that works, because the goal is, was and always will be to try to investigate a terrorist attack in a competent way. >> in terms of the isis front. are you sort of seeing perhaps where isis is getting a little more organized better at organizing these attacks in brussels, is there concern they're getting better at it, more experience, better at recruiting people, better organizing these kinds of attacks? director comey: i don't think i give this group of savages credit for getting better. we worry here in the states about people being radicalized, responding to the poison. as we talked for almost three years now, we were worried about anybody on the globe to travel to syria, to the so-called caliphate, get the worst kind of training and flow back out. that's especially a problem in europe. so this is a manifestation of that problem. i don't think it reflects greater skill or organization on isil's part. >> director comey, may i follow-up with director comey?

yes, may i follow-up with director comey on san bernardino and on isis? you said, sir, that you exhausted all possible avenues before you started litigation. and there have been a number of photographer experts who came -- photography experts who came forward that said there are ways that possibly could work, including to basically make copies of the chip. you're shaking your head. director comey: i heard that a lot. >> it doesn't work. has the f.b.i. tried it? director comey: i don't want to say beyond that. we had lots of people come forward with lots of ideas. we now have one. >> and can you say when that company first approached you? director comey: i think we said in our pleadings, we learned about it this past weekend. and tried it on sunday. look, it might work and so we wanted to alert the court immediately. >> and it's not a company you have never worked before? director comey: i don't want to indicate who it is.

it is someone who came forward with an idea. >> with respect to brussels, is there any sense that encrypted communications played a large role in communication -- ms. lynch: with respect to the brussels attack, it's too early to tell whether encryption played a role. we don't have that information yet. again, it will be up to the belgian authorities as to what they will release. as a larger issue we've indicated for sometime we've seen as a terrorist platform those who are involved in terrorist planning, certainly here in the u.s. start on an open platform and then move to an encrypted platform to continue those discussions. certainly with respect to brussels, it's too early to say right now. i promised you and then coming back. >> director comey and then attorney general lynch. could you -- there's been a lot of discussion, especially by director about the group in the united states who have sympathy

to isil. how concerned are you incidents like this would tip them to move in one direction or another? looking at the history of incidents overseas that have occurred, what's been the experience of either you learning about possible plans and moving on them before they hit? ms. lynch: i'll start and turn it over to you, jim. certainly as we've seen here, the threat here in the homeland has becoming most recently from coming most recently from those individuals who are based here, who are inspired by terrorists or jihadist thinking online, isil or otherwise. and so that's always a concern of ours and certainly a concern would be whether they would be inspired by similar attacks in brussels or elsewhere. and we remain vigilant as to that possibility. jim, do you want to add to that? director comey: i'd echo some of what the attorney general said earlier. if there is an attack overseas

we focus two things. first, are there any connections into the united states to the people who committed the attack? second, is there any risk of subjects in the united states see that as a copy cat opportunity? so we're focused on both of those things. so far we don't see an indication of that here. in fact, i am an optimist but i think we will have reverse effect. when you see men and women and children being slaughtered around the world, i hope you see they are not involved in some heroic, romantic battle on the side of good but see a bunch of savages occupying a place that's hell on earth right now. i think we see that reflected in the decrease of number of cases we're seeing of people trying to travel over to the so-called islamic state from the united states. that's a positive trend. we hope very much that it reflects an understanding of

people looking for a center in their life, this is not the place to find it. >> just to follow up. so you haven't seen any connection between any of the suspects in brussels so far to anybody in the u.s.? director comey: i think i can say not yet. it's something we're looking at very, very closely now. >> two questions for director comey. on the apple thing. you've been way out in front on encryption for the last year and a half. on the san bernardino case, we're trying to get information off the phone of a dead terrorist and you find yourself on the defensive, having to -- defend yourself, accusations of lying. what is your reaction to that? are you surprised, are you disappointed? director comey: i don't feel way out there. i don't feel defensive, honestly. i do feel strongly when someone accuses, especially a major publication, the department of justice or the f.b.i. being dishonest. that can't let lie or sit there. we have to respond. our goal all along, the attorney

general, the deputy attorney general and mine is to have a conversation between a conflict we all care about. san bernardino, say it for the thousandth time, it's about that investigation. even if this particular technique goes that go away, that litigation, we still as a country have to resolve the conflicts we care about and we hope there will be an adult conversation about this where there won't be any demons, and there aren't in this debate, even between us and the federal government. >> if that works, will you share that with apple? director comey: i am not in position to comment on that right now. >> last question. >> let me ask you a question. what should we conclude from the fact you've been able to attribute the attack to these seven people? are you just more determined now to do it than you were in the past because now you see some -- are you better at it?

how -- what does this represent? just a dedication to do this where in the past you thought it was pointless? what's behind this? mr. carlin: i think it's the result of a new approach and what you saw was back in 2012 at the department of justice we decided that we would take the same approach we've taken against terrorist threats which is we would make sure that the intelligence, that the intelligence community does a fantastic job of collecting is shared with law enforcement and vice versa and now we unleash prosecutors who are specially trained across the country to work with intel lawyers, f.b.i. agents and the community in order to see if they can figure out who did it and figure out who did it in a way that we can talk about it publicly and then, third, a determination on our part that once we figure out who did it, do it in a way we can be public about it. we ensure there are consequences. this is now the last -- it's the

third case this week alone where we've shown that unlike what some have said, national security state actors or terrorist groups are not anonymous. we will find them publicly and we will. >> so it's more a determination than it is developing a new capacity? mr. carlin: these cases are hard but once you unleash the dedicated prosecutors and give them access to the intelligence, have them working together as teams, determined to disrupt it, they're going to continue to learn new ways to do tanned you -- to do it and you see us getting better and better figuring out a way who did it that we can speak about it publicly. >> the iranian nuclear deal, negotiations, does it have any influence on the timing of this indictment? could you brought this months ago and you waited or did you bring it today because it was right? mr. carlin: i'll turn it over. our determination, again, is to have our investigators, and this

has been the direction of the attorney general, have our prosecutors and investigators when there's harm against u.s. companies, as there was in this case between people are stealing from u.s. companies as there are in other cases and they break our laws, we're going to do what we normally do which is find the facts. if we can conclude who did it, we're going to bring charges and we'll leave it to others to discuss other consequences. mr. bharara: just echoing what john carlin said. we in our office and throughout the department bring cases when it's right to bring the case. there are a lot of considerations that go into the timing of unsealing an indictment. they go to operational concerns. they go to issues of fact, investigation and everything else. the people that know me and my office, we bring cases when it's right to bring the case for the needs of the case itself. >> thank you, all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> starting monday on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to light with the c-span series, landmark cases. our 12 part series explores real-life stories and dramas behind some of the most this just most significant decisions in history. different,d this was the constitution is a political document. it is also a law. if it is a law, we have the courts to tell what it means. sets what set -- >> what just got a part is it is the anti-presidential case. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? the supreme court said it should make the decisions of those debates. >> and marquesas begins -- landmark cases begins a seven night at 10:00 -- begins sunday night at 10:00.

x consumer advocates are in washington for the consumer federation conference. tomorrow, we will take you there for discussions about the sharing economy and the future of markets. >> tomorrow we look at the terror attacks in brussels and the threat posed by european citizens returning home after fighting with isis. live from the washington institute for policy. and on :00 eastern on c-span3. c-span3.0 eastern on >> of following tuesday's terrorist attacks, the european union held a meeting to address border controls between countries. afterwards, european justice and security ministers spoke to reporters. this is over 30 minutes.

ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the press conference of today's extraordinary justice meeting. >> we had a very fruitful discussion this afternoon where the turnout for such a short term meeting was quite impressive, and that already shows the immense sense of solidarity among all the nations and that everyone realizes the attack on belgium was an attack on europe and all of the values and we stand together. the main conclusion of the afternoon session is that we stand fully resolved that we will always stand for our values. europe has been under attack before, but we always defended liberty, democracy and we will

do that together. for that, we adopted a afternoon, in the which i will refer to that seat can read the contents as well, but it emphasizes that we will exchange information even swifter than we already do. we will now, very soon, implement the main records. we will need to see swiss completion of legislation on this terrorism. plans, weneed new need to fully execute plans that have been measured, taken before and the strong results of the meeting this afternoon will do that. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. dear colleagues. i first of all would like to

thank the presidency and european commission that were all present this afternoon for the council of the justice in order to grief with us in regards to what happened last tuesday in brussels. , the brutal and barbaric attacks that took place really hit at the heart of shot atnd were also a the core of our values, of our liberty, of our freedom, of everything that we care for. after havingn, expressed their sincere feelings of all european ministers, the commission and parliament

together with us, insisted on the swift acting of european institutions of the different points of action of our joints of declaration, and i only would like to underlie several subpoints of it which are in the belgian do, very important. necessary in regard to the sharing of information system. we have a lot of examples given in the databases. we really have to act swiftly on that issue. another issue which was very important is the full exchange of judicial information every in the framework of what happened in paris and brussels, how important it is , ourour intelligence judicial services exchange all relevant information that is

required. point, which would like to underlie is the issue of the joint investigation after paris. we discovered how valuable the joint investigation that is at this point led by the belgian and french prosecutor with howrd to the paris attacks, fruitful but has been for the investigation. the joint presence of the judicial and police services in many institutions have really been a very, very productive for the acceleration of the whole procedure. maybe a last point i would like to underlie, which in belgium is very important, that is our joint, i should say, joint struggle to the international operators with regard to the opening of the internet, with

regard to communications that are not classical as our -- phonefied that are all calls. i mean the internet, skype, these kinds of communication should get accessible for us and only joint action on the european unity toward the operators can help us there. these are four points i would like to underlie because we are joining in regards to terrorism and we should be joining more than ever because terrorism knows no frontiers, knows no borders. thank you very much. know, we findu ourselves here again in one more extraordinary meeting. the last one was the aftermath of the paris attacks. we are here again, mornin

urning innocent victims. the people of belgium and their families will have our full support. the facts of course were a shock. unfortunately, they did not come as a surprise. , wey time we come together repeat ourselves with commitments. if they are not acted upon, if they are not delivered. citizens are tired. they are scared. i welcome the ministers responsible, but i did not just want to talk. something needs to change. job ofl security is the the state, but the threat of terrorism is common. it should be our common

response. the commission has taken states,ves to support but i'm afraid there is a lack of political will, lack of coordination, and most importantly in some cases, lack of trust. attack cannots continue to be wake-up calls for ever. ,e always talk to our citizens so what do we need to do in the coming days, coming weeks to prevent as much as possible this type of event to happen again? two essential elements. first, improve our exchange of information and second, implement, put in practice what was politically agreed with the previous attacks. europeanthe

counterterrorism center has become a reality. we have secured additional resources. now, it is time for the european union countries to make full use of it and to share more data. it must become the nervous center of our counterterror strategy. we have agreed today to set up a joint liaison team of national experts. i urge members to send their experts immediately and to share information. needd this yesterday, we to talk to each other, but also our systems need to talk to each other. we cannot put our data in black boxes. data must be interconnected to be useful. that is why, in a few weeks, i will present ideas on how our

information systems in both management and law enforcement can be better used, interconnected and enter operated. interoperated. our tools are useless if they are not put to proper use. explosivesample, the used in paris and brussels. they were all homemade. tocannot allow terrorists buy the substances so easy. been regulation on explosives in place since 2013. why is it not fully implemented? the system for police forensic data, the sharing information system, the databases on stolen

information are inconsistent and are gaps. us to immediately respond to that. we need to take our respective responsibility. i also told ministers that we cannot drag our feet with some pending files which are crucial. remember, from last december, our agreement. why is it still in place? parliament has to vote to adopt it in this needs to happen now. strictly --eu can strictly use it. we cannot wait to years to implement it. president of the element is present here in this meeting.

european borders and coast guard proposal, the proposal on firearms, the proposal on terrorism, these have really important findings that the commission has proposed and are waiting to be adopted and used. i ask everyone, especially council to adopt these swiftly and to maintain the high level of ambition of these proposals. otherwise, they will be meaningless for security. thatly, let us not forget perhaps equally important aspect of root causes and prevention must be realized. the perpetrators in brussels, just like in paris were our citizens. these are our citizens. i will continue to support

member states in their inclusion efforts. communities, prisons and online, this is where we fight terrorist and hatred. this is crucial. while terrorism will not hold us back, those that wish to divide us will be met with unity and resilience as we demonstrated today, and this is a very strong message we want to send from this meeting, because it is what we stand for as europeans. thank you. open the floor for questions. i saw the first one over there near that lady. >> hello, i am from northern iraq. my question for you, well, i

will wait for you to have your headphones on. my question is, well, the whole world has known for the past two the activities of the middle east and iraq, and people fighting and they are and have been to europe and have asked you for more support so they could fight isis on the ground so they would not come to europe. now they are in europe. but something have been done in the past to prevent this? the homesquestion is, saysister from germany more isis fighters are in europe. how sure is that figure of 500? thatat is not something could have been prevented, but

some measures have been taken, so how safe are we in europe? asking?exactly are you well, the first question is a question of international policy. how can we fight isis? well, we could discuss this at length today, but that was not the main purpose of this meeting, but the second question is a very important one. how can we recognize these isis fighters and how can we exchange information to ensure that this information is available to everyone? wes is something that decided today. we want better, quicker information exchanged.

well, fight the causes. yes, we talked about that, but the problem is, the causes are not just external. as, we areing talking about european citizens, people who were born here, but they have taken inspiration from syria or have gone that way and we have discussed this at length and it will be very important aspect in the coming years. >> i have two questions for the council because the commissioner does not need questions for the moment, it is my question is for the government. first of all, this is the third time we have seen this press conference. i would like to know if you are serious this time, and how can you prove your serious, how many people will have to die before serious?e

takene the member states the issue of the common agency of intelligence, which is the only way to have a real coalition sharing the information to have a global response to global attacks? thank you. that i fullyst say think that after the horrible attack in paris, the meeting that occurred here was a very serious one, and a very serious measures have been decided upon. our conclusion today is that they have to be executed even faster. with respect to whether the intelligence agencies should be one european agency or several agencies, i think a wise word is said today, it should not matter, because the way we have made these exchanges should be that it is a single information

agency. the police have to work together, the intelligence offices have to work together, and all the other judicial systems have to work together, and this is what is being worked out in the declaration of today and what should be executed faster. >> are you also more sure about measured the member states, that this time they do with a they promised? >> if they do not do it, they will be held responsible in the future. trust in allut our members of the state. today, wesaid before, have put pressure on everybody to better incorporate exchanging information because without that, we can do nothing.

