most members of congress claimed they hate it. it is just a necessary evil these days, given the expense of campaigns. host: our guest has been brad fitch, and here is his new book -- published bythecapitol.net. thank you for being with us. i appreciate everyone calling in did by the way, book tv is on the air for four days over this thanksgiving holiday so if you tune into c-span2 you will get four full days of book tv programming from the past couple of months. tune over in their -- over there if you are done watching public policy on c-span. here is tomorrow's schedule. isabel sawhill is what brookings

and will talk about entitlement reform. daniel goure will talk about reducing the defense department budget. amy harder of national journal will join us tomorrow morning to talk about the coal industry and energy policy. that is our show for tomorrow. thank you for being with us. enjoy your holiday weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up here and c-span, u.n. world food program executive director josette sheeran on global food security and property. -- and poverty.

that is fall by bankruptcy law experts on the legality of the government bottle assistance package. later, john bolton. >> and now, josette sheeran, executive director of the un world food program. this is about one hour. >> good afternoon. i am a reporter for bloomberg news. we're the world's leaders -- leading professional -- with world wide.ee paress

you can visit our website and you can't donate to our program -- and you can donate to our program. i like to welcome our speaker. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after the speech, i will ask as many questions as time permits. i like to introduce art head table guests. to our right, mike walter president of walter media. correspondent for news. dan glickman, a senior fellow, a guest of our speaker. he national press club's secretary and professor of law and journalism at the george washington university. he is the chairman of the press

club correspondence committee. richard leech, a guest of our speaker. andrew snyder, chairman of the speaker's committee and associate editor at kid er.pling lisa ling gillespie, managing editor of street sense. and your snyder -- andrea snyder. kiplinger.of the [applause] earlier this month, crusaders against global hunger received relatively good news from the united nations.

the number of people experiencing hunger worldwide fell from 1 billion to a mere nine of the 25 million. that is the right direction. -- to a mere 925 million. front rebuilding haiti -- from rebuilding haiti, the world's largest distributor of food to the port is involved with beating the lives of the so- called bottom billion. the organization's goal is to reach more than 90 million people with food assistance in more than 70 countries. 10,000 people work for the organization. must have been in remote areas serving the poor. requires great logistic and great diplomatic skills. josette sheeran became the 11th executive director of the united nations world food program in 2007. she has served as undersecretary for economic energy at the u.s.

state department, where she was responsible for economic issues including development, trade, agriculture, finance, energy, and transportation. before joining ustr, she was a managing director, a leading wall street technology firm that works with fortune 500 clients. the former managing editor of " the washington times" when the press award for journalistic achievement. she it has also been a member of the national press club and has served on the speakers' committee. today, she is discussing 10 ideas that can feed the world. welcome to the national press club, josette sheeran. [applause]

>> good afternoon, everyone. it is indeed a great moment to feel like i'm coming home, back to my own roots here at the national press club, where i've spent many an hour exploring the ideas that have helped defined the world that we are in today. today we're going to talk about my optimism and why i believe we can end hunger, yes, in our lifetimes. i like to begin by taking a journey with you to the front lines of hunger. i will start with this. this is a cup from our school feeding program and is representative of the fact that will then talk about 925 million people who are hungry, what that means is about one and of every

six people on earth wake up each morning and are not sure how to fill this cup with food. for the children we reached, often this is the only secure access to food they have in their lives. most of the people in that number are women and children. and still today, every six seconds a child will die if not being able to access enough food to stay alive. my own personal awakening on this issue came in 1986. i was home with my first child who was newborn. i was watching an image on television of a mother and ethiopia whose baby was crying out very weakly for food, and she had no milk in her breast and she also had no food. i thought, there cannot be anything more painful than not being able to enter a child call for food -- not been able to

answer a child's call for food. there was enough food for everyone to get access to something to eat. during the food crisis a couple of years ago, there was enough food for everyone in the world to have 2700 kilo calories. tens of millions have been an abject hunger. what also struck me is the solution to hunger is not quite rocket science. many nations have unlocked the keys. many hungry nations. they have defeated under -- hunger. does require a great scientific breakthrough, like discovering a cure for rare cancer. people need access to an adequate amount of nutritious

food. but what struck me is a work exploring famines and will cost them is actually famines are caused by a lack of access to food. in fact, in a famine in 1974, there was food in bangladesh, but people cannot afford it. their livelihoods have been destroyed. the other thing that strikes me is that food is big business. when nations solved the problem, it creates value in an economy. this is not permanent charity. this is not something that needs to be propped up with help, but topic that creates jobs all the way through the value chain an opportunity. it is a win-win. when you have functioning food economy, not only do you end

hunger, but you create wealth. back to this couup. being on the front lines of door or up to 3 million people a day need access to food. the floods moved down. they came through pakistan with 100 water breeches, kind of a katrina every three days. to haiti, cambodia, and elsewhere, we solve the problem at the worst end of this challenge, those who may die tomorrow if they do not have an intervention by the world. i would like to say and speak for -- and speak from my vantage point in the way hunter is approached and i think we're eeing -- in the wake huy hunger

is approached. i do believe we can create a sustainable models and new kinds of partnerships are forging and changing the face of hunger and forging solutions that can change the dynamics of this first millennium goal. just a few weeks ago in rome, we have the prime minister of a small nation off the coast of africa. other than its great resources of its people, it has no natural resources. when it was -- when it reached its independence, many believe it cannot survive as a nation. as trucks -- it has droughts and many difficulties. we celebrate them graduating from meeting the support of the world food program and the fact

that it will reach the millennium development goal of the problem of hunger and overcoming the literacy and hundred including with its young people. -- literacy and hunger. i think we also must be in ehud with a strong sense of purpose. it was 50 years this month that president eisenhower gave a speech for -- for the beginning of the world food program. you cannot have peace and stability without food security. and i will tell you that when i testified in the european parliament, i have this red cup . the last time he had seen this cop was after world war ii in spain -- the last time he had war this couup wasn't world

ii -- was in world wari ii in spain. throughcup moves the world, transforming lives and present opportunities. -- and presenting opportunities. people do not have food. they don't really have three options. they can migrate. revolt, or face starvation and death. i want to just mention up front a really profound thing to the united states. since that speech but eisenhower and since the founding of food for peace by president kennedy, there has been profound leadership in the

united states in fighting hunger, bipartan agreement, and activism throughout our land. gandhi once set a piece of bread is a face of god, and i see america as part to intervene when children out of living and being born in a place with a dictatorship or bad government or that is at war or a victim of a disaster does not have access to that food. i want to thank president obama. we saw a complete turnaround at the g-8 summit to make food security the top item following the food crisis very necessary, such as the action to rally the world in 1974 behind us. hillary clinton gave bigger viewership in new york last week. i will talk a little bit more about the particular problems of

children under 2 and how to revolutionize their access to adequate nutrition. agriculture tomber vilsack is a great advocate for this. one of the most innovative leaders we have seen on the food security issues and a just wanted to recognize a number of people from the department of agriculture, aid john browse. but also on capitol hill, durbin, allators turba these people -- i was in a school in kenya and a stoplight third grade class and asked if they have any questions below gross said, how is --

i said, how was what? she said, is he okay? if not, i cannot go to school. i thought, wow. they talk about this as a powerful far off tribe that can help them. the connection is so profound to the lives of those children. the u.s. is first in fighting hunger in the world privileges say that 7% of those resistant door freached in darfur -- 70%. there is a retooling in the way the united states -- the hungry with food. in our world war returns such departures come we have seen the lead time in the ability to reach those on the front lines with the contributions from -- reduced to three days in pakistan. very quick action.

innovations by the team and by everybody working on this. but today i want to talk about 10 actions that really aren't new approaches -- there really are new approaches that can unleash permit solutions to food. i will just say, because i know i have friends here from the agricultural business trip i'm not talking about the input side. the access side to food. i will presume we'll take care of the need for greater production. our partners work on this. the first is the world's commitment to humanitarian action. the change of approach in that action is very critical. today, we can see with pretty much accuracy that we have tools that will respond with the appropriate action in a commensurate situation. if it is a place like darfur where they have no food, we will bring in the food per if it is a

place like some places in haiti where there are some food markets after the earthquake, but people have no cash, we can bring in a doctor or cash. we can -- we can bring in a voucher or cash. it is dangerous action. 34 of four drivers were kidnapped and missing in action in darfur a couple of summers ago. we lose people regularly. the person was shot through the head because some people would prefer that people to not get access to food. this is a very important protection action. we need the support of the world. every penny we race is voluntarily race. if we can prevent people from falling for the fall -- for and selling off their cattle and the

homes and pulling kids out of school, they will do anything to eat. if we can prevent that, this is the foundation for recovery and long-term sustainability. the second things i like to mention is the power of school meals. this is a simple idea the united states brought to the world. if you provide food in school, you provide a safety net for children that is affordable and that has so many other benefits, particularly for girls. we see in our school feeding programs around the world that andou put a couple foup of food attach some russians, such as a bag of rice or some oil, the number of girls in school will

skyrocket and in places where girls don't go to school, their parents are separate ordering them to go to school for the economic benefit. it helps the family. so the girl's job is to go to school. meanwhile, she is learning. if we sustain that, she'll stay in school until she is 16 and get married later. it is a very powerful tool. in our new book with the world bank, it really recommends that this is the best safety net to put in place for countries that cannot afford more complex systems and the results are proven. but the most exciting thing about school feeding is that in the 45 years to world food program has been doing this, 34 countries have graduated from the program. i was talking to myron before we

came up. he posted as a reporter in in the 1966. 500 million people, many of them sustained by the food aid broadened by the united states and the world food program. today, india is a contributor to hourours. i have a list of the nations that have gradually from the program. a sustainable solution and one that benefits those economies. the third idea is safety nets. it doesn't sound like a bold idea in the united states. 80% of the world has no safety net. when disaster hits for a food crisis, there is no backup plan. one would think that civil society. i talked to an ambassador from an african country who was posted in rome. she remembers her childhood

competing with the catalysts for blades of grass because nobody in the community had any food. so in countries that are so poor there is no backup plan. what we have found and i have just spent a lot of time in brazil steading their model, is you can put into place a food safety net that is linked to the schools, to local farmers, in brazil, is linked to good grades, it is linked to destinations -- vaccinations, and it costs half of a % of gdp. brazil is beating a hunger faster than any nation on earth today. this is an affordable way to do wit. it is creek bottom -- it is

creating opportunities for small farmers. we fill the world food program has been partnering with brazil and to build in this kind of safety nets so that when disaster hits, the world is called on later in the game and only went is at great magnitude. again, even in the u.s. during the financial crisis, i know we have honker. we have hundred in the u.s. -- i know we have hunger. we have hunger in the u.s. but we also have built over many years that safety net of religious institutions and community food banks and great organizations like bread for the world and others. in addition to programs like snap. the fourth idea is connecting small farmers to market.

