proposed changes to the federal reserve system. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern at 3:00 p.m. eastern, the senate conferees on the transportation bill. it is possible that the meeting could last into the evening. c-span radio is airing more of the nixon tapes from the collection of secretly recorded compositions from 1971 to 1973. the saturday 6:00 p.m. eastern here conversations with deputy national security adviser alexander haack. there is a whole study that was done for mcnamara and after mcnamara left by clifford and

the peace corpse over there. this is a devastating security breach. in washington dc, listen at 90.1 fm, on xm channel 119, and at c-span radio.org. now, united nations ban ki-moon on post- conflict situations. the center for strategic and international studies, this is about an hour. ..

for such a position to emerge, to become institutionalized, personalized and so much increasingly successful. that is to some extent a very important measure of human progress. his life originated amidst the midpoint of the 20th century perhaps the worst century in human history to be more precise he was born in 1944 and in his subsequent life in korea then in various international positions culminating of course with his

appointment first as the foreign minister of korea and then his election as the general secretary of the u.n. took place in a setting which was dominated in the first phase so to speak by the dilemma and the necessity of the economic recovery. korea was offered in the course of world war ii and then a suffered even more in the course of the war that started in the late 1940's one and continues into the mid part almost of the 1950's one, economic recovery was the essential precondition would in the wellbeing of survival and that was a part of his growing up. he also lived through a period of life which followed thereafter which involved a spread of democracy to many parts of the world as self-determination throughout the world she witnessed at the

end of the imperial the colonial era of human affairs we are in an asian century we are increasingly aware of the fact that the trustee for us is increasingly that of self-destructive global turmoil will will perhaps not new world wars because of the destructiveness for weapons of mass destruction but nonetheless global turmoil which runs the risk of poisoning the political the atmosphere of mankind and preventing the kind of global cooperation were which is now so necessary for dealing with a novel problems of the 21st century problems which indeed address the fundamental question of human survival, human ability

to operate on the earth in a cooperative and congenial fashion. this is what motivates the effort at international institution building and the speech today is a way to be dedicated to an increasingly important facet of that undertaking, namely peacebuilding. this is a new and important enterprise with which he is personally associated and provides the inspiration when he needed the direction. following his remarks, he will be able unwilling to ask steve to answer questions. please identify yourselves. the discussion is open and is partially your choice. it's a pleasure to see you here and please take the floor we are eager to hear you.

[applause] >> president of csis, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen it is a great honor for me to participate in this very important gathering with so many distinguished friends with whom i have been working very closely and thank you for your support and for this opportunity. dr. brzezinski once it's always a pleasure to meet you were and you've been at the center of the global affairs for so many decades and it's been an honor to get good advice and counsel

from you and you have been such a good strong partner and a supporter of the united nations and i count on your continuing such a support and i'm also very glad to see who has been a good friend and supporter of the united nations and happy to see him in good health and i'm looking forward to working very closely with the csis. we've long been partners and shared information and ideas. ladies and gentlemen, we're here to talk about peacebuilding. it couldn't be more timely or important. peacebuilding and prevention in to the agenda as the general of

the united nations and throughout the war, the united nations is helping the fragile countries through the post conflict transitions. we are there at the period following the end of hostilities helping to build institutions addressing the good causes helping the society's torn by war sliding back into conflict. the main concern of peacebuilding is why the peacekeeping has been the responsibility to the united nations keeping peace and stability but when the countries are of conflict, we should prevent these countries from sliding back to scale one. this has been important at this time. we have 16 peacekeeping operations around the world.

to the hundreds dozens of soldiers this is a huge operation for any country except the united nations, the united states jokingly and a second commander ship only to next president obama. rear keeping 120,000 soldiers in the united states to keep 120,000 soldiers abroad. it's known as a special mission, some explicit peacebuilding mandates what the mekouar record of achievement in the recovery is long. of course there have been setbacks, but the bottom line is clear. the united nations is in there

when we are the most needed and just as clearly our engagement has helped many societies make a start. peacebuilding saves lives. it protects human rights and promotes the rule loughs of law and saves and of the economic damage caused by the conflict swa in the united nations from peace it's good to be here today of the peacebuilding commission, the peacebuilding fund these

institutions were created to provide a sustained political support from the post conflict countries and to provide fast funding to peacebuilding efforts. last year the funds are located $100 million for activities in 14 countries. our challenge is to sharpen the pool. that is what we are here to talk about today. ladies and gentlemen, let me begin our discussion by taking you from the headlines. days ago with the presence of liberia was convicted of crimes against humanity were for his role in the conflict in seattle leon the landmark in the criminal justice in the fight

against and kennedy. this is the first conviction of the head of state for international crimes since the nuremberg trials and certain as the age of accountability takes hold that will not be the last but also provides a window on to the u.n. peacebuilding. ziara lenone where the crimes for which he was convicted were and onetime hosted one of our largest united nations peacekeeping operations more than 17,000 personnel and soldiers with a robust mandate that operation helped stabilize the country but today our peacekeepers are gone. in their place we have a small political mission with about 100

people to their corrupted in 2009. the leadership on the ground has a peace keeping commission in tandem to the women. the peace building fund has support of steps to help young people and others participating in the political life. such recognize explicitly the political nature of peacebuilding and they helped to prevent a renewed escalation of political violence. i visited sierra leone three years ago, a number the most striking reminder of the war of brutality. that was one of my most moving

to have seen so many young people whose arms or legs were amputated by conflict parties. they organized a soccer game in order of me, and i saw these people fighting struggling to play soccer games, but to my mind they were better than world cup soccer players. there were charging each other. i was so moved. they were trying to overcome this tragedy have their personal tragedy with the help of u.n. peacebuilding activities. we just wanted to give them a sense of hope by being

amputated, but they fought that they could overcome even without their arms or legs. in liberia there's been a small mix of remarkable progress on the continued fragility and the peacekeeping and peacebuilding. the country has restructured the army and police with the help of the united nations and liberia the u.n. peacekeeping operations in 2008i saw the initial collaboration between the united patients and this is the economic condition of the african states of the african union and others including the united states. the mission in liberia has been able to reduce the size from

some 15,000 to less than now 10,000 soldiers. but some of the conditions that led to 14 years of civil war still exist and the factors in society could be exploited again to violence. that is one of the reasons why the government of liberia has asked to be placed on the agenda of the peacebuilding commission in that country is one of the six countries on peace building commission agenda. the peace building fund is helping to finance the construction of regional justice so that these vital institutions can serve all the countries. the fund was establishing the commission finding practical ways to solve the reserve, the

land that disputes the country. we hope these initiatives can serve as a symbol to restore the country's institutions of state were to restore the country's institutions of state and the expression of hope for the future. ladies and gentlemen, the violent conflict has declined in the past two decades that is insufficiently told. yet half a billion people still live in these countries. for them the world does not feel safer. for them injustice, inequality defines their days with the rebels, the gangs and organized crime syndicates undermining and

overwhelming the institutions of state. we see the violence is driven by political exclusion, conflict over the major resources, level jobs from a corruption's and human rights abuses. over the past 20 years, to many countries that we thought had put an end to the violent conflict and saw it erupt again because of mismanagement and the situations by the international community's. the political institutions were not yet detected to resolve peacefully. the high rates in the international community to get a fresh impetus for the world the's conflict setting for the peacebuilding in 2006.

our goal is to focus not only on relative peace but absence of the violence also on the foundations of the long-term stability and positive piece. we aim to give confidence to the people and support over the long term especially when the media and others shifted their tensions to other crisis. they cover the stories to the international community when they move to another place then these places have been forgotten from our attention. the experience has brought many lessons. what me tell you. the first, there is no

sequencing among the peacekeeping and peacebuilding or preventive diplomacy. we need not wait for the end of the military or peacekeeping operations to get peacebuilding underway. our peacekeeping missions are important as we saw in sierra leone. we've seen liberia and hope to see south of sudan where our peacekeeping mission probably has the most ambitious peacebuilding mandate ever adopted by the council. second peacebuilding is a test for many actors. a government, civil society, business, local communities, longer-term u.n. development all have a role to play.