it is the moment of responsibility, and actually, when i called the presidency and i asked for this extraordinary meeting, the response was immediate. we did not come here just to talk again and are people we said before. i said in the beginning, yes, it is the second extraordinary council, but it is the moment for everybody to take his or her fair share of responsibility. otherwise, we cannot move ahead. not have an enemy from the west, and that is why we say we have not declared a war does begin not know who are the enemies. we have to address a very strange situation. in order to that it, we need to share information. we sent a message in the message was received. i come out of this meeting much

happier then i arrived, to be frank with you. as we have said before, we all agreed on all of these points we decided, so it is a common responsibility in a common decision. situation in ahe decent way, but now we all, everybody, including the united states have learned their lessons from this experience. this move ahead with resilience, determination, and i repeat that because this is what i want to put forth. i am here. these should be predicted and prevented. i will give you an example. brussels were homegrown, but they were also

quite well known to intelligence services. same perpetrators were those in paris. they were not well known in terms of services. we were able to share information and intelligence. understand the skepticism of the honorable gentleman that just raised the last two questions. i would even share your skepticism to a certain extent. however, to smaller remarks. the first is in regard to exchange of information and joint investigation. we really are moving very, very

fast toward an integrated fight against terrorism. today, at least three colleagues came to tell me and our minister of the interior that in the aftermath of brussels, they have very important information to deliver. i cannot go in detail but i know what they said. it was quite important. beond, i had the pleasure to minister of finance during the financial crisis, and there has been enormous skepticism. national sovereignty with important finance is to national sovereignty on matters of interior. we have given up on that sovereignty and it ended up with the european banking collapsing. do not despair. only excel my skepticism,

but do believe that europe always, and again and again finds its way to solutions which are never existing as they are here. they're quite original. they work. i would just like to, as a reminder, i would like to be skeptical today, that i cannot say that our countries do not do inir utmost to help intelligence services and judicial services. lot ofly get a lot, a their useful help all of the time. >> let me to you, because there is a lot of criticism on what we all have done in the last months. we should not forget that we have made many steps forward. as remembered on january 1, i

inaugurated the counterterrorism center. last year, we adopted the european agenda on security. have radicalization, it is there. there, and we can really do miracles if we trust. goals,r to achieve our we have to foster trust and and this willion, happen after this meeting. >> more questions. i have a question for the two ministers. you have said that we should cooperate even more today.

information showing that one of the suicide bombers was sent back from turkey to the netherlands without else of knowing. could you explain what happened? he has disappeared, this chap. he does not appear in some files. what is happened? >> i would like to answer that, but right at this very moment, my colleague is answering that question in a press conference in the netherlands, and i would like to refer to the. -- that. i would not jump to conclusions you for that, and i would like to refer to that. >> i understand.

>> it is not utterly clear yet as to what happened. we will know tomorrow. interior affairs minister, the justice minister in the foreign affairs minister will be getting explanations to parliament on this issue tomorrow. for the moment, what we think is expelled the person in question, we think because this person had been arrested near the syrian border. this person was expelled. turkey told us of this expulsion after the expulsion. the person had been put on an airplane bound for the netherlands. i think we were told the dutch

government and the dutch embassy were told after landing in the netherlands, so the person cannot be detained. had a belgian identity card. normal belgian arrival. they need to do is presented belgian security card to go through check. we do not know all the details right now, the we will learn tomorrow. thank you. there are two things quite unclear right now, which i still think we are on the fence with. is it possible that everybody

who arrives from syria or other places in the middle east fighting for my soul or who it sis, is it possible that there is a legal activity over there? since these are extraordinary require extreme measures, do you think we would need something like quintana monday in europe -- guantanamo bay in europe to contain the terrorists? thank you. question, if it indeed is clear and can be proven that somebody has contributive to terrorist actions and crimes against mankind, then indeed the person can obviously be arrested.

the things that need to be figured out in detail is what level of evidence is required before actions can be taken. indeed, speaking for my own country, we worked toward a frame where we are convinced that if somebody willingly goes to that region, then that person knows what he is entering into, what he is going to contribute to, so that also may have legal consequences upon reentry. on your second point, whatever measures will be taken, we need to ensure that they are all within the constitutional or legal framework that europe stands for, and that, i believe, if we lose that, then we lose our liberty and democracy, so within those limits, we need to fight terrorism, and i'm convinced we can and we will. time, mostpoint in

of our countries that regularly have to deal with terrorism have to cope with terrorism, have income and nations in their law which are such pacific nature -- such a specific nature, that i think will always almost be possible to arrest people, upon the return upon their territory. to the extent that they know those people returned on their territory, and that has nothing to do with the law, and we can go into that and well about what ell about those circumstances. principal ofth the legality fully respected in the extending also under pressure of the european community and a lot of countries, we went very far in increment nations.

-- incrimination's. no guantanamo in europe. the rights are fully respected in our union. the second thing i would like to tell you, maybe you remember , we propose to make systematic checks even for the european citizens that are coming back to europe. the council of the parliament has to adopt this proposal and take all of these measures. >> i want to get the minister the opportunity. >> i would like to say one word because i have an important meeting coming up. becauseg about turkey, you will certainly read about it in the international press needs to be informed, they did not

inform us about the timing of the expulsion, so i do not say the belgian embassy was not fore the 14th of july. that was just a formal communication. we received no further message. that was by the end of june, and the 14th of july he was expelled without further notice and without telling us he was going to be expelled. on the exacttory base. the only thing we knew before that was that he had been arrested near the syrian border but nothing more than that. take you very much. i must attend other obligations. >> i have two other questions and then we call it a day. >> well, i wanted to ask mr.

haynes but he is gone. i wanted to know whether you discussed this at your meeting, was their problem with mr. abraham. how important you think he is? we are constantly being told that there are serious measures being decided upon, but they are never implemented, and now it seems to have an instrument for tools but they are not being used. >> that would be the on the subject that we have given forth here. >> last correction. -- question. skepticism about the real significance of these crisis meetings in brussels, whether they are just for show now, but setting a timetable.

i would like to know whether you have a specific date for specific things, the vote on the operability. when will that take effect? with the exchange of legal information, judicial information, when will that take effect? when will the european guard take effect? >> we are stepping up our efforts to finalize this by june. we are talking about the european borders guard. it should have already been done, the system information sharing. >> thank you very much for your attendance and i wish you a happy easter. thank you. >> thanks again.

come a discussion on millennials and public policy. than the current state and future of aging in the united states. later, a roundtable on the fight against isis and jihadist terrorism. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. raymond,rning, daniel for the harvard coalition. he will be discussing the issues by the hearing on combating -- also talking about the work for his organization. then, megan mccarthy will share her thoughts about the federal

and congressional response to the heroin epidemic. will join userford by phone to talk about his work on the heroin and opioid task force. live at 7n journal," a.m. eastern. join the discussion. >> tomorrow, russian journalists discuss the state of russian media under president putin. then, former director of the nsa and cia michael hayden on u.s. intelligence and national security, live at noon eastern. wall street investor stanley druckenmiller believes the u.s. is spending more on seniors at the expense of america's youth. he sat down at the university of california berkeley for discussion. this is about one hour.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] i'm henry brady, dean of the school of public policy. it's wonderful to see a full house for this wonderful event tonight. i want to introduce our two panelists, but we will all start with a short talk outlining the issues with respect to youth in america today. then we will turn to a discussion with geoffrey canada. and then we will be open to questions. that youuld be cards can get. i believe there will be people circulating with cards and collecting cards. those will be brought to me and i will choose questions from them to ask our guests. so, stanley druckenmiller stanley druckenmiller founded to

closing it i81, think at 2010, but had a storied career on wall street for his successes with his organization. sorosd with george a mass is substantial amount of wealth as well. stanley druckenmiller is the guy who knows a lot about finance. part of what we are we talking about tonight is finance budgets and issues of the future, and what this talk is about his thinking about the future, looking ahead to the future. he is concerned, deeply and profoundly about the future of young people in america, and you will see to the degree in which he is concerned about young people and how they are pushed up by other investments we make. educator,anada is an social activist, and the founder of the harlem children's zone which he started in 1990.

