faster. the problem is that at 5,000 feet in 43 degree water, we do not know if it still does that. host: thanks for talking to our viewers. a reminder, all of you interested in the tax-cut deal debate, the senate will be taken up in a couple of minutes on c- span2. live coverage. and joscelyn 11:30 a.m. this morning, a farewell -- and at 11:30 a.m. this morning, if you're will -- a farewell speech to that vote. will be talking about u.s. drug policy with the director of the office of white house drug policy as well as the national institute on drug abuse.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> good morning. thank you for greater in the snow to come here this morning, or the ice, or water for you were faced with. i am the communique said she'd for the institute -- chief. thank you for coming. the monitoring the future survey is in its 36 the year, and once again, it was conducted by our colleagues at the university of michigan. overall, there were 46,482 students from 396 public and private schools in the eighth, 10th, and 12th grades. the survey has measured drug,

alcohol, and cigarette use, and related attitudes in 12th graders nationwide. in 1991, eighth and 10th graders were added. the survey measures drug use in several different ways, primarily lifetime, past year, past month, and in some cases, a daily use. we have speakers, then we will open it up for questions. how would like to introduce gil kerlikowske, director of the white house office of drug control policy, dr. lloyd johnson, who has led the team conducting the survey, and finally, i will like to introduce my boss, dr. nora volkow, who has overseen eight surveys, and she will tell you about this year's findings. >> good morning. i want to welcome you all, and i

want to thank particularly mr. gil kerlikowske for being here, and for the support for the fight against the use of drugs in young people and everyone. i also want to thank dr. lloyd johnston, the principal instigator. this is the eighth time that i have stand -- stood in front of you to address the significance of the findings. looking at it, and try to identify what is the most salient, it is clearly though recognition that we are seeing a significant increase in the use of marijuana. most particularly relevant are the increases observed in daily use. this increase is quite large, more than 10%.

it is particularly relevant because daily use of marijuana is likely to result in more adverse effects. also, it is likely to be associated in 25%, to 50%, with marijuana dependents. another important factor is that the use of marijuana across all of the estimators that we have -- that is daily marijuana use, monthly, or exposure during the year, is high. all of these indicators are on eighth graders. there are the youngest. and this is relevant because the increase in the indicators are over 10% tariff for each one of them. secondly, young people are particularly from rubble to the adverse effects of drugs. -- vulnerable to the adverse

effects of drugs. we know from studies that the younger age of initiation the greater likelihood of dependence. studies has the chicks studies have shown that those exposed to marijuana before -- studies have shown that those exposed before the age of 17 are likely see the relied on other drugs. we are seeing an increase on daily news, which is the at most adverse effect -- daily news, which is the most adverse effect. the group targeted the most is eighth graders, the ones that are most vulnerable. if you look at from the perspective of our country, what does it mean, and why this is happening, where one can only speculate, but we have predicted there will be increases in marijuana consumption in surveys

because of the significant attention that the potential use of marijuana as a medication has generated. we cannot stop to what extent this has led to the misconception that marijuana will not be so detrimental. we are seeing a decrease in the number of teenagers receiving -- perceiving regular marijuana use as harmful. psychotherapeutic deduced -- abuse continues to be a problem. we have seen a decrease in the exposure to bright again among 12th graders, which has been stabilized. however, the prevalence rates for the other cycle therapeutics

continue to be high. -- psychotherapeutic drugs continue to be high. with respect to the alcohol and cigarettes, with cigarettes we are seeing a stabilization in the decreases we have been seeing, which are significant and positive signs because cigarette smoking has adverse effects. in many incidents, it leads to the use of other substances. those are stabilizing. in terms of alcohol, we are seeing decreases in the prevalence rates of binge drinking and heavy alcohol consumption, and even though they're not how large, they are significant -- not large, there are significant. how does the panorama look? i can only say that the

increases we are observing in marijuana use and need to be taken seriously. they were taken by the household survey. marijuana, where one takes the notion that it has long lasting effect, we unequivocally know that it has long-term effects. alcohol use will be effecting educational achievements. we look behind and say we are relying on this generation to adapt to the future. do we want to jeopardize the achievements by exposure to illicit drugs, including marijuana? my answer, is, of course, that there would be a loss for the adolescents exposed, and a loss for all of us. thank you very much.

>> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here with all of you. it is my second monitoring the future, and it is also a great pleasure to be with lloyd. the information is disturbing, as dr. volkow said, regarding use, particularly eighth graders. we know that the earlier someone starts, the greater the difficulties that they are going to have, and the marijuana numbers are particularly troubling. there is some good news in the survey, as dr. "said, but i would rather concentrate on the bad news, the used use. we have seen particularly brought the election and during that time proposition 19 was being talked about brought the country, even though there were a number of propositions and initiatives in other states,

proposition 19 as it was called in california, about legalization, continued to dominate the news. the other part that is patently false about all of this is calling smoked marijuana madison is absolutely incorrect and sends a terrible message. i have actually heard that message when i met with a group of high-school students in oregon. they talked to me about wanting to make sure they do well in school, that their grades would be good, and that they would go on to college. in a state that was calling smoked marijuana madison, they said this was giving them the wrong message. i could not agree more. we have seen some positive outcomes in the study. that should give us a little bit of hope that if we concentrate

with parents and trusted caregivers, and those adults who really aren't meaningful in people's lives -- really are meaningful in young people's lives, and give them information on how to send a message about good choices, and i just drugs, but not using nicotine, and not engaging in underage drinking, and things like nutrition and health care, young people listen to those trust the messengers -- parents, coaches, faith-based communities, neighborhood associations, etc. they take those suggestions seriously. for the people that oftentimes think young people are tone deaf to them, that is actually incorrect. they listened to the trust the messengers, and we can make a

difference if we work at it, concentrate on this, and we could clearly make a difference. right now, we are not being responsible adults by telling people that smoke mel -- smoked marijuana is madison, when, in fact, it is not. -- madison, when, in fact, it is not. thank you. >> good morning. thank you very much for coming. i see a lot of familiar faces. some of you have followed this study for a long time. it has been going on for a long time. he is a pleasure to join director kerlikowske, and dr. volkow in releasing these founding digit findings. -- findings. in the spring, we gave health

ministers questionnaires, confidential and anonymous, to some 46,000 students around the country. they are located in roughly 400 secondary schools. because of the size, we get a high degree of accuracy both in terms of levels and changes. these are students in eighth, 10, and 12th grades, and we separately sample each of those grades. they are both in public and private schools. this very well covered our youth population. if there are several findings i think that will be important. you have already heard some of them. first, marijuana use has continued in increase, and that includes daily years. ecstasy is beginning to make a comeback after being out of favor for about five years.

cigarette smoking is no longer declining, and there is evidence that is beginning to go up again. alcohol use continues its -- term decline, which is gradual, but nevertheless has reached historically low levels. madison very good man's. madison very good man's.

dropping by large proportions in fact, the prior 30 days smoking rate has fallen from a high in the mid-1990's by about two thirds. it is a fairly enculturated behavior. these are very consequential changes that will make a big difference in the life of a substantially in the last few years, as we have been reporting, and is now over among the younger teenagers. in the lower grades, we have not

only seen the end of the decline, but the beginning of that

person to be aware of it, the great secondary school students, say that they prefer to date people that do not smoke. that seems to be an important message for kids to get. not only does smoking not make you more attractive to the opposite sex, as the industry has been trying to tell us for some decades, that it actually makes you less attractive to the great majority of the opposite sex. that seems to be something kids can relate to. not all of the news is bad. you will be glad to now alcohol use is declining, as has the use

of a couple of illicit drugs. nora mentioned some of those. while gradual, the proportion of teenagers using alcohol has been in decline for quite some years. past month use has declined since 1980. except for a time in the mid- 1990's, when we had when i called a relapse, alcohol use went up with it, but before then, and since then, we have had a steady decline. the decline was fairly steep in the early years from 1980 until 1980 -- 92,. nevertheless 30-day prevalence among 12th graders, for example, whom we have back to 1980 was 72%, in 1980, and

today, it is 41%. binge drinking, having five or more drinks in a row, has gone from a high of 41% in 1980, the highest we ever measured, down to 23% today. there has been an improvement in not only drinking, but in drunkenness, and drunk driving. the death and highway statistics have been improving significantly, and kids have played a role. in 2010, all three grades showed further declines in both measures, drinking and binge drinking, and these were significant for the three gained -- gray's combined. the net effect is today, we have the lowest proportion of young people drinking and the life of the study. that is good news. another drug that has been showing some decline, if that was not significant this year,

but continues the pattern is cocaine. cocaine was a major drug of problem levels in the 1980's. it made some come back in the 1990's when we had there relapse, today it is in decline. it has been very gradually for several years, three or four. only about 3% of high-school seniors say they have used cocaine in the past year. that is considerably lower than it was in the 1990's, and much lower than it was in the 1980's. like a den, pay strong -- a strong narcotic drug also declined significantly, but in -- in 12th graders. i cannot explain why it does happen, but it has happened. it is always possible there is

displaced by another drug, but we hope that is not what is going on. many drugs held steady. i will not talk about them in any detail -- boxy cotton, still used by 5% of high-school seniors, methamphetamines, a particular series and devastating drug, where we have seen a substantial increase, but to date it has leveled off. amphetamines in general, including ritalin, are fairly steady. federal is more widely used now than ritalin. crack cocaine, a serious drug in the 1980's, it is said very low levels. several of the club drugs that get a great deal of attention, those are all at quite low levels.

anabolic steroid use is down quite a bit from where it was in the peak rate of around two thousand. it remains low. it is partly because these drugs have now been scheduled. lsd is very low now, and remains low. the inhalants, i am glad to say, have not taken off. we have warned in the last several press conferences that young people are seen inhalants does not dangerous to the user, which is incorrect. there has been a long time since there was an anti-inhalants program, the mid-1990s, which was effected, by the way, but there has not been any further erosion in that belief. the risk has gone up a little bit.

cough and cold medicines are of use by young people. that is quite dangerous. i am seemed little systematic change in that. fortunately, that is not growing, but nevertheless, 7% of high-school seniors say they have used these drugs for the purpose of getting high in the last year. in summary, there are three drugs decreasing in use, marijuana, texas, and cigarettes. three that are showing some decline -- alcohol, cocaine, as reflected in, and many that are holding steady including amphetamines and inhalants and lsd. thank you.

>> thank you to our speakers. we will take questions in just a minute. a little bit of housekeeping. our nida press chief, if you have any questions after the press conference, stephanie will be happy to link you up with them. where is a rough idea of? he is here with director kerlikowske. we will open it up to questions in a minute, but i wanted to make a couple of points about what -- what nida is doing to reach out to teens. we have a very robust website right now. we have a teen blog that is becoming very popular, and we do at least two entries a week. it is a steady increase in users. we just completed our fourth

annual drug facts chat day where we sit up for the scientists to chat with teenagers from schools all over the country. if you are interested in finding out what kids are asking about drugs in an anonymous format, it is very interesting to see what they are asking, and we also post the responses. we just completed our first ever national drugs facts week, which encourages community is to link teenagers what scientists so teenagers can find out scientifically accurate information. there is so much misinformation about drugs out there that this is our effort to put science into the middle of the conversation. more than 100 community is registered events this year. we hope it will grow. finally come away partner for

the first time with a grammy foundation with a music video contest, and dozens of kids entered music video is. they have a panel of musical artists who judged. our scientists reviewed the entries for scientific accuracy. you can find the winners on our website and the grammy 365 website, and also on the above the influence website, the website director kerlikowske's folks put together. all of that information is in your press packet. we have this new booklet. this is unusual. but we went to local high schools. we showed them images. we have long discussions with diverse groups of teenagers to put this together, and the

intermission and here is the most popular questions asked. i wanted to make you aware of those initiatives. of course, i am here to answer any questions about those afterwards. so, we can open it up for questions for our speakers. yes. please identify yourself, your name, and who you work for. >> i work for a a.m. media. i see in your topics in brief, the one-page handout on prescription drug abuse issued this month, when asked about how they were obtained for non- medical use, 59% of 12th graders said they were given to them by a friend or relative. the number of attaining them over the internet was negligible. what is being done to reach the friends and relatives guilty of these crimes? >> who would like to answer that?