wfp is in this business because today over half of our budget is cash. and with that cash, over 80% of it will spend buying food from the developing world. over half the people in the developing world who need help who don't have enough to reach our small farmers, most of them women, because in many places, 80% of the agricultural work is done by women. but weak now purchased -- we're rs off the largest purchasee food. the small farmers are not getting the benefit necessarily of their labor on the markets. why? find me a small farrs in africa that has any place to store their food, and you'll have showed me something i have yet to find. and so when they harvest, if they cannot sell within a few days, that food will be run and

lost. we have post-harvest loss of about 40% in much of africa. today, in partnership with the gates foundation and the howard and now foundation, nations coming on board to help us, the world food program is not only buying locally, but buying from small farmers in 19 nations. i will tell you the power of this is huge. i just back from uganda, a place that has suffered so much. this was the birthplace of the resistance army. was ground zero of the ebola virus and other things. there was not a warehouse and were to be found. and so in this place where many thousands of people did not depend -- have been dependent on food aid for over 20 years, wfp has put up a warehouse with the

support of japan and the u.s. that can receive grain, clean it.dry it, and bagu i was there -- the celebration over this. when i opened one of the first bags -- there was a shoe and a few mice and all of that. [laughter] but it comes out of that system and it is beautiful, tradable, great-a quality maze. the farmers, if they could sell on local markets, maybe they would get $100 per metric ton. it is a business model. it is a sustainable solution. when it comes out after $40 of servicing, they get the lowest

price on the markets that day was $4 per metric ton. this opportunity creation. that is kids going to school. people being able to change their lives, and the farmers know it. we buy from them. we're doing this in many countries. a very powerful tool that is reaping results much faster. i am looking at howard offered jean vitter -- howard buffett jr. the fifth idea is the first 100 days -- first 1000 days. you hear a lot about this. this is the time from a gestation to two years old. all the evidence is in. if children in that zone to not received adequate nutrition, the damage is permanent. this was put forth in -- and

lasted two years ago. it is compelling evidence. i think is world vision that has a presentation with the x-rays of children's brains of places and never let up -- light up. so now we have the burden of knowledge. if we do not act. in emergencies, we will reach those kids for a spurt in pakistan -- this is where some of the most exciting partnership potential comes in. i just want to show this. this is a highly nutritious, ready to use food we produce and pakistan bird is made with chickpeas and dried milk and is for by with -- and it is fortified with lots of nutrients. this can protect a child brain. this is a climate-proof food.

you don't have to be refrigerated or add water. you open it and squeeze it into a child's mouth and their brain and body will be protected. in some cases, it is just not going to cut it for a kid to years old to get a bowl of rice when they have been deprived of nutrition. so we're calling on all the nutrition companies in the world. we are partnering with many. we're working with the university of mississippi and others aid and others to develop a new generation of tools. for those of us who can go to whole foods and get power bars, there's not a product available that if your child is week that you can buy out there at an affordable cost. start now you'll find the face of nutrition changing. the keys to make sure talk that we do this. we know that children from

studies will earn 50% less they are not nursed on 2 later in life. then it would if the work near st. same group of kids. we know the lost to economy can be 11% of gdp. i was happy to see the secretary of state leading this effort. some paper was involved in the launch of feed the future because it is good for -- timothy geithner was involved in the launch of feed the future. it is not really an overstatement to say feed it woman and you feed the world. women produce 50% of the food in the world. they get dramatically less of the training. when you train them, studies show that yields will rise a up to 22% in very short time.

and also, that the children will get access to food. there will be a fairer distribution of future in our budget we make sure women get the doctors so they can reach their children. we also -- will make sure women get the vouchers so they can reach their children. they should cook the food without facing rape and beating, as we see in darfur in other places. giving women the power to feed their families safe it is not that difficult. we've done is with the business darfur.d are foin woman did not have to go 10 climbers out to get wood in darfur. the average time the go without being beaten or raped is two

weeks max. it cost $7 million to make sure there's safe access to cooking products. the technology revolution. technology can revolutionize the face of hunger. integrated in the community. today, they get a doctor from loss on a cell phone to spend in a -- today they get a voucher from lost on a cell phone. it saves money. we have a mobile shop that comes up. private sector business to connect to those refugees. in zambia, a hugely innovative voucher program, giving storekeepers and farmers access to the solution. even for us, the world food program spends less than 0.01%

of the money on press. we want to get everything we can his cup.so t hist so we went on youtube and asked the world -- we set up a competition to produce hunger videos so we would have tools hunger to tools hunger and we had thousands of entries of great videos. we cannot afford to make one. i will talk about some other technology solutions. we have a dream which is to use technology to connect the billion people in the world who have too much food to the billion people who do not have enough. is 25 cents a day for the solution. we can wait until everyone is under great governments or we can decide citizen to citizen to make sure that everybody has a cup of food.

so we think the potential with technology is huge. the eighth thing is building resiliency. we're seeing the number of natural disasters go up exponentially. i will give one example of this. the world food program instead of handing out food aid into malia, work with community to use it as an investment bank and have the people plant 40,000 trees to block the timbuktu desert, which is taking over everything from the rice fields. i went there recently. those rice fields are so protected and yielding some much that all they wanted was a machine to pack the race and salad. they have more than they could eat. if that resiliency after was not put in place, it would not happen. and so mitigating rest, preparing for climactic problems, we have done that same type of products in ethiopic at

a huge scale, restoring 800,000 hectors of land over time so that and supporting that many people to be able to eat. we think there is tremendous power in committee-based solutions to the climactic problems that are being faced. the ninth is partnerships. we cannot do without the -- we cannot do we do without the private sectors. one of the great delivery companies in the world has helped us with warehouse is facing. 6% more efficient warehouse can get more money to save those kids and work with them. we have been helped and this is a day tte bar we brought to gaza to increase the nutritional needs of the children.

we're also link with unilever, kraft, heinz and project laser beam. we have a powerful addition and again, i wanted to mention the our millennium village of partnership there really can change the way we do things. the power of individuals to change the face of hunger. in haiti, the needs were huge. we were a little bit desperate to raise the money very quickly for what we needed. we talk to one of the online games company. they had their game farmville give a high-energy biscuit to the farmers every time somebody

contributed they would get a boost in score or something. within days, farmville raised enough money to deliver 5 million meals to kids in haiti. again, very powerful potential. freerice.com is a great story. was an individual who wanted to make a difference. he created a game online, a board game that is to get the definition of the word correct, 10 grains of rice dropped into a bowl. today, billions of grains of rice have been raised and the fed kids all over the world body one idea that was born in the freerice.com game. it is used by many to prepare for sat tests and elsewhere.

nger.a great to stop hum the importer said of -- hunger will not be defeated until a leader of a nation says a child will not die under my watch, and i will put the right policies in place to make sure we can defeat hunger. we note china was the biggest project. today they contribute to wfp. today, brazil contributes to wfp. in his address in becoming the head of the african union, the president of mulaawi said that in five years, no child and never would die from hunger. that type of leadership has

mobilized africa to figure out the action steps to get that done. this can change the face of hunger in the world. as was opened here, we have seen the numbers of hunger going down, but it is still not under 25 million t-- 925 million too many. i still think we can and hunger. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we have a lot of questions. that is a great thing. how likely is it the number of hungry people in the world will continue to decline? what is the biggest danger that will make it increase again? >> the world needs to produce

50% more food in the coming decades. the population is growing. this has been one of the great challenges. so until recent years, we have seen productivity going up, prices going down, but we've seen a reversal of that in recent years. we have a challenge on how to sustain enough affordable food production for the world, and we saw during the food crisis that if you have energy prices high at the same time as you're having a financial or food issue, these things can begin to interact in a way. if you remember when oil was more than $100 billion -- $100 we of majorrel -- challenges in making sure we have access to food for all

people. again, the type of global action has led by the g-8 in g- 20 and others, keeping it top of the agenda. this is a win-win situation. i think the time has come for the african farmer, the world cannot reach that goal without the african farmer having the investment needed, and so i think there's opportunity -- is as great as the danger. >> what is the one most important thing the u.s. government hunger can do government hunger? >> i think leadership. the u.s. now has returned from a nation that at one point struggled with hunger issues and malnutrition issues come to a nation that exports -- we produce more than we need to sustain our own nation. but the leadership of being able to share that knowledge and the

technology to help the world feed itself is very key. and i think the leadership to demonstrate that this is not just a moral cost. -- a moral cause. it is good for education, investment, all of those issues. i love the whole government approach of taking and feeding the future. the other thing is to sustain the incredible commitment in reaching those who fall through the cracks. the nine states -- tears over $1 billion a year to help those who would be lost -- the united states is over $1 billion a year to help those who would be lost. >> what is the role that corruption plays in hunger? >> well, again, there is no reason why some countries should not be able to feed themselves.

we see corruption, that policies, we see governments that do not care. is not top of mind that some of their people are not eating, or we see people that are forced away from food because of discrimination or conflict. so we think all of those factors play a big role. the moral question that will have to ask ourselves is that if the child is trapped where there is a corrupt government or one that wants them to be starved out for whatever reason, should the child pay for that? and i will just say some of the places we work are some of the most challenging in the world, like somalia, where in most of the places, there is extreme -- is extremely dangerous and the needs of women and children are not high on the list of what is happening there.

so it requires the world being willing to stand by those in the most difficult situations and we need that support because often we are really in a very dangerous environments like that. >> in your role, are you willing and more able to confront leaders in countries where corruption is the biggest problem, either in public or private to take them on in that challenge? >> which typically control our own food lines and distribution. we require thatwf. has a zero fraud policy. you know, we have to do that. but we do not hand food over to governments that are corrupt, or any government, frankly. we run our own accountability

systems. we certainly in the places where we work, i have very strong discussions with governments, especially those that are capable of feeding their own people, that they need to take responsibility for that. we have partners in the u.n. the deal with the big policy issues on corruption and poor policies. for us, it is compelling morley that children should not be dying under their watch and raising awareness of that. -- compelling morlally. >> we saw food riots in mozambique'. where's the unrest? >> during the food crisis, one of the leaders of liberia that just came out of 20 years of civil war, a devastating situation. refugee situation.

many people dependent on the goodwill of the world to stay alive. they have come up with a great leader. president johnson. they said during the food crisis when prices doubled and tripled overnight that in liberia, there is no public opinion polls. the only poll is the price of food. and this is true in many nations. the price of food is high. what is our government doing? the price of food is good and people can't afford to eat, then it is a sign that things are going well. what struck me during the food crisis is liberia was experiencing the effects of forces outside of liberia. 70% food dependent. it was buying from global markets. there wasn't even food to buy a one. . they did not have enough cash to to compete with those who could put more cash on the table for food.