the harlem children's zone was designed to try to help children, young people in harlem to get to college, graduate and get good jobs. comprehensive,, and an intriguing approach. it seems to be successful, and i do not need to be defecating when i say that, but it takes a while to evaluate some of these programs. we do know, many people think, this is the model for things we should be doing elsewhere, and in fact, our president, they say, having put into budget some proposals and programs, they are actually trying to replicate the harlem's children's zone. the connection between them is twofold. they both graduated from bowdoin college and the other connection hasstanley druckenmiller raised the money for the harlem children's zone and geoffrey canada has provided the

inspiration in leadership to make it a success that it has come. with that, let me return, and remember the notecards. --h that, i want to stern to with that, i want to turn to stanley druckenmiller who has an outline of issues of the future of america for young people. thank you. [applause] please turn off all cell phones. mr. druckenmiller: i will have to turn mine off. [laughter] he mentionedller: he and i went to school together. used to think we about protest in changing the world, but even back then, berkeley, california was always the larger-than-life institution

where movements started. [applause] it isuckenmiller: interesting, i hear a lot today about how millennials do not think the way children of the 1960's thought and they are not into movements or protests, but i look at a couple examples and i could not disagree more. when i think about how much this gave rights and how much of accomplished, i think it is ridiculous to suggest that this generation has not been involved in political activism with results. i would say the same thing about this generation in terms of environment and climate change. i look at the movement that has been made in washington in the last 10 years and i think it is directly a result of this generation's activities and

focus. i guess i am somewhat puzzled and the fact that, however, that there is another thing your generation has not focused on, and the reason i am puzzled is because i think it is vitally important to your future, but also to the future of the country, and it affects you i think we are going to have a conversation about this topic. we thought i would throw six or seven slides to get everybody warmed up to this topic. canou look at the chart -- everyone see this chart? red is federal payments to individuals or transfer payments. what you see is back in the early 60's, they used to be 20%

of all federal government outlays. it is currently 67%. over the years, we have gone from an economy that use those transfer payments of 20% of the federal budget to 67%. back in the early 60's, medicare and medicaid combined were .1% of gdp. gdpal security was 2.6% of and discretionary spending was 11 and a half percent of gdp. medicaid arere and 5.6% of gdp, social security is 4.9% and discretionary expenditures has shrunk to six and a half percent of gdp. why is that important? are reallyyments consumption and you do not get that much return on your investment and i want to highlight the blue line. back in the 60's, investments as

a percentage of the federal budget was higher than transfer payments. they were 32%. they have gone down to 15%. for the republicans in the audience, if there are any in berkeley, california. [laughter] i want to remind you that government spending can be a lot more effective than what some of you have been putting out there in the press. what did you get for this blueline? , theot the internet, gps interstate highway system, and we got grants that have moved the needle dramatically on cancer and other diseases. what has been going on for the is thepart of 50 years amount of money we are spending on transfer payments, primarily to seniors, has been crowding out investment in our future. investments in things that brought us the

internet in gps, it is been at the expense of children. this chart is the remarkable. what you're looking at is the per capita spending on children and on the elderly as a percentage of the average worker's salary. what you will see is in 2011, the last year i have good data, $.56 out of every dollar that an american worker made went towards expenditures for the elderly. transfer payments i showed earlier, but only eight cents went to our children. as they have been crowding out other investments, the greater allotment we have been making towards payments for things like medicare and medicaid for the elderly, we also have medicaid for children but as you can see, it does not move the needle much, social security has been at the expense of money that we might be spending on our younger

generation. for some reason -- this is kind of sad but i will work around it. the chart you are supposed to be seeing is the united states poverty rate by a group. what you see and read, president johnson declared a war on poverty. for, the poverty rate seniors has dropped to 30% to 9%. we can all agree that that is a wonderful are competent. acc congressman -- omplishment. the interesting thing is that during that same time. period, the poverty rate for howdren -- maybe we have -- clever. this is what happens when you're over 60, you don't have these technology. [laughter]

the poverty rate for children has been on an uptrend. believe it or not, we have made no progress in the last 40 years even though the war on poverty has been declared a success. it has all been for the elderly, and for children, that poverty rate has not dropped at all. it is pretty amazing. we now have a child poverty rate of 24%. about that. almost one in four of every child grows up below the poverty level. just to show you how horrific 35t is, we have taken the leading economic countries in the world and here's the united states. 34th without 23% poverty rate for children. the only country we beat out is romania. and theorse than latvia other 33 countries. here we are in the united states with all this wealth, all the

things we have, and we have the second highest child poverty rate. one in four children in america are growing up in poverty. i showed you on the first chart how much we have been spending on our seniors and transfer payments relative to investment. the second chart was relative to children. years ofhat 40-50 spending more and more to the elderly has resulted in. this is a little collocated but i think i can do with it. -- complicated, but i think i can do with it. worth ofhe average net age groups in 1993 -- 1983, first of their average network in 2010. constant dollars. for the first time in the history of america, we have a ineration that net worth

2010 was actually less than their net worth in 1983. that is the 29-37-year-old group. 2010 is worthin less than a 29-year-old in 1983. but look at the elderly. worth nots their net less than it was, it is 150% more. as you can see, or all the elderly, their net worth has gone up dramatically. all the result of the first chart as we continue to spend more and more on the elderly at the expense of the rest of our society. about, i have only talked the size of the economic pie and more of that -- the proportion of how that highest delayed up -- pie is split up.

the problem is that there's a the more elderly and less people supporting the elderly. rated a bird rate -- birth of 3.7 to one. we had more babies born in 1957 with 100 million less people than we have today. it is incredible. we had a hundred 65 million people in the country and in the last 15 years, we never had as many babies born as in 1957. this is as we all know, the baby boom. soldiers came back from world war ii. 1947-57. they do their business with their wives. -- did their business with their wives. 1947 plus 65 equals 2012. in 2012, that baby boom becomes

a great boom. let me put it in stark terms. boom.y let me put it in stark terms. everyday, 11,000 people are going to turn seniors. we are creating 11,000 seniors every day for the next 16 years. 2000 10nly creating adult workers to support those seniors. -- 2000 young adult workers to support the seniors. years, thext 25 people that are actually working to support the retired elderly, they are going to grow by 17%, but the elderly are going to grow hundred 2%. 102%. the over 85 contingent is going to grow by 322%. why does that matter? as longer life goes on, the more we spend on our elderly in the

health care system. the average 85-year-old, we spend two times than we do on the average 60 60. the point is we have been shifting more and more of the pie to the elderly, there are about to be a lot more of the elderly versus the rest of society to support them. and they are living longer. the longer they live, the more they spend each year and this is going to cause us financial problems. but it isput a chart so horrifying that i thought i would talk about it rather than put the chart of itself. if you take what we have promised our seniors, in terms of social security, medicare projections, and medicaid projections, what we have promised them versus the tax revenues we have projected, you get a number that we call the fiscal gap.