>> there are two things going on that i think have been helpful. one is the drug enforcement administration sponsored a take back day with 4000 sites that took back over 120 tons of prescription drugs. it was not only getting people to clean out their medicine cabinets in an environmentally safe way, but it was also agitating had people on what exists in the medicine cabinet. another group of people called drug free communities, 740 around the country, that are funded by the federal government for a very small amount of money. they are truly grassroot individuals who have partnered up to educate people, particularly young people, about the dangers of prescription drugs. frankly, when they think of the drugs as prescriptions, they do not realize the dangers that occur. there are a number of other

things in the national drug control strategy that talk specifically about prescription drugs, but those are two things i wanted to highlight. >> also, early next year, and nida will be launching a series of initiatives to reach out to kids on the prescription drug issue. please be on the lookout for that. other questions? >> richard daley. just a follow-up, there is legislation that would actually establish or allowed the existing state and local drug take back programs to operate on an ongoing basis in retrieving controlled substances, which right now, legally, they cannot accept. it has been described as a major problem, and the reason why there are tenants all of the -- cabinets all over the country.

is there any push by the administration to get that legislation through? >> the legislation was passed by both houses of congress, and signed by the president. that is actually very good news. it allows the attorney general to work to rewrite the rules, so that these things can be disposed of both in an environmentally safe manner, and in a much more convenient way than what we are doing right now. >> there is another point we need to consider. but did you look at the prescription -- the number of prescription of psychotherapeutic pain medications and similar medications? there have been significant increases. it tenfold increases over the past 20 years. for pain medications, it has

been four-fold increases. we might be over-medicating, or many of these prescriptions are being diverted. the recognition that there is a significant increase in the product and the distribution of these medications brings to life the need to educate health care community is to the proper dispensing of these medications, the need to educate the public about the notion that these medications, while they have very specific benefits, when your live outside the medical indications, can be as harmful as illicit substances this is one of the recent -- substances. if this is one of the reasons why these drugs are favored by young people, the myth that there are safer. finally, having a better way of surveying prescriptions among

the physicians and dentists across the -- across states. that will provide us with structured to allow us to control the over-production of these benefit -- medications. >> in this regard, i wanted to mention a recommendation i made in a recent editorial in a journal in the field. physicians and dentists might think about actually writing the prescriptions in a way that they give a lower number of doses, especially for pain medication, than is currently the practice. then, they give you a week's worth after you have had a tooth extraction. you might not use any, or you use one or two, then there is a bottle sitting on the shelf, either to be used by that person later for reasons it was not

intended for, or to be given, or stolen by someone else. there is a over-prescription. it does not mean they need to write a prescription for a shorter time, they could every noels, but the initial model could have a smaller number of -- initial bottle could get a smaller number of doses. 30% of kids who say they are misusing narcotics say they are using their own prescriptions. most are either getting it from friends, or buying it from friends, who may have had over- prescription. there is something that the medical and dental field could do that would help. it is certainly not anyone's intention to give long-term support, but i do not think many users meet the duration they are initially prescribed. >> and molly walker.

what you are up there, do you guys know if it is from wisdom teeth procedures? that seems like a common procedure in high school. >> do you know down to that level? >> i do not know the specifics. i just know from personal experience, and the experience of other family members, that they often get longer duration prescriptions than necessary. you can keep the duration as long, but it will just require someone to go back and refill the prescription if they needed. my guess is that 80% will never go back and we fill the prescription. >> to that specific question, we are calling a group of efforts -- experts to figure out what the prescription practices were.

to start with, and there are medical specialties that account for most of the prescriptions which are dentists and emergency physicians. among the dentists, the first perception was related to your question, extracting the wisdom teeth, but then what became evident in a more thorough analysis was that many of those prescriptions could not be accounted for by the needs of wisdom tooth extraction, and many of these prescriptions were given for several days, where there was the understanding that two or three days would be more than sufficient. there was also the disclosure that for many of these procedures they could be utilized instead. one of the action items we are

pushing toward is the proper education and standardization of the management of pain. it is particularly urgent to do it for adolescents and children because they are the most vulnerable. >> you mentioned that a lot of people or some people have a perception that marijuana does not have long-term effects. could you go over the long-term effects? >> this has been a discussion back and forth between those that say it will produce -- westing changes, and others say they do not. -- long lasting changes, and others say they do not. there are studies that can go from evaluating narrow psychological tests, and then evaluating long after you've stopped taking it to bring images -- brain images.

there is data, and indeed from imaging studies, clearly that there are changes in the function of the human brain when exposed chronically and repeatedly. the extent to which those changes are not reimbursable -- reversible, at this point, is not clear. when you wage when i say to put it in the most conservative perspective, it is factual but it is interfering with memory and learning. it is factual it will interfere all with motor coordination. therefore, it will impair your ability to learn, and the effect will be longer-lasting than when you are intoxicated because it stimulates in your body parts that act like a reservoir. if you are driving under the influence of marijuana, it is likely to significantly increase your risk of accident.

while we recognize alcohol contributes to a significant number of accidents, this has been easy to track because it is easy to quantify. it is much harder on marijuana. when the studies have been done, they have shown that a significant percentage of occur under the influence of marijuana, and a combination of marijuana and alcohol is also quite frequent. >> i have a question for mr. kerlikowske. you set ambitious goals some months ago, less than one year ago, a law reducing the use of drugs among young people. how does this report impact that goal? will you have a new strategy? >> the strategy that president obama released in may must be updated every year, and the strategy is an unbelievably good

strategy, because it is very balanced and it is comprehensive. it approaches the drug problem, not just as a criminal justice problem, but also as a public- health problem. the president has made it clear that preventing young people from reducing drugs and reducing our demand would be incredibly helpful to people here and throughout the world, a particularly our neighbors in mexico. that is why in his budget request the ss for and over -- and increase in funding and treatment funding because we know treatment works. we have ambitious goals. frankly, dr. johnson's report, and the survey from the drug use household survey did not come as a surprise to was the there was no increased because we saw young people's

perceptions of years begin to flatten or decrease. there are two other things that are an important. off the national year's anti- drug media campaign has been completely revise, and it resonates very well with young people and giving them a message about not using drugs that -- in a way that they clearly understand that our partnership -- understand. our partnership has sponsored two -- and continue to work hard for private funding to give information to young people and to parents about this danger. we are not pleased with the numbers, but it encourages all of us to work harder. >> any other questions? please identify yourself. you, yes. she is coming.

>> i am from mexico. do you have any way to find of which are the ethnic groups that are more vulnerable to use drugs se reached? -- use drugs? also, you have mentioned that the excessive use of marijuana affects the brain. what can a person who has been using for a long time be rehabilitated? >> in terms of what -- accusing repeatedly -- using repeatedly,

the production goes down, so when there is not intoxication, there is a deficit in the brain areas. what are those systems, that involves memory and learning and motor behavior, and is also important in terms of reaction. in animal models, were you expose them repeatedly, the animals become very spread reactive prone. the extent to which an animal can recover production is dependent on several factors. the aged and the combination, and ultimately the differences in the biology and are likely to reflect genetic differences. at this point, we do not know to what extent those changes will recover or be reversible.

with respect to your first question, i will answer it with respect to the research nida has been doing that documents there is not a particular case that is protected from substance abuse disorder. drug abuse does not discriminate. you see patterns of drug abuse -- drug use, that are influenced by ethnic and cultural factors. for example, one thing that is not recognized as among adolescents, for example, african americans have the lowest rate of use. among hispanics, for example, alcohol use is particularly one that is favored, and alcohol has consequences in that group that are different.

it is associated with a much greater rate of dropout in hispanic groups. native american the use of alcohol is quite prevalent. there is no discrimination among the ethnic groups. >> did you want to add something to that? >> we do, in fact, suffer read out three major racial ethnic groups -- african-americans, white americans, and hispanic americans. we do not routinely look the other groups because they are not in and that -- large enough numbers to make accurate estimates, but occasionally we do a piece based on multiple years and look at a larger number of ethnic groups. american indians were mentioned by dr. volkow, and they tend to have some of the more severe

substance abuse problems in general, not just alcohol. hispanics, in our surveys at least, in the earliest grades, eighth grade, we tend to have high rates of use, higher than whites or african americans for a number of drugs. that is not true by 12th grade, and we are not quite sure whether that means because hispanics have a higher dropout rate we are simply losing more of the drug users, where because hispanic culture is rising to a more precocious trying none of behaviors that is generally more associated with being an adult. whites tend to have the highest usage rate by the time you get to 12th grade and thereafter prepared -- thereafter. that is true for quite a number of drugs. there are differences. if you are interested, look on

our website, and you will find all of our publications, including articles that goal and death on the subject. -- in depth on the subject. >> yes, please identify yourself. m media. what responsibility do organizations have to run public service announcements? i regularly hear messages about this on christian radio stations that i know very few young people listen to, yet the popular music stations, which my daughter, and co-workers that are of that age -- i have not really heard these messages on those of whites. i am wondering what is your knowledge about this, and what

responsibility does the media have? >> i think the media has a huge responsibility to not only run those commercials, but we also buy time during the greatest number of young people watching. the other important part of that campaign is using social networks and social media to get the message across, and of course that is oftentimes more popular with young people then perhaps some of the more traditional channels and others that are out there. >> when you are using paid media, are you able to afford some of the prime-time listening? >> no. [laughter]

>> mr. kerlikowske, did think of the campaigns and the billions of dollars spent have failed up until now? are here preparing a new message that might be better delivered and made that the young people could make the decision? >> i wish we could cut the questions off before that. the numbers are particularly disturbing. the media campaign that was existent in the past was not a particularly good. we completely revised that using some of the smartest advertising minds that clearly resonate with young people. we launched it in the bronx, and in milwaukee, and in portland.

we know it resonates well, but has not been out there very long, so i think we need to deliver that message, and there are another group of messengers the need to say the same things. that is the parents, the coaches, the community groups, and the faith-based community. we need to make progress not just for young people, but quite frankly around the world on the drug issue. this is clearly not just a problem in the united states, but in many other places, has and if we do not address it and recognize it with the seriousness and the severity that is warranted, i have great concern about where these numbers are taking us. >> i just wanted to make a point because we know, factually, that perceptions among adolescents regarding whether drugs are dangerous or not impacts their

probability of taking it. look at that poster, which actually plots the relationship between the prevalence rate of marijuana use and the perception of kids proceeding marijuana as dangerous. you can see there's a greater number of kids thinking it is dangerous, have much lower rates of marijuana use. this is a mirror image. to your question about the media, i think it can play an extremely important role, but as mr. kerlikowske said, the media has to be well targeted. it can profoundly influence behavior for example, a tobacco smoking, and the same can be applied with marijuana.