so i think and what we saw what mozambican, a combination -- in mozambique, there was a combination of factors that drove up the price of food. what it took in liberia to stabilize that situation was a $40 million investment, to make sure kids had food in school. this is where quick global action to be able to support avoid's can really help many years of struggle and strife. the civil war that started with the price of food 20 years earlier. it is important to watch. >> what has been the biggest humanitarian aid challenge faced in pakistan? >> massive challenge on every level. we are seeing natural disasters on a skill that is just not in

memory. if you can imagine that pakistan is the size of italy and it was under water. over the course of a month, 100 water bridges. and so we had a new humanitarian disaster every day breaking as this water moved down toward a from northern pakistan. this is the weakest population i have seen. they are deeply poor and the women are suffering terribly. we have seen a lot of generosity. the yen stays announce -- the united states has helped to reach the people with urgent help. by and large, we are not seeing the levels of giving from the world or online that we saw in haiti. we are very worried about

needing to get the attention of the world for this disaster. there are over 10 million people that have been assessed as not having food. the world food program is reaching 6 million of them. but they have missed the harvest. the next planting season possible is april. we're talking about a year of people dependent on the goodwill of the world to be able to survive. we're word about the sustainability, the disease outbreak, and the weak state of the total that we saw there. >> we will try to touch on as many places as we can. russia hasn't export ban on wheat into next year -- russia wheat.export ban on >> i think we will weather the storm of the russia banned

because of good harvest in the u.s. and elsewhere in the world. what we saw during the food crisis in 2007 and 2008 was a drought in australia affecting supply, driving up price, and then a whole series of that kind of negative market reactions, such as courting, closing down exports that all began to feed on themselves into creating a difficult situation. we think that the situation is quite different right now. and there has been a leading voice on this. to report they have said, we're seeing stocks rebuild. when the food crisis hit in 2007, emergency stocks or at an all-time low in the world

because everybody had been drawing down, the world have been consuming, in part for energy use. we're seeing stocks are rebuilt piercings some good harvests elsewhere that can help compensate. we are in a new world. when i first came to the world food program in 2003, we would check and adjust our commodity prices about once every year when two to every years. that is how slow things would move. and there would always pretty much go in the right direction. you could buy more food for less with greater ease around the world. in june of 2007, when i first set we may be facing the perfect storm, we were seeing prices going up about 10% every three months pre with thought, we had better watch this quarterly. things moving so fast. in that summer, the prices started to move 10% a month

until late double by january of 2008. we started watching them monthly. today we're watching them daily. i am getting, blackguard the reports of swings -- i am getting on my blackberry the reports of swings. we will not be taken by surprise as the world did with the quick change. this is to say that there are no mechanisms in place, including the secretary general's high- level panel of all the food- related agencies coming together to monitor this. i will host with the president of the world bank about what we're seeing and what it means. are we seeing this dynamic? so we're on this case. within the structural issues are different. but we're not taking anything for granted. in darfur, i heard "

trusted god, but tied down your camel." >> cost cutting -- what could that mean for programs like yours? >> we think it is critical to demonstrate that we can deliver with controls and effectively. it has been our philosophy not to spend a lot on promotion, but to spend a lot and trying to get the fundamentals correct. this has become difficult in places like somalia, where they kill people that try to deliver food often. but it is something that is steeped into our whole structure and culture. we were the only institution in the u.n. that is held to a 7%

cap on our overhead. this forces us to drive things down and be efficient and to make sure we are delivering food to kids with the majority of our money. but also these new innovative ways of dealing with the challenge. not every situation requires us bringing food from long distances. some do. some do. but not every situation does. but if we can use a voucher or cell phone, that is critical. we want to show the sustainability. we want to hand over to communities their own ability for self-sufficiency. we want to see nation's takeover. that is what we can at the celebration with the african nation. we're looking for alternatives were we have refugees to more efficient ways of delivering.

and why we watched our own cost- cutting measures. we have been able in the sudan to cut down our program tremendously by refocusing and retarding and providing savings. we feel these actions are critical. >> the obama administration has made domestic nutrition one of their key issues. the focus disadvantaged parts of washington, d.c. contrast domestic nutrition with the world hunger issues of but ministration. >> leadership always starts at home. after world war ii u.s. realize half the recruits were malnourished, and in signing up for military service. the u.s. got on the case of malnourishment and the cost to society. i will just say -- i spent most of my time overseas. i have seen a serious and sober

attitude in the u.s. for the challenges we face in the u.s. including repositioning food stamps with a greater focus on nutrition. i think that is powerful. i also think michelle obama's leadership on attrition. i tell my friends that nutrition is now cool. there used to being in their own little place. they are more like scientists then being used to having the big public stage. nutrition now for those who cannot afford and also for those who can and are now nourishing themselves were losing touch with the understanding of what to read and to properly and nourish ourselves per we have a challenge in the poor world and the rich world and those who are challenged in america and those who have too much food. i want to give the one small

example. in japan, i am a fan of school lunches and i go to them all over the world. japan has the oldest school feeding program in the world. it is a course in school. the kids have to construct the menu and a half to be able to have certain amounts of each item, proteins and oils and all of that. they don't get right, they flunk. but the nutrition education is quite profound. they have that with the lunch program. that type of plant and looking at the content of what our kids are getting. it is important. >> a couple questions on journalism. we'll get one in in your quicker happen journalist better cover hunger issues? >> i think during the financial

crisis, we saw some profound reporting. we have a reporter from bloomberg who was part of a great series looking at the nature of hunger and famine and the dynamics behind it in the global economy. this is very important. the financial times did a great job being on the case of the food prices early on. there has been books recently about what drives hunger and the relationship between global markets and local markets. i think is important. i also think it's important that journalists get out to the front lines and understand what vulnerability is. but still think we talk about affordable people it is a debate and maybe we will get on with meat and potatoes. when we had half as much food for the same amount of money, we were serving kids for what half a cup of food and the rotating

-- that kind of story is often not accessed by the press. to let people understand the nature of the result of the giving and the support for it. i think is important to connect up. i also find in she monetary situations -- is saw in haiti. if we went one day with a kid without food -- the outrage in the press. i share the outrage. but the understanding of the food supply change -- chained and what efforts these really take is really important. we are advocating for some front line efforts with the press to really come out and understand the nature of the humanitarian operation so they can also

accurately report what is happening in the whole effort to make sure every one is receiving goods. so, we need to bring attention to it. i think there should be a lot more attention to the huge program for the u.s. to help change the face of honker. >> all right. we are almost out of time. we have a couple of important matters to take care of. first of all, we would like to present you with the traditional national press club mud as a token of our appreciation. >> ok. [applause] >> not quite enough to feed you for a whole day. i would like to remind our guests of the upcoming speakers. we have senator john cornyn and senator rudman -- robert mendez. on october 6, margaret hamburg,

commissioner of the fda, and we have brian moynihan, president and ceo of bank of america. for our last question -- one of our audience members asked, once you fix the world under issue, can you fix the times? >> i was thinking maybe a week off or something. [laughter] you know, i keep saying our goals for the world food program -- our goal is to put the world food program out of business. it should be the goal of everyone running at an aid program not to perpetuate ourselves. i am not sure it will happen in the next 24 months or so or the next few years, but that is the goal in game 4 and i will give

it my all as long as i can. [applause] >> thank you for being with us today. thank you for coming. i would like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's event. for more information about joining the press club, please visit our website www.press.org. we are returned. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> coming up on c-span, british teenagers debate issues facing their country in the british use parliament. that is followed by a discussion on the legality of the government help for the auto industry.

then john bolton on threats to free-market economies. and then later, the george w. bush presidential library in texas groundbreaking. >> democratic strategist donna brazile this afternoon in a panel discussion with academics from law, history, and politics. here is a look. >> you look at the united states and what we have experienced here and how far we have come in a very brief amount of time. i think it is due in large part, to, to what we tend to bemoan and today, a train wreck of ideas. we can have a conversation about how those ideas should be expressed. but the train wreck, the clash of great ideas from the right and left, regardless of what

point of view you are coming from, drove the united states to the point of pre-eminence in the world in a short 250 years -- 250 years. if you go back and look at what our founding fathers called each other, you will hear what they mean. what we call each other today pales in comparison to what jefferson and adams were calling each other. jefferson and adams were such bitter adversaries and had such bitter policy rivalries that they were both obsessed about beating the other. jefferson died in virginia, and a couple hours later adams would die in his final words were " jefferson loses." >> you can see the entire program at 6:00 eastern here on c-span.

>> this weekend on both tv, with polling data from eight arab countries, james zogby questions stereotypes about the world and 9/11. this is part of our extended holiday weekend of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2. take a look at the new members of congress with the c-span video library. every new member is listed with their district map, the campaign finances, and any appearances on c-span. all free on your computer any time. it is washington, a doorway. more than 300 kids aged 11 through 18 gathered in the british house of commons last month for use parliament. they debate sex education in schools and the rising cost of university tuition fees. it was the first time anyone other than members of parliament

debated in the commons. >> colleagues, please be seated. welcome to this, only the second ever sitting of the u.k. youth parliament here and in the chambers of the house of commons. as you will have heard already, because the point has been made, on the -- on july 21 of this year, the house of commons voted to allow the u.k. youth parliament to meet and debate for the remainder of this

parliament be a subject which you decided should be debated. that decision was a ringing endorsement of the outstanding success of the first ever series of debates, which took place exactly one year ago. and it was also, members of the youth parliament, a symbol of the commitment of the house of commons better to engage with civil society in general and with young people in particular. of course, a cause which i imagine all of you will now know is dear to my own heart. i mentioned the 21st of july, which has an historic and enduring significance for you as

a parliament. if i may say so, at my request to the chief executive of the parliament, on july 24, i travel to belfast because i wanted to be present on the occasion of your annual general meeting, and i was, i confess, overwhelmed on that occasion by the warmth and generosity of the welcome you extended to me. in return for the warmth and generosity of that will come that you extended to me, i, on behalf of the house today, extend the warmest and most generous welcome possible to each and every one of you sitting here in the chamber, and to all the people who have aided

and abetted you in coming here today. i offer you that's welcome, not merely out of politeness -- though there is nothing, frankly, wrong with that. but out of respect. respect for what you are. respect for what you do. and respect for what i know you have -- you as a parliament will increasingly become, the legitimate and respected forum for the expression of the views of young people and the engagement in debate on crucial questions which affect you, your fellows, and society as a whole. and i know that many of my parliamentary colleagues here today from the deputy leader of the house, david keith, to the

chair of the business committee, and hundreds of others from all parties are united in respect of what we can learn from your own parliament in terms not merely of enthusiasm -- though that is certainly ever-present -- and the range of subjects you discuss, which is easily observable. but hal you represent as an institution. 50% of you or thereabout are female. approximately 20% of you are from a black and minority ethnic communities. approximately 10% of you have some form of disability. so, in terms of representing the kaleidoscope of modern society,