this is also reflected in the diverse membership of the peacebuilding commission. our challenge is to align them behind the strategy. first of the leadership are crucial. peacebuilding successfully have been associated with a strong national leadership and genuine social engagement. at times, however, the limited local capacity is an obstacle. so is the tendency of some donors that might satisfy constituencies back home but that wouldn't reflect the local priorities. some countries support their interest which would not be helpful in the local politics or

local stability that when you support peacebuilding commission you should not have that kind of local interest on your own domestic interest. we have also seen some government's reluctant to focus on the priorities of the people of. myanmar from which i just returned offers an example of transition in the state program of change has been backed up by concrete reforms. the international business community is now eager to invest and we are committed to ensure the impact is positive for the country's peacebuilding efforts. the fourth lesson is that even certain stables of activity can go wrong. elections can be divisive

sometimes. we have such cases elections should work for the national policies but sometimes they have been what used as a source of conflict as we have seen in many cases in the developing world. even the building of a school or clinic can exacerbate tensions if the communities are not properly engaged the inclusiveness is a central. fifth, peacebuilding needs to be incorporated more into the development of cooperation. they must go beyond the traditional projects to support peacebuilding and state building such as justice, security, jobs

were, social services and process these. this is a key element in the so-called reach the last year's on detective but it's in the seven countries all of which have the u.n. peacekeeping missions. we must also consider whether and how to incorporate such into the development agenda for the target today for achieving the development goal especially in the aftermath of erebus bring it is clear that issues such as political participation, a human-rights and security are in trouble in satisfying the brunt of people's aspirations. to nisha for example was making rapid progress towards the

development but was lagging on issues such as political voice. six, it is crucial that the resources can be provided in response to the windows of opportunity the movement expressed a willingness to join the peace process. the mission identified the opportunity the peacebuilding fund provide emergency funding and the u.n. development program and the missions supported and the disarmament of the combatants we have seen similar effective efforts with the securities sector reform in supporting the conservation activity and and little support in yemen.

the civilian capacities are crucially important and we are taking steps to be able to deploy the right experts to the right place at the right time. seven, the inclusion of young men in the peace process and post conflict planning is fundamental for the legitimacy and for the results to take cold. organized violence is just the 17 of the 585 peace accords mention that in less than 6% of the spending is budgeted to in power women or gender equality. i'm pressing to more than double spending to ensure that 40% of u.n.-sponsored post conflict

employment opportunities are made available to women. we are also working to increase the percentage of the women in police and achieving a good momentum by 2014 we have 20% of the female police officers in the mission. ladies and gentlemen, the united nations is the organization that can bring the necessary elements of peacebuilding tabare. political security, human rights, humanitarian law and development. in our missions and countries in our planning headquarters at new york, peacebuilding has been the focus as never before. yet clearly the demands on the u.n. keep growing. too many people leave in afeard

even at this moment. the piece is complex. this audience knows as well as anyone peacebuilding is a work in progress. we are learning by doing. is linear and requires a great flexibility in the tayler situation. the violence within months and within our society's and among the countries with isn't going to vanish anytime soon but we are committed to continuing it at every turn. we are determined to do everything we can to seize the moment when to help societies find a safer prosperous.

ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for your attention and i am eager to hear your thoughts and comments to make this a peacebuilding process more sound and a robust. it can be done only with your strong support. the united nations and secretary general, myself, strongly committed to work for peace and stability development and protecting human rights but no country however powerful one country may be however resourceful one country may be in the united states most powerful, most resourceful, most influential country you cannot do it alone. all the member state of the united nations, all of the stakeholders the students come ngos, i think we should be united in addressing all of

these challenges to make this world better and i think you very much for your patience. [applause] secretary-general, thank you so much for your very comprehensive and important analysis of what is needed to enhance global peace. and before asking those who wish to raise questions to identify themselves, let me make two brief points. towards the end of your speech, you mentioned fundamental point number seven and a that pertains to the role of women and i want to note that we have here in our

presence the life of the secretary-general, and she has been devoting her attention to various issues pertaining to women and children and particularly she has been campaigning against the elimination of violence against women and also to prevent mother to child transmission of hiv/aids. so come and your family is involved in this process as well. second, i want to take note of a rather spectacular role that they play in the world affairs these days were they not only have the top political global post in the hands of the korean but a korean-american is involved in the top economic financial policy in the world and i compliment you on that of mr. and by recognizing people do want to stand up here, let me

just move to the side over there and i will recognize people while you respond. >> moved around the room. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary-general you were doing a great job at the united nations i congratulate you. my question is do you have a competition with nato and the question corruption is a major issue around the globe and corrupt politicians are meeting national treasuries from the poor and needy people and trillions of dollars are coming into the accountability including billions from india come in the of corrupt politicians around the globe can you stop and how can you meet with the people, united nations can be for the u.n. and for the people. thank you, sir. >> good governance one is for

the priorities of the united nations, for all of law. these are foundations for maintaining peace and stability particularly this devotee. when they are corrupt practices within the country or in the region, then these leaders lose their credibility and confidence and trust among people. that is what we have seen around the world in many countries. people are speaking out against the leaders but we have to admit the reality that's still there are many such practices being done and i've been very straightforward and very direct of those leaders who we believe that there's a serious

governance issue on many occasions are they ready to provide one to you the progress is broken. this is just waste at the bottom of this eliminate corruptive practices to come back to the defiance of the voices the general tolerance but what about your brothers and all these families? i have been speaking very vocally directly to those leaders but as a matter of policy of the united nations as

a way of enhancing good governance, we will continue to fight such corruptive practices but organized crime's these again require the support and cooperation not only within the government, we need the support from the government vision and international to be eliminated so i'm not going to talk about any specific individual cases in any country but i am just telling you as a matter of principal in general terms -- >> [inaudible] the council of affairs you and secretary-general, how do you

navigate through the interest of the agenda for the members of the secure council. >> we learned when we were students studying international politics diplomacy is something like an art. you have to employ all sorts of your wisdom and skills. there is no such fixed rule dealing with 193 member states. they are all suffering states, some more in governments and some and 70. they have the national agenda. how to reconcile the interests

into one coherent really requires a lot of skills and a lot of patience, a lot of wisdom. as i said the last five years didn't always try to be a bridge builder, a consensus builder. that has been one of my. my way of doing business as a secretary general of course you mention the members of five they are all one of the superpowers. they have three strong influence as well as what is important as the people power by the united nations that you have to really

work more closely. first of all you have to understand what are the national interests for all the national interest can be translated for the common good, the common well-being and the common future so i have been trying to persuade and convince each and every member state is not only the p5. it's the biggest and the strongest power group of the non-aligned group as well as the china group. they are very strong interest group of the united nations or any organization. so it requires your wisdom. i think i've been trying to use my wisdom or sometimes some

asian value trying to understand more, the concerns or interests of the other parties and putting the interests of the common international community then you have to convince them, you have to have a very genuine dialogue. sometimes this dialogue can be taken in an open way for behind-the-scenes of private talks fitting together with the one on one format to read this is what we call in the french the one-on-one this sometimes helps. they have their own political

ego when they are just come from torch alleged publicly it may be very difficult to persuade them so it requires all sorts of diplomatic skills. >> in case of the guys and syria it seems a lot was limited particularly in the security council, and one reason is the veto of russia and china which led to the killing in the regime's. now the results don't you think that the reforming mechanism our system of the council? >> this situation and syria has

become the hottest issue the most serious and greatest concerns of international community in that regard i have been always urging the unity among the security council members who are bearing the primary responsibility for international peace. the members have spoken in unity twice by authorizing the deployment of the mission and syria. the more than 9,000 people have been killed during the last 14 months this is totally unacceptable and intolerable situation to situation has reached to that one. our priority at this time is by

deploying the supervision mission as soon as possible. but the violence must start by all the parties either the government forces or operation forces this should be stopped. then political dialogue must begin in an inclusive way for a political resolution reflecting the genuine aspirations. that is our prayer the guinn. they have been playing a crucially important role. i've been speaking with the secretary-general many times on almost a daily basis together within the security council. i think now we're very much

united what does the united nations and security council to try and to deploy as today now we have about 60 monitoring members with an equal number of civilian staff, and these will be increased by more than 130 by this coming thursday this week and we will be able to deploy mabey to under 30 or more. our target is to deploy 300 mandated supervision missions as soon as possible within this month. i hope that with the deployment of the supervision mission this will have a first of all very important war in monitoring and

supervising the cease-fire violence so that we support in this political dialogue. at this time we are also trying to provide the humanitarian assistance. at least 1 million people in syria have been displaced and effective and tens of thousands of people have fled to neighboring countries iraq, lebanon and we're trying to provide humanitarian assistance with unicef and ndp and all these international migrations off with.

