media regulation and the first amendment. and coming up this hour, former john mccain adviser will talk about president obama's meeting with afghan president karzai over the weekend. later a discussion on the changing nature of the workplace with part of the white house formwork place with flexibility. this is "washington journal." . .

is proposing to open a vast expanse of water along the atlantic coastline, eastern gulf of mexico, and north coast of alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said tuesday.

that is of the lead couple of paragraphs from "the new york times" today. we are covering this announcement. actually the president at the andrews naval air facility, live event at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. we will have it live. looking for those remarks on energy. first call -- woodbine,

maryland. newmann on independent line. first hearing about this this morning. caller: i think it is a great thing because it is about time that we started using our own resources and we stopped sending $800 billion a year to the arab countries, and they send it back to us in missiles and weapons. so, i think it is a great thing. we can help our own selves, our economy, a lot more. and i think we should go to a fair tax and drill, joe, joe, and it would be a great thing for our country. host: jamie is on the line from anderson, indiana. another independent scholar. the president's proposing more drilling for oil offshore. what do you think? caller: i think it is a brilliance idea. and a strategy to expose the hypocrisy of the opposition party -- once he says he once

drilling and sarah palin was campaigning drill, they become a drill, what -- it is too late. the man but the teleprompter should have done it before. it is time to reload. all he does is give republicans what they are arguing for and when he proposes it they run away from it like proposals on health care. maybe at some point they will say we can't beat him and they will just join him. because they threw everything they could on health care -- he waited about seven or eight rounds and they were so tired from opposition and obstruction. host: "the new york times" perhaps as the most extensive writing. i am sure we will have more as the day goes on. it goes on to say that this is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports --

jackson, tennessee, is on the line. charlie, republican, your reaction. caller: i would love to see the day that we as a nation for once could come together on any proposal -- whether it be offshore drilling, health care -- and stop all the name-calling and bickering and work out some common ground and move forward as a nation. i feel like president stop -- the president's decision on offshore drilling is the correct

one. i feel it will benefit the nation. but there will be some -- regardless of the previous caller's hatred for anyone not of his particular party -- there will be some on the left that oppose this and there will be some on the right that oppose this. but it should be what is good for the nation, the greatest good for the greatest number and not any one particular agenda. host: "the new york times" points out that president obama and in the senate has -- jim, democrat now.

east ridge, tennessee. the president is proposing more drilling offshore. your reaction. caller: i just want to take you back for a second. back in 1973 when we had a big, long lines and we were out of oil, they said we will have the alaska oil opens and we will have the oil pipelines, all the way down to mid america along the highway built during the war. and then, what happened was they had it coming down and it went down to about debts and was going was overseas. some came to the east coast but most was sold in japan and the far east, not given to us. and the same thing for oil down in the gulf of mexico. a lot of that oil is bought and refined and shipped right down to mexico. host: let me jump in and ask you, this current proposal, this new news from this morning, what

does it mean to you then? caller: using oil for our domestic purposes but they are not doing that. host: charlie, republican, fort wayne. caller: it is almost hilarious. as i recall was proposed to drill for oil and everybody in the senate and congress hoop and hollered and said they are not going to do it. then all of the sudden obama -- this is the first time we ever heard of it? people are beyond that -- the smoke and mirrors are not working for us, sir. host: "the new york times" points out the bush policy. adopting some of the proposals proposed by george bush and the end of this tenure.

if you look in the pages of "the wall street journal" this morning they write and all of this -- their lead goes like this. that is "the wall street journal." oklahoma city. leon, a democrat. your reaction, sir. caller: i am from the oil state, i guess you know. oklahoma. it may be a wonderful idea but i think the oil companies should

do something in return. like maybe build more refineries. because every time we turn around the price of gasoline goes up, is because we don't have enough refineries. why drill if we don't have the refineries to refine it, for one thing? and they have not been -- the prices keep going up, up, up. and that is it. and during the depression we need the prices to go down. host: oklahoma city there. a photo and "the baltimore sun." they point out the thunder horse drilling platform is one of bp's key gulf of mexico sites. designed to process 250,000 barrels of oil per day. a lot of papers focusing on the story. here is a twitter message on all of this this morning. if you want to send a twitter

message, twitter.com/c-spanwj. skagsville, maryland. a republican, john. caller: good morning. i think it is high time we drill and free ourselves from dependence on oil from other nations. but i will believe it when i see it. when you take directions from george soros, i have to be suspicious. so, once again, i think it is just a lot of lip service from the administration. the jury is still out. as i said, be suspicious. i doubt that it will ever happen. there is some hidden agenda tucked away. i don't know what it is -- but it is to be revealed. host: let us go to florida. one of the state potentially affected. michael, independent. what is your reaction? caller: good morning, c-span. i agree with two of your

previous callers. over 52 billion gallons of oil has been shipped to down from alaska, and like the previous caller said, most went to the far east. and that did not lower the price of gasoline in our country here. if they drill offshore, that will also will go on the open market and be sold around the world. it said was kept in our country here so that we could -- if it was kept in our country here so we could use it and not send money to arabs, we could lower the price of our gasoline and fuel. it all depends on how it is done. host: another look at the map in "the new york times" to get a sense of what is going on. newly approved oil and gas exploration areas -- the darker gray color here, they are talking about the atlantic coast from the maryland-delaware area all the way down the into

florida. they are also talking about parts of the gulf of mexico and other parts of the goals already existing exploration areas. the story points out most of the pacific coast will be off limits. nena alaska, point out the upper part, northern areas of alaska would be newly approved and they black out bristol bay, the new protected areas. they write in "the times" that perhaps in anticipation of controversy the new policy has been closely held. white house and interior officials began briefing members of congress and local officials in affected states late tuesday.

franklin, pennsylvania on the republican line. what do you make of all of this? caller: can you hear me? ok. in recent years when stephanie -- i spoke to her, it has been a long time. that is how long i called. up here they have not -- they are starting something serious right next to the drake well but more based on the shale, etcetera. what they need to do is continue any drilling anywhere in the united states, but really take serious effort to end venango county. but there is a lot of bad an awkward politics that goes along with it. they've got the technologies. they've got other businesses that could come in here, sir, to the other energy services. but i am honored you give me time to speak -- because a lot

of people seem to think that is not going to happen and there is too much optimism -- there can be too much optimism against so much pessimism appear that it is bad. but i thank you for hearing me out. i will continue any longer. i say, yes, if they will drill, do it, but we need other energy sources and definitely for northwestern pennsylvania. but i would go back to the source. they deserve better. host: we go to chapel hill, tennessee. marie, democratic color. the president is proposing more offshore drilling for oil and gas. caller: i think it is ok. i've would love to see the president alleviate some of our dependency on other countries. what i have a lot of hope for our country, and lot of hope of it -- for what president obama is doing and it is behind we get behind our president and has --

have faith in him. move up forward to be independence -- independence. thank you for allowing me to speak. host: the front page and "the houston chronicle."

houston, you're on the air. steve, republican column. caller: i am a little confused about opening of drilling for the first time. as far as the environment is concerned -- is anyone aware in bay city we have two nuclear reactors right on the coast and they are going to build two more. i'm a little confused on the environment issue. after the vietnam war, actually dumped in agent orange and the gulf. we are kind of like the sort of -- toilet of america anyway. one caller said we should to other country -- it goes through the town and everyone else. host: more of the headlines.

here is the headline -- in addition to "the denver post close " we have the front page of "the pittsburg does that." -- "the pittsburg post-gazette." we will have it live on this network. he will be at the andrews naval air facility speaking about all of this. energy security is the title. carol, welcome to the program. you are an independent scholar. caller: i think we should open up the shores of georgia, north carolina, south carolina. we need to do it safely. i live about three hours from the shore and i hate to think that when i go to tie the island i will look at oil drills. but if we do it safely. but we need to get back to bring jobs.

where are the battery companies coming into make these battery packs? where are the companies for these windmills? recycling. if we could give incentives to small businesses, that is one way to start the jobs up. somehow we have to give incentives to small businesses to be able to get into the green and a jeep. we have to drill for oil but we have to look for the future and would have to make jobs come back. and somehow we have to get businesses getting eds going with the help of the government to offer interest-free loans for a period of time until the get on their feet. that is my view. host: we have danny on the democratic line from just outside d.c. in silver spring, maryland. turn the sound down, if you can. we will hear you better. caller: i will just turn it off.

i am just wondering. i think drilling for oil on the outside is fine, if they realize it is safe for the environment. but i'm wondering, does it mean they stop working on nuclear energy and air power? the windmills? host: should that mean that or should this stuff keep going? caller: like, france uses more than 20% of their energy, nuclear, and this seems like a safe way of doing it if we get into going. and when mills seems to be doing quite well, too, so i'm wondering why we can't do that. if they can get the oil out fairly soon without doing any environmental dangers, it is a good idea. host: the republican line, portland, oregon. the president proposing more offshore oil and gas drilling. your thoughts. caller: state university --

college republicans. i honestly think driven off shore is one of the best things we can do specifically because this country actually has environmental regulations currently. we did most of oil from venezuela, mexico, persian gulf -- they did not have nearly the environmental standards the united states does. specifically because of that i think offshore drilling here will be more environmentally friendly. we are not winning ourselves of oil yet. we are close. so i think the drilling offshore with our environment standards would be the best way to wean ourselves off of that. host: one of their message by twitter. business section of "the new york times" by the way say oil prices find a sweet spot for the world economy. prices have done something remarkable over the last half

year or so. they have barely budged. memories are still fresh of the kind of a climb to $147 a barrel. plant city, florida. pat, you are on the independent line. caller: i am against the drilling anywhere near the coast of florida because i have been campaigning against that since the 1980's. middle grounds off the florida,

clear water, about 120 miles, is the incubator for the atlantic ocean so all the fish that are basically spawned and live in the atlantic ocean began there. if there is an environmental problem, the whole lives of ocean will suffer. i just think we need to be more aggressive on alternatives and stay away from potentially catastrophic even its light damage of the middle grounds. host: you say you have been campaigning. other than the cost of this program, what other campaigning have you done and what will you do? caller: a group that just has been opposing this sense the 1970's, i think. i got involved after high school and went out and campaign. i support them and i give the money. i am working right now but i will just continue to fight against it. my fear is there will be a huge environmental backlash if something happens to the middle grounds that most people don't understand -- they are not from

florida. that is why the state of florida as far as they did. they are scared to go into that. it is a powder keg. host: charlotte calling from rockville, maryland, outside of d.c. caller: i am calling to point out there is a lot of pollution that goes on with drilling, and in particular, with gas drilling -- drilling in western pennsylvania. they put chemicals down on the ground. they don't even have to disclose big chemicals they are using. it pollutes the act or fir and these chemicals and up in people's food and bodies and that is one thing, the end of it -- end result of so much energy consumption and pollution, is where does it end up and it ends up in people's bodies causing illness and cancers. people ought to think about this before they yahoo the gas and

oil drilling because they are going to be eating it and reading it. host: one other oil-related story, "the wall street journal" it connects it to iraq. bp, a big push toward iraq's oil.