the u.k. use parliament does it very impressively and does it in -- use of parliament does it very impressively and does it in away from which the house of commons itself can learn. on this great occasion, i would like to say something about a very special man who is sadly no longer with us, and that man is called andrew grove who served as a member of parliament from mid-kent and sadly passed away two years ago. andrew m. the conservative member of parliament for that constituency, was all warm hearted man it was his vision to

establish a u.k. youth parliament as a forum for young people to debate and articulate and engage with each other and to contribute to the democratic process. he strove, often in lonely fashion, to establish the parliament. i know how proud he would be today of your presence and what you are going to offer, and from my point of view, it is a joy -- and i hope it is for you -- to be able to welcome andrews family who are in the other gallery over there, his children and grandchildren. you are hugely welcome, and you can be so proud of what andrew d. he was truly a great parliamentarian, a very decent man, and we hugely appreciate him. [applause]

we are going to get on to the great debates. enjoy yourselves. speak up. speak your mind. speak for your area. and recognize that it is a great privilege and it is a privilege which should be truly rewarding for you. we are thrilled to have you. we are going to get onto the main business of the day, because there is much to do as winston churchill used to say, and little time in which to do it. order, order. the youth parliament will consider the first motion of the

day relating to sex education as printed on the order paper. to move the motion -- and i asked you to give him a very warm welcome -- a call mr. joe than sense -- i call mr. joe vincent. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. may i thank you for getting us here today. rocess for getting us here today. we'll greatly value how you felt this so far. mr. speaker, the highest teenage rate, an increasing number of transmitted infections among young people knows compulsory sex education in the united kingdom. this is a dire situation we find ourselves in today. current legislation, no school in england or wales is compelled to teach their

students about sex and relationships in italy the governors of the school that decide what is taught. this is a disgrace. this approach has not only left many people naïve enough nowhere in this created an adversary postcode lottery. if you don't live in the ight area, you won't be taught the copyright status. because the school doesn't have to teach any of it. in fact, the only compulsory elements of sex education are contained in the science curriculum. and let us be clear, sex education covers a wide range of issues affecting young people and these include: safe practices, transmitted infectioions and legal issues surrounding consent and abuse. these, mr. speaker are clearly beyond the realms of science. it is this lack of education that is haunting society. the most recent figures showed that almost 43,000 young people, it is up to 19 had an abortion in 2008.

and in different terms, that's 117 abortions every day for those aged up to 19. other countries have shown that by teaching your people about sex and relationships from an early age, teenage pregnant he, sexually diseases: mr people or complement about themselves. we can't say that it singly or in person pulled from the tribes of preous generations. it makes sense if you teach a young person the basics of what is a good, healthy relationship is before there'll want to sex him about the confidence to make healthy decisions. sex education in this country is too little too late. we need to wake up to the facts. when he took what were doing to young people and say this is enough. why are we waiting until there is a problem to teach young people about sex education? were treating it like were

covering up behind a 30-ton. sex educationists circulate to stop the damage before it's too late. on a similar note, if we are serious about our commitment to ensuring a person is seven left in the dark, but we must remove a parents right to take their child out of sex and relationships education. it would be ridiculous of me to stand here and i mention religion. and i recognize the difficulty they propose to certain religions, which is why support the previous government's proposal to allow the source to their belief in education, too. i cannot stress enough how important it is that no young person falls through and not. thank you. [applause] >> tha you for getting us off to a confident, clear starter.

there lots of people to hear from today, but i do want you to appreciate the blood of my parliamentary colleagues are you today. as evidence of their strong support for you as an organizationfor each of you as an individual. timor 10. he's very shy, but your handout. lynn brown,, not. kerry mccarthy was the labour member of the minister and no doubt the colleagues who is now leaning forward expectantly. we wouldn't wantnot to notice you and it would indeed be impossible for any length of time. [laughter] is great to have you. i call ms. maria finnerty to oppose the motion. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. are a generation like no

other. and the world in which information can be trained mended at the click of a button, it is unsurprising that young people develop ideas influenced the media. images dominate media activiy and often preented socal and so recklessly that it is fido that our young people are provided with immediate responsible counterpart to sex and relationship education. 76% of teens surveyed across the country, including those in my own constituent he though that they needed more sex education. young people are clearly provided with inconsistent and in opera. sre. however, teams that take sex

education to young could exacerbate the effects of the media. i'm sure you'll agree that an understanding of relationship cannot simply be taught on the chart board, but requires experience of life, which primary children do not possess. any primary school teacher will uphold, promote and encourage the role ofparents as an educator, particularly between the impressionable ages of five and 10. it is simply not necessary for the state to interfere with the powers and race to enter this crucial that that delicate moral issue with their own young children. essentially, we are experiencing a traffic laws of the child. and what, high street reveals a distressing turn to the adult design. children with playboy symbols. our children are being sexualized too young and we must

aim to protect this short-lived innocence. sre is simply an appropriate within primary curriculum. the issue quite clearly does not lie within the thought, but how thoroughly and how consistently. the sex education recently brought up the main concern of youths is in my norm? we must not do love young men and particularly young women to their self image is tormented by a media which often fails to acknowledge differences in shape, size and appearance. we must dispel the illusion that they must conform to the media image of perfection and teach them and set the value of their own unique bodies. i believe that teaching children

sex education at priry sool will be too much to young. let us defend the innocence of childhood. it is a sedentary school age that sre becomes crucialor the health and well-being of millions of young people. thank you. [applause] >> maria, thank you for an excellent contribution. now, who wants to take part in this debate? any people to indicate, and you've been told how to do so. >> we are separated by or social backgrounds more than anything else. therefore would be blind to believe that when unilateral policy would be the answer. what is needed is a policy-based

and a solid aim to reduce, teenage pregnancy rate venture promote all aspects of relationships. sex education is not a. one size does not fit all to solve this problem. it's a waste of time, money and resources that an effective policies launched the entire country. education is bad for ignorance. ignorance will exist not only o pass an exam, but how to take care of their own well-being. with the right education and the right to help comes the rights of the health education. it is not a question of morality, but a question of equality. why should some children in this country have education when others do not? they also have some form of personal health education and sex education as a new part of action that came through in a

local area priorities for what they wanted to do. at only 1.6% of people who voted out the dirt education was an issue. however, 60% of young people feel that their education is out of touch. the government has to take responsibility twos education. for inequality, which affects the basic well-being of the human being is unacceptable in state society. financially, sexual education is highly viable. if you teach teenagers about prevention measures, then it would reduce the cost and accept thousands each year, thus helping the 20 billion pounds efficiency and productivity savings the government had introduced this year.

but in education needs to be on people. the right topics are introduced, the numbers continue to rise, money wasted. this is why a curriculum finalized the local level and meet the needs of each young peon. this way, every young person is to be valued and every young person in this country can be equal. [applause] >> young gentleman with the red tie at the back. >> thank you, mr. speaker. other members weekdays a fast growing and serious issue. >> from which part of the country? >> i was mips -- [inaudible] as my reasonable friend that in the past three years we have a sre relationship nd people in

my constituency sex education when it exists is very limited, often focuses on contraception, inception and not getting pregnant, but it doesn't tackle the issues of feelings, otions, competence or communication. and we need to put this in an appropriate cultural context. and also i would like to remind the honorable members here that the children and families those in parliament in some concessions along the way due to our position. not me personally and my constituency believes that this is an absolute disgrace and a complete betrayal to young people who actively requested that sex education is to be better provided. [applause] >> magnificent. the suit were very reluctant to go first. can we have someone from

northern ireland. chairwom there. >> i'd like to look at this from a large perspective first of all. i believe teenage pregnancy is an appropriate measure of the excessive quality of sex education jurisdiction. it's often about to say with the highest in western europe, but that's in context. first of all, 197, 50.6 births were teenage mothers. however, in my own region, north of ireland, only 23 were to teenage mothers. but the massive decrease. and i can perhaps attribute type to the education is initiated by or department of health. a 6.6% decrease since 2000, despite the fact they were come pretty assistant during the 90s. the point would be that we are at evere risk of over

sexualizing our primary school children. their innonce should be safe, not sacrificed for the sake of a statistic. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. the young lady here. >> bobby simmons. i feel we have misnamed this debate. i feel that relationships, are more important and this is why i've completely wholehearted he agree with the decision to take them to rsa. we have our prioritis wrong. relationships should concur. relationship is key to good, safe and informed sex. we neeto look to relationships first. t then again, i'm not saying that sex is wrong. it's not wrong to have. it's good and it can ld to better things. [cheers and applause]

and with that, shows they guess we are extreme deep sexualizing our primary school children. but why should we teach them about relationships? why should we teach them about life? why should we teach hem about how to have good relationships and then it could lead onto sex. it is not wrong for sex, but yet it's too early. therefore, i think we should teach in more context of private school relationships and then move ont sex. so my point here is that we have our priorities wrong. relationships first leading to and that's how we should educate our children. [applause] >> young men they are.

yes indeed, sir. >> yes, i'd like jamaica plain first of all about age in primary school. i can't imagine praised by telling this is what happens when you get an. it shows that relationship first and other things in relationships to sex education that you can bring an earlier and think about and education primary school defensible. it must be mentioned that he pushes a button in today's society and you see images they are learning from friends or roommates. the government has an opportunity to tell people versed about sex enemies to keep up with the media speed and sexual imaging. thank you. [applause]

>> members of the parliament, we've been joined by tumor colleagues. valery who is worse outcome a labo member. and allison mcgovern is with us as well. the thank you both for coming. my name is landry ever allowed, of london. i think it's important that we keep the innocence of young people. i don't think it's a good idea to corrupt the minds of young people into thinng i'm going to catch and std if i do this and do that because i wouldn't want my brother coming home again told me today learned about and chlamydia. that is not good at all. also we've got in primary schools i'm sure they teach sex education from the age of year five. they teach them about sex, the basics, not about sexual

transmitted infectio. that'shen they start to learn more in detail about what's going on if you do this and you do that. so we should keep it at that instead of making them think i'm five yearsold, when i get to lebanon to this and this is going to happen to me. now. [laughter] >> thank you. colin ashworth. >> my name is owen ashworth from halt the north was. young people with he quality of sex education is diabolically of the information they have taught today. that is the best case they can get worse for some individuals,

which has tten a disbility get no sex education becae it's the social norm. [applause] >> the young woman over there. >> johnny davis from bristol. as it has been said before, this is not about teaching girls about std's for using a. it's teaching gross to have a healthy relationship in the future. his teaching about confidence, and in my normal thing, same everyone develops at different stages. everyone is ready for sex at a different age and this is not about the facts and the figures and the birds and the bees. they should be left to when you're older. the young people are having sex from the age of 11 or 12.

