taking care of the customer. >> ditto to what they are doing. one comes out of something we are replicating out of indiana. the reforms we put in place were necessary. it wasit was not just about pay. that is a big misnomer. they think it is all about money and budget and pay. it is really about acknowledging excellence and rewarding it. i would watch some of the, the recognition ceremonies that you have and things of that nature, and did -- identifying excellence in encouraging it in others. some of it is about getting rid of waste. we had overtime abuses or somebody would come in and call in sick on their shift and work the next shift to get time-and- a-half for it.

the irony is the upper security on the rank were upset about not getting back, but the two-thirds got passed over for working overtime, they were pleased because it gave them a shot to legitimately get access to over time as well. the other thing is about one particular agency the power labor department is the department of workforce development. under my predecessor, their number 1 objective was how many more people in my state could they give it to sign up for a government unemployment check. i remember, we talked about that, and i said that is a fundamentally 180 degrees different from what i want you to do. you're number one objective in that agency is to figure out how many people you get off a government unemployment check and get into private-sector paycheck. a lot of those things are about trying to change the mindset. frankly, most people, even folks

who work for years in government, that is what they wanted. that is what they got into public service for in the first place. it was to help people. i think the more that we empower our employees, because there are great public servants. some people in a labor union might be surprised to hear me say this, but the vast majority people who work in our states are great public servants to get into their positions for the right reasons. they have just been beaten down for so many years and feel that they have to do things the government way that they lose sight of why they got into it in the first place. >> it was a great question. >> i have a question if nobody else did. it is such essential question that he asked. none of us are smart enough. anybody who has been part of a big business or organization knows this. nobody is smart enough to find all the opportunities to make all the calls. it is satisfying 11 of our department heads pulls off some multimillion-dollar savings or

percentage improvement. i get much more excited, and it happens a lot, when some frontline worker finds a way to save a few thousand workers. they are proud of it, and we're proud of them. when you get thousands of people living in the same direction, they make you look smarter than you are. >> i did the same thing. we had 558,000 people in unemployment the day i took office. now i think we have 374,000 peter just by changing and sang -- look, we're going to measure your every day on it -- did you help people get a job? we're going to check how many jobs were filled every day. so almost 200,000 now. >> i cannot resist getting one more example. at the turn of our fiscal year this year, we were in strong the shape even then we projected. our surplus was significantly bigger than had been forecast. i did something that i think

surprised even my closest associates. out of nowhere, i declared an efficiency dividend. not added to base pay, but called it that, for every state employee of the managerial level. it was a couple percent, but it was to recognize their role, the fact that everybody operating in general the same direction had produced an extraordinary results. i mean, i do not need to belabor the statistics, but we kept spending way below the rate of inflation for seven years. our payroll plus benefits is lower in nominal dollars than it was when we took office seven years ago. we have fewer state employees now than the state head in 1976. and they deserve the credit for that. when you ask that question, i think you are really going to the heart of how we do all the other things and getting good results for people. >> i would be curious.

what do you know that you wish you had known it the day you first were sworn-in to office? >> well, i had never been in process -- office before. this whole process would have been nice but you know, the committees and all that. i had never done it. that would have been helpful. we still got almost -- we got everything done. all the politics among all the different members of the house and senate would be nice. and how many would like to slug each other and why, that would have been nice. [laughter] >> that would be a good diagram. >> you must have something in mind. >> it is just always interesting to me when people do things like this. what do you know now that you did not know when you started? >> jokingly, i wish i knew that

14 senators could shed a state senate down. nobody knew that in our state before. seriously, john and i would have some similar when looking back. i think a lesson we both learned in our states in particular was be in a position on every major public policy move you make that you have got to have not just a strategy for how to get it done in the legislature, but you have got to build your case publicly. if i look back in time and ask if i would have done what i did, i would have done it, but i would have spent january and february -- would have literally had a media campaign to go out, ran ads, and tell the people -- like the example i just gave. should somebody and state government be able to get over time and they call in sick for one ship and try to work the next one? should somebody get paid an extra $8,000 per month just because they carry a pager

because that is in their collective bargaining contract? should a bus driver in the city of madison, because of overtime, make $150,000 a year? should the teacher of the year in the city of milwaukee be laid off the next week because she was the last one hired and therefore the first one out the door when there is a lie off? all those are things that i think if people knew that up front, they would say that is a problem. you need to fix it. i, unfortunately, like maybe a few of us, came in with this mine said a little bit like, rick, you have is a business owner, here is a problem, here is a solution, fix it. my wife says i do too much fixing things and not enough time explaining things. it would have been nice a year ago to say you can fix it, but you have to explain first. >> let me talk about an issue that think really lends itself to that. that is this issue of education. we created 60,000 scholarships. we had 15. we were going 30.