now clemens, michigan. a republican, you are on the line. john baird are you there? caller: i just don't understand why the democrats are going after a while reserves when they have fought the republicans' hand over fist for a decade or so in the process of doing so. especially in of the dakotas, -- in the dakotas where there is shale and so forth. is this going to make jobs? it is a commodity. host: anything else? caller: my natural gas prices have not gone down and the commodity has gone down. so it is not a matter of pricing or reserves.

we know it is in there. it will always be there. why aren't we making jobs and alternative fuels? host: john from michigan. pat is on the line from long island, new york. caller: i want to say, i don't know if we are stupid or not but i have to ask the question. hundreds of scientists at the u.n. already made the statement that oil is a resource that we are going to have to change, we will have to substitute in the future. we will have to wean off of it for our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren sake. if anybody cares. this is a great idea to drill for the immediate, two years of energy, but what are we really doing? i worked in europe for the defense department for 10 years, and i have seen them cut off heating at certain times of the

year, air-conditioning could not be started in executive buildings, he could not be turned on an office buildings up until a certain time. they have cut their consumption. how about talking about that? how do we cut our consumption as people the way our grandparents used to live and generations before that lived until this present day? how do we do that. that is what we should talk about. all i can say is that the oil companies, they made $50 billion last year. use some of the money as resources to build a new energy sources -- when mills, etcetera. it is working in the holland, and to a percentage and spain. that is what we need to focus on. not how do we give the company more money. host: contribution from pat on long island. a lot more of your calls and the next 15 minutes or 70 minutes. but i want to get to some other articles. if you look at "the washington

times" they have a president -- a picture of the president of france, nicolas sarkozy, and president obama. here is a short step from the news conference. >> we discussed the sheer determination to grant and the iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. on this united states and france are united and inseparable. we offered iran a good faith proposals to resolve this matter through diplomacy. but iran thus far has rejected those offers. today the international community is more united than ever on the need for ran to uphold its obligations.

that is why we are pursuing strong sanctions through the u.n. security council. finally, we discussed efforts to advance security and peace around the world, including in the middle east, where we agree that all sides need to act now to create the atmosphere that gives talks best chance to succeed. it's come more from "the times" here. from the president -- not waiting -- interested in waiting months for a regime to be in place, but weeks. that is the front page story in open "the washington times." back to the offshore oil drilling question. atlanta, allan, independent. good morning. caller: i have not heard much lately about the strategic reserve, but anyway -- in a

way, they could be looked at similar to the strategic reserve things. because even though we may have electric power for automobiles, we will need oil and gasoline for aircraft in the future. finally, if we are going to drill in these sensitive areas, it should be at least linked to the bell admin of alternatives. batteries for all those, when power, etcetera. host: appreciate it. michael, memphis, tennessee. the president proposing more drilling. republican, good morning. what do you think? caller: well, my name is michael baird i don't understand -- my name is michael. i don't understand why they want to do so much of george elin. this is why. my grandfather was a pipe fitter. 40 years ago his job in west virginia was to cap gas drills.

he took me with him. there are hundreds of them -- and i had a buddy who drilled for gas in northern west virginia, it came in so strong they had to evacuate the town. if as far as the oil is concerned, there is all kinds of oil in the united states. i have a friend in the texas panhandle, he only has two pump jacks. his land is full of oil. but the government only pays him $380 a month to palm and they would not let him company more. -host: laura, lincoln city, oregon. the democratic column. what do you make of this proposal by the president?

caller: punched in the stomach one more time. i am wondering who this president is i campaigned for and voted for. host: why do you say that? caller: the first people who got federal money were the banks. the second people are going to be the health insurance industry. and now we have the oil. let's not forget the defense department. and if you read the story about bp and iraq, and iraq is just dry of gasoline. they have a gasoline prices. we have the same problems. everything gets shipped abroad. these companies will just take the money and run, just like any other industry. where is of the jobs, the development for the poor and hungry in this country? what happens to the high-speed rail to make us less oil

dependent? i feel really, really let down. host: laura on the line for oregon. a big donor conference at the united nations today on haiti. "the wall street journal" talks about it. they write that haiti hopes the kindness of strangers will of the merger not only from the rubble but equally crushing weight of 200 years of tragic history of poverty. you can watch a good part of this on c-span2 coming up at 9:00 eastern time. you will hear speakers including

secretary of state henry clinton, former president bill clinton's, -- secretary state hillary clinton, former president bill clinton and robert zelig. colorado. back to the oil drilling story. kathy, independent. caller: i read about six months ago or so in the local papers about one of the largest reserves discovered in the gulf of mexico. what they said in the article was that at the ocean floor, they would have to develop as deep as the himalayas are high to reach it. i just wonder what the implication is of possible causes of earthquakes. they replace the oil with water to raise oil so it is easier to extract. you don't hear much about it.

but i also know on the eastern side of south america now they have been increasing vastly the mining and they also experienced a large earthquake. i just had a thought and that question to throw out. from the lady who called about the pollution coming from gas and chemicals that they use, while colorado is having exactly the same problem with that. that is all i have. thank you. host: back to houston, texas. mats on the republican line. caller: first i would like to say obama was a closet communist but it is funny that he is actually a closet republican. i think it is a great idea to start drilling now because we will need the oil 20 years from now and that is about how long it will take through the process. but i think that is one small part of the equation.

i hope and joy of coal in montana that we need to convert to diesel -- a whole bunch of coal in montana. and simple common sense conservation. when -- said we need to pay their roofs white, he is right, especially in the south that will get rid of a lot of cooling costs for eight months a year. for over 20 years i thought the government buildings, they have a lot of people in it, like especially schools, should have used solar heating to heat the water and the buildings because it is very cheap to make the solar collectors and that way it frees up the natural gas and heating oil that can be used for other things. we will need oil for plastics and lubricants. so to use it all up as fuel we will not have anything for the future and we will be scrambling to come up with something new that may be a lot worse than what we could have used.

host: several names in the news this morning. senator john isaacs and admitted to the hospital for the second time this week, monday night, after a follow up revealed in regular heartbeat. he is 65. seeking reelection. that in politico, along with this, about the budget committee chairman, democrat from south carolina. ónffónfónón?ff we notice the story out of texas, from "the hotline." senator kay bailey hutchison decided to serve out the remainder of return. a reversal of the pledge she made to step down as she challenge gov. rick. grolier this year. she lost in the early march primary from a surprisingly

margin. berkeley, california. alan, thank you for waiting. democrat line. caller: we should really be moving towards the electric vehicles, powered by nuclear and wind rather than oil. the oil -- is only about two years worth. the other thing is, that oil is not really american oil. it will profit international corporations, probably majority owned by international investors. and i don't see how that is particularly american advantage. host: chris van hollen on the front page of "of the hill." chairman of dccc, warning of dangerous waters. seeking both to calm and unify

his party as they enter what he called dangerous waters ahead. faw and back to "the wall street journal." the u.s. chamber is planning a blunt effort to blunt the health oversaw -- overall to reshape regulatory language and to unseat democrats who voted for it. the figure is $50 million in this summer and fall on the congressional races. one other program note to tell you about. a little later today on c-span -- regulating new medium is the topic. the federal communications bar association will host a forum on regulating the new media. we will hear from law professors

in the communication. and also representatives of google, comcast, and verizon. 1:00 eastern time today on this network. for those following media trends these days, mediabistro.com -- the first quarter this year, fox news drew the largest audience of any quarter in the networks nearly 14 year history, the second-largest audience in prime time. last call on offshore oil drilling. nashville, north carolina. billy. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the oil is the resources of the the rhetoric -- american people. just like iraqi oil is theirs, this is our. if they do it in the right way, it would be beautiful. but if they drill it out at a cost that -- to get it out of the ground, let the companies

make a little profit but not sell it on the world market for the highest prices they should get appeared that oil should be to counter the price, bring the price down four american oil over here. so it should be sold only to america because it belongs to us. no need for us to get resources to other countries just for profit. and that thing that is where the problem comes in. it would just before oil companies and they will make more money. the other thing i want to say is why is oil cheaper now, especially in the first year of the obama administration. it came down as soon as bush came out of the chair. this was never investigated. cheney had a secret meeting with the oil companies. i don't understand the price of oil was so high -- they said it will supply and demand, well, the demand is up from four years ago because during the bush administration because there are more people now. there has to be something in it

there that was done to make the prices go up so high during the bush administration and i think that was the major thing that brought this economy down and i think we could reverse it if we do it in the right way but somebody has to be willing to stand up to the oil companies and the american people and say this is a resource of the american people -- even if the government has to do it themselves. it would bring the price of oil way, way down there and we also need to look at alternative energy sources because -- that we need to do also. host: final call from bill become independent, national, north carolina. we will take a short time out and we will meet the director of white house national drug control policy. gil kerlikowske has been in the office since may. we will learn about the approach to handling your rugs. a new administration report

coming out soon. plenty of -- we will take your calls when we come back. as he probably heard this morning, president obama is set to announce a major expansion of offshore drilling for oil along the atlantic coast, east and gulf of mexico, and north coast of alaska. he will make the comments this morning at joint andrews air facility live at 11:00 a.m. eastern. the fcc bar association hosting a discussion on regulating new media, the future of journalism and how did it relates to the technology. among those speaking, chairman

of the sec, julius genachowski. live at 1:00 p.m. ambassador to the u.s. will speak later today on rebuilding afghanistan and building long- term institutions there appeared live at 5:30 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend, john dean is our guest on "book tv's" "in- depth." author of 10 books, including updated edition of "blind ambition." sunday, live at noon eastern on c-span2's "book tv." >> throughout april, see the wonders of c-span's student camp video documentary competition. middle and high school students from 45 states it minute videos on one of the country's greatest strengths or challenges the country is facing. what to the top of videos every morning at c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern just before "washington journal." at 8:30 a m. during the program,

meet the students and for a preview of all of the winners visit studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: with us is gil kerlikowske, director of office of drug control strategy. what is the big problem these days? reisch guest: now we are watching closely prescription drugs. there are not coming across the border but coming out of medicine cabinets. we see an initiation rite of young people through prescription drugs. in fact, seven out of the 10 drug abuse by children right now are prescription drugs. we are looking at that closely. it is also driving the spike of overdoses an overdose deaths. host: how you tackle that? guest: one thing about the prescription drug issue is it can be prevented. if we educate parents and adults about what is in the medicine cabinets and how to be more aware of what is in the medics -- medicine cabinet, that is

