that it is a disincentive to investment. that could get wrapped up in a broader tax debate that comes later. this is something that -- conservative economists worry about, a huge or growing portion of the country pays nothing in federal taxes. they get federal services for free. they would like more people to bear the burden. more liberal economists say that is just the way society should work. these folks cannot afford to be heavily taxed. they say this country has had a progressive income taxation system for a long time and that should be maintained. host: elmira, n.y., independent line, go ahead. caller: one thing i people think people are not bringing up is that this tax break for the rich will be paid for by borrowed money from china. how will that help our economy?

i can't see adding to the deficit to give tax breaks. under clinton, the tax breaks work out fine and the economy grew. guest: that is the big question here. we will borrow money to fund everything in this bill. it will cover the unemployment benefits, the tax cuts, the tax credits. this is coming from deficit spending. what economists say is that that spending, very soon, will start to be a drag on the economy. the size of the deficit will start to drag us down so something will be have to be done to close the deficit. what the best things you can do is grow the economy. they say this borrowed money will kickstart the economy to kickstart jobs and get us in a positive cycle of boards so we can create jobs and people can spend money and revenue goes to the treasury and can pay down our debt, close our deficits and

we will do some of the fundamental things to balance our budget long term. host: jim tankersley, thank you. tomorrow, we will talk about political developments as the debate goes on in the senate next week in the house and the senate. 8:32 more, -- 8:30 tomorrow, we will talk about what is next for the panel regarding the financial crisis and a debate on the new health care block. law. we will talk about events this week and laws that are pending on the issue. that will take place tomorrow starting at 7:00 a.m. and we will look at the newspapers and take your phone calls. "washington journal that is" tomorrow. in the senate on c-span 2, you can watch what is going on and you can watch all day as we will

be with that as long as the action takes place. thank you for spending your time with us. we will see you tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in her first interview since joining the court, justice elena kagan talks to c-span about how technology helps her manager oral argument legal briefs. >> justice scalia has taken to putting his bricks on an ipad. how are you managing your

briefs? >> i saw that justice scalia said he has them on an ipad. i thought i should own and ipad. my are on and -0 on a kindle. -- on a kindle. it is in -- endless reading. there are many organizations, individuals in the government that are in distress -- interested in the cases. with some of these cases, there will be 40 or 50 bricks. there is a lot of reading. -- 40 -r 50 briefs. -- 40 or 50 briefs.

>> watch the full interview at 63930 p.m. pacific . >> it is somewhat simple, but an important issue in criminal judgment -- criminal-justice. that is whether the president can hold political -- hold material evidence from the courts. >> listen to the argument on c- span radio. and. cspanradio.org. >> next a look at political advertising during the 2010 elections. it includes remarks from the director of moveon.org. this is one hour and 35 minutes.

>> i think we are ready. welcome. thank you for coming through snow and metro fires and various emergencies. i am brooks jackson. some of you may be familiar with our website where we try to hold politicians accountable for the actual address the of their campaign ads and other statements. it is something we have been doing for the past seven years. we are calling our conference "- attack 2010 -- "cash attack

2010." that is the name we gave to a special project at factcheck.org. we made a special effort to track the factual accuracy of ads paid for with corporate and union money freed up by the citizens united decision. the word attack is there because in our experience, as by outside groups tend to be ads -- ads by outside groups tend to be ads attacking a foe. the citizens united decision lifted the restrictions from using money for federal elections. we will never know how much money might have been spent in the midterm elections of 2010 had that decision not have been issued or how that money would have been spent. here are some clues.

according to the wesleyan media project, spending on advertising and congressional and gubernatorial races topped $1 billion this year. it is a figure the wesley and project called historic. house spending was 50% greater than it was in 2008. in senate races, ad spending doubled. there was spending by groups that don't disclose their donors. there was a report by the office of public advocates. outside groups that don't disclose their donors reported spending $132 million, including $85 million on senate races. several of these groups are represented here today. these groups are far more likely to run attack ads then to run

positive ads. that confirms our own casual an informal observations at factcheck.org. what we saw in 2010 we can expect to see more in 2012. the "los angeles times" reported that there is a financial arms race with politicians racing to form new independent spending committees and to raise larger sums of money next time. according to the l.a. times " the "los angeles times," there are groups that are prone to gridlock and unlikely to find a compromise. predictions like that make a good copy. but for prophecy, it is not good for us to see the future. we can examine the recent past

and learn more about what happened with the 2010 elections, which were the first to be held in a post- citizens united world. what was the strategy behind the attack ads from the right and the left? what was the effect of the spending? what does the evidence showed? is there polling data or other solid information that will tell us the difference if any that the new money made. to explore those questions, we have assembled two panels, one on the liberal or democratic side and one on the republican or conservative side. we have asked them to give us a presentation showing their campaign strategy and the evidence that use to help them believe those strategies were

successful. the reports are incomplete. we know that some groups take the position that they do not have to report even though their ads were quite obviously campaign ads. on the liberal side, we will hear from representatives from the service and employees international union. their representative has been delayed. he is making his way here. that was before highest spending group of all at the federal level. we will also hear from a representative from moveongot zero argie -- moveon.org. then we will hear from the head

of the california labor federation that bucked the republican tide with a successful campaign in support of the democratic campaign of jerry brown, who was facing a republican who spent much of her own money. on the conservative side, after a short break later this morning, we will hear from the political director of the biggest spending group of all, the american crossroads' g.p.s. group -- american crossroads g.p.s. group. we will also hear from the american action network, the third biggest outside spender. we will hear from a media consultant and an adviser from the republican congressional committee, who claims credit for demoting nancy pelosi from her

status and elevating john boehner as seek -- at speaker of the house. subscribers have sent us questions by e-mail. we are recording the conference on video for our own purposes and we will post that video on our website as soon after the conference as we can. we are also producing a written transcript of the proceedings which we will post on our site when it becomes available. i would like to introduce dr. ken winneg, who will introduce our first panel and moderate. >> thank you. our first panel is the democratic liberal panel. our first speaker to my right will been ilyse hogue from

moveon.org. she is the director of political advocacy and communications. she has worked there for five years. she contributed efforts in the campaigns of 2006, 2008, and the most recent election cycle. she has focused on health care policy and the financial reform bill. she will be telling us today about her efforts in the 2010 midterm elections. khalid pitts is literally blocks away. he will be here. he is from the services employees international union. he is the director of their strategic campaigns. he will be talking about seiu's efforts in the midterm elections. to my far right in is art

pulaski. afl-cio.ents the his union worked hard for the democratic candidates in the statewide california elections. to begin with, let's hear from ilyse hogue from moveon.org.

>> we are anpac. -- we are a pac. the amount of individual contributions became incredibly content is in the debate about our debate moving forward. the other thing that makes us different from the other groups you are going to hear about in the republican panel is that citizens united did not affect us. citizens united broadened the playing field. that did not affect us. what is interesting about our s a vie ce in 2010 visa 2008 or 2006, we have only been around since 1998. we had to think differently

about how we spent our money because we were going to get the same amount of money in a larger context of a financial arms race and and advertising arms race. that is to lay a little bit of context. it is interesting when i hear people like brooks say a representative of this group spent money in the top five. we spent $1.3 million in advertising. compare that to some of the folks you are going to hear about on the other side who spent $75 million or $80 million. the top five on the republican side in the top five on the republican side -- top five on the democratic side has a big gap. i want to get a little bit of

context. i would not spend a lot of time on this. what was new about this election is that citizens united allow unprecedented amount of spending. it is encouraged the formation of groups that could appear and disappear as opposed to moveon.org or seiu, which are long standing groups which will be allowed -- to be around long after the elections. some of the goods come up and fade back into the background. they are -- some of the groups come up and fade back into the background. the reason i think it is interesting because -- is because what facilitates that level of coordination is a small

number of decision makers who come from a concentrated number of donors to the ads. we have 5 million members who are finding our advertisements. when you have individual donors who can direct your campaign strategy, it facilitates tighter coordination across the party. this is something i want to touch on. i encourage you to look at it more deeply. here are some things that have popped up for me. post-the citizens united decision, electro that have gotten then. aten you -- the electoral rol have gotten thin.

by law, that was advocacy advertising. what that means is that we are still facing a dominant national narrative that is set by large corporations coming in and legislative fights. the time spent -- i seen the last year of accounting. this started when president obama starting to -- started to tout his budget. this is focused on outside spending. a lot was made about how democrats closed the gap at the end. in fact, democrats did better by some accounting. party committees are only able to raise money at the end of the cycle. when you have lots of donors and corporate money that have deep

pockets, you can start spending at the beginning of the cycle and that the narrative. the other side is going to be on the defense. impact in media trends. media is in disarray. everyone knows that. we were trying to figure out how to adapt. television is in a race for the bottom and to be more sensational. all of it is a desperate grab for advertising revenue. the model is changing. it has had an impact on our standards of accuracy, and thank goodness we have people like factcheck.org checking accuracy. what that means is that there is less incentive for television stations to care about accuracy because they care about where their next advertising dollar is coming from. these are discretionary

decisions made by each television company. and then the ability to place ads. i will get to that in our targeted campaign. we did a poll after the citizens united decision. people do not like it. i am happy to go in depth on this. the reason i put our poll results up here is that we took this in march at the the decision -- in march after the decision. it was indicative of a drift toward corporate rights over ordinary american rights. it did not break down over partisan lines. republicans believe it as much as democrats. one of the things we might see in the election cycle was skepticism toward the corporate funding of ads that the citizens united decision on out.

our target campaign was what allowed us to take the citizens united frustration we were seeing from the intellectual to be action-oriented. that is what we do. we are action-oriented. federal law does not require disclosure. there was a modest amount of money in the grand scheme of things given to an outside group in minnesota to we -- to support a republican candidate for governor. we started hearing about this from our minnesota members. we said we should test this and see what people are feeling about it. the response was overwhelming. this was the first test case of a public corporation that was depending on a broad swath of americans to shop in their stores. it is hard to separate people's

attitudes from meddling to what they were meddling on behalf of. it was the republican governor who had a long history of the anti-immigrant and anti-gay. we saw this explosion of outrage. we saw 51000 people sign a petition to what are -- we saw 500,000 people signed a petition saying boycott target. we saw the thin and backpedaling from the company. they did not ultimately -- we saw defense and backpedaling from the company. what brank week did was start the impact on brand values through the course of the

campaign. we know this made the rounds at lots of other corporations. the domino impact was quite large. if you have your communications people touting this around corporate headquarters thinking they need to think twice about what did they get involved in this stuff, even when disclosure is not mandatory. a lot of people were doing research about what corporations were donating. it made an impact. someone mentioned that the new york city public advocate -- they were doing advertising on the other side. right after this came out, goldman sachs committed to not spending under citizens united. they did not want to undercut their brand. i am going to show you this. >> target and other big

corporations are trying to buy our elections. but if we all work together, we can stop them. boycott target. our democracy is not for sale. >> we make this cute little advertisement. we thought it was fun. we were going to spend a modest amount of money to get word about the boycott out. no one was debating the veracity of the claim. there was not much in there that was not factual. they did contribute the money. we were promoting a boycott. they refused to run the ad. when we asked why, they said they have a company prohibition against attacking corporations. we thought that was interesting. you do not have a corporate

prohibition against corporations attacking politicians. we are still in the middle of this debate. i wanted to show this act because everybody went ballistic on the right. thought moveon.org was attacking targets. this is an animated happy little and saying we do not like something. it was stunning. i think there are two things to take from this. this is where the vulnerable is -- where the vulnerability is. if people knew that there consumer money was being spent to meddle in elections to promote causes that were not consistent with their values, they would choose to do something else. that was so scary to them that they were quantified this exposure to and nail. this is an example of why i can only offer a gas.

target spends a lot more on advertising -- this is an example of why i can only offer a guess. we were trying to spend $50,000. this was a deeply disturbing element of this campaign for us. citizens have fewer avenues to make their voices heard and that is dangerous for democracy. there we go. >> this is the impact on accuracy. this is the ad from the american action network that you will hear my colleague talk about. nobody was saying this ad was fair or accurate. this is an ad that said people

had voted in the house and the senate to give my attitude sex offenders. you have to stretch the truth in a different ways to believe this is a possibility. nobody agreed that this ad was accurate. we made a decision going into the election cycle that since we cannot compete dollar for dollar, one of the things we would try to do was mobilize against ads like this. we had people who could go on the air and speak out against acts like this. we had thousands of people-- against ads like this. these are discretionary decisions made by the station managers. everyone agrees this was inaccurate, totally outrageous, and taken down. the american action network

spent $80 million in this election and we spent 1.1 million. it is something to think about the impact of ads on democracy as we move forward. i have three polls summaries of here. you will see what is consistent. when you get away from leadership, other republican party rank and file republicans agree with all of these attitudes about the fact that corporations have too much influence already over our legislation and our elections. the one that i do want to pull out is one that our really -- that was really political. we were in a fight for our lives on the economy. everyone would agree that this election, at the end of the day, was about the economy. one of the things we saw in august was that people were starting to say there was no way for america to fix this economy

unless we get corporate lobbyists out of the system. the second one was that most americans, republicans, independents, and democrats, believe that corporate spending in the elections -- most americans believe it is political bribery for corporations to be able to spend unlimited amounts in the elections. this is where we started to see the shift in the narrative and people saying, this is important. people believing it is bribery and already believe we cannot fix the economy. it is also a fundamental principle in the american democracy. it is the opportunity for an equal voice. the mike enzi is not for sale to the highest bidder. one of the things we did -- democracy is not for sale to the

highest bidder. we started to think money was pouring in and we could not compete. we could make connections for people. we know that people do not like this. we do these report releases that show how much money is coming from outside groups. we can help start sway of alter opinion.voter's the report got an enormous amount of press. they showed the pitch at which the issue was being debated. that poll. the public wanted to know. we did this one in october. we were debating 23 of the 24 hour news cycle. we wanted to get to the bottom of what people care about

anonymous donors. 84 percent side of voters believe they have a right to know who is buying ads in their elections. it goes to motive and who the candidates are responsible to after the elections. 56% less likevo totes -- were less likely to vote for a candidate if they know. names like american access network and american crossroads -- they do not know who is donating. it was critical for them to make that connection. this an example of another 32nd thirty secondher 1

ad. crossroads g.p.s. spent $24 million to win this race. >> mark kirk voted to award corporations with tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. where has the chamber been getting some of its money lately? from foreign corporations like china, russia, and india. is that countries that threaten american jobs. who is mark kirk working for? it is certainly not the people of illinois? . >> we are totally fueled by our members. many are affected by the economic conditions. we spent about $1 million over--

