do that work. and another -- earlier this week, there was a research project that led to the first attempt to have a live person tested on this. this is how breathtaking this work is in the state of wisconsin. scott does not support the embryonic research. he says >> i contacted the scientists in said is this right? they said of course it is. there is some work being done and that is good, but there is other work done with the embryonic stem cells. politicians should not be telling scientists what they should do. there was an economic component as well. he said he was going to cut off

funding and it was an immediate reaction. he said i have $2 million in federal grants and will lead this state. high-tech, cutting edge work and he says he is pro-business. he will force these companies to leave this state? >> please address that? >> my wife who is here with me tonight is a type 1 diabetics. i have two people in my office with ms, so i want to find a cure. four years ago jim doyle used this in his political playbook, but the major potential for cures is coming from an adult stem cell research. that is a scientific fact. what we are talking about is

putting state resources behind ethical stem cell research. people support that. that is where i want to put our state resources. when it comes to research and development, the university of wisconsin hit the $1 billion threshold this weekend. we need to be aggressive in moving that ford because it ties into economic development. i will be an advocate of that working with the new chancellor or other campuses across wisconsin. we don't need to be caught up in the political controversy when science has shown us the most promise for cures is with adult stem cell research. i would take the dollars the stimulus has and put those into the greatest potential.

we are talking about the dollar's the state has and putting them behind the greatest potential. >> but in a questionnaire in which they said you answered, you said you would stop using an erratic -- stop using every onyx stem cells. will you stop the embryonic stem cell research? >> the place you have controlled as governor is state resources. we have actually seen success when it comes to adult stem cell research. >> howard would like to redirect. >> there is a difference between supporting an initiative and

giving it a high priority. if there had not been flagging in the past three years there could have been a stem cell of initiatives that went ahead. maybe people like my wife may not have died. >> politicians should not be dictating what world-class scientists are doing. >> i agree, that is one -- that is why we should be putting it to the greatest area of potential. they have shifted dollars away from the adult stem cells to embryonic. >> we will talk about jobs again. let's go to madison. something that has been talked about in the last few months. >> both campaigns make a lot of their support for manufacturing jobs.

one thing we learned is innovation in manufacturing is critical to these companies be able to compete globally. what they need to do that is money. a person lot more qualified than i will ask this question. >> innovation is what makes companies competitive in the global market. it helps them expand opportunity and the ability for companies to obtain the capital for these ventures. what role do you believe government should play in facilitating the meeting of businesses and venture-capital? >> places like ohio are doing some interesting things. >> there was a plan put out earlier this year. it was townsend -- the wisconsin

counties association funded this study. they talked about a series of initiatives to move these data forward. one of them would include a fund that would attract businesses that want to start. i embraced it. i said these are the things i would like to see done. i don't think it is bold enough. we have to tap into more resources to make it more effective. part of the plans we talked about is facing out the retirement income. one of the biggest challenges we have is the fact there is not enough capital. for the venture capitalists one of the biggest challenges is because of the high tax on retirement income. we need to redirect that money

back to wisconsin so we altman they can tap into those resources invest in new companies. you are not going to do that if that climate continues where it is at today. >> in my plan we have a specific section on this. i would put into affect the venture capital fund. we will match it with $500 million in private funds. i have been in communities throughout the state. i want to make sure small businesses can get access to capital because too many banks are not making these loans. until that happens we will be in trouble. i want us to be an active player. 98% of the businesses are small

employers. we have to focus on that. my father was a small businessman. it is important for us to have that capital there. >> i would point out on the small business component, on day one we will call an economic emergency and call a special session. one of the first things we will do is act on tax cuts for small businesses to put more people to work. >> in 2008 he disbanded his office of economic development. >> let me go to lacrosse. go ahead. >> we have some private landowners in our group.

they are concerned about their rights and promoting renewable energy. wisconsin trails neighboring states compared to other states. as governor come up would you support regulations and increase incentives that would lead to more windfarms? >> it is important to have this balance. you do have in rural areas flicker issues. you have to make sure landowners are buying into this. other states have been more successful. we have gotten legislation to allow us to move forward. what is important is to have rules that will allow other landowners to be treated fairly. the reason i support this is right now the state export $16

billion per year. we have to find ways to have more of that energy produced here. whether it is windfarms, other things that allows farmers to use waste to create energy, solar energy, we have to find ways to make sure we are not exporting dollars. i will work on a bipartisan basis to come up with a plan for us to have more energy efficiency and conservation. >> we definitely have to strike a balance. we talked about our plan to create 250,000 more jobs. that does not mean more government mandates. wind energy, lifting the lid on the moratorium on nuclear, all

those have to be components of a strong energy policy. not just for manufacturers, but that is the key difference in this race. the governor pushed forward a plan that would create a mandate. the mayor talked about an issue last year and said he would advocate to aggressively bring that bill back up and pass it. that bill would cost us 43,000 jobs. we cannot afford to lose that. that would drive up the cost of energy, make it more expensive for employers and individuals.

>> it is a mistake to export $16 billion a year on coal and oil. it puts us at a competitive disadvantage internationally. >> i corrupt in a small town. the green is about making it cost effective to save money by saving the environment. you don't do it through mandates. >> the big issue in this race is jobs in wisconsin. we will go back to the citizen group. they had a question about jobs there. go ahead. >> unemployment is about 11.7%. many have been looking for jobs for months.

there just are no jobs. ray is here with a question on jobs. >> central wisconsin has lost several sources of employment. what will you do using the tools available to you as governor to promote central wisconsin as a desirable place to do business? >> do no harm, the measure i just talked about, the bill the governor just pushed would -- one of the biggest areas it would hurt this paper mills. i will not do any harm to that. i will make it more cost- effective to create jobs. the other part is getting government out of the web. i was at a loss a little while ago. the company that makes ceiling

fans. they talked about wanting to create more jobs. they are in a position where they have enough business and would like to add more jobs but cannot justify it in wisconsin. we have a great work force, a great natural resources. we have to change that. that employer wants to add those jobs in wisconsin and not moving outside the state. >> you can see the difference between our approach as. as the mayor i think that the assets they have are great. there are other is a natural resources at work. we need a governor who will be a promoter. scott has been saying how bad everything is. you don't sell a house or a

dress by saying how lousy it is. i don't understand how he thinks he will be the great promoter when he is saying how bad it is. he has done in here in milwaukee. i am out there trying to meet with these companies and he says it is a lousy place to do business and he has a government that is bordering on bankruptcy. if we will have a government after scott walker leadership , it is tinkering on bankruptcy. all he says is this is a messy person -- lousy place to do business. you have to roll up your sleeves and get things done. not going around and that nothing everything.

>> 30 seconds. >> the bottom line is look at what happened a generation ago when tommy thompson first ran for governor. we lost 178,000 jobs. we had a huge budget hole and legislators raised taxes. tommy thompson said we can do better. he took that attitude forward and in his first term it tackled those challenges head on. it is the government that is doing this. i did not bad mouth the people or the employers, i bad mouthed the government. i will do the same thing and more in the next four years.

>> you have a government that is failing and tinkering on the bankruptcy. eight years of leadership and tinkering on bankruptcy. >> the credit report says strong bond rating. they would not say that if they were not significant about the fact we have strong -- >> our group wanted to know about the person. we hear about so many matters and we have a dairy farmer and mother of two. you have education-your heart. this should not cause much of an argument. what life experiences prepare you to deal with the deficit and tax situation in our state? >> we have one minute.

>> i have three teenagers, so i have a supportive wife who is with me tonight. i deal with this issue is at home. i balance my budget at home. that is an important part of this. >> i would agree. that is part of the reason why i run a positive campaign. talking about growing up down away from you. i learned a lot from my parents and grandmother who was raised during the great depression. i still drive the same saturn i bought in the 1990 cost and still pack a lunch each day. those are the life experiences passed on to how i got here. don't spend money you don't have and people create jobs, not

the government. >> thank you. >> we just got a few minutes left. there has not been much talk about social issues, the culture war issues. whether it is sexual education practices being taught. are they relevant this year? >> the bottom line is jobs. people cared at that time what he was going to do to get the state working again. >> it will not be a priority, but what does this do to bring jobs in. >> is it relevant? >> it is clearly about jobs. there are other issues out there. i support a woman's right to

choose. even in cases of rape or incest. people in committed relationships should have legal protections. for most people the economic issues are important. i will not do what scott did and support a district attorney who talked about prosecuting teachers for teaching age appropriate sex education. >> nice talking points out of d.c.. the bottom line is we will talk about jobs. that last event -- last debate i treated like a job interview. when i was at a family restaurant nobody asked me about anything else except for jobs and health care. >> i have about a minute left. a judge this week said they ban on wisconsin's law that says you

cannot carry a concealed weapon is unconstitutional. i would like to get your view. would you support a new law that says you can carry a concealed weapon? >> 48 other states have that. it is sensible. the law jim doyle vetoed would require -- law enforcement officials -- sheriff deputies support me because they know it makes sense. >> your vote against it was for a different reason? >> i said no bill that comes up in the middle of the night should be voted on. >> i support the second amendment. i don't want concealed weapons at will league games, church festivals.

>> we will hold it right there. what we want to do now as wrap up our citizen groups and leave you some time for some closing statements. he left to each with one minute. mr. walker is first. >> thank you to you and the people around the state. i am running for governor because i love this state. i believe the governor we have now is taking us down the wrong path. i grew up in a small town. there is no place in the world better to live in and to raise a family. there is no place better than wisconsin. what is failing us is not our people or our places, what is failing us is our government.

we the people can reclaim our rightful place in history just like tommy thompson did a generation ago. we can put the government back on this side of the people. the people of the state never stopped believing in each other we need someone to stand up to take our government back. eight years ago i helped lead a grass-roots movement to take back our government. with your help on november 2, that is exactly what we will do. >> thank you for watching tonight. i am running for governor for three reasons, to fight for jobs, bringing madison on a state dye it and provide supervision on the state capital. i whether it -- my mother went to a school-madison.

