could happen in both the house and senate today. another headline says the government funding bill is loaded with earmarks. and also looking for possible action this week and maybe beyond on the start treaty, don't ask, don't tell, the bill that is called the dream act on immigration. we will cover it all. but we will open the program by talking about this continuing resolution, this government funding bill that seems to be more thing into something larger, depending on what you read. but the headline in "the washington post" says senators load spending bill with earmarks. here are the numbers to call --

senators load spending bill with year marks, that is the headline in "the washington post." it says that -- here's some of the details in this piece. $80 million for it two nonprofits associated with deceased democrats --

that is the beginning of this piece in "the post" today. we will take your calls and give you more details because there are several headlines. it just like many headlines on this government funding bill. a meeting happening at the white house today. the news editor at "the hill."

the president is meeting with a group of ceo's. what is the purpose of the meeting and how did it come about? guest: the purpose is two-fold. he is doing whatever he can to show he is improving his relationship with corporate america. that he has struggled with it the last two years. he has taken a lot of shots from business and the white house has taken its own shots at business, it has been kind of an antagonizing relationship. the second thing is the president is desperate to get the unemployment rate down. they are also hoping that corporate america will get back in the game. the federal reserve estimated businesses are sitting on about $2 million in cash. the administration would like to see them invested back into the economy -- hiring workers, improving the economy and getting the unemployment rate down. host: let us look at the guest list. two dozen ceo's.

the companies are all the biggies. if we can put them on the screen at some point in the interview -- but who will be at this meeting and what are they looking for? guest: you are right. it is sort of a who's who in corporate america. ceo of dew point date, some tec h companies like google, intel, pepsi, energy companies like duke energy, dupont co. pared -- dupont co.. some have been friendly to the white house in the past, but there have been some critics -- one was quoted as criticizing the administration last summer for some of its policies on trade in particular, saying the u.s. was falling behind in the trade game.

again, this is really a chance for obama to improve his relationship with business. by the way, this is a relationship there recently has shown signs of improvement. the tax package, as well as of the south korea free trade agreement. host: there was sensitivity to the word summit being applied. what was it all about? guest: i think sometimes whenever you hear of an idea of a summit, that suggests there is going to be some kind of agreement that will come out of it, that you would get some kind of big paper that says we will do this or that. i don't know if you are going to say a promise, for example, from business leaders that they will turn around and spend about $1 trillion of the $2 trillion they're sitting on. some economists say one reason the money is not being spent is a there is uncertainty about

where the economy is heading and you do not want to invest all of your money in expanding your business if you are not sure consumers will be there to buy your products and services. i think while the administration is interested in highlighting this meeting -- and we expect the president to give a want tot -- they don't overstate. host: tell us more about the message in these ceo's specifically will deliver to the president as far as policy, especially considering the changeover in congress next year. guest: i think ceo's like a lot of people are looking for cooperation from the parties in congress. one message from voters in the midterm election is they were tired of some of the partisan victory and it -- bickering and they want to see the two sides get together and on some of the

long term problems. what they're doing now is addressing the short-term problems, all the bush era tax rates were set to go back up on january 1. president obama was able to reach an agreement with republicans that prevents it from happening and also puts into place a new estate tax. i think they were happy with that. now they also want to see the parties get together and deal with things like the long-term deficit problem that really makes investors nervous, causing rates on treachery bonds to increase. i also think they are looking for some signs from obama that he wants to work with them. again, over the past two years with the health-care fight and wall street fight, there was a lot of criticism from the white house on business rhetorically. i think they want to try to

reset the relationship. host: ian swanson, news editor of "the hill." we are talking about earmarked specifically as being applied, according to this headline in "the washington post" of the government funding bill. the government is running on temporary funding right now. the funding expires in just a couple of days. this new bill, which is supposed to run about 10 or 11 months through the next fiscal year, has this headline -- senators load spending bill with earmarks. here is some commentary from senator john mccain yesterday on all of this. >> it is important to note that this 1924 pages is only the legislative language and does not include the thousands of pages of report language that

contains the details of the billions of dollars in earmarks, and i am sure major policy changes, written without a hearing, written without scrutiny, written without the input of the majority of the members of this body, written by a handful of senators who happen to the members of the appropriations committee. and the american people said it just 42 days ago, in mouth. -- enouugh. are we tone deaf, stricken with amnesia? what is going on here? host: one more point from this story before we get to calls. they talk about how republicans, poised to take over the majority next year. they vowed to prohibit the earmarked practice on their side of the hill --

first call on all of this, louisiana, willie online for democrats. caller: good morning. i am calling to express my concern about earmarked because not all of them are bad. some are not just pork -- very lean. we live in a very rural area of louisiana and if it were not for some of the year marks we would not get basic resources -- earmarks, we would not give basic resources like sidewalks. we have not had new sidewalks for 30 or 40 years. host: that being said, who should decide which ones get through and which ones do not? how should all be figured out?

caller: i listened to senator mccain talk about how they were divided digging going -- going to take away the support the small communities would have. maybe you need to come up with a committee. don't just throw the baby out with a wash. not everything is bad about earmarks. it gives needed money and resources to communities that need the money, smaller communities. it is just giving back what we sent in. those are our tax dollars. i have no problem with money coming into this community to help of this community to grow and to provide jobs and resources for the citizens. host: let's move on to rockville, maryland, just outside d.c. . stone, also on the line for democrats for caller: this is nothing s -- short of tyranny and is budgetary crisis to have

something like this happen. it this is why the president needs the line item veto where he can say, no way, no how. this is nothing but fiat's money. who is going to pay for this? it is understandable some are -- however, we have gone far beyond the rubicon. this has to stop. this is nothing so -- short of disgrace. i hope today the presidential gathering with the ceo barrons will be nothing more than a photo op -- like a lame jobs summit. one more thing, i heard on the menu at the white house with the ceo's will be corn bread, hog mauls and chicken wings. host: los angeles, republican caller. what is your name? in income -- caller: focusing on day $8 billion spending is ridiculous. what about the rest of the $1.10 trillion. we want to see all of the waist

-- where it is going and it is always of the taxpayers and their needs were the spending is disputed. the pigs and genetic engineering and all of the costs -- i want to see the whole breakdown of the balance. at his age, we will certainly see it in the days ahead about some of the points the some members are making is people are not having the adequate chance to read it. but i operative paragraph is the $1.20 trillion bill includes more than 6000 earmarks and the total is $8 billion -- the post story goes on to say --

michigan. sharon, a democrat. caller: i am upset about tax breaks for the very wealthy. and i have nine grandchildren. i don't want them paying for the two wars that a bush started, and we are paying for them on a charge card from china. now we are going to give tax cuts to the very wealthy. and my grandchildren are going to have to pay for it.

this is crazy. host: touching on a separate bill that we have been talking about a lot lately and macy votes on in the senate and perhaps the house -- the senate does have a vote scheduled for noon time, the tax cut bill, talking about the regular bill that funds of the government, usually a series of bills but being rolled into one big bill with some additions and the post story goes on to say it was crafted privately by a select bipartisan group of senators. combining a doesn't spending bills into a single bill. -- a dozen spending bills into a single bill.

next caller, california. republican. caller: i am a 70-year-old retired marine corps officer with two doors of duty in vietnam. my wife and i have been in business for 45 years. we pay about $65 -- $65,000 a year in the taxes. money is not the root of evil, but the love of it is. i am suggesting the top 5% of this country to pay all the bills -- take a little tax holiday for a couple of years and we will see if we can't shut the thing down. host: madison, ky. pat, independent. caller: thinking back years ago

i went through the depression -- all through grade school, high school, and it was not until the war broke out, will war ii, that we finally saw the light of day. i just have it -- i am sorry? host: keep going, caller. you are on the air. keep going. caller: i just have one thing to say to the senate and the congress, keep it up, boys and girls, we will end up with another depression. host: more on the headlines on this particular story. pork barrel rolling is the headline in "the new york post" this morning -- they put the word stuffing in quotes. 1900 pages, 16 -- pet projects worth $8 billion.

the story is making front-page news and other publications including "the politico" today. both parties, this headline points out, load up bill with earmarks. they write that --

dover, arkansas. ted, what do you think about what you heard? caller: it shows the utter contempt they have for the american people. they should have had the bill passed once ago -- months ago when they had time to go through it. host: an earlier caller said some of the earmarks of a justified, much-needed projects, in her view. what do you think? caller: they are not supposed to be done by a single senator or representative. that is the whole problem.

host: anything else he want to add? that was ted, republican from dover, arkansas. new york, rashondra, a democrat, go ahead. could you turn your sound down on your set? caller: are you talking to me? host: we will hear you much better. caller: gary from norwood, new york. why don't they tax the churches and the amish, all the people who don't pay taxes. take-out welfare checks instead of cutting social security and stuff. heights,rview illinois. are you there? you are on the democrats' line. glad to have you. caller: i am calling for all of

the low income, middle class people. we have worked for many years putting the tax dollars out there and worked very hard. how do we feel and work so hard and lose your job and cannot get nothing, no help or anything and you have congressman fighting on whether or not they should help us or not. not helping us feed our kids. not helping insurance or anything. a big argument. when it is all said and done, who is going to help people who work 35 or 45 years -- tax dollars, but they cannot get nothing now. host: shannon on the independent line. caller: i think of getting down to the wire here at christmas time is utterly ridiculous. they failed to pass a budget.

they work monday through thursday the whole year and now they are winding, under the gun and want to cram the earmarked spending. they cry and cry and drug about the waist -- mitch mcconnell is one of the worst. he carried on a ridiculously about them and he has so many of them. it is ridiculous. you have to blame both parties. there is no excuse for any of this. host: ian "the washington post" piece, leaders would be receptive -- depending on what is in it, says speaker pelosi.