>> while we are on the subject of media campaigns, i wanted to mention something else we have seen related to smoking, and that is the young people are not seem nearly as much anti- smoking ad campaigns as they were two years ago. the settlement with the state attorneys general and the tobacco companies gave rise to a foundation that sponsored the national campaign -- the american legacy foundation, but that had a limited life. the amount of money that has been spent on that -- that is being spent on that campaign has dwindled. the other thing is that many states have their own anti- tobacco campaigns, and this is the pitch to state legislatures and governors. the state's got a great deal of money out of that settlement, and spent almost none of it on

the prevention of tobacco use among kids. it is really quite a shame. i know the stakes are very stretched, but ultimately, the states and the federal government play a big price for smoking in terms of health and work performance. i think it is important that those campaigns somehow be reinvigorated. are we look -- or, we are likely to see an increase, which i believe would be a tragedy. >> i can tell you it is difficult to know if your campaign is working because sometimes it takes years to look of the numbers. lloyd talk about the anti- tobacco campaign, and now that it has slowed down, we are seeing those numbers level off. in the 1990's, when ecstasy use was going up, there was a lot of campaigns, and we saw the numbers go down.

was it a direct result? we have no way of knowing. we have not been talking about ecstasy, so those numbers are now softening. it is very hard to know the direct impact these campaigns have, but i will also cited ad budgets are dwindling, like everything else. we are fighting for the same piece of the pie that everyone else's. certainly, and the private sector groups that want to take on these issues are more than welcome. more questions? >> my name is martin fox. given that our policies have obviously failed with marijuana, what did not make more sense to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to tobacco, and therefore lead -- keep away from children in a much more controlled fashion? >> no.

it was not. we are not very good at keeping pharmaceuticals out of the hands of young people, and they aren't taxed, regulated, and controlled. -- are taxed, regulated, and controlled. we have 38,000 deaths as a result of these tax, regulated, and controlled drugs. we are not successful at that. we have not been successful at of young people. i don't know why anyone could think we could develop a system where seven 11's would be an outlet for marijuana. >> any more questions? yes. >> heidi with pediatric news.

a question for dr. jolson or anyone else who wants to jump in. given the increase in marijuana use among especially the younger kids, what advice do you have four doctors retreat teenagers about things may be to look for or how to talk about this with the teens and parents? >> i think one of the things we clearly know and for which we do not need more research in that respect is those of the greatest resource are those who may have any type of behavior robust upturn, learning disability, attention deficit disorder or mental illness. and the early recognition of a psychiatric disorder or behavioral problem who may put that kid at risk of taking drugs as a way to try to medicate themselves could be a very important prevention effort. from the perspective of the

message to the parents, if they feel that their child might be suffering from excess of anxiety or depression or trouble socializing they should evaluate the possibility that their kid may have psychiatric or psychological problems that may be amenable for treatment. because the proper intervention at that stage could prevent that kid from that use of drugs. the message that we send. with respect to positions, one of the campaigns that neither has been aggressively pushing is the need for positions to take responsibility for evaluating and screening for the use of substance of this order in their patients and that is relevant for children and adolescents. early intervention could actually disrupt the continuous use of that particular drug and prevent it escalating into abuse and addiction. the physician has two

perspective. from psychiatry perspective, proper screening and evaluation of a problem that can be properly treated and in general -- health provider, proper screening may do interventions that prevented from further escalating into abuse and addiction. >> did you want to add anything? >> i really think that pediatricians and other physicians who treat young people are in quite a unique position to open up the subject, first of all, and to give advice that is heard. they are trusted. they are seen as not singing a moral song. and they are talking on the basis of one's health and self protection. i think it is very important for physicians treating adolescents to raise the subject of drugs and alcohol and ask whether a youngster has

experience with those and to talk about it. i think not many of us in a position -- parents, teachers, counselors, or other things -- to open up the subject and expect honest answers. it what -- while i realize physicians have a lot of things to ask kids about that is one of the important months, i think, and i expect their advice would carry weight. >> through our centers for excellent program we are developing curriculum resources on teaching medical students on how to talk to adolescents about this topic. we have existent resources for physicians on how to talk to adults. any more questions? okay, i want to thank everyone so much for coming out today. we will see you next year.

>> the u.s. house gavels in at 12:30 p.m. eastern for general speeches. legislative work at 2:00 p.m. eastern what 16 bills and resolutions ranging from native american lands and libraries. it is waiting for the senate to complete action on tax cuts and jobs benefits and funding through the year that goes through next september. we will have live coverage. the senate is debating the bill continuing the bush administration is tax cuts with

addition for extension for long- term jobless benefits. senate leaders are working for an agreement for a vote today. if they do not strike a deal it will take place tomorrow. live coverage on c-span2. this afternoon c-span 3 will have live coverage of the tenant general who once commanded u.s. and coalition troops in afghanistan, joined by the former adviser to general stanley mcchrystal. that will be at 1:30 p.m. eastern. >> this sunday on c-span, in her first televised interview the newest supreme court justice elena kagan on the confirmation process, her adjustment to the court, and her relationship with chief justice john roberts. unprecedented on the record conversation sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on c-span. the united states v. richard nixon, on c-span radio's landmark supreme court cases.

>> it is somewhat simple but very important issue, in the administration of criminal justice, whether the president can withhold evidence from the court merely on his assertion that the evidence involves conference site -- confidential communications. >> listen in washington on 90.1 fm, nationwide on xm channel 132 and online at c-span radio.org. >> the obama administration continues to ask the international community to join the u.s. and sanctions against iran did to the nuclear program. gary samore, white house -- he discussed this issue at a conference here in washington on friday. this half hour event was organized by the foundation for defense of democracy.

>> i am executive director and i had up the iran energy project which, as many of you know, focuses intensely on an iranian energy sanctions. it has been focused on the iranian march to a nuclear bomb and human rights abuses since we were founded briefly after 9/11 and we conducted extensive research on sanctions. i have to stop for this brief seconds and really, and the obama administration, i think in the past 18 months we have seen an extraordinary effort by this administration and international effort to put together a comprehensive iran sanctions package as well as an international coalition. and just to emphasize that, but my account there are 32 countries that passed sanctions against iran, representing about 1 billion people. this is a pretty impressive international sanction

coalition and certainly we have been very privileged to work with this administration and with members of congress on both sides of the aisle. as a reminder, the most recent iran sanctions law that passed 507-8 and signed into law july 1 by president obama. iran is a bipartisan issue. i want to introduce dr. gary samore. i have been following his work for many years. tremendously successful government official. focusing on the topic of deep concern, the issue of weapons of mass destruction and proliferation. he is the white house coordinator for w. nd and counterterrorism and arms control. principal adviser to president obama on all of these matters. he served as special assistant

to the president's senior director for nonproliferation export controls during the clinton administration. he devoted much of his life to this very, very serious issue and i look forward to his remarks and thank you for attending. [applause] >> thank you very much, mark, and thank you to all of you and best holiday wishes. i caught the last panel remarks that i thought were very high spirited and i agreed with a great deal of what was said, probably more than i can publicly admit to. [laughter] i think it is very appropriate that the foundation for the defense of democracies has chosen for this year's forum to focus on the iranian threat. to me, iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons capability poses one of the most serious international security

threats that this country faces. president obama has stressed in many times that we are determined to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons because we understand that if iran were to acquire nuclear weapons it would profoundly destabilizing the middle east and it would have serious consequences for our efforts worldwide to control the spread of nuclear weapons. i want to vote as my remarks on the role of international sanctions play in the president's strategy to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. sanctions have three functions. first, in the broadest sense, sanctions against countries that violate the nonproliferation rules are essential to enforce the credibility and the integrity of the international

regime of treaties, institution, and norms, that make up the international nonproliferation system. and the case of iran, they violated their iaea safeguards, in defiance of the five security resolutions -- security council resolutions that require them to fully cooperate with the iaea to resolve questions about their nuclear activity and to suspend their enrichment and reprocessing activities under iaea supervision. so, this is a poster child for a country in violation of all of the instruments of the international non-proliferation regime. if in the higher price iran pays for its violations and defiance, but less likely it is other countries will be tempted to follow and iran's footsteps.

conversely if iran is seen as successfully defying the security council in its bid to acquire nuclear weapons from other countries are less likely to be deterred by the threat of security council actions. as president obama said in his april 2009 speech, "wills months be binding, violations must be punished and words must mean something." this is particularly important for other countries in the middle east who feel most directly threatened by iran potts the aggressive behavior and by their efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability and who are most likely to respond by trying to develop nuclear weapons of their own. the sanctions of the direct impact on the pace of iran that a nuclear program by making it more difficult for iran to obtain a essential materials and components for its nuclear program. under the relevant u.n. security

resolutions all countries are legally required to "take all necessary means to the event the supply, sale, or transfer, directly or indirectly, from their territories or by their nationals or using their flag and vessels or aircraft, of all items, materials, equipment, goods, and technology that could contribute to iran's and richmond-related reprocessing or heavy water activities or development of nuclear weapons delivery systems." that is a pretty airtight legally binding requirement on countries to deny iran access to those attending components. individuals and entities involved in iran that a nuclear and missile program have been specifically targeted the travel restrictions and financial bands. you can see the list in the various security council resolutions. the most recent resolution add to the ban on iranian investment in nuclear industries abroad --

primarily intended to block any effort by iran to invest in foreign mines or other deposits of natural uranium and it provides a robust mechanism for inspecting iranian cargo and seizing contraband. security council sanctions combined with enforcement by the u.s. and allies have had a significant impact on iran that a nuclear program. restricted access to supplies of specialized materials and finished components, it contributed to iran that a technical problems in their enrichment crop -- programs. the reliability of the centrifuges they were able to build and a complicated their efforts to develop more advanced centrifuge machines.

