning, everyone. my name is jason reilly, a senior fellow at the manhattan institute for policy research and i would like to welcome everyone to the symposium entitled prosspects for black america and moynihan report turns 50. if you are looking for a white america symposium you are in the wrong room. that would be any of the other rooms in the building. i will be brief with my remarks because we have excellent panelist lined up and i want to give them as much time as possible. i will get a chance to speak later on this man. -- this afternoon.

i started working at the manhattan institute for policy research in february of this year. but the idea for this conference on race first occurred to me many years ago when i was on staff at the wall street journal. i came across a book falled the fairmont papers which is a transcription of a conference that occurred in 1980 at the fairmont hotel in san francisco. the conference was organized and hosted by the economist thomas soul and titled black alternatives. he gave the opening remarks and noted the economic and social advancement of blacks in this country is still a great unfinished task. methods and approaches being used to advance blacks demand reexamining. there was growing evidence of counter productive results from noble intentions. the goal of the conference was

to explore alternative approaches. that is why we are here; to explore alternatives. not to create a new orthodox with excommunications of those who dare to think for themselves the people invited to speak here are seeking wisdom and people who challenge issues and think for themselves. some are democrats, some are republicans, some are liberals some are conservatives, but all are open to reassessing what has been tried in terms of public policy aimed at helping the black underclass. and finally he noted that america has been through a historic struggle for basic civil rights for blacks. a struggle that was necessary but not sufficient. he said the very success of that

struggle created new priorities and urgency and economic realities to confront. he said that back in 1980. i must have come across it in the late 1990's. now here we are in 2015 and i don't think those sentiments are any less relevant today. a few years after i discovered the fairmont papers i became friends with soul who is 85 this year and yet another book coming out in a couple months. i just got the galley in the last couple weeks. i asked him about that conference. i asked him about it several times over the years. he said it went well with good press coverage and feedback. he had every intention of hosting a second one but the plan fell through and he never got around to it.

i said that is the kind of confidence we need and if someone else is hosting i have never been invited. after joining the manhattan institute i figured i would give it a shot. here we're. i hope we can proceed in the spirit soul described evaluating to what has been tried and opening our minds to alternative approaches. we know the conventional explanation for the gaps we have seen in education, incarceration. conventional wisdom is more government resources and wealth redistribution and so forth. they are open to new approaches and just as important they are willing to honestly evaluate what has been tried and what it

and isn't working. this year we are marking the 50th anniversary of the moynihan report on the black family. it was controversial when issued while serving as the assistant secretary of labor under president johnson. it remains controversy today. he highlighted troubling culture trends on inner city blacks and the focus on the increasing number of fatherless homes. the family structure, the evidence not final but persuasive, that the negative -- negro family is declining. he was labed a victim blaming racist and his findings were

ignored by public policymakers including architects who go on to expand old programs and form new ones. marriage was penalized. marriage was penalized. single parenting was subsidized. when the report was released 25% of black children and 5% of black children lived in households held by a black mother. the racial gap widened and today the black woman is single at twice the rate of a white woman. drug abuse, dropping out of school and other social problems grew when fathers were absent.

one of the most comprehensive study done said the most critical factor of affecting the male youth encountering the justice system was the presence of a father in the home. the moynihan report was an attempt to have an honest conversation about family break down in black families. one that many still refuse to join. faulting ghetto culture and ghetto outcomes is taboo. an article about the baltimore right rioting carried the headline black culture is not the problem. what is the problem? white racism is the problem. quote the problem starts in a political culture that bound black bodies to questions of

property. yes, i am re -- referring to slavery. i am hoping the questions today are less reductive and more honest. black crime rates in 1960 were lower than they are today. if the legacy of slavery explains the level of black crime today that legacy must have skipped a couple generations and reasserted itself. moynihan said he wanted to solve the problem that people said was no big deal. his uncertainty was warranted. before we get start would the panel i want to thank a few people. larry moon who heads the han matt tan institute. and everyone who handled

contacting the panelist to securing the venue. i want to thank all of them for their hard work. let's invite the first panelist up. while they are doing so i can read some of their bio's. the honorable robert erlich, former governor of the state of maryland. the first republican governor in 36 years when he was elected back in 2002.

he doubled funding for need-based college scholarships helping college enrollment reach an all-time high on his watch. heather mcdonald is the contributing editor at city journal writing about homeland secure, immigration, policing, homelessness, and education policy. her books include are cops racist? a city journal analogy that investigates the working of the police department and the controversy of racial profiling. she is a non-practicing lawyer and clerked for the honorable stephen reinhardt. also the recipient of the 2005 bradley prize for outstanding intellectual achievement.