let's hear from cincinnati. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: you are jan on the republican line. caller: i am pretty disgusted but i ended up voting for barack obama in the election is just because a republican spending -- and here we go again. john boehner needs to cry some more. host: senator lindsey graham said he would oppose the bill -- has a $379,000 earmark to study port dredging in charleston --

we will talk about taxes in a second but first, cushing, oklahoma. mary, democrat line. caller: these earmarks are ridiculous. we will have to throw the bums out again. apparently they have not learned. in reference to the prior caller who was winding about her sidewalks -- what ever happened to fix your own? why did the bill to my grandchildren? that is the pitted the deluxe. host: plymouth, ohio. mike, what do you think? hello? caller: the woman from michigan is right. both parties are responsible. the republicans got us into

debt -- what we going to do? the meter is still running. the only thing -- way anybody would really get done is if we start marching in protest in washington because these guys have no idea what it is like any more. nafta is telling us, cast is telling us and now we have our own washington telling us. host: who is your congressman? caller: strickland. host: that is the governor, outgoing governor. caller: -- pete host: have you have chats with her and what is she saying? caller: i am just a mere peon out here. as far as getting ahold of my elected official, that is ludicrous. if i had millions of dollars i bet i could get hurt year -- ear. host: what about the big tax bill?

will you see a big benefit? caller: i am 48 years old. i am unemployed. my wife is unemployed. luckily she has a pension. host: to the tax legislation. we have been talking about spending. here is the tax bill. we may see a final vote by both bodies by the end of that day. senate has final vote set for mid morning or early afternoon and the house could take up and finish it today. here is one headline in "the hill." democrats' opposition fades as tactics vote nears, here is a

quote -- the final vote today in the senate and perhaps in the house of this week. it peaked, republican. good morning. caller: look, this whole situation with this whole country, everybody is going to have to start sacrificing before too long or this country is going to be broke, really broke. what the debt commission came out and recommended should be taken very seriously because if we don't take it seriously, this country will be dead broke. and the way congress is working -- people on the street who just have a high school education

could probably run this country a whole lot better than what is going on in washington. this is absolutely ridiculous. host: more about the tax bill. back to "the washington post" here, they write that senior democrats said the house is likely to stage votes to change the terms -- they also won a stiffer tax on larger the state's -- once a stiffer tax on larger estates. we will see how it takes shape on the floor of the house, we think today, you can watch it on c-span. hot springs, arkansas. back to earmarks.

caller: the republicans and democrats have still not got it. i think we need to take some of the top scholars out of college that understands economics and let them set in the chairs and figure this out and get it back down to where we can get this budget done. the people we have up here now just don't get it or don't understand it. host: south carolina. mike, republican but caller: thank you, c-span, for doing this. i am sick and tired of what is going on in washington. you can't blame barack obama for what is happening. it is just he said, she said, blame for all of the things going on with all the earmarks and everything. when are they going to wake up?

host: dallas, texas. a democrat. carolyn. caller: i would like to remind everyone what the late great senator edward dirksen said about earmarks and he said, well, 10 million here, 10 million there, pretty soon you are talking about some real money. only now we are talking about $10 billion. two days ago i was in favor of a compromise extending unemployment compensation in return for not increasing the tax on the wealthiest americans. in view of the fact all these earmarks got the bill from 900 billion up to $2.10 trillion, we are talking real money and it is my money they are spending. the government doesn't get it. they don't get it. we can't afford it. i would say now we need to vote the bill down and start over.

host: thank you for calling. as we said, there is a lot going on in town this week. focusing this section mostly on the headline. senators load spending bill with earmarks. last-to secure funding for projects before a shift in congress. $1.20 trillion is the price tag, including 6000 earmarks totaling $8 billion. we will see the debate on this bill take place over the next several days. we expect to see some weekend action in the senate and house perhaps. the tax bill out there waiting approval today, here is this headline in "the new york times ." right flank puts pressure on gop.

philadelphia, pennsylvania. connor, independent. caller: my main concern is it seems washington -- republican or democrat, it does not matter -- are so alienated and dehumanized that they did not understand the absurd nature of their ideology, on a moving train at heading off a cliff. isn't it common-sense what we need to do is move toward a

general, or socially equitable economic policy and social policy? host: coming up shortly maybe 10 minutes of 12 minutes, congressman mike coffman, republican of colorado, will talk about afghanistan. later on the program, congressman bill pascrell, a democrat from new jersey will talk about taxes and other issues involving the house. in the meantime, no but, republican from california. caller: how are you? i wanted to say, has everybody completely lost their mind in this country? do we work and nobody ever gets ahead for doing anything? taken here and there. putting $88 billion down our throats. i can't take anymore. thank you. host: democrat, hi. caller: i just find the

republicans -- i guess obama has given them what they wanted because they wanted the tax cuts for the rich and the wealthy. i guess we will make them wealthy and see if they trickle- down like the trickle-down economics that the republicans believe and so much with giving back to america, i want to see if they get back to america. we will continue to make them rich. will they invest back in america and create the jobs that they say they will create, i guess making vague -- making the wealthy more rich. obama has given it to them. i believe the republicans will be exposed with this now because the way obama was going with getting the economy back on track was working. look at this deficit now. they tried to undermine all of his policies.

they tried to stonewall. look at how they added on to a deficit. with no excuse. host: let us hear from how we on the republican line from philadelphia. host: how are you doing? when i hear people say rino, i think of the republicans voted to pass the civil rights restoration act of the president's veto. the second week of february of 2001 president bush gave raises to new enrollees of the job corps and until then they were paid $50 by weekly. in 2004 the bush administration and our republican government turned their back on the republic -- american people. to save his domestic presidency, april 9, 2008, he signed the arlen specter, john kyl, and joe biden second chance act. one more message -- if americans are going to continue to enjoy

president obama honoring grover cleveland he must address the 1982 reagan drug war and the prison corporations. thank you. it is so on the host: on the tax bill -- shaping the 2012 campaign.

that is in "the wall street journal" today. conway, new hampshire. independent. caller: it is not only the earmarks, two wars, dependence on foreign oil but our debt to china. i am 70 years old and i have done a lot of shopping. one reason well-known retail stores are not making more profits is their stores are filled mostly with a trashy, cheap products from china. i will not buy them unless it is a must and aunt -- and i tell the store managers their inventory is terrible and i walk out of the store.

also, china's products cannot be assured with safety. there have been recalls on pet food, children's bracelets, lipstick, etcetera there are good, quality products from other parts in the world and made in america is the best. so, i shop at thrift and second- hand places, not only because of prices but i can buy quality made in america clothing and products. thank you. host:. , pennsylvania. keith, a republican. you have been patient. caller: obviously at the end of our civilization. they all rise on puritanism and spirituality and embracing ethics and holiness, but now we are crack of thought -- preoccupied with pornography, greed, satisfying every lost, they want to chase got out of the marketplace, we cannot say anything, we will send people. money corrupts, and it kills

absolutely. we are at the end here. they did the same thing at the first depressant. -- depression. they pump the same real estate -- florida, hawaii, nevada, california, they also prompt and dumped the market and they put in the laws of the banks cannot be investment houses and banks and got it repealed three years ago and the same crowd, the descendants of the same crowd did the same routine. we are going down the tubes, friends. this is terrible. host: there is another economic story out there that we wanted to draw attention to. following the work the last several months of this financial crisis inquiry commission, fcic, the headline in "huffington post." in crisis, gop members going rolled from the panel.

"wall street journal" also has a story, a gop set to issue its own fiscal report. the deadline was today -- the latest sign of partisan discord in the troubled panel.

that is "the wall street journal." down to the last couple of minutes on earmarks, murfreesboro, tennessee. a democrat. caller: my comment is that the little people like us fighting with our unemployment and republicans just one in to keep it from us, that we have children and it is the holiday season and we should get some bill passed until at least after christmas. host: ceo's visiting the white house today. as we take the last couple of calls, let us look at a couple of dozen ceo's that will be in

the white house, all companies you probably recognize. franklin, tennessee. james, good morning. caller: i am not really a republican or democrat. there is only one party and that would be the money party. that is run by corporate which runs the media, using that to manipulate us and brainwash us. work, andurity don't etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, and the people go on in this. we all need to come together as a people so we can work together. they always pick us against each other one way or the other. they pit us against the american indians, the chinese, blacks. i am an irishman and a white person, but they use us to go

against each other instead of helping each other. host: last call on earmarks, larry from illinois. caller: i see a lot about those earmarks, and maybe some are good, but i am unemployed, i have health problems, i cannot afford insurance and health care. a $30,000 bill for a night at the e r, and i tried to call to get help from agencies trying to help and there is no money. it bothers me. worried about the money we owe to other countries, the national debt. what about our own citizens? we are dying out here? so they can get the wealthiest people tax breaks? what is up with that?

host: earmarks, government spending, taxes, start treaty, don't ask, don't tell, immigration -- the bill called the dream that -- all in the queue for year in congress. the house is on c spec -- c-span and the senate on c-span2. we may see some lame duck action. we will talk about these issues with congressman bill pascrell, democrat from new jersey will be on at 8:30, but after this break another member of the house, republican from colorado, mike coffman, from the armed services committee. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> a history of women serving in the u.s. armed forces, and the life of lutheran pastor and allied spy executed following a failed plot to execute hitler. and on "afterwards" former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on his new book, without hesitation, odyssey of an american warrior. find a complete schedule at book tv.org and sign up to get the schedule e-mail directly to your end up -- in box. 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 quat 30 p.m. on c-span. >> look back at the public life of u.s. special envoy richard holbrooke online at the c-span video library. nominated for the nobel peace prize is seven times, he served under four presidents and was a main architect of the deyton peace agreement ending the war in bosnia. c-span of video library, washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is congressman mike coffman, republican of colorado and member of the armed services committee here to talk about afghanistan. in "the post" a preview the president's report and they say were review site strides, less

confident and afghan governments. what you looking for? guest: where we are at right now -- real concerns that we in fact -- we are making progress on the ground militarily, but i think what the report so far identifies, although the final one will not be out until tomorrow, is clearly that the government's peace is lacking and we are able to take ground, old ground, but we can't transfer because they don't have the capacity right down to do that government's peace. that is a significant. what is going to be the strategy going forward, i think that will be the key question. host: let us pose that question to you, what should the strategy be going forward? guest: i think we have a strategy that is unrealistic right now. i think it is two heavily

