captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions president obama slipped out of washington and made a surprise visit to afghanistan today. good evening. i'm gwen ifill. >> brown: and i'm geoffrey brown. on the newshour tonight, we get the latest on the president's visit and the agreement he signed with president karzai spelling out the continuing u.s. commitment after american combat troops leave. >> ifill: then our series on the aftermath of the financial crisis continues with a look at how consumers and banks have altered their spending and lending practices. >> brown: ray suarez examines a new study showing a dramatic rise in the number of babies born addicted to prescription painkillers. >> brown: and judy woodruff gets two views on how hard the u.s. should press china over human rights violations.

that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> this is the at&t network-- a living, breathing intelligence bringing people together to bring new ideas to life. >> look, it's so simple. >> in a year, the bright minds from inside and outside the company come together to work on an idea. adding to it from the road, improving it in the cloud, all in real time. >> good idea. >> it's the at&t network. providing new ways to work together, so business works better. >> citi. supporting progress for 200 years. >> bnsf railway. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology,

and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: the president flew into afghanistan this evening on a visit that had been kept secret. it came one year to the day after the u.s. raid that killed osama bin laden. mr. obama stepped off air force one in darkness at bagram airfield outside kabul. later he met with president karzai and signed an agreement on the long-term u.s. commitment to afghanistan. the president also spoke briefly with u.s. troops. before dawn kabul time he addressed the american people from afghanistan. his speech was the first televised address to the nation delivered by a president from a war zone on

foreign soil. here are his remarks in their entire tee. >> good evening. from bagram air base. this outpost is more than 7,000 miles from home. but for over a decade it's been close to our hearts. because here in afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country. today i signed an historic agreement between the united states and afghanistan that defines a new kind of relation between our countries. a future in which afghans are responsible for the security of their nation and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states. a future in which war ends and a new chapter begins. tonight i'd like to speak to you about this transition. but first, let us remember why we came here. it was here in afghanistan where osama bin laden established a safe haven for his terrorist

organization. it was here in afghanistan where al qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. it was here from within these borders that al qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children. and so ten years ago, the united states and our allies went to war to make sure that al qaeda coulnever again use this country to launch attacks against us. despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. in 2002 bin laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe haven in pakistan. america spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in iraq. al qaeda's extremist allies within the taliban have waged a brutal insurgency. but over the last three years, the tide has turned.

we broke the taliban's momentum. we built strong afghan security forces. we devastated al qaeda's leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. one year ago from base here in afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed osama bin laden. the goal that i set, to defeat al qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild, is now within our reach. still there will be difficult days ahead. enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. but tonight i'd like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in afghanistan. first, we've begun a transition to afghan responsibility for security. already nearly half of the afghan people live in places where afghan security forces are moving in to the lead.

this month at a nato summit in chicago, our coalition will set a goal for afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. international troops will continue to train, advise and assist the afghans and fight alongside them when needed. but we will shift into a support role as afghans step forward. as we do, our troops will be coming home. last year, we removed 10,000 u.s. troops from afghanistan. another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. after that, reductions will continue at a steady pace with more and more of our troops coming home. as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014, the afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country. second, we are training afghan security forces to get the job done. those forces have surged and will peak at 352,000 this year. the afghans will sustain that level for three years and then reduce the size of their military.

in chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term afghan force. third, we're building an enduring partnership. the agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the afghan people. as you stand up, you will not stand alone. it establishes the basis for our decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. it supports afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people, and it includes afghan commitments to transparency and accountability and it protects the human rights of all afghans. men and women, boys and girls. within this framework, we'll work with the afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014. counterterrorism and continued training.

but we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling in cities and mountains. that will be the job of the afghan people. fourth, we're pursuing a negotiated peace. in coordination with the afghan government and my administration has been in direct discussions with the taliban, we've made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by afghan laws. many members of the taliban from foot soldiers to leaders have indicated an interest in reconciliation. the path to peace is now set before them. those who refuse to walk it will face strong afghan security forces, backed by the united states and our allies. fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in south asia. in chicago, the international community will express support for this plan and for afghanistan's future.