in addition to completion of order the 40-megawatt reactor, a potential source of plutonium, also was seriously delayed by iran possibility to acquire essential components from foreign sources. delaying the nuclear program is essential to buy time for dual track strategy the administration is pursuing. this takes me to the third world sanctions -- to affect iran's calculation -- third roll of sanctions, and to affect iran that the calculations of costs and benefits to continue to pursue the program. on the benefit side, president obama has offered to engage iran unconditionally on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect and to improve u.s.- iranian relations and ask -- as ever and complies with international obligations. as president obama said -- we

want iran to take its place and a community of nations politically and economically. we support iran's right to nuclear energy with vigorous inspection. this is the path the islamic republic intake. iran has failed to take advantage of that offer. as a consequence we move to increase the cost side of the ledger, including economic sanctions. iran that a clear rejection of our offer of engagement and president obama's personal involvement in building the international coalition, such as his direct interventions with russian president medvedev and chinese president hu enabled us to produce you and security council resolution 1929 in june of this year which established as the most comprehensive set of u.n. sanctions on iran to date. as you all know iran tried to block u.n. security council resolution action with last-

minute diplomatic maneuvers but president obama was determined to demonstrate the threat of increased pressure was real. following the passage of 1929 we have seen the eu and other countries, from australia, canada, and norway, japan, south korea, and others, adopted measures which go beyond the strict requirements of 1929. in other words, 1929 was always intended to provide a platform which would allow other countries to have the political basis to take additional letters. the eu, for example, prohibited the opening of new outlets of iranian banks, establishment of any new correspondence accounts by iranian banks and provision of assurance or reassurance of iranian entity. and the u.s. the comprehensive sanctions accountability and the best man act, which the president signed in july 1, would significantly amplified

this effect by making it difficult for companies -- doing business in iran to also do business in the united states. there is no doubt these unprecedented sanctions have caused a real economic dislocation inside iran, especially in the financial and energy development sectors. iran is effectively and not able to access financial services for most banks all of our world and increasing [laughter] lead unable to conduct transactions in dollars, the pound, or the hero. international companies including in the energy sector have recognized the risk of doing business in iran and are abandoning existing business opportunities and not taking advantage or not seeking new ones. this trend has been replicated across a broad range of industries. such companies who have made age

strategic decision to limit their exposure in iran include shell, total, lukoil, and many others. i think this is particularly important terms of iran that the ability to attract foreign investment to modernize its energy infrastructure. these economic consequences of sanctions has been amplified by the iranian government's on mismanagement of the economy which have led to high unemployment and inflation and together sanctions and the mismanagement have added to a sense of political discontent among broad sections of the iranian public hope, of course, have other grievances, including dissatisfaction with the election. of course, it remains to be seen how high iran's pain threshold is and whether iran is ultimately ready to comply with

security council demands to suspend the reprocessing and enrichment programs in exchange for suspension of sanctions measures as provided for in security council resolution 1929. it may be iran has decided to resume talks in the p-5 + 1 because of the lease it can manipulate the appearance of negotiations to weakening sanctions and avoid the national -- additional measures. this will not work. in the wake of the geneva talks we and our allies are determined to maintain and even increase pressure. we need to send a message to iran that sanctions will only increase as iran avoids serious negotiations am not been lifted and to our concerns are fully -- are fully addressed. iran has the opportunity to be integrated into the international community or face further isolation. it has the chance to benefit

technologically, financially, and politically, and not continue to be squeezed economically. iran can gain much by fulfilling its obligations, or and can continue to pay an increasing price by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. the choice is iran's, but it is up to us to make sure it is confronted an estimate that choice. thank you very much. i would be happy to take some questions from the audience. [applause] >> ok, folks. >> in lyon lake, washington times. how would you characterize china's compliance with 1929 and -- in japan, while they are giving up opportunities china is filling the gap?

>> i think china is complying with 1929. you may have noticed there have been no big new oil or gas development contracts signed since 1920's nine. -- 1929. chinese companies and government recognize the objective of getting -- it is in china's national interest and the chinese recognize if their companies are seen as exploiting the restraints that other countries and companies are exercising, that what consequences for u.s.-chinese relations and also have a direct economic consequences for those chinese companies. obviously the extent to which -- as i said in my speech -- the extent to which we will make the strategy work is going to require international

cooperation. as the dramatic process plays out, the challenge for us is to keep the pressure on. we want to make sure that during the process of negotiation the iranians did not feel the pressure is letting up and i think that is going to be -- and we will obviously be working very hard with not only the chinese but other countries to make sure that we not only comply with 1929 but take additional measures in order to produce a successful outcome at the bargaining table. >> hillary? >> hillary from "jerusalem post." there are reports iran may be supplying venezuela now with missiles that could have a

capability it used against the united states. wondering how you see the changing strategic environment and what it will go forward and what the united states is doing did counter the effort in iran and south america. >> not sure that i can specifically comment on the question of missile sales to venezuela because of -- partly because i do not think i actually know what the situation is. under various security council resolution that iran is prohibited from selling arms to anybody -- not just missiles but small arms -- but we have a very intensive program in place to intercept and prevent arms sales from iran from taking place so we will continue to do that. >> david? >> david sanger from "the new york times."

there were reports last week, some out of state department documents, about iran obtaining from no. 3 of this dm-25 missile and on the part of the russians and others about whether they really obtained. where do you come out on that? and if they did obtain it would make a significant difference or not in the capabilities as we now understand it? >> we have been told not to comment on any of the documents or any of the information contained in the leaked cables but i do want to make a general point about iran's missile program. i think iran's missile program has moved forward with more success than its nuclear program. and in large part, due to very substantial assistance from north korea going back almost 20 years now. i think one of the reasons why we have been successful in

convincing the europeans and even russia that we need to move ahead with the missile defense program in europe is because people recognize that the facts on the ground are very convincing. iran is developing liquid and solid fuel, intermediate-arrange systems. the they are developing a very large scale production capability. in the face of that, i think we and our allies working with partners like russia have an obligation to put in place and effective defense system. you saw in the lisbon summit, progress on that issue, partly because iran is driving us to that issue. >> assuming europeans, chinese, and the russians, actually comply with the sanctions, do you think iranians have native

talents -- manufacturing and scientific -- to more let's get the bomb even if the sanctions are quite effective? >> it is a good question. i think iran obviously, based on the technology they receive it in the mid-1980s -- that technology can be used to produce a nuclear weapons material. basic technology for producing nuclear weapons, that is also very old technology going back to 1945, of course. in that sense, i think they have the basic knowledge. translating that into actual capability, of course, can take a long time. as i said, the iranians have been working on achieving a nuclear weapons could ability since the mid-1980s.

i think it has been quite effective in slowing it down and i think we still have good opportunities for slowing it down. but i think of the end of the day there are many, but -- countries and the world -- including iran -- absolutely determined to build nuclear weapons they probably have that in their capability. >> laura? >> since part of the strategy you describe involves using pressure to try to get iran to make concessions at the bargaining table, after the geneva meeting, can you elaborate a little but how you see the negotiations, bargaining table process, developing with iran? >> the geneva meeting was, of course, just the first meeting and i think one of my colleagues said we had low expectations and we did not exceed them. i think that is probably the best way to describe the meeting. as i said -- the geneva meeting has not and any way changed our determination to maintain pressure, and in my view, makes it even more important we

visibly increased pressure precisely because the geneva meeting did not produce what i would consider to be any real progress -- progress trying to resolve the issue and i think you will see the u.s. and its allies continued to take steps, even before the next round, that a scheduled to take place in istanbul in late january. >> daniel? >> "financial times. cut two questions, if i may. first, you talk about the importance love with the iranians down but i don't want to get into the attribution, but given recent days people have gone out about how since additions have been affected pipe -- president ahmadinejad himself and knowledge of the have been affected. has it been helpful? simple yes or no. [laughter] the other question, almost six

years after the seals were broken, is there any practical prospect of iran have a complete freeze of enrichment in its territory? >> vs question, i am glad to hear they're having problems with their sons of use machines and i think the u.s. and allies are doing everything we can to try to make sure that would complicate matters for them. but i also think there technical problems go beyond the steps that outside countries are taking. i think iran has some very significant limitations in terms of both the technology they are working with, particular type of centrifuge machine they have is not a very efficient or very reliable machine. there are inherent technical limits. and iran as a third world country just has inherent limits in terms of industrial infrastructure and their human talent. not anything they could not

overcome over a long period of time but this is not an advanced industrial countries of there are limits how quickly they can do things. the second question -- what i think iran is prepared to do depends upon their cost-benefit analysis. and i believe that the costs and the risk and the threat is high enough they will accept suspension. so, to me, it is simply a matter of, to the extent we are able to bring pressure to bear on them so that they feel that the price, cost, risk up proceeding and the finance is high enough, i think they will accept suspension. as i have in the past, 2003 through to about 15, they suspended investment program. >> we talk about the economic impact of sanctions. one of the fundamental rules of strategic, a patient is put your opponent in the wrong and keep them there.

candy, it on the political benefits or strategic communication benefits of sanctions and the ec a sea change in attitudes in europe with respect to iran in the past 18-24 months? >> i think at the end of the bush administration the united states made genuine effort to try to engage iran diplomatically, and the iranians rejected that. i think it would difficult for the bush administration to convince other countries that the real obstacle to diplomatic progress was iran and the united states. i think president obama remove any doubt. he made abundantly clear that the obstacle to a diplomatic solution is not the united states. it is iran. i think that has helped us tremendously to exploit that, take advantage of that, to build international support for sanctions and i think we are going to be able -- i believe we will be able to maintain the

upper hand. as you will see this p5-plus one process work through, we will continue to make it clear that the country that is blocking agreement is iran and not the united states and its allies and as long as we can do that i think we will be in a much stronger position for making the case for increasing economic pressure. >> can you roll out the iranian ability of that was reported on in north korea -- control that out? if you have no concrete information -- give us some of your thought of this apparent nuclear outsourcing going on with the syrian reactor facility, discussion of what is happening in venezuela and so forth? >> on the first question, i

would say that we can't confirm, of course, what he saw. we are just the one by what he said. assuming what he saw and what the north koreans told him was accurate, there is a very big discrepancy between the north korean program, which appears much more advanced and efficient, and the program in iran, which is a different technology and appears to be having some pretty significant technical problems. the that would suggest no connection. but in response to your second question i am very concerned about the risk of north korea transfering technology or even nuclear materials. of course, we have had examples of the past where they had done that, apparently providing some nuclear material to libya. certainly helping the syrians build a reactor that was destroyed by israel in 2007. i think in the future of one of the most important elements of our diplomacy.

with north korea and other countries and the six-party talks has to be to ensure north korea does not sell or transfer nuclear atop -- technology or materials to countries in the middle east because that could fundamentally change the pace of the nuclear clock i talked about and in the case of iran, to the extent of the clock is accelerated, we lose time for this dual-track strategy we are pursuing that will take months if it is going to be successful. >> barbour? -- barbara? >> assuming you are underwhelmed with what happened in geneva, then you give us more detail on your sanctions strategy going forward? are you looking for better enforcement for sanctions on the books or are there new measures you are contemplating pushing forward even before the first round of talks take place?

am i think it would be an important measure to send the line >> i think it would be an important measure to send, taking measures in the future. just talking for the sake of talking would anyway and get them out of the sanctions noose tightening around their throats. so, i think it is important that we take an additional measures. i can't discuss what those are. they are under consideration. something the u.s. and allies have to do together. >> last week, senator lieberman sent a letter to the white house saying under no circumstances should you it acknowledged iran copyright to enrich uranium, yet it seems they did that precisely because that is being discussed

in the administration, which seems to me be a workable and result or compromise. is there any discussion and put on the table right away but getting from here to there, that it might be a path the administration to take or all the senators just all wet? >> our objections -- what we are trying to achieve is compliance with security council resolutions, which requires a suspension of the enrichment program. there could be interim steps to achieve that objective, just as the bush administration proposed a freeze for freeze. but the objective of the talks is a suspension. i think given the history of iran's nuclear activities, given the fact that they are still not being honest with the iaea about what they're doing i think is very good grounds to suspect that they still seek nuclear weapons capability. to me, only full suspension is

going to give us confidence that they're not continuing to pursue that. in the meantime, even if the police suspended, if the known sites based on their past behavior, that pretty good grounds they were trying to do something secretly themselves. even if they complied with security council resolutions that would not review, in my view, the need for a very intrusive inspection system as well as continuing to carry out the national means to make sure they are not cheating because that has certainly been the record up until now. dam a question of there? -- >> a question of there? >> i am from tass news agency in russia. how would you characterize u.s.- russian cooperation. in terms of this? >> thank you. the u.s. and russia have different national interests, so they believe in different ways.