dependent on a very robust counterinsurgency strategy that requires nation-building. and i think we are trying to restructure afghan society, trying to build them and economy they never had, trying to develop a government for them that does not fit the political culture. so, i think we really have to lower the bar in afghanistan to recognize what are our strategic concerns in the country, and let's focus on those. i think we are far too idealistic on what we think we can accomplish. host: let us put the phone numbers on the screen, for our best republican mike coffman of colorado's. what is your take on the work of the armed services committee in

these first two years of your congressional career? guest: it is exciting having served in both the army and marine corps, served in iraq, first goal war in iraq war, i was there in 2005-2006. disappointed in the nation building strategy try to deploy in afghanistan. it is more difficult in afghanistan. i don't think we are in the right direction right now. host: how do you take the military experience and apply it to comments to your colleagues when you are trying to craft legislation or policy, having that unique perspective? guest: i do, but fortunately there are some other members -- there have been few overtime that have had military experience, and few were among those who have served in iraq -- but i think right now in the armed services committee there is duncan hunter from california who served in both iraq and

afghanistan, and i think patrick murphy from pennsylvania who served in iraq. host: the lead says the president met with nearly two hours with the top national security aides to give final approval to a year-and review of this war strategy and afghanistan and pakistan before a summary of the assessment is publicly released thursday. the white house press secretary spoke briefly about it yesterday. >> i think that when you see the review on thursday, i doubt there will be, in all honesty, a lot of surprise about what the review lays out. i think you'll see, as many of you have written and reported, that there has been some important process -- progress in halting the momentum of the taliban in afghanistan. we have seen a through counterterrorism success at

degrading senior al qaeda leaders, and we have seen greater cooperation over the course of the past 18 months with the pakistani government. you will also see in a review, the remuneration of the continued challenges we have in this region. they will focus on a few different areas. clearly, we have to continue to strengthen capacity inside afghanistan. and we still have the ongoing challenge and threats of save havens in pakistan. >> there is a passage and a story that says an administration official anonymously talking about the classified document, largely classified, describes it as a "diagnostic rather than prescriptive," outlying areas where goals are being met and

where things are not working well. with republicans moving in control of the house and committee, what do you think that give and take will be like between congress and the white house on afghanistan? guest: i think in this area at the president ought to be thankful -- even though my view probably differs from a lot of republicans and possibly the democrats as well -- very unique, based on the the fact that i served in iraq in the marine corps, but i think the president has got some breathing space on his strategy that i think the democrats were by and large not support of of this kind of robust heavy footprint in afghanistan and the republicans tend to be more supportive. so, i think the president's policy got more breathing room with the 2010 election. host: before we get to call

letters bring none -- bring in this story, the lead story in "the new york times." u.s. intelligence office offers a grin -- dim view of the afghan war. they go on to talk more and more. a dim view. guest: i think it is fairly accurate. i was in afghanistan a few weeks ago in a congressional delegation visit. i think we have to review the objectives. clearly to keep al qaeda out of afghanistan, we need the ability

to hunt them down. in the tribal areas, -- we have been able to do that having bases in afghanistan and also to keep the country from falling to the taliban because i think the fact is it that they were to fall to the taliban, that i think that would further endanger of the stability of pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons that is inherently unstable. so, i think we have to recognize what our interests are, and we have to pursue a policy purpose -- reflective of these interest. i think right now our policy is way beyond our strategic interest in the region, and it is unrealistic and i think that is why we are in trouble and i think the intelligence estimate is correct. host: this is the findings of the report represent the consensus view of the u.s.'s 16 intelligence agency is --

the first call for our guests, congressman mike coffman, republican from colorado. alexandria, virginia. brad, republican. caller: good morning, congressman. i wanted to agree with you. i do agree with your comments regarding that we are on the wrong track of terms of trying to build this larger, more centralized governing structure in afghanistan and trying to essentially apply in all western style of government, or what we would see as normal government, to these areas, to these previously uncovered an unrolled districts. however, big picture -- i served in a marine corps recently in helmand province and i think big picture, we are not doing it, we just pay lip service. we put a lot of stock in to what the district governors are saying, what the provincial level governors are saying but all of these individuals are appointed by kabul, so what you

have is a very centralized structure and this structure is very far removed from what is going on and on the ground, at least what i saw in the district i served in. i used to call it the story of a mustache. you have gentlemen who represent the government, they have a mustache, meaning they somehow were affiliated with the former communist in the 1980's that kind of served more russian interests -- i would say more pragmatic interested in any of the locals, bearded ones -- the big, tribal beards and they did not have an education, highly involved in pop deforming. a lot of the concepts we are trying to apply aren't incredibly foreign. -- are incredibly foreign debt at an italian level we are trying to establish brass -- grass-roots initiatives but i think we are being undercut.

guest: first of all, thank you so much for your service in the united states marine corps and afghanistan. nothing can replicate that in terms of the knowledge of the area. but that is 100% right. the fact is, we put all of our emphasis so far -- or our dominant emphasis on a centralized government that is a historical fairly alien to them and not place that same business on establishing government at the provincial level. i spoke to secretary of defense gates and he told me how they are trying to develop a strategy that changes that. but i think that is a real concern. but the basic thing is, again, we were trying to create a western-style form of government that simply does not fit within the political culture of the country. i don't want to say dumb it down, but we've got to lower the

bar and not try to do so much in terms of trying to create the kind of democratic institutions we are familiar with that they are not. host: connecticut, linda, you are on the line for democrats. good morning to you. caller: good morning, congressman. i find it interesting that after all this time we are still in diagnostic and not prescriptive. i also find it interesting that in iraq after all of this time, we kind of got to know the different -- shiites -- very new terms and everything but yet afghanistan, even the general public, we really don't seem to know, we don't have this kind of structure that even existed in war-torn iraq. this is all going on a credit card. a credit card of blood, more than money. i think we just have to worry

about setting ourselves up against terrorism attacks and not build a government -- i don't think they want a government. i think humanitarian aid -- but these people are like us and they want to govern themselves and i think we've turned a tin ear to that and i think it is time that we totally went into diagnostic -- or out of diagnostic and into prescriptive and really start to know our place and do what we can to make their lives as better as we can, but in all honesty, just kind of bowel out gracefully and let the afghanistans have the country they want. guest: at least we have an understanding of what is going on, so al-qaeda does not come back into afghanistan. we have the ability to utilize

bases or positions in afghanistan to strike at terrorist targets as we have recently done. but let me say this. i think we took the wrong turn from the beginning. after 9/11, what president bush did initially -- we were attacked by al-qaeda who utilize areas in afghanistan operationally to plan and execute that attack. they were given safe harbor by the taliban, and even after 9/11, taliban would not turn over a osama bin laden. we give logistical support to the anti-taliban forces, the no. alliance, and they pushed the taliban out of the country. we should have used our leverage to go to them and say you were the victors on the ground and you need to reach out to save it

elements of the country. and have a governance structure that is representative of the country and it fits your political culture. instead, we push them aside and gave them the government we wanted that does not fit the country today that is a corrupt and over the years has allowed the real infiltration of the taliban in the areas they once occupied. we have taken a wrong turn now. i think we have an unrealistic course. when i was there, they were talking about mandating certain requirements for women's rights. i think that is a very, very important goal, but do we want to make that the principal mission in afghanistan? we have added objective after objective in trying to make them

look like us. at the end of the day, i don't think we have the resources to make that happen. host: mike coffman was also colorado state treasurer and moved on to a run in congress a couple of years ago. it would lead to the running for the u.s. house? guest: i was very interested in national security issues. having that experience of serving in the military for a fairly long period of time, in listed in the army, officer in the marine corps. i think that experience and concerned about the direction of the country and led me to run. host: what else does your experience, both in the field and as a congressman -- what can you tell us about what you see with your own eyes and what you here with your own ears that we

cannot grab off of a newspaper? guest: first of all, as a member of congress, it is a lot better go into afghanistan or iraq. talking to those soldiers on the ground as well as their counterparts in the state department in terms of what is going on there, i could not get out because of security like to do when i was in the marine corps. having that experience in 2005 and having worked in the western euphrates river valley to help establish governance in the middle of that insurgency really it led me to the conclusion that we need to be tough as a country but we need to be smarter in terms of our policies. the notion of this heavy military footprint with nation-

building, where i think there are other avenues in which we can influence the direction in any given region by supporting factions that share our strategic interest instead of reshaping these countries is the way that we really have to go. host: carol is on our independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a veteran. my view of the afghan war is they need to look at the people. the people are muslim, and they 0 not care about democrat republican. their economy is based on an opium. you can buy theirllegnce for a few dollars.