$1 million on ads. we took all of the knowledge from the polls and the trends and put it together to make this act, which was with the intent whichosed --3 t this ad, was with the intent to expose the money behind mark kirk's campaign. we did not win. we came close. alexi giannoulias was one of the hardest names to announce in politics. he came close to of setting that race. i want to end by saying a couple things. because the republicans took -- i will admit that they won the dominant narrative.

it is easy to make the mistake to say people do not care about the arms race. people do not care that corporations and wealthy donors are hijacking our electoral process. that is a fundamentally flawed conclusion to make. everything we saw showed that people care. it makes them angry. if we do a better job of connecting the dots for american faux pas -- for american voters, we can affect change. there are americans worried about their homes and worried about their jobs. i am less worried about a backlash than i am worried about every day voters looking at the arms race and saying, i do not matter. i cannot be to them. i cannot pay as much.

i protested and i knocked on doors. that is fundamentally dangerous for our democracy. we will continue to push forward. we will work to overturn citizens united. in the next election, we will see that if we do not get together to make these connections for voters, we will see a disenfranchised electorate and a democracy that is increasingly for sale to the highest bidder. >> if there are any questions from the floor of ilyse hogue for, i will welcome them now

while khalid pitts gets set up. >> what do you see for the 2012 elections? what amount of money do you see being spent on these advertisements? >> i think that is anyone's guests. some threatened to send for $1 million. they did not. e support keeping up's ,-- keeping up, which requires them to spend everything in their arsenal. campaigning starts now. advertisements will start now. what i perceive is that we will see on the democratic side were

up a push toward big money fund raising. there has been one independent expenditure announced this is divergence from what we did in 2006 and 2008. president obama asked that no outside groups donate. some think that a unilateral decision might have been a mistake. we are going to see our site siting board -- our side fighting for disclosure and against advertisements that are in accurate -- that are inaccurate. we are going to see more money rates on our side. at the end of the day, we will not raise as much money as the next panel. the republicans have so

fundamentally carried the water for corporations and wealthy individuals in legislation that there is not as much money on our side. we cannot compete dollar for dollar. but we will see more of everything in the 2012 advertisements. it is a little scary. it really is. >> this will be the last question and we will proceed . . >> where is the balance in terms of democrats that may not be with you in every issue bursas republicans that you do not

agree with? versus republicans that you do not agree with? >> we fundamentally work for our members. many of the democratic campaigns are not representing them in a democratic -- in a general way. i think we are going to see a lot more assertion of the fact that much of the democratic base does not believe all of the candidates are created equal. all democrats are not created equal. to the extent that you are asking specifically about the presidential campaign, our members are frustrated. they think the republicans are dominating too much of the debate. so much has to do with who is

running on the other side. president obama has done more to help this country than president bush did in the last a years. we will see -- a in aeight last year -- in the last eight years. we will see how that plays out. >> i am please do present khalid pitts from the service employees international union. >> i want to apologize. i am a first-time father. i have a first-time mother at home. i apologize for being late. the election did not turn out the way we wanted it to be. we want to give a brief description as well as an analysis. this is from our perspective.

we want to elect pro-worker candidates whether they be democratic or republican. we want to engage our base walters -- our base voters. we want to have those who helped elect minorities in the congress.

we want to build the capacity of our members from their ability to talk about issues and to be educated about issues. we have members who run for office and we want to enhance that engage in political discourse, which we do every day whether it is talking about elections and legislative issues and tax cuts. internally, we want to expand our political infrastructure so that we can be more engaged with our members and the general electorate in that order. we are here talking about media ads. we want to talk about messaging point and what we try to get across. we think about elections. we wanted to frame this election in the sense that it is a choice for a those who voted for change

in 2008 and continue that change going forward. we also wanted to set up a contrast. we want to respond to the address of the middle-class and the uninsured. in doing that, we want to talk about -- we wanted to think about some elements of the tea party activists. there were some extremely conservative interests who were backed by corporate money and shadow groups like crossroads dbs. if corporate interests take control of congress, we are going to see a return --you saw this with paul ryan and some of the policies that were being pushed. there will be a return to wish

tax policies that got us into this mess in the first place. there would be a reverse on major reforms. there would be a push for a policy that would continue the inequities that would hurt our income, the job creation, and the middle class. we are looking at policy that would hurt seniors. the social pact was made many years ago with our seniors. it is in deep jeopardy of policies are enacted by many of the republicans elected in this psycho -- this cycle.

i want to point out a couple of things in each of the races. first up is sharron angle in nevada. let's see if this works. dangerous angle's ideas will make life worse at every stage. if she was raped and got pregnant, sharron angle would make her have the baby. at retirement, wrote to her -- her social security would be phased out. it would be worse for her and worse for all of us. sharron angle, too dangerous to have real power over real people. >> we can go to the next one. before i go to the next one, you

will see the tagline. that is our pac. you will hear lots of reports about union's spending member's dollars. money is raised from our members who give money from their paychecks. if you think of a getting in houston who is making $5.25 an hour, that $7 mean something. we try to be good stewards of the money our members voluntarily give toward election communications. next, we are going to go with a radio ad. >> how much do we know about tom

gamly./ he signed a pledge to support the republican agenda. what will that mean for ohio? to allow insurance companies to do now -- to deny coverage for children with pre- existing conditions. he will be what more republican classagainst ohio's middle- families. he is wrong for ohio. not authorized by any candidate or can today's committee. >> this candidate ran unsuccessfully in the ohio

seventh district. i am tried to pick out races that were battleground states. >> he said he would never ship jobs overseas. now we find out he took tens of thousands in the campaign contributions from those who sent jobs overseas. tim burns. good for corporations and special interests. bad for us. >> this advertisement is

different. it does not have seiu as a tag line. we have a side that talks to our members. we have a side that does an independent expenditure. those two sides do not talk. they have no knowledge of what goes on. i am on be coordinated side. i did not see this advertisement until it ran. i did not know the details in terms of where it went or how big it was until it was disclosed to the general public. >> fiorina, we all know who you really are. carly fiorina.

you laid off 33,000 it will ease. you sent 93,000 up our jobs overseas. you walked away with a $45 million golden parachute. it is time to face the music. >> you saw a targeting contract add -- and something a target contrasting advertisement and something a little more light hearted. we actually worked with coalition partners. we talked about the enormous amount of research that went on on the other side forcing other organizations to pull their resources. we did not spend as much money as we saw with corporate interests and individuals we still do not know.

each of those advertisements were different in a way. they show a contrast between the two candidates on issues that were important. n,ain, middle-class, wome base voters. talking about toys in the the sharron angle act. tupper -- talking about choice in the sharron angle advertisement. talking about making the s'nnection is in the voter' minds. unsavory employment practices. ohio been a tough state and facing tough economic times. the republican agenda. talking about unemployment

insurance. talking about giving a blank checks to insurance companies. shipping jobs overseas and letting corporate interests run things. one ad laid out the issue of the mass layoffs of 33,000 that the company engage in. 9300 jobs shipped overseas and her being able to walk away with a $33 million golden parachute. showing that the average joe and jane in america were getting the shaft while those at the top were living the high life. what are they results? you know what the results are. i will show it from that perspective. the house and the senate are

important. equally important to the union is governance. we want to focus on where we target -- is the important to the union is governors. we volunteered and knocked on doors and make phone calls. we had about 19 races that we endorse. we one bank 11 of those 19 races. -- we won 11 of those 19 races. wyoming is purple because there was a republican governor that we endorse. let it not be said that unions do not endorse republicans. i mentioned earlier that we had members who ran for office. we have two all members who ran for state office in new hampshire.

they were both republicans, a father and son. saw some major wins in california and some tough losses in michigan, pennsylvania, and ohio. } in ohio and in florida. -- close races in ohio and in florida. i worked many years in the gun control movement. the nra use to bring out a scorecard. we have an 85% winning percentage. we can say we endorse and our influence won the election but on a smaller level, we spend

money. new york is purple because there were two seats open. we have some big wins out there. illinois was a tough loss. wisconsin was a tough loss. voters let's go up and 18 term senator -- voters let go of an 18-term senator who said he did not know enough about some issues to speak about them.

"the washington post" has a graphic editor and it is at home on my laptop. we won about 38% of the races we were engaged in. on the district level, districts are being cut to protect incumbents and to create a swing district. we saw losses in swing districts. sometimes they went with the national trend. a lot of scenes that democrats held for a long time -- a lot of seats that democrat held for a long time went to republicans.

more people participated in our walk a day issues. we ask that a kennedy --a candidate walks in the shoes of one of our members. they can see what it is like to be a janitor or be a nurse. seiu members are more engaged. there is a great engagement of baseball terse -- engagement of base voters. the youth will out in some places. i just want to show you an advertisement.

it is a message or a messenger that did not work. daughter faces a lot of health problem. that is why i am upset bad -- upset that blanche lincoln sided with the insurance companies. withed 8 senator to side what the citizens need. >> i showed this ad because it was run during and primary race. the primary race was against bill halter. it was a race back the wrong --

it was a race where we were the wrong messenger. it allowed her to say corporate interests were coming in to arkansas and try to take over the election. . . he senate control. with key governors races, some key ballot initiatives that really affect how state governors are funded, how elections are run, how many things happen in the state level because the gop gained 64 seats. we lost a lot of state legislators. and the governor on the senate side. i think we lost a message around

the economy. i think from our perspective, some of the reasons why i'm in claimant security, no clear national jobs program. it's a failure to take action. i think in the correction the middle-class tax cuts are having right now to failure to connect with the general public on jobs. corporate contributions are through the roof because of the united decision. we can see continuation of that. we saw intense attacks on our public union members out there. the new speaker of the house is very much anti-public against unions. redistricting battles can be tough because the governor races and chamber races be amongst. on the governor side, you know, lawson stays that were important to obama three-legged and from pennsylvania's michigan, ohio, wisconsin. it's much easier when the governors of the party to work for a party apparatus. and then some disturbing trend

in some of the exit polling. the one thing you want to point out is the very end, although you see union house is still strongly supporting democrats as they have before coming union house is really about 17% of the electorate. in the past they've been about 22% electorate. we saw a decrease in terms of union participation, but also what is happening with the labor movement and something we'll address. and finally, i want to look towards 2012. i just want to say two things. one, it's sometimes easy to be right-wing. you know, people to come and escape problems. my issues differ from your issue. no kind of collective body. america was founded based on freedoms. you know, leave me alone. its government get out of my life. and so, i see two dozen 12 looking forward to a lib dems are going to be doing. i think you're going to see redefining, reasserting.