-- went to a school in madison. they married and moved to milwaukee. that is where they raised me and my siblings. they taught us to tell the truth and take responsibility for your actions. these are the same rules my wife and i tried to teach our kids. but right now families are scared because of this economy. they think too many politicians made promises and kicked the can down the road. we need straight talk. i am focusing on putting madison on a diet. this is really about you and who you trust. we need a governor who will be on our side and fight for the middle class. i want to be that governor. please vote for me on november 2.

>> we want to thank the candidates for being with us. we want to thank everyone for joining us. a special thanks to our host and other sponsors tonight. we will be right back next week same time with a town hall challenge and the candidates for u.s. senate. we hope you will join us for that conversation. we hope you have a great evening. good night. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the midterm elections are less than two weeks away. we are showing debates from key races around the country. voters will be electing governors next month and democrats are defending 19 streets -- 19 seats. our prime-time coverage begins at 8:00 with the live debate and democratic incumbent -- the florida gov.'s debate and the connecticut governor debate.

voters head to the polls in two weeks. follow the key races on the c- span networks. archived debates on line at the c-span video library and at our politics page, hanan pence and other resources. follow election coverage right through election day. >> at 6:30 we will have a discussion with the pakistan foreign minister who is in washington for three days of talks on the country's economic and infrastructure development. that is coming up shortly. more about the midterm elections and how money is being spent around the country. >> joining us is the editor in chief of "hot line" reid wilson.

how much money has been spent in the 2010 cycle? guest: we are talking about billions of dollars by the time this is over. some estimates put this north of $4 billion spent both on the federal races and higher if you include state races. a lot of this is coming from outside groups. the candidates themselves have been raising plenty of money. they are being swamped by the outside groups. host: does the citizens united case affect this election? guest: it is the foundation for why so much money is pouring in. it led to the creation of super pacts which can raise unlimited amounts of money so long as they disclose the. disclosing that money to they

sec or the irs, they can raise unlimited money from corporations and spend that money on an ad campaigns. host: what were some of the biggest groups spending money? guest: 1 group having an impact is american crossroads. it is advised by did gillespie -- ed gillespie and karl rove. they were aiming to spend $50 million on the house races around the country. they recently increased that to $65 million because they have had success raising this cash. president obama started challenging them to disclose more and talk about where their

money was coming from. after he made american crossroads a big target they raised more than $13 million in a single week. president obama turned out to the american crossroads biggest contributor. we are looking at americans for prosperity and the american freedom fund cut which is a conservative group based in iowa. the one thing that all these groups have in common is they are backing republican candidates. on the democratic side, democrats have a lot of success in the 2004 and 2008-raising big amounts of money. this year big donors are sitting on their hands. seen -- as we have seen on the right. host: as we get to individual races, which are the most

expensive? guest: the big race everybody is spending a lot of money -- money on is the colorado senate race. senator michael bennett who was appointed after tens salazar became interior secretary, he has been raising money at a really fast clip for a colorado senate candidate. he was largely unknown as the chief of denver schools when he was elevated to the senate. a kind of an unconventional picked by the governor. his republican rival can block -- ken buck has not been raising a lot of money but it is a close race. buck is ahead of a point or two at the moment. outside groups have spentthat $y from conservative organizations, but the democratic senatorial campaign committee has made this a priority.

one thing we have seen from all this outside spending, it is almost uniformly negative. the ads running in colorado have run of the negatives for both. neither candidate has a net favorable rating. both are seen by most voters as unfavorable choices. host: when you look at the money being spent in colorado, a lot is coming from interest groups, from outside the state. is that true? guest: absolutely. what we are seeing is these outside constituents are giving a lot of money. christine o'donnell had an amazingly successful fund- raising month after the primary. that money came largely from

outside the state. only 1.3% of the money that she raised actually came from delaware voters. that averaged out to $40,000. what we are really seeing is a nationalization of fundraising and donating from the country, thanks to the internet, thanks to the ability of the ability to donate with just a click of the button. host: reid wilson, the illinois senate race, expensive? >> yes, mark kirk, the republican nominee, is running neck and neck with the state treasurer.

the illinois primary is back in this is another one of those races where both candidates have unfavorable matings -- unfavorable ratings. we are likely to see a winner having only 146% of the vote. ote. both sides believe they can be the winner. host: it is still neck-and-neck? >> we have some internal polling that shows that kirk had an advantage. this race is coming down to the wire. one thing to be careful about,

both parties have pollsters who have assumptions about what the electorate will look like. reid wilson is our guest. what about the senate majority leader's race? how much money has been spent in the back? >> harry reid has promised to spend $25 million for his reelection bid.

angle has now become the cause celeb in her effort. in fact, i did some back of the honorable of the other day. it is more than christopher dodd, joe wilson, and bill richardson raising in their first candidacy. that tells you about the celebration going around sharon angle's candidacy. everyone wants to say that they reelected or not of the senate majority leader. republicans have been spending a lot of money through the crossroads organizations, as well as a number of organizations outside of the state.

one thing that is worrying republicans in the nevada contest is the fact that we have not seen a huge amount of television advertising from union organizations. those unions, republican worry, are spending more money on turnout operations. there are really not that many of undecided voters, so it will be all about turnout. we have seen thousands of people on both sides turning out to cast their ballots before election day. one thing that was interesting about the race -- i was covering a house contest. if you turn on the tv, at least half, if not three out of the four advertisements you see on tv is a political advertisement. not a single one of them will be positive.

they are simply dominating the airwaves in a state that does not have a lot of media markets. host: we saw an article this morning in "the new york times" about the coke brothers fund- raising and planning for the election cycle. >> they are behind one of the organization spending so much money. they have been active in politics going on three decades now. they have had a substantial impact. it is fair to say the tea party movement owes its early organizational success to money put in by the coke brothers. we see them all over the country behind americans for prosperity, the cato institute. they have an influence over how

not only we talk about politics, but how politics is run, as an americans for prosperity. host: first phone call. charlotte. larry, republican line. caller: we are hearing a lot on the news about corporate donations, all of it going to republicans. i remember in september 2008, obama collected $150 million in one month and broke all campaign records. virtually all lawyers and unions give to the democrats. if you look at the top 20 who give to political campaigns,

half of them are unions. guest: that is a good point. one thing that is worrying republicans is they are not seeing the money that unions are spending. that means instead of spending their money on the tv ads that might try to sway an undecided voter, they are spending money trying to turn out their vote, get people to the polls. that will be a big factor this year when turnout has been down from last year. getting those base, democratic union voters out to the polls will be a big deal. if their labor unions are doing a lot, it could shift all lot of boats to the democratic side.

ahead -- a lot of boats to the democratic side. democrats have made a point of going after these organizations who do not disclose where their money is being spent. that has become a little bit problematic, given the fact that a number of white house officials, prominent democratic strategists, have worked for similar groups like this. i do not think anybody can remember a particular race in which campaign spending has become a dominant issue that moves boats. host: andy, chicago. independent line. caller: i wanted to describe my ideal election cycle, which would be only two months long. i get really tired of watching

the negative ads, sitting through the general election cycle. you have eight months of the politicians saying the same words and phrases over and over, spending millions of dollars to do this. my intelligence is consulted about these ads about mark kirk and how evil he is. they may as well he is -- they may as well say he is a sit-in worshiper. it does not increase anyone's knowledge about the issues. i just want to throw out my ideal -- people would describe their platform for a couple of months, people would vote, and it would be over. guest: i think that that is probably coming next week, if it has not run already. the caller brings up a good point. negative adds reduces turn out.

-- ads reduces turnout. if you take a look around the country, right before labor day, there were 46 house democrats who were on the air running television advertisements. i asked one of the top democratic strategists who follows these campaigns closely, how many are negative? he said, i hope all of them are. at this time, people are not voting for a candidate, but more against. if you can convince your constituents and that someone is an inside washington player who loves to hang out with big money, you have a better chance to win your election rather than going in and saying here is my

plan to cut taxes. that is all we are seeing, this nonstop barrage of negative advertising. that will really drive down turnout at the end. host: what about house races? do you know more of the expensive ones? guest: yes, the race in nevada between joe heck and dina tidus. is gettinge ,tidu, tidus a lot of money from organizations like the league of conservative voters. she cannot actually coordinate with these groups, but they are putting advertisements on on her behalf. they are spending a lot of money

in those districts. another thing that she is getting is union money. she is getting the benefits from the service employees union and others. they have been spending the money to get voters out to the polls early. the highest by far in the nation in terms of getting the early vote out. i was there over the weekend and they had a forum to discuss their issues, and then they all went over to vote. so far, we have seen more democrats vote and tidus'

district, but as a percentage, republicans are said they had, which is not unexpected. the republican is getting quite a bit of money from unions as well. they have come in with massive advertising. democrats are spending as much as republicans are but at the moment, it looks like the republican candidate could be running ahead. the democratic campaign committee and republican campaign committee have made this race a high priority. host: we are talking about money and politics with reid wilson of "hotline." he has written for the new republic, "arizona capital times," a graduate of george

washington university. where did you grow up? guest: i am actually from seattle where there are some great races going on. the democratic campaign committee just released some new ad buys. $13 million in new democratic ad spending. two of the ski races are in washington state. one is in the extreme northwest corner where rick larsen is facing a surprisingly strong challenge from the man he beat last year. he may be a bit too conservative in the average year, but this is a big republican wave. democrats are spending a lot of money on behalf of rick larsen, someone who they did not think would be a republican target.