on the particular issue of working together to pressure or persuade iran to give up its nuclear program nothing there hasn't been -- there has been extraordinary cooperation. it is not perfect. yet a much bigger releases of with iran that we do and countries will work in their own national interests. but a combination, including the closure of the facility, the resetting of u.s.-russia relations, the good relationship between president obama and president medvedev, at the glove that has led to a much more constructive working relationship between moscow and washington on this issue. and i think that has been critical because frankly we would not have gotten security council resolution 1929 unless russia was prepared to agree to it. through that we were able to achieve consensus among the p5. >> i have to apologize to

everybody -- i am and going to be the next whitehouse press secretary so i have to cover a favor. let's take one more question. keith johnson from "the wall street journal" here? >> we have seen a couple of brief references to stuxnet did a lot of discussion about the efficacy of the physical strength. especially, enacted idea about the unknown unknowns, and hidden things. in general terms could you talk about what we may be seeing about the wisdom of using new sorts of tools and attacks to automatically hit the unknowns -- we did not even know where they are. if you could talk in general about ability to do things through virtual measures like that. >> i do not think it would be wise for me to try to construct an answer to that.

all i would say it is that the history of iran's program, and if you look at the options from a rational standpoint -- from their perspective of what approach poses the least risk, seeking a covert capability is by far the most safest way for them to try to develop a nuclear weapons capacity. we know all of their enrichment plant started as secret facilities. gom was secret before it was disclosed. we should assume that in the future iran is going to try to proceed to build a secret facility. and i think our intelligence agencies, both the u.s. and allies, have done a marvelously good job up until now tracking those issues, and i hope we are able to do that in the future because that has given us

tremendous diplomatic leverage and hopefully in the future we will be able to have a similar kind of a managed. >> great, thank you very much. we appreciate your time and your effort. [applause] >> thank you all. >> the u.s. house gavels in today at 12:30 p.m. eastern for general speeches. legislative work at 2:00 p.m. eastern with the 16 bills and resolutions ranging from native american land issues and library services. members are waiting for the senate to complete action on tax cuts and jobless benefits and federal spending which goes through september of next year. live coverage here on c-span. the senate is debating the bill continuing the bush administration pass a tax cuts with extension of long-term jobless benefits. senate leaders are working for -- on an agreement for a vote today and if they are not able to strike a deal the vote will take place tomorrow. live coverage on c-span2.

world leaders today are offering tribute to richard holbrooke, a diplomat who worked on afghanistan and engineered an end to the bosnian war. he died in washington following surgery after a tear in his own order -- a order. president obama called mr. holbrooke a true giant of american farm policy and former president clinton said richard holbrooke save lives, restored peace and secure hope for people run the world. he was 69. . joining us on the phone is american strategies program director at new america foundation joining us to talk about the death of mr. richard holbrooke who died last night after surgery. i just wanted to begin with a quote in "the washington post" on his death. the very last paragraph says --

as mr. holbrooke was sedated for surgeries, family members said to his pakistani surgeon -- you've got to stop this war in afghanistan. >> for some time i knew he was skeptical about keep parts of the afghanistan enterprise -- i know he was loyal to the administration and organize a capable of well functioning interdepartmental team dealing with afghanistan. but just about a month ago something called the foreign relations volumes of the united states, for folks who did not know them, the official composites of u.s. foreign policy history written about 25 or 30 years after, when classified information could be incoorated and brought back into the public. these volumes focused on vietnam. i was at this event with an,

kissinger, and richard holbrooke one of the keynote speakers because he was on the ground -- doing civil society development. his job today in afghanistan is much like when his career began in vietnam. i asked him about differences and similarities. he went to the differences, which really has to do with what triggered this reaction, what triggered the government in afghanistan being toppled by the united states after supporting al qaeda and asia before al qaeda but then he went through along list that were structural similarities. i think he was skeptical of our ability to do this and i think he believed the reconciliation approach, beginning to deal with the people we were fighting was going to be e only way out of this. i really wish we had a few more years with him because i think

he would have been absolutely the right guy to lead those negotiations and get them to a political outcome. host: what do you think the impact will be on the afghan- pakistan strategy for the administration? guest: i think it is hard to say. it leaves a huge, gaping hole. i think richard was a tenacious boys for the non-military dimensions of what needed to done -- tenacious voice for the non-milita dimensions of what needed to be done. women's rights, self- determination. he wrestled -- the u.s. government can be so dysfunctional but he wrestled this dysfunctional government to begin talking to itself internally. he had people -- people from the department's agriculture, usaid, defense, cia, all in this team that would make a couple of times a week -- i was invited to

some -- and he made things happen that one not happening. i am sursomebodyike barney rubin and someone else will be appointed to take on this role as envoy, but it is hard for me to imagine that we have anyone else on the bench as results oriented and results achieving as holbrooke,ho has got -- i described holbrooke saying very fetimes when you are meeting anyone, even senators and presidents and heads of state, the people who make their own weather. he was not a passive guy who waited for circumstances to be good for him. he made circumstances happen. i think that is the kind of person that we need in the afghanistan-pakistan portfolio. and i don't see them. and frankly, i had hoped he would of been elevated in the next two years to take even more of america's foreign policy problems. host: you mentioned who might

replace him in that capacity, mr. rubin. who is he and what what his relationship to mr. holbrooke? >> barney rubin is adviser to the state department. one of the leading experts on afghanistan and pakistan. he has been part of this network of talents, different parts of the u.s. government. he is someone who has been a key adviser and architect, i think, of the civil society approach to afghanistan in terms of how to build a structure is to last. and he knows all the players. it just one of america's top people. i think he is an extraordinarily talented man. there may be others who have great experience,oth -- we ll of the nation building pofolio, but granular understanding of tectonics and who are very complicated.

afghanistan is a place where we are spending about $120 billion a year in a country with $40 billion gdp, engaged in a bit of a war and power struggle internally and also a place where you have a proxy war between india and pakistan. so, it ian extraordinarily complex, brutal neighborhood and barney rubin is one of the leading experts on the area. host: the president along with his national securityeam is assessing an expected to release on thursday their assessment of the situation in afghanistan. what do you think mr. holbrooke's contribution would be to that report? guest: i think richard was loyal, but i think behind closed doors, loong 25 are 30 years and classified documents getting them to wikileaks before richard shared in this afghanistan the view, i think he woulde

ying, on one hand, we are making anecdotal progress but not system at progress in certain areas, getting girls to go to school, helping people feel like they are greater stakeholders and getting greater converging of -- poppy growing into other crops that are lucrative for folks. when it came as -- cameo the broad area of getting to the tipping point, i think richard would be highly skeptical of the over-militarization of our response. that the training of forces and continued lack of confidence and trust in the way the u.s was approaching is challenged and the clunking this and very large military footprint we have is undermining our ability to achieve success. that is what i guess he would have said. and when the president announces what he is going to

announce, i personally think he will be kicking the can down the road a bit. i think richard will be there where joe biden and some others were not, that we have to work much more on the political dimensions of this and there are things we could be doing with the $120 billion are spending per year that were not -- to create more of a lasting and an impact was greater traction. host: you knew him well. what do you think his legacy will be? guest: i think he will be looked at as one of the most important and competent foreign-policy diplomats. i was trying to explain to people that it was kind of like the babe ruth of the foreign- policy -- home-run hitter. he was a big thinker. he did not get lost and distracted by the trivial. he was a cultivator and manipulator of power. he w one of the big, iconic

forces in u.s. foreign policy on the level of henry kissinger, scowcroft, eagleburger, but -- and those three are still around. richard was younger and unfortunately gone today. but he was of their league and had an extraordinary impact on america's national security portfol. he delivered results and he taught people on the left -- the democratic party, on the humanitarian and global just the side of foreign-policy equation how to think more systematically and more results-oriented way than i think people and as our arena often do. so i think he was extraordinarily important as a model of behavior and thinking. a lot of people who don't like richard holbrooke, who find him brusque, egotistical, but i would remind people in my mind he was a chameleon. if he could being what they call a bulldozer but that does not

describe him that at all. he could be equally soft, highly diplomatic and complex and move cautiously depending o on what >> in october, c-span coverage an event with the late richard holbrooke. a special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. he discussed u.s. presence in afghanistan after military action. this took place after "the new york times" reporter talked about his experience as a seven- month captive of the taliban. this is about 35 minutes. >> hello, everybody. i used to, in most of my reporting, i met ambassador holbrooke when i was born

correspondent for cnn and now over the last year -- i often stand on tables to get your attention. a now i am with abc this week. what i am trying to do is bring more of a perspective from the international world, the kinds of things richard holbrooke deals with and brings them to a wider american audience. it is great to be here with you all. great to be here but ambassador holbrooke. and we are going to chat for the next half an hour. a i would like to first welcome you here and i appreciate you changed your schedule to be here in front of this very important audience. and this is, as we all know, is being streamed online as well. let us start with where david rhode left off. you have known him through several imprisonment and arrest -- >> all of them. >> detentions, first in bosnia, which i was covering and i remembered being there when

david was with the serbs at the time. how do you remember those days, here you are trying to forge peace and having to deal with a humanitarian crisis as well? >> david managed to get himself captured by the bosnian serbs in the middle of the deyton process and we decided to just stop the negotiations until he was released and i remember milosevich saying you are crazy enough to stop an entire peace negotiation for one journalist who should not have been where he was? i said, yes, we are. my wife, was then the chairman of the committee of journalist and she went out and after three days got him out. but my most visit memory is the last time i saw david and kristin before activity, it was at the wedding of a friend of ours and he and kristen had not yet been married, they were engaged and he said i am going back to afghanistan and i said

jokingly, don't get yourself captured again. he said, no, no, that will never happen. so then, as david recounts in his articles and books, he tried to -- quite an interesting story. he tried to explain to the taliban that he was to be regarded in a different way because he had tried to expose the atrocities of bosnian serbs against muslimss at stress the need some -- at srebenica. but they googled him and would first showed up was his relations and to me. >> the taliban googled him? >> taliban can google, too. had he seen a mullah omar's facebook page? it is fantastic. he went to the greatest party

last night. the interesting thing is when they global -- googled him, they are so brutal and ruthless -- it is david in the room? you can confirm this. they are so ruthless, instead of realizing what david was trying to do they said, well, you are the best friend of richard holbrooke and now he is president obama's special representative for this region. and so, it cannot help but all. was that a fair representation of what happened? >> you know, at leads to a natural next question. number one, david was precisely where he was meant to be, to expose of atrocities in bosnia, the other side, or in afghanistan. precisely where he was meant to be an unfortunately had to pay the price for a long time.