john mcporter is a contributing editor at city journal who comments on race, ethnicity and cultural issues. he burned my last book also. he is the author of all about the beat; why hip hop can't save black america. the author of loosing the race as well as a follow-up book called winning the race beyond the crisis in black america. john is also a linguist and teaches in the english and comparative literature department at columbia university. the panel is moderated by judge william koontz serving for the district court in the eastern district of new york. he was a private practice litigator prior to this and since 1987 he has serve as the

commissioner of the sucivilian -- civilian complaint board. the title of the first panel is reducing crime rates in the black community. i will let judge take it from here. thank you. judge koontz: before we begin i would like you to join me in a moment of silence in respect for the new york city police officer brian moore who died yesterday. he was 25 years old and he was patrolling in my parent's old neighborhood of queens village new york.

thank you. we have a curious tradition in public forums such as this, one in which people who have established themselves as experts, people who are well-known to you. people who are well-spoken. and people who need no introduction receive an introduction from someone who is abscure and you are wondering what the hell is he doing up there? that would be me. i was raised in harlem. my father and mother who have passed on raised me and my younger brother. lived in queens village as a teenager.

and i wanted to tell you how important this panel is both personally and professionally. today we are going to consider the facts and i have a preliminary discussion with our panelist but as the murder of police officer moore demonstrated yesterday there is no such thing as a routine police civilian encounter. not for the police officer or the citizen. i served on the complaint review board reviewing allegations of police misconduct in new york city and in each complaint was unique. each and everyone one of those encounters had the potential to -- for -- deadly force or the most exhilarateing and uplifting

accounts between citizens and our law enforcement. each had the potential for heroism or disaster. i would hope as you leave today you would exercise from your v -- exorcise from your vocabulary the phrase routine police encounter. there is no such thing. mindful of that i will turn this over to our truly distinguishable panel and we will begin with the former governor of maryland. governor bob ehrlich: so a week ago sunday i was driving my 11-year-old and my 15-year-old back from roast in maryland.

we were driving here down the expressway. and i figured you know what we will cut north avenue go back to annapolis and cut over to hilton street. and i did. and we pulled up to a light. there was a little african-american girl waving to us and the parents recognized me and my kids i thought and we drove our way home to annapolis, maryland nice and happy and less than 18 hours later that interstate i drove past was the center of the universe with regard to riots, and police and more bad press for a city i grew up in. when you talk about personal someone who group in maryland and whose dad worked close to

that intersection. a college comp and champion as governor and a cvs i knew well. friend in the neighborhood. it is very personal. so as a result over the past few days all of the tv folks have been calling and getting me on their shows asking where i was and what do i think. and i have to say that my initial thoughts were probably the same ones everyone in this room had. the first thought were the first day when those kids, some from douglas high school and other high schools, gathered together and started doing their things your first thought is where are the fathers? more fathers less rioters.

knowing the academic achievement or lack there of the area schools and past battles i fought particularly as governor against unions and others who protect monopolies my second thought was more degrees less rioters. as someone who had authored a national review online in october 50 years since the moynihan report, i recommend it to all of you, my thought was more sentencing statutes that make sense, less rioters. more drug laws that make sense less rioters. and so after these initial thoughts, during the interview

process and the days unfolded, i began to think about the fact of this case and what was truly at issue here. because these were consequences of failed policies for decades. how did a severed spine result from this particular transport? who was negligent? who was not? who should be held responsible? and the real issue is police practices. much less race. but is race, race, race because race equals ratings. what happened with this prisoner in that van that night. we don't know. we don't know but we will find out. we will certainly find out.

my concluding comment is this. as someone who has been legislature, congress, and governor, i certainly would indulge the idea of healing. who is against healing? we have to heal. but if it is healing on familiar terms? if is the same mo or paradime as -- or paradigm as you heard from the president's mouth and others. we need more money. $22 trillion. if that is the premise i am not going to play. those folks in those neighborhoods shouldn't by. -- should not play. policymakers shouldn't play. we should not indulge it.

because if it is just that no body should be surprised if we see a repeat in three months six months, nine in months three years, ten years. i would not be surprised to see the same conditions for the rest of my life. maybe hopefully, you pray, that something good will come of this. nothing good comes from this yet. but maybe this conference, this conversation, these values, can actually become part of the agenda. not just in annapolis but in washington, d.c. if that is the case something good will come of this. judge koontz: thank you. we will have opening statement from john and then terry and then a discussion amongst the

panelist and then questions from the audience as well. >> if i add value to that it is as a responder. i am better at hearing a text and saying something. i think mcdonald should go second. judge koontz: i will take that as a friendly amendment. although as judge can tell you i would not let him get away with this in my courtroom. you didn't do your homework council, i see. are you billing your client for this heather? >> i would translate that to i want to last word. for the last nine months our nation has been convulsed by a movement known as black lives matter. that was triggered by the fatal police shooting of michael brown in ferguson, missouri last summer that triggered riots, die-ins, a movement to eliminate

traditional grand jury proceedings when a police officers uses deadly force and a presidential task force on policing. the premise of the black lives matter movement boils down to the fact police the biggest threat facing young black men today. i want to propose a counter hypothesis to that which is there is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police. now, every unjustified police shooting or death my other means