we need the full solidarity among the people, among the countries of the world to resolve these issues. thank you. >> i'm one of the members to. use it in your speech it's important [inaudible] bid deadline in august to create the government [inaudible]

my question, dr. brzezinski should the united nations be in charge of the process and the government and of the corrupt leaders who are there coming back to the presidency is a sham and a disgrace when thank you very much. >> i'm grateful for what you're trained to ask and say. somalia unfortunately has become one of the country's people suffering and have been

suffering the last two or three decades from political instability and terrorism and economic difficulties in hundred and piracy. i'm very concerned in somalia for the first time in 19 years as a secretary general of the united nations it was the first visit i really wanted to its have some solutions of these issues there's a division of the country's that have been always fighting against the rebels and

they have not been able to eliminate this serious capacity issue. they simply do not have their own capacity. therefore we are trying to address these issues from a comprehensive way. first we have to provide the political stability. that is with the african peacekeeping missions, the security council has increased recently about two months ago the number of these african peacekeeping missions with the support of the international community's for the united nations we have been considering deploying this peacekeeping

operation has a role to play but because of the mandate, there would be no peace for peacekeeping operations. still lives in the middle of the fighting so we would not be able to do that. that is why we have -- we are helping this african peacekeeping mission whose mandate is supported in enforcing peace in somalia. that is one encouraging aspect. there is the very important political dialogue going on to read the have been making some political negotiations whereby they have to have a constitution

that i have been urging them to have their constitution and establish their governments and address the development issues. we are also trying to provide a socio-economic development program again for the first time the united nations has deployed the mission there and what is known as the political scalia so we are trying to address these including the piracy initiatives but the challenges are so great i cannot give you any definitive answers towards this issue completed in time. thank you. >> i want to applaud your

efforts on peacekeeping that's very important. my question is [inaudible] i know you are doing a great job at the refugees but why does the u.n. have to separate bodies that take the refugees? there's the united nations refugee commission. one body takes care of the refugees and settles them. the other is a permanent institution that drains billions of dollars from the united nations. why not combine them? >> it's not the separate and dealing with the refugees. when it comes to the refugees, the united nations high commissioner for refugees what is known as the u.n., that is a

deep organization. there are not at this moment for 34 million refugees around the world. there are 100 million people every day united nations has to feed a breakfast, lunch and dinner 100 million people. that is a huge challenge. so all humanitarian agencies are providing food and humanitarian assistance daily. all these refugees when they are categorized as international refugees then it is taking care of this and has some specific to address the issues of the refugees, the palestinian

refugees. this commissioner general is now taking care of the palestinian refugees under this mandate. this again requires a lot of support from the international community. it is a suffering from a lack of funding. i just visited gaza myself, and i have seen so many palestinian refugees and i have to address it to the mobile support for this. we are now addressing this but all refugees can return their

respective homes when we have a peacebuilding process where we can ensure true peacekeeping operations that there is a peace and stability in their native home towns and these people must be able to return to their homes, but unfortunately because of this continuing crisis, people are just freeing from their homes because they are in danger of their lives and human rights are being abused, so we are taking maximum utmost care simply because of the lack of funding from the international community's we are not providing enough and sufficient support to these people. thank you very much.

>> before i thank secretary-general i have an important question for all of you. please remain seated until he's had the opportunity to leave the room of the rise will be very awkward. benign sure i speak for all of you that we are grateful to you not only for your important statement but for something else. you're very warm and engaging personality which you can face effectively. thank you for being with us. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

the senate began work on a bill that prevents student loan interest rates from dublin on july 1st. florida included comments from senator lamar alexander tennessee republican and former secretary of education and iowa democrat tom harkin.fficer: wiot

>> mr. president i can't emphasize the importance andslat urgency of the legislation the student loan interest rate hike act of 2012, which the majority leader just spoke about. on july 1, unless congress intervenes, the interest rate on federal student loan debt is set to double from 3.4% to 6 30eu%. -- to 6.%. more than million students including than estimated 255,000 students enrolled at iowa colleges and universities would be required to pay an average $1,000 more per year of school. the bill before us is straightforward, it is fully paid for, it chemica keeps the t rate at 3.4% and the cost is offset by closing a tax loophole that benefits certain high-income professional service providers. i'd like to thank senator reid for his leadership in advancing this critical legislation. i also thank president obama for miking this legislation -- ma for making this legislation an

urgent priority and for visiting collegvisitingcampuses across t. in today's global knowledge-based economy, an education beyond high school is a necessity. a worker with a bachelor's degree makes 85% on average than a high school graduate. almost two-thirds of the job vacancies between now and 2018 will require some postsecondary education and more than half of those will require at least a bachelor's degree. you can see by this chart, right now, as i said, 63% of the jobs will require at least some college education. either college and associate's degree or a bachelor's degree or more. that's just by 2018. and the demand is going to grow even beyond that. these statistics convey a very

clear message: higher education is the key to not only entry into the middle class but a middle-class life. another message is equally clear, and that is america's economic competitiveness and growth depend on a highly educated and highly skilled workforce. that's why the ever-growing mountain of student loan debt is a major concern for me as the chair of the "help" committee and also a major concern for families all across america who are struggling to get by. it's a shocking fact that total student loan debt now has surpassed total credit card debt for the first time ever. $867 billion right now in student loans. auto loans, $734 billion. credit cards, $704 billion. so for the first time ever, student loan debt -- they now owe more on that than they do on

their car loans or on their credit cards. again, i want to bring this more closer to my own hoavment it --n home. iowa borrowers have anag anage f ever $30,000 of college debt which is the third highest in the nation. over the past three years, president obama and congress have taken robust steps to improve college affordability and help our students succeed. from the recovery act and its unprecedenced support for our education systems to the student loan reforms that enable us to help more students through larger pell grants, and most recently efforts to make it easier for students to row pay their loans. this all happened in just the last few years. we have made major strides towards the president's goal. i hope it would be our shared goal of reclaiming america's standing by 2020 a as the county

with the high et proportion of college graduates. needless to say, it will be much harder to reach this goal if congress allows interest rates to double on july 1. as i said, more than 7.4 million american students would be required to pay an average of $1,000 over the lifetime of the loan for each year they borrowed. so again, if you look at this, this chart again shows what's happened. if the interest rate is paid at 3.4%, we're looking about $883 in interest over the life of the average loan. you double that interest, it goes to $1,876. that's 6.8%. so the average savings to the average student would be almost $1,000 a year. i might just add that the

255,404 borrowers in iowa will save an estimated $254 million with this bill in front of us. with today's tough economy and given the very high unemployment rate among americans, it's unacceptable to ask middle-class families to shoulder sharply higher student loan interest payments. we must not allow this to happen. if you look closer at the characteristics of students who will be impacted by this interest rate hike, you see that it really, really affects middle-class families and vulnerable students from disadvantaged background at the very time when they're under enormous financial strain. if you look at who gets the subsidized loans from this chart, you can see that by family income, dependent students, their family income is less than $60,000 a year. less than $60,000.

if you look at the independent student loan borrowers, their income is less than $50,000 a year. 89% of them is less than $50,000. and those dependent student loan borrowers from families, 60% are from families that have less than $60,000. i might also add that seven out of ten of those independent students here, seven out of ten reported under $30,000 a year in income. under $30,000 a year in income. so allowing the interest rate to double would also disproportionately affect minority students, minority students who account for 40% of these borrowers. 40% of these borrowers are minority students. this bill, again, would prevent, would prevent the interest rate from doubling on july 1 for those borrowers.

so with the bill before us, we're considering a pragmatic and fiscally responsible solution to this problem that will keep interest rates low for more than 7.4 million students. the bill is fully paid for, and we offset the cost by raising revenues in a way that will provide a solution to a long-standing problem in the tax code that has been subject to widespread abuse. let me just define how this measure is paid for. for many years we have seen avoidance of properly owed social security and medicare taxes by some subchapter "s" stockholders who declared a portion of their income is effectively profit and, therefore, not subject to social security or medicare taxes. this is not supposed to be a choice that is made at the whim of the taxpayer. it should be based on objective facts. the offset in this legislation does just that.