and if we left it too late, these people can already get pregnant. i have known by people of that kind of age that i've got pregnant. we need to teach people about the respect and when the right time is a need to teach that not necessarily from site, but from a quite l&h. i would have someone tell me, maybe they should drink some more alcohol, then they'd be ready for their first time, which is completely out of order. no one should have to feel pressured into anything. the age of consent, std's, everything else. not enough is put on feelings, personal appearance and confident to say no until you are ready and in a healthy relationship. [cheers and [applause] >> thank you very much indeed for what you have to say.

have we got a female member from the west midlands who might like to contribute, no? yes, i think we have. [inaudible] i just like to say in private schools i think we should secure the relationship and making sure they have a healthy relationship betwn the persons. it's not actually that much more familiar and used to be improved on. the thing is what needs to be improved on we also need to government relationship and sex, but also we have new sent this for these children to. u.k. i think maybe we should have this game, which ten goes to school, which young people would feel more comfortable talking to persons like that. i think some thers feel

awkward and i cannot sex education in that situion should be -- [inaudible] thank you. [applause] >> whoever got from wales who was waiting to speak? young woman myor. thank you. >> i have ben taught nothing of relationships or sex education at her. i got nothing until i was in biology lessons, i thought how you actually got pregnant and how humans reproduce. i was utterly shocked and that's probly different as i'm sure a lot of people's parents would give them that information. but i simply believe in primary school age they should be taught

about safe and loving retionships. by your parents or stepparents order who brought you up and is developed here because that is the way forward on that. d i don't think that in secondary school it should be brought into much more depth, not only do things such as pregnancy and sdis, but also more the relationship side of it, so that it can be attacked as a good team, which is like the dangers that a always shocked to you, that you almost do it because it's dangerous. and i learned far more from the show that maria mentioned that i have ever learned in school, which i think is just wrong.

[applause] >> i'm going to call the young woman from buckingham. >> hello, am at their psyche. ladies and gentlemen, britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in europe and there was a social and political reasons for this. but the most paramount thing about rectifying this issue is education. we need to educate young people on sex andrelationships. and it is not just making it compulsory, but we need to have a basic standard of sre and

schools. see, if we look at the system at the moment, the fltuations between different schools, different counties is now says. some of my friends have had comprehensive and consistent sre education, whereas i in my entire life can count about three and a half hours. two of those were in primary school when i learned about how the human reproductive sstem works. one of those within europe when i walked into a biology class and that is slightly more in depth about how the human reproductive system works. and one of those was 45 minutes in which i learned how difficult it was to put on a condom. so the thing about it is we need to prevent young people from learning about relationshi and sex through google and costa. we are thoroughly distorting the ideas the better relationships.

we need to teach young people about contraception, about safe back, but relationships, but how to spot an abusive relationship before it starts. it is a huge thing. and for those who say that sre is by the pairings for the children -- [inaudible] who feel thoroughly mortified about having to talk with parents, raise your hands. [inaudible conversations] cameras in my hands, mom, if you're watching as well. [cheers and applause] every single context they form an existence has had. okay, we starwhen we were

teenagers. [applause] >> right, before this debate is found up with that time -- i'm going to create time for two very short contributions. young women here. and then for the east of england. just at 10 yeah speaker. i believe that it's paramount not only to teach children and young people about what is a healthy relationship and how to manage one's, but to help teach them about managing quality and to bring the poicy and society. and the only way to do studies teacher and from from a young age that is perfectly acceptable to have same sex relationships, for example. i'm not in my constituency, there still is a lot ofthat occurs and i'm sure the same approximation. and the only way to tackle this is to teach children from a

youn age that is perfectly acceptable to have the same sex relationship and it's perfectly normal to have a relationship and that's the only way to stop this inner quality that so does occur. [applause] >> thank you for that speech. as you can taught me the real impact. east of england, whoever got from the east of england? young woman here. [inaudible] >> why is it so important because why should a young person be free to be intimate and have sex when it's not safe over the edge number they could access a much different information when you could go to a school in a safe environment of veteran teachers. i think it's much better. and also, what information you find i know quite a lot of young people that would want to know about it and the only other

solution is the internet because personally i wouldn't want my parents to talk about sex with my parents. i would be able to do it. i think it's better that it's taught in a safe environment rather than going to the internet for your produce a much different information. [applause] i'm afraid that excise the time available for speeches. please don't be upset or in any way discouraged if you didn't have the chance to speak in this debate. there were other debates upcoming as you know. if you're keen to contribute, please stand and i'll try and get as manof you as ey possibly can to have your say. i call and i hope he'll give a warm welcome as i call her, ms. felicity stone hill. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, honorable speaker.

i would like to thank all of you for a very valid points. sex and relationship education is a new topic to be debated and i myself am honored to be able to discuss a crucial topic with all of you today. but compulsory sex and relationship education is something that is strived for and it is something we have been campaigning for a further five years. last year we were just days away from making compulsory sre laws and yes, we did have a disappointing outcome. but i believe is a unified organization we can make the government set up and listen to her campaign. i would like to mention us as our dependence and by many others before her, that this i not just sex and sex education in the anatomy of it. this is sex and relationship education. many believe teaching children about relationships ring on each such as primary school is finally important to their development. and those children should understand the needs of relationships, such as trust and

respect. not just respect for yourself, the respect for one another. maybe with this knowledge as they mature, we can have a generation with a better attitude towards them. today we're asking what age should education be applied? somewhat argue secondary school. the connect independent sre, said many worked successfully to provide sre, even in faith organizations with their particular surrounding the delivery of sre. also, it was highlighted this education is strongly valued by parents and young people. right now, our generation could have a much bigger view,from things such as peer presure and as bernie mentioned, sexualized media format. and this can lead to repercussions such as teenage pregnancy, which is something for all fully aware of as we've heard so many times. this can lead to negative opinion of her generation and this is not the way that young people to be represented.

i think most of us can agree that sex education is important to young people with the right education, teenagers know what to say now. so what i'm asking you today is to think about your own experiences and decide which you think could have been done differently. anything current sex education would've affected you or change her attitude toward sex and relationships today. thk you. [applause] >> felicity, thank you for winding up our debate so welk yr winding up our debate so well. the debate really has been very striking, characterized by people speaking with knowledge, with passion, with poise. and i think you'll find that the serious media will treat you with great respect because what you've done has been frankly fantastic. we now move on because it's time

for the youth parliament to consider the second motion of the day rlated to university tuition fees have printed on the order paper. to move te motion, please give them a warm welcome. i call m james bartel. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as members will be aware, a few weeks ago, brian brown published his report into the future of higher education in this country. lord browne listed the cap and university tuition fees, paving the way from raising fees to an average of 6000 pounds. mr. speaker, this price in fees is absolutely necessary if we are to maintain high standards in our education system. the reality is that at the moment we are reaching a crisis point in university funding. many universities are starved of

cash with which your cuts of some 2.9 billion pounds to university and there is a massive gap to fill. the director general of the ruell group, which represents 20 of the uk's type university said we desperately need our money if we are to give students the education they deserve. mr. speaker, there is a real risk that standards and universities will fall if investment is not sustained. but of couse, mr. speaker, quality is not the only factor we should consider. turner should be at the heart of our university system. we must all remember that students do not pay a penny for their university education. you don't pay a penny until you leave. nobody will pay for their education until they've left universities, they started working and they are earning over 21,000 pounds a year. if their wages go down, so will the payment.

if they stop orking, the nonpayment will stop as well. mr. speaker,hat is fair. because in the end, the peron that benefits more from having a degree is the student. if you have a degree, you can get better paying jobs which would be significantly harder if he didn't have a degree. it's estimated over the course they graduate with an average 23.5% more than somebody who doesn't have a degree. so why should the taxpayer has to pay for the privilege of that young person to ha enough extra money? turning to he issue of debt, people are rightly worried about the level of debt they get into at universities. what they should think about, amounts th would add to the level of national debt in this country if the taxpayer had to put a gap in the funding. the debt we get into at universities in goa, compared to the 952 billion pounds of debt,

which our generation has been set but because of the economic mismanagement of the previous government. it is true an that is a record that the previous government shoulde ashamed of and a record for which, mr.'s weaker are yet to apologize. mr. speaker -- are back again, this is true. no mr. speaker, in this debate we have a clear choice. we can vote for bill universities come which are funded to a fair contribution from graduate or we can say no. the students don't have to pay any more. we will then have to upset that we have third-rate universities, which gives students decrease of little value. i know the choice i would go with. i hope also share in a few and i commend this motion to the house. [applause]

>> thank you for that very robust opening speech. to oppose the motion, i shall in a moment i'll mr. connor morgan. i know you'll give him warm weome. and i just informed members of the youth parliament. but, will say some words and irish gaelic and he will then, for all of our benefit, repeat the media in english. mr. connor morgan. [cheers and applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> loosely translated that was thank you, mr. speaker. it was a great honor to stand before you and have the opportunity to address you in irish now back to thank you for the opportunity.

cop mark 70,000 pounds -- the amount a student will pay is 32,000 pounds, the amount of data never suitable patient they cast the left as indicated in the steamy affair. then they put this in perspective. the avere wage in the u.k. each year is 25,543 pounds. but let m ask you something. is that very reason e capital tuition fees, educational become a privilege only for those that can afford it? [cheers and applause] is it just that the members of parliament who have an education paid for the state may expect u the innocent and disenfranchised is economic mess to pay for the mistakes they have made.

as of right turns are we as young people are considered or constantly being told we are the future? our future appears to be a burden of debt and uncertain job ospects. we are the representatives of young people. we believe education is to write that everyone should be entitled to. we do not believe the welfare class should pay a factor and we most certainly do not believe we should be expected to begin our life trapped beneath a burden of death of up to 30,000 pounds. this also meant 5% of young people, all of whom opposed nothing. we do not think the young people in these proposals have been adequately consulted and that those who choose not only to maintain education began an enormous debt, but they are choosing to worsen an already entirely unjust circumstances. what kind of society do we live in when one of three young people choose their university based on how much it will cost them? for panic education system allows them to be left behind? account decision makers on the

latest of young people, but also make rash decisions -- i can ever pronounce this word, decision so negatively affect the lives of many. we must stand up come we must. we must send a clear message to decision-makers that our education must never be a compromise. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you and congratulations. can i just issue on appeal? i'll try not to make the mistake myself, but the appeal is if you've already spoken, please don't stand at this stage because obviously there's lots of people who have another chance to speak at an invite to give them that opportunity. perhaps we can at the young woman here. yes, you. [laughter] >> no disrespect, this young woman here.