and i have made it clear to its neighbor, pakistan, that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects pakistan's sovereignty, interests, and democratic institutions. in pursuit of a durable peace, america has no designs beyond an end to al qaeda safe havens and respect for afghan sovereignty. as we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm time line. the answer is clear. our goal is not to build a country in america's image or to eradicate every vestage of the taliban. these objectives would require many more years. many more dollars. most importantly many more american lives. our goal is to destroy al qaeda. we are on a path to do exactly that. afghans want to assert their

sovereignty and build a lasting peace. that requires a clear time line to wind down the war. others will ask, why don't we leave immediately? that answer is also clear. we must give afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. otherwise our gains could be lost. then al qaeda could establish itself once more. and as commander in chief, i refuse to let that happen. i recognize that many americans are tired of war. as president nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the fallen or looking into the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. i will not keep americans in harm's way a single day longer than is is absolutely required for our national security. but we must finish the job we started in afghanistan and end this war responsibly. my fellow americans, we've traveled through more than a

decade under the dark cloud of war. yet here in the pre-dawn darkness of afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. the iraq war is over. the number of our troops in harm's way has been cut in half. and more will soon be coming home. we have a clear path to fulfill our mission in afghanistan while delivering justice to al qaeda. this future is only within reach because of our men and women in uniform. time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. in an age when so many institutions have come up short, these americans stood tall. they met their responsibilities to one another and to the flag they serve under. i just met with some of them. and told them that as commander in chief, i could not be prouder. in their faces we see what is best in ourselves, in our country.

our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, marines, coast guardsmen and civilians in afghanistan have done their duty. now we must summon that same sense of common purpose. we must give our veterans and military families the support they deserve and the opportunities they have earned. and we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice. as we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it's time to renew america. an america where our children live free from fear and have the skills to claim their dreams. a united america. of grit and resilience. where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown manhattan and we build our future as one people, as one nation. here in afghanistan, americans answered the call to defend their fellow citizens and uphold

human dignity. today we were called to follow and those who suffered wounds both seen and unseen. but through dark days we have drawn strength from their example and the ideals that have guided our nation and led the world. a belief that all people are created equal and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny. that is the light that guides us still. this time of war began in afghanistan. and this is where it will end. with faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand and forge a just and lasting peace. may god bless our troops and may god bless the united states of america. >> ifill: the president of the united states at bagram airfield in afghanistan. we're here now with seth jones who worked for the commander of u.s. special forces in afghanistan from 2009 to 2011.

his latest book. his latest book is hunting in the shadows, the pursuit of al qaeda since 9/11. and brian katulis, a senior fellow where he analyzes u.s. foreign policy in the middle east and south asia. seth jones, what struck you the most about those remarks? >> well, i think it's very clear that the president is committed to pulling u.s. forces out of afghanistan especially combat forces. and his comment that the pace will be consistent and the forces will leave i think gives everybody a sense that he is committed to withdrawing the vast majority of the american forces from afghanistan. i think the trend is very clear. >> ifill: brian katulis, he laid out a lot of ideas for how the u.s. and the afghan forces will collaborate in the next year or two. are they achievable? >> i think they are. i think this speech was trying to strike the right balance between transition and ending this phase of the war. and offering enduring support. i think some of the most difficult challenges will come

actually in the political and diplomatic sphere. he talked about peace with the taliban. he talked about the need to build enduring afghan institutions. i think this is one of the most difficult tasks, especially the diplomacy with elements of the taliban. because it's connected to regional dynamics and the problems of pakistan. so i think there are a lot of tough tasks ahead. this was not a mission accomplished speech. this was there's more work that needs to be done but we're ending this phase and continuing this transition. >> ifill: seth jones, i want to talk about that taliban thing because there have been ongoing conversations we're told with the taliban between u.s. officials. it seems to be a stop-start. where do they stand tonight? >> for the moment we know that the taliban has said that they are not willing to negotiate. there do appear to be some negotiations continuing privately. but what is interesting is there's also been indications this week based on the bin laden, that some of the same individuals that are negotiating

with u.s. diplomats have also been in regular touch over the last several years with senior al qaeda leaders including the number one and al qaeda's deputy. i think there is a very legitimate question about how committed the taliban senior leadership is to a peace deal. i would say what we know right now is it does not appear to be very committed. >> ifill: brian katulis, it was very interesting at the beginning of the president's speech he was making the case repeatedly that afghanistan is the center of the conflict. it was the center of all of this. everything that's happened since 9/11. i wonder what he can do, what this report does, what this agreement does to follow through on that notion of afghanistan being kind of central, a lynch pin for so much else? >> it's a very comprehensive agreement. it's nine, ten pages. i just skimmed it. what it lays out is a very comprehensive approach for supporting institutions in the regional security framework, the sorts of things that did not exist in 1989 when the soviets