but the fact that the taliban googled might be a lifeline but also means they are savvy. they understand what they are dealing with, they understand how to reach the audience they want to reach and how to manipulate the public space and the media space and the hearts and mind. >> and the cliche which is accurate, they are not the taliban of the 1990's. will we not the buddhas, which was like a world wide wake up call -- blowing up the buddhas. but they have not changed their brutal, ideology and goals. >> how does this strategy complicate efforts or match up to the efforts of the united states, international force is trying to defeat them? just to take that realm of first, the media space. >> i don't think it has affected

perceptions of the taliban in europe and the united states more than one-half of 1 percent -- >> in their region -- >> in their region they are trying to exploit targets of opportunity, the traditional target of anti-americanism that work -- we are fighting on muslims loyal for christian crusaders. david's points that the taliban think 67% of american women are prostitutes, this is not a small point. it shows that they are playing to a field of enormous ignorance in which communication is primarily filled by radio but with highly literate and highly susceptible people. >> who is winning that battle of perception right now as you are trying to win this war? >> in afghanistan, public opinion poll after public opinion poll shows it does not work. remember the black years,

especially the women? public support of the taliban always is in the same range, i single-digits, 7, 8, 9%. clearly in any free choice, they don't want to taliban back. >> a very important point because many americans who are against the war and would like to see the troops coming back sooner rather than later always say, look, the people of afghanistan don't want us there. certainly in my report i it -- reporting i have seen the opposite. >> millions of afghans put their trust in us. if you go there, you see things that are not well reported -- very touching things. our intent is to train civil servants, women empowerment programs, intends to rebuild afghan agriculture. it was an agriculture exporting country until the soviet invasion. but the country was so broken

after 32 years of been tenuous war and a series of mistakes, starting with the soviet invasion, consequences of what it is euphemistically called charlie will some's war but they miss a punchline is it led directly to where we are today, and then finally a consequence of what is now a going on. it so it is a broken society. this is not a popular uprising. i do want to make an important caveat. mao tse-tung during the chinese revolution said something which echoed in my mind when i was working in vietnam and elsewhere. he said, you give me two good men i can take any village in china. by good he meant ruthless. and what now pry neared in -- what mao pioneered in the 1920's has become s.o.p. for guerrillas all over the world. you go into a village kill the main landowner, officials, and terrorize the village and good

people who don't have any way of rallying become neutralized and you take over. >> let's try to explore that because as david was saying and obviously as noted by the firing of missiles oofer droughns, whatever it is adross the pakistan border, the taliban still exists. there are still big areas that very control or they can disrupt. in pakistan apparently, you tell me whether this is correct or not, you have assessed that the pakistani government is not going to go off to certain of their militant brutes. you have gone over the border now. pakistan seems to have retaliated by closing down certain routes for nato to bring things in. where does that stand right now? and how spread out and how effective are the taliban along that border? >> you have asked two questions. let me address them in turn. on the first point, the overall

relationship with pakistan is complicated. more complicated than any strategic relationship i have ever been involved in. but at the end of the day success in afghanistan, however you define success, is not achievable unless pakistan is part of the solution not part of the problem. and we can sit in this room and say a lot of things you may be thinking about that but in the end we've got to work with the pakistanis, at least as long as i'm involved in this because i believe it's the right policy and i know the administration does, too. it does not mean we are not without frustrations as reflected in today's lead story in the "washington post." on the plugs, an area the size of italy, an area that would stretch from the canadian border to florida went underwater. we were the first country in

with the most aid. i went into the flood zones. i'm proud of that. at the same time we have these issues you have alluded to. the kind of situation with the border which is the story of the day. let me be very -- let me try to phrase it very presleist. first of all, i don't believe that it's going to change the fundamental relationship between our two countries. there were apparently some events that crossed the border in an area, as you know, because you have been up there, and david spent an involuntary period of time up there and walked across it, is ill defined in areas. is complicated. and very rough terrain. it was very unfortunate. an investigation is going on by nato, as it should, and sketch

-- the secretary-general expressed his regret and i echo that, but i do not think it will change the fundamentals. >> has it actually affected, for instance, a major military point? and that is to allow the routes to be used for nato goods? >> right now there was a big attack on one of the convoys. it's not clear who did that. there have been other attacks. but this -- the journalist to link this attack -- >> has pakistan closed the route for american and nato resupply? >> i believe that the routes are not quite closed but they are moving more slowly. >> that's your main point. >> we'll work that out. >> you think you will? >> yes, for sure. it's unconceivable to me that the closing of the routes, the alleged closing, which is not a full closing anyway, would continue more than a short period of time. because if you go to the pass and you look at it from a

helicopter, for example, you look at that, once they start closing that thing, it's going to be -- have a colossal effect on the region. >> have you determined that the pakistanis, despite the efforts of the general, despite the better relationship that you described between the united states and pakistan on security and on cracking down on their homegrown threat, have you determined that they are nonetheless not going to go off to the hakani network in northern which is zeer stand? >> i'll let the pakistanis and the general speak to their own military plans. this is their business, their country. but -- they have limited resources and many challenges. right now they have like 60,000 or 70,000 troops working in the flood area. having said that, we have always said that we think more can be done in this regard. >> it is their issue, but it also then is your issue because

if they are not going to go after them and they are threats, you are going to go after them, the united states, is that what you determined? is that what the u.s. policy is? >> i'm not going to buy your phraseology. >> have you determined you have to take out the network? >> i'm not going to get into that. >> that's a direct question. >> that's a direct answer. >> it's a direct nonanswer. >> you can -- the first time i met christian was in sarajevo. i want to tell the story right now. and i came out into a gaggle of journalists yelling. suddenly there is this table in the back and she appears on top of the tainl with her own camera in her hand and starts yelling the questions and everybody backs off. that was the beginning -- >> you used to answer the questions.

>> i still do. >> you say that the taliban are more sophisticated now than when they blew up -- >> in immediate terms, sure. they have changed their tactics. >> they have in a way. not their brutality or goals, but they have in the i.e.d.'s are obviously the weapon of the moment. and they are extremely dangerous. and very, very difficult to counter. i guess from all of us looking from afar and listening to various statements that come out of this administration, the chairman of the joint chiefs admiral mullen was saying the other day he feels cautiously optimistic. looking from afar, it's difficult to get a real idea of what's happening on the ground. would you say that you are breaking the back of the

taliban? is the military effort breaking the back of the taliban? >> i'm not going to prognosticate -- >> right now what's happening on the ground. not tomorrow or two weeks. >> there are areas in the country where the taliban is under immense pressure and being really hurt. like the area around kust. there are other areas where the taliban is holding its own. and there may be some areas, localized, where they are making limited inrounds of the the influx of international troops led by the u.s. has made a real difference and created more space for an effort to push them back. >> are you optimistic? >> as i said i don't bet on games, this is not a game. you remember from the bosnia days i never would answer that question. we just have a job to do and we are going to do it. i'm not into the light at the end of the tunnel stuff. >> how would you compare where

you are today from let's say a year ago when you started? not even a year ago? >> the taliban is under immensely greater pressure and they are feeling it. as david petraeus said the other day, and i agree with david on that. >> there's been a lot of talk about whether the united states is going to agree with and back or whether the afghan government will get into any kind of meaningful negotiations with the taliban. most people say there is no full military solution to this and there will be a negotiated solution. can you give us a status report of the likelihood of any -- meaningful resolution with any kind of elements of the taliban? >> let me start by reminding you-all from the beginning of this administration, all of us, civilian and military, david trayous, mike -- petraeus, mike mullen, everybody, we have always said there is no muirly military solution to this war.

what does that mean? it means there is to be some kiped of political solution. president karzai has preetedly reached out in public -- repeatedly reached out in public including his inaugural speech in november, speech in london in january, his speech in july which hillary and i were at, and many, many other statements. so the terrain is -- ought to be very clear to everyone that we understand, everyone understands are you not going to stamp out the taliban by military force. but the issue of how the war comes to an end, all wars come to an end, but this one has had a unique dynamic because it's continued for over 30 years with shifting groups and the enemy is not a single enemy like the north vietnamese or viet kong or the bosnian serbs.

it's all these different groups. al qaeda, afghan taliban. the l.e.t. whose goal is to provoke conflict between india and pakistan. they are all nashed around this area david was talking about. they are overlapped but different goals. it's a uniquely complicated problem. having said that, of course, the discussions of what the basis for an outcome that didn't involve the military solution continues. but there is no current, clear path of the sort you are talking about that is readily apparent. i want to stress to everyone here, this wonderful conference, that -- because it's an ideas conference, and this is a very big idea, that we are mindful of it and all of us have discussed it seriously. and we understand it's importance and we have been

talking to the afghans and pakistanis and other important participants in the region about this. >> negotiated resolution including elements of the taliban, is that what you are speeskly talking about? >> i'm going to avoid the word negotiated. because that carries implications of camp david and so on. i'm going to avoid that. >> why avoid it? even if it's not a formal process like david, either you are going to have some kind of deliberations or the afghan government or you are going to assume they are going to buckle and cry uncle and surrender. which one is it? >> there are many other variants besides -- >> tell us some. >> well, you want me -- >> please. >> there is the situation -- remember what i said there are many different elements -- >> the reason we are a little

bit confused because many of the military commanders say this is a good big idea to try to bringing bring the elements of the taliban who are reconcileable into an end of the conflict, but in order to do that we must first deliver them the sort of knockout blow, put them on their heels so they understand they are coming at this from a position of weakness. >> you have just answered your own question. >> is it possible? >> you laid out a scenario which was neither of the two options. >> is it possible? >> it absolutely is possible. that's why i emphasize to this group there are all these different enemies out there. each one has to -- there are so many different groups. i mentioned the five biggest. >> one of the reasons i ask also because this is a very important idea. you have been there many times before in conflict resolution. in this case, though, for instance the original partner of the united states when they went into afghanistan after 9/11 was the northern alliance, abdullah,

abdullah was leading that. post-9/11. abdullah abdullah was his deputy. he said to me recently, do you really think that the taliban, which is committed to worldwide islamic caliphate, that is committed to obliterating the rights of women and ordinary individuals, is going to negotiate with a government that it believes is infidel,, so the mindset, i'm trying to get -- maybe you have answered it, there are no meaningful talks going on right now. do you think there is any space for this idea to germinate? >> first of all there is space for this idea to germinate. secondly, your question implies a partial solution. there are, and i want to go back -- general petraeus and i talked about this a lot because he went through something similar in

iraq. and the -- there are groups out there which switch allegiancies. they'll fight against the foreigners, they'll ally themselves with the foreigners. that also happened in iraq. some of these groups are simply defending the valley they have lived in for centuries against the latest external threat. the distinction you made between reconcileable and irreconcileable is a well-known distinction. you can start with al qaeda. they are irreconcilable. it's not possible to talk to them. i think everyone would agree with that. then you go on to the other groups, you say some are splintered internally. some of these people are in constant contact with the field commander level. some local taliban calls on the cell phone to a person who is a relative of a friend in the

local area and says we are tired of this war. we'd like to come in from the cold. this is the reintegration program that president karzai unveiled in london in january and which we have -- we and the british and japanese and others are funding and is a very important program. >> how many has it brought in from the cold? >> it is not yet operational and this is a very -- don't give me that look. >> why not? >> because i'm going -- >> why is it not operational? >> because the government of afghanistan is not yet gotten it up and running to the level it should be. >> here we have a real important issue. how much time do you have, the president has put a fixed deadline on this. and each time you talk about conditions -- >> oot president has not put a deadline. >> in july of 2011, am i right? >> no. he has said -- let's not misstate july 20, 11 or we'll spiral into the wrong place.