important. and also educating kids to think that prescription drugs are safe because they say, gee, it is a prescription, i'm not buying it from behind a gas station, out of a piece of tinfoil, yet the drugs are very, very dangerous. host: take a step back and talk more about drug control strategy. your report is imminent and a couple of weeks. can you give us a preview? guest: the obama administration is looking at treating addiction as a disease, recognizing that the drug problem is not just a public safety problem but also very clearly a public health problem. if we really wrap public health and other entities into this issue and deal with this in a balanced way, we have the potential to be much more effective on the drug problem. host: what does it mean treating it as a disease when you get down to the states and localities? guest: prevention programs. we learned a lot in the past 10

years that prevention programs work but they can't be dictated by washington, d.c., and not developed in the beltway. they have to be localized and regionalize. we have a proposal and the 2011 budget, working with federally qualified health centers, to much more engaged local communities and prevention programs. host: phone numbers at the bottom of the screen as we talk about the obama administration's drug control strategy. a separate lines for democrats, republicans, and independence. a little bit about our guest who has been in office since may. the first trip to "washington journal." gil kerlikowske is from florida, educated at the university of south florida. served in u.s. army, say. as burke, florida, police department, chief of police at port st. lucie, and fort pierce, was police commissioner in buffalo, new york, and just under 10 years in seattle as chief of police before taking

this job. what is the biggest myth out there as we talk about the drug issue? guest: i think the biggest myth is people can recover. because it is not talked about widely. but i have meant literally dozens of people, particularly people addicted to methamphetamines, that have fully recovered, are back with their families -- they are in their neighborhoods back working, back paying taxes. treatment is about one-half of the cost of incarceration. host: does the new health-care law address and cover that area? guest: it helps a lot. substance abuse is talked about in this legislation. about 32 million people will be brought into the fold. more importantly, it grabs treatment and addiction to primary health instead of some separate standalone issue. also it covers young people up to the age of 26. we know that age group can be

very vulnerable. the more important part of it is, if people get help, intervention earlier -- early, it is more effective and far less expensive. i think that talk of a lot about prevention. host: what are your tools and the office? what is the budget and how much money? guest: the request is 13% increase in prevention. we have a very small office. we are just a policy shop. what we actually do is court made all the federal agencies involved. department of justice, health and human services, etc. -- so they can all be brought together in a coordinated, synchronized way to deal with the drug problem. host: ron, democrat, eagle river, wisconsin. caller: i would like to know what the administration's policy will be a -- if the state of

california goes ahead and legalize marijuana -- marijuana for the use of adults in their own personal homes. and with other states getting in line with the same policies, what will the administration do and what will the federal government's policy be as far as legalization of marijuana? guest: it is a little premature to talk about what the federal government will do if california action the passes their ballot initiative. certainly marijuana by lights the controlled substances act, the federal regulations, and the department of justice, the federal government is committed to enforcing the controlled substances act, particularly against significant traffickers, given the finite resources within law enforcement. but they add to speculate then about what the federal government would do if in fact

california passed that. it is just a bit too early. host: how widespread is marijuana use and what is the impact? guest: it is the number one cash crop from the cartels. we know also when we look at voluntary calls for hot lines, people will say, look, i'm having a problem with a drug -- in my own state in washington, back in seattle, the number one called for substance abuse was marijuana dependency. host: new york. tyrone, independent. welcome. caller: it is about time someone recognizes the problem of the drug problem we have pared 13% going for cretan it -- treatment is a start. but i think you will be pushing it up a little higher in the near future. these people are sick. it is an illness. anybody who has anybody who has a drug problem knows that it is a sickness. you can't lock them up. you have to treat them.

thank you very much, and have a great day. guest: the caller made a very good statement. looking at the drug problem as both public health and public safety. most of my colleagues, police chiefs around the country, have talked a lot about saying, look, we cannot rest are way out of the problem. they look at treatment and prevention as key components. host: missouri. dan, republican. caller: my concern is, i am a baby boomers. you know, what we did was more or less became a religion. we really believed in what we were doing. what i see now is there is a lot of anger. there are a lot of people in pain out here that are getting older and they have a campaigns, and we can't even deal with that once we admitted we have had a problem in the past. and doctors are abusive parent

we -- abusive. we are locking people up better nonviolent offenders. we are making billions of dollars off of it. it is not the states locking people up -- it is private concerns making big money. to me, it is so abusive to treat human beings that have real pain and problems and are trying to deal with life on life's terms. this is a way to do it. we are just a creature appeared and that -- this is just a creature. one way to deal with life's turnips. i will let it go. i just appreciate being here. god bless you. guest: people do self medicate. and we know that in the med school, doctors cannot get a huge amount of training when it comes to either pain management or to treating addiction. so, we are working with doctors. we are working with the joint commission on hospitals and others sell more of this information can be given to

those over 800,000 physicians. there is another important tool -- screening, brief, intervention, referral, treatment. people trust and like their health care professionals. and if you go in to see one of them for whatever reason, and that health care professional asks you confidential questions about your alcohol and drug use, they can actually make a very quick assessment as to whether or not you may need some additional help. if you do need some additional help and it is done early and active low level, what a difference it could make in not only cost savings and containment, but what a difference in a person's life. host: take a deeper into the schools and what the report is likely to say about influencing their actions. guest: we worked very closely with the department of education. i met with secretary duncan and a lot of other people. when we know how important it is to keep kids in school --

whether it is through making sure that the teachers and curriculum and all of these things which the department of education is so focused on -- we also know keeping kids off drugs is important to a good education and also a prepared work force in the future. we know just trying to inoculate a child with a short class on why they should not be involved with drugs is not effective. but if it comes from the schools, the parents of the care givers, it comes from the neighborhood and from the face based community, it is a holistic and continue on, we know it can be effective. host: what kinds of drugs are you dealing with in the schools these days? guest: certainly alcohol, and the age drinking by young people is a concern. marijuana use. but also, as i mentioned earlier in the show, prescription drug problem is the significance. host: lakeland, florida.

norm. -- i do want to bash your guest here. i'm a pharmacist in florida. the police chief in st. petersburg -- your office through hundreds of young black kids and the florida prison system for drug abuse and those sort of things, and illegal drugs. but in the meantime, i as a pharmacist, anyone can come into my place and i can fill prescriptions for what siccone, prozac -- oxycodsone, any other medication. how are you delineating what is a disease and what is criminal activity? because it seems -- when a young black kid is involved in drugs,

it is a criminal problem. when a person such as -- when the police come in or a judge or a prosecutor comes in and get to their prescription filled for their xanax and zoloft and oxycodone, they just have the disease. we are dispensing ritalin dispensingadderrol to a college student at university of south florida, where you come from. that is no problem at all. but you can go to any black neighborhood and you are rest everybody. host: pharmacist from lakeland, florida. first speak to the disease and criminal action. caller: there are people who go into treatment all the time. about 50% of all will go to treatment go in with handcuffs on as a result of an arrest. one of the outcomes, what did you knock on the door voluntarily saying i need help,

or handcuffs, the outcomes are pretty similar. so, the criminal justice system have a lot of components that are designed. drug courts, in particular, are a particular -- mechanism that started in florida that has gone on for 20 years. the pharmacists brings up a good part in from several issues. pilled mills in florida have made headlines for weeks and weeks. one after another in which these very addictive, very powerful pain killers, although important when used properly, have been abused. physicians who have abused their ethics an oath of office and quite frankly, of the law, but also patients that the doctor shopping. florida is one of the state's the past something called a prescription drug monitoring plan, a computerized database so health officials can take a look at who is prescribing and who is dr. shopping. host: the caller brought race

into this. what can you say to that? guest: as a longtime police chief and worked here in several cities, i would not apologize for police are arresting people for violations of the criminal law. that is why we have a criminal law system. if people want to change a law, that is certainly their prerogative. i think one of the most recent an important things going on is reducing but crack powder disparity in sentencing. it used to be 100, to one. so if a small amount of crack cocaine would vastly increase the sentencing from powdered cocaine. it was certainly a disparity in the african-american community. it the obama administration took the issue on but congress has taken it on and right now the legislation would reduce that sensing from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1. .

we need to be smarter about how we deal with the drug problem and not just try to use criminal justice, which we probably focus on with too much intensity. we have other tools. host: in all of that traveling, who is the smartest? what are the examples of what

works the best? guest: community. when the community recognizes the drug problem. someone asked me, look, we have a lot going on. afghanistan, jobs, iraq, health care, etc. what i look at our foreign relations, the southwest border, keeping kids in school, prepared work forces -- drugs runs through every one of those things. we should keep that in mind. more people are driving under the influence of drugs than are driving under the influence of alcohol. a recent survey showed that 16% of the survey -- of the people tested tested positive for illicit drugs. host: jason, nashville, tennessee.

appreciate your waiting. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. could you explain to me why past presidential administrations and this current one has not learned the lesson that we learned in the 1920's when be prohibited alcohol? we saw the violence immediately rise after that. when we realize that you can never actually take away the demand, by taking away the supply all you do is increase the price and violence follows when it stays underground. when we say we will keep drugs illegal under the guise of public safety, why do we not really look at what is actually dangerous to the public, the gang violence down on the mexican border? if you look at that as public

safety, why are we not taking that into common approach? >> i think that that is an important discussion to have. i have been down to mexico several times. i think what is really important to recognize is that the cartels are involved in kidnapping, arson, selling of stolen auto parts, very horrific crimes. there is no one in mexico that i know in my business that thinks that if drugs were suddenly legalized that all of these criminal funds would suddenly go to working for microsoft or coca-cola. they will continue to be thugs and criminals and members of organized crime. president called a run -- a president in mexico is very courageous. when you take a hard look of

prohibition, no one said that crime and violence suddenly dissipated after the provision was lifted. it did not. host: secretary of state clinton was in mexico a couple of weeks ago. one of her comments was about u.s. demand. can you speak to reducing demand? we talk about treatments, disease, but what about demand itself? >> -- guest: definitely an important component in the strategy. on this recent trip to mexico i accompanied her, she talked about the shared responsibility for the drug problem. it is just as important for us to reduce demand as it is for other countries to try to reduce the transfer of drugs or to reduce the production of drugs. there is a big change going on. the global change is that we used to point our fingers at

other countries, saying we need to keep our drugs out of the hands of other people. if we were not using so many drugs, we would not have the problems in our country. afghanistan, colombia, there are growing addictive populations within those countries themselves. even amongst the most impoverished people in the world, we are seeing addiction bulging. the first lady in mexico has made treatment her signature campaign. host: how do you focus on demand amongst americans? what kind of messages, programs, actions could you take? guest: the partnership for a drug free america does wonderful advertisements. there are websites that talk to parents, educating them on what to be aware of.