withdrew and were defeated. those sorts of things i think can safeguard against the emergence of some sort of safe haven or taliban-al qaeda type groups in afghanistan. >> ifill: seth jones, how critical is it that these promises be kept? who was the audience tonight for this speech? >> i think the audience largely was the united states domestic population. his comments near the end that the united states needs to focus on its own problems, its own economic problems, that we want to limit the number or the number of american dead soldiers. i served in afghanistan. that part of the speech was clearly directed at domestic audience. but i think the strategic partnership was also an attempt to indicate to afghans and to neighbors in the region that there would be some longer-term u.s. commitment. i think without a doubt there were multiple audiences but certainly probably the most important was the american one.

>> ifill: and there's a regional role that afghanistan plays also in its role as a launching pad, as the president said. there wouldn't be bases anymore in afghanistan after a certain point. but for other concerns in that region, afghanistan has been our physical spot. >> absolutely. what's interesting is the agreement has a clause that says the territory will not be used to launch attacks against any of afghanistan's neighbors. but it also has other clauses that talk about afghanistan's territorial integrity and the need to help afghanistan with its self defense. some of the things like the strikes that you see coming against pakistan could be justified in those sort of terms to say, look, pakistan has been supporting a lot of the insurgent groups that have been trying to undermine security in afghanistan and under mine this government. what will be interesting, as we have talked about, is the devil in the details of the implementation. there needs to be a by bilateral security agreement that is negotiated over the next year or so in addition to this framework agreement. >> ifill: the president's goal tonight was to try to calm all

parties. >> absolutely. i mean obviously the american public was the primary audience because he was doing this at 7:30 p.m. i think it's 4:00 a.m. in afghanistan. but there are clear messages there. when he said that when you stand up, we'll stand with you. that was quite a contrast to, say, president bush's formulation on iraq which is when you stand up, we'll stand down. >> ifill: not exactly standing down. brian katulis, thank you very much and seth jones as well. still to come on the newshour consumers and banks after the financial crisis, babies born addicted to drugs and rights and wrongs for the u.s. and china. first for the other news of the day, here's hari. >> sreenivasan: five men have been arrested in an alleged plot to bomb a bridge near cleveland, ohio. the f.b.i. announced today that the men were taken into custody overnight. they allegedly targeted the brecksville-northfield high level bridge, which crosses part of the cuyahoga valley national park. agents said the suspects thought they had planted explosives at the site.

in fact, an f.b.i. informant had sold them "dummy" explosives. >> a myriad of coordinated and investigative techniques in order to eliminate the risk of violence and protect the public. at no time during the course of this investigation was the public ever in danger. >> sreenivasan: the f.b.i. said at least three of the men were self-described anarchists, but were not affiliated with international terrorism. some had attended occupy cleveland events in the past. but an occupy spokesman said they were not affiliated with the group. across the globe, protesters marked this may day with outrage over tough times and austerity measures. in spain, thousands took to the streets of madrid to oppose government budget cuts and other steps. there were similar protests in greece and in france. meanwhile, in new york, hundreds of protesters with occupy wall street marched on the offices of major banks and media organizations. marchers also descended on downtown oakland, california, blocking traffic in places. they tried to close down some businesses that ignored calls

for a "general strike." wall street got a lift today. stocks rose on news that manufacturing expanded last month at the fastest clip since june. the dow jones industrial average added 65 points to close at 13,279. the nasdaq rose four points to close at 3050, its highest closing in more than four years. automakers saw mixed results in the u.s. for april. chrysler reported today that truck and jeep sales boosted its business by 20%. and toyota reported sales increases of 12%. it said inventories have returned to what they were before last year's earthquake and tsunami in japan knocked out plants. on the other hand, ford and g.m. reported april sales fell 5% to 8%. a parliamentary committee in britain condemned media magnate rupert murdoch today. the panel's report came after months of investigating illegal phone hacking by a murdoch tabloid and his influence over politicians and police. but the committee was deeply divided, as labor party members blasted murdoch, and conservatives objected to the

findings. we have a report from tom bradby of independent television news. >> reporter: these people corrupted our country. they brought shame on our police force and our parliaments. they lied and cheated, blackmailed and bullied. we should all be ashamed when we think how we followed them for so long. rupert murdoch is not fit to run an international company like this. >> reporter: taken to its logical conclusion that would mean taking from murdoch an enormously profitable tv station he founded but there's not the evidence to justify this said the tories. >> no member of the committee could find it in their hearts to say that either murdoch had misled the committ. nobody. even in the reports as published. therefore, it did appear to us that something negative had to be found to say about rupert murdoch since nobody would conclude that either he or his son had misled our committee. >> reporter: what did committee agree on?