the 260. we have taken the lid off of charter schools. we're doing teacher evaluations. but the country is not -- i mean, one of the greatest national-security risks is the fact that we are falling farther and farther behind other countries in terms of education achievement. i am sure you all good companies selling new that you cannot find the kind of mechanical, electrical -- the whole engineering, mathematics, the science fields. i mean, it is something where we are just not getting enough of our own citizens trained and there are other countries beginning to last us. i love the fact that people come here and get educated, but they used tuesday. but now they are going home. i am not convinced that the public understands the situation on education. i think it is sort of like congress. you know, i hate congress, but i sure love my congressman. it is sort of like i know the

public education is not working, but my kid's school is doing great. it is a painful thing for a mother or father to have to recognize exactly how their school is doing. and once you do that, once you can get people to open their eyes to it, then i think you can get the kind of fundamental reforms that you need where you get teachers and the community and the administrators really all working together. i am really excited about the potential that is going to come out of cleveland, for example, because the community leaders are beginning to recognize the fundamental changes necessary. and if they come with the kind of bold ideas that i hope they will, which they bring to me, rather than me to them, we may have a chance to set an urban model that might work. education -- i mean, i say a fundamental reform. i think we need to start getting their children to realize their passions, even in the third and fourth grade, and start

building in the building and building and connecting them with real-life jobs and make it occasions and that provides them with the skills that meet their passion and give them a career. this requires a flexible education system, more dollars in the classroom. teacher evaluation in a fair way. it is so massive that if you cannot convince the country that we have a problem here, then you are just going to have people fighting with you. i tell you, it is worth the fight. because it is about the future of our country economically. if we keep getting lapped, we're not going to make it. and i do not want the googles, paypals, yahoo!s and all these great companies or discoveries in bioscience are whatever to be made overseas. this is something we all have to work on, including with our democratic colleagues, but you have to strip the politics out of this to do it in a fair and effective way. >> in our last three minutes, it

leaves time for one more. >> i just want to follow up with what john just said. because we have spent an awful long time this year studying education in a lot of different countries. and what is happening here in our country. and one common denominator that we have found is most nations who have a solid educational system insist on the teachers have been content knowledge of the subject they teach. and here in the united states, we have courses called education courses. you can become a teacher by studying methods. and i think if you really study it, that is where we are really falling behind. the other thing we're falling behind on is -- and john hit

upon its, is occupational opportunities at a much younger age. the kids need to have -- to see what is available to them so they can satisfy the passions. >> i agree. >> right, in indiana, you can no longer getting -- get a teaching license with an education major. you can have an education minor, but we cut 36 to 16 hours, the requirement of the methods courses. it is and the quaint theory that if you can teach mathematics, you should know some mathematics. >> right. >> but absolutely. i mean, i will just say that one of those things i wish i had known a lot more about is higher education. the education schools, as we know them, are not -- let me be gentle and say they are not contributing to the solution. somebody must have something to

say about that. >> obviously, we can probably talk another hour on all this. let me touch a couple things. one, we saw this first hand, one of the areas we honed in on early was on reading in elementary schools because to us -- statistically, a kids not reading at a third grade level in third grade, they move on in the odds are significantly higher that they're going to drop out of school. they will not be in school in high school, and they will have problems in a number of areas down the road. we adopted a read it to lead initiative, similar to what jeb did in florida years ago with great success. we brought in a good -- a diverse group of teachers, educators, advocates, parents, you name it, and one of the things that with a fairly consistent point was that, even amongst teachers, they felt that there was not enough proper preparation 9 university system, in college, for reading. the skills needed for elementary

school teachers to be prepared for reading. we put a tremendous emphasis on that. we have an initiative that works on that. we're tying it into the hall elementary school. there is a spectrum, but the idea that every kid that comes out of an elementary school that is going to be reading at grade level. and similar to what was done in florida, we have our school and school district assessment system, a comprehensive assessment, not only on were skill levels our budget we do combined factors, and it gives them a great that translates into an a-f grade. there are a lot more details to it. the third part is that i hear all the time employers that say i get about 90% of my work force in manufacturing.