we also know that if we do very hard-hitting, specific, well timed adds to young people we can have an impact on them. if we draft everyone into this issue and think about it in a comprehensive way, we can make a difference. crime has been reduced over the years in this country. we think it is because smart police chiefs and sheriffs worked with different organizations collaborative lee. we have not put that together to deal with the drug problem. host: atlanta, brian, republican line. you are on with gil kerlikowske. good morning. caller: good morning. we all know that alcohol is the no. 1 abused drug in this country and alcohol abuse is on the rise. what is your office doing to

tackle underage drinking? >> underage drinking -- guest: underage drinking is a significant problem. we talk about a lot. it is mentioned in the president's drug control policy. you cannot talk about the drug problem or focus on the drug problem without talking about underage drinking. a significant issue. be it on college campuses or neighborhoods. we work closely with the national institutes of health and the health and human services department. we do have to talk about alcohol abuse among the underage. host: kitty hawk, north carolina. daniel, democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i became aware of the underage drinking problem and of the prescription drugs because the kids -- actually, cocaine is on the rise. one of the main reasons i have found out, in talking to these young people i have asked a bunch of them. many of them must take drug tests if they are athletic or for other reasons. this fact means that they take prescription drugs because they do not test for these drugs. they drink because alcohol is a substantive drug. cocaine, from what understand, leaves the system.

i do not agree with drug tests, said is a court order. i think it is saying you are guilty before there is evidence. the effort that they are trying to do, i think it might be some of the problem. any child that you talk to, they explain its the same way. -- they explain it the same way. guest: drug testing is an individual city issue. a number of school systems test for drugs as a part of athletic and some of them as a part of other extracurricular activities. the important part that we want to make sure that people

understand, otesting is not simply to keep people out of school. you must make it part of a more comprehensive system. as a police chief in particular i would not be in favor of kids being kicked out of school when treatment and prevention programs that work -- putting out problem back on a local citizen and the taxpayer is not always the most effective. host: what is the connection of your office to the employers around the country? guest: there are a number of programs. there are requirements for people to get commercial driver's licenses, working in certain jobs, etc.. -- jobs, etc. if you look at those tests over the last couple of years, the

number of people testing positive for a variety of drugs has decreased. if it is not part of the statutory requirement, a number of private businesses and organizations have people take drug tests before they get hired. host: anything that we should know about seniors in this area? guest: i think that the senior citizens need to talk to their pharmacist. they need to make sure that they do not see one prescription drug offsetting the costs. also, a number of extended care facilities have a number of powerful painkillers. when people no longer need them, there needs to be a safe way for the drugs to be disposed of.

that does not mean flushing them down the toilet. that causes environmental damage. we are working with drug enforcement and the environmental protection agency to develop a new system. in washington they're working very hard on developing legislation to make it easier to dispose of those drugs when they are no longer needed. host: one viewer writes "no amount of government interaction will stop the demand for drugs." carbondale, illinois. welcome. caller: the war on drugs is the most unsuccessful war in american history. it does nothing more than locked up millions of nonviolent americans in the industrial complex because of an outdated law.

the controlled substance act of 1970 says that cocaine is a schedule to drug and that marijuana is a schedule one drug. anyone out there with half of a brain would say that marijuana is less addictive than cocaine. we are in afghanistan, not because of the oil, but because of the politics of heroin. read the book by alfred markell i, "politics -- alfred mccloy, "politics of heroin in southeast asia." guest: i said we should stop using the phrase war on drugs the first day i got into office. frankly, it does not make sense. when you talk about a war

analogy you are limited to the tools of force. when you look at the public safety and public health problem ankle, more prevention and treatment would be -- angle, prevention and treatment would be great. all five of the police chiefs in northern illinois said that it should not be called a war. i do not remember them talking about a war on drugs. i remember elected officials saying that. host: whenever you call it, the caller's point -- what ever you call it, the caller's point is that it has been ineffective. guest: our new policy over the last 10 years we have done much more effective research when it comes to effective prevention

programs and treatment programs. by having a more balanced approach to the drug problem we have the potential to be much more successful. by admitting that reducing our own demand is just as important as protecting our borders, cutting off supplies, and working with the government. we just helped mexico last fall opened up its first drug court. so, we have something to give away besides night vision goggles and interdiction techniques. we have programs that can be effective. they actually work. host: mary, good morning. you are on with gil kerlikowske. caller: my son is bipolar. he is an adult. he was put on stimulants 10

years ago. we objected. the doctor, without speaking with us, had people treated. eventually he had to be treated with anti psychotics to bring him down. something has to be done about prescription drugs. you are really at the mercy of these doctors who prescribe these things. thank you. hostguest: i think that doctorse become knowledgeable of these other aspects of the drugs. doctors i have worked with are working very hard to provide this information to other physicians. they are incredibly busy. they want to give the best to their patients. they want to relieve the pain of

the patient. but we do not want to see abuse. in some cases, frankly -- particularly again in south florida we have seen doctors that have violated the law. host: san antonio, democratic line. caller: my view on it is that they should give money to the school system so that they can keep the kids from junior high up informed on the consequences of drug abuse. host: how much money has been spent on these programs? guest: there is no real federal drug control budget. we figure out the different components. it is around $15 billion per year. that is how we put together the budget. there has been an increase in the budget request from the

president. there has been an increase across the board for supply reduction and law enforcement efforts, which are big components. for instance, if the police department is doing good community policing and are involved in neighborhood prevention, is that really about money going to law enforcement? or is it about prevention and getting people into treatment? host: our guest is the senate confirmed national white house drug control policy director, gil kerlikowske. how do you like this job? guest: it is a great job. i feel guilty taking a check. after all these years on the police force, working with these talented and dedicated people is wonderful. they want to make a better quality of life. to have this opportunity to

represent the president across the company -- across the country, meeting with all sorts of people. we just opened an office of recovery. is a tremendous opportunity. host: biggest surprise so far? guest: drugged driving has increased. we know that drug overdose deaths are greater than gunshot deaths in this country. it is not recognized. we talked so long about the war on drugs that i do not think that the public, given the issues on their plate, are quite aware of the issues of drugs. we could save ourselves time, money, lives and heartache if we spend more time dealing with the drug issue. host: biggest frustration so far?

guest: that it takes time to get this on the public's agenda. right now texting and driving can get headlines every day. sometimes journalists look at the drug issue and see that it has been around for so long that they will only focus on things like the violence in mexico. we need to get that message out, because we can do something about this. host: bill, virginia. good morning. caller: my question regards marijuana. for years we have been told it is a gateway drug. in my experience it seems to be a gateway drug to the black market. seeing as how marijuana is the most widely used, by far, i am

interested in your thoughts on this. if we legalize marijuana, that will cut down on people's access. people using harder drugs would get down. -- go down. guest: i recently gave a speech to the california police chiefs in which we outlined our legislation. it will not save the budget of california. legalization, the amount of money collected would be paltry compared to the amount of money spent on social and criminal justice costs. alcohol is taxed, but the amount of money collected does not even begin to pay for the drunk driving arrests and social and health care costs. legalization does not seem to make a lot of sense from many

standpoints. we go into it in detail. the speech that i gave it is on our website. host: next call, pennsylvania. benjamin, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span, good morning. it is an honor to be armed. i wanted to answer a previous caller's question. then i wanted to propose my plan and get your opinion. is that ok? host: go for it. caller: the delineation between marijuana and boxy kodel not? the answer is that it is the law. for my proposal on what i would do -- and i would like your opinion -- if i had your job or

if i was president i would probably stay out of it a little bit, bigger issues. i would probably cut budget and funding to your department. i would leave it up to the states as for their individual constitution. if the state cannot agree, but it on a ballot and let the people vote. the bottom line is that all companies should have the right to deny employment on the basis of drug testing. that is their freedom and look -- freedom and liberty. your economy may suffer the results. if it was legalized, i would tax, levy, and regulate the enforced laws are rounded to developing,. host: several different points -- developing income -- regulate

the enforced laws around yet to develop in comcome. host: there is a lot there. guest: other states have developed ways of dealing with marijuana. in dealing with these other drugs. but the federal government clearly has a role. there are 50 different types of drug laws, that is why there is a controlled substance act. the vast majority of treatment is funded by the federal government, so we would have a real role in this. since i spent almost my entire career at global level, i have just grabbed a parachute into washington. i do not feel like a local. host: what about the term drug czar? you are not keen on that?

guest: well, my wife is quite fond of being a czarina. [laughter] host: next caller, democratic line. caller: where do you get the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot put into their bodies. this is an affront to every individual. bill last fellow that called with a state-by-state solution -- the last fellow that called with a state-by-state solution made the most since this morning. i do not believe that the federal government has much of a role in paying for the treatment of marijuana users. host: what about the public

safety issue? caller: driving in the things, just like people that drink, it affects people in a different way. host: i do not think he heard my question. guest: the federal government has a huge role in public safety. it is a deep concern of elected officials. that is why they take it on in not just the manners of criminal punishment, but they have seen what can happen to communities. i saw that as a police chief. whether i was in buffalo or seattle. i saw what drugs could do to a neighborhood. the answer is not always just locking people up. host: wells will, ohio. independent line. caller: good morning.

the problem with our society today is that demand outweighs everything. the worst problem is that the united states, who has caused most of the problem, are lying to the american people. in 1960 if you smoke a joint you would be sticking a needle in your arm and you were going to die. the biggest lie of all. the government is the biggest problem. they get billions and billions of dollars and his drug war should be over. if it was decriminalized it was all fadeaway. guest: he is dating himself around my age, graduating from high school in the 1960's. there is no question that the scare tactics -- and it was not just a scare tactics -- those were not effective messages. scared straight, where prisoners

would tell kids that if you violated the law, this is what your life would become. kids are pretty sophisticated and they need a variety of messages. our media campaign, funded by congress, is well tested. it is not based upon scare tactics. clearly i would disagree with the collar when he says that legalizing all drugs would make it better. i was taught early on that if i was told that a silver bullet would make anything better, curing everything, that it is probably incorrect. host: how can people look at this? what will happen? guest: i am sure that everyone at c-span read it.

we actually think that this is a document that not only direct several at 8 -- federal agencies and what to do with the drug problem, but it is also an important document for state and locals, frankly it is their voice in the document. we have talked about the global issue and many of the callers have talked about what is going on around the world. because we are such a leader in areas of prevention and enforcement, this national drug control strategy can be great information for other governments as a balanced way of dealing with the drug problem. host: gil kerlikowske, appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we look forward to reading your report soon.

we will take another short time out and then we will turn our attention to afghanistan. of what is the way forward? following the president's visit, our gas, richard fontaine, a senior fellow at the center for new american security -- our guest is richard fontaine, a senior fellow at the center for new american security. first, an update from c-span radio with nancy calo. >> the focus of the president's remarks, oil drilling off of the virginia coast. live coverage at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. the president and first lady will be speaking at a white house forum on workplace flexibility today. also today, president obama meets with the family of the late civil rights activist, cesar chavez. he will declare today cesar chavez a day.