some executives had misled them. >> ...the extent of phone hacking. do you have anything to say about that? >> it's already out there. >> reporter: this committee report lost a lot of clout by being so obviously split along party lines but labor's total declaration of war is a fascinating gamble. a bold and brave or absurd and foolish one, depending on your point of view. >> sreenivasan: murdoch said today he found the report "difficult to read," and deeply regrets what took place. now, the agency that regulates british broadcasting will review the findings. it could force murdoch to divest part of his stake in b-sky-b, british sky broadcasting. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: and we turn once again to our series, "after the fall," our look at what's changed and what hasn't since the financial meltdown of 2008. in recent days we've examined the housing market and risk and regulation on wall street. our focus tonight: consumers and banks, and attitudes toward

credit and debt. for that, we're joined by adam levin, chairman and co-founder of credit.com, a consumer education advocacy group. he's former director of new jersey's consumer affairs division. james chessen, chief economist for the american bankers association, an industry trade group. and kathy kristoff. she reports on personal finance for cbs "moneywatch" and "kiplinger's personal finance." kathy kristof, let's start with consumers. are people generally more willing to take on debt now? if so, who is doing it and what kind of debt? >> consumers are definitely taking on more debt. certainly on average. what you see are two different groups of consumers. we have people who never really had a problem in the financial crisis. they didn't lose their jobs. they never were overextended. they've never had difficulty in paying their bills but they've been very cautious over past

couple of years. right now they're in very good shape because rate now the debt they have is is at lower interest race. mortgage rates in particular have gone down. for most families that means that 30% of your budget is actually at a lower price. you're in good shape. the other side of the coin are the consumers who did have real problems in the financial crisis. some of them lost their homes. a lot more declared bankruptcy. and oddly enough, those consumers are also actually in a better spot right now because, while they lost assets, they also lost that debt. so going forward they're better able to borrow. and now you have.... >> brown: let me bring in jim chessen here. does that jibe with what you're seeing, a two-tiered market? >> that's absolutely correct. debt levels are down. we've also seen that the amount of monthly income that people have, the amount that they devote to debt, is at a 28-year low. so we've seen a significant reduction in the amount of debt held.

we've seen savings go up. so we've seen a very good improvement on consumer debt levels. now as kathy said we know there's people that have had trouble but the good thing now is is they have an opportunity for a second chance. in products that will help them rebuild the credit that they need to buy the kinds of product that they want. whether it's a car... or so they can buy a house. >> brown: what impact have regulatory changes had? i know you've looked at this push for more transparency in loans, in ending. >> well there's been a great deal more transparency. there has been a great deal pour restraint in certain areas of fees on the part of financial institutions. and consumers in general are in a position where more

information is available to them but it's now their responsibility to be able to actually read that information, digest the information, and make an intelligent decisions based upon that information. plus we also have the consumer financial protection bureau. we have more people actually looking at the problems, studying the problem and trying to see if what we see today is a good omen or a warning sign and the head lamp of the oncoming locomotive as opposed to the light at the end of the tunnel. >> brown: adam, just to stay with you. what do you see in terms of consumers' attitudes? is there for a fear of taking on debt? were there lessons learned after what happened four years ago? >> again i think that some people may well be taking on more debt out of necessity because we have a stagnant economy. and we also have a stubborn unemployment rate. some people may in fact have a much healthier attitudes about credit and debt than they've ever had before. remember while we're looking at

this particular kind of debt, there's another horrifying debt that's exploding right now that also impacts so many people. that's student debt which has now eclipsed auto debt and credit card debt. so this may also be part of an entire mosaic where consumers are looking at the entire picture and saying i really have to be more responsible in this area because i'm being eaten alive some place else. >> brown: kathy kristoff, fill in that picture a little bit more. you start talking about the riskiest borrowers? do you see them getting into the market more and do you see lenders reaching out to them once again as they were earlier? >> you are seeing them cautiously getting back into the market where they can. but there are some people who are not borrowing because they don't have the opportunity. their credit got so trashed in the financial crisis that they will not be allowed to borrow for a little while. there are tentative feelers out to get some of these people and certainly to get people with thin credit files as opposed to bad credit files so college