we could have everybody on our side in no time. ex-military people do not say this simple fact. guest: we look at analyses and see what we are paying folks and what the taliban are paying folks. there are certain opinions out there about winning the allegiance of certain people. it is more of a rural populations that clearly wants to modernize the this country and have institutions of governments that are reflective of international standards. but i think, again, this is a bridge too far. " we can do at the end of the day that would be reasonable --

because now that we are in, you cannot simply walk away. i think there is a middle ground. we can do counter insurgency in the areas where there is relative security, according to the model that general petraeus has. and do counter terrorism in areas where we do not have security. instead of occupying the ground and trying, through the security, tried to create a civil government. i think there is a talent. -- there is a balance. as in the afghan military and civil authorities gain capacity, then they can retake those areas with our support as opposed to our doing the heavy

lifting and doing it was minimal afghan support or participation. host: matthew is on the line from new york city. caller: good morning. thank you for your service. we all appreciate it back here and i know you guys don't hear it often enough. i think it was a breath of fresh air to hear a republican representative endorse a counterterrorism strategy. a vice president biden has been talking about that for years and to little avail, so it is good to hear someone from the armed services committee say that. i have one comment and question. i would like to get your comment on -- you said we should focus on counter insurgency in the areas where it is stable, but the taliban operates with pretty much impunity in precisely those

areas that are hard to control. so i am not sure how far that it will counter terrorism strategy might get us. my question is what would you tell your republican colleagues who inevitably would shift to a counterterrorism strategy as a cut and run strategy, which they often say we will continue to do. again, thank you for your service. guest: i think it is more of a hybrid approach with probably greater emphasis on the counter- terrorism part. in somalia, i think you are seeing that. there is probably a hybrid approach in yemen. we can do some things to promote -- to do destability operations, but you reasonably can only do them in areas where there is

relative security and in areas where there is not relative security you need to do the counterterrorism strategy. but i do think that, obviously, in the afghan situation, it is a counter insurgency centric approach. i think there is a middle ground that i think a counter terrorism strategy only is not necessarily the right way to go in afghanistan. i think what device the president certainly did have merit and where he was saying let's not do the search going in and saying -- going into the provinces and eastern afghanistan, let's do a counterterrorism strategy in those areas. i do think in order to have an effective counterterrorism strategy, you need to have some

presence on the ground to understand when those threats and do coalesce. host: some of the writing leading up to the release of the report says it will be significantly less positive. what do you make of president karzai? guest: i had an opportunity to meet with mr. president karzai in 2009. he was probably one of the most charismatic people i have met. you really want to believe him. did you read the reports about corruption and you feel taken. but i do think that he is necessarily somebody who is supportive of democracy in the long term in afghanistan. i think there is going to be a question of whether he can amend the constitution to succeed himself. i think that will be problematic

for the country. i think we have set the bar wait too high for this country, that is in respect of a of the cost in terms of it to the taxpayers of the united states and the blood that has been shed by our military personnel on the ground. host: we should applaud richard holbrooke into all this, who passed away earlier this week. a headline from the new york times -- take it from there. guest: of a gap that will be left with the passing of ambassador holbrooke is the fact that he focused both on the

pakistan and afghanistan equally. the reality is that pakistan is the dominant threat. not afghanistan. we are -- the relevance of afghanistan to us is that it has a direct influence in terms of the stability of pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons and sympathies toward radical islam, a country that has a terrorist problem within its borders. host: james, thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe we should get out of afghanistan. it is just money we are throwing away. it is actually an opium war between the taliban and the government. there was a handful of people

who started 9/11, and we spent a fortune so the culprit could make money on it. they took money out of the pockets of the people so heliborne and all of these people could make a lot of money on this -- so halliburton and all of these people could make a lot of money on this. i am telling you this is what is going on. it is scary. guest: i am very concerned about the costs. this whole theory of nation building as a cornerstone of counter insurgency -- i think the costs are unnecessary for it to rebuild their infrastructure, to give them the economy they never had. again, if we narrow it down,

this mission, down to our strategic interests in the region -- certainly, there are a lot of good and noble, moral in visions that are laid into this policy of our security interests. i think we can still have an influence on those, but not so directly. we need to bring this thing down to have a much lighter footprint. i think we can accomplish our security goals without this robust strategy. you are certainly right, the caller is correct to be concerned about the cost involved in this. i don't have the figures from october yet. the last figures i had that i reviewed was over $12 billion spent in a given month. host: allen is on airline for

republicans. caller: i have never been in the military. but the thing is i am not stupid. i can look at a map. i can see that we are in afghanistan, and what is next to afghanistan? iran. we are sitting there, and we are sitting there in iraq. we have military on each side of iran. we are playing with billions and billions of dollars with americans money, our money. ok? it is like we are doing training. we are in a training phase of how to deal with these insurgent countries with radical islamic are around the world. we are training our troops out to take care of these guys, to

take them out. we are building infrastructure. the thing that is really crazy to me is why haven't we burn down all of the opium fields? that is my number one question. host: the get an answer to that question. guest: initially, in early 2009, with the big press up in afghanistan, the goal was initially to destroy the opium fields because of the fact that we know the taliban derives revenue from those fields through their ability to levy taxes as a shadow government and also their ability to engage in the opium trade, the number one export of the country. it was felt going into the

surge, and that doing so would merely create an enemy that we did not have, and that is the farmer. so the objective was then to say hit it at the higher levels of distribution. let's get it at processing, distribution, or the transfer of these drugs where we know the taliban are much more directly involved in gaining the money necessary for keeping their operations going that is where we are right now. we are working with farmers to try to get them engaged in a process of substitution so there are programs to do that. i think that is a correct policy. i think going directly and destroying their crops will create a whole new class of enemy. host: we have a little bit -- we

have a little bit more than 10 minutes left with our guest, mike coffman of the armed services committee. what was your reelection bid like? guest: it was a good district. i was 66%. it was a good year to run as a republican. i think someone said enemy boat could have run in the republican district this year -- said an amoeba could have run in a republican district this year. host: according to a recent poll? what can your party due to solidify its selection in the

house? guest: i think it was more about the republicans voting against the democrats in voting for republicans. i think we have to prove that we are not the republican party of 2006. they've lost control in capitol hill. we will stand true to our principal of being fiscal conservatives, being pro-growth in terms of economic policies. i think the american people are waiting to see what the republicans are going to do. host: all of this action in the last couple of weeks and months -- what is the impact of wikileaks in afghanistan and pakistan? guest: the impact is probably the same everywhere. particularly on the state department rules that were leaked, in those conversations

were clearly confidential. it is the question of i think we lost credibility, and leaders around the world trust us and having conversations with us in the future that are necessary to move our interest forward. i think is a real concern. we went from a need to know doctrine in terms of classified material to a need to share doctrine to anybody that has access to the internet. i think now we know that is wrong. obviously, i am trying to get the defense department to move back to in need to know doctrine. host: matt is on the line. caller: i did not know there were republicans in colorado. [laughter]

very briefly. i have never served in the military. my father did. he served in korea as a brigadier general. my problem is, sir, given that you have served in both the first and second iraq wars, in my mind, i am pro-military, but i am anti-agreed. i feel our military is being used as a business and for sure. -- a business enforcer. i do not trust george bush sr. with power. you were sent into the first goal for -- first gulf war.

then, -- i will jump to my second point. a few weeks ago on the fox news , geraldo basically conceded that building seven at the world trade center could not have collapsed without some type of preplanned demolition. i just wanted to bring that up because this is where my point is going. in 2004, when kids were coming back from this iraq war, -- i take it you were an officer in the military. we are saying it is [unintelligible] motivated and nothing more.

there are powers that be -- there is a gap between us, you as an elected representative, and me as myself. high and the american people, and we refer to you as the government -- by and the american people, and we refer to you as the government. what is happening is -- i will put it to you this way. china, in every sense of the world, is a totalitarian state, yet we do business with them. the american government would probably have issue with doing business with them. guest: first of all, let me say that the power of oil -- oil is

a strategic significant resources. when one possesses it, they clearly have the capacity to other things, like develop a military and threaten their neighbors and also threatened the flow of that oil. i think that lends to the fact that the united states needs to develop our own energy independence, and i would hope to rest of the world would follow suit so we are not strengthening these totalitarian regimes around the world and not just in the middle east. i think the issue with china is of deep concern to me. it is what i would call state capitalism. what you have is a nation state that is immoral at best at its foreign policy and is not in line with the united states, whether on the issue of north korea or sudan.

i think there are concerns, and i am watching it very closely as a growing military and economic power. and i think we have to be very cognizant of the rising power of china and. host: oceanside, calif., go ahead, sir. caller: i just heard your comment on oil and terror. it is kind of we're there we are talking about two different entities. one is it terrorism and the other is a government and corporations. my comment is basically almost the same as the one before it, which was the concern about the military being used as a force

for big corporations to basically push their agendas. my question is is it worth the sacrifice, not only that american soldiers are having, but the people in the world itself for corporations that are clearly making a ton of money off of veterans, getting better deals on foreign oil, and all of this stuff? these big corporations that make trillions and trillions of dollars off of the people to not even support us at home, taking their companies away from america to places where they can get better deals. also, using a monopoly system on wall street of our country to exploit us. basically, they do not really

care about the american people whatsoever. every third of the month when veterans and seniors get paid, the gas prices rocket high and then they put them down when all of the veterans are broken. guest: in terms of american policy today, it is not what you would call corporate greed. it is what i would call idealism. it was with president george bush who felt america had a principal role in planning the seeds of democracy throughout the world, and those seeds would sprout and grow and create peace and stability by spreading throughout a given region. that was certainly the case in iraq with trying to establish a democracy in the heart of the middle east. that continued on, that same

policy obviously in afghanistan. that policy has continued at least in afghanistan by this current administration. i think nation-building as a principal tool for achieving america's foreign policy objectives is simply unsustainable. i think that is a problem. i think there is an element of cultural imperialism in it that says everybody really wants to be like us if only given a chance, and that think we need to revisit that and be more realistic. host: i want to talk about don't ask don't tell because i think you will be asked as early as today to vote on it repealed. the majority leader said he and a democrat from pennsylvania would bring a standalone repeal as early as today. what is the strategy today and

what are your thoughts on policy? guest: if the choices are between repeal and -- it would be a more organized way of getting it. there were some questions about -- give me a break down of army infantry, m.o.s., peoples that are at the very point of the spear. i really want to see -- i think that is probably through the roof off as opposed to reversing a don't ask don't tell. i don't think -- i have some questions about the study today. if the issue arises right now, i am going to be a no vote on it. caller: merry christmas.

i don't agree with a lot of stuff you say, mike, even though you are a pretty brave guy. i would not be in iraq. it is pretty scary if you ask me. can the heart is a starkly where all the leadership came out of. your tone is like almost -- i think you should get back on the team. i would not even let you in my office if i was in charge because of this war is going to be one in that region. everything going on in pakistan and in the north does not matter because all of the public takes stand out of that region. if we lose it, the attacks on the west will never stop. i totally disagree with you, and

the think the manual that i read it is right on target. i really back these guys. i read that wikileaks report. the one thing i say about american diplomats, when they said behind the backs -- what they said it in the wikileaks document -- i read pages and pages. the diplomats are more like writers. what they say behind-the-scenes is very much with a stake in front. they should really read some of the exurbs in the major newspapers because i am pretty impressed with our diplomats. host: let's get a final thought from our guest. guest: i agree with you that the region is a center of gravity for the taliban. if we do control -- which certainly have a nominal control of the urban area. it is a large city.