>> you define it now. >> he has said it very clearly that withdrawals will begin on a careful conditions based -- >> deadline. >> not a deadline. it's not a deadline -- it's the beginning of a drawdown process. there is no end date stated. it's conditions based. it's related to the issue you talk about. back to the reintegration program because i want to clarify this. we -- this is a very important program. nobody can be satisfied with its current operational levels. because we don't have in place or the afghan government doesn't have in place yet in every district in the key areas, the people who are going to implement this program. the project is like everything in afghanistan, it's constrained by the circumstances of this tragic tormented country.

and -- so this program like any other program we talk about, is not going to be where it should be. i fully agree with you as to its importance. general petraeus, the congress, we have a very important lady in the congress, jane harman, who is involved in this. the congress has authorized the general petraeus can use up to $100 million of his emergency funds to support this program. so while the afghan government is still trying to organize it, and i agree with you it's too slorks we -- general petraeus, you were just there, you must have talked to david about this, general petraeus is and his team are putting into place this program at the local level and it is proceeding. >> one of the things for some unknown reason to me anyway as an observer and reporter, you have been on the ground in many

of these places, the nation building in this country, the term is a dirty word, yet every single general, colonel, captain, right down to the ground level, everybody who has to worked in places like bosnia, iraq, afghanistan, wherever, almost unanimously will say, maybe they don't use that term, but the only way to do this is to really do serious, long-term whace the right word without nation building. reconstruction, giving an alternative economic future, a development education, all the soft power things that have to happen in order to win any of these wars. how much are your hands tied by the real distance that successive administrations in the united states have put -- >> previous administration made this a dirty word, specifically

the secretary of defense, tom rumsfeld. there was an institute for nation building at the army war college. rumsfeld shut it down. many military believe in it. you didn't mention the thousands of american civilians, government employees, and n.g.o.'s, and contractors who are in many greater danger because they don't have security and they are out on the frontline. i want to pay tribute to them because that's the part of the program that i'm supposed to be overseeing. but to get back to your point, nation building became a dirty word because it was spun out in the wrong way. you call it whatever you want. we are not building a nation of afghanistan. afghanistan is a nation. we are trying to help them rebuild. agriculture is the perfect example. as i mentioned earlier they were an agriculture export country. they were the breadbasket. they dominated the world market. they exported to their neighbors

wheat and grapes. they even exported good riesling wines. that's not going to happen again. the vineyards are still there. that was all destroyed. we can help them do it. it's the poorest non-african country in the world. it has the highest illiteracy rate, maybe not in the world but one of the highest. they know they are -- bear in mind that afghanistan has never had the separatist movements you are so familiar with from yugoslavia that exist right now in sudan and even exist in neighboring pakistan and india. >> bearing in mind also afghanistan is again. so leaders have said to me, look, here you have this huge country so strategically located where by in large a population that wants the international forces there, that has aligned itself with progress in that

they want their girls educated, security, economic development, they want to stand up on their own two feet and they are not looking for endless charity or handouts. given that would present for the united states and for the west a totally different narrative, in other words a friendly, mostly muslim country, than what it was when al qaeda under the fally was plotting it. isn't it five times more important to really, really go after the bits that you are a -- involved in. the bottom line is to give them an alternative to terrorism and drug production. >> the short answer to your question is yes. the more complicated answer is in order to make that work it has to be integrated with the -- with other aspects of the policy and it must include a similar program in pakistan. the congress signs the checks

and they have legitimate concerns about accountability, transparency. the issue of corruption, so on. having said all that i want to be very clear. i want to go back to july 2011 and the -- july 20, 2011, and the statement of the long term. we have all said repeatedly there has to be a presence in afghanistan after the combat troops leave because they will eventually leave. this is not an open-ended commitment. as the president has said repeatedly. and that goes to your point. we cannot repeat the mistake of 1989 when the soviets crossed the bridge back into the soviet union and the united states immediately turned its back on afghanistan and a country we have been so involved in just imploded and broke up and then the pakistanis seeing the fact that their own significance

moved in and started the various issues we were talking about earlier. to prevent that will require economic and development aid, including the issues you have raised and i have raised. agriculture, women's empowerment, and so on. we cannot turn their backs on them. we cannot have that dramatic cover photo on "time" magazine become a reality. on an ongoing basis. >> you mean the woman who was attacked? >> with her nose cut off. i want to point out the headline said what will happen if we lose afghanistan? but the photograph was something happening there today. it's a deep part of the culture. we cannot change the culture and we are not trying. >> is it a deep part of the culture? >> of course. >> that's a criminal act by taliban types. that's a direct criminal and political act. >> i don't want to get -- >> we can't just say that's the culture.

they have acid thrown at them. >> don't misrepresent what i said. there is a strong culture in afghanistan which you know very well burqas, things that we consider unacceptable and which hillary clinton and her colleagues, including myself, have fought -- let me finish because you have made a very, very serious misrepresentation of what i said. >> misrepresentation? >> yes. because there is a strong culture there. >> an equally strong culture of women trying to fight back which is why they have so much at stake. i'm not saying -- i'm not saying you are trying to let that happen. >> i'm not condoning these things. i have given my whole life to fighting them and so has hillary. they are incredibly important to us. i'm making a point that we don't want it to happen again. but it happens even now. it's not just the taliban who do it. it is part of an ancient culture

which is in extraordinary stress. it doesn't just happen in afghanistan. as you certainly know. now, let me get back -- >> we have one more minute. >> but i have to question the core point. after the troops believe, we must remain with economic and social development to prevent this kind of thing from happening. and we must continue to train the afghan police and army. that's not going to be cheap. and it's going to be an international effort. and that is -- that goes to your question about nation building. >> let me ask you this because we do have one last question and it goes right to this culture thing. you at the beginning said success depending on how people define that, i want to ask you about that because a lot of people say well, we promised to bring themdy s we promised this, we promised that and we can't because of their culture. we can't because they are not disposed to it.

do you think sometimes that people maybe in the west get the wrong idea, that the idea of democracy should be a western-style democracy or nothing at all? so what is success for you once this is over? >> success, i would define success as a country that's at peace and that -- in which its government and by government i don't just mean kabul because afghanistan historically has not been run entirely by the center because of the ethnic groups and lack of communication and logistics. but a country which is stable enough to work on its economic development and build its institutions and make -- get people literacy which is critically important because illiteracy -- and rebuild its institutions and that has a

derangement, understanding with islamabad so that these two neighbors with their overlapping strategic interests can live together in some degree of harmony. we will never have a day when it will be violence free. like many other countries you and i are familiar with there will be residual movements, tribally driven, subplots, special tribes that we'll keep fighting. to get it out of the world arena, and yet continue to have the world support it, it's not an easy task. i don't want anyone in the room to be misled. it won't be easy to do. but that is part -- that's part of the process. our core goal remains to defend our national security. in the region because there are people in that region who attack the united states. the time square bomber went back to that area to the border area to get trained and the enemies of the united states are still out there and we have to take

action when that is require. >> thank you very much. >> mr. holbrooke died last night. he was 69. we are going live to the u.s. house for general speeches. lter recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. well, the senate has acted on

the so-called tax cuts proposal . they acted the way the senate usually acts when confronted with a problem, they add ornaments to the christmas tree. they actually increased the cost. this legislation will cost $858 billion over two years. that is bigger than the much-reviled stimulus passed in the beginning of the obama presidency. $858 billion. that will add approximately $430 billion a year to the deficit. in the next two years. that's $430 billion more borrowed probably from china. now, the question is -- is this the best possible use of this money? will this put america and americans back to work, get us more firmly on the path to recovery? i think not. i think much of this money is wasted and will create zero

jobs. now, if you think that the bush era tax cuts worked well, they didn't create any jobs, but for some reason you think they worked well, then you're going to like this. it's even a bigger giveaway than the bush era tax cuts. or if you think the $300 billion of the so-called stimulus that the president gave away in tax cuts, the larry summers tax cuts that were so small that nobody noticed and they were spent on consumer goods, bad politics, bad economics didn't put any back to work, got 300 republican works. it bumped out real investment that would have created real and immediate jobs. no. instead we had a femoral spending. if you like that, you are going to love this. has new provisions. one, instead of the president obama's making work pay tax cuts, now, we're going to tax

social security. that's right. the republicans are getting their dream here. we are going to give a tax holiday of 2% on social security. isn't that great? it goes to any income level. that means members of congress will get a minimum of $2,100 tax break, as well as other people who do well in this country. that could have hurt social security by cutting it by $111 billion next year. don't worey. we'll borrow the money from china and we will inject it into the social security trust fund. tear down the fire well between the general fund and social security. next year the republicans are going to say to the president, hey, you can't let that fica holiday expire. we can't afford to subsidize social security out of the general fund. this is a trap. and that kind of a tax cut is not going to put people back to work. then we have the tax cuts for the upper income. $51 billion for income above

$250,000. now, remember, up to $250,000, everybody under what president obama first proposed would get a tax cut. guess what happened during the clinton era? we balanced the budget and created 23 million jobs. not too bad. now we have record deficits and we are creating an anemic number of jobs. the estimate is this could create one million or three million jobs. if we directly invested a fraction of this $858 billion in roads, bridges, highways, sewers, water systems, building schools, things that will pass benefits to future generations we could create millions of jobs and you would have gotten something for your money other than current consumption. and then how about this new provision? over $10 billion. the media keeps saying $5

billion. no, five and and five. that costs $10 billion a year. we are going to borrow $10 billion a year, all the american people are going to borrow that money to give 6,000 families a tax break who are already doing quite well, thank you very much. how many jobs will that create? zero. goose egg, none. it isn't about small business anymore. we are talking about states over $10 million. -- estates over $10 million. and we are talking about capital gains and dividend taxes which go predominantly to the higher income tax brackets. if this is a job creator, it's the least efficient, lamest way to create jobs and unbelievable expense. if we want to create jobs there are better ways to do it. if you want to do the tax relief you could do it for much less. if you cut out the upper income over $250,000, the estates over