i think you'll see it reasserting the democratic core principles readers who missed on the battle of the tax cut. and you know, kind of the opportunity and equality, not sort of a mythic past the gc many of the conservative side pushing in terms of the pass of the green path of america were not going back to. but what i see on the democratic side is i think you're winning the battle document exit poll. song about ethnic and generational politics. again, this country is turning brown or it's going to continue to turn browner. those constituencies are supporting progressive policies. again, you're seeing the young turning out to support progressive politicians. when you talk about some of developing a retain come you didn't see that continue on to their lives. so this was a tough election and we need to we were going to see it again from a perspective of

our union, it's time to get back to work. we serve core values about progressivism is about an family and equality. so, thanks. >> thank you very much, khalid. i'm going to return back to my original format of pulled the question until after the session and i would like to introduce pawlowski from the california federation. and i am going to hope with his media. >> where were you when we needed you? >> i'm going to talk to you and so i appreciate the invite and especially want to thank the annenberg public policy center

and fact check for doing this and also inviting me to participate in it. i'd like to say from the beginning that even though unions in california are independent expenditure operations probably spend $30 million. imports and i say that we believe that big money is a bad thing for american politics and that in particular citizens united is a travesty that it encourages encourages more of that. now we see more shadowy organizations with an unlimited amount of honey and often with anonymous contributions, really been destructive to the future of our democracy. and if there should be allowed, there could be a lot i would say he should be our politics must be grassroots politics and public expenditures. given not, we had a stay competitive and how we are

engaged for this year. we have several challenges that we face unions, as we face elections in california. not the least of which is the fact that we were dealing with meg whitman, who had bragged that she was going to spend $150 million of her own money and the way she ended up spending $170 million or of course as ken said earlier that any candidate has ever spent on a statewide race in the history of america. as opposed to jerry brown, would you walk into his office's campaign headquarters, you would find a sparse, small almost abandoned warehouse, the center of which was a picnic table with wooden benches, where they had their meetings. so is really quite a dramatic difference when you compare the well-funded army of campaign

consultants for meg whitman as opposed to the way jerry brown has more people in this campaign headquarters. so, our priority in our campaign were always his first our members. and how do we engage our members and grassroots politics? we have 2.1 million members. as a result, our members graded right it worked than two to one in the governor's race here but we had to do with the enormous analysis and resource is. so we had to do much more this year than engage our members and get them out though. we put together a blueprint that we shared with all of our unions in california because we had to have some way to represent the different independent expenditure and member communications programs that we were engaged in. so to show that many dimensions

of our campaigns, we have this blueprint, which showed the various sub campaigns that we were doing. the first of course as i mentioned was the member communications program. the second is the independent expenditure operations are unification anchor unified and coordinated way. the third is something i'll talk about a minute and that is because a million more voters. and finally, our earned media efforts. but let me take you back to an important piece of this campaign in terms of timing and that was back in the spring. to understand the challenges we face, we needed to let back at the previous gubernatorial election in 2006. and there we had a similar -- we had a number of similarities. and the first was that we had a well-funded campaign by arnold schwarzenegger against angeli deese. selegiline use did not have the

resource to be with them arnold schwarzenegger. but the other thing was that in early spring of 2006, arnold schwarzenegger let it fill angeli deese by 40 points. an early spring of 2010 culminate with and lead chariot drawn by four points. so there were similarities in both of those cases that were important to us. as soon as -- before the final vote was counted in the primary 2006, arnold schwarzenegger engaged in a project advertising that not phil angelides off of his feet. phil angelides could not counter those that until labor day because he did have the money. but by labor day, the election was done and decided then there was no way that phil angelides could recover. so, we were determined that we were not going to allow the same thing to happen again. and that was important for us that we maintain during the

summertime a competitive advantage that our candidate remain competitive with meg whitman, so that he would not be knocked out of his seat and therefore be unable to recover. and the fact is that during the summer, meg whitman had 112 days of advertising without any response from the brown campaign, conserving its resources until after labor day. so the key brown competitive during that critical time of the summer, labor stepped up in a number of ways. the biggest engagement we involved in was what we called california working families for jerry brown, who is an independent expenditure campaigns, which launched a number of ads hitting meg whitman where we knew she was vulnerable.

those ads were paid for primarily by -- actually pay many of our unions, but especially by seiu, the building trades unions and the state firefighters. we have several unions who are also supporting similar independent expenditure campaigns, including the nurses union and a series of radio ads and asked me which related tv advertisement. that really it's spent about $9 million. the asked me campaign on tv spent about $2 million. they had a hundred million dollars during the summer and advertising to have meg whitman. i want to show you one of those sad and if you can hunger with this, we're going to show you and not the california working families put forward, which was called crumble.

crumble. maybe we can start it again and pick up the sound. >> over six years coming huge losses from failed -- for 28 years, she didn't bother to go. no government experience at all. but then says ebay qualifies her to be governor. what is the record as ceo? overhead standing up 2000%. fees hiked six times in six years. huge losses from failed vergers and after she resigned, the new ceo cope with men's spending and lowered fees. california is in crisis under meg whitman, it could crumble. >> so in addition to the paid media, they said, it's very important for us to engage in grassroots candidate tbd. there are a couple of things

having simultaneous and one was a programmer put together that was called wall street written. and that was -- we actually have been negotiations with "the wall street journal" because apparently our program -- our ad programs on the internet looked an awful lot like a "wall street journal." the mastermind behind the two-day affair to litigation director steve smith. and so, we engage in some earned media and the online media that supplement and the paid media activity. and also, there was a brilliant program put together by the california nurses association called queen made. and though the street theater kind of thing for a woman made to look like meg whitman, but more like a queen followed her everywhere. it was the.whitman campaign committee smoker up until the truth about what she really was and is a really brilliant program going on. and that can grassroots stuff is

what we try to do the most of. the result of all these combined efforts is pretty profound. and over the summer, photos and to question meg whitman. her negative roles and importantly, the more money she spent, the more her negatives at that point begin to go up. in spite of the fact that over those 114 days she was engaged in a nonstop saturation bombing of radio and tv ads without any response from the brown campaign. that's why we think it was so crucial for us to keep them competitive during the summertime. as we headed into labor day, the race is a dead heat. in the fall, we were also dealing with the likelihood that they dampened turnout by democrats. and so, we had to calculate how to engage in making sure not that we advanced persuasion, but

also how we make sure that we also turn voters out. this is where the next i.e. and what i think it's probably ultimately our most important i.e. came to play. this is the million more voters program. for years earlier we had to put together some micro-targeting efforts with people like larry christiano and can stress not, who hope to find -- was originally intended to find a million voters in the excerpt and areas of the state. that is, the traditional strength of our labor movement of courses in the major cities on the coast. but there is a population growing of voters in the inland areas of the state, the more conservative areas of the state, the saint areas the state. so we engaged in this process of micro-targeting to begin to find people who work labor simply, agreed with us on our issues, but were not union members in the more conservative areas of the state.

and unlike the traditional independent expenditure operations, we again wanted to think of ways that we would reach out to voters on a very personal basis. i do this, by the way, they said to a couple folks back home, the micro-targeting that we engage in to create many more voters were started as a million voters, became a million five, 2 million is now 2,000,008 and growing. it's a very significant population portion of california. it's a good versus evil of micro-targeting. meg whitman's micro-targeting was going into committing afterwardstogether and bring the meal pieces she sent to them. you would find mail pieces of people next door to each other, competing with the mail piece that she sent to another neighbor. contradicting herself. that's the evil portion i think of micro-targeting.

for us, our purpose was to engage people as assured values to give them a voice, let them know they're not alone and i think that the good part of micro-targeting. the million more voters impact was engaged on that. and we did extensive field and i might targeting between voters as well. for example, the california school employees association had a program called paws for education improvements. they trained 8000 liters to recruit 10,000 activists, just within the 200,000 member union, to go knock on doors in their neighborhoods, to begin to talk to people. so they found the micro-targeting technology that we put together. and so, we have this really an attempt to move this back down to the grassroots, the personal contacts of engaging people together to give them a voice and commonly shared issues.

this is the exciting part of what we think about in terms of independent expenditure operations, not tv ads. although, we had to engage in us to stay competitive as well. another example of how we used the micro-targeting of million more voters. this is what the asian-american -- asian pacific api community. we found that there was unusually high percentage of undecided voters among the api community and they were getting little information on the governor's race. it would targeting truncation of 200,000 api community folks, where we found them for micro-targeting universe. we then communicate with them in four languages mandarin, cantonese, korean and pekingese. we found by talking to those people around these issues when they voted for years earlier, there is a 25-point margin in

favor of arnold schwarzenegger by the apa community. as a result of our two indications with these folks, it completely turned around from a 25-point advantage to republicans to a 17-point advantage for jerry brown. he was the most renick turnaround we have seen in any community in terms of the election of the governor's election in california this year. so we think the republicans really took the api community for granted this time and we actually moved the program. the latino project was also very germanic. and seiu was the primary theater in california, the latino project. they're a couple others in los angeles and california but at the federation does well. but as a result of that, the percentage of voters in the

governor's race among latinos rose from 12% to 22%. in other words, 22% of all voters in california this time were latino voters and that is a growing thing. and so, does it for sure crucial i.e. when they the revelations about whitman's housekeeper, nikki diez and how that affected latino voters and seiu's program took full advantage of that in terms of indicating to those voters. so then we go to geo tv. and the final several weeks of his that brown was in a pretty good position. he's a few points up, but we've got a. using million more voters technology again to reach out to do a blitz of voters through media, through field and through mail. we found that among those coming

to million voters via targeted 3 million more voters and technology, about 750,000 donated persuasion and about 1.55 million of them needed just to get out to go. so we figure out how to communicate most of those votes. and again, we ended up reaching out to people, not just by mail, not just ip gods, but by the community of people and volunteers we have developed over the six-month period. and we probably not on the doors of voters in 1500 precincts plus 800 precincts, so 2200 precincts out of some 30,000 precincts in california. so significant number of precincts we had appeared beyond what our normal membership would do in the grassroots political action of our union members but of course we do precinct operations as well. so, the results of all of those

was the historic sweep of statewide candidates for the first time ever in california's history from a statewide constitutional officers. in a number marginal and rational districts, there were probably four or five marginal congressional districts that we protected, that we saw major money coming from conservatives, especially in the fresno area. we moved resources around and saw that happening. a million more voters was we did 10 days out among a statewide candidates, just to see how they were positioned. are candidates for attorney general, tom paris was behind. and so, we moved an extra million dollars over two in i.e. in the los angeles basin on tv ads for pamela harris. as a result she went by the thing that took us two weeks to figure out the final vote count that she'd want. but the million more voters technology applied for that base

also come amid the difference in the election in a very clear way. so we probably, they said said, labor spent $30 million on independent expenditure programs. for serbia to do that. we hope someday what let's do that. we think we need public financing. but for a service to the we have done. we see that the way for the future for us and that is union members gently and plus can latino voters, to me and plus, a million more voters to million plus. african-american voters about 900,000. asian-american at 800,000. put that together they comprise the most of the 5% of all voters in california in the last election. and so we're onto something in terms of the communities for interests were playing together and type needs to pull them together in a such a speed media tv. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. and we are a little bit behind schedule, so i'm going to go right to questions from the

floor if anybody has a question. >> thanks. ken vogel, "politico." i wanted to follow up with a lease for move on. you guys obviously have your route in large anonymous contributions. i understand that now your part and are intended to make this a sort of big issue. i am wondering though, given president obama's really aggressive statement and policy preferences on this issue if there's any risk that democrats come if they do in fact engage in this kind of politically committee, whether it be anonymous or not is kind of big money, outside group advertising in 2012, if there's a risk of them sort of looking hypocritical. i guess as a preface to laugh too, how much of an effect do you think president obama's data policy preference is on this

pad? >> so two parts to that question. first of all, move on broussard of the pack. we were in 1988 by 200 those individuals who give small donors. we did open a fee for those called the voter fund and to purchase 2004 elections. and i'm only going into this because we were at eight transfix. every time your territories, he gained a one-time donation of 2003 and was never taken money from him again. never used the c-4 for electoral purposes beyond the 2004 election. so every election repurchase has been a part driven. we could experiment a large donation. we figured out it actually did work for a comment that our strength came from our members

direct ownership over campaign. that was part model of organizing. that is what provided strength, not only during election, but in the legislative site tracks to make a difference in policies the country. for that is one. the second question is a figure of two more at ms, but i'm thinking about the last one which is about upon this data policy had a lot of impact in 2008, a lot. some in 2010. i can't quantify it, but i think to the extent and impact of this because democrats and certainly move on and i heard art say this. we believe in the principle that democracy should not be for sale at the highest bidder. so when obama had the platform and said let's do this the right way, let's give every american the chance to have an equal voice in who governs them. we wind up right behind him. you think that is the best way

to govern our country. now, unilateral disarmament that this time we left the house. well, you can't actually govern your country if you're going to not have the representation in there. so there is this dynamic tension. i think that was part of your backlashcometh us pray for. >> like the potential -- >> absolutely. you know, people like to believe the left is a lot more ideological than it is. the caller members pragmatic progressive. i think the american people are sophisticated enough to recognize that we've got a fight on a couple different fronts. i mean, it's no good to actually look the principle that every american child an equal voice of you are not going to ever have any chance of implementing a touring of the three branches of government. so you know, that's like i heard this man saying i think we going

to see a lot of things thrown at the low. i think to the extent that we are supporting candidates whose stated preference is to actually level the playing field for every voter to have a say will make strides. but yeah, it's an ongoing struggle and on a sequential one. >> would move on consider -- and i don't know, i think he still actually have the 501 although not active as was the 527, would move on consider shifting its activity to those groups which could be funded by a large contributor if there was the appetite among donors? >> we no longer of a 527. we do have a c-4. i don't think we will consider shifting our life toros work there. there's other stuff we've done to their corporate advocacy and stuff like that. i don't think warships are electoral vote. you know, it's both a principle and pragmatic take you to work best when her members actually

have ownership of our work. >> and khalid would like to add to train a's response. >> as a longtime move on member was given small duchenne for many years, this is about an issue of giving. the about-face talked about on the left, to continue this political discourse or until we can get money out of the election, i think we have to understand that many will serve a purpose in election ticketing way some of other issues for candidates. there were just want a level playing field. i think what you're seeing -- what you saw in 2010 is a representation of corporate interests have decided as part of their business motto is to give to conservatives and create conservative institutions in vehicles with a can funnel money

in. it's good for business to elect conservatives. you see this issue right now on the tax debate going on break now. chronic tax credits to the wealthy come expansion of the estate tax as opposed to continuing unemployment insurance and 82 more needy -- needy families. so i do think you'll see over the next two years because the elections are kind of retrospect. what worked last time and what can i do the next time to improve upon what the next new thing in spirit that you think you will see a tension and debate about interest in terms of more progressive side going into institutions. for one thing, i think it goes both on a corporate level and both of large individual donors has to be of the mind that because i'm giving for immoral cause or he could do. and i'm giving because there is a voice that is representative of their and i need in my people

like me need to be engaged in that discourse. and part of the way to be a geisha discourses on institutions that could help amplify voices at move on and members of the other labor organizations. >> other questions? >> yeah, this is jill lawrence and this is for kelley. how much did seiu spend in 2010 and do you think you're going to be able to keep up with the corporate level of contributions in 2012? and my other question is, is it important to you that people realize that these contributions are voluntary for union members? right now it seems like you're losing that irritates. >> so 2010, we are still trying to kind of gather that. kind of two things. we both do things on the national level and then we have states. with the locals in states who actually engage in political discourse, both on the state

level. there were so giving some of that information back, but we spend upwards of over $40 million in the selection. nowhere can close even, you know, abrogated all of the labor community did not compare to what was falling into some of these newly formed, you know, see three/c-4 communications. in looking up, i think as i said some of the things were to give our members more engaged. part of that engagement is again voluntarily raising funds against her members to speak at electoral discourse. we saw a dramatic increase in this election cycle. we have a strong political program in a number of programs

talking to members of why it's important to be engaged in elections in both from your feet and your voice, but also with your pocketbook. and it's extremely important for us to get the message out there that these are voluntary contributions. in fact, if you look back in october, there was a series of letters to the editor from our former national political director that actually spoke to this issue, try to clear distortions made on the right about union contributions about money we spend. we spend money. money make it very clear. we spend money occasioning two different conversations. conversations with our members internally in speaking to the general public. the money we used speaking to the general public is money better members voluntarily give

every year. in fact in fact in the state lake michigan, we actually have to go back to his members every single year and ask him again to sign off that we could use the money to speak to the general public. but i feel good about it as you go forward, i took at about where are you guys positioned in terms of resources? and think it will fight again as i talk about is what this congress, current republican congress that the republicans are very antiunion sentiment and you will see republicans going after making public employees the bogeyman and the reasons why we have the fast and coming up the that they want to get tax cuts to a millionaire and not be a janitor making 525 an hour and trying to feed his family.