american government uses very interesting accounting. how may people here are 65 or older? may be don't want to admit it. for those of you that are 65 or older, i would assume that you will get your social security check next month. according to the government, that will probably not happen. in their accounting system, they do not account for the fact that anybody over 65 will get any payments going forward. that is not considered a liability on their balance sheet. there is not a corporation in america -- maybe enron but they went by the wayside, the payments these seniors get will not exist. if they did exist and you put on a balance sheet and took the present value of that gap, according to an economist from the university of massachusetts, the present value of that gap would make our current debt at

$18 trillion, it would make it $205 trillion. i don't know whether this is science. all i know is 205 is a lot more than 18. if it is a hundred trillion dollars, you see the problem. let me wrap this up in a nutshell. at what we promise current seniors, and you look at the size of the fiscal gap, there is not going to be any money left over for future seniors. that is the young people in the audience. people might think i'm against medicare and social security, i love social security and i love medicare. the problem is i love them so much that i think the younger people in this room should be able get to them and 40 or 50 years. this is not universal. this moving up a generational transfer from the current

seniors to the teacher seniors. that is what we are here to talk about. i realize 30-40 years seems like a long way down the road and something we should not worry about. i take heart from your generation and your thoughts on climate change because that is another ticking time bomb. i'm hoping that i can get a movement started in the greatest movement starting place in the world, berkeley, california. we will have our conversation now. [applause] >> that was great. i think that sets the stage and it also gives new meaning to the old vulcan phrase, live long and prosper. it looks like some people will and others are not and that is the concern we have. it is not even just the case

that we are worried that young people will not get social security and medicare, we are also worried that as there is government agencies and states and localities, which have obligations, as they try to meet these bears obligations or pensions, benefits, medicare, social security, that that is going to elbow aside other side -- other kinds of investments that are necessary for the next generation to succeed. geoffrey canada is the guy who is trying really hard to make sure we do invest in our children. i want to start by talking about why that is so important and first what the problem is. what the other investments look like. and then what we should do about it. tell us a little bit about what the problems are. mr. canada: as i think about

this issue, it is clear to me that the numbers that stanley was talking about our one in four children growing up in poverty. it is a disaster. all of the research about what it means to actually be in poverty. when it starts, literally at birth, he begin to see changes in these young children who have done absolutely nothing but be born in the wrong zip code or two parents who don't have enough support. we as a society, i think, have unsustainable democracy. you cannot continue this and expect we will remain a democracy. i think it is a crisis. i've spent my entire life trying prove that if children have

serious investments, they can end up entering the labor market and being successful. that's as like a funny thing to say but a bunch of people did not believe that was true. when they thought about poverty and the war on poverty, he thought there was nothing you could do about it. the truth of the matter is that things work. proving that, i think, is really important. the one thing people should understand -- stanley and i have been partners in this, we have schooling through middle and into high school and into college, graduating from college, being very successful. the point of the whole effort was to make sure those young people have a piece of the american dream. in the samerew up time, i was a year ahead of them

but as a kid from the 50's, i always believed in conspiracies. [laughter] you, but hereck is where the whole thing got tied together for the first time. i was in graduate school and someone began to talk to me about social security and life expectancy. did not have a life expectancy long enough to collect social security. , a ripoff. i became happy to see black life expectancy increase, then i saw charts and it looks like they got us again. [laughter] why you should not laugh about this, stan makes his money from understanding

things that most people ignore, which i respect. quite a while ago, he showed me housingdata about in the united states. helaid this data out and pointed not just of the year, but to the month our economy will become undone. thisooking at this the -- stuff saying, america would not let this happen. this would destroy the united dates. -- united states. we decided to go to washington and say to people who should care about this, you are about to destroy this country. just destroy completely. they did nothing. the crisis unfold

which we are still living through today. i learned a funny lesson. you should listen to stand. . [laughter] is, the as this data data on housing was that clear and knowing did anything about that. i'm just determined that for my kids, that we are not going to allow them to get ripped off. i am part of the baby boomer generation, i generation did not care -- does not care what is left and i think that is a disaster. all of this has come together for me. that we want to break from generational poverty, we have done that. we don't know what will happen will happen these kids we take all the money. if stan did not share with you

some of the charts -- i guess you did, it will shrink. when you look at something and city to ask how a american could have children being poisoned in front of our eyes, but nobody doing anything about anand people acting like america we don't have the resources to fix this stuff. and by the way, flint is not even the worst place in michigan for lead poisoning. how could that be? this is going on all over the country. when it comes to policymakers, they simply say we do not have the resources to do this stuff. a lot of this has to do with the state pensions and what is happening with state and city budgets. this is also an entitlement issue. disgraceful it is breast not to be the kind of investments for our kids that give them the same opportunities that stan and i had.

that is how i got tied up into this issue. >> let's just talk for a moment and outline some of the ways we might be underinvestment -- under investing. what kind of areas were talking about? clearly we have a poverty problem where else are we under investing. when you start thinking about medical support for young people, educational support for young people and what is happening with schools and budgets across the country. i'm the first one to argue that money is not the answer to failing schools, it does take money to educate. money to actually educate kids and we are just not prepared to do it. when you think about food up being kids growing

exposed to environmental toxins, other diseases, i think social services -- by the way, one of the things we have become clear about is that young people growing up in poverty have lots of symptoms of more health problems that sibley are being treated. -- simply aren't being treated. it frustrates me when there is a shooting in an upper middle-class community, one of those horrible shootings, the first thing everyone talks about is how the mental health services will be there for the kids and families, they do shootings every day in places in the country and we do absolutely nothing. no one sends mental health to any does give. if you are growing up underneath that kind of stress, which we overseassend soldiers and they are exposed to a year or two of violence,

posttraumatic stress happens for decade. you have kids growing up with this. at least as a soldier you get to come back home. the kids are at home. why are we providing any mental health services to other people. you can employment is another area that we under invest. is anotherployment area that we under invest. we get a lot of kids to stick with our programs for years because we have great arts, sports, and other kinds of -- what i would call high engagement activities for our young people. tennis, you name it. when you are poor, that is seen as a luxury. in most places, illustrious something we can't afford.

when you are not poor, you consider that essential for your own kid. that is another area that we have underinvested. >> the of anything else you would add? mr. druckenmiller: i will never forget as it was unfolding, both sides of the aisle were not going to balance the budget on the back of our seniors so they cut infrastructure spending. is, is all flint michigan and infrastructure problem. ridges, roads. -- bridges and roads. know what caused cancer until about six years ago and how it happened. massive breakthroughs, we can genetically sequence and target drugs. now what is going on, we are having our grants cut to cancer research.