>> i'm alex from the midlands. but kind of society do we live in where you could date job where you have to go on to university and the degre is not a level. we should be able to leave school and then go get training argot apprenticeships into that. now i've got to go into debt to get a job that's not as good as we would've gotten four years ago. it's not right. [applause] >> whoever got from the northeast england? motives, got some young men here. >> thomas robinson from middlesboro and northeast. young people in bittersweet constituency by midterm report suggestions for him. and middle story we have been magnificent teesside university, which s recently named university here, the 16th out of 23 and middle spurt are socially drived, so it's obvious that our young people do find it hard to pay to goo university, even when they're academically ble.

we believe the rising tuition fe will make our higher education system belly disco or the rich can afford to go and the poor cannot. and we urge the coalition government not to make such a devastating decision, which will no doubt exclude so many young people from achieving their true potential. thank you. [applause] >> someone from london. young women here. >> barnburner boren -- [inaudible] i should go to the university next year. i suspect quite a few of you are. how michael and pay pay my tuition fees when i leave, but also how mike went o live and have a social life when i fall into the as i would get nothing. i look at the lowest amount that the government can possibly give me. how many times do you hear i learned friend from my learned

colleague. there learned because they go to university. how many bmps haven't been to university? they practically all have in their charge take that aw from our generation, away from us. is that really fair? [applause] >> thank you. what about somebody from the west midlands who hasn't spoken before. what about the young man here. yes. >> thank you, speaker. my name is tommy and i am from birmingham. at the universities that allow the tuition fees at 10,000 pounds a year. a young student in the university will attend 50,000 pounds. working-class demands, like my onstituency, may be put off and to the university and following their dreams.

these universities and institutions for the rich d not the institution for the talented. [applause] >> can we have somebody from wales? who have the cup from wales? two people standing for miles. yeah, the young woman here. [laughter] >> how many of you live in this state? [inaudible] well, seeing as most of you i disagree because some emily is may be able to afford their tuition fees. some may not as they might have more bigger families. but people with vigor families would stop their children from going to university. or would you stop them from having more children? and from my point of view, i would say to stop them -- stop

the tuition fees from getting tinier as some people might not be able to afford them and some may, but the people who can't, then youhould think of them more than the people who can. [applause] >> thank you. what about the southeast? what about the young gentleman here? s. >> the young man from buckingham. may i point out that the government has promised that should university tuition fees drop, there will be enough money to get from student loans or more scholarships to cover the cost? now i actually think that the government and the loan repayment threshold actually puts them into a different decision because they will have more money and they may not get it back. yeah, 40% cuts in the university

budget are over four years. it is inevitable that we have to stand against it because simply we can't. what we should focus on now is how much university fees will rise by, whether there were still be a cap or not. whether we're going to turn into a free market, where universities and churches much as they play. [applause] >> to do we have somebody would like to contribute from the east of england? i think the young woman in the back is about to explode. [laughter] 's >> thank you, speaker. i am from the university and i am very proud of what i'm doing right no when i had about tuition going up, the next day it was shocking. there were -- discerning mac i

do not agree with what he is doing. you have the ability of what it's causing. add value to get a career, not a jot. i don't think you should say you have go and you don't need a degree. but i want to get a degree. the one thing i've realized, cleverly, with economics, they said just recently, that there is a public or universities, that they go private. this is a process that happens in america and we see how unspent our process is in america that sees bitterly equaling encourager blames the amount we pay and i? i be horrified to have to leave to the death of 50,000 pounds.

it's a privilege we have the universities in the u.k. so lord browne, please consider them because i do not agree personally as students who have to now think about okay, if the university. it's a massive thing. and to conclude one argument that i won't say about lord browne. there is a standard in terms of the points. future taken into account the budget for them to pay. students will not be eligible for financial report integrates were below the standards. so what is the stanrd to detain universities? [applause] >> i'm looking for a speaker from yorkshire and humberside. we've got a whole gathering of you there. what about the young woman with blond hair. yes, yes.

>> i just like to say that in 2008, i actually headed in the house of lords and for abolishing university tuition fees. in two years time i still agree that it should be not to your son where we are by what we wanted and was to lower it to not have existed sover and cut the education they deserved. and it's not working that way. i understand the universities need the funding, but if i'm coming from somewhere else, i mean, not two days. not completel. without the other other day trying to write for next year. i thought this ne screen and i uld think about was the death of money and how much i wanted to go and how much i knew

there'sothing more that i wnt to go to university. i've always wanted to go. that's something i've always wanted to do. and now i'm doubting whether i can. thank you. [applause] 's >> can we have a speaker from northern ireland, please, which is what we're looking for. [inaudible] .. the special adviser said

[unintelligible] we need to get the economy back on track. [applause] >> thank you. the young woman here has been waiting patiently for some time. go ahead. [inaudible] >> we lived in a meritocracy. [unintelligible] [applause] >> i know people are keen, but there are hundreds of view, and i am doing my best. it is time for someone from the northwest and i do need to call a young man at this stage.

you sir, yes, indeed, you. you are on the stage. you have the floor. welcome. like to jog your attention to -- [inaudible] i wonder if you can tell mehat is there aboutthis. students at the moment pay the same that those locally, so in the e.u. if you came from the e.u. to study in scotland, you pay what the scots pay, which is nothing. if i were to study in scotland i would have to pay 1175 pounds probably more. i live in the e.u..

i am english and i can't study in scotland for the same money. how on earth is that fair? [applause] >> what about the young man just at the end of that little court if? yo you are looking around. no, the check to your right. yes, you. indeed. welcome. >> ben lacy. the government can't afford to put any more money into the university system, which is what is causing this rice to each individual in student fees, but the other option is, the truth is there are too many peop being driven into universities when it is not the right option for them. more partnerships and more work placement would mean less strain on the university system and allow government to fund those spaces and give them the education they need, without

driving up debt to that individual. [applause] >> okay, you have been waiting very patiently. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the academies education system should return to the latest system. when a brown report is adopted the coalition -- we are told with a the kaplan piece we will have no effect on young people. opinion such as this demonstrate how to -- even going as far as to cutting at the annual program which encourages young people to attend the university. generation of politians that attend universities for free and sure thousands of disadvantaged young people from reaching their potential. no that there is going to be the

university tuition fees, the future jobs bunch of benefit and of course surely young people are in a more than most. [applause] >> i am looking for a female speaker from the southwest. can we have a female speaker from the southwest? okay, your good self. >> i am from dublin. just some rough numbers here. a three-year degree for the current university levy, 9900 pounds. student accommodation for the first tier 150 pounds a week in 40 weeks is 6000-pound. the second year 52 weeks, 9100-pound, 9100-pound. books for degree each year, 300-pound, transport to and from university per and am 500-pound.

this gives a conservative total of 35,500 pounds. now consider raising the levy for the university brandon. recalculate this total and you get ,000 pounds and 600 plus 2.5% above inflation. now consider a medical degree for seven years, and then if someone wants to go to a university the cost could go up to 12-pound a year. now in effect this is discriminating against young people from poor backgrounds and i believe that everyone should be born into the world with an equal rights to succeed. even thoh this is never going to be achieved i think that we should try and ove one step further towards that or in this case, prevent the government from moving a step backwards. thank you. [applause] >> here here, thank you. once again tie is their enemy and to conclude the debate i do

need to call mr. daniel palmer. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. i've always wanted to say that. there it is. what do you think the effect would be if tuition fees were to rise? that is a question i've been asking young people and they came back to me and said that people from low or middle income milies will be put off from going to the university, causing them to be institutions for the rich only. they said a rise in tuition fees would also cause the gap between the rich and the poor to increase and said it would be unfair that people who cannot afford to go to universy should be deprived of the opportunities of those who can't. now there has been a lot of strong support and justification for a rise in tuition fees. some of these being that universities and always the right path ferber want to go down to get a higher paying ob but the rich should be promoted

by the government said said his apprenticeships come and college education. they argue it is a rise in tuition fees would deter people to fool around for a couple of years at the taxpayers expense and set the reducing meer people which go to university increases the value am the worth of a degree. fairness. it has been mentioned in te media quite a lot recently and also in this house today. i would like to ask the house to think about these following questions before they vote. is it fair that the people who cannot afford to go to university don't have the same opportunities than those who can't afford to do so? equally, sit there that the taxpayers should pay for your education when you takall the benefits? youth parliament. should university tuition fees rise? [applause]

>> thank you for another lively and well-informed dete, which i hope you enjoy it. again i say to people who didn't get called, don't despair. have another go. this i'm afraid is the daily experience of colleagues when normally the demand to speak exceeds the number of slots available. youth parliament will now consider the third motion of the daand the last of the morning session, relating to job opportunities as printed on the order paper. to move the motion i call mr. mohammad abbas honey if. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker members of the youth parliament, education is the passport to the future for tomorrow belongs to those who favor it today. how many of us are prepared at 16? how many employers want to employ 16-year-olds in the current economic climate? by giving young people to extra

years of school or training we are giving them breathing space. an extra two years to gain additional skills, an extra two years to prepare but most importantly a possible two years in the -- y. through 16 euros out in the cold economic climate rit now wh we can do something about this? that is why support raising the age to 18 immediately. the scol age is rising to 18, however survey opportunities for young people are decreasing month by month. cuts haven't been implement it everywhere. young people are finding it difficult to get jobs or even internships as older more educated people are taking them. the office for national statistics showshere are currently 742,000, 18 to 24-year-olds who are unemployed. some may save the school isn't for everyone and not everyone is an academic but let me ask you something. who said you have to pour your head into books for another two ars? who said you have to do exams for another two years? you can do practical partnerships and part-time

education or training if you are employed, self-employed. as we heard last week at this very -- releasing another 490,000 jobs. is that there? is that fair for 16-year-old to leave school knowing that 490,000 jobs are being cut and his or her chances have become even more difficult? is met there for them to another two years and possibly have a stronger case to gain a job when the economy has recovered? the extra two years also gives the government time to source more jobs for those who intend to leave education at 18. this way young people have time to build more academic or practical skills be a training accountant or a decorator. work experience is another major factor. one experience is not enough for young people to decide wch course they want to choose and turn into the future career. work experience provides invaluable experience. provides people to learn directly about working life and

allows them -- i believe we need more experience. some people my say that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to choose to go to work or stay in school or training. simple answer to that is, how in this climate will a 16-year-old be able to find a job that so many others are fighting for the job with education and experience? being unemployed at such a young age has a long-term impact. do we really want is for young people? this isn't about me or you. this is about us are going to stick together and work on the bigger picture, getting our young people the best possible start in life in tough times. i believe staying in school until 18 is the way forward. thank you are very much. [applause] steam ahamed, thank you for that splendid and articulate speech to open our debate. just before i called the second speaker to oppose the motion i

would like to mention that jim dobbin, my parliamentary colleagues from the northwest if memory serves me heywood and middleton is present and behind him, looking suitably self-effacing as in beer but thiss the honorable gentleman from aldrich brown hills mr. richard shepherd. soe will welcome him. [applause] and last but not definitely not least i think lurking behind the chair is the honorable gentleman, the member from bowls over, mr. dennis skinner. [applause] i want very warmly to welcome dennis, because he is a parliamentarian who has always spoken his mind without fear or favor on every subject, and if memory serves me correctly, he entered the house on june 18th,. and he has served without interruption since, for 40

years, four months and 11 days. he is a very senior member. dennis you are very welcome. [applause] >> strayed from the coal face dennis just said to me. thank you dennis for being with us and giving your encouragement. tony baer who retired from a house in 2001, famously said, and not with dennis's, tony blair said any purpose of the oldest to give encouragement to the young. so there we are. to oppose the motion i call mr. adam osmond. [applause]