>> hi, john worked on a daily color. two things, khalid, if you could expand on ken's question and whether it's hypocritical for the last to allow more money to come and perhaps anonymously or not. and then, when you just said that business is giving conservatives because it's good for business, is that about an? president obama himself has said the private sector is the main engine for job growth. >> know, give me think it's a business model. what small businesses out there is for them a decision. you know, the money they spend, their shareholders or the employees have no say in how they spend the money. so it was interesting how the right likes to point that, try to indicate that union members who for the most part you see more than two to one support progressives and progressive policies and seem to not have an issue with how the units of the

money. of course you're going to have outliers up there, but again for americanization, for an individual to get money from our union, particularly a conventional governor or senate, it has to be endorsed it has to be endorsed by the local unit within that state. he got five local unions that of a process for endorsing. that's how we go out and decide who we can support. in terms and back to ken's question, again, this is a debate that's going on. you know, we can take the moral high ground and turn the other cheek. it's the only time that cheek is going to get slapped. and you can't -- the battle of issues and ideas come you can't go into it with your arms tied behind your back. it is a question that the rest is going to have because the labor movement cannot continue to bankroll the entire progressive side of political

discourse. it's very difficult to an sec, what trends are happening in terms of the percentage of union household trinket income is going to be increasingly harder to do. >> we have time for one final question this session. >> i'm playing the prerogative -- [inaudible] i have to know, two of the as we saw here presented by our panelists were asked that we chart out being false or misleading. the move on, art scene corporations with finance the ads attacking democrats, congress says that's not true. there's no evidence did use money to finance those ads. they say they don't. do plenty of money from domestic corporations, which now as they go to finance that sort of thing. and the service employees accuse

blanche lincoln of voting against requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. we thought it has she cast a key vote in favor of that. i'm going to go to a question to one of our subscribers and i'll frees you to turn on some of the rather strong language. does it bother you are conscious that all or do you believe that the end justifies the means and his win, win, win the only end? >> we stand by that ad. and as did every television station without the proper mode of the given what we were spending. to the specific, the chamber of commerce is taking donations into a general fund and paying for ads out of the general fund. money is fungible and the

greater point that was being made that we thought resonated actually across the rates across the national discourse was that when you've got multinational corporations who interest actually transcend that of the american voter, who have far more money then the american voter, playing in these races, if it here to point that out so that the voter can discern for his or herself whether that candidate being backed will hold their interests at heart? absolutely. not only does my conscious not bother me, i feral a moral imperative to point out on behalf of our members because a more informed like it, where every voter has an equal voice is a stronger democracy. and at the end of the day, that's what we're about. >> thanks, just in the blanche lincoln not, i think we can go back and look at a procedural

vote in what we use for characterization description of her vote, but she did make those that actually were wrong on that issue as we pointed out. we did several ads, pointing out where we thought blanche lincoln was out of step with progressives and constituents. at least all democrats are late. if you look at seiu's book, when we make our final seiu, you can see where we got our money from, we center money. we don't see in cases of the chamber of commerce over there getting their money from, how the fungibility of the money internally is being used in going back to blanche lincoln. i'm glad you brought it back because in a "politico" is turn other organizations. i want to make it extremely clear that seiu does not believe it was wrong. it was right to go into that primary election with blanche lincoln and bill halter. i want to make clear that we

felt like it was possibly the wrong messenger. the message was right. she was, you know, her years in the senate, she was trending and continuing not supporting issues on wall street or accountability, whether on health care insurance companies. and as we said, all democrats -- all progressives come all democrats are delayed. as we go forward, organization will continue to support those progressives and those candidates to support pro-worker issues and families and not supported those ones who don't. >> okay, thank you. please join in thanking this panel. we are going to take a short 10 minute break to set up for the republican and conservative panel, who i'm sure will have a response to some of the things that were said earlier. so we will be back around 11:00. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> watch this discussion in its entirety on line at the c-span video library. we'll take a look now at the u.s. capitol here in washington, d.c. where the senate is acting on two pieces of legislation today, the dream act dealing with illegal immigration of minors and the don't ask, don't tell policy. as the political web site talking points memo reports, we expect to see a path to final passage set for the repeal of don't ask don't tell. and senators just voted on the dream act. it failed to get enough votes to move forward in the senate. the dream act would have provided a path to legal status

for young illegal immigrants who serve in the military or earn a college degree. and you can see here the floor of the senate. taking up the policy in the military. we could see votes either later today or possibly and quote possibly more likely sometime tomorrow if senators do begin debate on don't ask, don't tell. we turn now to some other recent legislation. the bush era tax cuts and its impact on consumers. this is from this morning's washington journal. and it will be about 45 minutes long. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and jim tankersley joins us from national journal. if i'm a consumer looking at what happened yesterday at the signing, what does it mean immediately for me? guest: it means a lot of things. the most important thing is your taxes don't go up next year. whether you're a middle class american or a wealthy american. no one's income tax rates go up.

but there's other benefits too for workers, you have your social security contribution is cut by the government, your payroll tax. so you're be paying less than that depending on how much of a break you get there. and then of course the third thing as an unemployed american would look at it is unemployment insurance has been extended for another 13 months. working americans get a pay cut. unemployed americans get additional benefits for more than a year and everyone keeps their taxes from going up. host: the rates will stay the same as far as the next two ars are concerned than what we've seen over the past? guest: absolutely. bush tax cuts they're called. the rates put in place in 2001 and 2003 are extended for two more years. host: and with the unemployment insurance benefit, you said it goes for another 13 months. guest: yes. host: and so tell little bit -- so it means that whoever's getting assistance every month, that means no stopping.

no persons could be added on to the roll. guest: estimated seven million americans who will be eligible now or have exhausted their eligibility for unemployment benefit who will not lose their benefits now because of this extension. host: so the remainder of our time for this morning is going to be for you, the folks at home who want to ask about the signing of the tax cut law or -- yesterday, and to more specifically find out what it means for you. so if you have other questions, here's your chance to do so. it is -- >> what other things that -- we've talked so much about this over the last couple of weeks. maybe some things that haven't come though forefront that would be interest r the folks at home to know about. guest: sure.

there are little tax cut changes. if you have a child in college, there's a college tuition credit. $2,500 credit that continues. there is the child and if you happen to have a stake in an ethanol company, this is a good thing, too, because the ethanol tax break continues as well. giving you a little bullet point. one of the things that has been talked about was this amt thing. year after year this gets kicked down the line seems like this kicksed down the line as far as doing permanently about it but it's always done on temporary basis. can you expand on that? guest: sure. it's a patch. it's not like they've gone ahead and fixed the growing hole. the problem is is that every year, they numr of peoe who would be forced to pay the alternative minimum tax which is

a different way of calculating taxes, every year, that number of folks who have to pay it grows. and congress every year takes some emergency action to keep the number from growing and so that's included in this deal too. and i think that's going to be a big -- that's one of the big drivers. we may see some fundamental tax reform over the next few years. host: how do i know if i'm going to be hit under a.m.t. or not guest: that's a great question and i would refer you to an accountant. host: [laughter] guest: the problem is there's an income threshold for it and as inflation continues to go up, people continue to burst through that income threshold who really, the tax was never designed for. so the idea is that now they'll be shielded again from having to actually pay it. host: and if i understand it correctly, the a.m.t. was designed for whom at the very beginning? it probably wasn't the average person. guest: yeah. it's for wealthier taxpayers

finding ways to avoid paying taxes. the a.m.t. was an idea to force them toay their fair share and it was never imagined as middle class alternative minimum tax. host: so we have calls lined up for you. but did want to let you know that on -- in the senate side today, they came in at 9:00. there's work currently being done on the dream act. that and don't ask don't tell today. let's take 30 seconds or so to see what's happening in the senate and then we will continue on with our session. the presiding officer: the senator used 14 minutes. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that now the senator from oregon be recognized for 3 minutesnd then i be recognized for 6 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i would like to have you amend that to include me to have ten minutes following your remarks. mr. levin: mr. president, i

would request that. the presiding officer: without host: again, key preel votes on the dream act will take place and on the military's don'tsk don't tell policy. we started at 9:00. you can don't watch on c-spa if you're interested from watching there. but houston, texas you are up first. patty on the democrats line. call: thank you for taking my call and i'm so glad i got in. i would like to ask you gentlemen straight up here. for eight years, i mean, what did the tax cut for the rich, you know, if you pay more tax, you will have more money for the federal government. i don't understand this. and i'm understanding why is it that you know, if the poor have lost so many jobs and everything, and, you know, the rich -- but if the poor have

their jobs and i'm glad they have this. they can't extend it because they can extend their jobs. [inaudible] ever since bush got in, the wall and everything. and if the poor have the job, they're going to buy the rich people's material because all -- like the -- like wal-mart you know, they are going to working now after everybody's rich and they won't have nobody to work to then to b it. if they have a job, they're going to buy it. host: ok. we'll leave it there. guest: so i think the question is what are the tax cuts for the wealthy do for the economy over the last 10 years and what would extending them do for the economy now? the answer tends to vary depending on whether you come at from it a more liberal or conservative side. conservatives have argued that the tax cut, they money from those that goes into the hands

of the wealthy then turns into job creation that people who make more money create more jobs, ich then puts more people to work. democrats, more liberals they shall president argued this in his campaign said that the facts are minimal and that it's not worth the money to the federal deficit to extend those tax cuts what the congressional budget offense found in an analysis of the bush tax cuts was that there would be some small stimulative effect of extending those cut it was, the next two years both for the wealthy and for the middle class but that benefit would be counteracted down the line by the extended -- the ireased deficit that would be added to the country's mounting debts. and so short stimulus from in the cuts,ong-term problems from the deficit, their additions to the deficit. host: off of twitter --

guest: yeah, well, what will happen is that for 13 more months, the current system stays in place and people who will be -- folks will be now be able to stay on their roll. the federal funneled portion of this it's a lot of money and this is one of the arguments to go back to the c.b.o., they argue that this is one of the better stimly you can put into the economy because this puts money into the hands of people who will extend it. if you're annoyed, you're very unlikely to save your unemployment benefits. you're going to save it. host: off of twitter -- guest: that's an important provision of this bill. the estate tax doesn't exist but it was scheduled to come back at the levels before all the bush tax cuts went into place at the start of next year. the compromise that the president and republicans have

reacd and one of the things that has made democrats most upset about this tax deal is that the estate tax will come back but at a fairly low level. it will be 35% tax with exemptions of $5 million for individuals, $10 million for families the first $10 million you will inherit are exempt from taxation. .

host: states fell, n.c., on our republican line. caller: god bless america. people who are 60-61 years old, how will taxes be paid into social security? will we get less monthly income when we retire at 62? guest: this will not affect any type of social security benefits. that is what is explicitly what the bill says pretty general treasury will back the social security fund.

down the line, of course, that money comes from a large pot and it adds to the mounting federal debt problems which could affect social security. to be very clear, for anyone looking to retire soon,his payroll tax t will not affect your benefit. host: on our independent line, jasper, alabama. go ahead and turn off the television. caller: i have one question. what about the people on disability? will they get a $250 check this year or not? guest: i don't know that disability -- i don't know if disability was covered under the deal. i wish i had an answer for you, i'm sorry. host: lexington, kentucky, republican line. caller: hello, i am wondering

the effect on senior citizen and other type of subsidized housing. thank you. guest: can you be more specific? caller: it was in the bill and i heard it once on the floor. somebody was saying that there might be a fact. there a change in the amount that is designated toward senior citizen housing or other types of subsidized housing? guest: what i know about this is there is a continuation of energy efficiency that affects dierent types of housing including a federally- subsidized ones. that may be what was being discussed on the floor. that is a continuation of benefits for energy-efficiency retrofits for housing. guest: the earned income tax

credit is a tax credit to help lower income americans. these are very working-class americans and it will continue to fund a large outlay from the government for essentially a tax credit ended is refundable so people who don't even pay -- who do not have federal tax liabilities are able to receive money back from a cash transfer from the government to the working class even if you don't have federal tax liabilities. that is extended by this dl host: new york, thank you for waiting. caller: i would like to give a hug to jim tankersley. he said the super rich, in the long run, tax cuts for the very, very super rich don't create jobs. let me give you a statistic that

he did not get rive. a report was released by the governmentn october that set in 2009, the top 100 earners averaged $91 million in income. that is not assets or net worth. that was their annual salary in 2009. i'm reading this out of "newsday, it quintupled, more than quintuple on arage to an average $590 million. -- $519 million. one year salary. those people do not need a tax cut. if it caused the creation of jobs, they have been getting this cut for 10 years. we have lost jobs. did not create a single job. that will bother me.

these people get a tax cut at $590 million income, tt is not right. the extension was two years. only one year for unemployment. the 99ers - who had to only pay for 99 weeks. host: we will let him tackle what he can. guest: i always accept dogs. hugs. the congssional budget office said there is some benefit to gdp which would translatento some additional jobs for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. the congressional research service which is a nonpartisan research body in washington calculated on the last 10 years

of the bush tax cuts and found that either they had done nothing to boost the economy because if you look at the economic growth the last 10 years, it was minimal compared to other ticket -- decades come or if they boosted the economy and kept things from bei much worse but that was almost impossible to tell based on the data. it is like the argument over the economic stimulus pret. the democrats argue that kept things from getting worse. the republicans said it help to thamerican economy not suffer worse than it did. many democrats and liberal economists would say that what happened is that the bush tax cuts did not spur economic growth and. host: sun city, arizona, republican line. caller: don't cut the of.