so much crowding out. ff mentioned the other main problem. filler this morning talked about medicaid for children -- hillary clinton, this morning, talked about medicaid for children. i've -- i and you straight. -- i am used to it. just give the kids a bit of the pie because, frankly, to invest in a live, 3, 6-year-old is a your payoff than to invest in an 85 euro. i may feel different in 23 years but those are the main issues i would highlight. [laughter] say that the underinvestment that we have done in higher education for young people. say that afolks

college education does not pay when you have to borrow huge amounts of money and there is no guarantee that you are going to earn enough money to actually pay back the bills. some folks are thinking, maybe these kids cannot get an education, my theory is maybe it should not be so expensive for a poor kid to go to school that we should think that maybe they should not go to school. [applause] somethinghink this is we should put at the top of our priority list. generation, there were schools you could go to that you can afford when you were poor. when i was in college. right? one of those places, city college was free. pay.ne dime to be have to there was this idea that education was the great

equalizer and you should not have wealth determined whether or not you had a shot at education. i think that is a real challenge. thinking thatare .hey can afford >> we had a really good question that i think will help clarify things. why can we not expand the economic pie instead of coming out the one we have in place. proposinghat you are saying that we should reallocate to young people. or this up in else going on to answer the question? i don't last,ler: but if you cut investments and put into expenditures, the

economic pie will shrink over the long term and intermediate. the first thing we can do is start investing in our kids and investing in productive things. not paying people like me who is a billionaire social security checks. it is ridiculous. i do not want to get into my ideas on expanding the economy because they will sound partisan. everyone has different views. i think no question, both sides of the aisle will agree, if you keep spending money on transfer payments and consumption and cut education and cut investing in your infrastructure, your economic growth will unequivocally be slower. it is-, what you not just about that, it is not growing economy.

>> tells about what you see with individuals at the harlem children's zone. mr. canada: for the folks who care about the research, it is probably the most definitive just in terms of some of the real hard outcomes. when stan and i began this initiative, if you were in my office and i was trying to raise money from you all, which i told the dean i would not do. if you so happen to stumble into chart, i would show you a of the incarceration rates in my zone. i would show you manhattan and i would show you what is happening in my 100 blocks. calculated, at a

certain number it becomes red. the harlem children's zone looks like one red area. that has been going on all over america. aree kinds of communities sending huge amounts of money -- spending huge amounts of money, ,ot just on incarceration $60,000 a year, or is a number to keep in mind. cityu go to a new your jail. there are two estimates. the low estimate is 116,000 and a more realistic estimate is $160,000 a year. 12,000 host: when i think about what we have been doing in these communities, it has basically been like a black hole for tax dollars. unemployment is sky high. folks are not working. folks are not contributing.

we are paying not just for incarceration, a short education, it goes on and on. now, our college graduation rates are not just higher than blacks and latinos in this country, it is higher than whites in this country. the idea is that this is where you need -- you really want to fight intergenerational poverty. you have got to get the kids out there and give them a shot. i think that it is not only the , buttional achievement andrceration is almost zero teen pregnancy -- it is one of the best teen pregnancy prevention programs in the kids inhen you look at the zone and kids outside. one of the indicators i think take out theg to

kids at the bottom for the last 50 years and get them back into the middle so they have opportunities to become middle-class citizens. [applause] >> what can we do to make sure communities are investing in the future in this way, and that leads to the larger question, of how did we get to a situation where some of spending those were the elderly, and wires are not more for young people? politicalthe policy -- issues that need to be overcome? >> it started with very good intentions. i showed the chart in the mid-60's when medicaid and we spentwent on, nothing and those are great programs. social security is a great program, but if you want to get into the raw politics of it, there is an organization called the aarp which represents the

elderly. when ied getting notices was 50. literally, every month. i can't wait until i am 65 to collect. strongn unbelievably lobby. to be frank, the elderly vote. children can't vote, but more importantly, the young don't vote. , the youngr reason have not focused on this issue, but the elderly are focused on it because it is directly affecting their pocketbook. druckenmiller: the young are having problems focusing on something 20 to 30 years out. i think that is the raw politics of it and politicians cater to it. the thing that i would add is that when you begin to talk to people about this, there is a belief that these investments that were made simply did not produce any results. folks believe -- we had a war on

policy -- poverty and we lost. one of the things that folks are really demonstrating is that you do get a return. sometimes, it is not as quick as he would think. sometimes, it takes longer to see what those investments really turn out. when i go on capitol hill, if you really want to see you govern work, go to capitol hill -- government work, go to capitol hill and try to argue on the merits of science. you will be severely disappointed. me, i am just coming in with problems. i am not kidding about that. [laughter] the challenge is that when you talk to people, they honestly don't believe, in many cases, that these problems

have the solutions. they just have not seen the evidence, the answer will evidence, that says if it is not some sort of liberal do-gooder, that it is a sound investment. if we continue to have our social scientists pile on the , that has to be done in a sophisticated enough way that it meets the skeptical audience, and gives some of us ammunition to push back and say there are investments that you can make that actually do pay off and you get a real return on the investment. another example of those kinds of investments, just say. earlynada: investments on childhood have really been clear. increasingly, we're finding that any of the sort of strategies that reduced property in ,amilies have really paid off

although folks do not believe that it did. i think that now there is a lot of research saying that the ability of families to get key services, health, mental health, and employment training, it really does pay off. that evidence is becoming clear. there is increasing evidence that working in a place -- when we decided to work in an hour 100 blocks, there was not a lot of evidence that if you improve the physical and other opportunities in that area, it allowprobably, i think, children to do better. i think that evidence is becoming clearer and clearer that place matters. we should not have places where there is a sense of despair and there is no hope that this place is going to get any better. i think that is also becoming that this place-based strategy, there's evidence is

works. >> nutrition affects brain development right from the get-go. mr. druckenmiller: that has been proven now. affects brain development right from the get-go. that has been proven. you can absolutely invest in those areas to reduce those. >> say a little more about the sense of despair. i think many people don't understand what it is like to be in some of these communities. mr. canada: at the very beginning, if you came to harlem today, he would not have a clue about what i was talking about. we have pictures that we have to show people about what the community actually looks like -- looked like. it looked like some bond out after a war had happened. bed outplace after a warhead happened. rather be inwould

the nice places. it is not like kids don't know that growing up in a place where kids don't make it out of those places. i was speaking to a young man, i don't know, samuel, but he was talking about blowing up in an environment and how it was just normal for kids to go out and .et involved in hustling it is different, but it is all the same stuff. -- doingething illegal something illegal to make enough money to take care of necessities today and maybe tomorrow. that becomes a culture in the place that that is what the expectation is. it goes with a lowered belief that you are going to live. kids who are 14 and 15 and believe they are probably not going to see 20, they do a lot more risky kinds of things than kids who think they have a future. it is much easier for girls to not care if they get pregnant.

saying, you are getting out of the space. despair is infectious, meaning you catch it. i got it, and you come in, and after a while, guess what. these places have names that people have given them that suggests that this is one of those places you don't get out of. harlem was certainly one of those places. this is something we learn -- hope is also infectious. when people begin to see and think -- first of all, we said we were going to change the conditions. we went in to harlem saying we're going to change things, and people's eyes rolled. people began to see the physical change, they could see the change happening. at first, we had to convince people to work with us, and then people came to us and asked if we could come to their block. --t fits with glowing up

growing up and having the belief. harlem was the kind of place that is a kid ended up at a place like this, they might get on the front page of time magazine. it might be this big story, kid makes it out of the hood. we asked someone back when it started, do you know anyone going to college, they might say, i think there is this girl on 117th street. you would have to be a genius to go to college. over 140 kids in college right now. home, youall come know what it looks like to be eight years old in a place that you have got 900 kids from your community in college, and you asked them if you can believe you can go to college, and they say "he is in college." that is what changes what the norm is.