students, for instance, are being segregated from the bad credit risks to the new credit risk. and those people are being offered credit. and they're taking it. you know, again consumers are in a better position to handle the credit they're getting. and so i don't see this as a worrisome trend. >> brown: jim chessen, are banks or some banks getting back into this business of lending to risky borrowers again? one of the big problems, of course, from the bubble. >> there's a whole range of risk, right, from the best credit to the people that, as kathy said, really have very poor credit. banks are treading cautiously. i agree with kathy on that. they want to make loans. they know now with the economy improving and jobs and income improving that the risk of lending is now much lower than it was before. so they want to look at those consumers that really have the ability to repay that debt.

it doesn't do banks or customers any good to put hands... to put credit in their hands if they can't repay it. we don't want to repeat the lessons we've had before. so both banks and consumers i think are being much more prudent, much more cautious. i think that's appropriate. >> brown: some of the regulations took some of the ability of banks to make money, to charge some of the fees they did in the past. >> banks are in the business of making loans, right? that's what they do. they're their bread and butter. they want to make loans. it may shock some people that two out of every three years, fdic-insured banks have been in business for more than 50 years. you don't stay in business unless you treat your customers right, make sure they have the credit that they need and that they can repay it. that's what banks want to do now. the risky lenders are out of business now. the banks that have survived today are the healthy ones that are going to be here for the

next 50 or 100 years. they want to get credit in the hands of their customers that can handle it. >> brown: adam levin, what do you see in terms of the side of the banks responding to the various regulations that were put in place over the last few years? >> well, the banks they find themselves in a bind. they're looking for alternate revenue generation sources. a lot of the bankers i've talked to said, look, we have to find ways to increase our footprint with your existing customers and make a compelling case with other customers because frankly there was a period of time when the bigger banks were getting hammered by credit unions and smaller banks as consumers were expressing and manifesting their anger. so, you know, there is the continuing search for fees. if they will shift from one to another and they'll go with it. for instance, consumers, the question is, how consumer credit card limits, have they increased because consumers are moving away from debit cards that they had been moved into because once the swipe law went into effect and limited fees on swipe and rewards were taken away from debit and fees were raised on debit, the consumers then were migrating back to credit cards

and there was also a greater demand for credit cards. banks are going with the flow on that too. is it because the boat is rocking or because there really is a new attitude about it? this is a work in progress. >> brown: kathy kristof, the last word from you. is it a work in progress and which direction is it going? >> credit is always a work in progress. like everything else, there are business cycles. we've left the cycle or the point in the cycle when nobody is lending and nobody can get credit unless they don't need any money. and we're going into the credit is easing and people... but people are still cautious. banks are still cautious. then we'll go to the point where they're not cautious and people overspend and banks lend too much money to them until everybody hangs themselves and we start all over again. it's kind of the nature of the beast. at the moment i think we're

still in a position where people are borrowing in a judicious way and banks are lending in a reasonable way. so at the moment there's nothing to worry about. >> brown: all right. we'll stop there then. kathy kristoff, adam levin and jim chessen, thank you all three very much. >> thank you. >> ifill: now, a new study highlights a troubling spike in babies born addicted to painkillers. ray suarez has the story. >> suarez: on average, every hour a baby is born in the u.s. addicted to a class of drugs that ranges from her wynn to prescription pain killers. a new study published this week in the "journal of the american medical association" looked at the growing number of mothers taking pain killers and the babies born hooked on drugs.

the lead author of the study is dr. stephen patrick who practices medicine at the university of michigan and he joins me now. dr. patrick, welcome. what did you study to conclude that the number of babies with drugs in their system hadn't just increased over the last decade but nearly tripled? >> well, we looked at neonate al syndrome which is a syndrome that new borns experience after they're born. it happens after the newborns have been exposed to opiates during the pregnancy. we found that the rate of babies diagnosed with drug withdrawal grew by threefold. in 2009 we noted that more than 13,000 babies were born with drug withdrawal, or about one baby born per hour. >> suarez: what drugs are we talking about here? drugs we already knew americans were taking a lot more? >> the other part of our study we looked at mothers using opiate at the time of the delivery. that increased five fold over the last decade. we were not able to tell the exact type. but opiates are a broad class. it includes everything from heroin to pain relievers like vicodin and even methadone.