15% capital gains tax is only a long-term dairy you have to hold a stock for one year or more. >> senator dick durbin is set to scott -- to talk about the dream act. but it is a chance to make a dream come true for tens of thousands of americans. a setback.e it has not changed our resolve at all. the expansion of freedom and justice as required courage and persistence. these young people are the next generation of leaders in america. our doctors, lawyers, engineers, and teachers. they must be part of the nation, the only nation that have ever known.

i commend all the people who worked so hard today. let me start with the students. i met with a group last night that has spent 28 hours on a bus to come here for come vote to bed for a chance to be a part of america. we would not have done what we did without their persistence. i promise i will never give up this fight until the dream act is passed. as long as these young people are determined to be a part of this nation, i am determined to stand by them so they can call this nation a home. i particularly bank senator harry reid. we would not be here were it not for his personal commitment. i thank him for his friendship, kind words, and his help. there were some the profiles in courage that i do not know where

to start. i want to thank my colleagues were stepping up and thinking about what could be controversial back home because they believe it was the right thing to do. they have written their names in the history of this institution with their dedication. senator mendez has been an ally and a friend. -- senator melendez has been an ally and a friend. >> i believe we are still a nation that would rather welcome our promising and patriotic use with a warm embrace rather than a close hand because of their parents' actions. this is a vote that will not be soon forgotten by a community

that is growing in size and political awareness. since we cannot get justice on the floor of the senate, we will get justice at the ballot box in two years. let me make one last comment. we are where we are today because the republicans insist on a super majority both -- super majority vote. the vote shows that the majority of the senate wants to make the dream of these young people an opportunity. the majority of the senate believes that with the 55 votes . it is only because the filibuster of the senate makes a 60 vote majority necessary.

that is where we are today. i appreciate that 91% of the democratic caucus voted for this legislation. i am incredibly is heartened that less than 1% of the voted for ocaucus this. at the end of the day, it was less than 1%. it was a huge imbalance. 10% is end of the day, & of 42. what happens to a dream deferred? does it dry up like a raisin in the sun or does it explode?

this dream is going to explode. it will someday become a reality. it is a shame where politics took this event. >> to think that some republicans are saying they will now -- will not vote for the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. there is no excuse for some of our most patriotic americans and how they were treated this morning. i call them americans because that is what they are. that is all they know. this is the only country that ever lived in or been in in their memory. they did not decide to come here. they grew up here. they have gone to school here. they want to continue contributing to their country.

they love this country so much they want to go to college, start a career, and be part of this society. they will volunteer to be thin it and put their lives on the line and die for it -- to defend it and put their lives on the line and die for it. people have spent years demonizing these children. they have played to people's years and did not let truth to get in the way of people's stories. the dream act is going to pass. it did not pass today. but it is going to pass. it is the right thing to do. not just what the future of these young americans. it is good for our country. we will keep fighting to purifies -- to paraphrase ted

kennedy. this thing shall never die. we will get back to the floor. >> america is the country where dreams are made, not crushed. today, dreams were crushed. my message to these young people is never fear. we are not going anywhere. we are going to fight because this is the right thing to do. i would ask everyone of you in this room to think about what it would be like for you if you suddenly found out when you were 17, 15, or 18 that your parents brought you here when you work six months old or seven months old. think about it. you would still be the same person that you are today. you would be the same patriotic person you would still love this country.

you would only love this country. what happened here today is beyond sad. these young people find themselves in a state of limbo -- i can speak for my state. we want these young people to stay in our state. we want them to make their families be productive contributors. in closing, we got 55 votes. were it not for a republican filibuster, we would have won this issue. my mother was born in another country. she became naturalized before i was born. what is happening to these young people can happen to everyone.

we need to stand with them. i want to offer my deepest thanks for the dedication of the men here. my husband and i and a group of friends were having a dinner. senator durbin said he was going to the floor. i could see his mind was on this. he is dedicated. we are going to get there. this country has a history of opening up its arms. maybe today they are temporarily closed. but it is just temporary. >> in vermont, we do not have a large latino population. but people in vermont believe in fairness. they support the dream act

because it is their nest. --because it is fairness. the supreme court of the united states has held that we should not punish children for the actions of their parents. they should not be denied citizenship. it is wrong. it is absolutely wrong. as the grandson of immigrants, i cannot understand how anybody could have a filibustered this. it goes beyond a political question. it is a moral question. it is immoral to stop their path to citizenship. >> thank you. first, let me salute dick durbin for his indomitable ability to push and push so that, while we did not succeed, today's boats

represents vote progress. senator bob menendez as has been -- senator bob menendez has been a beacon. the reason we are here today is because despite pressure in every direction, harry reid said we would have a vote because it is the right thing to do. the dream at this part of a grant american tradition of welcoming those from foreign shores to be here. in my state in the 1700's, there were concerns because the dutch did not want the british to come. it proved to be good for our state and good for our country when we welcomed new groups. immigration gives our country strength. one of the reasons our country

is in better shape than europe is because we welcome the best and the brightest to become americans. they work hard and learned english and are part of america. it is going to happen with these young people. i know they are disappointed. i saw the looks on their faces when we saw votes finalize this morning. they have started something that cannot be stopped. second, immigration reform is hardly dead. i believe as chair of the subcommittee and senator lady --senator patrick leahy believes that we can move forward this year. this is an issue where bipartisanship works best. last year, we were disappointed that we did not have republican

supporters. we are hopeful that we can get some this next coming year and hopefully immigration, including the dream act, can be something the parties will work together on. it will be tough because there are so many cries from every direction to stick to the status quo. most americans do not want the status quo. they know it is broken and needs to be fixed. finally, i would like to salute those young people from new york and here who do not let the dream die. they are an inspiration. they will inspire us when we pass this legislation. >> i would like to thank my colleagues in this leadership. i have a slightly different perspective. i was a superintendent of a large school district in this

country where, day after day, week after week, i saw young people giving their best studying as hard as they could study and competing as hard as they could compete on athletic fields developing new ideas in technology. their only interest was contributing to our country. their only country was this country. i was thinking about them today on the floor as this vote failed. i was thinking about the teachers and the principals who day after day do everything they can to lend themselves to encouragement and support. they keep working. somehow we will figure out how to get you to college. what i want to say is what i used to say as superintendent to all of those young people. do not worry about what the united states senate bid today. we will fix it in the future. -- what the united states

senate did today. they call my office and come to my office and sit in the gallery. please do not give up. do not be disappointed because we could not get our act together. we have got to keep this fight going as long as they are willing to continue to work as hard as they are working for the future of this country. we will be back. i also want to say as the last thing, i come from a complicate its stake in it is complicated politically. people in my state wants to see -- i come from a complicated state. it is complicated politically. if "the wall street journal" editorial board and the new york times " " editorial board can work together and it people --

and the united -- and "the new york times" editorial board can work together, we can work together. thank you. >> i want to thank dick durbin for his leadership. he has been so passionate and so forceful in his advocacy. i want to recognize bob menendez who has been an advocate in fairness. i want to thank them for their leadership and dedication to this. we are a nation of immigrants. the richness of our culture and heritage is because of our immigrant past and because we have such a rich nation. that is what creates growth in our country. it is part of educational growth and part of the future of our nation. to deny these children who came here through no opportunity -- through no fault of their own the opportunity to serve in our

military is a grave injustice. i agree with the senior senator of new york. this is something we will achieve. we will have comprehensive immigration reform. it is a mandate for this nation. it is essential for our economic future and essential for who we are as americans. >> republican said that the democrats did not offer any opportunity for amendments. we offered --\ >> we offered and then at three different times. what we have tried to do is accommodate their concerns. first they said do not offer it as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. we made it a freestanding bill. we lowered the age, which i did

not want to do. we added provisions which said they had to complete provisions before they could go forward. they said do not call the bill before we consider tax and spending. we waited. we have done everything they asked for and then -- this bill has been there for 10 years. i expected them to come up with a new reason. i do not think it is a valid reason. >> senator chuck schumer how can you say we can work on the bill next year. ? >> it can only be done next year. comprehensive reform could only be done this year on a bipartisan basis. i am talking congressman on the other side of the aisle. i believe -- talking to congressman on the other side of the aisle.

i believe it is possible. but we need to sit down with people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle and see if we can come up with a framework. >> there is no timetable yet treated it is december. >> what needs to happen differently? >> we need to have bipartisan by in. -- bipartisan buy-in. many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at the election results. in three states, colorado, nevada, and california, the his -- the hispanic vote was hired for democrats than in 2008.

i do not think any political party can succeed in writing off such a large percentage of americans. >> when are you going to introduce another border security bill? >> it will have to be done in a comprehensive way. as senator durbin said, we showed our good will. we are not against closing the border. is not the only solution and it will not work on its own. we are looking for comprehensive reform that will strengthen the border even more than the legislation i introduced that was supported last summer by senator joe lieberman. we have done border bill after border bill. it does not solve the problem. it helps, but it does not solve the problem. >> to get to your vote, senator

reid had to give up on the omnibus. it included provisions for health care nicolle they are not related. senator read -- it included provisions for healthcare. >> they are not related. senator mcconnell and the leadership on the other side started picking think --picking things off one after the other. we did not have 60 votes. it was not a trade-off. >> are you concerned about health care in the coming year tical -- in the coming here to tell -- in the coming year? >> we are very concerned.

in terms of the paul takes of the -- in terms of the politics, we are concerned. we have been working on the fringes. we hoped for a few more on our side of the aisle and a few more on their side. things change in the senate. we are in active conversation. this bill has been worked on for

a long time. it has strong bipartisan support. 75 democratic and republican senators can be included in our back up of this lame-duck session. the conversation is back on track. senator reed feels strongly about this issue. there are terrible problems in his home state. people have been poisoned by bad food and diane? -- bad food and diet. >> both of these issues have fates that are not assured. >> if you are not patient, do not work for the senate.

thank you. the tears -- >> senators voted on the dream act. it did not have enough votes to pass.

and back to helping the troops that need her. mr. president, major witt is a true hero. her commitment to our country should be recognized and honored, but she should never have been put in this position. she has the skills, the experience, the commitment to do her job, and the fact that she is a lesbian doesn't change that one bit. mr. president, there are so mann >> our guest is -- the start treaty, as far as your perspective, what should happen with this tree? guest: at the very least, the senate should postpone consideration of this treaty until next year when it has an opportunity to to do the kind of comprehensive hearings and review and debate, informed especially by the actual

negotiating record of this treaty. since we know for certain that there is, at the very least, a distinct disagreement between the united states and russia about its implications for missile defense which is what we saw in the senate yesterday. that is a matter of considerable concern and should be not just the senators but all of us at a time when the threat of ballistic missile attack against the united states and its allies is growing exponentially including most recently, we just learned venezuela will allow iran to based missiles of longer range and its soil. we have no defense against those threats at the moment. that is just one example of the kind of thing, it seems to me, the senate can't possibly do due diligence, its constitutional responsibility in the remaining days of this lame duck session. if the senate, in its wisdom,

the majority leader specifically, if they decide to push it to a vote at this time, the senators have no choice but to voted down. host: one of the arguments i have been hearing on this topic guest: it is an interesting an illustrative example of how the senate foreign relations committee tends to handle these things. i believe there were 12 hearings, something on the order of 20 witnesses, exactly two were critical of the treaty. if you think that is a balanced set of hearings or that is likely to give rise to a fair understanding of what this treaty is all about, then you will want to rubber-stamp this tree. it's like me, you think the senators and the country are entitled to a more rigorous and inform the valuation of the treaty, let's face it, the

proponents say it is modest. the critics think it has serious problems to it. i don't think that was really the take away from the hearings that the foreign relations committee provides. for the senate now to be basically told that you have to take it or leave it, there is not time for more debate, there is not more time for additional hearings are input, you have to just rubber-stamp this, i think that is bad government and not really consistent with the framers view of the constitutional role of the senate in the treaty-making process. host: what are the questions that lead to a more expansive debate on this? guest: let's start with missile defense. the president and his team are insisting this treaty will have no impact on our missile defense plants. for starters, that raises the question as to what our plans are. i would suggest that especially

when you have developments like the venezuela-iran business, our plans may need to change. this treaty and a number of respects limits our ability to make the sorts of changes. if you think about it strictly in the sense of plans, that is one thing. if you think about it as limiting our options, there is no question that the russians intend to do that. they said explicitly that if we make any quantitative or qualitative improvement ♪ calles in our missile defenses,y will regard that as grounds from which drive from the treaty. at the very least, we need to know whether that is a reasonable understanding of the treaty and in the absence of the negotiating record, we're left with nothing more than the administration's say so on this. to be candid, i think there say so is not that good especially

since we have learned in the past two or three weeks, they have all the other set of negotiations under way that they never told the senate about, that they have denied were under way. it really raises questions as to whether verification >> we leave this program to take you live to comment from harry reid on the don't ask, don't tell policy. >> we leave this program to take you live to comments from harry reid on the don't ask, don't tell policy. >> the vote today says that we do not care who you love as long

as you love your country. repealing don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to do. if that were the only argument, that would be enough. it is more than that. repealing this policy will make our military stronger. some have said this is not the time to repeal this policy. they are right. it should have been done yesterday. some are saying that because we are repealing don't ask, don't tell, they are going to react -- going to retaliate by not voting on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. that are going to vote against this treaty dealing with nuclear weapons because they had to vote on don't ask, don't tell. that is real statesmanship. we are making the military stronger by following discrimination.