we don't control the areas of said the city, the rural and agricultural areas. that is something we are trying to do right now. the problem is doing the transfer, given the afghans lack of capacity for governance at this time. i think you are right in saying we cannot simply allow afghanistan to fall to the taliban, that it would in fact be used to export terrorism. but i do believe that if we can go -- if this current policy does not work, let's go with a more hybrid approach, where counter-terrorism in the areas where we don't have security. as we develop afghan security

forces, as we develop their capacity, let's have them do the heavy lifting and take those areas with u.s. forces and nato forces in support, instead of us taking the lead on these operations. one thing the president has stated recently is that by 2014, we will revert to -- there will be a requirement as a benchmark for afghans to take the operational lead on the requirements there. i think that is a very important distinction to make pretty host: our guest has been mike coffman of the armed services committee. we are going to take a short timeout. later in the program, we are going to talk to this director of the national institute on drug abuse. the have a new survey involving

teenage drug use. coming next, a democrat from new jersey to talk about tax cuts and other economic issues. in the meantime, some news from c-span radio request. >> house majority leader stickney hoyer and democrat patrick murphy are the ones who introduced that repeal of don't ask, don't tell. congressman murphy is an iraq war veteran and says he shares the views of defense secretary gates and chairman of the joint chiefs. but general james said yesterday that ending the ban on openly gay troops could endanger the lives of troops on the battlefield. a vote on that measure is scheduled for today. live house coverage on c-span television. the labor department is adding a dozen countries to the list of

nations that uses child labor. officials are warning the global crisis could cause exploitation to increase. the labor secretary held a news conference today on the issue. time magazine has named its percent of the year for 2010. he is 26-year-old mark zuckerberg, founder and ceo of facebook. he is one of the world's youngest billionaires' and a prominent newcomer to the world of philanthropy. >> each year, we conduct our video documentary competition. the competition asks students to think critically about issues affecting our nation. this year's theme is washington, d.c. through my lens.

select a topic that interests you printed once you have your topic, you can begin your research. your goal is to provide different points of view and to include c-span footage in a five minute to 8 minute documentary project for more information, you can visit our web site or e- mail us any questions you have. go get started. we can't wait to see what you can do. >> "washington journal" continues. host: as of this tax debate continues, and perhaps it reaches a finality to date, there is a headline i want to run by you. is this about saving space? guest: it is the end of the session. the 112 congress will entertain us for two years, so we are

coming to the point -- we are trying to get a lot done as every congress does in its last moments. we feel we have gained a lot in the proposal that is before us right now. whether that has -- whether that proposal has changed, your guess is as good as mine. we have been talking about this every day even during the christmas holidays and after the election. we are prepared to make some changes that are reasonable. this is a compromise, this legislation. democrats can say we got $550 billion for the middle class. republicans can say we have a tax cut for everybody. regardless of what plan we take, everybody is getting a tax cut. even donald trump. the first $250,000 is going to

be with the rates that we are implementing right now. if we do nothing, the old rates come back on january the first. the middle-class would be charged $3,000 more in taxes. it is important that we do something reasonable and we do it together, because every major issue has to have a bipartisan solution. host: let me jump on your point about making changes. there is a sub headline. what changes are you advocating before a final vote and are they really doable? guest: i provided a compromise, myself, and two other

congressmen, in september we provided a compromise. we did not want an extension of the tax cuts. we cannot afford that. there is no question about it. it is interesting that we fought a campaign over the deficit, and here we are jumping more into deficit spending. " we said is if we have to go up to $550,000 in order to get more votes -- $250,000 is not a lot of money. i think democrats have even accepted that fact. the fact is we thought we could come up with a compromise, so we said five years for middle-class tax cuts, one year if you want to extend it beyond $250,000. again, everybody is getting a tax cut because the first

$250,000, you are still going to go with the present rates. we thought it was a good compromise. i certainly do not accept what the republicans have proposed, and apparently, the president accepted in order to do the deal. the millionaires and multimillionaire's paying very little in taxes. i think that we are talking about such few people. in some instances, maybe only 3000 families. we are talking about 155 million families opposed to that. those families were held at bay in order to figure out something in order to make those higher tax bracket folks more comfortable with what we were doing prett.

let's extend up to one year those people who were in the higher tax bracket. the inheritance thing to me is pretty devastating in that how much is going to cost. we are talking about so few people. host: we will see what changes are made. we know the senate is going to vote this morning or this afternoon. the phone numbers are on the bottom of your screen. we are taking your calls and a second. house democrats met last night. there has been a lot of heat within the caucus. it was last night's meeting like? guest: some of us have moved away from the idea that that the president sold out democrats. i don't think that this happened at all.

this is what you do when you go into negotiations. if you have all that you want, there will not be a compromise. i don't believe that the inheritance, the estate taxes that he agreed on, $5 million, $10 million, i think that is exorbitant. what we have seen since teddy roosevelt was that, many times, income earned during the time of your life, your businesses, etc., you do not pay any taxes on. somebody has to. just because i inherited a lot of money, why should i not be paying my fair amount of taxes? one thing overwhelming in my mind is that we have an effective tax rate that is

basically the lowest we have had in 60 years, number one. no. 2, basically, a stenographer, a truck driver, they are paying higher taxes than those people making over $250,000. this is going to lead us by the way to tax reform in the next session. host: eric is on our line for the democrats. caller: the comment i have is on this on employment compensation. i am 72 years old, and i just retired this past year. i have never drawn unemployment. i think it is turned into a form of welfare pretty even if you want to extend unemployment -- i was watching tv this morning about this new budget with all of these earmarks.

i don't know how much they are, way up there in the billions of dollars. if you could eliminate these earmarks -- what i am saying is you could find enough waste in government spending to pay for this on and on the compensation. host: here is a related headline in the post today. guest: i am not against earmarks, per say. i do believe that many of them are innocuous and are not going to help the economy out. as long as there is transparency and as long as you admit you are trying for your district to get here march, whether it is worthwhile, the voters will determine that. one of the parts of my job is to bring back to my district as much money that is sent down there in taxes. this is a federalism.

this is what america is all about. i think there should be a limit on it earmarks. i think we have done a great job. and unemployment insurance, however, we are talking about many people who are out of work for a long period of time. the job disappeared. they are not going to be called back to work. i think these people are deserving to what they paid into it for so many years, unemployment taxes. i think times are tough. four people are looking for every job opening. i would disagree with you, but i would say there has to be a limit or a cut off. we have not lowered the on and play rate. i think we need to give it some more time. this is a deep recession and we almost went off the cliff altogether.

caller: good morning. i want to thank c-span. i am a democrat. is only a couple that i trust. you guys don't follow the constitution. but the thing that gets me the most is that it seems like you guys are putting on a show. i can't believe all of the power you got. in 2006, nancy pelosi did not stop the war productio. the one thing i have to say. obama brings in the secretary gates, salazar, -- he brought him in for energy. there was no change.

what has he done for us? nothing. guest: nancy pelosi cannot start a war. nancy pelosi cannot finish a war. the president of the united states can, let's get that straight. i agree and disagree on some things with the speaker of the house, bushy is a great patriot. going to the other issue about what have the democrats done -- i think the two-party system is a great system. i think we want to protect people. we want home less a critic to be an effective and not in industry. we want the lowest taxes which

can have. everybody wants that. how we get to that objective is something we debate on on the floor of the house of representatives. i think when the fact is known that in the last 60 years, the lowest tax rate week have had, and the lowest collecting taxes from the federal government which are very necessary, i think the tax system needs to be changed, but i think it is a system that is the best in the world. it is not perfect. but neither are you and i. host: you are serving your sixth term? guest: i am going into my eighth term. host: you are also a former high-school teacher in new jersey and was in the new jersey

general assembly. a member of the ways and means committee in the house. this was in the new york times today. your estate tax is mentioned. someone writes -- what do you think?

guest: i think that is an idea worth exploring. tax reform should be center stage. i do believe the attempt to have -- i think the word used in that article, "outrage comco is an understatement. this is what it has gotten us. we want to change that without changing the compromise needed to get folks' unemployment insurance, to make sure that we remain in a situation where we are cutting rates and not have them go up 3% on average. i think it is a good compromise except for that. host: what is the best way to describe your thoughts about president obama following this deal negotiated with the gop?

guest: i think the main problem we have had in the past two years is what i would consider to be unrealistic expectations. this particular legislation which currently has bipartisan support, this is going to put people back to work in it of itself, whether we are talking about tax credits, which by the way, we did not get any help on from the other side. so we took a hit on the chin, but i think we have learned that we do need a compromise. i think this is a good compromise except for that one issue. host: let's now go to springfield, missouri. caller: thanks for taking my call. my question is this.

republicans want to extend the bush tax cut. the democrats want unemployment insurance. why can we not just vote on these two issues? earlier, you said they are going to do a vote to repeal the don't ask, don't tell on a stand-alone " just for that issue. why can we vote on extending the tax cuts and extending the unemployment insurance and leave it had that? this word you used earlier, federalism -- i think that is totally against the constitution. the constitution once strong states and a weak central government. host: speak to the first point guest: i am not adverse to dividing and separating legislation. i think that is what we should have done in health care, by the

way. there are many things that both sides agreed on. when you ask people what they all agree on, they all agree with those things. 15 of these items, everybody is with you. why did we have a deep, deep debate, which got personal and visceral and need not have happened? what we are saying here is that i would like to divide the tax vote. you talk about what might be brought up in the senate in terms of don't ask, don't tell. republicans positions was that they would not vote on anything unless the tax cuts were continued. they have made that quite clear critic each side tries to use leverage. democrats are going to use leverage as well.