-- cesar chavez day. a conference is taking place in new york city to raise funds and develop a plan for aid in haiti. you can watch this conference on c-span 2. more violence in afghanistan. a bomb concealed on a bicycle killed two people and injured 38. this as admiral mike mullen says that nato forces hope to reverse the momentum of the taliban in an upcoming offensive. speaking earlier at a news conference, the admiral said that kandahar is a cornerstone in reversing the momentum of the taliban. congress is in two week recess. reporting on one member this morning, politico said that

senator john isaacs and was admitted to a hospital last night for the second time in a week because of an original -- because of an irregular heartbeat. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> as you have probably heard this morning, the president is said to announce a major expansion for offshore drilling along the atlantic coast and the northern coast of alaska. the summit will be held this morning at a joint air force facility in andrews air force base. also today, the sec bar association is posting a discussion on -- fcc bar association is posting a discussion on regulating new media. live, today at 1:00 on c-span. the afghanistan ambassador will speak today on rebuilding

afghanistan and its long-term institutions at 5:30 eastern. >> this weekend, john dean is the guest on ." he is the -- the guest on "book tv." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are talking about afghanistan with richard fontaine. he is from the center for new american security. this meeting between president obama and president karzai over the weekend, what was it all about? what came out of it? >> the main thrust was that president obama conveyed to president karzai that they need to get a crack down on the government corruption.

they believe that the lack of capacity and political will, particularly high-level corruption, is most likely the single biggest obstacle to the united states and nato allies making progress on the political side. they have not filled in with a sense of legitimacy in the government's. that was the message that president obama was trying to convey. >> what is the pledge on the corruption and what can get done actually? >> the question is whether he has the political will. during his inauguration speech last year -- guest: the question is whether he has the political will. during his inauguration and speech he vowed to increase

anti-corruption commissions, but beyond that it has been paltry in terms of actual steps. in fact, the latest news on that front, with respect to the election commission, that is where president cars that -- president karzai was supposed to come to the united states, the offer was rescinded after president karzai removed the ability for the united nations and others to be on the committee and commission. there is a real question. host: what is the mindset of president karzai to this country? guest: if you look at a recent report from "the new york times ," it is not very good. he apparently believes that the united states is not going to be

helping him and his government to govern. rather they will be viewing the war on terror as an excuse to keep american troops stationed in afghanistan. that is based on a couple of reports. it is always hard to tell what is in the mind of a foreign leader, his sense seems to have shifted in recent months. host: our guest was an advisor to president -- to senator mccain in 2008. we are looking at afghanistan. numbers are on the bottom of the screen. there is a lot going on in afghanistan every day. here's a short piece of the president talking about the afghan people in the troops.

>> as i told president karzai, the united states is a partner, but our intent is to make sure that the afghans can provide their own security. we are proud of the work they are doing and the continuous victories. thank you very much for the great work in your own country. to the afghan people, i want to say that i am honored to be a guest in your country. the afghans have suffered for decades. decades of war. we are here to help them forge a hard-won peace while realizing the extraordinary potential of the afghan people. the sons and daughters of afghanistan. we want to build a lasting

partnership. host: remind us on the status of building a national security force. how is it going? guest: is going well, but there's always a need for more well-trained security officials. it has taken a long time to do this. nato partners have slowly increased the target levels for afghan national security. so, what they are aiming for in the short run is obviously an increase, but there is a sense that the number must be doubled. the question is how fast that can be done. the united states was hoping to get a significant amount of trainers in countries like france.

on the side of the afghan national police, for the first time they have instituted mandatory literacy training. an alarmingly high number of afghan nationals cannot read at all. there is a always to go on that front. host: take us deeper inside of the country, but before that we have one headline from "the washington post." "u.s. forces have begun the initial phases of their political military offensive in this bastion of the taliban." telas more. guest: admiral mullen -- telos -- tell us more. guest: admiral moylan recently arrived -- admiral mullen

recently arrived, the president of afghanistan's brother is the head of the council there. this is extremely controversial. there are many allegations of ties to corruption. to the north and west of the province there are areas in complete taliban control. given the population in the greater area, the fact that the united states went in next door to secure those areas, it is the big place to go right now. host: one more passage from the story. "officials have pressed local leaders and tribal elders over the past several weeks to begin

holding shuras, conferences, in the city and outlying districts." john, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was going to ask, i am sure there has been an increase in afghanistan as far as security needs. my description of afghanistan, it would be american during the 1930's -- america during the 1930's. do they have any intention of ever falling everyone out? having -- ever polling everyone out? having been there myself, it seems like a waste of time. nothing derogatory, but people are extremely hard to teach

there. will we remain there? or we -- or will we pullout? guest: i am not clear on if he is talking about iraq or afghanistan. host: are you still there, caller? i think we lost him. guest: with regards to afghanistan, the president has announced that there is a timeline, june of 2011. secretary gates has said that it might mean in a simple token withdrawal. american troops will be in afghanistan for a very long time. not because they are trying to teach the afghans, but because it will take a while before afghan national troops are able

to maintain security on their own. with respect to iraq, one thing that is important to remember, we have more troops in iraq today than we do in afghanistan. the plan is for them to draw down significantly by this summer and be out of their completely by next year. much of that will the plan on security conditions on the ground. host: mike, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the previous caller was exactly right. why are we there? host: enter your own question. -- answer your own question. caller: the military industrial complex is too fat.

we will not allow. host: brief comments there. jesse, -- we will not pull out . host: brief comments there. jesse, north carolina. caller: we may withdraw a token amount of troops in iraq. we have troops in afghanistan with a partnership with pakistan. all of these countries around iran. to what extent does the gentleman think our presence in the middle east have to do with iran? guest: first of all, the withdrawal from iraq is not a token. they are likely to keep drawing down very significantly. going down to about 50,000. next year continuing to do so.

i also do not think that our presence in iraq and afghanistan, our partnership with pakistan, is all about iran. we went into afghanistan in 2001. you can debate the reasons for why we did those things, especially with respect to iraq , but i do not see that the government saw much rationale in military intervention in iran. host: our guest today, richard fontaine is the former foreign policy adviser to the mccain presidential campaign in 2008. he also served on the senate armed services committee as a middle east staff director. this is from "the washington times." "no deal, no dialogue on both

sides. this as a major militant group wrapped up the first round of peace talks in discussing what splits the ranks of the taliban insurgency." guest: before you asked what hamid karzai thought about the united states. there was the lending conference held in january of this year. it brought the leaders of the international community that were interested in supporting afghanistan. there were two issues on the table with respect to dealing with the taliban. the first was reintegration, trying to get both sides to stop fighting. the bigger and more controversial move was reconciliation, essentially political talks, some kind of

power-sharing agreement with the taliban. obviously not just for strategic regions -- reasons, but human- rights reasons, it is very problematic for the united states. we were very cautious about things like that. host: joseph, republican line. long island. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: my question -- why does the u.s. think that we can win in afghanistan when russia was there as a major superpower for 10 years and they left with their tails between their legs? host: a question asked for years now. guest: exactly. there are significant differences in what the soviet union tried to do and what we

are trying to do their. first of all, the united states was actively supporting the resistance to the soviets. there is no major external force supporting insurgents today. certainly no nation state that is giving weapons to the taliban and other insurgents. in addition, soviets are trying to impose -- were trying to impose an atheistic ideology on afghanistan. i would argue that we are not trying to do anything of the sort. i would argue that we are attempting to support the afghan government that was chosen by the people. those are big significant differences. host: what do most people in afghanistan think of the taliban?

guest: if you look at the polls, the people do not want them coming back in the power. which is one of the things we have going for us. the problem is that when you look at the thing that people want most, it is security. the thing that security forces have not been able to provide. this position where the taliban is present to support them for survival reasons. taliban is filling in for the government in some ways, dispensing justice. the afghan government has not been able to provide -- those of the two main things. host: horton, north carolina. independent line. good morning. caller: i do not understand why we are still there. we are supposed to be training

them people. what happens is we send our people over for six months of basic training, they go over there and they fight. why does it take so long to train men to do that? host: you touched on that before. guest: on the american side? host: the training of the forces. guest: in many cases you are starting from the ground up. you cannot manufacture security forces overnight. something we learned in iraq. we tried to go from zero to hundreds of thousands, but the problem was that they would go a wall, it would collapse in battle. it just did not work. it was only after we were able to put them through robust training that they stayed in place.

host: if that training is successful at some point, how do you maintain a force like that in such a relatively poor country? what is the long-term plan? guest: it will require extra assistance for a long time to come. the idea was that they would not be able to pay for it long term. the international community has mosley said that it is better for them to contribute money to the security forces. i do not think that the afghans will be able to pay for their security force any time in the next few years. host: democratic line, good morning. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, what is your question or comment?

caller: history shows that the united states is a constantly expanding empire. of go caller, before you keep going, turn down the sound -- host: collar, before you keep going, turn down the sound on your television. caller: why does the united states need principal strategic allies in the middle east? is it for economic reasons? to enhance our political position? both, perhaps? guest: with respect to afghanistan, obviously we went in there after september 11 because of what happened on september 11. there were al qaeda training camps there in afghanistan. our original aim was to eliminate afghanistan as a

sanctuary for international terrorists. since then it has become to ensure that it does not return to that. i also think that the united states has interests that go beyond that. in many ways, pakistan was the big prize. they are increasingly unstable around the country. the western part of pakistan is being used as a sanctuary for insurgents going across the border. but that does reverse itself in terms of insurgents going across the border. very problematic for us. the perception that another superpower could be defeated in afghanistan would be a huge boost to their international movement in al qaeda. even after their high-profile

failures, there has been an increase in recruiting around the world. hard to imagine what would happen if the united states was defeated in afghanistan. host: we have a twitter message. "do you think a withdrawal in 2011 will do anything? it takes generations to game hearts and minds." guest: i do think that our goal is not to turn afghanistan into a jeffersonian democracy that is prosperous and everything else our modest goals are related to our national strategic interests. i do not think that 2011 is a realistic deadline. host: speaking of 2011, "canada

is firm on pulling out of afghanistan in 2011." this is from "the baltimore sun." "they reasserted that only civilians would continue the mission. -- the mission." what do you think? guest: this resolution was passed by the canadian parliament, which will be a blow to the coalition forces. they have been fighting very hard there, but as a result they have taken an unprecedented number of casualties. something that canadians are just not accustomed to absorbent. they have made a huge contribution over the years. there is an upper limit to which it can be politically sustained

in canada. host: caller, thank you for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning, gentlemen. you answered my question while we were waiting. and [laughter] host: think -- while we were waiting. [laughter] host: think of another one. caller: as far as the future, economically i think what the country has going for it -- first, iraq. iraq has enormous oil reserves. like you said earlier, afghanistan did not have the money to pay for security. i do not see that as a problem in iraq as long as things stay stable and do not get out of control politically. afghanistan, i do not see anything for them economically.