it creates a bright-line test for a small share of subchapter "s" shareholders, basically those engaged in professions such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants and lobbyists whose financial gains -- the financial gains they have come from the work that they do. it's narrowly tailored to cover only those subchapter "s" organizations in which there are three or fewer stockholders and only for those earning $250,000 on joint filings. with this bright-line test, the medicare and social security trust fund will receive the funds that are properly owed to them which they're not receiving today because they're counted not as an income but as profits. now my friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed a different offset to pay for

keeping the interest rate at 3.4%. the bill that passed the house of representatives and the legislation proposed by senator alexander of tennessee would offset the cost of this bill by eliminating the prevention and public health fund, which was created by the patient protection and affordable care act. in short, rather than put an end to an abuse of the tax code, my friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing that we eliminate the sole dedicated source of federal funding for investments, critical investments, in preventing disease, keeping women and children and elderly families healthy. they want to eliminate the prevention and public health fund. mr. president, many of my republican colleagues have

acknowledged the critical importance of investing in prevention and wellness, which makes the use of this offset -- that is eliminating it -- all the more troubling. preventing disease, expanding access to screenings, encouraging people to stop using tobacco, these used to be bipartisan goals strongly supported by a vast majority of republicans and democrats alike. so in the affordable care act, we created the prevention fund with the expressed goal of ramping up our investments in these prevention and wellness initiatives, again, with republican support. quotes from two republican leaders: senator kyl on 7/12/2010, in the midst of the

debate on the affordable care act said -- quote -- "one of the things we did in the health care legislation was to provide a lot of different incentives for preventive care for screening to try to help people avoid illnesses on the theory that it would be a lot cheaper if we didn't do a lot of treatment that was unnecessary." i couldn't agree more. the republican leader, senator mcconnell, said the same year, 2010: "congress should be able to work together on our practical ideas that the american people support, such as encouraging wellness and prevention programs that have proved to be effective in cutting costs and improving care." that was just two years ago. well, yeah, less than two years ago. but now -- but now republicans are making outrageous partisan attacks on the prevention fund. i find this deeply disturbing and disappointing.

it's not hard to imagine the message gurus, those that hone messages, telling republicans, here's all you got to do. just smear the prevention fund by calling it a slush fund. how many times have i heard that? the prevention fund is a slush fund. i've heard it in committee. i've heard it on the floor. i've seen it in print. republicans calling the prevention fund a slush fund. well, this is shameful. that term, slush fund, is a malicious untruth. nothing could be further from the truth. the truth is that the prevention fund has been a giant step forward for public health in our nation. typically prevention and public health initiatives are an afterthought. this means important community-based interventions often go unsupported. the prevention fund is making it

possible for us to make national investments and evidence-based programs that promote physical activity, improve nutrition, reduce tobacco use. well, these are the investments that we make. this prevention fund which the republicans want to eliminate, invest $226 million to reduce chronic diseases including diabetes and heart disease. that minimizes the $440 billion a year in health care costs from heart disease alone. it invests $93 million for antitobacco education and support campaigns. to minimize the fact that over six million kids will die from smoking if the current rates persist. it investments $190 million for childhood immunization programs. again, to minimize the $3 billion a year in unnecessary

health care costs right now. i might just add, mr. president, the lead editorial in today's "new york times" said no longer just adult onset. that's the head of it. "a type 2 diabetes in children is yet another reason to fight childhood obesity." i won't read it all but i think there's a few pertinent paragraphs here in the "times" editorial today. it starts off by saying "a study of diabetes in overweight and obese youngsters bears an ominous warning about future health care trends in this country. it found that type 2 diabetes, a new scourge among young people, progresses faster and is harder to treat in youngsters than in adults. the toll on their health as they grow older could be devastating. this new study was published in

the "new england journal of medicine." some experts suggest -- reading further -- that young patients with diabetes need to be treated more aggressively. but the long-term goal should be the prevention of obesity and diabetes. congressional republicans -- "the editorial goes on -- "are bent on dismantling health care reforms that could greatly assist in curbing the obesity epidemic. the republican-dominated house last month narrowly passed a bill that would eliminate a prevention in public health fund established under the reform law, in part, to pay for lowering the interest rate on subsidized student loans for this year. the fund is already providing grants to state and local governments to help pay for programs to fight obesity and prevent chronic diseases,

including diabetes in the community, the workplace and among minority groups that have high rates of obesity and diabetes. killing off this program -- the editorial goes on -- would be hugely costly to americans' health and future health care costs. there is no explanation of this move except for the usual anti-health care reform demagoguery." mr. president, i ask consent this editorial appear in its fullness at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: well, mr. president, i know if i can make it any more clearer than the "new york times" editorial but i want to mention several representative investments that are happening, again, right now. i mentioned those right here. the $226 million on diabetes and heart disease, $93 million for

anti-tobacco education, $190 million for childhood immunization programs. i might just go back to that first one, the heart disease, because heart disease disproportionately affects women. most people don't know that. i think most people would say the number-one cause of death in women today might be breast cancer. not so. the number-one cause of death for women in this country is heart disease. some 42 million women are currently living with some form of heart disease in america. and the world health organization estimates that a staggering 80% of heart disease, diabetes and stroke could be prevented just from changes in smoking, nutrition and physical activity alone. 80%. that's what this prevention fund is doing right now. and moreover, this investment by the prevention fund isn't only

saving lives, it's saving money. right now, as i said, heart disease costs our nation about $440 billion a year. we can reduce those costs. we can reduce those costs. i might mention also smoking. cigarette smoking also kills an estimated 173,000 women every year. the current smoking rates persist, more than six million kids will die from smoking. now the new national anti-tobacco ad campaign is called -- quote -- "tips from a former smoker" is being supported by this prevention fund. i think many of us probably have seen these ads. they're extremely powerful and effective ads, and they're going to save lives. in fact, this ad campaign is expected to inspire half a million quit attempts and help at least 50,000 americans quit smoking forever.

i might just add that within two days -- within two days of these ads first appearing, the number of phone calls to smoking quit lines tripled. tripled from people who wanted help in quitting smoking. i mentioned the immunization programs for kids. these investments from the prevention fund aren't just at the national level. th*erls in our communities -- they are also in our communities. this fund is helping states, cities and towns to implement programs that meet their particular local needs. for example, in illinois, the state has made improvements to its sidewalks and its marked crossings to increase levels of student physical activity. because of these improvements, the number of students who are walking to school has doubled, doubled. that's a good thing. so not only is this good for their health, it's expected to save the school system about

$67,000 yearly on bus costs. in mobile, alabama, mobile county officials enacted a comprehensive smoke-free policy, expected to protect 13,000 residents and visitors from being exposed to secondhand smoke. this is mobile, alabama. so all across america, the prevention fund is investing in proven locally developed programs, locally developed programs that promote health and wellness. these evidence-based programs not only improve health but as i said will help us save money and health care costs. according to a new study by the the -- by the centers for disease control and prevention, programs like the national diabetes prevention program could prevent or delay nearly

885,000 cases of type two diabetes, saving our health system about $5.7 billion over the next 25 years. the national diabetes prevention program is a public-private partnership of health organizations working together to prevent the type two diabetes that the "new york times" editorial was just talking about. and given that in 2007, diabetes alone accounted for about $116 billion, $116 billion in direct medical costs, it's critical that we continue these investments. now, again, here is how this investment is being returned. you might say the return on investment for public health spending. for every dollar spent on childhood immunizations, we save 16.50. proven. for chronic disease prevention, for every dollar we save $5.60.

for workplace wellness programs, $3.27. if you want to look at it in terms of dollars and juju in terms of saving lives, we're saving money also. mr. president, the prevention fund's investment in cancer prevention also provide an opportunity to save lives and money. in 2007, the direct and indirect costs of cancer which accounts for nearly one out of every four deaths in the united states totaled about $123 billion. earlier this year, researchers found nearly half of u.s. cancer deaths could be prevented, again, through the kinds of programs the prevention fund is funding today. preventable u.s. cancer deaths about 50%. preventable diseases from heart disease, diabetes and stroke about 80%. this is what the prevention fund is going after. for the life of me, i have never

understood those who want to get rid of the prevention fund and yet are willing to pump untold billions, trillions of dollars into patching, fixing, mending, surgery health care costs down the line. perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle have never learned that old axiom of ben franklin's about an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. here about an ounce of prevention is worth about ten pounds of pure or more. well, the list goes on. recently, the trust for america's health released a study showing that a 5% reduction in the obesity rate could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over a 20-year period of time. 5% reduction. studies such as this one confirm what common sense tells us, that prevention is the best medicine for our bodies and for our

budgets. that's why nearly 800 organizations have spoken out against these misguided efforts to slash or eliminate the prevention fund. mr. president, these organizations like the young invincibles, the u.s. student association, the american diabetes association, the campaign for tobacco-free kids have all said no, don't, don't cut, don't eliminate the prevention fund. despite misguided efforts to cut or eliminate the prevention public health fund, most americans understand what's at stake. prior to the prevention fund, for every dollar spent on health care, 75 cents went to treating people with chronic illnesses and only about four cents went to prevention. 75 cents taking care of people later on with chronic diseases

that are preventable, only four cents out of every dollar went to prevention. this underinvestment has had devastating consequences. nearly half of american adults have at least one chronic condition. yes, you heard me right. nearly half of american adults have at least one chronic condition, and two-thirds of the increase in health care spending between 1987 and 2000 was due to the increased prevalence of chronic diseases. so if two-thirds of your budget, of the increase in spending is on chronic diseases and yet we can reduce those chronic diseases through prevention, you would think that you would want to increase that four cents a little bit on the dollar that we're spending right now. this prevention fund gives us an unprecedented opportunity to