it is a give-and-take process. if i had to go up and down on the tax vote, i would probably vote note. on the other hand, this is a political decision for me. the political decision is isn't this a good signal to send that we can work together? it may be -- unemployment insurance may be more important to me, and maybe more important to republicans to cut taxes, but where is the centerpiece? i think that is a good question. under every democratic proposal, everybody will have their taxes cut. host: your vote might be hours from now on the house floor. what gets you to vote yes? guest: this is the reality of the situation. the reality of the situation is we have to show our base, even

republicans by the way, that the estate tax going away does not solve our revenue problems and its family hurts the deficit as well. that is all you and i heard from this past election, cutting the deficit. we tried to do this over the past two years. the other side has not. we had eight years of an asia. people forget what happened. no tax cuts were paid for. no words were paid for. the fix on the prescription drug plan was not paid for either. no wonder we had this huge deficit. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing? i really like your idea on the compromise. and that is kind of the idea with the tax cut.

my dad has a construction business. he has about 70 employees. now he is down to about four. it is hard for the average person, per say, whatever you consider that, -- i am 22 years old. i just got my a.a. it comes down to, where is the money going? i could not get any grants or money to go to school. i am unable to go to a larger university to continue my education. there is something big that needs to happen. we need something bigger than just a normal, political tax

cuts and all those green revolution t h ings that need to happen. move to the wind farms, put into research and development, and put our money where it should be. guest: i think you are american. there are diminishing tax credits that have been placed into this package. i think is important. a lot of the jobs that folks have lost are not coming back again. we need to educate for the future. in the past two years, four community colleges is for instance, moving into the two major growth areas which is energy and health care. i think you hit the nail on the head. the problem with a compromise is

you are going to be running up against ideologues. there are ideologues in both parties. this is the way it is going to be, and that is in it. you don't have to sacrifice your values. i happen to like the word compromise. i think it works and sends a message out to the american people that they want to hear. host: bob is on a line for democrats. caller: i am a big supporter of obama. i voted early this past election. unfortunately, a lot of people did not vote. that is why we have this situation. i am very disappointed in democrats and obama's colleagues and all of the supporters about this deal.

obama is a very intelligent man. it is obvious next month you all are not going to be able to have the leeway. you are going to be hard pressed to pass all of the bills or whatever you want to pass. he is trying to compromise and to what he can right host: he moved things forward a little bit. republicans are taking over. guest: i think that they have enough sense. they have enough intellect to bridge the gap. the president's problem is he has to deal with a republican house. many people think a split government is a healthy government. certainly, clinton worked on the

situation after he got clobbered in the elections in 1994. we will see what happens. this is kind of the practice between now and january 5 as to where we will be going. do not forget, mr. boehner has a tough problem with dealing with the ideologues in his own party. those people came here banging the drum about firing nancy pelosi and more killing health care. -- and repeal in health care. now we will see. host: want to throw out a figure that was thrown out there by yourself, $200,000. what is your definition of middle-class? guest: i would say middle-class

would be considered up to $500,000. the middle-class and poor has extended itself. that's not a healthy situation. it is tough for people to pay their mortgages, to pay their property taxes -- is different in every state. it's difficult to send their kids to college and along those lines. getting beyond the cliches, this is a difficult time. we were close to the edge. we were close to going into a depression. this happened. we doubled unemployment between 2001 and 2008. this did not fall out of the sky. the best way to deal with this is to come together. the president has the intellect to do this. will we be able to come together, even though we have a divided government? you cannot hide under the desk on this one. host: and you brought up health care. it moves to the forefront, following the judge's ruling -- and of the headlines today.

there's still talk of repealed. what are you expecting? guest: i expect that health care will still be standing as we go through the courts. do not forget, we've had some judges decide very differently than the one in virginia. i think it is something interesting to watch. there were some parts of the health-care -- do not forget, we had to read all of those pages. sometimes it was more interesting to watch paint dry. these are necessary plans for the future of our country. this is not a government controlled health care by any stretch of the imagination. in fact, the loyal opposition referred to this as the public option.d the public auct now, the government plan.

the dust has settled. host: bob is on the line for independents. good morning. caller: blue-collar people are really the ones taking the hit. the prices go up and they cannot pay their wages. bush tax cuts, you all should let them expire. get the republicans in there. everybody pays their taxes. they pay a percentage. they do not get by with having all the extra money that they have. the ceo -- it was your own fault. you did not get the word that this was going to happen when republicans take control. you should have emphasized that. guest: i think you are right.

i think what has happened, there's been so much anger as to the economy and its affect on our own tables in our homes, and our mortgages. it kind of got meshed together. i went to a campaign picnic in september. i walked up to a table and a woman started yelling and screaming to me. what did you do with the lottery? what is happening to that money? 10 years ago i would have said, lady, i do not have anything to do with the lottery. i work for the government. i thought that would have been very feutile. i started to sit down and talk to werher. all of our governments have gotten meshed. it is not too much when you need help. everybody needs help once in a while. maybe the top 1% of income

earners do not need help. many would say they do not need tax decreases to basically reduce our revenue to pay what we need to pay for -- the wars, tax cuts, and many other things. hirley, republican. caller: the unemployment tax -- is that for the 99ers, for the group going out in november? why wasn't there anything done for the people on social security? people are really hurting, especially in ohio. people in the government got raises. they are making so much more than the average person. i would like to have an answer on that. guest: that is a great question.

remember, in the recovery act, which was greatly criticized when it was passed in february of 2009. that reduced the $250 to go to seniors because there was no cost-of-living increase. the formula for doing those things was determined many years ago. it needs to be changed. many things need to be changed, and some should be taken out. this year, earl pomeroy, who unfortunately will not be returning -- he produced and i co-sponsored legislation to provide $250. we knew quite well that there would not be a cost of living increase. we are trying to help that situation. we are still doing it. as i speak right now, there are people talking about -- if we can get this done by january 5. host: there's another social

security point in "the washington post." congressman sherman -- how would it protect social security? guest: he is concerned in terms of the 2% tactual payroll cut. we have to remember this. this is not a direct hit on social security by any stretch of the imagination. some may argue that this is the beginning. that 2% is in the general budget. this is what we're taking out. it has replaced social security and insurance programs. you put it in now. you need it later. i think that he had a good idea.

it is worth exploring. host: how did the process work between now and the final vote? does the rules committee meet? guest: i think there will be one or two amendments allowed at most. i think we will debate, if we decide to go through with it. why frustrate the issue, the debate? and the other side can simply pull back. then what do we have? we have no unemployment insurance, which is a big deal to a lot of fuss, and it should be done -- a lot of us, and it should be done. you cannot let these people drift away. this is what the government has an obligation to do. that is, help people who cannot

help themselves. remember, many of these jobs are lost forever. host: jason, a democrat, you are on with the congressman. caller: good morning. when i was in high school, i was very pleased with the way the clinton administration handled the tax budget for the economy. and then we got into the bush administration, he gave tax cuts, and then started the war on terrorism. it seems like all of our money was going to not help us americans. butall about lower taxes, we have to bite the bullet now. they are saying -- pay for the services we are doing. pay for the things we're doing in other countries. if we are going to do a tax cut, we should at least to a tax

cuts if they pay for education services, or shipping industry. some percent of their profit should go to road construction or something like that. host: let's get some reaction. guest: there's another part of this, and i think the republicans have been wise to stress this. democrats are coming around to understand this. we cannot talk about one without talking about the other. we need cuts in the federal government. where those cuts will be will depend upon our priorities. and where we want this country to go. if we do not make education a priority, for instance, we're not going anywhere. we're living in a global economy. it's very competitive. education is the key to getting into new jobs and new areas. if those jobs do not come back, and it does not look like many of them are coming back.

this is the dilemma we face. what will our priorities be when we decide to cut back on the? federal? what will you be saying -- when we decide to cut back on the federal government? what will you be singing, for instance, if we cut back on medicaid and medicare? host: bonnie, republican, for the congressman. caller: good morning. host: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: one quick question. everyone's worried about what the government can do for them. i'm pretty upset about the 9/11 responders. guest: great question. i voted for it. i support the idea. for any politician, a democrat or republican, to hold this up because of what ever reason -- i

know the first responders. i know regular workers who went there and worked after 9/11, and have all kinds of pulmonary problems. the tests that were done by mount sinai twice -- the reports show a very ugly situation. if we do not address this, then what kind of a country are we? we need to do that and not hold it hostage to any of the legislation. host: santa fe, calif., tony, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. in regards to the word compromise -- compromise is the worst possible thing that any country can indulge in. refineries, nuclear power plants -- let the tax cuts

expire. we have enough debt. you want to, should we say, nation-building in afghanistan at the expense of ruining your own nation. you are part of the problem, not the solution. host: a line we have heard before. guest: thank you for calling in. i personally believe there's a role for government to play. the government certainly cannot do everything. there's no question in my mind that we cannot allow the tax cuts to expire. first of all, it was not democrat's idea to have them expire. it was not our idea to have them expire, but we cannot allow them to expire now. this is close to an economic disaster. we are so deep in the hole.

we are deep in debt. if we allow those to expire under the principle that we cannot afford it -- well, i would agree, partially, that we cannot have them expire with so many people out of work. this is not the time to hit the americans again. we certainly should not do it indefinitely, as some on my side, as well as the other side, have proposed. i think that would be a terrible mistake and certainly put us deeper into debt. there's some value to what you are seeing. -- saying. i think we need to get out of afghanistan. the president has put us on the path to do it. in the dying words of our great heroes that we just lost, mr. holbrooke, and i think we will be out of afghanistan by september of next year. host: patrick, democrat, good morning to you. caller: good morning.

congressman, i'm sure you were alive during the 1950's and 1960's. america sustained its longest period of economic growth. during that period, the tax rate was 91%. that was the highest marginal tax rate in america. guest: it was changed. caller: of course it was. he was a billionaire. this is my point, congressman. poor people are out of work right now because there's no money available to them. rich people do not have to work because they've already set up the methods that will continue to have them the rich. if we put a strain on our society -- string on our society, we may be able to get our society moving. i do not know how the cutting

taxes will work. it has not worked and it is not going to work in the future. guest: let me respond to that. the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the democrats role was to make sure that the middle class was involved across the board. we even increase the earnings of tax credits for the working poor. that certainly lead to the worst disaster we've had in 70 years in finances in this country. much of the money that went to the upper brackets -- over $500,000 -- did not produce many jobs. during those eight years of the bush administration, there was almost job neutrality. two, wage neutrality. we did not increase the wages of folks, and that is why we are losing the middle class.