>> suarez: are these prescription drugs? >> unfortunately from our study we were not able to determine that. that was a limitation of our study. what we do know looking at data that's been reported by the centers for disease control, we know that over the last decade, prescription opiates have quadrupled in the sales and deaths attributed to them have also quadrupled. we think that might be one explanation for the rapid increase we see. >> suarez: if we already knew there was a problem with these drugs, was it inevitable they were going to turn up in the bloodstreams of babies? >> you know, i don't know if i would say that. i would say that the increases i think this study shows that

multiple people are affected. i hope this study gets attention to think about ways that we can prevent this. i think that this should get the attention of federal and state government policy makers to think about ways that we can control our opiates maybe in a more optimal way. often in our health system we react to problems. i think that this study calls for a public health approach. many states are already doing things to limit the uses of opiates such as registries of prescriptions that are written so that we can tell if some of the doctor shopping, or going from one doctor to another to get the same prescription. it's strategies to limit opiate exposure that will prevent this problem way before it becomes an issue especially in our newborns. >> suarez: many states have moved to a more punitive, more criminal justice-based response to women who take drugs during or after pregnancy. is that part of the answer? >> i think blame is not always helpful. what i think would be most helpful is again thinking about this from a public health perspective, preventing this before it even becomes an issue. i think that does come from a public health standpoint, limiting opiates before they're even used. i think we can do this through

robust public health programs to think about the way we prescribe and think about statewide programs that can limit abuses and diversion of these drugs to things that are legal uses. >> suarez: what are the consequences for newborns who have been exposed to drugs during their mother's pregnancy? >> the newborns who experience drug withdrawal often are more irritable. they're inconsolable and sometimes have breathing problems. they oftentimes have difficulty feeding and loose stools. rarely they can have seizures. they're more likely to be born low birth weight. >> suarez: your study found significant increases in the cost of caring for those children. what is driving those increases? >> we found that from 2000 to 2009, the costs or the average hospital bill actually for these

newborns across the entire united states increased from $190 million to $720 million. we think that this increase is probably driven by the average length of hospital stay. these babies on average had a length of stay of around 16 days compared to all other u.s. hospital births of three days. as well as the rapid increase in the sheer number of these babies. >> suarez: what's the long-term prognosis for these babies? do we even know? >> that's a great question. the data is still out there. i think this study, i hope, will gain attention to this issue. and get more research dollars to study this. we know that over the last couple of decades that there have been some studies that have followed babies that have been exposed to opiates and found there are adult developmental delays. there are studies that show no issues. what we need are big, robust studies to follow these babies as they grow into school age and adulthood to get an idea of what the consequences are beyond the time of birth. we don't know what the consequences of some of these opiates are. we don't always know the exact consequences of some of the medicines we use to treat these babies either. >> suarez: we know many american

women get little or no prenatal care. should the prenatal care that women taking drugs are getting include more advice, more screening, more diversion to lower the number of babies born with drugs in their system? >> prenatal care is a good thing. i think anything that allows women to, you know, spend more time with their obstetrician and get good counseling will improve care. certainly from my perspective as someone who takes care of babies after they're born knowing some of these issues before the babies are born helps me identify and treat these babies most appropriately. >> suarez: dr. patrick, thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much.

>> ifill: as secretary of state clinton arrives in china for a previously scheduled visit, the obama administration's human rights policy is back in the spotlight. judy woodruff has the story. >> woodruff: for many, the images from the 1989 crackdown in tooenmen square remain the most vivid example of human rights violations in china. in 1992, then candidate bill clinton denounced those he called the butchers of beijing. eight years later, nearing the end of his time in office, president clinton signed legislation creating permanent normal trade relations with china. >> the more china opens its markets, the more it unleashes the power of economic freedom, the more likely it will be to more fully liberate the human potential of its people. >> woodruff: in august of 2008, president george w. bush criticized china's human rights record during a speech in thailand. >> america stands in firm opposition to china's detention of political dissidents and human rights advocates and religious activists.