manufacturers tell me repeatedly that i have got jobs, but i do not have people to fill them with the skills to meet those jobs be up there in skilled trades, high skilled welders, and we need to do a better jobs in our schools and even as parents, guidance counselors, and others, telling our kids that while we want a lot of four-year graduates, that is great. we also have a lot of kids who can get a great career and a great salary by working in the skilled trades. we have got to do a better job of selling that. >> we have used our time, plus one minute and 22 seconds. thank you for your attendance, everyone. you must have the same reaction i do. is that a group of all stars or what? [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> here is a look at our prime- time schedule. starting tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, republican

presidential candidate newt gingrich told a news conference in new york city. on c-span2, ." a look at federal spectrum policy in the choices facing broadcasters. and an hour earlier at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, former cabinet officials discuss president nixon's labor and employment policies. earlier today, president obama added extending unemployment insurance benefits to his wish list for the end of the year. speaking briefly to reporters at today's white house briefing. the latest payroll tax cuts proposed by senate democrats scales back the original amount to $180 billion, paid for by a temporary tax on those making $1 million a year. this is a less than 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. my number one priority right now is doing everything that i can,

every single day, to create jobs faster and to provide more security for middle-class families and those trying to get into the middle class. and at this moment, that means making sure that nearly 160 million hard-working americans do not see an increase in their taxes on january 1. a year ago at this time, both parties came together to cut payroll taxes for the typical american family by about $1,000. but as soon as this year ins, is that tax cut. if congress fails to renew this tax cut before then, that same family will see a tax hike of about $1,000 a year. there are not many folks, either in the middle class or those trying to get into the middle class, it can -- who can afford to give up $1,000, not right now. and that is why congress must act. although the unemployment rate went down last month, our recovery is still fragile. the situation in europe has

added to that uncertainty. that is why the majority of economists believe it is important to extend the payroll tax cut. and those same economists would lower their growth estimates for our economy if it does not happen. not only is extending the payroll tax cut important for the economy as a whole, it is obviously important for individual families. it is important insurance for them against the unexpected. it will help families pay their bills. it will spur spending. it will spur hiring. and it is the right thing to do. that is why my jobs bill, i proposed not only extending the tax cut, but expanding it to get a ticket -- to give the typical working family tax cut of $1,500 next year. and it was paid for by asking a little more from millionaires and billionaires. a few hundred thousand people paying a little bit more to not only extend the existing protects cuts but expand it. last week, virtually every

senate republican voted against that tax cut. now i know many republicans have sworn an oath never to raise taxes as long as they are living. how could it be that the only time there is a catch is when it comes to raising taxes on middle-class families? how can you fight tooth and nail to protect high end tax breaks for the wealthiest americans and, yeah, barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million americans who really need the help? does not make sense. now, the good news is, i think the american people's voices are starting to get through in this town. i know that last week, speaker boehner said this tax cut helps the economy, because it allows every working american to keep more of their money. i know that over the weekend, senate republican leader said we should not raise taxes on working people going into next year. i cannot agree more. and i hope that the rest of

their republican colleagues come around in july and democrats to pass these tax cuts and put money back into the pockets of working americans. now, some republicans who have pushed back against the idea of extending this pyrrole tax-cut have said that we have got to pay for these tax cuts. and i just point out that they have not always felt that way. over the last decade, it did not feel the need to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, which is one of the reasons that we face such large deficits. indeed, when the republicans took over the house at the beginning of this year, they explicitly changed the rules tuesday that tax cuts to not have to be paid for. -- to say that tax cuts do not have to be paid for. so forgive me a little bit of confusion when i hear both insisting on tax cuts being paid for. having said that, we all recognize that we have got to make progress on the deficit, and i am willing to work with republicans to extend the payroll tax cut in a responsible way. what i am not willing to do is

to favor the extension in a way that actually hurts the economy. as americans are well aware, this summer i signed into law nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts, with another $1 trillion in cuts in the pipeline. it would be irresponsible to now make additional deep cuts in areas like education or innovation or our basic safety nets that are critical to the economy in order to pay for an extension of the payroll tax cut. we are not going to do that. nor are we going to undo the budget agreement that i signed it just a few short months ago. finally, with millions of americans still looking for work, it would be a terrible mistake for congress to go home for the holidays without extending unemployment insurance. if that happens, then in january, they will be leaving 1.3 million americans out in the cold. for a lot of families, this