that's the most difficult problem we need to address in the congress of the united states. host: buffalo, last call. cindy, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much. i appreciate everything you do, but i do not consider this a compromise. obama fought pretty hard for this to pass. secondly, you are all acting as if it was not possible. if you act as if this is impossible to fail, it will be. i wish this to everybody -- a very, very merry christmas and happy new year. my wish, especially for the legislature, both the senate and house, that you all be visited in the christmas spirit from the past, present, and future, so you will all get your act together. thank you very much. have a wonderful christmas. guest: thank you. a wonderful christmas to you, cindy.

i hope the president succeeds. more importantly, i hope the country succeeds. i want to be part of an agreement that will help folks who need it most. that is what happens in any kind of vote we take in helping americans. are we going to help the right people? most of the time, we can tell. many times, we cannot. we pray for the best. i like your spirit of coming together during the holiday season. we will need to come together in the next yeathree years. . host: rep bill pascrell, ways and means committee member, thank you for your time. guest: have a great holiday. host: coming up, we will learn the details of a new teen drug use survey. our guest will be nora volkow, director of the national institute on drug abuse. first, morning news from c-span radio. >> economic numbers show little

inflation. the consumer price index rose 0.1% in november. in the past year, prices have moved up just over 1%. following the sudden passing of ambassador richard holbrooke, the state department is naming the acting special representative for pakistan and afghanistan. he is a career civil servant and served as a deputy to ambassador holbrooke. two senior iraqi officials say captured insurgents are claiming that al-qaeda is planning attacks in the united states and europe during the christmas minister. the botched bombing in stockholm was among those revealed. authorities in the u.s. and europe have been alerted. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you are watching c-span,

bringing new politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal" our live program. during the week, watch the u.s. house and our continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. every weeknight, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming any time at [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] . -- you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org. a public service, created by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest now is nora volkow, director of the national institute on drug abuse. the teen drug use survey is out. what did you learn?

guest: i always wait for the data to tell me what was there. we are concerned about marijuana because it has very much been in the news. there's been a lot of debate on whether or not marijuana has therapeutic services. we were wondering how that would affect teenagers. we found there was a significant increase in indicators of marijuana use. especially among the youngest cohorts, the eighth graders. what is quite striking is more than 10% of marijuana. in 10th grade to 12th grade, we are seeing an increase in marijuana utilization. this is worrisome because of daily use can be tied to rates

of developing dependence. these are probably the most significant findings. host: here is one of the headlines. "usa today" daily marijuana use increases in students. then you get to the why? this headline says that young people do not see that the drug is dangerous. can you tell us more? guest: it also asked the kids and their perception of risk. the survey shows a decrease in the number of kids that perceived regular marijuana use as harmful. the attitudes towards marijuana are becoming that of viewing it as a much more benign drug than it was in the past. we've had an image that -- the perception that marijuana can be harmful is associated with the lower use of marijuana.

when the perception goes the other way around, the increase of marijuana utilization. host: news and debate about medical marijuana has played into this. guest: in our country, we haven't epidemic -- we have an epidemic. we're trying to understand why. they reported that they are using marijuana, they're favoring it because of the misbelief that if it is given by physicians, it is not as dangerous. because of that, we are assuming that the similar process may be occurring among adolescents. if your doctor gives it to you, it cannot be so bad. host: our guest will take your calls in a few minutes. she will be with us for the next 35 minutes. we will do something different with the phone numbers for this

drugnt on the treen use survey. the first phone line is for parents and students. and educator's, and everyone else. we will leave the numbers up for a second so everyone can start calling in. our guest is nora volkow, director of the national institute on drug abuse. other move from marijuana drugs. what does this survey say about other drugs? guest: psychotherapeutic have been an area of concern over the past five years to seven years. they have been among the 10 favored drugs -- six of them are psychotherapeutics. next is a pain medication, vicodin.

this is relevant for many reasons. pain medications when used inappropriately can be quite unsafe and very dangerous. they can lead to overdoses. this is outside -- and in many senses, when a kid starts taking these medications, they become addicted to them, and then there's a shift toward heroin taking. in the past, it was never a problem among adolescents, and now we're faced with it. there's another class of psychotherapeutics that have to do with medications which we know are prescribed for the treatment of attention deficit disorder. what is interesting about these

-- they are used not just for the purpose of getting high, which they can, but also with the expectation that they will improve your cognitive performance. students are taking them before the exam to cram overnight without having to sleep. that is a different approach. not just for getting high, but improving performance. there's another class that has to do with drugs that we used for treating anxiety or food disorders. and also, much less prescribed barbiturates. they can produce affects when takien outside the medical context. host: we'll also get to alcohol. let's get to the callers.

steven, you are a first. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: marijuana. i am 45 years old. i hate to commit this, but i've been a part of it for a long time, since i was in high school. a long time. it was never a gateway to me. i never smoked cigarettes. i drink beer. it was never a gateway thing. if anything, it held me back -- by making new lazier. you are not as driven. i'm not saying that's the only reason. i'm so tired of all this research. the person i'm married to has never smoked and has no desire

to. she has known me for a long time. i feel confident she could tell you it is not a dangerous drug. host: nora volkow. guest: we like to polarized things into either very good or very bad. the reality is that there's tremendous variability in the way individuals respond to drugs. that is in part determined by the age in which to start taking them. the younger you are, the more likely they will have adverse attackaffects. as well as your own genetic background. some people smoke cigarettes in their entire lives and do not get cancer. the same very abilities -- the same very abilities. when one discusses marijuana as dangerous, there's a lot of

debate in whether it produces irreversible changes in your brain that are toxic, or if it does not. we do know that marijuana can affect memory and learning. when students take them, it will directly interfere with their ability to perform properly at school. these effects are longer lasting than when they are intoxicated because marijuana stays in your body. you keep on releasing marijuana for logger periods of time. your capacity to learn and memorize will be affected. if you are a student will interfere. as you grow, you are already jeopardized your chances of success. that is factual. that is simple and straightforward. also, areas of the brain

involved with control. there's a significant rate of accidents that result in death. those individuals have higher levels of marijuana. we know that marijuana -- just from those very simple things -- clearly, the adverse affects of this drug are documented. host: daily marijuana use in this country. last year, high school seniors, 5.2%. this year, 6.1%. it is up. 10th grade students went up from 2.8% to 3.3%. eighth graders went up. it translates to one in 16 high school students using marijuana. does the eighth grade no. strike

you? guest: yes, eighth grade. why is this important? we know that individuals that star smoking marijuana before age 17 are at much greater risk of developing an addiction, not just for marijuana, but for developing addictions to other drugs. this reflects the fact that the brain is much more likely to be modified by stimuli during the early stages of development than later. that explains why the greatest risk for becoming addicted to drugs is during exposure early on. therefore, the increases on the young this cohorts are worrisome because they are the most vulnerable. host: we have an educator on the

line. ebe?b go ahead. caller: i hear that you are trying to beat the drum against medical marijuana, saying that kids will hear this. there are a lot of medicines around that are bad for you. a lot of the cycle active drugs and other drugs -- we know that we have legalize all kinds of drugs. i do not like that all the medicines are in the hands of the so-called medical professionals. marijuana the is -- the fact about marijuana is that it may or may not affect you memorizing things. you want to think for yourself. guest: the notion about whether marijuana may have medical properties -- that area is interesting from the perspective

of medical research. marijuana activates receptor systems that are extremely important in regulating a wide variety of functions in our body. understanding what those maybe may provide new medication targets in the future. i like to think about that. we know that opiate medications are probably some of the most potent that we have. yet, we do not give hair when for pain. we give medications that are optimizing -- yet we do not give heroin fror pain. you can deliver the therapeutic effects while minimizing the adverse marijuana affects adverse, -- while minimizing the

adverse affects of marijuana. host: good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine. caller: i just want to say that i took my s.a.t.'s stoned and not stoned once. guess what? i got a better test scores d stoned. what do you think about that? just one more question -- one more. have you ever smoked pot? you are smiling. maybe you have. caller: i can respond to both of those questions. i was smiling for many reasons. i was surprised that your test scores were better with marijuana in talks addition than -- marijuana intoxication.

it is intriguing and interesting. this highlights the diversity of how humans respond very different from different types of drugs. someone can drink alcohol and become very mellow. someone can drink alcohol and become very feisty. with respect to have i ever taken drugs? i have tried smoking, nicotine, when i was an adolescent. i never liked it. i try alcohol every once in a while. i have a family history of alcoholism. marijuana, i was never exposed to marijuana in high school. i do not think i ever saw marijuana until i was in my 20s. i was never curious. i was never exposed to it. i was smiling about it because it is interesting for me to say no, i have never taken marijuana, but i have also never been exposed to. host: what are high schoolers

doing these days? guest: we've seen dramatic decreases in smoking of cigarettes. it's almost a 50% reduction in high school students over a period of less than 20 years. this reflects very effective public health interventions. those decreases have actually seemed to be plateaued. over the past two years, we have not seen any further decreases. what is very intriguing, actually, if you look at the indicators, there are currently more marijuana smokers among 12th graders than cigarette smokers. that shows two things. one, how effectively been at decreasing smoking behavior. two, the increase in the rise of marijuana. host: the number from national institute on drug abuse -- high

school seniors, 21.4% is the number of high-school seniors who use marijuana. 19.2% have smoked cigarettes. we'll take a call from a student, joe, in long island, new york. caller: i go to long island community college. we found that the same teens using marijuana are the same ones attuning into the howard stern radio show every day. host: let's hear from an educator. caller: i grew up in canada. through very close family connections, i observed eventual acceptance of medical marijuana. my cousin used it for a good portion of his life, suffering from m.s., even before it was made a non criminal offense in canada.