>> thank you very much for this opportunity for everybody here to get a new facebook profile picture. [laughter] allen sugar, rhard bronson, delius smith, three people who built themselves up from nothing, three people who worked hard for wha they wanted, three people who got where they wanted to be. but what do all of these people have in common? they all left school at 16. i am not for one minutes ago suggesting that everyone should go out and get a job when they are 16 because we all know that the jobs are simply not out there. the point is, everyone should have a conscious choice to continue with education or get a job at 16. nobody should be forced into education against their will. that is a presumption frankly originating from the dark ages. it will cost 60 million pounds to keep everybody in education until they are 18 and in a time

of cuts, that is ludicrous. education is not for everyone. and i appreciate it has been said already that is motion does not just include education by training and apprenticeships as well. however, it must be said that with the loss of the connection service in most local authorities due to the cuts last week, it will be harder than ever to find these placements. the work connections did to get young people into apprenticeships and training is invaluable and will be sorely missed. because of this lack of support to young people, job opportunities will be lost and youth unemployment will rise. these people who would have left and found a job at 16 will be foed to say in school and possibly become a disruptive influence in the classroom. there is a point in my area. a nice little plug. his father's a owner of a local sweets shop. the boy helped out with his father in the shop for

generations, as generations have gone before. when he turned 16, his father was taken ill and could no longer work. under the motion put before you today, he could not take this business on. are we really saying they wish to see this family sweet shop and other businesses sold up the cassette 16 he has to be in education and is clearly not mature enough to run a business? nowadays, employers increasingly preferred to take on workers who have ample work experience needed to do the job. so by writing the age of 818 -- 18 u. of two years less work experience compared to somebody who left at 16. for what? a few extra qualifitions? one life experiences more valuable than anything. extend this to the end of the university. you will have six years less work experience than a graduate of the same age. what does the graduate have? eighth two-2-degree in klingon, a 40,000-pound debt and they are

unemployed. how does keeping a young person out of the system for six years solve our nation's youth unemployment crisis? the answer, it doesn't. [applause] >> i looking to call people from parts of the country is so far have been slightly underrepresented in the debate and beginning with wales. somebody from wales who wants to speak. the young man there, please. >> josh rom wales. given today's economic climate this country does not have the money to fund qualifications to some people who to be frank don't want them. there are some people who are quite happy to leave school at 16 and go work in a shop. there are some people who are quite happy to settle down, have a family and live on jobseekers allowance for the rest of their

lives. i don't see how these qualifications will benefit them. it is a total waste of money. [applause] >> thank you. i see we have enjoined by the honorable member from birmingham, give us a wave. [applause] thank you very much for joining us. i'm looking to call someone from the west midlands. the young man there at the end who just had his hand up. >> a new recent survey conducted by -- we found one in three young people who don't receive enough support from education system. is the pride we failed these young people for an extra two years? you don't agree that education becomes about passing exams. we need to change this and change education so we are producing branded young people that have the skills to go into employment, to go to university

and only hen can we meet society's demand and take our education system into the 21st century. [applause] >> i'm looking from someone from london. hands up, somebody from london. the young woman there. yes, your good self. >> i represent london. ladies and gents, can we take into consideration that the vernment would like to cut people like -- as well as they are now hiring the age to 18 for ople to take -- stay in school. they want people to go and stay until 18. however, they want to cut down the people that get into university. at the end of the day, the people that get their extra qualifications and get into university have -- we have

lowered our hired the age of joe barton james. who is going to get a job to pay that much debt off? everyone says education is not for everyone. some people wanted in some people don't. internships and job opportunities and -- is named for people. academics and education and t get our heads in the books is needed for others. cawe think about this wisely? wasting money and saying how people cannot invest and how the lady back of the band said that she actually wants to learn not to get a career but learn to get her degree. can we take this into consideration, please? thank you. [applause] >> i'm looking to call from someone from the east of england. who is from the east of england? a young woman there. you deserve to be called because i called you earlier and someone thought that i was calling them so go ahead. >> to consider that the motion is not to keep everybody and

lessons until they are 18 is to keep them in education, not necessarily in books. we can have apprenticeships, work experience and work with books alongside job opportunities. everybody knows what they want to do at 16. i am fortunate that i know what i want to do at 16 but not everybody does. keeping them in education for two more years might help them gaining an idea of what they want to do when they are older plus the rising university fees the government is insisting on would have not help to get more qualifications to help them get a better job in the future? [applause] >> yorkshire and humber side. yorkshire and humber side. sir, let's hear from you. >> i think not everybody is capable to stay on after they are 16. nick brewer. everybody is capable to sy on the extra two years. i think the have got to make the

choice whether they want to, whether it is right for em. because of the cuts in the loss of the connections and most parts of the u.k. due to the cuts it is going to hinder their choice to decide whether they want to stay or not. of. [applause] >> someone from northern ireland. the young man here has been patiently waiting. >> alex easton from east belfast in northern ireland. i think it is an absolute disgrace that people are sitting here to say that i should be dictated to and told i have to leave school at 18. if i want to leave school at 16 i shold be entitled to prepare if you raise the age to 18, how long until they risa to 21 and the tuition fees thing, what is going to happen to that? we live in a state where we are controlled and watched in the thought of controlling our education even more is an absolute disgrace. thank you.

[applause] >> how about somebody from the east midlands? yes, the young woman here from the east midlands. yesterday, you. >> i'm from east midlands. personally i think making the age to 18 will benefit the statistics involved with youth unemployment. but it won't hide the fact that the financial problems young people face. i realize you need a job and you are at college and i am not amazed that any money i get at the moment is from my parents. and the fact that ama -- people whose parents have a lot less are going to struggle a lot more. so i think that raising theage isn't going to benefit in any way. [applause] >> thank you. somebody from the northwest. hands up from the northwest. what about the young man there with a checkered shirt. to.

>> if education is made compulsory for 16 to 18-year-olds, it will be disruptive and more vocational cause will beasted in a way. this will make the standard of the drop and could affect those who want to be in college. thank you. [applause] >> somebody from the southwest. yes, the woman here with a red blouse. >> i'm vicki from -- people think in education is not necessary to the employment. for many people education does lead to a better job. to some it doesn't. gordon ramsey for exame left school at 16. he is now woth 67 million pounds, much more than most people believe school at 18.

staying on at 18, he could've got in 1-800-level. perhaps he could have done free technology learn the same skills that he now has but not as good. it wouldn't have been any good to him. and if he had not stayed in school hwould have been in a class full of people who maybe didn't want to learn, may be disrupted the class of people have already mentioned. and that could have ruined his life chances. many young people, staying in education is essential for them. young people should be given the choice. may be encouraged to stay in encouraged to benefit and improve their life chances but not force. young people desire the choice. [applause] >> thank you. someone from the northeast. what about the young man right at the back? >> tom hunter. i think ladies and gentlemen we are thinking too much of statistics at the moment.

i think we need to remember that these are real young people we are talking about. we need to remember that they should have a chance is at the age of 16, you can decide whether not to engage in sexua activity. you can decide whether or not you want to go and fight in the armed forces. why it 16 can you decide whether or not to leave education? we need to make it clear to young people what it is like out there if we are going to send them out at the age of 16, because then if we do change it, if we do raise it to 18, then they could choose whether or not to stay. so we just need to make sure we give young people the choice because that is the only fair thing to do. thank you. [applause] >> and a further interest from wales? yes, the one -- the young woman there. >> i think we have to acknowledge we have got a problem now in the a lot of young people especially in this

room will be finding we do have this problem now with an increase in the number of young people looking to go into university. fewer young people are leaving school at 16 like our parents generation did but this is the problem i think is going to get a lot worse if we choose to raise the leaving compulsory age to 18. i can see that money, which could be a substantial sum, would be put into an exta two years of education could be spent so much more wisely on structured placements up to the age of 16-year-olds that will not ly help those who do choose to leave school at 16 to get a job and move more seamlessly into the world of work but those ho then choose actually to stay on until 18 and go through to university to compete that much more easily because i'm sure a lot of you here know experience is the magic word for university of at the moment. [applause] >> the southeast. whoever got from the southeast? yes, the young woman here who

habeen standing several times. >> thank you mr. speaker. melissa cham from southeast england. i feel personally, i am sure all of you have been aware of the troublemakers in the class of people who can't wait to get their gs at sea over with. i've always felt a anoints believe that people who want to carry on their education will do so i'm not necessarily a holiday regardless but an academic such as master english or maybe go into performing arts. there are apprenticeships, there were placements and where we can fund the era money into more education for 16 to 18-year-olds instead of making it mandatory, making it optional. so if you do want to go into education after your gcse, you know you have the security and support. if you don't want to necessarily go to college you might want to do in a partnership than you

think i would love to become a plumber or a carpenter at how do i go about doing that? so, thank you. [applause] >> i'm afraid we have run out of time for speeches. just before i called the person who will conclude the debate, i would like to refer to another row or colleagues who has just entered the chamber and i am referring to the member for west ambaador. j. simpson, give us a way. [applause] it is a particular pleasure to mention joe for two reasons. if memory serves make correctly when she came into the house of commons at the age of 25 she was the youngest member in her intake, and secondly, she has been a champion of youth

centers, youth participation in youth empowerment from the moments he set foot in the house of commons. is absolutely right and drop or she should be here today and i think we will take an example om her. [applause] so, thank you once again for some first-class speeches with different opinions and sincerely expressed with real knowledge and fluency and passion. i think all of us today who said in the house of commons on a daily basis are incredibly impressed by what we occurred. to conclude the debate i call ms. holly maddy on the. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. my name is holly and i'm from the youth council. do i hear you ask yourself what job opportunities are available to you? should you be educated until 18? are you competing for jobs with

people more experienced and qualified than you are? this is extremely common in our current economic climate. will race in the school and training leaving age to 18 solve youth unemployment and fix these problems? 71% of young people already say say -- stay in education until they are 18 but it is a 29% we need to consider today. those of you who are academic, you can go on to higher education, but just take a moment to think of those who are not like you, those who struggle with education or maybe who don't understand the level. by increasing the inventory h. immediately will this give the government time to reduce the current unemployment figures? in two years time imagine this. one, and even higher number of pele competing for university spaces. how many jobs are there to accommodate the number of

graduates? two the qualifications that don't include practical skills required, could they not have been getting this experience in the previous two years? unemployment is higher amongst young people aged 19 to 25. what unemployme levels reduced significantly enough to warrant spending 60 million pounds annually on 16 to 18-year-olds? that we not just witnessed the biggest cuts to public spending in living memory? keeping young people in education will give them the opportunity to experience mulled zabul were placements empowering them to make informed career decisions. if you were to leave at 16, would work experience be more beneficial from the age of 14 before you choose your subject? or if we were to wait until 18, could there be a focus on work experience for all students, academic or not, or would this be too late to influence our way of thinking?