it seems that coalition forces are losing interest in staying in afghanistan. we continue to get closer to being the only nation there. is it realistic that afghanistan is going to survive with a stable government for any extended period of time? or will we be there for as absolutely long as we need to be? guest: nothing in this is certain. it has to do with it the taliban having the momentum for quite a long time without any certainty of success whatsoever. that said, a is important to recognize that in 1979 during the soviet invasion, afghanistan

prior to that was a nation led by a very simple government. they had a sustainable economy. they had a sustainable structure. it is interesting to make note that the u.s. geological survey has done a recent survey in afghanistan and has found a huge amount of minerals and strategic commodities. even a little bit of oil. potentially, down the road, it could provide a basis for more economic prosperity. but it is one of the poorest countries in the world. host: the french president was in washington yesterday. did anything come out of that meeting? guest: the big question was whether or not president obama would harangue president karzai

to increase their troop level in afghanistan. the french have about 150 troops and 80 trainers there. last year when the president announced an increase in troops to afghanistan, there was a resumption that france would also go up in number. president sarkozy said that it would not actually happen. the sounds that president obama did not actually make the tree -- it sounds that president obama did not actually make the plea for more troops. host: bring us up-to-date with some of the figures on injuries in afghanistan, amount of money spent, etc. guest: $200 billion, the costs

of the war have been very high. much of that has gone to people who have been injured. . .

host: 10 minutes left, maybe a little bit more, with richard fontaine. ron on the line for republicans. caller: we always talk about corrupt government did the politicians in this country -- how much money you making off prolonging this war? and i never see them day for day, and then i hear it is doubled last year. it looks like the media is not even reporting them. host: media, want to touch on that? guest: sure. it is interesting to see afghanistan on the front pages of the paper and iraq fall off. i don't think people would have predicted that before. but the caller is right that the number of casualties increased this year relative to the same amount last year, accounts for

more troops and afghanistan, in addition to an increased tempo of combat operations in afghanistan. i don't know, maybe you can answer why the media, if it doesn't cover it adequately -- that is not in my purview. host: "the new york times" is focusing extensively on afghanistan today. this is the ankle today. -- angle today. the brother of president hamid karzai. "the brother will keep this power despite doubt." tell us more about the doubt and what the reaction is, and how much of a way to is this issue on the president. guest: he is the head of the provincial council in kandahar. he has sort of war load tendencies there -- warlord tendencies there. he is widely alleged to be one of the more corrupt officials in

afghanistan, probably linked to the narcotics trade, possibly linked to insurgents. the evidence appears to be rather sketchy in terms of hard evidence that the united states or anyone might be able to prove that to president karzai. on that basis, president karzai has said that his brother should remain in place. but he is very problematic, not only for many of these activities that he may be directly involved and, but from a strategic standpoint, because the idea that the president's brother is down there in a place where the united states and coalition troops together are going into. -- are going into to rid of taliban influences, it is particularly problematic. there have been proposals that sound pretty nice to me to have him be the next afghan ambassador to a small country and sort of have to move out of the picture, but so far, the

president has not decided on that. host: new york now. martin, independent color. caller: good morning. i love the c-span. c-span were funded by contractors -- if c-span were funded by pentagon contractors, would be concerned, but i know it or not. i would like to ask a guest if your organization is funded by those entities. guest: we have offenders for essentially three sources -- individuals, corporations -- we have funders from essentially three sources -- individuals, corporations, and you can go online to see the companies that have funded the organizations. defense to corporations and lots of others that don't have anything to do with defense. all that is transparent on the web site. host: you are on with richard fontaine on afghanistan. caller: two questions, please.

if richard to get his paper route, he could write these down. after the defeat of the iraqi army in 2000 for, i think it was, or 2003, paul bremer fired the entire army, creating 100,000 terrorists, unemployed people. the second question, richard, is you are educated at oxford? how could you possibly recommend sarah palin as the running mate for john mccain? host: you can take one or both of those points. guest: let's see. i spent a year at oxford. i i'm not sure what that has to do with sarah palin. i will move on to the first question. with respect to the iraqi army, i'm not sure that was a question, but rather an observation, but what i generally agree with.

it was a catastrophic decision to disband the iraqi army and but what hasn't formally fighting mad on the the streets of -- and put 100,000 formerly fighting men on the streets of iraq with little or no prospect of driving at least a portion than into the hands of the insurgents in iraq. host: back to afghanistan, if you could, one of the headlines from "the philadelphia inquirer" talks about iraqi leaders fighting to hold onto power. "the prime minister is preparing for a long and bitter fight to hold on to power, even if it alienates the countries sunni community." how is the further drawdown of u.s. to connected to success in afghanistan? guest: part of the assumption is that we can pump up the number of troops in afghanistan as they are going out in iraq. nouri al-maliki, to some surprise, came in second in terms of the number of seats in

i al-balawi came in first. -- in terms of the number of seats in parliament. i got balawi came in first. -- callawi came in first grade nouri al-maliki seems to be working the system so that he will be able to form a government. there are lots of talks going on among the parties. but i do think that the talk of renewed sectarian violence, or some even talking about a civil war -- i think the chances of that are extremely small. we have seen this month after month where it's sort of drags on while the iraqi politicians try to jockey for positions and put together a coalition government. it is possible, but i would not put money on that. host: benjamin is on the line for independence, upstate new york, syracuse. caller: there is just a couple

of points i would like to make. number one, all these problems that we have all around the world caused simply by having a little box -when we go to vote. the lead as we have are the ones we have because we have -- the leaders we have, we have because we have no choice. right now we're just shipping over poor people and everybody we offered citizenship to, just to go to get shot at. the country is in bad shape because we have bad leaders, we don't have other selections. we need other selections. we need a draft. i call it a volunteer draft, because if you are not working, you volunteered to be drafted. i wonder what you all think on that.

guest: when the united states did move away from the draft, as many countries around the world are that seek to professionalize the military, which developed an even more professional and skilled -- we developed an even more professional and skilled military but there is enormous strain on the military with these two wars, but the white consensus is that they are better trained, better -- wide consensus that they are better trained, better equipped to carry out their missions than ever before. a draft is not going to happen. there is not the political appetite for a draft. there are very good reasons not to have a draft, but even if there are good reasons, it will not happen. host: we will hear from the afghan ambassador to the u.s. at the school of advanced international studies. he will talk about how afghanistan support can build long-term institutions there. that is the focus. the afghan ambassador, 5:30 p.m.

eastern time today on c-span. alabama, a democrat, you are on the air. caller: good morning. i would like to make an observation, please, and i say that we are in iraq and afghanistan tuesday. we are not leaving. -- we are in iraq and afghanistan to stay. we are not leaving. we are building the largest in history an airfield in iraq. afghanistan has minerals and oil. also, afghanistan's strategic position is to in the future, when we build oil pipelines from the caucasus down to the gulf, to the water, that is going to go through afghanistan. second, afghanistan is important to us because we have bases there and we will continue to

have bases as long as in the other areas north of that -- to contain china. we did not go there to establish democracy in iraq or to secure afghanistan. guest: i don't think that's right. there have been allegations going back at least to the first gulf war that our intervention in iraq and now our intervention in afghanistan is somehow related to our desire to seize oil fields and sees the will of the country. -- and seize the oil of the country after the first gulf war, i don't think we even asked for a discount on the oil. i don't think they are pumping a barrel of oil out of afghanistan today. the money we spent on the war so far could have bought a lot

of oil. we have to look at the national security reasons we went into those countries but we can debate whether they were sufficient enough to do it, but i don't think you can sustain the argument that this was about seizing resources or containing china. host: one last call, republican line, michigan. caller: hi. you were asked earlier by the u.s. should expect to do any better in afghanistan that russia has done, and you did not make some explanations there. could you also say that afghanistan, the whole country, was fighting to preserve itself from takeover by russia? no. 2, would you explain why the iraqi army was fired in 2003, 2004, whenever that happen? thank you, bye. guest: i think i tried to explain the differences between the soviet invasion of

afghanistan and the u.s. intervention now. two of the reasons i pointed out was the ideology, the communist ideology, anathema to afghans, which is a very devout country. we are not doing that at all. secondly, the external support that we provide for the mujahedin in afghanistan and terms of weapons in financing for the which had been -- for the mujahedin. with respect to the iraqi army, my understanding, i was not involved in this decision, was that it was seen as saddam 's arm and we cannot let the country progress if we left that intact. that was a mistake. host: richard fontaine, a former foreign policy adviser to

the mccain campaign in 2008, that you for your insight. guest: thank you very much. host: when we come back, we'll preview at a white house forum on workplace flexibility. more of your calls. first, an update from c-span radio. >> paul, and caught 3:00 p.m. in washington, d.c. secretary of state hillary clinton is expected to announce a pledge of billions of dollars over the next two years to help with 80's reconstruction. -- haiti's reconstruction. the effort is expected to raise nearly $4 billion to rebuild schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods destroyed in the january 12 quake. scientists in kazakhstan have foisted a rocket onto a lodge at the head of friday's blast off

of nasa cosmonauts. security precautions were in full force to onsite or armed police with sniffer dogs and a helicopter circling overhead heightened security following the moscow subway bombings that killed dozens of people. and attack in a russian province today. two suicide bombers, including one impersonating a police officer, killed one person in southern russia. prime minister vladimir putin says that the attack may have been organized by the same militants who attack the subsystem. our pharmaceutical company more than $100,000 to a private investigative -- a pharmaceutical company gave more than what a thousand dollars to a private and best story from -- more than $100,000 to a

private investigatory firm to look into an fda investigator. she is director of the center for drug evaluation, which oversees the agency's new drug approval. >> as you have probably heard this morning, president obama is set to announce a major expansion of offshore drilling of gas and oil along the atlantic coast and the eastern gulf of mexico and the north coast of alaska. he will make those comments this morning at a naval facility on c-span. the fcc bar association hosts a discussion on regulating new media, at the future of journalism, and how the first amendment relates to new technology. among those speaking, the chairman of the sec, julie genachowski. live at 1:00 p.m. on c-span. and the afghan and bannister --

afghan ambassador will speak at 5:30 eastern. >> this weekend, john dean is our guest on "in depth." the former white house counsel to president nixon and the author of 10 books will take your phone calls and e-mail and t weets. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is katie corrigan, co-director of workplace flexibility 2010. when we talk about workplace flexibility, what does it mean? guest: i think every person in america knows what it means. when i tell people what work on -- what i work on every day, they say, "oh, yeah."