what i observed, i think, is when marijuana -- when the stigma is removed, you also removed a some of the debt portion of the population's desire to toy with it. growing up, i always thought, why would i try to get high off the tylenol? host: what do you think about that? guest: it is an interesting perspective. on the other hand, we have the perspective -- it is favored by the fact that they are given by physicians and they are safer, even though they are medicine. edicinet that it is a madis

does not appeal to young people or to adults. the way that individuals react differently is appealing. overall, in our data, the fact that they are medications does not deter their appeal. we have seen this, unfortunately, with the epidemic of pain medications in the united states. host: the study focuses on drinking alcohol. what did you find? guest: drinking alcohol has shown a slow, steady decline. this is good news. in fact, we've seen a decrease in binge drinking, which means five or more drinks in the kitchen of males, -- and the occasion of males, or four in the location of the mails.

since drinking behavior is extremely frequent and accounts for a significant portion in this -- age this -- of course, this is good news. the decrease is relatively small, but it is significant. it is good news. i wish that it would be moving faster. host: how reliable is the survey? do you worry that the younger folks are not telling you? guest: of course, one wonders that. the reason why we think these are reliable is that there are other surveys. survey another annual that is done in the homes.

the prevalence rates of drug use are very similar. that results from the house call survey from 2009, which was released recently. there's been a very strong consistency in the findings, which gives credit to the fact that they reflect real trends. host: do you have a sense about economic factors in the country? who does what based on how they're growing up economically? guest: absolutely. i think economics has been recognized for a long time as being one of the factors. it is not a linear relationship. interestingly, kids that do have

money to buy drugs, that puts them at greater risk for taking in using drugs. on the other hand, kids that may be very deprived may take drugs as an alternative to other behavior. it is very different. we're also observing the pattern of drugs is somewhat influenced by cultural and ethnic factors, as well as gender. host: our guest was born in mexico and attended the modern school. she had a residency in new york anniversary. obispo, calif., john, good morning. hang on. i want to take another call. john, we will get you. caller: yeah, i was calling

-- what they are selling in stores and how it affects teenagers? host: can you say that again? caller: the synthetics that they are selling at the stores, if that is harmful for teenagers to use? guest: yes, it is an activator. it can affect the system just like marijuana. it's a relatively new form of consumption. we do not have sufficient data with respect to the specifics in terms of its potency and whether or a mixture of compounds. at this time, we do not have sufficient information. host: john, you are on the line. go ahead. caller: i appreciate you and your show every morning.

the issue of legalizing, or even marijuana -- there's a lot of emphasis on it. quite frankly, and i and my mid- 50s, well educated, middle income. as a single parent, i raise my daughter to look at that more than over-the-counter drugs, or even something prescribed. she is a college graduate at this point and successfully working. it seems there's a lot of emphasis on this marijuana. i'm curious at the cost of the country puts into cleaning it, finding it, and educating more and more on something we quite frankly have other things to spend our money on. host: nora volkow. guest: i appreciate the perspective. as a society, of course, we have a responsibility to understand access to drugs that can be

harmful. one of the things i almost always ask -- i'm always asked, how, alcohol and cigarette smoking is legal and marijuana is illegal? is it more dangerous? we always try to polarize one versus the other. in reality, and the drugs that account for most of the mortality in our country are the illegal drugs, alcohol and nicotine. -- the legal drugs, alcohol and nicotine. it is not appropriate to say that one is better. we do not want to have a similar level of impact. they have big impacts. it is not because one is more

dangerous. it is because they are widely available. the greater availability predicts higher likelihood of use. higher likelihood of use predicts higher complications and higher probability of addiction. making marijuana widely available would result in at a larger number of people taking marijuana and a larger number of people having medical complications. as a society, it behooves us to be certain that if we are going to be creating positives, we have to be aware of the consequences, which can be very detrimental. they will be detrimental to the person who is exposed to this, but also to the social group that surrounds the individual. educator.ael, and educatio caller: good morning.

i like to see more focus on our emphasis. we educate the home, the community, the school, the church, and yet, what are we asking of young people? we tend to be asking of young people that they be job ready. we do not emphasize a persons knowing themselves. we do not teach biology. we do not have any real focus on psychology. i counsel young people. occasionally i say, and know yourself and find a focus in your life. and then, if you wish to use alcohol or other drugs, then at least you will have had a better understanding of who you are prior to clouding your mind. what we teach in our culture anymore is make money and then later, everything will be ok. we do not have any sort of imperative for healthy growth.

i would not mind a response to that. host: let's hear from our guest, nora volkow. guest: the point that is very relative -- the most important question that we ask, how can we prevent drug use among our young people? at the end of the day, their exposure to drugs, overall, even accounting for variability, will have a negative impact. one of the most important prevention strategies is that you have to keep alternative behaviors. when you are young, it's about exploring the world. things and new wanting to have an impact if you do not have been usevenues for channeling that drive, you are more likely to take drugs. instead of just saying to kids -- just say no to drugs -- it's

not going to work unless they have alternative behaviors they can say yes to. helping them understand the goals they want to achieve for themselves, and for themselves as part of the global culture that they belong to. host: you can read the study at drugabuse.gov. our guest is the director, nora volkow. 10 more minutes in this segment. dallas, texas, donald is on the line. caller: to the caller previous that was asking about the synthetics, the k2, or derivatives of such, according to wikipedia, in the '90s, her organization funded the research by john hoffman to focus on

those drugs. they are now illegal -- at leadt k2 is. it has been deemed illegal by the federal government. i would like to make a couple of points now. there are medicinal benefits toit. christensen is nothing but bearnaise public -- her institution is to affect public opinion. in 1937, people like the dupont found out -- as we know about eli whitney because of the cotton gin. it was going to do the same thing. before the cotton gin, everything was made from cannabis. with the decorum decatur, it made it easy and cheap.

it was going to take lumber out. the whole thing has been a dis information campaign because it is not economically viable. host: manipulation, the caller says. guest: one of the things that we do have to face a lot of times -- this belief among the public, sometimes in terms of the information that is provided by organizations. one of the things the science has been very strong in is providing evidence, providing data, guiding the statements based on data. that is why the agency has taken a more conservative approach. even in discussing the issues of marijuana -- let's be factual,

rather than taking the data beyond what it shows. we provide the data. whether someone chooses to believe in the data or not, that's something we cannot influence. we certainly maintain that we are a science agency. our purpose is to provide knowledge, data, and evidence to guide the public and to guide the system in ways that it can protect and prevent and ultimately treat substance abuse disorders. host: john is on the line. caller: i really enjoy the show. my biggest fear is -- i'm a smoker. i'm almost 50. i've been smoking since i was 15. i raised a son and a daughter.

i was a single parent. i kind of broke the inner circle of the kids that go to high school. i knew them all. i knew the ones that smoked. it's more of a culture issue in the schools. because it is deemed illegal, the kids that deal it, they are making good money. they're making more money than i do in a 40 hour work week. by these kids selling it to the schools, kids that probably would not do it until they were adults, they're exposed to it at a young age in the middle schools. it is just like prohibition. make something illegal and you see people doing it on a daily basis. and then you see kids in school that are selling it and they are making $800 per week easily. host: the caller mentioned the

economic factor and how much money there's to be made, but also mentioned culture. guest: it's very important. economics drives a lot of that. it has been one of the hardest obstacles. whether a drug is legal or illegal, you always have to put constraints on its illegality giving it to young people. that pertains to alcohol and nicotine. alcohol, which is not approved to young people, by the time they leave college, more than 75% of high-school students have tried alcohol, even though it is not legal for them. the fact that it is illegal -- made legal will not in any way protect adolescents. it will change attitudes. that is something where the data, since 1979, has clearly showed two things.

the other factor, whether they smoke and uor not, if they havea perception that will increase the likelihood that they will do so. making a drug illegal -- legal -- that is not harmful, it is likely to lead to more exposure to adolescents. host: jean, welcome to the program. caller: i have several points to make. i'm a mother of a very, very intelligent girl. i'm also a medical cannabis patient. i accidentally discovered this after i was prescribed coding and other very serious drugs as a child.

i came across that it is -- smoking a joint completely relieved my symptoms. i have never done one other drug ever since then in 40 years. i've never done heroin. i've never thought about it. i smoked during my pregnancy. my daughter has never used drugs. she has never even gotten drunk. i think what all this shows is that we really require honest drug education in this country. host: it's all about education. guest: very much. there's a point that the caller is making that i think is very relevant. she's saying that she felt that the moment she took marijuana, she stopped taking other drugs. the notion that people can feel better is one that is recognized in the field.

one of the reasons for young people to take drugs is in attempt to medicate a condition -- it will make them temporarily perform better or feel better. kids that have depression or attention deficit disorder are at greater risk for taking drugs. when they take them, they will feel better. is this the optimal way of addressing the problem? no. they can become addicted to the drug. the drugs themselves are not optimized for that action. there is the notion of of a medication is one that drives the consumption. -- auto medication is one of the drives. every individual response to drugs differently. we know that smoking cigarettes causes cancer.

no one is going to question that. there's a significant number of smokers that do not get cancer. that does not mean that smoking does not increase your risk. it means there are very built these -- it means there are very ariabilities. host: what does it all mean? guest: as a nation, we cannot become complacent about drugs with our young people. young people are the ones which will be taking the burden into the future. i always say this. in a global society, where we have countries that are engaging more and more in education and advancement, do we want our teenagers to jeopardize their education or their achievement? that is one thing that unfortunately drugs do.

do we want to train them to be the most successful they can be as an individual? in order to do that, drugs are one of the obstacles. host: nora volkow, director of the national institute on drug abuse. the website, if you want to read this study is drugabuse.gov. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: thank you. we will take you to the floor of the u.s. house of representatives. it's a very busy wednesday. it's a very busy week in congress as they try to wrap up plenty of business in this lame duck session. the senate will vote later this morning, early afternoon, on the tax cut package. we may see the house take a vote on the same package later today. it may or may not be changed in the house before they take that vote. you can watch that live on c- span. the house is also expected to take up a repeal of the don't take up a repeal of the don't ask don't tell