$10 million, look at capital gains, dividends, don't do the fica tax or at least cap it so people at levels of congress -- we could do this for less and put more people to work. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. . mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. mr. mcgove: the war in afghanistan was not an shall shoe. there was no draft in this contry. we have an all volunteer armed forces. only a small percentage of our population is at risk. and no one is paying for the war. it's all gone on america's credit card. we are borrowing all the money to pay for this war. why should anyone pay attention? i believe, mr. speaker, we

should pay more attention. there is no excuse for our collective indifference. at 109 months this is the longest war in our history. over 1/400 of our uniformed men and women have lost their lives in afghanistan. over 8,700 have been wounded in action. high levels of deloy. continue to strain our uniformed men and women, their families, and their communities. in spite of the military's best efforts, suicide and posttraumatic stress rates continue to soar. and our ability to care for the wounded in severely overburdened. the ability of individual service members and their units to rest, recuperate, retain--retrain and re-equip themselves for redeployed is tretched beyond its limits. and in afghanistan our so-called ally, president karzai, is corrupt. the afghan military and the

police are not reliability partners. and al qaeda is someplace else. a few weeks ago president obama told us that we are in afghanistan for at least another four years, maybe more. the question is, for what? why do we need to sacrifice more precious american lives? why do we need to continue to align ourselves with a crooked government that routinely commits fraud in elections? why aren't we instead using all of our resources to go after the terrorists that murdered so many of our civilians september 11? the republicans won back the majority of the house by promising to control spending and reduce the deficit. this war has already cost us over $450 billion. when combined with the cost of the war in iraq, it accounts for 23% of our combined deficits in 2003. where's the outcry from the tea

partiers and the deficit hawks? fiscal conservatives should be outraged that this war is being financed with borrowed money. and for those who support the war, you should pay for it. where is the liberal outrage? for those of us who are tired of being told we don't have enough money to extend unemployment benefits or invest in green jobs or new jobs, we should be yelling and screaming at the fact when it comes to the war in afghanistan and supporting karzai, our treasury is a a.t.m. machine. let us put in perfect specifically what this war truly costs an what we must give up to maintain the status quo. according to a columbia university professor testifying before the house veterans' affairs committee, the total cost of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, including interest payments on the money borrowed for these wars and taking care of our wounded soldiers and veterans, will likely be between $4 trillion and $6

trillion. yes, mr. speaker, between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. on saturday, deese 11, mr. speaker, another -- december 11, mr. speaker, another soldier from my district sacrificed in his life in afghanistan. army specialist ethan was 21 years old when he died in kabul. he's the third graduate of dirky high school until fall river to die in uniform this year and the fourth service member from fall river, a town of 90,000 residents. his loss is deeply felt in this tight knit community and my thoughts and fairs are with his parents, families, friends, and school mates. mr. speaker, i believe the human and financial costs of this war are unacceptable and unsustainable. it is bankrupting us. we need a plan to extricate ourselves from afghanistan not a plan to stay there for four more years and then we'll see. this doesn't mean we abandon the afghan people, mr. speaker. rather we should abandon this

war strategy. it hasn't brought stability to afghanistan and it is not enhancing our own national security. ending the war is politically difficult. it's easier for politicians to go along rather than make waves. mr. speaker, this isn't about politics. it's about doing the right thing. and the right thing is to end this war. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares in recess ntil 2:00 p.m. >> a number of bills dealing with native american land issues and continued federal aid for libraries and museums. votes on those measures will take place at 6:00 even. the house is still waiting for the senate to pass an extension of the bush administration tax cuts and jobless benefits as well as federal spending through

next september. those bills are holding congress in session. live coverage when the house returns here on c-span. >> it's hard to get here and it's also hard to leave here. but all of us do leave and the senate always continues. >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring members from both the senate and house on the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987. more than 160,000 hours all online, all free. it's washington your way. >> student protests have been continuing since the british house of commons approved a plan last week to allow university tuition fees to triple to about $13,000 a years. going to show you the house of commons debate. it's about an hour and 20 minutes.

>> students, parents, and teachesers with the student camp competition one month away, c-span stands to answer your questions. we are offering six free webinar's. to sign up for a 30-minute session email us at educate at c-span.org. c-span student cam video competition is opened to middle and high school students. the deadline to enter is january 20, 2011. for more information go to student cam.org. >> once again student protests have been continuing since the house of commons and britain approved a plan to allow university tuition frees to triple. going to show you the house of commons debate on the issue. it's an hour and 20 minutes. >> the terms narrow in terms of

an instrument, but as i think you ruled yesterday evening you would like us to entertain debate on the wider issues involved because they arouse very strong feelings inside and outside the house. the ibstrumet we are discussing here is a central part of a policy that is designed to maintain high quality universities in long-term term which tackles the fiscal deficit and provides a more progressive system of graduate contributions based on people's ability to pay. let me just briefly go over the sequence of events which has led to this debate today. i became the secretary of state in may when the brown report was being conducted. it had a-h been commissioned by the government in november of

last year. the then government had asked the former chief executive of the -- to conduct a report in order to prepare a way for an increase in tuition fees. following the yerl introduction of fees and fees by the last government. i will take questions later. i have been asked by the speaker that we should keep introductions brief. i will -- as honorable members know i'm very happy taking interventions. i will take them when i have developed an argument. >> order. order. order. order. secretary of state is resume the seat for a moment. i apologize for having interrupted the secretary of state. there are strong opinions on this matter. passions are allowsed. that is understood. that is accepted. what is not accepted by any

democrat is that the secretary of state should not receive a fair hearing. the right honorable gentleman will be heard. and if members are making a noise and then expecting to be called, i fear that's a trial of optimism over reality. >> when i became secretary of state i invited lord brown to make two adaptations to the terms of reference that he had undertaken under the previous government. the first thing i asked him to do was to see how we could make the existing system of payments more progressive, more related to the ability to pay of future graduates. he undertook to do that and we have done further work to develop the reliability of the system. as a result of that the i.f.s. was able to conclude that the package we have produced was more progressive than the existing system and more progressive than the brown report.

completely what that means is that just a little under 25% of all future graduates will pay less than they do under the current system that we inherited from the labor government. successive requests of lord brown was to ask him to look at the alternative of graduate cuts. like many people coming fresh to this issue, i felt the graduate tax was potentially good and interesting idea and i wanted it to be properly explored. the conclusion he reached was the same conclusion that the report reached under the labor government. was the same conclusion that the current chancellor reached when he had responsibility. and the conclusion was that the graduate tax has many disadvantages or at least the

pure graduate tax has many disadvantages. it's undermines the independence of the dusts, but most seriously of all it is in the words of lord brown simply unworkable. i'm therefore surprised that -- i will in a moment. i'm therefore surprised that the leader of the labor party after all this experience and all this independence analysis has chosen to drag his party down the path -- i'll take the minister's intervention after just reading him a comment from what i would have thought would have been one of his political allies. the education and statesman, normally very favorably disposed to the labor party, commented on the current position. let me read it and i will take the intervention. labor, he said, has been seduced. it's a sentimental sloppy

thinking that defends the interests of the affluent not the poor. to describe students as facing a lifelong burden of crippling debt is simply bizarre. particularly for a labor leader who wants to replace the debt with a graduate tax that the rich would avoid. >> on the issue of sloppy thinking, crucial to the government's case has been its advocacy of the national scholarship fund. isn't it the case that his plans are unraveling rather fast? vice chancellor's criticizing left, right, and center, and yesterday the institute for fiscal studies provides a financial incentive for universities to turn away students from poor backgrounds. how is he going to fix it? >> the actual scholarship is still open to consultation.

from him and vice chancellor and others in order to achieve an objective which i hope he shares, which i hope he shares, which is to ensure that people from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve access to higher education. something they miserably failed to do under a labor government in the russell group university. as it happens, the i.s.f. was looking at one of the series of options and they were not taking account of the fact that under the scheme we proposed those universities that wish to progress beyond the 6,000 pound count will be obliged to introduce the scholarship scheme without the debt riment that he described. >> i'm very grateful to the secretary of state but he knows the central issue is the fact that the peaching grant is to be cut by 80% and that is the -- the burden of that is to be transferred to students and it's justified by the government's

assessment of the scale of the deficit. yesterday in evidence to the treasury select committee, the chancellor admitted that there were tens of billions of receipts from privatization not included in the comprehensive spending review which he is now anticipating. what instrument does he put on those receipts? to what extend do those receipts take into account his cal clailingses about the scale of the deficit? >> i think given his history in the cabinet he's a co-author of the package of measures we have inherited. lacking productivity. his intervention is helpful in directing us to what is the heart of this debate which is have we found universitys and where the money comes from. that is what i now wish to do. i move on and still take other inks tensions. the brown report -- i will move

on to the financing -- >> secretary gable. >> once lord brown recommended in terms of funding universities, this was the report that came from the labor party in government endorsed in their manifesto was a recommendation that there should be no cap on fees in university and a specific proposal for a clawback mechanism which gave universities an incentive to introduce fees up to a level of 15,000 pound a year. that was the report that was given to the government. and we have rejected those recommendations. and we have proposed instead that we proceed as the statutory instruments describe, the introduction of a fee cap of 6,000 pounds in exceptional circumstances writing to 9,000. i will now explain the basic

economics of that problem in the light of the intervention which has just been made by the former minister. i will not give way. i will give way later when i have finished this particular point. the right honorable gentleman, the opposition spokesman on this matter, i think rather helpfully sends around a circular to m.p.'s yesterday when he steps out the basic economic framework within which these decisions have been made. he said m.p.'s have been asked to vote on increasing the fee cap to 9,000, he didn't mention the 6,000. because the government is choosing to make a disproportionate cut to the university teaching budget and a spending review with an average cut of 11%. now, i will finish this point. the whole point here of the right honorable gentleman knows

is this government like the last government is not making average across the board cuts at 11% in every government department. absolutely. we have chosen to have some protected government departments, health, schools, pensions, aid, the consequence of which the logical consequence of which is that there are much higher cuts in unprotected departments. and should the right honorable gentleman remembers the analysis of the institute of fiscal study, which told us in the wake of the march budget that a labor government, a labor government was planning to cut unprotected departments by 25%. >> i'm dwrafle to the right honorable gentleman who's been good enough to refer to my letter and he knows full well that i have had analysis done

does not stand up to scrutiny and neither reflects -- neither reflects the decisions taken by the chancellor in his -- or the speech made by my right honorable friend. could the secretary of state help the house, could the secretary of state help the house by identifying which other major spending programs have been cut by 80%? >> 80%, fact, it is a fact, derives from the following. most major government departments as they would have done under a labor government, have had to take spending reductions of something of the order of 25%. and i wish to take him and his colleague opposite to what that has meant for the teaching round of the universities and university funding in general.

let me just develop this point and i will take an intervention. what were the options for a department facing 25% cuts of the kind he himself was going to introduce? 70% of all spending in this department is on universities. he could, i could, have chosen to make the cuts elsewhere. the logic is further education. we could have made the choice to cut apprenticeships, to cut skill level training at a modest level. to try and deal with the problem which we have inherited of six million adults in this country who do not have the literacy of a 12-year-old. we could have cut that. but we chose not to cut that. we did not cut that. so we were left with a decision of how to make cuts in the university budget of

approximately 25%. there were various options -- i will finish this section and then i will take an intervention. there were various options for doing it. we could have reduced radically the number of university students, 200,000, but all the evidence suggests in the last government used to argue that increasing university participation is the best avenue to social mobility. we rejected that option. we did not cap large numbers of university students. we could have made the decision which would have been easier and less visible and less provocative in the short run, we could have made a decision radically to reduce student maintenance. could have done that. and the effects of that would have been to reduce the support which low-income students receive when they are at university now. and we rejected, we rejected that option.

we could have taken -- we could have taken what i would call the scottish option. we could have cut funding to universities without giving them the means -- i will take the intervention shortly. without giving them the means to raise additional income to a graduate contribution. and the certain consequence of that would have been that in five to 10 year's time the great universitying, brings tomorrow, and the rest would still be great, world class universities and universities like glasgow would be in a state of decline. we rejected consciously all of those unacceptable options. >> i'm very grateful for the secretary's speech. does he begin to understand and appreciate the impact, potential impact on scottish universities by askedling tuition fees in

england? what is he going to do to mitigate this potentially disastrous impact for scotland? >> i will not be following the advice of the scottish nationalists in government who are starving scottish university resources and reallocating priorities to cut schools. because that is what has happened in scotland. >> i think my right honorable friend for giving way. i'm sure we can all agree that all those students who would been fit from a university education should be entitled to -- regardless of their financial situation. my particular concern is that by increasing the tuition cap, participation levels for lower income and middle income students will fall away. what assurance can the government give that this situation will be monitored very closely going forward and that corrective action will be taken