they want to make america weaker by making it easier for terrorists to get nuclear weapons. the only things these to have in common is that the -- these votes had in common is that they strength in america. they make america live up to its promise. we are moving toward a more perfect union. today, we moved one step closer to that perfect union. we are going to hear from joe lieberman, who has been terrific in this regard. i also have to acknowledge chairman carl levin. carl levin advocates -- carl levin is the reason we had the don't ask, don't tell debate in the arms services committee. everyone knows if he had not done that, we would not be here

today. joe lieberman, i appreciate his advocacy in helping bring the few republicans in. i appreciate those few republicans. we could not have done it without them. they are brave in doing so with the pressure they have received on these issues. we are going to hear from the president of the human rights campaign. aubrey is the executive director of the services member's legal defense fund. we are going to hear from a discharge airforce member. >> i did not have much to add excepted thank you for your leadership. without your commitment to get

don't ask, don't tell repealed, this would not have happened today. you realize we have been -- had the votes. you said this was too important. you thought culture and brought it to a vote. i also want to join you in thanking my chairman on the armed services committee and my colleagues. i almost said moe. your dad was here in 1976. senator mark udall. i want to thank the republicans who bought a party position. it should not have been a party position. repealing don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to do. whether you are democrat,

republican or independent bid it is consistent with those values. i want to thank lisa murkowski, scott brown, and a few we do not know about. doors what is came through today. -- senator george boyd of which -- senator durbin what a -- senator geor voinovich came through today -- senator george voinavich can do today. we spoke to centers where they live about with this law -- about -- we spoke to senators where they live about why this

law should be changed. we write a wrong. -- we righted a wrong. the arc of the universe bends toward justice. >> senator thank you for your leadership on this issue. we would not be here today without the steadfast commitment of senator joe lieberman and senator collins. we thank you so much for your steadfast commitment. it is also important that we recognize the heroic members of congress who brought us to this day. don't ask, don't tell will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history. a stain on our nation will be elected forever. today, our nation lived up to

its highest ideals of freedom and equality when the senate budget -- voted that all men and women have a right to serve openly. it does not matter who you are or who you love. you are not a second-class citizen any longer. for the 17 years that is built law has been in place, over 14,000 dedicated service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation. it is most important today to stop and honor those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who is military careers were ended, who is lives were threatened and whose french ships were cut short because of a failed lot that failed to them and our country's national security and our best interests. they cannot get those years back. i hope they know their sacrifice

meant something. i hope they know that their courage and their integrity helped a nation understand what it means to serve. i hope they know that more than anything else, they helped bring about this historic change. america made history today as gay men and lesbians. we are grateful that we should be able to serve our nation openly and honestly. thank you. >> good afternoon everyone. i am the executive director of sldn, service member's legal defense network. we were created -- service legal defense network. we have assisted with counsel to over 10,000 service members who have been discharged or impacted by this law. today's vote means service

members who are gay and lesbian and are posted all with the world can stand taller. they know don't ask, don't tell will soon be coming to an end. this vote gives the pentagon and the present a clear path to getting rid of the military plaza gay ban. it paves the way -- get rid of the military's gay ban. repeal is not yet final. the president will sign this bill shortly. the certification process must go forward. the 60 day congressional period must go forward as well. during this limbo interim. period, i call upon the secretary of defense to use his

existing authority to suspend all investigations and all discharges until the lot is finally repealed. i have known senator read for over 40 years. i can tell you that this man has been determined to repeal this law in this congress. he has made good on his word. today, we all know great gratitude to senator reed for his determined leadership -- for his rreid determined leadership and tenacity. thank you everyone in the senate. >> on a point of personal privilege, i want to say two words before the major comes up here. for us and the public, this may be an issue to be debated and

legislation to act on. or the major and 14,000 other american servicemen and women, this was and is there life. when you hear his story, you will fill out on just this policy has been to will be -- how unjust this policy has been to a real american heroes and how important what we did today is to them. >> that is quite an introduction there, senator. what a day. a long, hard process, years in the making. a hard fight through the senate and years in the senate have made this day possible. don't ask, don't tell is the only law left in america today that mandate someone be fired

because of who they are, not because they have committed a crime, but because of who they are. today, we took a huge, historic step to ending that discrimination entreating lesbian and gay americans no longer as second-class citizens no longer able to defend our nation. pretty soon, they will be able to serve equally and competently along their straight counterparts with honesty and integrity and not have to sacrifice their personal values every day. i served as an officer in the air force for 13 years through four departments -- four deployment in the middle east. i led a squadron that controlled the airspace over the majority of iraq. we were there when the marines went into fallujah and liberated that city. we faced nearly daily mortar

attacks that damaged equipment and injured one of my troops who was returned to duty two weeks later. while i was in iraq, i work -- i wrote private e-mails to loved ones and someone i dated, no differently from my counterpart in my squadron. i did this to keep in touch with loved ones far away. shortly after i left iraq, someone in the unit stomach -- stumbled upon those e-mails. they proceeded to read them. the air force in iraq took time out from the war to search my private e-mails to determine if i had violated don't ask, don't tell and to gather evidence they could use against me. six weeks after i had returned to iraq and was in germany, my command called me into his office. he read me the don't ask, don't

tell policy and handed me these that a e-mails and at how to explain them. the air force asked that i tell them and i refuse to answer the question. not once in my 13 years as an officer or during the 16 months of the process that followed did i make a statement to the military that violate it don't ask, don't tell. i was fired from my job leading nearly 200 men and women that had a disruptive effect on my unit. my security clearance was suspended. part of my pay was to make it. 16 months later, i was thrown out of the air force and given a police escort from the base on my final day of active duty. despite all this, about one year into the process, after i have been -- had been fired, the air force recommended that i been -- that i be promoted to colonel despite the fact that they were actively tried to

throw me out. they still recommended i'd be promoted to the next highest rank. there is nothing that i want more than to resume my career as an officer and leader in the air force. the estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian soldiers who are wearing the uniform in defense of our nation what the simple assurance that they will not be fired for who they are. today, in the scent -- in the senate, we took a step forward to making that a reality. i look forward to the president signed into law. i look forward to wear the uniform of an officer of the united states air force. thank you. [applause] >> we will take questions. >> [unintelligible] >> an order has already been

entered into the senate. >> how easy that play out in the next you days. >> i want to make sure everyone does not feel they are being jammed on the start treaty. we are in the eighth day of work on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. we will work on it this afternoon. we are up to six or seven days for sure. i hope we are going to have a vote this afternoon on one of the amendments that have been offered. i want this to go forward. i am a strong believer in the s.t.a.r.t. treaty.

the two nations that control more than 90% of the nuclear warheads -- to think they have gotten together to lower the amount of warheads each have. they have done this in an agreeable fashion. there is a situation in iran. there is a situation in afghanistan. to think that we would not ratify this treaty is scary. to have people running around saying i have poisoned the well by have been two votes on the dream act and don't ask, don't tell. i am not able to understand the reasoning. >> do you plan on bringing the

defense authorization bill up? >> i cannot comment on the authorization of the start treaty. i hope that is the case. that has not been my responsibility. i think that question would be better directed toward him or the vice president or the president. i hope we can get unanimous consent to pass it. >> how long do think it will take before the repeal will be elected? >> there will be close consultation between the chairman of the joint chiefs and be a joint services. we do not have an estimate of how long it will be.

we hope it will be sooner rather than later. in that regard, i want to pay tribute to our top leadership. i want to pay tribute to secretary gates and admiral mullen. admiral mullen's comments to the heart --, the heart moved our committee and the country. this is -- comments from the heart moved our committee and the country. no one wearing a uniform should have to live a lie. they should be able to be who they are. his comment about integrity and people wearing the uniform of this country and that that is important to everyone in uniform and everyone wearing a uniform be able to be honest about who they are gave momentum to this effort. i want to pay tribute to admiral mullen and secretary gates. both of them pointed out that this is a leadership issue. making this change is simply a

matter of leadership. do we the right thing is a leadership matter and they have -- including the chiefs who work ear pp who were wary about this. they said they -- including the chiefs who said they were wary about this. this will happen. >> comments in one of the senate office by senator harry reid on the don't ask, don't tell policy. the senate is moving forward on

the issue. a number of republicans voted in support of the bill. both senators from made an lisa murkowski from alaska. they will vote on passage today. senator lieberman shares the -- chairs the -- senator barbara boxer, the democrat from california is on the floor. they had expected to wait until monday to continue the debate. they have taken it up sooner than expected. you can what further live coverage of the senate on c-span to. -- in cspan 2.

>> they asked the question, how do you trust russia. that is precisely why this treaty is so important. the treaty is not built on trust. no one told us that more than the famous words of president reagan. don't have verification today. we are sitting here with no verification. we are in a fourth position of "trust." the sooner we get the treaty ratified, the sooner we provide a foundation underneath the important question which is that if you can't trust them, you have to have verification.

the point is that you build a relationship even in the worst of times so that your country, our country is more stable and more protected. during the worst of the soviet union, during the worst years of confrontation, we still built up a series of treaties in -- and arms agreements and various other agreements in order to try to tampen down the chance for hostility. our hope is that we can do that as soon as possible here. guest: i am struck by this representation. on the one hand, the president himself is responsible for them not being any verification in place. he let it lapse one year ago. it never seemed to be a problem or at least a crisis until the rubber-stamp congress or senate was in prospect as perhaps the only chance the president has to

get this treaty ratified. it is suddenly a crisis and we have to have it. this conflict with the idea that we severed relations with the russians which is another major theme of why we need to do this. it is getting us there help on iran and other things. i haven't seen all -- a whole lot of help there. beyond that, even the treaties proponents noted that it is modest. one of the things that is particularly modest relative to some of the treaties we have had in the past with the russians and before that the soviet union, are the verification arrangements. they are very limited. what it gives rise to is a potemkin village effect. catherine the great was diluted by her subset -- subordinates into thinking that all was well with the people of russia because they showed her this

marvelous village they created for the purpose of and pressing her. i anticipate we will get something like that. scoop jackson used to say when you have these kind of verification arrangements, very limited and controlled by the russians, you are basically seeing what they want you to see. he likened it to the analogy of the drug dropped his watch in the dark, looking for it under the light because the light is better there. you will not see what is in the dark. you will not see what the russians don't want you to see. we know for an absolute fact that the russians and before them the soviets have cheated on every treaty they have been involved with with us. although this is not a problem in its own right, these limitations and the control the russians will exercise, we also know that we can be perfectly confident that they will perform

according to past practice and cheat. host: if you want to ask questions the phone numbers are on your screen. the first call is from howard are republican line, marietta, california. caller: good morning. thank you very much for being there. i think you just made some news. it was the fact that venezuela and iran are working on some kind of missile agreement. this could turn into another cuban missile crisis. venezuela is a helluva lot better than cuba. let me ask this question -- it seems that most of the debate in

the senate about this agreement is the preamble to the agreement. there seems to be some misunderstanding among republicans and democrats about exactly what the preamble represents. and also how the russians have raised it to create the image that we have to combine our offensive and defensive weapons basically together and the russians will take advantage of that. there has been talk about new missile silos being built and using the old silos and restrictions of the new silos and putting conventional warheads on ballistic missiles and the russians have a problem with that.