when you are trying to do a job and take care of your family, you know workplace -- you know what workplace flexibility means. if you are out of the workforce for a period of time, you are able to get back in. i started this job about five years ago. bieber -- we were founded by a foundation called alford plea sloan foundation. they had funded using use of research looking at work -- they had funded the years and years of research looking at work and family. when you look to the data, again and again it is not one group's problem, it is everyone's problem. it rises to the level of a national policy problem. what the white house is doing today is acknowledging that workplace flexibility has been an undercurrent of lots of

different conversations, and now they are saying that it is not just your problem, it is our collective problem. host: tell us more about what the white house will be doing this afternoon. guest: as i understand it, the white house will be holding a forum where they have leaders from industry, business is big and small, labor unions, researchers, and real people to talk about these issues and start a national conversation about how not just the government, but also the private sector can really move forward to make our work is more flexible. host: the president and first lady are going to speak at this event. it will be this afternoon during the 4:00 hour, and we will have live for you on c-span2. our guest, katie couric, is co- director of workplace flexibility -- katie corrigan, is co-director of workplace flexibility 2010. guest: what we have been doing is try to define the field of public policy in this arena, bringing definitions to the

table, coming up with ideas. most importantly, what we have been trying to do is bring stakeholders to the table. employers and employees, connecting with researchers and other policy people to say what to the government to hear -- what should the government to hear. we wanted to keep an open mind. for this next year, workplace flexibility 2010 -- it is actually our last hurrah. for the last several months, the goal is to start this national conversation and identify really good people to talk to policy makers. host: we look at the viewers to phone in with their experiences or desires or opinions on this idea of workplace flexibility.

so, get us to some of these ideas. what should the government be doing? guest: first, they need to bring people to the table, and that is what they are doing today. this is rooted in years and years of work. the private sector has done very interesting innovations, and i think at that is where the government is starting. tell us, employers, what have you done that has worked? the next part of the conversation is now that we have heard some of the best practices, how do we make this a normal practice? how we work together to get everybody to have flexible options? host: what are the best practices in the private sector? what is working, in your view? guest: the companies that have paid attention to the major demographic shifts in our country, women and the work force, the fact that we are working longer, the fact that this new economy is going to demand that all of us keep our

skills up-to-date, that we get retrained, no matter what kind of job we're doing. green jobs are what the jobs are today. who knows what it will be in 10 or 15 years? we need flexibility to stay relevant in this economy. there are lots of demographic changes going on, and the best employers say, wait a second, we need to measure success and a different way. we need to stop thinking about this as a 95 at sector but we have a 24-7 economy. how do we get our business practice to align with the needs of real people essentially so that we don't have transaction costs? the fallout of having this mismatch between what employees need and how workplaces are structured. host: speak to the economy into a bit more. how do you get attention on this issue, how do you get something done when all the talk is about the higher unemployment rate, and where are the new jobs, that kind of thing? guest: the state of the economy

is the most important issue, and workplace flexibility is not at odds with that conversation. it is actually a core part of the conversation. when you think about how to rebuild and redesign jobs, flexibility can be a part of that, because again, if you do not feel that now he will continue to have this mismatch -- if you cannot feel that now, you will continue to have this mismatch and fallout. they do it because it works for the bottom line and it improves the productivity. the key people who are good, keep -- a key people who are good, keep their heads in the game. host: first call for our guest is from arizona, a democrat, you are on with katie corrigan. caller: good morning. good morning, katie. thank you for taking my call. i am a little concerned about this, because it is interesting that we are talking about workplace flexibility this

morning. i agree with you that this is definitely something that should be considered in the conversation with the terms of rebuilding our economy and put americans back to work. so i agree with that. i think is great that you are looking into that now, as opposed to when the jobs to come back. at the same time, i kind of feel this conversation may be a little premature. i think that workplace flexibility is a very important , but how would an employer -- how could we, right now, in 2010, going into april 2010 -- what could employers to in terms of workplace flexibility to increase crop production -- job

production and bring people back to work? guest: think you raise a very compelling point, which is why would employers look to this first, perhaps, or even second, when it their primary concern is increasing the number of jobs? one thing that has been interesting in this discussion is that employers have actually turned to flexibility as the solution, because oftentimes they cannot give raises, often times they don't want to lay people off. some employers create things like offer more flexibility rather than up rays, and some people want to -- rather than our race, and some people want to go part time but don't feel it -- rather than a raise, and some people want to go part time but don't feel they have that option. some economists say that if you leave the job force at all, it is so much harder to get back

in. host: "the baltimore sun" touches on this forum they are having today. "obama's push for more flexibility in the workplace" is the headline. you can see the changes over the decade. in 1988, percent of children with parents working, 39.7%. guest: i think that statistic is a very important part of the story. when you think by just 30 years ago, more than doubled the number of parents working in households. you have three jobs and two people. the two jobs that are paid for,

and the really important job at home of taking kids -- taking care of kids and family. host: detroit, another call from michigan today, independent caller. caller: we have had enough flexibility come in my opinion, in the last few years productivity has gone up but jobs are going down. what this government needs to do is make hard decisions of protectionism, scrapping nafta, and start having some fair trade. what we really need to do is turn back the clock a little bit and save our families, instead of having two people working two jobs and neglecting their children at home. we need to start taking care of ourselves. host: anything to say about trade? guest: again, you raised some major economic concerns. my only point is that

flexibility is dealing with the realities on the ground. if you have lots of families where both parents are working -- another reality that does not get mentioned is the aging of the work force. the aging of you and me. we are all going to be living a lot longer, and that means we are going to have to be working longer. we need to be able to work in different ways. flexibility is something that i know, when aarp told its members, it is something that they want. host: ohio, john, good morning. hello, john. caller: my biggest concern is government involvement. we have government involved in everything now. we have a lot of flexibility. you have maternity leaves and everything else. we have so much flexibility. to me it seems like we should be focusing more on the lowering taxes so that they can hire more people. guest: first of all, our

project, workplace flexibility 2010, was created because of the alfred p. sloan foundation, before they said here is what the government to do, wanted us to really understand what is happening in the private sector already. one of the hallmarks of our purchase to absolutely engage employers and business, -- of our approach is to engage employers and business, small and large, what are your most innovative practices? today's conversation at the white house is not to say here is the best government policy that will fix the problem. rather, it is exactly what you are getting at, which is before we jump, let's talk and really hear what the private sector has got, what is working, at how we can work together, public and private sectors, to make a difference here, so that it works for everyone. host: more on this white house forum, which we will have later come from "the baltimore sun."

"dozens of participants are expected, from business owners to the leaders of major firms, including the several lee corp., which is based in illinois and has 41,000 employees. the global food giant has enhanced flexible work arrangements to include non- traditional stop and start times, working remotely, job sharing, leaves of absence, and so-called returnships." anything to add to that? guest: sara lee is one of those leaders. going back to the previous caller who said there is enough flexibility, when you have the employees young and old who want more flexibility, companies like this are fantastic. they have figured out how to do it to make it work for the bottom line and their employees. host: the talk about firms

offering flexibility benefits. lighter shade is small employers, a darker shade is 1000 or more. over half of these firms over all have policies which allow folks to return to work gradually. the were percentages of the folks who take -- lower percentages of folks to take unpaid time to improve job skills. guest: that is what were the individual company may not need to have their employees at the moment, but it is one of the white house is looking at as a broader issue. there is a report by the council of economic advisers on reforms for workplace flexibility, and one of the major issues to focus on is job retraining. that is going to have to be the norm in the future for us to

stay relevant as a nation and a strong economy. host: 40% of smaller employers and 30% of larger employers allow staff to periodically changed starting and quitting times. why is that important? guest: when you think about whether you are raising small children and you have an aging parent, you are trying to make it to community colleges so that you can get to class on time, things change in life. it is the day-to-day struggle where you start to see in the day that the spillover effects. that is why companies -- in the data the spillover effects. that is why companies have a spillover effects from the mismatch. host: does the federal government offer incentives to companies out there to have what are known as flexible policies? what might you recommend that is not in place now?

>> when we look at this, we spent several years talking to the private sector and looking at the data and bring it together smart policy people from both sides of the aisle for conversation on this. one of the things we found is that, essentially, it is not rocket science. there are lots of good ideas out there, but a lot of small and medium-sized companies don't have the h.r. departments with a time to study the data practices, so they do what they've always done. one of the things the government can do is raise the profile of this issue, get information out there, and start. there may be more things to do down the line, but this is the first step, knowledge, getting information spread around. host: connecticut, cecil on the democrats' line. caller: i'd like your program. i'm a first-time caller. c-span is one of the greatest programs since running water. i like the idea of your

workplace plan. after working in the city of bridgeport for years, i was terminated because i filed a whistle-blower complaint. i was being targeted because of my complaint. it would have helped me right now. the matter is pending with the stately board in the state of connecticut, which is basically got to double the board caught up in -- two labor boards being caught in an investigation, being done by parliament all. -- blumenthal. and for the last few years i have not had my medical benefits honored, even though i was a union employees at the time i was terminated, because of the city planning tic-tac- toe. guest: first of all, i have a first time c-span participant. what the abizaid based on your comment is that, again, -- one

thing i want to say based i, is that, again, flexibility is something that people need for lots of different reasons. sometimes it is for help, sometimes it is to take care of kids. more and more is to get retrained and beef up skills. there are lots of reasons you might need flexibility. one thing you have heard again and again, prioritizing what reason over another, is that you need to be careful about that, because if flexibility is the norm, the normal way of doing business, my boss knows how to manage it, then you don't have to be the special or the stand out. everybody will feel like they have access to the same thing, and it is more equitable. host: wisconsin, independent caller. where are you calling from, it exactly? caller: wisconsin dell in wisconsin.

i want to know how flexibility is going to help the employee from being overworked and underpaid, which i see so often around here. the employee has no protection from being underpaid. my husband has been laid off five times in the last three years. he has taken training, but it does not protect him from being underpaid. guest: i think that, again, one thing about flexibility is that it certainly is not a panacea. it is just one part of a broader solution. absolutely, again, getting back to the economy, there are big ticket items on the table about how to be increased jobs. but again, as we increase those jobs, we continue to design them in a way that ignores them -- ignores the reality on the ground, we will see some of the same problems we have articulated in the day to play

out. host: somewhat related story in "the washington post" today. "holding back job growth? workers prolific output. the question of whether the recent surge in productivity has run its course is the key to whether a job growth is finally poised to take off. one of the great surprises of the downturn that began 27 months ago is that businesses are producing only 3% less goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet americans are working nearly 10% fewer hours because of the mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek." guest: what we think about what can be the role the government here, it can be about putting together these different pieces. it is so important that it was the council of economic advisers that did the report for today's

event, because they are paying attention to all of these different balls in the air. they are interested in connecting the dots of flexibility to these broader themes. host: michael, republican. caller: good morning. i have been listening since the beginning, and the young lady is using a lot of verbiage that i would have to disagree with. now, i know there needs to be flexibility in the workplace, but i think that as government increases and tax increase, 16,000 irs agents will oversee the american people for health care to make sure they pay for tests with health care. my point being that as we expand the government and create more of a dependent society, more of a socialist society such as, like, europe, where they only

work a few days a week and take off and vacations. flexibility is very important, i agree with her. the problem is, we need to do at the state and local level and not have the federal government involved, because mr. obama continues to have meetings and continues to talk, and i know this was started a long time ago, but it wears on me, because all they want to do is talk, but then they put in their own agenda and not with the people want. but i think it needs to be run from the state and local level. guest: one thing, and this is more of an observation, obviously, because i am not inside the white house, but again, from workplace flexibility 2010's perspective is that what we've done is try to get absolutely outside the beltway and hear from a business directly and from real people directly. one of the things we did is go on a cross-country tour.