emergency insurance is the last line of defense between hardship and catastrophe. taking that money out of the economy now would do extraordinary harm to the economy. and if you believe that governments should not take money out of people's pockets, i would hope members of congress realize that it is even worse when you take it out of the pockets of people who are unemployed and out there pounding the pavement looking for work. we are going through what is still an extraordinary time in this country and in this economy. and i get letters every single day, and i talk to people who say to me, this unemployment insurance is what allowed me to keep my house before i was able to find another job. this is what allowed me to still put gas in the tank to take my kids to school. we cannot play games with unemployment insurance when we still have an unemployment rate that is way too high. i have put forward a whole

range of ideas for reform of the unemployment insurance system, and i am happy to work with republicans on those issues. but right now, the most important thing is making sure that that gets extended as well. this is not just sending that i want. this is not just a political fight. independent economists, some of whom have in the past worked for republicans, i agree that if we do not extend the payroll tax cut and we do not extend unemployment insurance, it will hurt our economy. the economy will not grow as fast, and we will not seek hiring improve as quickly. it will take money out of the pockets of americans just at the time that they needed. it will harm businesses that depend on the spending just at a time when the economy is trying to get some traction in this recovery. it will hurt all of us. and it will be self-inflected wounds. so a message to congress is this -- keep your word to the american people and did not

raise taxes on them right now. now is not the time to slam on the brakes. now's the time to step on the gas. now is the time to keep growing the economy, to keep creating jobs, to keep giving working americans the boost that they need. now's the time to make a real difference in the lives of the people who sent us here. so let's get to work. thank you very much. >> tonight on "the communicators," ehrlick at federals beckstrom policy with a member of the commerce department's spectrum management advisory committee. he will discuss the choices facing broadcasters, telecom, a congress, the president, and the sec. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> french president nicolas sarkozy and german chancellor angela merkel met today in paris to discuss ways to fix the ongoing eurozone debt crisis. both leaders called for a new

european union treaty that would include stricter oversight of government budgets and automatic sanctions for countries with deficits over 3% of their gdp. here is a 15-minute portion of the news conference. ♪ >> joined here by our europe editor to pick apart what they said. they have not really suggested anything new, have they? essentially, merkel has managed to twist sarkozy's arm. >> it sounds pretty much like that. you are right. of course, there is the devil in the details, as they said. from what we hear, angela merkel and nicolas sarkozy confident they have a convincing plan which they will present to their colleagues, the other heads of states and governments, before the summit which is due to take place on thursday in brussels. they say we want to move fast, which means the 27 european members -- and they do not want to buy this treaty, well, we

will be happy to do it among ourselves, which means among the 17 eurozone members. they're leaving an option but this is a message card to eagerly towards the u.k. does the u.k. want to jump on the bandwagon or will they refrain? we will have to see. they're living all options open. but, a warning, and the others are not interested, we will do it among ourselves, because they say we have the responsibility of saving the euro, and by doing so, saying europe on the whole. what is in this treaty? they say we want sanctions against the budget sinners. this means, first of all, that any country whose deficit is about 3%, which is the current level of the stability and growth fact, will be punished. we do not know by whom, but it could be by the european commission. we also understand that both leaders agreed that the european

court of justice will have a say in this. markell, because this is really her idea, says the european court of justice must verify the conformity of the rules. sarkozy said, however, the court of justice will not have the right or the power to cancel the budget. but the european court of justice is involved in the plan. they want a golden rule to be enshrined in the constitution said every state, either the 17 or the 27 if they all agreed to adopt this new treaty. what for? well, to cap debt and deficit in the constitution. what else did they say here? they said they want to move very fast. they will, of course, see on thursday whether everybody is ready to buy this new plan or whether it will be only among the 17. they say the treaty should be ready by march and then ratified by the country. and also, because they

remembered the previous experience of the lisbon treaty, when countries were able to block it, they want to change the majority rules so that we need a majority of 85%. that is, of course, to prevent one single kutcher from blocking the entire -- one single country from blocking the entire treaty. last, a very german point of view, the leaders said eurobonds are not the solution. we need to enforce to enshrine budgetary discipline within the commission in every single member state, of via the so- called golden rule. only after that can we think of eurobonds. but do not expected at this stage. first, we need to restructure and rebuild europe to make sure we avoid the mistakes of the past. >> is this plan going to restore confidence in the eurozone? >> i think it is a very strong signal. certainly the market's wanted to see that leaders are determined.

and by saying that they're ready to move very fast and by finding a trick by changing the rules of a majority, they're giving the markets and the united states, who are watching this crisis very closely, that indeed, if a course the other leaders think that this is a good plan, -- these of the two largest eurozone members, but you have to see reactions from countries such as italy and spain. i think it is important. however, if the markets were waiting for eurobonds, the signal was very clear. it is not a solution at this stage. very little was said about the role of the european central bank. there is still a lot of disagreement between germany and france. france has always said that the european central bank should use its of limited resources to act as a lender of last resort, a bit like the u.s. federal reserve. we understand there is a tacit agreement.