why would i think i could go? if the norm is, they are in college, i know i've going to college if he is in college. that becomes real. that becomes the norm. young people have a different sense now, maybe your brother is in jail, ucla path out of this that doesn't involve you risking your life or imprisonment. you see examples of it. that kind of sense of opportunity, i think, is what has made america great, and in these places, we've got to bring that sense back to these communities. just talk about a few things people have mentioned. presidential candidates are telling us the issue is immigration and if we stopped

immigration, we would solve the problem. how do you think about immigration? is it a problem for america? can it be a solution for america? >> i think all of us are the product of immigration. this country is built on immigration. with regards to this specific , immigration is a huge help. you bring in more population, and you've got more suckers to pay for the older people. this is the way the system works. when you pay a payroll tax if you are working, it's not going to you. you are paying for somebody who worked 40 years ago. it's a minor point, but immigration with regard to this issue is a help, not a hurt. immigration in general, this country was built on immigration. there's not a candidate out there when somebody in their family at some point didn't immigrate. it's just ridiculous.

[applause] we see this differently in new york city. when you see the energy, the economic energy that all of these immigrants bring into the city, i don't think anyone thinks, that's a bad thing we see going on as folks try to figure out what their niche is to climb the american dream. when you look at countries that have failed totally to bring new people into their communities -- if we think about japan, as that group grows older, they are not able to sustain the populace. you have a problem. this thing has consequences. i think right now immigrants are a scapegoat for the fact that we know, a problem

growing and sustaining our middle class in america. that is not an immigration problem. problem, and i think it's an easy way to find a scapegoat and say, they are the happening, if we stopped all of them from coming in. suddenly, we would have all of these jobs appearing back. i think this is one of the more hoprrrid kinds of conversationse have had in this country for quite a while. it reminds me of a time when it was ok to villain eyes others, african-americans, anyone who grew up in the 1960's. of thatere disparaging group. this sounds a lot like that to me. it is a real problem that we haven't addressed fully.

>> here's another solution. lift the cap on capital gains, and we will have enough money to solve the problem. true or false? to think theypen should normalize capital gains and it will bring some money. i think it will be helpful, but it's just a pittance in terms of solving the problem. the funny thing about capital issue,ying it to this the average 60 year old has five times the net worth of the average 30-year-old. people and rich people at a lower rate than the 30-year-old plumber is a direct transfer of wealth, again, from the young to the old. i don't think that is why it was intended. i have invested in businesses for the better part of 40 years. i started a business, and this

idea that somebody sitting around collecting dividends and clipping coupons is some kind of great job creator relative to some guy out there working, i think, is a joke. you are talking to somebody who thinks they should raise or normalize capital gains and dividends, not give them preferential treatment, but it won't solve the problem. it will give you some money, but it won't solve the problem. is one of the complexities, the magnitudes of the amounts of money we are talking about. stanley: let's talk about the defense budget. the defense budget is $700 billion. it's a lot of money, and i don't think that is equal to three years of the growth in entitlements coming up. toyou took defense spending zero, you wouldn't make up for three years in the upcoming growth in entitlements. should we have a defense budget greater than the 18 countries in

the world combined? that is what the equal to. probably not. you could find a way to cut a little of the defense budget, but i will say, they already cut it. gdp.se used to be 6% of it's going to be 0.5% of gdp. you can cut a little defense spending, but these are tiny snippets compared to the big problem. if you want to get at the big problem, you are to have to means test social security. you are going to have to means test medicare. since they have already gotten so much of the pie, i don't have a problem with stopping the coolers. haven't like they already increased their share already. five and seven-year-olds are suffering because of the expenditures we could be using for their future. >> i've got questions hear from students. how do we start a movement?

stanley: that's why i'm here. that is their job. >> what are the levers? what should we focus on? how can we get young people to understand this, and how can we avoid a war of all against all? we don't want young people against seniors. that is not the goal. stanley: that is absolutely not the goal. the first thing to do is to start voting. [applause] i would make this issue a .riority i talk to young people. i have daughters in their early 20's. i was thrilled when gay marriage went through for a couple reasons. and ight it was great, thought maybe they could move onto another issue now that that problem was solved. i got a two-fer when that happened. if you look at the charts i put up there and you are willing to think about your future, this is a big deal.

one thing i know about young people, when they show in force and vote on an issue and are loud about it, like they were on gay rights and like they have been on climate, politicians eventually listen. they've got to vote, or politicians won't give a damn. >> the voting rates of young people are about half of people 65 and older.politicians are not stupid. they know who votes, and they are going to focus on the needs and concerns of those who vote. stanley: i don't want to put this as young versus old. i really don't. one of the things i want to do is talk about seniors and future seniors. one of the things i want to do is preserve these programs so they are viable for our young people when they are 65. that's all. let's talk more about the harlem children's. see, ifld you like to you had a way of expanding it

around the country? what kind of investments do we need in our cities, and it's mostly the cities, along the lines of what you have pioneered? geoffrey: when president obama decided to replicate our work and create promise neighborhoods, if you look at his original announcement before he talkedsident, about putting billions of dollars, which was a very modest sum. if you look at what he was able to get through the congress, it was relatively small. it was much less than any of us thought was sufficient to get the job done. i think that the big lift moving forward is to do a couple things. , bute doing good work there are other folks around the country doing good work, also. work.d to celebrate that

when of the challenges was, they said it couldn't be done. you couldn't eliminate generational poverty in an area and get kids who weren't going to college to go to college. people began to say, ok, ok, you can do it, but you are the only one who can do it, which is absolutely not true. this idea that we need to do not a minor investment in kids but to actually put real dollars in there, i think it's worth fighting for. there are folks who are give evidence that these programs matter. i think that is one part. politicians will look at the evidence and say, great, thank you very much. stan has certainly been a major player -- i will tell you an issue where i

learned from the guys stand used to work for, george soros. george is very much on the left wing of the democratic party. geoffrey: he is to the left -- stanley: he is to the left of berkeley. pataki,: when governor a republican, was governor, i have been trying to convince both republicans and democrats to do some investment and youth development -- in youth development and to look at the mandatory minimum sentences before stuff came up about incarceration rates. i was an organizer and an activist, and people knew me. i was yelling and marching, and we got nothing. george called for a meeting with george'shich was that office. george is a democrat. pataki is a republican.

i am in the meeting. the meeting is at george's office per george shows up to the meeting 15 minutes late. i was like, how is this going to work? does not apologize. he doesn't say, "i'm sorry i'm late." he sits down and says, i want three things. him two out of three, not because they shared any political believes, but thought,cause pataki it's probably not a good idea to upset a billionaire. power matters. activist yelling, screaming, marching. with thehink about power levers are to move public policy is something we need to focus on. right now, we have a real crisis in this country. you see it in the electorate. i think the establishment and realize they had a crisis, but

people are starting to realize they have a crisis. what i firmly believe is that there will be an opportunity to talk to folks who would never listen to you before and say, there's an answer to what is angry, andybody so we have the research to back up why this would be a good political investment. by the way, it's going to cost some money to get this stuff done. until we can get folks to realize, there is money in that budget that we could free up to do some of this stuff, i think we are going to continue to think we are a country of scarcity. nothing could be further from the truth. this is a matter of whether or not we are going to do the investment. i am kind of a foolish optimist in the midst of this, but i actually think there's going to be an opportunity to have some of these conversations. this time, we've got a lot more evidence, scientific evidence, of what works. >> that is a heck of a note to end on.