>> woodruff: the next day mr. bush attended the opening ceremonies at the summer olympics in beijing. in 2009 china was one of the stops on hillary clinton's first trip as secretary of state. at the time she said, "pressing on those human rights issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis." but now escape dissident is apparently under the protection of american diplomats in beijing. and human rights is back at the forefront of u.s.-chinese relations. secretary clinton acknowledged as much on monday before leaving for a long scheduled trip to china. >> i can certainly guarantee that we will be discussing every matter including human rights that is pending between us. >> woodruff: that's on top of an agenda that includes the nuclear programs in iran and north korea

and a long-standing dispute over china's currency valuation. two views now on how the obama administration has handled human rights. among the many issues on the u.s.-china agenda. kenneth lieberthal directs the china center at the brookings institution. he served on the national security council during the clinton administration and sophie richardson is the advocacy director for the asia division of human rights watch. we thank you both for being with us. sophie richardson, do you first. and briefly tell us what is the state of human rights, right now, in china? and has it improved at all in the last few years? >> we're at a point in time where the chinese government has made numerous commitments to uphold and protect rights on paper and indeed the constitution was amended to that effect in 2004. and yet very few of those laws are actually upheld in the... with respect to the use of the death penalty, the lack of due processes, forced disappearances, arbitrary detention.

garden variety difficulties when people access justice. i think the gaps between what's on paper and what happens in reality is quite significant still. >> woodruff: how do you size up how the obama administration has done in dealing with this? >> well, the administration i think got off to quite a wobbly start. in the first year-and-a-half. but sort of i think found its voice and found greater confidence to talk about these issues and engage in some of the more established diplomatic practices. i don't know that they really kept up necessarily as the situation has deteriorated over the last year-and-a-half. what we would really like to see them do is not just integrate human rights concerns across a much broader and more complicated bilateral relationship than what the u.s. and china had 10 or 15 years ago but to also do a better job of not just welcoming the chinese government's rise as is mentioned in almost every speech but also to welcome the rise of

people like the dissident and the work that they're trying to do to hold their own government accountable largely because that's consistent with what the administration has said it wants. >> woodruff: of course you're refer to go the dissent who we think it is believed is in the u.s. embassy. in beijing. ken lieberthal, what about that? i mean, off to a wobbly start? maybe hasn't been consistent? how do you see the obama administration handling of human rights. >> i would give them somewhat higher marks than sophie. i think the administration decided from the start that china's major power. we have an array of very, very serious issues that we have to deal with them on. nuclear proliferation. north korea. now the south china sea. a vast array of economic and

trade issues. human rights issues. so the administration's approach has been quite clear from the start. we will stress human rights and push that as effectively as we can but we can't let any one of these issues, nuclear proliferation, human rights, economic and trade, whatever it is, to be a pre-condition of making progress in the other areas because each of these areas is vital for u.s. security, prosperity, and our relationships throughout the world. >> woodruff: sophie richardson, what about that point that in his view human rights can't be a pre-condition? >> well, look, i think while there are issues that don't necessarily have a human rights component to them that are unbelieveably important to the bilateral relationship and deserve attention, the fact of the matter is that there are quite a few issues across the relationship that fundamentally rest on better human rights protections inside china, whether you're talking about the free flow of information inside the country in anen censored press and product safety on down through a legal system that will both defend people's rights to freedom of expression and uphold contracts. human rights aren't a boutique issue that set off in one

corner. they're legal reforms and political reforms that will help the u.s. accomplish progress across the board. >> woodruff: ken lieberthal, i think if i'm hearing sophie richardson correctly she's saying that human rights are part and parcel of all those other issues including economics. >> if you look at for example our economic negotiations with china we focus on the issue that sophie has identified. we don't call them human rights issues but issues of legal reform and due process. certainly the sanctityy of contracts, protection of intellectual property rights, running your system according to your own laws and regulations. we stress those all the time. there's also a specific civil liberties dimension on this: protection of dissidents, protection of free speech and so forth. we raise that all the time. we tend to raise that less publicly because the administration thinks-- i happen to agree with them-- that a

significant part of this has to be done privately if it's going to be more effective. >> woodruff: can these conversations in private serve the need that you're saying needs to be served? can it accomplish what you're saying needs to be done? >> sure. there's plenty of room for private diplomacy. that's 90% of the diplomacy that takes place everyday. you're not going to get an argument against that. i don't think that this administration or indeed plenty of its predecessors have necessarily taken advantage of all of the opportunities they're now afforded across a much bigger relationship to connect the dots in the way that ken is suggesting happens. i don't think that happens as effectively as it could. there are points where the u.s. simply has to stand on principle and make that case publicly. i think that doesn't happen as often as it should either. >> woodruff: ken, you want to respond quickly to that. go ahead. >> i'm not sure if... how you measure whether the administration is doing everything it possibly could or not. there are a lot of areas as