either way, more work experience will create ambition amongst young people today. so the motion we are faced today with is should the school and education leaving age be raised to 18 immediately in order to over youth unemployment? is it guaranteed that unemployment levels will reduce? i have come here today with my long-winded speech padded out with statistics. i sound like a politician, this is not about you and i debating in the house of commons although we may enjoy it. this is about young ople's lives. those in university and those on street corners. jobs are vital to create self-esteem, confidence, optimism and a positiv approach to life in general. there are two simple sides to this. yes, or no. if we say yes, raise it to 18, the unployment figures will decrease, but they are just figures, just numbers and just statistics.

will those young people be happy? will they be getting the education that they need? and is it affordable? uniform costs, equipment, school dinners. e they going to be given more opportunities for work experience and will they feel more prepared for the working world? the other side is to stay at 16. unemployment figures know they will not alter, but young people will have a choice just as you you -- united nations for the rights of the child states we should ave. will young people be happier? did they know what they want at 16? is it stereotypical of us to ask are they bored hanging around on the street corners? committing crime, or is this just reality? bearing in mind that those are the young people that will be competing for jobs with university graduates. remember that 29%. the decisions we make here today, guess they are important, but how the politicians respond to what we have said, what we

have voted on, will be the life changing for the generation of young people. [applause] >> thank you holly for rounding off in such. that concludes the morning session of our sitting. the youth parliament will now adjourned until 1:30 and i invite everyone to return a moment to westminster hall for lunch. however because we started late, we are a little behind schedule and lunch will have to be truncated somewhat. can i just just therefore emphasize to people to be back by 1:30 when we must start or afternoon session. you do you need to stat coming back from westminster hall at 1:15 so a very brief lunch and then we will continue. thank you. you have acquitted yourself with great distinction.

>> coming up on c-span, a discussion of the legality of the government audit assistance package. then, former ambassador to the united nations, john bolton, on threats to free market economies. that is followed by the groundbreaking of the george w. bush presidential library in texas. later, a discussion of global food security and poverty. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, former idaho senator and former democratic congressman discuss the democrats and republicans can work together in congress. here is a look. >> one thing we can do is try to get people on capitol hill and the white house to talk to each other, to work with each other on a social basis, which is

something i used to do when i was a member of congress. it has pretty much dissipated. one of the things the president is encouraged to do is bring the congress to the white house. president johnson used to do that all the time. mutual respect is one way to get people to trust each other. so, the social and personal types of things are really important to get people to like each other. if they like each other, they might actually work with each other on occasion. >> you can see the entire conversation on bipartisanship in congress at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this week marked the 47th anniversary of the assassination of president kennedy. this weekend, we will talk with two former secret service agents posed job it was to protect the president, upon the events of

that day. >> it this year, our video documentary competition is in full swing. make a five-eight minute video on this theme of, "washington d.c. through my lens." enter to win a grand prize of five belgian dollars. for all of the rules and to up -- $5,000. for all of the rules and to upload your video, go to c- span.org. >> president obama and vice president biden stopped by an auto plant this week to talk about how the bailout has worked. now, a panel discussing the legality of the bailout.

>> i am going to encourage you to talk to the panelists as you talk to me. translate to the audience as well as to me. let me begin by introducing the panelists, and i will introduce them in the order in which they will speak to you. , who is aphen levin recognized expert on corporate bankruptcy and debt and who frequently analyzes these issues for national and international

media including but not limited to "the new york times," and the "wall street journal." second, a professor of law at the university of pennsylvania who writes about corporate bankruptcy law as well as sovereign debt and the connection between law and religion. he is a commentator in print and broadcast media on corporate governance and bankruptcy law. he has written extensively about the financial crisis, including three public -- three publications this year. he has a book due out this month. the foundation professor of law at george mason university and a senior scholar rights in bankruptcy law, and senior -- consumer credit and bankruptcy

and personal responsibility. i have to say, he is no friend of the environment as you saw in the longer biography. he has published more than 70 articles, which is an awful lot of trees. finally, the home team is last. marcus is a professor of law here at stanford. his scholarship focuses on bankruptcy law, a corporate reorganization, a venture capitalism, a silicon valley. he is a fellow at the hoover institution, serves on a regional board of directors and on the editorial board of the cato supreme court review. what i thought we would do is start out with each of the panelists speaking in sequence

for a 10-15 minutes. i might occasionally interject with a question or i might scratch my head until the very end. we may have some questions among or between the panelists, and we would like to save some questions for the end. i encourage you to be brave. that is to say, if there is something you did not understand, you are in very good company. probably everyone sitting in the audience. do not be afraid to ask a question. let us begin. >> thank you. i will begin by drawing out my position on the automotive case, because i know it is not shared by everyone. >> we need to speak directly into the microphones. >> ok. i will stop moving my head at all. here is my take on the automotive cases. for at least 10 years, probably

even longer, secured lenders in chapter 11 have been gaining the upper hand. they have played hardball for that time, and as part of playing hardball, they have dictated the terms of quick sales of debtors. so, if you come with that background knowledge, then wha the government did in the chrysler and gm cases becomes a lot less alarming, i think, in the sense that the government was acting just like secured lenders have been acting for more than a decade. where you might have concerns would be if the government was acting, in any sense, beyond what secured lenders could do in all of these other bankruptcy cases. putting to one side the policy question of whether or not bankruptcy in chapter 11 should be going down this road, which is something i think congress could well address, but i think it is not specific to these two automotive cases, all right, with that background --

>> au pair -- i am sorry, could i interrupt for just a minute? number one, in what is chapter 11, and number two, up what did the government do? >> chapter 11 is part of the bankruptcy code. it is the reorganization chapter but it applies most often to large corporations whether or not they are reorganizing or liquidating. it is all done under chapter 11. for reasons i am happy to answer in the q and a, or maybe david could answer some of the reasons, chapter 11 is the home for large corporate bankruptcy cases. what the government did in both chrysler and gm was use its position as a secured lender, a position it had acquired relatively recently, starting with the late budget ministration, early obama administration, it became --

late bush administration, early obama administration, it became a secured lender on both sides of the bankruptcy line. so basically, entering chapter 11 it said, you have a very short leash to solve this in a very short period of time. that is was secured lenders have been doing for the last 10 years. they do not want to live through an old-fashioned reorganization with the plan. they saw what happened to eastern airlines in the 1980's which was, eastern link word for a long time and then never came out. the lenders -- eastern lingered for a long time and then never came out. the lenders want to get out of this as quickly as possible. there are political risks with keeping the cases were going too long. the government played the same

game and they got the players out relatively quickly. so that, to go back to my overall theme, the way i look at these cases is i only worry about situations where the government succeeded powers that any secured lender would have, and i do not find many examples of those, although the "wall did have somel to a" examples and the tax-cut of a government doing something a regular lender could not doin. all right, so that is my basic take on the automotive cases. with that framework in mind, my justification, or the reason i think the automotive cases were justified but would not be justified in most instances of it is because the debt markets were closed. gm and chrysler could not borrow from anybody else.

the government was the only lender available at that moment in time, and of the government had not led to them at that point in time, we would have destroyed a whole lot of value. gm would have liquidated. that would not have been in the interest of creditors, shareholders, employees, anybody. that is my basic take on the automotive bela. also, more broadly in this context, i am more comfortable with the automotive cases ban in with aig, right? because at least these happened in court with a transcript and some transparency. we understand exactly who was getting what in those transactions. a id is not a very good example, but -- aig is not a very good example, but it seems to be the

example that has been adopted by the dog-franc bill -- dodd-frank bill. going forward, if we are worried about insolvency, a bankruptcy bailout, and what role the government will play, we should be worried, because it is far less transparent with the role of government will be. i am a lot of concerns in that regard. i will stop there unless you have more questions. >> i have a question and it is a straightforward on the ground question. could you explain, you referred to but could you explain to the uninitiated, and i include myself in that number,dodd- frank? you just criticize that. what does it do? how does it do it? >> i will explain the resolution authority. the resolution authority is this new bankruptcy process that is

not under the bankruptcy code for financial institutions. basically, if everybody gets together and agrees that it should be instituted, and by everybody i mean essentially the federal reserve board -- several parties have to vote by two- thirds majority. fdic, if they all agree, then the treasury secretary can put a financial institution in to this resolution a story. they do not agree or the treasury secretary believes bankruptcy still applies, if there is a resolution authority proceeding, what happens is that the treasury -- well, there is one of two ways. the treasury cannot the consent of the company, they will file a petition in the d.c. circuit -- not the d.c. circuit, but rather the district of columbia, and the district judge has 24 hours

i believe to act on the petition. otherwise it is deemed granted. i would note as an aside that the d.c. district court is not particularly known for handling lots of largest insolvency cases, but they did not listen to me on that point. and then, basically, if the court approves it, you have the fdic appointed as receiver to "resolve the financial institution" just like they would with a failed bank. the trick here is that under an fdic process, the fdic is acting both as bankruptcy trustee and as a bankruptcy court simultaneously but with no transcript. so, for example, the fdic says basically what claims will be allowed and what claims will not be allowed in the process. they do not really have to explain their reasoning for that unless there sudan outside of the process. that is why i said is a look --

unless they are sudan outside of the process -- unless they are sued outside of the process. that is why i said it is a lot less transparent. >> i am grateful for being invited to this process and for not having to explain chapter 11 or the dodd-frank resolution. when we were coordinating this panel, to the extent the we coordinated it, send an e-mail to me saying, "i assume you will give your usual talk on the bankruptcy is a good and how bailouts are a bad idea." i was going to give my usual talk, and i still am going to get a lot of it, but it did give me pause. i do think the bankruptcy is

almost always preferable to a single firm bailout, and ad hoc bailout, of four reasons most people in the room are probably familiar with. it addresses the moral hazard concern. if people invest been -- if people invest in companies that perform poorly, there is a consequence. it has, generally speaking, the kinds of rules of law virtues and transparency that steven was just talking about. i do feel that bankruptcy is almost always the right answer to some of the questions we are talking about today and tomorrow. i do not think it is always optimal. i do not think bankruptcy is the solution to the afghanistan war. and to a few other things. and to a few other things.