we thank you for your optimism. we appreciate it given the presidential campaign we are all watching right now. i just want to end by saying, these are two remarkable people, and i feel honored that they came across country to be with us to tell us what they are thinking about, and i think what is quite remarkable is that they come from quite different places, do quite different things, and yet have come together with a concern for this issue. i think that's wonderful, and i think it's indicative of the kind of creativity that exists in america to try to solve problems. i think the harlem children's zone is solving problems, and i hope we can work at berkeley and around the country to solve the issues we discussed today with respect to the future investment in young people to make sure that we create a future for them that is worthy for them in am erica. thank you for coming.

thank you so much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] us economy,from equality, and education are all top issues. take two of the students and teachers who competed this year. every weekday in april starting on april 1, one of the top winning entries will air on c-span. all of the winning entries are available for viewing online at studentcam.org. american history tv on c-span3. this weekend on saturday afternoon at 2:00 eastern, law professor jeffrey rosen talks

about the influence of former chief justice john marshall. my gift famously said, of john marshall to the people of the united states was the proudest act of my life. and marshall has been widely praised for transforming the supreme court into what his biographer john edward smith calls "a dominant force in american life." ealand at 10:00 on railameri america. the 1981 nasa documentary, "space shuttle, a remarkable flying machine," sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on road to the white house rewind. the 1969 film for richard nixon. i have decided that i will judge my ability to win in the

fires of the primary. and not just in the smoke-filled room. 1:00, a panel of authors on the recent books chronicling mexican-american civil rights from the 1930's to 1970's. >> the coalition of labor unions, mexican civil rights leaders, and religious leaders came together to protest the explication and in fact, accelerate congress' decision to terminate the next year in 1964. i think this was a moment of blossoming for the chicano movement. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to www.c-span.org. aging expert and author paul irving spoke in a town hall in los angeles on the current state of aging in the united states and around the world. this is about one hour.

the world. this is about an hour. [applause] >> it's my pleasure to introduce paul irving who is chairman of the milken institute center for public ages. he's also a distinguished scholar and resident at the university of california davis school of gerontology. paul previously served as the milken institute's president and also as an advanced leadership fellow at harvard. previously he was chairman and c.e.o. of minett, and is the author of a wonderful book called "the upside of aging," how long life is changing the world of health, work, innovation, policy, and purpose. a "wall street journal" expert panelist and regular contributor to the huffington post, paul is also a director of the bank i

work for, east west bank. he's a member of american society of aging. encore.org where he serves as vice chair and is also a member of the board of counselors of the u.s.c. davis school. he's got a tremendous, tremendous record of public service and i know that you will be very interested and fascinated by paul's presentation today. please join me in welcoming paul irving. [applause] mr. irving: thank you, gordon. i want to thank town hall. i want to welcome all of you. i see i've got some old friends, partners, and family here. today we are going to do about a year's worth of work in around 25 minutes. which is going to be a challenge. i want you to bear with me. but i hope what's going to

happen is by the time we leave today i will have provoked your interest and some thinking and maybe some table top conversation for your own families and colleagues and workplaces and friends because global aging is changing our lives and is changing the planet, really, as much as anything. that we are experiencing in humanity. so let's go. we know that life spans have about doubled in the last 150 years for almost all of human history life spans were in the rage of 30 to 40 years. we have doubled t that's certainly one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind. we know that the reasons for that are advancements in sanitation and safety. medical advances, obviously, the advent of antibiotics and the like. but before we go farther, i want to give all of you a test.

after all i'm not spending today at u.s.c., i certainly feel that i should at least include some kind of quiz in this process. in 1917, king george v sent a congratulatory tell gram to every citizen of the british empire who was at least 100 years old. does anybody know the answer to how many he sent? guesses? the answer is he sent tell grams -- telegrams to seven men and 17 women. in 2011, this is by the way the last year that the crown has reported on this, in 2011 q.e. sent telegrams to all the centenarians that year. what i want to see is a show of hands. how many people think she sent 500? 500? 2,500? 5,000? 10,000? 20,000?

you can't fall for the last number. the answer is 10,000. by the way, she sent about another 1,000 -- about another 1,000 to a group of people that are reached 105. so this just puts in perspective the kind of progression we are seeing. this gives you a sense of global aging. the map moves from 2015 to 2050. the world gets progressively redder and pinker. what you see is that aging is a phenomenon certainly across all of north america, across all of europe. much of asia. and much of latin america. in fact, actually the only areas of the world that aren't aging rapidly are some parts of the middle east and some parts of sub-saharan africa.

aging is not only something that's occurring in front of our eyes, but frankly, is a permanent fixture for many of us. how many boomers do we have in the room? baby boomers? so baby boomers have been kind of led to believe not only are we the most important generation but also the generation that represents an exception. that for some reason we are the demographic bulk moving through the snake. when we are done things revert to normal. nothing could be farther from the truth when it comes to aging. aging is a continuing process that will progress as years go on. here's another way to look at the same thing. this gives you a sense of progression. 2015 to 2050, this by the way is net of the kinds of advances in medical science and bioscience that we are seeing every day. i'll talk a little bit about later. to put it in perspective, when social security was introduced in 1935, life spans in the

united states averaged 61.7 years. social security, an import from germany, was used as a program to take care of those who were exceptions. the outliers who for some reason outlived life span norms. boy have things changed. this is another thing we are experiencing. obviously highly relevant to us in los angeles. people are not only getting older, but the older population is getting more diverse. that continues as you continue to spread beyond 2050. so the great challenges of aging are health, financial security, and purpose. let me talk about health to begin with. so, we know with our aging population that we have a serious challenge with chronic disease. obviously with alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. our calculus is that fully loaded the cost of chronic disease to the united states every year is in the range of $1.3 trillion. again, that takes into account not just disease care but takes into account economic losses. productivity and absenteeism and presenteeism, etc. the cost of chronic disease much of which is disease that we can impede, defer, places an extraordinary and growing charge

on our population. by the way, let me say that the most powerful -- most powerful part of this is the opportunity that we have to improve prevention and wellness. about 4%, 4.5% of our federal health budget. we spend all of our money on treatment and care. we know we spent spend a lot of time fighting about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of obamacare and the like. what we know is investment in programs to affect obesity, mitigate smoking, it's going to have massive impacts. we have to think about why we don't invest more in them. alzheimer's, this is by the way just a medical care number. $226 billion in 2015.

a growing number. we know about 50% of people over 85 suffer alzheimer's or some other form of dementia. that kind of connection between increasing longevity on the one hand anti-risks of dementia on the other -- and the risks of dementia on the other provide a great challenge to all of us. focus on this last number. there is some disagreement. this is a fidelity member. $220,000 is the estimated amount that a 65-year-old couple will spend between now and death. out of pocket on health care. here's the next slide. this is why that's important. in the united states -- i'm going to focus on the u.s. for purposes of this conversation. but obviously these are challenges not just in the u.s. but many other parts of the world. a majority of pre-retirees in our country, you can see the pie chart, have less than $100,000 in financial assets. do you remember the number that i talked about in the last slide? $220 in medical expenses -- $220,000 in medical expenses alone.