i barely have a working knowledge of the debate going on. there seems to be a request on the -- from the republicans to get the transcripts of the negotiations that the president and his negotiators used to determine exactly what was said and who said it. guest: your question is evidence you have been seriously trying to follow this and i commend you. i wish more of our countrymen were being exposed as you have been to the kind of information that they need to have. frankly, the senate needs to have this to make informed decisions. the business about venezuela and iran is relatively recent news. the fact that it has not appeared more prominently in the press or for that matter in the debate today is troubling. it is one of the examples of the

kinds of threats that are developing very this all wikileaks business is underscored about how dangerous the world is. we are approaching this new start treaty with preamble language which clearly links offensive and de force of -- defense of forces in a way that says they are find now, the interrelationship does not undermine strategic stability, but very explicitly indicates that that could be a problem in the future and the russians have said they believe it will be if we make any quantitative or qualitative change. they have gone on to say that they will withdraw from the treaty. if you have an obama administration that has been as hostile to missile defense, they have cut billions of dollars from our program. they have council deployments in europe. it has made no secret that their

plans are very limited indeed. hence, the line in the testimony you have heard that this treaty won't interfere with our plans. when you have that combined with the russians very insistent position that there be no changes, i think it constitutes effectively a veto on missile defense. i should say that in the treaty, there are a number of provisions that do as you have indicated, interfere with our ability to put missile defenses in place where we currently have offensive missiles. in closing, this question of whether there is a fundamental disagreement between the united states and the russians or not or whether the united states government has effectively said to the russians that they are right and we will not do anything that will make you unhappy with respect a missile defense, this is precisely why we need to see the negotiating record or the senators do and i am happy to hear that the newest senator, mark kirk from illinois

has been assisting with the administration. he cannot basically make an informed vote on this tree without studying a bad record. i hope he will stick to that. every senator should be expected to have the opportunity to review that record in order to make informed decisions about a treaty that is deeply problematic. host: had you factor in that senators like senator lugar support the stacks guest: there are senators that supports this on either side. you have a whole host of other people who have lent their names to this thing. my personal experts and government and i worked in the reagan administration a long time ago, and have been watching these things very closely. the more exulted the position of individuals, cabinet officers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, even commanders of strategic command, let alone

united states senators are very busy people. their personal familiarity with details of agreements like this, let alone how they came to pass, let alone some of the implied it not explores the problems with them, is very limited. they rely on other people to tell them what has gone on here and whether it is a problem. as an example, i would be willing to bet that all of these secretaries of state who have sent letters in and testify, i bet none of them has taken a briefing on so on -- on the defects of history. they have relied entirely on the government's position and their presentation. that is what the senate is being served up because it is not being given an opportunity to take any other information aboard. i used to work in the senate, too. i worked for senator jackson and

senator tower. distinguished senators are spinning in their graves because the constitution of the united states says that the senate's role as being a quality control mechanism on treaties -- i think the framers may well have had a treaty like this in mind in the broader sense -- they would be horrified that in a lame-duck session -- there were no lame duck sessions back in the day -- there were certainly no reason to believe that the senate, which is opposed to a vote on a 2/3 majority basis, that is the kind of high threshold the framers had in mind for a treaty-making -- are being forced to accede to a range as that denied them the ability for them to do their constitutional duty. i think the american people should be furious about this. host: when it left the foreign

relations committee, there were only four nays? guest: that is true. that was a stack the deck in terms of the hearings. we have factories that have not had any critics of all. every single one of the members of the senate foreign relations committee voted to have treaties reported. what do you expect if they are not given a full, balanced information to make judgments? it is hardly surprising that you get these kind of lopsided votes. the membership of that committee is somewhat better than it used to bait. the membership is basically fairly left-leaning. this has been historically a problem. it is unfortunate that it is reinforced by the way the chairman of the committee, sometimes the ranking member as well, have run the committee. host: new mexico, are democrats

blind. think youreally don't have much of any credibility given year history of support for the iraq invasion, didn't you trying to get people to believe that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11 and even the oklahoma city bombing. you are one of the neo conservatives who is bankrupting this country, trying to support a worldwide empire. i find that you have absolute zero credibility. guest: i have always regarded ad hominem attacks as reinforcing my point that we need to have more debate about things like this treaty. i would have the to the debate

on another occasion the points you raised. my fear is that far from having an american empire, we are at the press as of moving back into a position of somewhat isolationist view that will not only greatly intensify the dangers this country is facing, but cost is vastly more than being prepared as ronald reagan used to say using the philosophy of restraint to avoid the sorts of wars that we have entered into historically. i fundamentally disagree with you. host: republican line, arizona. caller: i had spent the day listening to the senate debate as assaultsii treaty and your remarks were very one-sided you may as well have been one of the

republican senators talking. you failed to mention bad virtually all the joint chiefs of staff all agree that the treaty should be passed and passed now. the last was the general who had a -- who was a career expert on nuclear weaponry. he gave his blessing to the treaty. a number of well-known people as well. the republicans disagreed with it. overall, the arguments presented by the republicans on the preamble that they interpreted as inhibiting the united states from developing star wars enter- ballistic systems if the need would arise in the future.

that is not an agreement and it is contrary to what the negotiators negotiated when they negotiated the treaty with the russians. the russians found no objection to an antiballistic missile system that was already in place and working. characterizing the russians as not being able to trust them and they lie -- i know you want to say dirty communist but you cannot call them that any more. guest: i think i touched on the fact that a number of eminences in the and out of office like the joint chiefs of staff have endorsed this treaty. i stand by my earlier position which is that i think the further you get away from actually firsthand experience with these issues, the more you

tend to rely on other people. especially when you are concerned with other issues having to do with the military. i think this is the kind of thing which is the sorts of issues that should be the subject of much more balanced set of hearings and much more fulsome debate in the senate and before there is a ratification vote. ve indeed saidave envi that they are happy to have nothing more than a very limited, quite modest, and largely irrelevant missile defense capability to the sorts of threats that are now beginning to develop. it is indeed iran and venezuela, have they put missiles capable of reaching the united states in

venezuela, we do not have defenses against those in place at the moment. i think the russians would almost certainly regard putting that in place as evidence of the kind of quantitative or qualitative improvement they say will cause them to withdraw from the treaty. if they have grounds for doing that, we need to know that now. without negotiating record, we won't know that. while we focused on missile boat -- missile defense, there are a number of other problems that i would think the joint chiefs of staff would be concerned about. for example, there is a 10-1 advantage on the russian side right now in terms of what our tactical nuclear weapons. anyone that is hit with one of these tactical nuclear weapons will not know any difference between that and strategic nuclear weapons. our allies are a threat from these and vladimir putin is as

dangerous as the communists were in their day. he harkens back to that. i think he lusts to restore a productive soviet union. he is moving tactical nuclear weapons closer to our allies in a transparent effort to intimidate them. this is at the same time we seem to be weakening our strategic position. this is for the betterment of russia's strategic interest and the detriment of hours. these are the sorts of things that we can debate here longer if we had a chance. we shall certainly see it debated fully before there is a vote in the united states senate on this tree and that can't happen if, as currently is the case, the administration and the senate leadership on the

democratic side, at least, is determined to try to drive this thing into a very near term votes after a very truncated debate. i think it is irresponsible and could be quite reckless. host: are the votes there? guest: i don't think they are there this minute. the boat is not being taken this minute. my sense is that a number of senators are increasingly upset at the way this lame duck session is being run and the extent to which legislation clearly would pass in the next session. i think it probably wouldn't pass if there were proper debate on including the so-called " don't ask, don't tell" legislation and the dream act are being jammed through. that reinforces the point i am making which this is no way to run a railroad. if you try to railroad the

united states senate, they cannot do their job as the world's greatest delivered to body. . . >> >> political parties. the success of the party, and the success of the nation. i mean, the political of the start treaty -- first

negotiating by a republican president shows how far you guys have gone over the last how many years? so, i mean, the ability to being able to verify how many hydrogen bombs the other nation on the planet has had the greatest number of hydrogen bombs has, this successful, you know, going there to russia and investigating and having -- this is -- you have politicized this and turned this into a political negotiating chip to me as an independent, it's just, i mean, nauseating and again, how you can say that this is, that you are behaving in a way which is putting nation over political party. i mean, i just want to thank you because you're living proof of why a third party candidate is a

viable alternative. >> we'll leave it there. guest: and i have to say, i personally as a men who worked for democrats and republicans feel strongly that this should be non-partisan. i'd like to think that this should be beyond politics. we should not be in a situation which a democratic control ed congress is not trying to force the ratification of a treaty that when the senate is reconstituted in january would almost certainly require improvements be made to the treaty, not because of partisanship but because it is deflect activity. there are serious deficiencies to it. we will not know how many. we will not know where they are.

we will not be able to count them. we will not have as modern as arsenal are they. they will have, i believe, a veto over our missile defenses. there is not a genuine reset in relations. if the president of the united states of america see this treaty and i can assure you its approval by the senate should that happen as validation of his belief that the united states needs to set an example of denuclear san diego for the rest of the world. denuclear rising the united states whether it's through dramatic arms cuts like he's proposing here or more worrying to me, quite frankly is through the atrophying of our arsenal

that he and, again, this is not a partisan defense, george bush and bill clinton before him and george herbert walker bush before them all allowed it to happen. the atrophying of our arsenal. do you know that we have weapons today that are on average 30 years old? that's our arsenal. they've not been tested realistically for over 18 years. there has been no modernization of these weapons for about 15 years. >> we need to have a viable safe effective and reliable nuclear deterrent. the president has said he thinks we may see it for the foreseeable future.

he's not providing for it. that's troubling. the senate has not been given an opportunity to properly evaluate that by being jammed up against christmas in what i think is a very partisan effort and your criticism is miss placed and finding fault with me about this. host: off of twitter. a viewer asked -- guest: i think the chinese are under no illusion that we are deliberately con strange the compatibilities of our missile defense so as not to be able to counter their growing missile threat. this treaty does nothing, nothing, to minimize the threat that china is going to pose in the future. it does nothing to deal with the north korean or the iranian or

syrian or pakistani nuclear threats. we are looking in short as a construct that says let's go back to that old cold war sort of paradigm with two super pours and we'll just fixate on those when it's a very different world and one of my concerns i have to tell you is the kinds of cuts that are -- with the russians again, would be an invitation to the chinese to accelerate the build-up of their nuclear program and i think establish themselves unmistakably as a superpower which i think will probably translate into a more aggressive china and one that is a bigger problem for all of us. host: forth laud, dale. democrats line. caller: i have a short state. i would like to know who funded organization.

my statement is people like -- in this world is what cause so much conflicts. -- all over the world. you know? [inaudible] and a build-up -- that the world is going, you know? host: we'll leave it there. guest: my organization is funded by charitable contradictions -- contribution, mostly from individuals. it's something i hope those of you who think what i'm saying is actually sensible will think about supporting, particularly before the end of the year. again, attacks against me don't alter the facts or the merits of the case i'm making, i believe, and though extent that the american people are exposed to these facts, i think most of them, certainly not all, but most of them will find it deeply troubling that we're at the cusp

of getting into a treaty that again, will leave the other people with a treaty thousands more nuclear weapons than we have and that the ranking republican on the intelligence committee in the senate has said unverifiable, that's the case, that we'll in fact give the russians the grounds for believing they can have a veto over missile defense that rewards the russians for behavior that i think objectively is not reset in the sense of being reliable partners with us. they are arming, you talk about the world being -- going wacko, it is an important respects becoming more dangerous in part because the russians are arming virtually every bad guy no the teeth. these are the sorts of things that i believe should inform decisions whether this treaty should be undertaken. let's just say for the purpose of discussion that the senate

should evaluate these sorts of questions carefully. if they can't do it properly in this lame duck session, they shouldn't be asked to vote on it in this lame duck session. and i hope there will be at least 34 senator who is feel that way and that we'll ensure this treaty gets the full deliberation and consideration and yes, improvements that it really requires to keep it from being a start to surrender, which i think it may will become if we're not careful. host: a reduction to strategic warheads to 1550. it would limit both nations to no more than 700 delivery vehicles. -- warsaw, indiana. ken on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i've got a couple of questions and a couple of comments and

this is certainly not a political side of things. i have a data to -- if the russian negotiators knew that the united states senate needed to ratify this treaty, then they must have known that there would be questions raised and amendments made to the treaty. last night i watched without hesitation, all of the debate and i have a couple of comments. the preamble to this treaty apparently is a big sticking point with many of the senators on the republican side. senator graham made a very good point last night and indicated that if the preamble was supposedly not really an important part of the treaty, but yet, if the preable de -- preamble was to be changed from favor of the united states that the russians would walk away are the treaty and close the door and be done with it and we

wouldn't have a treaty. host: weave have to -- we'll have to leave it there. guest: it's one of the inis and sis that's the proponents are making. the reason that the preamble has received so much attention is it is quite explicit that there's a linkage there between the offensive forces and the defensive forces. the administration is now saying and senator kerry and other supporters are saying that it's just language. as my friend andy mccarthy, one of the brilliant observers of political life and national security i think in the country today said in the fourth of december the administration also has an internal inconsistency because they've attached enormous importance in the health care debate which was, you may remember, the thing they were jamming through in the lame duck session the last time. this is the kind of standard operating procedure that i think

brought us a defective health care bill but in the course of that debate, they said the pretty wellable of the constitution which declares that it is the obligation is the basis upon they've built this edifice of health care program for the government either preambles are binding or they're not. and if they're not, then changing it to make it clear that we don't believe the current version of that preamble which will restrict missile defense because the russians have insisted that it will is a reason for this treaty not to be supported. it was not changed from the senate yesterday. it's another reason of why i hope at least 34 senators will say to the president this treaty is not ready for primetime. we will not support it. we will take a look at it next

year. host: jeff, from independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. my name is jeff. i want to thank mr. gaffney for service to the country. i consider him a patriot. guest: thank you. caller: and i spent 20 years in the united states army. i'm a retired drill sergeant. and my concern is that i don't know a lot about the stark treaty and i know it's an important treaty but i concern is just like mr. gaffney said they're trying to run the church. why can't as a country with democratic principle actually, you know, debate the issue rather than trying to ram it down our throat before a deadline when they could have done this quite some long time ago? so it just -- you know, i used to be a republican. i went independent republican. i'm so confused now. i don't know where to go because