the other great race is right along the pacific ocean coast. there are two strong candidates. there is a democrat named denny heck. he is a former state legislator, chief of staff to a popular governor. he started a version of c-span in washington state which runs all of the legislative hearings. the democratic congressional campaign committee dropping $450,000 into that race. that is one of the top three races that democrats are spending on. republicans believe they are very far ahead here. it is a race that will be turned

out -- determined by the turnout. washington state election law -- it is all mail-in. democrats and republicans just need to get their constituents to get their forms turned back in. but their efforts are really about educating them for this month and then filling out their ballots before they send them in. host: what about the senate race? guest: patty murray is facing a tough race against dino rossi. he is a former statewide candidate. he ran for governor in 2004 and lost 130 votes statewide. in 2008, and tino rossi ran

again, came within six points of beating the former governor. the no rossi clearly has a right to appeal -- dino rossi clearly appeal. a right to appea you can really cut down the democratic margin with him, and that is their key. democrats believe that patty murray will be safe. however, there is new public polling that shows turn leading by just a single point. so this race will come down to the wire. if it is a close race, it is not something we will know about on november 3, because of the way that washington counts their votes. it could take weeks.

the congressman from the belle view area, east of seattle had to wait a couple of weeks to see if he had won re-election in the past. it will take a long time to count these ballots and it will be a contentious race. both sides are spending a lot of money. american crossroads, the american action network, both republican organizations, have been spending heavily. the conservative groups the spending on rossi, democrats spending on patty murray. host: does each voter have to put their stamp on it, has it reached a point of e-vote? yet.: not

there are some jurisdictions that are testing electronic voting. they invited some hackers to try to come in and break down the system. i think it took them less than one hour to do so. electronic voting could still be far into the future. what we are seeing now is the growth of the early voting in key places around the country. we are also seeing absentee ballots becoming a more prevalent thing. you really have a couple of days to fill out your ballot rather than a 12-hour window when the polls are open. that drives turnout way up. washington and oregon are the states that do this. host: how is this affecting turnout and how you ensure anonymity?

guest: turnout has gone up in both states. it will be interesting to see where it is this year coming off of a presidential election cycle. it is expected to be well hire the average turnaround in elections that are not all mail- in. the anonymity part is the same as almost anything else that you would see in a regular polling place. when you send back the absentee ballot, you put it into an envelope, then into a second envelope with your signature, but then once it is open, it just becomes one in the pile. nobody knows who you voted for. host: next phone call. caller: thank you, c-span. i wonder, mr. wilson, if you can explain the supreme court decision that has led us to where we are with all of this

outside spending. what did that decision say, how did the votes come down with the justices? i wonder if you believe public financing is a solution to this problem? guest: this was a case that has been argued before. in march of last year, they argued this. citizens united had produced a video called "hilary, the movie" and they wanted to put it on demand. it was essentially an anti- hillary clinton campaign commercial that was 16 minutes. the local court said you cannot do that. citizens united sued them. they had gone corporate money for what was essentially a campaign video.

citizens in knighted said that they should be allowed to -- united said that they should be allowed to produce the video. the case looked at the way that we regulate campaign finance law, otherwise known as mccain fine gold. the supreme court -- mccain- feingold. justice alito said that these outside organizations could not regulate. it allowed corporate donations in unregulated amounts. so instead of somebody being limited to giving $500 to a political action committee, someone could donate $1 million. that money has flowed relatively freely now from individuals into organizations like american

crossroads. the interesting thing is there has been a few more challenges and largely a group of folks who are trying to challenge campaign finance laws are around the country. an sec commissioner has been stalwart against some of these reforms. conservatives consider this a violation of the first amendment. really, the ringleader of the whole thing is senate leader mitch mcconnell. he is someone who has been an advocate of the first amendment for a long time, against the campaign finance laws, which limits the speech of folks around the country. a congressman from indiana has brought forth a number of cases involving campaign finance law. he was in the citizens united case.

ted olson, the former solicitor general, also argued the case in front of the supreme court. there is a wide network of folks who oppose these finance measures who have been quite successful lately because of this 5-4 supreme court majority. host: kevin, silver spring, maryland. independent line. please go ahead with your question. kevin, are you with us? moving on to queens, new york. michael. caller: hello? i just wanted to remind everyone how important accountability and disclosure is. you are talking about all of this wasted money in iraq. dollarsve billions of mone

went missing. you have to follow the money. we have to find out where this money is coming from. guest: in a lot of cases, these groups are filing with the irs. in some cases, they do not have to. the u.s. chamber of commerce, and other groups like that, under well-established tax laws do not have to say where the money is coming from. democrats are trying to make this a big issue. they have been pushing a number of groups to get the funding for these ads into the public domain. that has not been successful yet. host: next phone call from from -- come from california. sarah, independent line.

-- next phone call comes from california. caller: these candidates who have lost a reelection in the past, or are running for the first time, does their income tax count in terms of them seeking a job? can they collect unemployment when they lose their job? my suggestion is you start running a streamer on the bottom of the screen so that people can turn down their tv so that you do not have to repeat yourself. guest: i do not know about the unemployment benefits, i am sorry to say. there are some candidates who will lose, some income that members who will become unemployed very quickly.

i do not know if they can claim unemployment. on the income tax, a candidate who contributes to their own campaign follows most of the same rules that you or i would, in that a contribution to a political organization is not tax deductible. there are some that have spent millions on their own campaign this year. the one thing they can do, they can contribute more than the federal maximum. if you were contributing to your local member of congress, you could only contribute $240. if this is your own campaign, it is unlimited. linda mcmahon donated $20 million to her own campaign. she has contributed more than $41 million in the effort to take back a democratic seat. in california, meg whitman has donated $140 million to her own

campaign. that is enough to buy a luxury airliner. they do not get tax breaks but they can contribute unlimited amounts. host: we have a question on twitter -- i am guessing how many past elections have been included how do you pick the bellwether districts? guest: we will start with the states that vote in a presidential year. they are largely seen as ohio and missouri. they had picked so many correct candidates in the presidential contest, until 2008, when john mccain won the state by a few thousand. they are considered a bellwether because if a republican does not

win it, they are not likely to win the election. bellwether districts, though, that is more than an art than a science. kentucky is a great state because it closes very early on election night, around 6:30. there is a difficult race going on there. both democrats and republicans are spending money in this district. kentucky is coal country. it will be tough because the democrats voted for cap and trade in legislation. if that seat clips, because chandler has been such a member of congress, has been good to his constituents, has built himself a foundation, if the district flips, we will know

early, and it will likely be a bad night for democrats. in 2006, when nothrup lost turbid in louisville, everyone thought it was going to be a bad night for republicans and ended up losing the majority. that will be indicative of how things go for the rest of the night. host: bassett, virginia. rikki, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning, peter. good morning, reid. guest: good morning. caller: i was curious about that race for the house seat in south dakota. guest: a great race. stephanie hurst has been in congress three terms now. she has a great name.

her family has been involved in politics in south dakota for a long time. she is young, she has an attractive family. she has everything going for her except for the d after her name. christy nom has everything going for her as well. she has everything she needs to run a good campaign. she is not some terrible person that you can paint as an extremist, so this one will go down to the wire. democrats just contributed $70,000 to this race. that can go a long way on tv in a place like south dakota. hurst and sandelin will be

involved in a tough race. i would not doubt her, though. she has been a political heavyweight. host: because of the economy, can you tell if individuals contributing to campaigns is down? guest: actually, it is up. the incredible thing about these midterm elections, outside groups, even those $25, $50 contributors, across the country, that spending is up. this election will cost more than the 2008 election. we are not even going to remember the amount of spending in this election in a couple of years. one big thing that these groups are planning for is 2012.

in the words of quite a few of them, 2012 will blow 2010 out of the water. this is the practice run for what will happen in 2012. host: louis, democrat. you are next. caller: taking money that comes from my union checks is totally wrong because of where it goes. i do not know of one dime that has come out of my check on a local level that has gotten a job for anyone in my community. those at the upper level, those who are the business agents, the main representatives who make decisions on where this money

goes, yes, they have benefited from this by giving a $5,000 check. host: have you ever figured out how much you spend in union dues? guest: that would be fascinating. caller: i will sit down one day and try to figure that out. my point is, i just got a letter in the mail of my union telling me these are the people we want you to vote for. these people do not permit -- represent me as a union worker, they represent their own ideology. guest: is an interesting point. i would love it if you could find out how much you spend over

the years. one of the things that a lot of people are complaining about is that union money. every time democrats go after these conservative organizations and say, where are you getting your money from, corporations? conservative organizations say that the democrats are taking money away from working folks who may not necessarily want to support these democratic candidates. the union dues that the caller has paid have gone to creating a few jobs, a largely canvassers working for democratic organizations, candidates. that may not be what he wants his money spent on. host: finally, you are getting called out on this tweet -- guest: i have not seen any evidence of that.

it is an argument, a point that you can bring up, and it is affected if you want to tag the republican party as beholden to corporate interest, shady deals, but on local level, i do not think anyone is going to vote for hurst sandelin because her ads were not supported by corporate donations. host: 1 more for you. -- one more for you -- guest: republicans in the 39 seats to take back the house. at the moment, they are likely to get something in the high- 40's. in terms of net gains, it is

becoming tenuous. in the senate, it could be the first year in modern times where the house lipscomb but the senate does not. there are a number of cases that are flipping >> campaign news from the political wire. niki haley's lead appears to be slipping in her race to be south carolina's governor. it is down two. the race is being called an essential dead heat. the midterm elections are less than two weeks away. each night we are showing

debates around the country. at 8 eastern here on c-span, the illinois governor's the bay -- debate. then the florida governor's debate and the pennsylvania senate debate, and the connecticut governor's debate. about 40 minutes from now, of pakistan -- at pakistani foreign minister will be at the brookings institute. they are in washington for three days of talks. we will see that live on c-span at 6:30 p.m. eastern, coming up shortly. the government today announced the sale of arms to saudi arabia. the $60 billion deal included satellites and bombs. congress has 30 days to review the agreement.