bend the cost curve. how many times have i heard about benning the cost curve -- bending the cost curve in medicine? the best way to do it is to prevent chronic diseases. the transformation of america into a true wellness society, a society that focuses on preventing disease, saving lives and money is the most cost-effective way to proceed. so as we can see, the slander of the prevention fund as a so-called slush fund is a shameful mischaracterization. this fund is saving lives and saving money. eliminating this fund as proposed by my friend from tennessee would be bad public policy, a serious case of misplaced priorities. the very idea that republicans would slash prevention in public health so that a small group of high income taxpayers can

continue to abuse the tax code i find simply unacceptable. now, before i close my remarks, i'd like to address an egregious mischaracterization that i have heard from the other side of the aisle. some republicans claim that democrats in our historic reform of the student loan program took money that had been going to students and used it to pay for the health care bill. i've heard that a lot of times. well, again, that's simply not so. the reforms passed by democrats in congress, i might add over vehement republican opposition, did not take a single dime from students. instead, the bill eliminated wasteful taxpayer-funded subsidies to banks by converting all new federal student loans to more stable, reliable,

cost-efficient direct loan programs. redirected that money to students, to deficit reduction and some important health reforms. the money didn't come from students. the money came from the subsidization that we have been giving to banks. specifically, thanks to the huge savings generated by eliminating wasteful subsidies to banks, what were we able to do with that? we provided increases with the maximum pell grant award to keep up with inflation. we provided funding for minority-serving colleges and universities. we made a major investment in community colleges, creating a community college and career training grant program. we were able to make loan repayment more manageable by capping a new borrowers loan payment at 10% of -- new borrower's loan payment at 10% of their income. and forgiving any remaining debt after 20 years of payment. that was all done by stopping

this wasteful subsidies to banks and putting it into the direct loan program. and again, we provided more than $10 billion in deficit reduction. now, at the same time, we were able to expand the community health center program to ensure access to life-saving medications and to expand vital consumer protections to millions of americans with private health insurance. protections that we put in like banning lifetime limits, requiring dependent coverage, prohibiting cancellation of coverage due to an illness. in other words, thanks to the education reform bill, students benefited, the middle class benefited, taxpayers benefited and health care consumers benefited. had my friends on the republican side had their way and had those reforms been defeated, only the banks would have benefited.

now, indeed, kind of detect a pattern here. when we democrats were fighting to end this subsidy to banks so that we could dramatically increase college grants and loans from middle class and disadvantaged students, my friends on the other side of the aisle stood at the banks and did everything they could to kill the reforms. likewise today, democrats are fighting to prevent a 100% student loan rate hike. we want to fully pay for it by correcting a provision in the tax code that allows a small, a small group of wealthy americans to avoid paying some social security and medicare taxes. republicans are going to the mat to prevent those wealthy taxpayers from having to pay their fair share. instead, how do they want to pay for keeping the interest rate down? by gutting the prevention fund, killing it, eliminating it, the very fund that's investing in initiatives to fight cancer and

heart disease and to protect the health of our children, our women and our elderly. well, what they are proposing is bad public policies, bad priorities. we need to be putting the middle class first. we need to be putting students struggling to pay for college first. we need to be putting public health and prevention first, put all of those out there. to make these things possible, we should ask this small group of wealthy americans to put their country first and stop abusing this provision, this loophole in the tax code. so i urge my colleagues to support the stop the student loan interest rate hike act and to support the offset currently in the bill. five years ago, the original law that reduced the student loan interest rate to 3.4% passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by a republican president.

i hope that we can find common ground to pass this new legislation with that same kind of broad and bipartisan support. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i am glad i had an opportunity to hear the distinguished senator from iowa who is my friend, the chairman of the health, education and labor committee. i -- i want to address the same subject he did, but i want to hasten to summarize at the beginning to say we agree -- by we, i mean governor romney, the likely republican nominee for president, president obama, house republicans, i, others, agree that for the next year, we should keep the interest rate on 40% of the student loans at 3.4% for new loans. we agree on that. there is not a difference of opinion on that. what's different, what's different is how we pay for it and what -- and what the distinguished senator from iowa

has done is actually outlined very well the difference of opinion here. what we're saying, what the republicans are saying is that in order to pay that $6 billion it costs taxpayers to keep that 3.4% rate the same for the next year, we want to give to students, we want to give them back their own money, the money that the democrats are overcharging them on their student loans. now, the senator from iowa went through a very careful explanation on that which was largely correct. he pointed out that at the time that the majority decided it would put the secretary -- make the secretary of education the nation's leading banker, put him in charge of administering what's becoming to be nearly a trillion dollars worth of student loans every year, in other words, take it away from banks and make the government the banker, that there was about $61 billion in -- quote --

savings. that's from the congressional budget office. the argument of our friends on the other side was those were unnecessary subsidies to banks. well, let's say, mr. president, for the moment, for the sake of argument that they're correct about that. that $61 billion is money that students were paying in interest on their student loans. so wouldn't the logical thing to do be to let the students keep the money? i mean, if you really cared about college tuition going up, student loans rising, wouldn't the thing to do be to say we have done a big favor to you students, the government has been overcharging you on your student loans, all 15 million, 16 million, 17 million of you who have student loans, so instead of the rate of 6.8%, which it is for most students, we're going to lower that rate to 5.3%.

that's not my number. that's the number the congressional budget office said that we could take that $61 billion that our friends on the other side said the government's overcharging students, and we could reduce the average loan of about $25,000 to a 5.33% rate instead of 6.8% and that would save the average student on the average loan about $2,200 over ten years but no, they didn't do that. they spent it on more government, $10 billion to reduce the debt and $8.3 billion to pay for the health care bill. what we're saying is in order to freeze this rate at 3.4%, let's give to students the money that they were paying instead of paying for the health care bill, let's reduce the student rates with that. that's the difference of opinion here. of course our friends on the other side have have better way in their opinion. not only do they want students to continue to pay for other

government programs and some money for the health care bill, they'd like to raise money in the middle of the longest recession we've had since the great depression on job creators. but let's -- let me go back to the beginning point here. we're talking about something that was reflected very well in "the new york times" yesterday, i notice the senator from iowa talked about "the new york times." here's the national section yesterday. talking about what's going on in california. angry about tuition increases, and cuts in courses and enrollment, a dozen students at california state university have taken their protests beyond marchs, they've declared a hunger strike. the fasting protest was the latest display of anger at the 23 california state university campuses. the system has lost roughly $970 million in state financial since 2008. mr. president, the university of california is probably the best public university in the

world, it's lost nearly a billion dollars in state funding since 2008. and the students are fasting. they're upset about the tuition increases. why are the tuition increases coming? well, the administrators say if we lose a billion dollars from the state for our state universities, the money has to come somewhere, to pay for complents complens in our universities so we increase tuition. that story has been going on all over the country. why is that happening? i mean the president has put this issue on the table. i think we need to discuss it. why are they fasting in california? protesting tuition increases. why in tennessee last year did state funding for the university of tennessee and community colleges in tennessee tech go down 16%? mr. president, the main reason is the federal government's health care policies, its medicaid mandates on states that are soaking up dollars, state

dollars on medicaid that would otherwise go to pay for public universities. president obama did not start this policy. it's been going on for 30 years, but he's making it much worse. with his health care law that was passed and when it takes effect next year, the kaiser family foundation says that states which already are spending one out of four of their state tax revenues on medicaid will see a 29% increase in the cost of medicaid funding and what will that do, mr. president? what that will do is force california and tennessee and connecticut and iowa to look in their state budgets, to take the money that most likely would have gone for the colleges and community colleges and public universities, and instead spend it on medicaid. those federal medicaid mandates are soaking up money that would

otherwise go to public colleges and universities and as a result of that the universities are raising tuition, as a result of that loans are up, students are fasting, and the president's on the campaign trail promising to fix it. let's talk about his fix. first, it is the political season, and so students as well as senators and all of us need to listen very carefully when someone begins to stir the crowd about a popular issue and surely being able to pay for college is a popular issue. we hope that all american students who want to go to a higher education will be able to go, will be able to afford to go. and our federal government goes to great efforts to make that possible. half of the students who go to colleges and universities in america, and there are 6,000 of them of one kind or another, have a federal grant or loan to help pay for college. we have more than $100 billion in new loans going out this year.