principle are being left to whatever people are dropping their principle just to politicize every event that comes up in our country. it's absolutely ridiculous. host: thanks, caller. guest: jeff, thank you for your service. i would say that as you've indicated, we are in a position where we should not allow this thing to be rammed through. 11 of the newly elected senators have formerly asked the leadership of the senate not to ram this through, to give them an opportunity. since this treaty will be implemented on their watch to say whether it in fact masses muster. the reason why this treaty was not brought to the senate for action before now, let's be clear is because i believe the administration calculated it could get it through if it did in fact jam it up against christmas. and, you know, the old adage, you want it bad, you get it bad

is going to apply it here as well. newt gingrich has written a powerful letter saying if you know going into a contract or a treaty in this case, that the two parties have at the very least a fundamental disagreement about what the contract says, you have an obligation to sort that out before you sign the contract. it's malpractice for lawyers to do otherwise and i think it's malpractice for the senate to do otherwise. we've got plenty of time. the kinds of verification concerns or monitoring issues that we're hearing so much about now which have been with us for the past year can be lived with into next year if need be but it's too important to get this right. to have the senate do that and that's calculatedly what's going on here. host: manhattan, new york, you're the last caller for frank gaffney. guest: thank god the man final

lie li stopped talking. mr. gaffney, you sound like a frustrated individual, ok? you sound like all you want to do is get rid of obama. the bottom line is to anybody and everybody, the treaty is not a new treaty. this has been done since reagan. so the thing is, all they want is obama not to be able to do this stark treaty so you can look back and you're worrying about christmas vacation? that takes away all your credibility right there using christmas as an excuse as to why these guys who get paid should not be working for who? the united states. so yes, we do need a treaty because we need peace, mister. peace in the world. host: we'll leave it there. guest: i think historically, we've seen that when the united states airs by demonstrating weakness or being perceived as

weak at the very least, it doesn't con deuce to peace. it brings us war. this treaty is not ronald reagan's treaty. william clark and former counselor to the president and a host of others who have very, very intimate knowledge of nuclear weapons issues dating back to the reagan administration have said this treaty should not be considered in this session and urge that it not be precisely because it does not in fact conform the legacy of ronald reagan in a meaningful way. yes, it's all about arms control but there's been very defective arms treaty and there's been somewhat better ones and i'm afraid this falls in the defective category. in closing, i'm not bringing christmas into this. harry reid is and it's a cynical thing to be using the fact that members understandably want to be home with their family for

christmas. yes, they get paid and it's an important job they do. but they are people and they would like to be home for christmas. it's a scandal, sir. it is a travesty and it is i'm afraid con deucing to real dirninge the country that christmas and the holidays are being used as a means of for closing the sort of debate we should have to establish whether >> the united states richard

nixon today on "supreme court ladmark cases." >> listen to the argument on c-span radio in washington, d.c.. nationwide on xm channel 22, and online at c-span.organize. >> i think the prime minister of this country has a great deal of power and can get things done,? of which the president of the united states would find very difficult. >> this month, "q & a" expands to london. tonight more john wakeham, and

sunday dan reed on his "terror in mume buy" which follows the 2008 terror attacks. 8:00 p.m. eastern, saturday and sunday. >> next, a look at a new government survey on teens and drug use from the white house director of national drug policy. this is a little over an hour. dd m dd >> good morning. thanks for braving the snow to come here this morning or the ice.

>> this year there were over 46,482 students in fiff -- fifth, sickth, seventh, and eighth grade. many of you know this, but i will repeat, the survey measures drug use in several different ways. lifetime, past year, past month, and in some cases, daily use. we'll open it up for questions. cynthia likowsk, thank you for

being with us. dr. lloyd johnson who led the team conducting this survey for 36 years. finally, i would like to introduce my boss, dr. nora wolcox who has overseen nida, and she will tell you about this morning's findings. >> first of all, i want to thank you for this press conference. thank you for the continued support in the fight against drug youth in children and everybody. as carol was mentioning, this is the time i stand in front of you to discuss the significance of the findings were with monitoring the future.

i'm trying to identify what is the most salen. it is clearly its recognition that we are monitoring the increases in the use of marijuana. most particularly are the uses of marijuana on eighth, 10th, and 12th graders. the increases in daily marijuana use are quite large. more than 10%, and they are particularly relevant, because daily use of marijuana is likely to result in more adverse effects and more infrequent use. also, it is likely to be associated with 25 to 50% of these kids with marijuana dependents. another important factor is the use of marijuana against all the uses that we have. that is daily marijuana use, monthly marijuana use, or exposure is high. of course all these indicators

are on eighth graders. now eighth graders are the youngest of our cohorts. first of all, the increases are large. actually over 10%. for each one of them. second young people are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of drugs. we know, for example, from ep deem logical studies that the younger the age of initiation, the greater the likelihood that they will be dependent. in clinical studies, epidemiology shows that get involved in marijuana before 17 are more likely to become dependent on marijuana and a wide variety of drugs. therefore, the significance of the numbers that we are getting. we are getting an increase in marijuana daily use, which is the most adverse, the one that has the most adverse effect, and

we are seeing the group targeted the most to be eighth graders, which are the ones that are most vulnerable to the deletrious ervings of marijuana. if you look at our country and what does this mean and why is this happening? one can only speculate at this point. we have predicted that there would be increases in marijuana consumption in surveys because of the significant attention that the potential use of marijuana has generated in the public. we cannot stop but wonder to what extent this gets left with a misconception it could not be so debtmental. -- detrimental. we are seeing an increase in the number of teenagers that are using marijuana which is harmful.

psychotherapeutic use seems to be a good number. we have seen an increase in the one exposure to vicodin among 12th graders, which has been stablized between 9% and 10%. this year it is 8%. however the preff lens of other psychotherapy continues to be -- prevalence of psyche therapy continues to be high. pain medications and other medications which are used for the treatment of attention deficit disorder. alcohol and cigarettes, in cigarettes we are seeing a stabilization of the numbers before seen, which are, of course, very important and very significant in positive sights, because cigarette snoking has very adverse effects, and in many instances --

those are stablized. no longer increasing. in terms of alcohol, we are seeing decreases in binge drinking and heavy alcohol consumption. even though these are not large, they are significant. how does the panorama and landscape look based on the survey? i can only say the increases we're seeing in marijuana use in teenagers needs to be taken seriously. they were also detected by a household sur vie. -- survey. marijuana which has long-lasting and permanent brain. we know it affects learning and memory. and those debtmental effects of alcohol use while these teenagers are going to school will be arvinging their education on acleefment. -- on achievement. we are relying on this generation to -- do we want to

jeopardize the treatments by exposure to illicit drugs, including that of marijuana? and my answer is, of course, that this will be a loss for those adolescents exposed to them and a loss for all of us. thank you very much. >> thank you. the information dr. volkow gave is very disturbing. for example, the marijuana numbers are particularly troubling. as dr. volkow said, there is

good news in the survey, but i think i would rather concentrate on the bad news, and that is the youth use. we have seen particularly throughout the elections and during the time that proposition 19 was being talked about throughout the country, even though there were a number of propositions, a number of initiatives in other states, prop 19, as it was called in california about legal zation, continued to dominate the news. the other part that is so patently false about all of this is that calling marijuana smoked marijuana medicine is absolutely incorrect, and it sends a terrible message. i've actually heard that message when i met with a group of high school students in oregon. they talked to me about wanting

to do well in school, that their grades would be good, that they would be going on to college. in a state that was calling smoked marijuana medicine, they said this is giving us the wrong message. i would tell you, i couldn't agree with those high school students more. we've seen some positive outcomes in the study, and i think that that should give us a little bit of hope that if we concentrate with parents and trusted care givers, those adults who really are meaningful in young people's lives, and we give them the right information about how to talk to young people about the dangers of drugs and how to send a message about making good choices, and not just good choices about staying away from drugs, but good cheist choices about not using nicotine, not engaging in ubbed -- under-age drinking, that young people listen to those trustsed messages.

parents, coaches, neighborhood associations, et cetera, and they take those suggestions quite seriously. so for all of the people that oftentimes think that young people are tone deaf to them, it is incorrect. they really do listen to those trusted messengers. we can make a difference on this if we work on it, if we concentrate on it, and we can clearly make a difference. right now we are not being particularly responsible adults by telling people that smoked marijuana is medicine when, in fact, it is not. fact, it is not. thank you. >> good morning.

thank you very much for see a lot of familiar faces. some of you have followed this study for a long time. it has been going on for a long time. he is a pleasure to join director kerlikowske, and dr. volkow in releasing these founding digit findings. -- findings. in the spring, we gave health ministers questionnaires, confidential and anonymous, to some 46,000 students around the country. they are located in roughly 400 secondary schools. because of the size, we get a high dege of accuracy both in terms of levels and changes. these are students in eighth, 10, and 12th grades, and we separately sample each of those grades. they are both in public and

private schools. this very well covered our youth population. if there are several findings i think that will be important. you have already heard some of them. first, marijuana use has continued in increase, and tt includes daily years. ecstasy is beginning to make a comeback after being out of favor for about five years. cigarette smoking is no longer declining, and there is evidence thats beginning to go up again. alcohol use continues its -- term decline, which is gradual, but nevertheless has reached storically low levels. madison very good man's. -- that is some very good news. marijuana use has been going on for three years, still is not

great in size, but contrast to what was happening 10 years prior, one we had a steady decline. across the three grades, there is a significant change in the proportion of teens who say their use in the past year has risen from 21.5% to about 24.5%. that is a significant increase overall. today, about one in seven eighth graders indicate marijuana use in the past year, when more than one in four 10th graders, and more than one in the of our high school seniors. the greatest concern to me is that daily marijuana use is rising. those of you who are older might recall that back in the late 1970's we actually got to a point in our history where one in about every 11 high-school seniors was a daily marijuana

user. today, it is about one in 16. we are not as bad as we were, but we are still going in the wrong direction. daily use, we find about 1% of eighth graders, 3% of 10th graders, and 6% of 12th graders indicate that on 20 or more locations in the past 30 days they smoked marijuana. the propulsion that see rijuana use as dangers has been declining in recent years, including this year, and that is usually a predictor of what will happen to use in the coming years. this is something we saw coming, and we think will keep coming. it is what we call perceived risk -- the% that say they see danger to the user in using the drug.

the disapproval has already -- also started to decline among teens, and goes synchronous lead with use. reported availability and me kids say they could get it easily if they wanted. but return to the ecstasy story. as you might recall, ecstasy declined vary sharply in the late 1990's, a peak in 2001, and then plummeted as young people came to see it as much more dangerous than their predecessors. proceeds rest played an important role. use has remained relatively low for several years.

unfortunately, you never full he put it behind you. there's also the next generation of students that come along. and are more susceptible to try and get themselves. so, what happened was that ecstasy began to increase in the last couple of years, and it increased significantly this year, so that now, about two 0.5% of a trader said used in the last eight years.

>> smoking among teenagers was dropping by large proportions in fact, the prior 30 days smoking rate has fallen from a high in the mid-1990's by about two thirds. it is a fairly enculturated havior. these are very consequential

changes that will make a big difference in the life of a reducing a few years ago are now becoming the 12th graders. so use is still going down among

12th grade. we think that will be over in a year or two. perceived risk of smoking has leveled off after rising before that, and i think risks do play a role in why kids smoke less. and this approval has also leveled off more recently, as have a number of conotations of smoking, as the negative conotations, and they are dropping off. i would like to ask every young person who is thinking about smoking to be aware of, and that is the great majority of secondary school students from 72% to 80% say they would prefer to date people who do not smoke.

not only does smoking not make you more attractive to the opposite sex, the industries have been frying -- trying to tell us, it actually makes you less attractive to a majority of the opposite sex. that's sng kids can relate to. now, not all the news is bad, you'll be glad to know. alcohol use is declining, as has the use of a couple of illicit drugs. nora mentioned some of those. while gradual and almost imperceptible, the portions of kids using illegal drugs has been in decline. in deed, use has declined since the 1980's, except for a period in the 1990's where we had a relapse of drug use and alcohol use went up with it. since that we have had a rather steady decline.

that decline was fairly steep in the early years of 1980 to 1982, a 12-year period, and much more gradual since 1986 when our current decline began. nevertheless, a decline among 12th graders. it was 72% in 1980. today it is 41%. again, that decline in strongly aculturated behavior. and binge drinking has gone from a high of 41% in 1980, the highest that we've measured, down to 23% today. so there has been an improvement not only in drinking but in drunkenness, but also in drunk driving. the death on the highway statistics have been getting bepter significantly, and kids

have played a role in that. all grades showed decline in drinking and binge drinking, and these were significant for the three grades combined. so the net effect is, today, we have the lowest proportion of young people drinking in the life of the study. that's particularly good news. another drug which has been showing some decline that wasn't significant this year, but it continues the pattern, so we think it is real, is cocaine. as you know, cocaine was a major drug of problem levels in the 1980's. it made some comeback in the 1990's, when we had the relapse, but today it is in decline and has been gradually for several years, three or four. today only about 3% of high school seniors say that they have used cocaine at any time in the past year. that's considerably lower than it was in the 1990's and much

lower than it was in the 1980's. vicodin, a strong narblingt drug, and the most widely used drug other than marijuana, dropped. from 9.7% to almost 8%. a fair-sized drop. i can't explain to you why it has happened, but it has happened. it is possible that some displacement by another drug, but we hope that's not what is going on. many drugs held std steady. oxicotton, another powerful narcotic, methamphetamine, particularly serious and devastating drug, where we've seen a substantial increase among young people.