state department and defense department officials briefed reporters for about an hour. >> >> it is a great pleasure to have in our briefing room today, the state department's assistant secretary for political-military affairs andrew shapiro as well as the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs alexander burst out. both are with us today to -- vershbow. both are here today to announce a major arms deal. >> thank you for coming. ambassador burst out -- first vote and i are here to officially announce the administration's plan to sell to this kingdom of saudi arabia a significant defense package that will promote regional security and enhance the defensive capabilities of an important gulf partner with him with a longstanding and close security relationship.

there been a number of press reports anticipating this sale. those of you who tried to have question us about it, you know it is u.s. government policy not to comment on any possible arms sales until formal congressional notification has taken place. often for major arms sales such as this one, a lot of work has to be done before we can notify, including discussions within the u.s. government, interagency bilateral discussions with the receiving government, not to mention pre-consultations with congressional staff and members. that said, we are undertaking this sale because it supports our wider regional security goals in the gulf by deepening our security relationship with a key partner with whom we have enjoyed a solid security relationship for nearly 70 years. the me just take a couple of minutes to describe how this potential arms -- we view this potential arms sale package as benefiting the united states and advancing u.s. national security.

the administration analyzed saudi arabia's request for these new aircraft within the context of the u.s. government's conventional arms transfer policy, which outlines a criteria that includes the country's legitimate security needs and broader security objectives. in accordance with the arms export control act, the secretary of state is responsible for providing continuous supervision and general direction of arms sales. this includes determining whether proposed arms sales or export of defense articles and services are authorized and ensuring that they best serve u.s. foreign policy. in practice, this responsibility falls to the under-secretary of state for arms control and international security ellen tauscher and is enacted by the bureau of political-military affairs. the bureau of political-military affairs is the department's lead for arms sales request and has worked closely on the sale with

counterparts at the department of defense who are responsible for implementing foreign military sales. i am happy to say that we have accomplished all the hard work necessary to complete this package and this interagency effort has been a top priority for both secretary gates and secretary clinton and reflects the strong cooperation between our to bar mr. support our wider national security goals. this morning the defense security, or russian -- defense security cooperation agency transmitted to congress four formal notifications. the most significant items in these potential fms sales include 84 f-15 aircraft, 70 upgrades of existing saudi f- 15s to a more advanced configuration, 70 ah-64d apache longbow helicopters, 72 uh-60 blackhawk helicopters, 36 ah-6i light attack helicopters, and 12 md-530f light training

helicopters. we have hard copies of dsca's press of these -- press release available describing in more detail the aircraft platforms and the accompanying weapons systems. dsca plans to publish these releases on its website very shortly. i do want to emphasize that the dollar value of these potential sales reflects only estimates. we have worked closely with the saudi government to identify their full requirements and believe the proposed packages are sufficient. given the defense requirements being pursued by saudi arabia, it may choose not to fully fund all four of these programs. the final amount of the sale may well turn out not to -- may well be less than the not to exceed estimate provided by dsca as ultimately depend on what the saudi government decides to purchase and on the outcome of

contract negotiations with into -- with industry. this proposed sale has tremendous significance from a strategic review journal for pat -- has tremendous significance from a strategic regional perspective. it will spend a strong message to countries in the region that we're committed to support the security of our key partners and allies in the arabian gulf and broader middle east. and it will enhance saudi arabia's ability to deter and defend against threats to its borders and to its oil infrastructure, which is critical to our economic interests. at the same time, we took into account how this sale is appropriate from a regional political-military perspective and concluded it would not negatively impact israel's security interests or israel's qualitative military edge. all now turn it over to ambassador vershbow, will have more to say about the benefits

of the sales and how it advances u.s. security interests. >> thanks very much, andrew. after many months of work, the department of defense is pleased to have the saudi aviation package now moving forward in the congress. as andrew said, over the last 70 years the united states and saudi arabia have worked closely to establish, maintain, and develop very strong bilateral defense ties. with that seven-decade period as background, dod takes great pride in advancing our defense relations with the saudis through this proposed sale. secretary gates was pleased to have played a direct role in his engagement with king abdallah and other saudi leaders in coming to an agreement on the proposed configuration of the f- 15 as a -- the f-15 as saying -- f-15sa.

if approved, this program will be implemented over 15 to 20 years, which means that our defense bond with the saudis will only continue to grow deeper or stronger. second, we're pleased that the saudis look to the u.s. air force and u.s. army for meeting their defense requirements. the u.s. air force and u.s. army have excellent relationships in saudi arabia and we believe the capabilities being offered will provide saudi arabia with a strong defensive capability for generations to come. as many of you know, for the past 20 years the f-15 has been the cornerstone of the u.s. air force and royal saudi air force relationship. the procurement of the new f- 15sa, which stands for saudi advanced aircraft, and the conversion of the existing f- 15s s lead to the common

configuration, and the possible training contingent in the continental u.s. will provide sustained professional contacts as well as common training and support well into the 21st century. as for the helicopters -- the apaches, blackhawks, and little birds -- we believe that these versatile platforms will be able to conduct a number of missions in saudi arabia essential for the kingdom self-defense. we foresee these helicopters providing area security for saudi military forces, protecting the borders, and defending energy infrastructure sites and installations. lastly, this sale will enable saudi arabia to be more interoperable with the united states and its partners in the region. by increasing our collective capabilities, not only will our partners be able to take on greater multilateral roles, but specifically the department of defense will be of a free up u.s. forces in the region, maximizing the effectiveness of

our global force posture. with ask, andrew and i are ready to take questions. >> you mentioned a couple of times the specifics, and then you were very cautionary about the not to exceed and you didn't tell us how much it was. >> i think that you can add up the totals. i believe it comes to not to exceed $60 billion. >> there is another package in the works, a naval package? >> we are not notifying a naval package today. >> but is there a naval package in the works? >> i am not compared to comment on anything that we are not notifying today. >> who does saudi arabia need to defend itself against with this hardware? >> i think that they have got a number of threats in the region. rework together closely with them on counterterrorism. it is a dangerous neighborhood, as you know, and we want to ensure that they have the tools that they need to be able to

defend themselves against all manner of threats in the region. >> you're not saying that the saudis expect to use f-15s against al qaeda, are you? >> i think that -- >> let's not beat around the bush. this is about iran. >> this is about support. it is not solely about iran. it is about helping the saudis with their legitimate security needs. >> is that one of them? >> shore. they live in a dangerous neighborhood and we are helping them preserve their and protect their security in a dangerous neighborhood against legitimate security threats. >> i am intrigued by what you said about freeing up forces in the region. which forces exactly? what does that mean exactly? how is this package going to help the united states free up forces? are you expecting the saudis to

step in and do some of what you have been doing? >> you have to put this in a long-term perspective. this will ensure the continued modernization of the saudi air force. this is a reinvestment on their part. when the program for the f-15's is completed, they will have roughly the same aircraft but of greater capability. and when one looks at future challenges, having allies throughout the gulf region who are interoperable with u.s. forces who are capable, have trained together with our forces, it means that we have partners and allies we can look to in future contingencies. so it means we may have to station fewer forces on a continuing basis in the region. but that is speculative as to what exactly might play out in the future. it is important to see that a lot of our friends and allies in the region share a perception

of the security risks that we face today. i think this demonstrates the saudi commitment to continuing to play their part in support of the common objectives of our two countries and their other gcc neighbors. >> israel was opposing this deal. have you made them any guarantees? >> as i said before, as part of our process we assess whether we conduct an independent assessments of what the impact would be on israel's qualitative military edge. our assessment is that this would not diminish israel's qualitative military edge. we felt comfortable in going forward with the sale. >> on the same question, without being able to address this in specifics, we have consulted with israel as this sale has

taken shape. and there have been high-level discussions as well as working level discussions. i think it's fair to say that based on what we've heard how levels, israel does not object to this sale. >> spinning off from that same idea, mr. shapiro, you so that you assessed the impact of this. in the region in general, is there the possibility that this might spark a conventional arms race, increase the tension in that region rather than guaranteeing it? >> know, and that is a very good question. i made reference to our conventional arms transfer policy. that is one of the things that we look at. we do not want our arms sales to be disabling. in our view, this arms sale has the opposite impact by providing greater security capability for a key partner in the region, and that we think it will enhance regional stability and security rather than

diminish it. >> the helicopters, are they designed to help the saudis deal with that debt -- that threat that they had on the border with yemen? they had trouble putting down a rebellion there. >> there are potential roles for the helicopters that are going to the saudi land forces in scenarios that we saw in the conflict with the houthi rebels who did cross-border operations. some of the helicopters are going to the saudi national guard, others to the royal guard. they will have different roles. but yes, border security is one possible role. >> two questions if i may. one is a simple technical one. why would the helicopters and similar sales split into three separate packages at the end? is that because of different destinations or similar hardware?