that's from the american taxpayer. that's from people who are out there working and paying taxes, the -- the u.s.w. -- u.a.w. moab, the teach perks they're paying $100 billion to students this year. the amount of money for pell grants this year is $41 billion more in grants. at the university of tennessee in knoxville, a fine campus where the tuition is about $7,200 a year, which is still a good bargain, by say at a great university, almost all the students show up with a $4,000 state scholarship called the hope scholarship, but for the quarter of those students who are low-income, they have pell grants that carry them above the amount of tuition the. so state and local governments have made a great effort to try to make it easier for our young people and older people to continue education and we want to continue to do that. there's a bipartisan effort on that. now, the specific issue at

flayplay here, the one we're likely to vote on tomorrow, has to do with one type of those student loans. and let's -- let's try to put that into perspective. if either version, the democrats have a version and republicans have a version, i'm offering a version which would pay for it by giving back the students the money that the government's overcharging them. the democrats have one that would raise taxes on people who create jobs, but whichever one were to pass, if one were, here's what it would do. it would save students on new loans about $7 a month on interest payments over the next ten years. that an add up. $80 a year or $800 in ten years. $7 a month in interest payments on the average loan, and that's for 40% of the loans. and that's for new loans. so if you've got a student loan and it's a 3.4%, that's not

going to change. 40% of people do have student loans today at about 3.4%, everybody else is at 6.8% which is a good deal lower than you could get a private loan, one where you go into a bank and say i'd like to borrow sown some money, maybe you can he you can get it but they'll charge you more because be you might not be able to pay it back as well as somebody else. we've agreed on in, at least on the policy. the president has agreed on it, governor romney has dpread on it. for thers in year like to keep the 40% loans at the 3.4% late and later in the year or earlier next year when we look at our budget, the size of the debt, which is of great concern to all of us on both sides of the aisle, we'll see what we can afford to do. that's the first question. but i'm glad the president has been going to college campuses.

i'm glad he's raised the issue of student loans and college tuition. because as a former governor of tennessee who cares deeply about education, as someone who was also united states education secretary about 20 years ago, i've been trying for 20 or 25 years to get washington to pay attention to the idea that it is ruining our public colleges and universities with these medicaid mandates that soak up the dollars that ought to go for public colleges and universities. three-quarters of our students go to public universities, like the university of tennessee or iowa state or california or the communities colleges which are really our secret weapon. and even with the rising tuition, those costs are -- are at least reasonable now. tuition at community college in tennessee is about $3,000. nationally, the average tuition to four-year public universities is about $8,200. it's not easy to find the money

for that. but -- but it's still within range. but what has happened in the last 25 years? i can tell you what's happened in my state. i visited with the retiring president of tennessee tech university, a fine engineering school. he said two things. one is over the last three years state funding for his university and for most in tennessee has gone down by 30%. now, that's not a 30% reduction in the rate of growth. that's a flat-out cut. a flat-out cut. and why has that been happening? our governor, the current one, and four former one, a democrat, both have said what i know and every governor knows, when you make up your state budget, and you get down toward tend of it you make a choice between medicaid and higher education and because medicaid is run from washington with specific mandates, the states end up being having a strangle

hold on them. in effect if they participate in the program to be forced to make decisions about jibilityd and -- eligibility and how much they spend and there goes the money. and there it doesn't go to the public colleges and universities, and less money, higher tuition, higher loans. now, the fasting students in california, if i walked up to them today and said i bet you didn't go noe that president obama's health care policies are the reason you're hung write -- hungry today, they wouldn't believe that. but the fact of the matter is not just the president's spoms but the policies over the last number of years have gradually soaked up money that wildcard ma the university of california a great university and left it no resource but -- recourse but to come more efficient which it should and raise tuition which it is doing. let me give you an example of how much difference this makes. in the early 1980's, i was a young governor and making these budgets up and by say, well,

about this much mows ghost to k-12 education and the courts are running the prison so i'll have to put that in and the gas tax goes to the highways and toward tend of the budget you make this choice between medicaid, the federal program that states pay about 30%, 37% of, something like that, and i was trying to restrict funding for medicaid and increase funding for -- for education. i could see where we were headed over the next several years. i went to see president reagan. i saw him in toafl office. -- the oval office. i said let me propose a grand swap. what do you mean a dwrand swap? we'll swap you -- we'll take all of k-12 education, we in the states, you take all of medicaid. he thought and said that sounds sowndz like a pretty good idea. my preeng reasoning was -- my reasoning was instead of medicaid having two masters,

one in washington and all the governors, if it had one, it would be managed better. if washington ran it, washington would have to pay for it all, it would make sure it could fund it. and i thought then and i think today almost all the comont for kindergarten through the 12th grade belongs closest to the child as possible, first the family, then the classroom, then the state and i believe that while there's been some important advocacy in washington over the last 30 years that if we'd made that grand swap, the medicaid program would be run better today and our public schools would be better today. we could argue about that but thing one thing we couldn't argue about is the difference in money. if we made the swap, the states would have come ahead by about $4 billion. in other words, the federal government would have taken over medicaid, the states would have taken over k-12, given back to the federal government the federal aid to education and the federal government would not spend its medicaid money. $4 billion was the difference in

1981 or 1982. what would the difference be today if we made such a grand swap? $92 billion, mr. president. $92 billion of extra money the states would have if today the federal government took over all of medicaid and the states took over all of the responsibility in funding for k-12. that would mean in state like california where the students are fasting, california probably would have $12 billion or $13 billion more and do you think much of that would go to the university of california to continue its excellence? you can be sure it would. would much go to tennessee tech and the university of tennessee and the community college? you can absolutely sure it would. what has happened over the years is these well-intentioned federal health care medicaid mandates have put the strangle hold on governors which is why i said when we were debating the hack health care law i thought any senator who voted for it awrt to be sentenced to serve as

governor for eight years and try to implement it. i mentioned in tennessee last year that state funding for higher education went down 15%. well, guess what -- state funding for medicaid went up 16%. so there's a direct relationship. medicaid up, state funding for public universities down, tuition and loans go up and that's the real problem we have today. so i'm glad the president has put this issue on the table. i'm glad he's talking about it. and i hope governor romney talks about it. and i hope what they agree to do is either to repeal the health care law or to repeal the medicaid mandates and give states more flexibility. you can't pass a law in washington, as we did three or four years ago with the stimulus act, and say we're going to give you more medicaid money but, mr. governor and ms. legislator, you can't reduce state funding

on medicaid. lieutenant governor ravage of new york, a democrat, wrote an excellent article in the "wall street journal" at the time and said, if you tell new york that at a time when we're reducing revenues, and you say you've got to keep spending on medicaid, we have to cut something else, the state university of new york gets cut. so new york cuts the state university of new york, tuitions go up, loans go up, students are protesting. and it's not just the student protests i worry about. we're at a time in our history when we're in serious competition around the world in a brainpower competition. we have a lot of chinese scholars going from american university home again to their universities. we did, in a bipartisan way, the senator from iowa was a part of it and i was, we passed something called the america competes act a few years ago and we authorized it so we could properly fund our science and -- and our innovation. government-sponsored research has been an important part of

our job growth over the last 30 or 40 years. and where is that done? it's done at our national laboratories or at our great research universities. at least half of our great research universities are public universities. they're like the university of california, the university of michigan, the university of tennessee, university of connecticut. and if we cut, cut, cut, cut that government-sponsored research and the quality of those universities, our job growth won't be nearly as good in future. here's another example of how much that has changed over the years. 30 years ago in tennessee, the state paid 70% of the costs of of -- of a student to attend a state university and the student paid 30%. and we had an implicit agreement between the government and the student and we said, if we increase your tuition, we'll increase by the same percent the state contribution. so we kept it at about 70% and