sophie mentioned a number of things that effectively relate to santity of contracts and business conditions and so forth. we're very public about that. we press it constantly. we do it in bilateral interactions through our corporations, through our various trade associations and so forth. if you look at what the president has said repeatedly about china, it is that china will do better itself if it does a better job implementing its own laws and regulations, respecting the rights of its own people, recognizing that in the modern era of social media and so forth, the demands of the chinese people are such that you're not going to have stability going forward unless you're more responsive. i think the spirit is the same, whether you should do it a little more or a little less is something that frankly is very

hard to calibrate. >> woodruff: finally one sentence from each of you on what the administration should do with regard to the dissident. >> i think it's important that they do what he wants. i think the most important dimension right now is to protect him and his family members and those who helped him get out from house arrest. >> woodruff: ken lieberthal? >> total agreement with that. i think we should do what he wants if possible. that means having him stay in china but fully protected. if not possible, certainly giving him the opportunity to leave china under our protection. >> woodruff: ken lieberthal and sophie richardson, we thank you both. >> thank you. finally we come back to the lessons learned and not learned in the financial meltdown. that's tonight's subject in the edition of front line. it concludes this weekend, this evening. the report examines among other factors how the government responded to the crisis and where we are today. a case in point: the'sage of

the financial reform bill dubbed dodd frank. here's an excerpt. >> on july 21, 2010, president barack obama signed what became known tass the dodd-frank bill. >> finally because of this law, the american people will never again be asked to foot the bill for wall street's mistakes. there will be no more tax-funded bailouts, period. ( applause ) >> reporter: the bill included some rules against risk-taking by banks, limited consumer protections, and new powers for regulators. but even some at the white house admitted the reforms may not be enough. >> the weakness is that in order topr%@ get it over legislative hurdles, there were so many eyes and... i's and t's left undotted and crossed that big decisions that are actually of great importance are still being

made. and they're being made in a climate where they're not necessarily under public scrutiny, where the lobbyists have a chance to get in and sway things their way. i very much worry that we haven't learned the lessons that this crash should have taught us. in an era of this level of inter-connectedness, yeah, i worry that we haven't learned the lessons. >> the president's supporters say his greatest accomplishment has been to save the financial system from complete collapse. >> the problem for obama is the thrust of his case right now to the american public is it could have been worse. it's a hard bumper sticker "it could have been worse" on the back of your car. it's not something that you run for president on. >> that's an abstraction that can't be proven, that he prevented something that didn't happen. it's a much harder sell to say to the american people, as

he's doing in this election, "it could have been worse." it's true but it's not a very good or a very strong political argument. >> reporter: and many worry. the serious problems are still out there. >> what we have done is institutionalized "too big to fail." in many respects one crisis sows the seeds of the next crisis and i'm afraid the next one could be even larger. >> the three pieces that we really had to get right-- too big to fail, risking investments-- is a matter of opinion. those three things are three things that we really haven't solved and therefore until those are solved, we haven't dealt with the problem. >> here we are three-years-plus after and very little has changed. in many respects the financial crisis never ended. it never ended. people seem to think about this financial crisis as one

in which there was a run-up to september 2008, a bailout, and then the crisis passed. but in fact those clouds are still hanging over the global economy. and they're still filled with risk. this crisis really never ended. >> ifill: money, power and wall street airs on front line tonight. that's on most pbs stations. >> brown: again the major developments of this day. president obama made a surprise visit to afghanistan. he signed an agreement on a long-term u.s. commitment. then he addressed the nation saying the light of a new day is dawning after years of war. he also said that the defeat of al qaeda is within reach one year after the raid that killed osama bin laden. also today the f.b.i. arrested five men in an alleged bomb plot to bomb a bridge near cleveland, ohio. and a deeply divided parliamentary committee in britain condemned media magnate rupert murdoch.

the panel's report came months after investigating illegal phone hacking by a murdoch tabloid. online we have a story that will interest investors. hari sreenivasan explains. >> sreenivasan: if you're underwater on your mortgage, you owe more than it's worth. but what about holders of devalued stocks? can they walk away? paul solman answers a reader's question about that on his making sense page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> ifill; and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, schools grappling with ways to teach climate science. i'm gwen ifill. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. and we'll be here again tomorrow evening. for now, thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> citi turns 200 this year. in that time, there have been some good days and some difficult ones.

but through it all, we persevered. supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. >> by nordic naturals. >> at&t. >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy, productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org