and a more fundamental question -- and a time when europe has embarked on big defense cuts, does the fact that the u.s. is involved in so many arms sales to autocratic middle eastern countries give you pause about where these arms may be in 10 or 20 or 30 years time crush mark -- years time? >> their various ways that dsca constructs its packages to conform to procedures and practices. there will be different customers within saudi arabia for different of these arms sales. in terms of where these arms are going to be -- i am not fully sure i understand the question. >> the nature of the saudi regime in 20 or 30 years, the biggest arms sales, i believe, in u.s. history to an autocratic country like saudi arabia, does that give you any pause? >> when we conduct an arms sale,

we go through an extensive analysis of what impact will it will have on the region, its potential impact and its actual impact. we're comfortable that this sale will serve to enhance u.s. national security. >> can you give any details about what sort of weapons packages will be on the new f- 15's, whether it includes the standoff systems that israel saw as its red line? >> the full systems will be on the dsca press release that is going on the web and which we are distributing. all i will say is we do not anticipate that there will be any -- as ambassador vershbow said, we do not anticipate objections from the israelis, but at the same time, our own investments -- our own assessment and analysis on the impact israel's qualitative

military edge, and we believe this sale will not diminish that. >> " was the purpose of your visit to libya? >> it was designed to discuss regional security issues as well as potential the mining region -- demining efforts. it's one more step of continuing communication with libya. >> was there any discussion in libya about the possibility of arms sales to libya? >> i'm not going into the substance of those discussions. i thought was a productive visit. >> you expect any congressional opposition to this tale. -- do you expect any congressional opposition to this deal? >> as part of preparing a package for congressional notification, we do extensive pre-consultations with the

oversight committees which oversee the arms export control act. and so we have been conducting, with staff and members of those oversight committees, extensive pre-consultations. congress is a big place and there is a lot of members, and there may be differing opinions about the sale. we feel comfortable that we have done adequate pre-consultations with members of congress that there will not be a barrier to completing this sale. >> i was wondering if i could ask both of you gentlemen to comment on the potential sale of mistral ships by france to russia. what is your position on that? you used to say you wanted to consult france on that, and maybe you can say anything more on that? >> i think the secretary gates

commented on that sale when he visited paris earlier this year. i think more with respect to -- the message that such sales send them about the military impact as such. i am not personally familiar with a finite -- the final details of this deal and whether it has actually been finalized. i think we may have to defer comment until we know more about the sale. >> at last question. >> congress actually has pretty few working days to consider this kind of thing. you said you got oversight committee or you have been working with them for consultation. you feel like you've got support across the hill? >> my belief is that our consultations have been adequate with oversight committees, members of leadership, staff, and others, that we feel comfortable that

congress will not be a barrier to the completion of the sale. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we are expected to hear live from the pakistan foreign minister qureshi and the special envoy richard holbrooke. the latest round of high-level u.s.-pakistan meetings began today in washington. they're continuing flood relief efforts there. it is thought to begin shortly. the brookings institute. an idea of some of our prime time coverage we're expecting tonight. we're showing debate coverage throughout the election season leading up to the november 2 election. from theting to hear

pakistan foreign minister qureshi. >> good evening and welcome to brookings. andup vice-president foreign policy program at brookings. on behalf of our president and

the executive director with whom we are coasting this program, i want to welcome you all. it is a very special occasion when we have the chance to welcome the foreign minister of pakistan to brookings and the asia society. mahmood qureshi was born in murree, pakistan and had extensive political career before the office he holds now, foreign minister of pakistan, in march 2008. it was the president of the pakistan people's party, and he helped restore democracy in the punjab. he of key positions like assistant to the spokesperson

and an assistant to benazir bhutto. he also served as the chair for development board, planning committee, and institutional reforms group on agriculture. the foreign minister is here in washington today to lead the pakistani delegation to the u.s.-pakistani strategic dialogue. this is the third strategic dialogue that has taken place. the foreign minister with secretary clinton and her delegation. there is also a chance to take this delegation to the white house, where he had a gathering there, a good meeting with president obama. at the end of what seems to have been a very good day of intensive discussions, with

dialogue taking place of the next two days between the u.s. government officials, cabinet ministers, and pakistani government cabinet officials, on health, energy, infrastructure -- the intensity of the relationship between the united states and pakistan will gained further momentum. this is especially the case because of the devastating floods that have impacted on pakistan over the last few months. foreign minister qureshi, i speak on behalf of everyone here in speaking of our concern and condolences for those that have suffered loss of life. those floods have given new urgency to the engagement taking

place here in washington today. joining foreign minister qureshi on the panel is richard holbrooke, who really needs no introduction. he is the u.s. special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. he works tirelessly for the secretary of state and the president in the efforts to try to turn the war in afghanistan in relationship with pakistan to a peaceful conclusion. he served previously as the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, at the assistant secretary state for europe, and eurasia before that. he was the chief architect of the 1995 dayton peace agreement that ended the war in bosnia. we are also very glad to welcome to the discussion this evening that a rising shot --

rajiv shah. he has overall responsibility for the relief and pakistan, humanitarian assistance there and worldwide taken by usaid. previously he serves as the undersecretary for research, education, and democracy where months his other notable achievements, he worked with food and agriculture. prior to joining the obama administration, dr. shopper -- served as the director better cultural development in the global government program in the bill in melinda gates foundation. to conduct a conversation between these very distinguished gentleman, we're very glad that steve coll has accepted the

invitation to moderate the conversation. steve is president of the new american foundation, a contributor to the "new yorker" magazine, on complex issues like south asia, afghanistan, and pakistan. he is twice of pulitzer prize winner, including for his book "f ghosts wars -- the secret history of the cia to give it was a really -- the secret history of the cia." without further ado, foreign mr. qureshi, walking to brookings and the asia society. -- welcome to brookings and the asia society. [applause]

>> good evening. thank you for your introduction. as you well know, ladies and gentlemen, i'm here for the third meeting of the strategic dialogue. we could not ask for better start. the meeting was very satisfying for me in my delegation. ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor and privilege to be at this prestigious institution. i am thankful for the brookings institute and the asia society for inviting me to speak here this evening on the issue that is of vital concern on both pakistan and the united states. on in delighted others are with us here today. pakistan in the united states have been crucial allies and

partners for more than half a century. our relations were never as coast and with as much a stake as today. this lends added importance to the third phase of the strategic dialogue between pakistan and the analyses for which i am here in washington. this dialogue will define the future of our bilateral relationship. it will also have a direct bearing on the success of our struggle against terrorism and extremism, and the future of the region. ladies and gentlemen, this is a moment of a unique crisis for pakistan. a vicious and in human terrorist campaign has killed thousands of our people. long neglected social and economic problems threaten our structure.

it is heard investments and markets for our products. on top of all, over the last three months, pakistan has been faced with the greatest flood in modern history. a tragedy so huge that the secretary of the nine jason's ban ki-moon has called it a global disaster -- ban ki-moon has called the global disaster, greater than be a tsunami and haitian earthquake combined. ladies and gentleman, pakistan has been a steady partner to the united states. we have a history of cooperation in meeting some of the great challenges of the post-second world war period, the soviet invasion of afghanistan, and the establishment of relationships between the united states and

china. if the cold war was the central struggle of the 20th-century, the fight against terrorism and fanaticism has become the defining struggle of the new millennium. in this historic struggle pakistan and the united states are once again in the trenches together. ladies and gentlemen, we all must be aware of the enormous price that pakistan has paid for its central role in both of these conflicts. , the war against the soviet union in pakistan converted our peaceful country into a society infested sectarianism. 4 million refugees poured across our border and we gave them sanctuary and succor.

when the soviets were defeated and left, the united states quickly packed its bags, leaving us to deal with that networks that all this had created. this was the beginning of the taliban and al qaeda. in the ongoing struggle against international terrorism, pakistan also paid a huge price. more than 30,000 of our soldiers have been killed. nearly 7000 law enforcement officials have lost their lives. this is more than the casualties suffered by all the nato forces in afghanistan. and most painfully to me personally, we've seen our greatest leader benazir bhutto assassinated by those who most feared her visions of modernization. compounding this is immeasurable

human losses has been the loss of financial situation. our commitment to the fight against terrorism and extremism israel and demonstrated. the government has spent immense political capital in converting the public in favor of the struggle, something that was lacking. this is our war. pakistan has what the talk and is standing up for the peace and security of the region, in fact, of the whole world. ladies and gentlemen, as if we had not suffered enough, next came the devastating floods. this is been a natural calamity of unprecedented proportions.

for weeks and months, raging flood waters ravaged our lands and displaced our people. 31,000,004 affected, 20% of pakistan lost territory was emerge. houses, crops, bridges, hospitals or washed away. no nation developed for developing would have been prepared for a disaster of such proportions. the magnitude is colossal. it is 100 times the devastating -- the devastation caused by hurricane katrina in new orleans. that is what we face today. the pakistani government was tested and we approve their resilience once again. and the holy month of ramadan,

following the traditions of compassion and sacrifice and, we contribute as much as we could. the whole nation was mobilized, all actively participating in the countrywide national effort for rescue and relief. this crisis and our response have demonstrated the indomitable spirit of the people of pakistan. but it could not have been able to have had the relief without the support and solidarity of our friends. a friend indeed was also in -- on display. united states was among the first of our friends to respond. it was and is the largest

contributor of humanitarian assistance and cash. the thousands of pakistanis stranded, the u.s. military top -- helicopters were the only means to reaching them to the safety of dry land. u.s. marines toiled alongside our soldiers and citizens as we try to overcome this challenge. ladies and gentlemen, i take this opportunity to extend to you the gratitude of the people and government of pakistan for understanding and sharing our pain. thank you. now that we began the reconstruction of the flood affected areas, we hope to receive the same cooperation and assistance from you as before.

the u.s. relationship to pakistan in the past has been one dimensional. the u.s. ignoring its most precious political and human values many times chose dictatorship over democracy. there is no doubt it contributed to resentment among the people of pakistan. that they had been used and exploited. and this affects the recent findings of the opinion surveys. they show an overwhelming of -- an overwhelming majority of pakistanis do not consider the u.s. a friend. the most significant development in that direction in creating little of leadership between

united states and pakistan has been the passage of the kerry- louvered-berman bill. it commits $7.5 billion to non- military assistance of pakistan. the new law will build bridges for the people of pakistan. only an economically viable pakistan will have the political strength and stability to compete -- to defeat the terrorist threat some predict the terrorism that press pakistan and the world. what we're going to create is a long-term mutually beneficial partnership. ladies and gentlemen, let me be clear. we do not seek dependency. we seek economic viability. we need trade, not just aid.