30% and it made it possible for a lot of students to go to college. what is it today? it's 30% and 70%. it's upside-down. 30% of the support for public colleges and universities comes from the state government and 70% comes from the students. and why is that? the fact is, mr. president, the main reason is federal hg -- federal health care mandates that put an unrealistic amount of money on top of states and it's about to get worse. i mentioned earlier the kaiser family foundation says -- estimates that next year states that are already spending $1 out of every $4 for medicaid will see a 29% increase in medicaid funding. this fast will have to go on a lot longer in california if that's going to happen. you can't cut a billion dollars out of the university of california every three years and have it remain the best public

university in the world. it's just not going to happen. and you can't raise tuition 6% or 8% every year and make college available to -- to the large number of students that we would like to go. so i am glad that the president and our friends on the other side in this political year have -- have raised the issue of rising tuition and student loans we agree on the little issue before us. we'd both like to take that 3.4% interest rate, extend it for a year. that costs $6 billion. that affects new loans. it affects only 40% of the students but we agree on that. the president does, governor romney does. that's not an issue. the issue is, do we raise money on job producers or do we give back students some of the money we're continuing to overcharge them to student loans? that's the issue. but the larger question and one which i hope that we all address this year in our debates and

that the president and governor romney address in their debates is what about the future of our public colleges and universities, where three out of four american college students go? how are we going to maintain their quality and maintain the opportunity for access to them if we continue to impose on states medicaid mandates that soak up the money that ought to be going for excellence in higher education and the greatest amount of opportunity for students by keeping tuition rates low? that's the real issue. and while president obama is not responsible for what went on before he became president, he has made that condition much worse. and if he's going to bring this up on the campaign trail, i hope he tells the rest of the story, which is that he himself and his health care and medicaid mandate policies are a principal part of the reason and i would say the main cause going back over the

years to the reasons why california students are fasting, tennessee students are looking forward to an 8% increase in tuition, and all across the country college presidents know very well that the reason there have been such reductions is because of federal medicaid mandates. i hope, mr. president, we have an opportunity not only tomorrow to vote on the democratic proposal to keep -- to keep student loan rates at 3.4% but also on the republican interest rate reduction amendment that i have proposed, which would keep the rates at 3.4% but pay for it by stopping the overcharging of students to help pay for the health care law. health care law.

>> tomorrow north carolina will vote on an amendment to ban gay market -- marriage. we will speak with a member of the national gay and lesbian task force.

[inaudible conversations] >> please take your seats. good morning. thank you for coming out. i was worried when i heard severe thunderstorms. i appreciate your willingness to come here with our new and from asia and that has not been discussed sir -- sara lee with cybersecurity the european union, the commission and but they're doing is very important. cahal i like to welcome our co-host.

>> a lot also like to welcome everybody on in the european security round table. thank you for the opportunity to organize this day. so many responded to our call with it transatlantic cybersecurity meeting. i also like to thank the true transatlantic private stakeholder who made this possible with a great to support and the commission to come here going over the land tick does take a lot of time and it is appreciated

to have this opportunity also in particular the estonian and a german embassy who have ben supportive also european parliament's that was tremendously helpful also kristin for a man who needs

of introduction dr. kissinger's says it is true i do not need one but i like a good one to commissioner malmstrom and secretary 89. we could not be delighted to have two very important and powerful voices. we are happy to welcome to 14 the has the responsibility of migration policy and police cooperation and border

control. prior to this commissioner malmstrom was the swedish minister with e.u. affairs with preparation for implementation of the lisbon treaty but she knows brussels extremely well serving in the parliament 1999 through 2006 while all of the of foreign affairs and constitutional affairs committee. one title i hold dear that commissioner malmstrom was day "c.s.i." in turn. i could not point* to a better advertisement. this is terrific. we are delighted.

we will offer secretary lute to give her remarks she oversees the third largest federal agency with the staff of 240,000 people. she is well-prepared with her career with public and international civil service serving with u.n. peacekeeping operations, eyepiece building operations and serving as the united nations foundation under two presidents. we could not be more grateful secretary lute to visit us today. after words jim will moderate the q and a session where you come into the

conversation. he may have stories of his own. i forewarn you the conversation will be interesting. thank you christoph raab and my colleagues and take it away commissioner malmstrom. >> thank you very much for that to introduction. that was a good introduction. i am extremely honored to be here and did not hesitate one moment when i sought csis was the organizer.

i have fond memories. also the upn security roundtable for the organization. this subject common to europe and the u.s. to have some good ideas new ways co-operation can be born. we have to win the battle trying to interrupt our life and it is a challenge we can overcome together. telling you about in the child sexual exploitation the name was atlantic and only completed two months ago. thinks to enter polled and fbi raid the international network of child sex offenders was dismantled.

on both sides of domestic and eight small children were saved and brought back preventing further horrific offenses of these children. we're grateful for the professionalism we have seen yesterday and was briefed on the fbi to see things we can learn or contribute to as well for our was impressed that commitment, engagement and professional lives of my saw today. it reinforces my views to deepen our operation in. we are targets for different kinds of cyber threats.

we're under siege from sophisticated attacks. coming from many sources organized crime and hackers. it is not a choice but an obligation for broke that e.u./u.s. security in november was the first up to identify strategic goals and all work with janet napolitano and eric holder plays an important role as does secretary lute discussing only of the days ago how we could enhance our operations we have very good partners on the american side.

with the cyber atlantic exercise kicked off the program to culminate to in another 12014 burma of the working group is instrumental to raise international awareness. as you know, it is possible to register a germane name of mickey mouse. those names given, said top five domains contains evidence of fake, false or incomplete identity information. that makes it difficult for law-enforcement to trace the offenders. we are finally seeing a commitment and the private

sector to implement recommendations in the policy is. we must continue to press to deliver the upcoming meeting in prague in june. your government will decide if we succeed this. the particular concern is the exploitation of non mine. we have seen the unprecedented expansion of the market. a horrible crime although we have of successfully disrupt did job abuse networks three must do more. the e.u. hasted to its own hallmark everyday at bins online organized-crime

ranges from selling a stolen credit card to identity theft. people must be comfortable with their digital life in this trust and the economy. if people did not use all of the benefits online that could have disastrous consequences as well. to be sure our legislation keeps up. technology -- technological events hopes to come soon. with the legislation to update current situation including the are rising threats.

with the intelligence to respond to do a threat to. one month ago i said of the european cyber crime center established in the netherlands. it will be the european focal point* in the fight with cyber crime. >> like the credentials and social not works from the on-line identity theft. but the tax on the critical infrastructure. >> gathering intelligence for the wide range of forces from eric of the intelligence is to warn of threats and besides it would

work closely with the private sector. it is also the national partner for initiatives in the field of cyber crime such as a disservice, enter poll and fbi. and secret service. we have a strong package to prevent cyber crime but we have to line at the initiatives. some member states have already advanced cyber securities statutes and the effort put forth but to it

would be hard to raise the level but it is time for the european union. we need everyone. business coming individuals, to work together to share the responsibility. it is a joint product within the commission those responsible and the vice president who is the commissioner responsible for the agenda. we are working together to a establish a of a joint strategy we're looking forward to good discussions but i will give you a few elements. we communicate the message

freedom and security is not mutually exclusive. open in cyberspace has to be maintained while providing the right level of security. we need to have cyber security resilience and become better and sharing critical of permission in a secure manner between public private-sector as in the e.u. member states. it is a major issue in the u.s. as well. we could end -- cash information through partnerships. also with the cyberattack to the crisis procedures at all levels. private-sector loans and runs most so they have the incentive for example, the

private sector should not be much plant manager dangerous it when the security breach the this appear. governments try to mandate better security. we have to seek out and intelligence to improve coordination and increase joint handling. more resilient technology that is primarily the responsibility for the private sector but we will invest in innovation. we need global cooperation. how they reaches out makes the response more effective.

but it to be have built upon the budapest convention and have identified have to make people safer. also the beginning of a strong partnership with the e.u./u.s.. we can report back on many successful joint operations with fbi and enter poll. we have good work and it is impressive with the establishment of the cyber crime center the work in the european union and u.s. but the bad guys have the upper hand right now. the only way to change the game is to act quickly and together. group am hopeful we can win

the debate and the battle and looking forward to suggestions come lead discussions, and a deeper partnership. thank you very much. [applause] during the introduction of homeland security the third largest department with 240,000 employees, we have additional contractors contractors, commissioner malmstrom said my god. that is luxembourg. [laughter] i was just there. it is not to. [laughter] but it is march her at the

outset they queued to csis to give us the opportunity to speak my colleagues and by a have concluded a negotiation with syria and her colleagues move it is the instructive experience for us in many ways not the least to give a deep and abiding insight in europe when you mention i was curious about the use use -- views and one colleague was puzzled and said she means the former east bloc and the young woman said that is not new

year up. it is all of us. that is what we need to learn and understand. it has ben and extraordinary experience the commissioner, and capital as they address and acclimate to life with a high leave i agree did life. wrote not not on may's data to them and -- to the bad debt provision but homeland security has a key role for the united states broke it is almost as important to talk not just the cyber role but homeland security. we have a great brand name

recognition less understanding. what reit trying to new? mine well talk about at and itouch our strategy and embrace of what we've tried to do with cybersecurity. has at its heart to create a save them secure place where the way of life can't drive. that is the motivation and touchdown a save secure place with the american and can thrive. we have to prevent terrorism. secure the borders. not only do we need to keep

out people were goods but expedite legitimate trade and travel. both a news. we need to safeguard cyberspace to venture is save secure resilient and national resilience with empowered individuals and a system to address all hat hazards when they come i spent most of my career in national security it is common to think homeland security as a lesser peace. this but i have discovered is different. homeland security is different than national

security and the ways that matter for cyber security. national security is strategic, centralized and top driven. homeland is operational and decentralized and a bottom driven city and states and municipalities. >> but the names and states if national security is about all bus then homeland security is about each of us. we take this approach no single department can do everything. with the case of cyber security, the single government.