sometimes we collaborated with the local chamber of commerce. sometimes we collaborated with the local government, sometimes a local nonprofit. well you do is pose the questions. ok, flexibility, talk to us. what are you struggling with in this community, and what are the solutions you can come up with, either as an independent business or as a local government? there are so many good examples around the country. municipalities down in houston have something called flex in the city, and the mayor there encourage business to adopt flexible work practices to relieve traffic congestion and help the environment. that is one example of the municipality on this issue. what is wonderful about today's event at the white house is that they are bringing some of those people into washington said that it will not be a top down conversation, but rather, tell us what you can do that is working so that we can learn

from it and move forward with policies, again, that will work. host: this white house forum on workplace flexibility gets started early afternoon, with first lady michelle obama speaking. the plan right now is c-span2 at 4:30 eastern time, one of the president will deliver the room -- when the president will deliver the remarks. of the worsening by twitter -- if you were sending by twitter -- a viewer sending by twitter -- what percentage of folks are allowed to telecommute right now if they want? guest: i think in the council for economic advisers report -- council of economic advisers report, there are figures for telecommuting, and is surprisingly low. not every job will allow

telecommuting. there is no one size fits all solution for flexibility. some jobs need to be on site, some allow for telecommuting. one area that the federal government has been quite engaged in as on a hard push is on is how to learn how to do telecommuting, what technology you need, so that both employers and employees know the rules of the game and things will be fair. how do you management from a distance? those are all things we need to learn to make sure that telecommuting is successful. again, there are so many great examples of how telecommuting sits on real-estate costs, traffic congestion. host: is there any data that shows how telecommuting works? guest: absolutely. there are companies that have done it, consultants are talking about this. this is an area that the federal government as an employer has

tested with and experimented with an has come up with solutions. host: in "the baltimore sun" they have that chart, and 10% of the small employers and 5% of large employers to allow workers to work longer hours and fewer days to compress the work week. guest: again, the goal there is you are able to close down the office and save on heat and lighting and electricity, because people are only there a few days. but i've also heard about the manufacturing setting, and plenty of small businesses can use it as an example. the one piece that we would say on flexibility is that you do not want to hang your hat on any one particular strategy. that may be the best strategy for a particular workplace, but

there are plenty of others to choose from. host: line for independents in new york. caller: thank you. this is very nice. i also have a daughter named katie. i will make this very quick. i had 30-plus years as an engineer, including three fortune 500 companies and three small companies. i ended my career as the vice president of engineering at a small company. i worked hand-in-hand with hourly workers and became very proficient in teaching them, working with them, getting to know them. that is sort of background -- sort of my background. as far as your all-parents category, number one, how many of those are single parents? and i would like to say that flexibility in your context that

you are putting forth is not the only thing that can help workers. if management is in light and -- is enlightened, and two things i would imagine there is profit sharing -- if the employees have that incentive, they will work better. the other thing is cross training, which expands the capable workers -- they get the opportunity to be cross trained , and to get the advancement mpany, or they actually are picking up more skills so that they can market themselves and move on to a better job at another company if need be. guest: well, thank you so much for raising that important issue. you just have given me an opportunity to make the point that flexibility has pay off for business, whether it is the

salary or hourly work force. hourly workers, as you point out -- there are other strategies to engage in as well. cross training is important for flexibility. if someone is out of the office, someone else can pick up for them. hourly workers need the flexibility in scheduling of hours just like everybody else. they also need predictability of hours. when we talk about flexibility for hourly workers, we also talked about predictability, which is just knowing what your schedule is going to be some that you can make plans -- so that you can make plans. whether that is child care, whether you can make it to your training class. host: vermont, line for democrats for peaky car again. -- for katie corrigan. caller: you are talking about the reality of the situation and i applaud you for what you're

doing in this tough reality. but i think we need to change the reality. to make things standardized, to make things easier, and flexibility goes against that grain. i think that instead of cutting back and trying to make things more efficient, i think what is needed is -- let's say a manufacturing plant is 24/7 -- maybe a law that says that manufacturing can only take place during the day. this would create more corporations in different states, it employs more people. he will displace this -- you will displace the people on the second ship, but if you have a corporation is somewhere else, you ought exponential job growth, because you have restaurants and supporting jobs

that are needed when a corporation build a manufacturing plant. the other thing i want to say is that these things are related to health also. when you work at night, you look at the statistics that say that there are more injuries, there are -- they are detrimental to your health. all of the flexibility really has a tremendous cost. i think if we start going back, like the one gentlemen said, to take care of us, instead of having a megafarm, i would like to see hundreds of thousands of small farms with local produce that does not get put on the shelf for 30 to 60 days. smaller corporations really are a great benefit, health-wise, also. guest: again, i thank you for

raising a very important point around health. one piece of the puzzle here is that when you have this working family conflict, at its surface is a lot of stress, and that results in a lot of health issues. one interesting study out of nih has been looking very specifically at the impact of having this conflict, and then coming up with a very practical interventions on how you might help a manager get employees some flexibility, and then measuring the health impact of that. those are extremely important when you think about the spillover effect of flexibility. i know we have republicans and democrats and independents on the line and i am sure we had a huge diversity of opinion on how to run these companies, but no matter what, i would say that flexibility is a help, not a

hurt. whether you are a big corporation, a small corporation, whether the government should be involved or not, flexibility is necessary to be most efficient as we move forward with business. host: what is going on, if anything, in other countries that you and others who are working on your issue are learning from? who are you learning from? guest: we spend a lot of time looking at what other countries are doing. one country spent the most time getting into is australia. australia in many different ways is similar to the united states. in some ways, they are one step ahead in the conversation. they surfaced this issue as a national policy priority of around five to 10 years ago. again, as a government, both the conservative government and the current government -- i am not sure what the democrat- republican names are there --

but the conservative and "democratic" governments have looked at this issue. they have different ways to solve it, but everybody agrees that this is a national priority. they particularly focus on the impact on caregiving in that country. and they come up with about the policies. it -- come up with a budget policies. business has been innovative in the type of practices that are developing to in the u.s. conversation, we sometimes look over our shoulder to see what australia has done. host: indianapolis, good morning. caller: good morning. i worked for the federal government for about 25 years as an auditor, and during that entire time, we used to various forms of flex time. it worked very well. but i wonder how well it would work for a value added jobs like manufacturing. for auditors, we would have the

time of the year where we would work a burst of hours and people would get additional vacation time that they could take off. i guess the the question i have is that i can see for some jobs it works fairly well, but for others, especially in manufacturing, with the number of skilled people are limited and continuity of operations is critical, whether it is really works. another thing is that if you allow people to compress for too long, 10-hour days, months on end, you have actually lost productivity. have you done the studies on the effects of certain types of flexible time on actual productivity? guest: yes, that is fantastic, and just one note, since you mentioned you were a federal government employee -- the federal government has an interesting story here. in the 1970's they started

piling different types of flexibility programs, collecting data, and went back to congress several times to perfect what was working best. that is an example of a very large employer testing out certain ideas and going back to fix them, basically, and make them better. the federal government has never abandoned flexibility. it is something that their employees have liked and has worked out for them. now, about 30 years later, i think the federal government is taking a fresh look and say, well, we had certain types of flexibility practices that work very well in the past. i think they are asking whether they are still working, is there something more innovative we can do. i look forward to the federal government's role in this conversation as hopefully a model employer. also, again, going back to the point, i don't think there is a one-size-fits-all type of flexibility that will work for

every industry and setting. with a manufacturing plant, you have jobs on the floor and you have the desk jobs. what type of flexibility will work for this type of job versus another? absolutely there have been studies done of how flexibility can work in manufacturing plants. some of the common ways of getting to flexibility include shift-swapping, redundancies, cross training, and all those things feed into the conversation in that sector. host: tell us about your group, how it was put together, where is based on how we can read your work. guest: we are based in georgetown law school. we work in partnership with a whole lot of people who have been coming up with private- sector responses. our job is to seek what will the public policy be. we were funded by the alfred p. sloan foundation, which has a national initiative on the

flexibility. they have focused on finding things that will improve science, technology, and strengthen industries. they don't look at this issue as something that is a nice or kind thing to do, although it is all those things. they'd see it as something that will strengthen the industry, and dealing with these pensions is something that they think will really help the american economy. host: iowa, mike, independent. caller: good morning. i have been watching a lot of news programs, and i just wanted to give katie and other gentlemen a couple met. -- the other gentleman are complemented this the best news thing i have watched for five months. this lady is tremendous. people need to hear all the answers she has given straight

up on people calling in. i am a disabled veteran, and it has made me realize that i need to put flexibility in my disability to get myself back together. with this program -- but this program, got less you. -- god bless you. guest: thank you so much. you mentioned being a disabled veteran. flexibility is so important to both veterans and military families. what other things we spend a lot of time doing is identifying -- one of the things we spent a lot of fun doing is identifying the stakeholders that need to be at the table. military families are key. you can work, and the question is, sometimes you need to be able to show up at 10:00 because that is when the bus can pick you up. if you have the flexibility with your work, you can absolutely joined the workforce.

with military families, i don't think i can emphasize enough, all the issues i've talked about in terms of the impact of the work-family conflict is that much more acute with the military families, particularly during times of deployment. oftentimes military spouses are not working inside the military structure, but out in the world, and they need a flexible work places, too. host: let's hear from memphis, last call. caller: i want to make it plain and short. ronald reagan as president busted the union. we have no more bargaining rights. host: final thought on where workplace flexibility is headed. guest: going back to the comment on the labor, no matter where it

is coming from on this issue, what we're looking for is solutions. sometimes when you have a union setting, that can be the place where you negotiate some of the flexibility issues. finally, what can i say? as a group called workplace flexibility 2010, to have the president talking about our issue today and bringing so many leaders from industries together to start this national conversation, is a good day for me. thank you so much. host: look for the president at about 4:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span2. our guest has been at katie couric and, co-director of workplace flexibility 2010 -- tiki corrigan, co-director of workplace flexibility 2010. appreciate all of your calls. "washington journal" starts every day at 7:00 eastern time with plenty of your calls. tomorrow w