we need the united states to open its markets to our products like the european union has resolved to do. so that our factories can create jobs for our people and give the young pakistanis hope for their future. we need united states to build economic reconstruction zones for fatah. we want a significant boost to our economy and industrial base. that is in gentlemen, may i also take this opportunity to underscore the economic recovery and a development? the elected government as an economic stabilization project in consultation with

international financial institutions. we're in the process of real ordering our economic priorities to meet the flood contingencies -- real ordering -- reordering our economic priorities to meet the flood contingencies. we need an effective programs of transparency and utilization of resources. we're determined to build an economically strong pakistan. we have a talented people economical confidence. all these are being harnessed to deliver tangible results. i s have established institutions which create traditions. our history is the testimony to

the determination of the pakistani nation in facing multiple challenges in those defining moments of our time. ladies and gentleman, as with any sovereign nation, we are guided by our national interest. but we clearly state our national policies. first and foremost we are resolved to fight extremism and terrorism. our nation has suffered the most at the hands of the skirt. we have stated that fighting terrorism is a strategic and moral imperative with us. secondly, the global fight against terrorism is on the basis of international cooperation. actions reinforce and not undercut such counterterrorism

operations. we have stated it before and i reiterate again, pakistan's sovereignty is and will remain non negotiable. pakistan has an interest in a vital and free pakistan. i have no doubt that we can surmount our momentary challenges with sensitivity about our respective commitments, concerns, and interests. that is and gentlemen, pakistan is deeply interested in a peaceful and some cable solution. that prospect is in danger again. any pertinent -- in this

unfolding tragedy, many have lost their lives in the last three months. many of them teenagers. their mothers. the deafening silence of the international community. the aspiration of any people cannot be suppressed by the use of force. it is in the interest of lasting peace, stability, and development for the solution of disputes in south ages. this has to begin with justice for the kashmiri people. as i conclude, i wish to stress that pakistan and its partners have profound consequences not only for our two nations but for international peace and security.

a heavy responsibility rests on us to nurture it carefully. we need to build stronger support for it in both countries. i reaffirm our commitment to contribute to this worthy cause and to make our partnership the critical factor of peace, stability, and prosperity for the region and internationally. i'd thank you. [applause] >> thank you for those awful remarks. before i introduce ambassador holbrooke, let me give you a quick preview of what is ahead. it is a few minutes before 7:00. we're together until 8:00. we're going to hear from ambassador holbrooke and administrator shah. we will talk among ourselves for a few minutes. at that point, we will answer

your questions. please wait for a microphone and asked a question. thank you for putting this together. now we will hear from ambassador holbrooke. >> thank you, steve. mr. minister, thank you for hosting this along with the asia society this evening. two great institutions, one of which i was privileged to be chairman of for six years, and the other zero of which i have been privileged to be abused by for 30 years. [laughter] i am glad to be on the podium with my friend, mahmood qureshi.

we will talk about the issues of the southeast asia today. i especially want to set run all-out to people. -- single out two people. one ambassador who represents pakistan with such grace and skill. and our new ambassador to pakistan with us today, has not yet set foot in country -- in the country but is deeply immersed in the details of everything that is involved in our relationship, who has stayed behind at our request, not going out to pakistan until the end of this week in -- so that he can participate in the strategic dialogue. cameron and i just came back from brussels. today we launched the third high-level meeting between the

two countries in the last seven months. all chaired on the american side by the secretary of state. we call this the strategic dialogue, but ec they were applied to all bilateral relationships with the u.s. in many other countries in the world. with china, with india, with russia, we have one with a bankroll. this is quite different. there is no country in the world which hillary clinton has spent more time or attention today and pakistan since he became secretary. both she and the president's have long experience with the country. as president obama told foreign minister qureshi today when they had an extraordinary 35-minute conservation in the roosevelt room to launch this very important week. i am so delighted, mr. minister, that you felt we start the week

of a flying start. we certainly share that view. the three strategic dialogue is in seven months, the previous administration had won but it was chaired by the tepid terry secretary of state level. that is not such a high title. the president at brookings was deputy secretary of state. i guess they forgot. for hillary to escalate this to the ministerial level was important. for her to do through meetings, spend a lot of time in washington in march, islamabad in july and here in october indicates the importance we attach the relationship. the president's meeting was another example. even as the president was meeting with the pakistani delegation in the roosevelt room

today, there were senior and mid-level meetings going on which i want to discuss with you. i want to help you understand what we are trying to do here. this is not as it was in 2006- 2008. a quick meeting of two foreign ministries. there 13 working groups. four men today. nine of them will meet in the next two days. the water group, the communications group, the agriculture group met at state and the defense group at the pentagon. tomorrow, there will be more meetings. the american leader of the water group under secretary of state for global affairs is with us today. she has done a magnificent job at an issue of the most immense importance, water. i am glad that you have given us

a much time on this. these issues, women's empowerment, communications, the range really matter. the strategic relationship has been re-imagined so it is an ongoing, nonstops set of task forces in all these areas. communication groups raids some important policy decisions which we will rollout later in the week. we are proud of this. when we talk about strategic relationship, we are moving from the transactional relationship which is what we inherited. transactional was something terrible that happens in pakistan and you send over someone in islamabad and say you cannot do this again, or else. sometimes those things happen after the times square bomber. we did send a high-level team

to islamabad to discuss the implications for it for u.s.- pakistani relations. we embed that in the largest strategic relationship across the board. what does all this mean? what is the switch from transactional to strategic? why is it matter so much? why this massive effort in both countries in the face of so much public dispute and a bit about what the relationship was about. let me say first of all we do not do this extensive effort with pakistan because of the war raging on the western border of pakistan. and across the border in afghanistan. we are aware of the connection between the war in afghanistan and the situation in western pakistan. that is important focal point of the discussions we have prater we met with president obama prior to the meeting with mr.

hirschey -- minister koreshi. we do not work with pakistan because of afghanistan. we work on pakistan because of pakistan itself. pakistan's importance to the world, the stability in south asia, one of the most dangerous and explosive parts of the world and an effort to help the pakistani is with a massive set of internal problems in which they legitimately should get the support of many other countries. all of this i would have said before the floods. the floods are simply unimaginable to those of you who have seen it only on television. you have seen floods and television and the world under- reacted. floods were noted hemline. an area larger than italy went

under water. it would stretch from the canadian border to florida. deaths were less than the tsunami in the heady -- haiti. we have come back from brussels. the damaged needs assessment from the world bank and the asian development bank which is replacing what has been lost content billion dollars. that is over the early recovery efforts. i want to stress that in the middle of everything else, pakistan was visited by an epic tragedy. there has been much criticism of how the pakistani responded. i would ask you to bear in mind that over five years ago, in our

great nation with our best communications and all our capability, a much smaller disaster became a huge domestic issue. even to this day, the damage has not yet been fully redone. let's acknowledge the fact pakistan overburdened to begin with, has done as well as it could possibly have done and the leaders of that effort and the emergency effort is with us in this effort. we support pakistan. because of pakistan itself. it matters. it's stability and reemerging democratic institutions which have been under pressure.

its ability to do with its internal threats that matter to us for reasons you understand. it is immensely complicated relations with india which go back to the origins of both countries, 63 years ago. all this matters to us. the foreign minister has mentioned -- [unintelligible] progress shares our concern. aid authorization with the leaders having given us permission to redirect and reprogram money as necessary for flood relief and i would hope in the future would be able to back fill what we divert. for the time being, we're going with pakistan's priorities on the floods and other things. it is an indication of how deeply the congress is united in

supporting the civilian iran in pakistan. we inherited a policy that did not do these things. while i recognize our attention to pakistan has increased press attention and is thus an impression of the situation that you will understand, it is our view that the relationship between the two governments has improved dramatically. my first trip of the 18 i have made to pakistan, the foreign minister and i hata press conference. we have done about 30 of these shows in various capitals around the world by now. in the first one, the foreign minister used a phrase that i have not previously heard. he said our countries suffer from a trust deficit. i am glad we no longer talk about that. to be sure, we have differences.

pakistani, the view is not identical to our view. it is inevitable. we have found a way to have extensive dialogue at the strategic level. back it up with practical policies like the $7.50 billion when the floods hit, the u.s. was the first in with the most. it is hard to give a clearer dollar estimate for we have done. direct aid is in the $350 million range but does not count the cost of helicopters we sent over and a shipload of helicopters. nor does it include our percentage of the funds for

world food program, usf, and -- unicef, and other agencies. when we leave to mothers -- when we lead, other countries follow. on the larger strategic issues, i am sure we will get into the mine in a minute. we have worked closely with pakistan in regard to the terrorist threat. as the foreign minister and i have said many times, we face a common enemy. a common threat. a common challenge, and a common task. while there is much more that can be done and the press focuses on that, i do not question their right to do so. we believe we have made a great deal of progress. we believe that progress has reduced the threat to our

homeland. while not eliminating it. recognize how much more has to be done, i want to be clear that as we talk about water and energy and women's empowerment and communications and agriculture, we talk intensively and extensively about how to improve or ritual efforts against the terrorist threat which the foreign minister announced a moment ago. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and value the chance to be here with their renew

ambassador. and under secretary otero who is leading the response. i but i might share comments on the strategic dialogue has meant for our assistance program with respect to pakistan. in full recognition of the fact our assistance program is one part of a much larger and more comprehensive relationship that has been detailed extensively by the foreign minister and ambassador holbrooke. for us with the assistance program, the strategic dialogue has been an effort to reshape the substance of the program and the means by which we provide assistance. substantively, most of the additional resources represented in the extraordinary five year, up multi-year package