is a an important difference. >> we called out to cybersecurity as a mission because we believe cyberspace is the endoskeleton 10 of modern life and this society. is it did this but for america and santa were global partners around the world but what does it take? to ensure the fidelity and security and reliability of reformation and our identities to exchanger permission the rest is commentary. that is the core problem to

secure those two things. week at a cyber blueprint we need to protect the critical of the structure to both a healthy resilience. how do we protect critical of the structure? 90% of critical ever structure less -- we operate with the principle nothing about you without you. we work very closely with the private sector and addressing cybersecurity. we've need to establish awareness. what is the health how do we

respond in a real way when intrusions zero her and build resilience? and those challenges they face. with the ecosystem we focus on of powering individuals. smart individuals to build organizations that are intelligent and responsive to understand how they can be cooperate together here

is the misperception and that when it comes to mou cybersecurity the role of government is clear. is a perception of not clear to many people. the view of government is polarized. there is of great debate for those who pay attention. they may be on characterized unfairly but simplistically they believe government has no meaningful role to play and the internet itself has ground to expand to generate the new wealth to represent the dynamic force in this and all of our lives that is largely a result of market forces. government has no role and

should not intrude in this space. on the other hand, those that think it is a war zone so dangerous and urgent governments must come and forcefully to establish a regime. we believe fundamentally the truth lies in the middle. the status quo is not acceptable and they must play a role and they will. mentioning the european union dialogue with respect how to seen through the appropriate role to play with access to the internet for security had to read bill that to ensure resilience?

with about and they are so critical and have the reinsure and in still and substantiate global cooperation? to talk about parties to international standards standards, innovation and of the role of the internet. >> rethink innovative markets protect us. >> we want to strengthen the hand of law-enforcement and extend collaboration to enhance confidence in cyberspace and also know that internet governance to know that it is the approach

we will leave them the power of the internet and all of this must be achieved with interoperability what is this man and of the day we will continue to pursue our responsibilities to safeguard and secure the emperor structure to build out the ecosystem is a multi a stakeholder model with intelligence protocols and the federal system is responsive and position to to ensure that critical security of the country. none of this is done alone.

active in our partnership with the dhs and across the globe no other important partner than the european union. we've just had a negotiation that took 18 months it actually took nine years. i need a chair. [laughter] am pleased to say we have concluded this agreement. at the heart of this was the issue of privacy. how do we ensure cybersecurity end exchange of information? is a part of the debate as well. i am no european naval

expert maybe not american either. but i could characterize their point* of view and it is our ability to limit the life and the europeans is about controlling the information once you put it out there. it is equally legitimate the heart was to recognize the legitimacy of each other's point* of view. we will succeed in the agenda. i mention and there is a problem because the debate is dominated by a extreme views but there is the opportunity and partnerships to solve the problems in the

inclusive way to help create a cyberspace for a us all. thank you. [applause] >> as you might suspect both speakers have a packed schedule we have a few minutes progressions and if you have a question raised your hand and identify yourself. [laughter] >> it is okay with the. i can identify you. >> talk about the stakeholder model and then the government i would be interested in the european perspective. the you mentioned i can as a

plot to take over control of the internet. what are reviews from the european sector? >> a very long answer. we have not for related a joint venture with this is what i am doing 24 relate and the issues will be built upon as well. behalf to make sure all 27 countries have their own strategy is so we need more time but this jury to i

cannot tell you much. >> it is important to with our friends that show the commitment to to the rear working hard to promote fad is at the heart of where we're parting from and hopefully when i come back next year. >> is the mission and vague

ally in my country but the question is to both of you. talk about those countries who do not pay enough attention to cybersecurity and do not see the fantasia of cooperation. what this leverage mean to involve those countries more and more into the cybersecurity operation? >> i will start. i have the privilege of meeting with your colleagues when i was recently in luxembourg discussing the

council and the big questions related and where the government is seized. my a colleague who is on a panel shortly. >> there are two types of organizations or states those who are taxed and those who do not know yet. we have to confront the reality of day cyber attack. >> we are wary being can

read words to create a. >> dll kindsf users but it is outrageous to live in a time with growing of the internet that there is not one single activity but to put those responsibilities in a secure place i know your commitment and professionalism and

reaching out to the deepest be met to discuss the need of this subsidy. but to make sure some countries to nine have the resiliency of our preparation i hope very much working with other countries

but interpol is setting up the site in singapore. this could be a partner but the committee has signed up. it is difficult is being replaced. >> we have two

questions. >> but that fear factor to

have the cyber center on the agenda as a platform when they get best and bad practices. who believe this is say dynamism.

we do not count on building up in that field but it could be used in that record geared. >> yes. i will not comment. then use the head table. every plant to mention when evert and luxembourg we've had ideas to put on the agenda. fear is the ongoing

conversation. >> who is lifting the events to say everything is possible? >> some of the most it is this saturday to reflect in my experience, some of the most. >> the rest of the world to is not stand.

>> five things but indiana, chinese, catholic, muslim come on facebook. that is interesting. certainly with average dialogue that holds with the population through the range of issues three places to have shared bell is with the global precedent between the u.s. and the you -- you. to raimi to thank our

speakers. [applause] >> also members of the first. [inaudible conversations] sssb#"

>> [inaudible conversations] we are off to a good start. i will introduce our panel list and let them speak for about 10 minutes. thomas's the senior advisor to the state department for cyber issues focusing on cyber crimes come as security, national security and capacity building.

before that at the computer crimes intellectual department and lieutenant colonel, he is known already but the french embassy i know in that position many times in the past that career is focused on multilateral affairs, he has the ambassador for a geneva with is good for multi level of fares.

>> really? the senior counselor of national programs director? >> i have known him for a long time on the transition team. e have all the panelist to speak to you. >> we will go 123. >> good morning. it is great to be here. all the owe deputy secretary lute is a hard act of follow but we are happy to be here.

there have bend some interesting threats over the course of the day with the transatlantic cybersecurity corporation. i would note to there's a large footprint of dhs people and that is instructive it takes me back the main trust is and we cannot find them. we've tried to reason gm goes part way then produce.

>> whether a school yard your classroom or library your marketplace, the one thain it is read do not want it but the administration has said she strong representation but i would ask congress to give the primary responsibility is for securing cyberspace in the united states provide faint but government yachts?

>> as you have heard the initial focus that many of us have but with the principal government to government instrument.

>> with the atlantic sphere it is promising and hope that is the broader into actual plans but if you phase out the pieces and threats to do with a large problem. >> almost every attack is a crime. any unauthorized attempt to access a computer system is your permission but the

focus that we work on collectively is a subset which this cyber enabled and that is the kind of thing where we year an agreement child pornography is not appropriate. so we've target that along with other pools. >> in him period. >> but to use law-enforcement tools, my colleague takes up the

question. >> with the possibility of our colleagues in estonia and georgia know they have been hacked so leading this turgid in europe to get others to understand if and the not worry about it no doubt that there are adversaries we all face

national government and inevitably to become an element of conflict going forward. it is not something you can deal with particularly well alert effectively when i think i am genuine which is our mission -- emissions and it is to secure the internet itself prescott it is a place that can be supportive to defend against tsai bert adversaries also to reduce cyber crime but it is about the defense and

perfection -- and this base but homeland security general security is usually bottom up. the norm is you wait to until you are attacked. but to with homeland security you cannot wait. if the population is afraid afraid, you are already behind the curve for pro be

are also thinking about the type of campaign and if you translate to come in it terence in twos cyberspace and the communities so they can defend themselves. and a system to aid and assist even if just remediation and coordination of response. there are areas wary read our budget for the germans to be on the approach and this is a broader compensation and we have had successes working with the isp to promote.

but to manage a domain name we cooperate on a bilateral basis and increasingly multilateral matters. we are in india to sign may can call them and ask them. they can do this sale with us. so it could lourdes gas it is effective with the informal basis.

>> where they in your international strategies with the importance to keep it out then. >> you have a lot of conversations to do with what content is appropriate by the governing bodies of different jurisdictions. it is not strictly about cybersecurity but it does relate to the nature of cyberspace. if we think of the questions what is cyberspace and how is it an environment for humans to collectively discuss and take action