has been targeted at the request of our counterparts to the productive growth sectors of the economy in water, infrastructure, agriculture, and energy. the strategic dialogue has been a vehicle for jointly designing programs and projects that the line with pakistani priorities. it has been an opportunity to reassess the history of u.s. assistance in pakistan and learn lessons from those efforts so we can do things differently. it has been an opportunity to work on some of the policy reforms that go along with actual financial assistance in order to boost sustainability and outcomes. the dialogue has been a way to change the way we provide the assistance. instead of building parallel systems through independent projects and programs, we're making every effort to direct more resources to local institutions in pakistan and

where appropriate through the pakistani government itself. we estimate nearly 50% to assistance will be provided in direct assistance mechanisms which is up more than fivefold from three years ago. the recent floods have been a dramatic entrances -- transition for country there was making decisions to expenditure revenue base and take on some of the reforms that are required on the fiscal side to maintain the imf program and improve its fiscal situation. the floods have affected more than 20 million people. perhaps a million or 9 million of which are in dire circumstances. 65% of the crop remains

dependent on agriculture. the reason $9.70 billion world bank and asian development bank damage its assessment is an assessment of what would take to rebuild existing infrastructure as opposed to building back to higher and better standards. the u.s. government provided more than $400 million in assistance. when you include in kind assistance as well as additional resources provided through our various assistance mechanisms. well those dollars are assessed -- are needed, they do achieve results. pakistan is directing the response to the floods. the general has done an outstanding job in leading and directing assistance especially

from the u.s. but from other international partners to those parts of the country and those sectors that are most affected. we believe u.s. generosity has resulted in real impact for the pakistani people. our food assistance has fed million. food thatd khmeall the will enable a speedy recovery. our efforts to provide clean drinking water of which we provided more than 30 million liters have focused on those populations most at risk for waterborne illness. through efforts have avoided major up blix of a cholera or underwater or an illness.

[unintelligible] our efforts to purchase through the response whether it is plastic sheeting for tents and tarps or basic food commodities itself will hopefully lay the groundwork for reinvestment in the pakistani economy. as we move forward, we are in the intense dialogue to understand how to best shaped the assistance package to support the immediate recovery needs for pakistan. for one specific example, we have been able to provide $21 million in additional assistance over and above the spending envelopes to provide resources to allow the government of pakistan to expand its poorly designed seed and fertilizer distribution programs in the can

help farmers plan for the growing season which is critical to helping these communities recover as quickly as possible. as we look to the future, real challenges persist. the world health organization estimates 420,000 children under 5 are at acute risk of serious malnutrition. that will make them more susceptible to disease, a state of chronic hunger will affect them throughout their lifetimes. these are the types of things that undermined the type of stability and prosperity that is in the interest of both countries. we're committed to a broad based partnership. we look forward to this strategic dialogue and helping us reshape the way we have an assistance relationship as part of a larger program. now is the critical time. the government has taken some actions to meet the imf

stabilization program needs to improve their fiscal standing and move forward on issues like tax reform. those are important steps. the u.s. has reshaped its program to be supportive and we continue to work with richard's tireless efforts to get the world to realize now is a crucial moment for the future of pakistan and we're eager to be as supportive as possible. thank you. [applause] >> i am uncertain about our plans for amplification from the stage. a mile right? -- am i all right? while they are being miked, do it from the chair. >> ok. >> i may start at the third th30

foot level. you talked candidly about history and has left some in a pakistani is disappointed in the u.s. and uncertain about the decisions of their government to pursue this alliance. you mentioned the price pakistan has played -- paid in lost opportunities over the last few years. when he spoke, ambassador holbrooke tried to make clear why the u.s. was willing to invest the time and take the risk to develop a durable, strategic partnership. how would you describe why it is in the interest of pakistan to continue to take the risks and pay the price is paying to

develop this terrible strategic partnership. why is it in your interests? >> it is because we have a number of shared values. democracy. this administration is a strong advocate of a statement of your kasay. it is clear that they want to see a stable civilian government. this government has a very clear strategy on how to deal with matters of terrorism. the government of pakistan has come to the conclusion that averting extremism and combatting terrorism is in their interest.

this government feels the u.s. can be an important -- can play an important role in favor of pakistan to help us achieve economic stability. they have contributed. one significant demonstration of that was the help we have received during the flood. the fearlessness with which this administration is engaging with pakistan is clearly demonstrated. this is the third sitting where have had in seven months. that is a level of commitment. it is shown -- through the paper they have shared with this illustration. on issues that affect the quality of life. you're talking about how to

improve living standards. how to address issues of public -- poverty alleviation. how to have -- achieve stability. it is a common recognition that pakistan and the u.s. can become very useful partners in the attainment of regional stability. there are a number of shared objectives and do pakistani is want stabilization -- [unintelligible] >> you mentioned the commitment pakistan has made to eliminating terrorism within the country. ambassador holbrooke spoke on the issue and i thought i heard

him say more must be done. is it your sense that the state is doing all it can do? if so and more must be done, where do we go from here? what is the deficit? >> when we say more must be done, it is not just the u.s. telling pakistan. it is pakistan telling the u.s. as well. a share objective, a common goals. we have to make an effort. you have to make an effort for the gold. today, in this satisfying engagement with the president my delegation had, a number of tangibles will come out. they deliver bulls were the president's commitment to pakistan's economic growth. pakistan's economic stability.

a firm commitment to re dispensation of funds. -- commitment to a dispensation of funds. the factory has decided to invite the president of pakistan to the u.s., that is the level of engagement. there are concerns. obviously, their concerns. it is his job and responsibility to ensure the safety of american citizens and i quite understand that. as a representative of the people of pakistan, it -- it is my responsibility and the president's responsibility and the government's responsibility to ensure safety of citizens in pakistan and many have lost their lives. 30,000 civilians have lost their lives.

we have a shared objective. our interests are converging. this convergence tells both sides to do more. >> it has been awhile since i was in the business, but you have made news. ambassador holbrooke, you constructed your vision of the strategic dialogue. long before the floods. it sounded as though the floods had forced to 2 changeup you're thinking about how to approach american investment in pakistan. if that is right, how so? >> that is correct. of course. i do want to -- before i get specific to say how enormously pleased we are that the

president has invited president zebari to visit. he was here in may last year in the trilateral context with president karzai. this will be for him and not for other leaders. the president will go to pakistan next year, date to be determined. your right. we have the strategic concept. we understood when we took office we did not -- we inherited their relationship and we were unhappy with that. we started by reorganizing. my very job to work on both countries while recognizing that they are sovereign countries with their own culture, economic development, politics was a

recognition of the fact what would happen in each country was affected by the other. this was not the way it works. general lute was at that time in charge of iraq and afghanistan, a two countries that had nothing linking them accept work in -- at war in both. pakistan and india were handled by someone else in the nsc, same in the state department. throughout the u.s. government and over the world. because of our organizational focus on pakistan in its own right, we inherited a situation with almost no economic aid. we inherited a situation where a bubbly important relationship to both countries had atrophied

overtime through a series of events, some lamentable congressional events that are over a decade old. another the consequence of the american abandonment of afghanistan when the soviets left and the consequences that enroll in western pakistan and led to the taliban take over and then 9/11, which you have chronicled in your masterpiece. the situation had to be changed. we developed strategic dialogue. mr. koreshi was center. it was his suggestion we have a trilateral meetings. we had to last year and we have had none this year because of the calendar. i can say now we can debate if you want to move forward that we have discussing with kabul and

islamabad a resumption of the trilateral process because there was such that you in it. two ministers of agriculture in afghanistan and pakistan were in the miniowa and they worked on, agricultural programs. that will continue. all of this was developing. i think we were doing a good job of overcoming a lamentable and complicated legacy filled with problems. when the floods hit. pakistan had 6.3% of growth in the two preceding years. pakistan was moving forward. it is unimaginable and we do not know the economic consequences of this tragedy. of course, we reoriented everything.

one of the most moving experiences i have had was going minister's home town where his ancestors are leaders of sufi islam. it was very moving and saying the desperate struggle for the recovery phase. raj made a point. dikes and living on you could not get to them. helicopters did not -- were not able to land. the are made diverted 70,000 troops to taking care of these people. we visited early and saw what an

immensely difficult effort it was. the waters started to recede. the press started to turn its back. the minute the waters receded, people rushed, but there were no homes left. millions were gone. the livestock was drowned. the crops, millions of hectares had been destroyed and were beginning to get estimates from satellites. the roads were gone. every bridge -- there was $1 billion worth of aid after that crisis. all washed away. raj mentioned something. in the early recovery phase, the people rushed back to their land and they were in areas of stagnant water. kids under 5 would die of dysentery fast as we do not deal with it. our teams are out there working hard under difficult conditions. other countries are there.

we have to look forward to the recovery phase and what i mentioned about john kerry is important here. instead of having to go to congress for money which, given the electoral cycle when out of session, money would not be available for a while. we're looking to the pakistani government to tell us what the priorities are. we will meet their prioritization. will be in islamabad in less than a month. in the meantime, we will meet their priorities and then we will see how much we have diverted and sit down with the congress and see where we go from there. >> all three of you talked about in the recovery phase strategies for economic growth. mr. koreshi emphasized his country's trade.

when you take note of -- think whatt economic strategies an, is possible by way of trade and open border reforms in south asia as a region and between pakistan and the u.s. and between pakistan and other partners that can be a focus of american support for pakistan's recovery? >> is important to note that the pakistani government has offered a detailed vision of what is possible on the economic growth frontier. it is a vision that is characterized by a significant investment and an energy infrastructure that will allow for productivity and economic

development. it captures the potential strategic and comparative advantage pakistan has. high value of agricultural exportation and processed goods, including textiles, which is a major source of export and foreign currency earnings. those are the sectors that pakistan was seeking to invest in and invigorate as part of a serious growth strategy. the trade agreement that investor holbrooke and leadership and the afghan leadership put in place is an incredible step forward. it is one example of how pakistan can benefit from expanding its trade relationships in the region. recent news at of the eu of potential trade preferences will create similar economic

activities. what is tragic as these floods occurred in that corporate active -- the flood plain. the agricultural part of the economy at a time when that was the core growth strategy. we do have to look at what can be done on the trade side, on the preferences side and with respect to the opportunities to enable growth in an environment where there was a coherent plan, there was a strategy that prioritize the assets of the people and economy and productive base and the floods that have heightened the stakes dramatically. >> raj mentioned the transit trade agreement. some do not know what is and others think it is just a trade agreement. let me underscore something. it is an agreement of trade between pakistan and afghanistan. it is much more than that.

it is the most important agreement and at least 50 years and probably since pakistan became independent in 1947. people forget that the current relation is -- was not born on 9/11 but in 1989 when pakistan became independent. on august 14, 1947, it applied for u.n. membership. the only country to vote against the membership was afghanistan under the king. the reason they did it was because of the pashtuns and the question of who the loyalty was towards. the issues that exist have always been a problem. in this context, the existing trade agreement, which was negotiated in 1965 between pakistan, afghanistan, and india

had never been carried out. when the president's came to washington in may of last year, president obama asked them if they would commit to negotiating a trade-transit agreement which did not include india. because we knew that if india was included, there would never be an agreement. 44 years of attempting to renegotiate it had resulted in the zero. the indians said they would go along with that provided that if in the future if they came into and afghanistan which would be in the national treatment clause. after a netense negotiation, we finished it at july 19. the minister and his colleagues and some of the rest of us were

opaleye working on it as hillary's plane descended. bin raithel spent sleepless nights working on it. i read in the paper is a lot that there is no strategy. there is a clear strategy but it is not always easy. one of the core goals is to reduce the long-term problems between kabul and islam a bad which preceded by works and shredded by the events since 1978. that is 32 years of nonstop war for afghanistan which is increasingly embroiled. until the countries have a strategic understanding of the common purpose, there is no hope

for ending the problems which plague the region and are tearing afghanistan to the breaking point. it has required us to send so many troops and resources there. the trade transit agreement is much more than a trade agreement. >> you have to realize there's a new realization in pakistan and afghanistan. with our neighbors and we will continue to be neighbors. to coexist. we need each other. we can help each other. we have -- we contribute to each other stability. this change of heart has led to

a new understanding. i think the bilateral relations between afghanistan and pakistan have qualitatively improved the last two years. not just -- the trade agreement is one manifestation of that. we have put in place and architecture for the future that goes beyond the vision. how pakistan can get into [unintelligible] and how they can be useful. there is a new realization of interdependence, of trust and confidence.

these engagements are beginning to show. >> that [unintelligible] pakistan wants a good neighborly relationship with india. we have outside issues. both sides have agreed that dialogue is the only sensible way forward. we have in place a mechanism. the dialogue has shown results and progress has been achieved. we need to pursue that. why not? it makes a lot sense if we improve relations, and pakistan

stands to gain and the region stands to gain. >> questions from the audience. could you please wait for the microphone? >> i am more interested in the delhi-islamabad dialogue. the one has talked about the bomb. what are we doing about the dialogue on the bomb? >> one thing we're certain, both rely -- we do not need -- relies we do not need to use it. >> i wonder if you would elaborate. you said aid is doing something different. could you elaborate? >> the two most substantive

characteristics are the level of consultation that occurs and finds its way to where projects are designed and implemented. a few years ago it would be difficult for the minister or the minister of finance to describe what the assistance program look like. today there is a near complete alignment of what we're doing. that plays out as well in the context of the discussion of specific reforms and policies that can allow assistance to be more effective and generate better results. the second characteristic is a focus on trying to invest in local institutions and capacity. including direct assistance. we have a statutory requirement and we are fully committed to doing this in a way that tracks

our resources and allows us to take in account -- an account of how our money is spent. the fact we can do that with so many parts of the pakistani government is a testament to the fact there are parts of the government that operate effectively and as a counterpoint to the larger narrative that sometimes makes the case seemed the opposite is true. >> there is a back story on this. the -- when we started looking carefully at pakistan last year, the pakistani is a bold political party said the same thing. you do not consult this on your aid programs. we do not see them. we have looked into this. and the criticism was absolutely right.

keys is one of robin's responsibilities. we tried to listen. there is still a lot of complaining. because of long time lags in between the time we make a commitment and the time we get the obligation authority and raj has 14 hoops to jump through. but we are listening. the second thing is hilary and i and raj concluded on the advice of the government and opposition that we ought to return to big visible projects. everybody remembers the kennedy and johnson administration. that as long time ago. you remember that because you were the best book ever written on u.s.-pakistan relationships. my bible. from 1946-2000.

if you want to understand this relationship, reid dennis's book. s's book.enni's water and electricity energy is where we put the focus. we have tried to listen. we still get complaints, but at least we are communicating. >> next question. a question for the foreign minister. clearly, this dramatic increase in aid is important. for pakistan and the u.s. but there have been reports that came out recently about the degree to which the pakistani elite and the wealthy are not

contributing with tax money to the pakistani government. this is going to be concerning to american citizens who are footing the bill. what steps are going to be put in place or in place to ensure that pakistani elites have a stake in the future of the country and their government? >> to begin with, these issues that are being talked about are not reason. there are chronic issues we're dealing with. consistent government over the years, decades have not spent substance of time in broadening the tax base. there is a growing realization if you need development, if we

need growth, we need an effort of successful mobilization. we need to broaden the base are bringing in more sectors that have not been taxed in the past. and to seriously document the economy. i do not say this today. i am on record having said it in 1994, 1995, there is a sector of the economy, a 24% or 25% of gdp which should be broad in. who should be taxed? the more affluent and not the subsistence farmer. there is thinking on that score. we're talking of a new reformed gst and there has been debate

and a new constitutional arrangement. there is a new formula of [unintelligible] between the federation and the federated units. today, in democracy, people are talking about it. people are writing about it. people are debating and that is what is helping. we will overcome this problem. >> what is the strategy for terrorism and is there an end in sight? >> yes, because failure is not an option. we will achieved our objective

and we will deflate them and reverse their trend. do we have a strategy? we do. strategy, about? we came about it through a debate. dialogue, and development. however put it to use? we have. proof of that is many adjoining several districts in the province. that has worked in the travel area. the clear, cold, and build. you see results in the days to come. >> as we near our elections in

two weeks, the majority of my fellow citizens are very happy that the u.s. is supporting pakistan and is able to be of great assistance during this time. at the same time, americans are conflicted and confused by what they see as a rather split personality on behalf of the pakistani government insofar as the area called pa shtunistan. people are confused about pakistan's relationship with them, the relationship of the isi through the taliban. >> there is no split

personality. if that is the case, i think you need to do a better job with your public diplomacy. pakistan is clear what our focus is and what our objectives are. the role that the isi has played is known. there is a conversion in public opinion and perhaps that has not been fully appreciated in the u.s. line > >> the recent aid branding controversy gets at the question of goals. we do not have to choose between bolstering the u.s. brand and our relationships and saving lives and livelihood in most

places of the world. both are in the u.s. national interest. some parts of pakistan present a rare exception in which the choice is required. what is best for long-term u.s. interests and the interests in pakistan? steady and quiet support for relief and development that instability over the long term or more limited but more explicit support that provides potentially a from wrote gains in popularity? how does investment in evidence based analysis factor into the strategic trade off? >> you are asking about putting usa on the delivery of goods, just for the translation for the audience. >> i think this is an important and serious issue and not one

that has an easy answer. i will say from my first visit and i have had three or four visits this year, in my first visit, i spent a lot of time asking questions about -- from political leaders and humanitarian assistance workers and development program partners and our teams all over the country. the one consistent thing i heard was the pakistani people value seeing the handshake that used to represent our relationship. it sends a message that we're not just -- that we care. we are there. that we're listening. so long as we abide by those characteristics and put them in practice, it makes the relationship stronger and almost more important from the perspective of an aide to

makesistration, it mad assistance more effective. this indicates about how we have approached our response in the flood. we have a consistent approach to how u.s. assistance is labeled and identified around the world. our goal is to be transparent, visible, and supportive. that is not the reason we do the assistance. we do it because we care and we have a humanitarian priority and we are the first with the most support in pakistan and disasters around the world for decades. where there is an actual trade off, if it is real, and if it is meaningful, it put at risk the lives of the brave humanitarian assistance workers that are out there trying to save children and held mother deliver kids in a safe environment, we do offer

exceptions to that general policy. we have been doing that consistently in certain parts of pakistan where that is relevant. we have had that same policy in place through this effort. the controversy is a little overblown. the more important message is as the strategic dialogue demonstrates -- at all levels, visible, continual listening and partnership is genuinely valued on both sides. it makes the assistance more effective overtime. >> you mentioned american public diplomacy's deficits. why is american diplomacy ineffective in your judgment, it is? >> i think this administration is making a serious effort in improving that. they have taken certain measures

to do that. i think your people were not perhaps dealing with a democratic government before. the media in the last four or five years in pakistan has undergone a significant change. it is a much more open society. people are talking more. people are being more objective. people are being more critical. people are holding institutions and individuals more accountable. the approaches change. i think greater effort has to be put in on your side to engage with all those institutions that were perhaps not required in the past. have a vibrant civil society

and an independent media. clinton has engaged and communicated and engaged. she has met members of civil society. she has met ngos, students. i went to an important event in lahore when there was a misinterpretation of [unintelligible] students from all over the country assembled and they ask searching questions. the way she engaged with them was what is required. >> this is an important issue for us. for us.