let's say the ecb is independent. we do not want to interfere with the policies. the ecb will have the power to do what it thinks it is needed when buying bonds from spain or italy. will the markets be reassured? who are the markets? we will have to see if they are reassured. this is a comprehensive package of measures. the idea of changing the rule of majority is clever. the feeling was that it was all good, but how will you enforce it? we remember the referendum in france when voters declined. i think it is comprehensive. the first step is to sell it and see if the u.k. is interested.

i have doubts about that. >> angela merkel and nicolas sarkozy are meeting to discuss the fate of the euro. germany and france will have to make compromises. they say they have agreed on a series of reforms to put to the e.u. president before the crucial summit on december 9. it includes a modified treaty with rules on budget balancing. >> it is yet another crucial week for the euro. the stakes are high. this couple is at the forefront. >> at the heart of the european crisis is the crisis of the euro. it is the most dangerous one and could sweep everything else away. what would be left of economic -- europe if the economy collapses? nothing. >> angela merkel once fiscal union so that other countries

will face automatic penalties. at the heart of the discussions are differences over the role of the european central bank. is currently limited to keeping a check on inflation. >> it is important to point out the job of the european central banks is different from the federal reserve and the bank of england. >> paris wanted the you see to intervene more. both sides agreed not to push the issue. france has come into line with germany on the position on eurobonds. >> germany and france are in total agreement. eurobond cannot be a solution the crisis. i must say to the french citizens it would be a strange idea that other countries would have to pay for the deaths of others without controlling bond insurance. -- for the debts of others

without controlling bond insurance. >> their german demands for e.u. treaty change. that could take months to push through. ♪ >> in a show of unity, the leaders of germany and france have agreed on a new plan to e.u.e the u.s -- lead teh out of its debt crisis. angela merkel and nicolas sarkozy said the proposal shows their determination to restore growth and keep the euro as the stable currency. >> it is a race against time. they want their partners to take action on the treaty overhauled by march. >> we are open to either

changing the treaty for all 27 members, the most logical course. it is difficult to surmise if someone cannot participate. we will save the euro is so important it will go ahead and be open to others that want to participate. >> under the new treaty, numbers that over-spend would be hit with automatic sanctions. france and germany are meeting for monthly the leaders of eurozone leaders to coordinate policy and debt limits. the court of justice would ultimately decide whether countries have correctly interpreted the rules into international law. >> the leaders also want preparations for a permanent bail out fund to bear few -- fruit a year earlier than planned. >> aligning the core economic

values in both of our countries and increasing solidarity between germany and france is an historic decision. >> european partners will have to follow suit. they will put the german-franco proposals to the test. >> our correspondent is watching events in paris. the eurozone had a series of rules about that before. what is so different about the latest plan? >> the european pact came in with the single currency. that led us to this approach. the difference now is that apparently they mean it when they say countries will be punished if they breach the limits. there will be changes to the treaty's. it could be for just the

eurozone members or all countries. there will be this golden rule idea where each budget has a constitutional requirement not to reach the limit. if they do, punishment will kick in. it is a more disciplined statement that countries will not be allowed to get away with it anymore. the hope is the markets will be convinced. >> how likely is it that the other states will agree to the new plan? >> there will be some resentment the way it has been steamrolled and organized by the big players. tois in everyone's interest surmount a problem. everybody is aware of the urgency. even countries like britain who

are suspicious of being left out, even those countries may be prepared to swallow their doubts and say that haste an urgency require that we move quickly to sort it out. >> we will leave it there. thank you for your assessment. >> pressure mounts on european leaders to prevent financial meltdown. will.s. tructreasury secretary meet with top european leaders and members of the european central bank. he says he will offer advice and ideas to the europeans as they refine their own plans for the market. a broader european crisis could hurt the fragile u.s. economic recovery. for more, let's go to new york to speak to our reporter on wall street.

what sort of message are investors expecting timothy geithner to send? >> he is trying to tell everybody to give it all to get the crisis under control. it is quite a trip he is planning in europe. he will be going to paris, and want -- milan. in the last couple of months, the united states has been seeing some economic growth. that would be in jeopardy if europe were to sink into recession. there are domestic politics involved as to why tim geithner is doing the trip. >> the last time he went, he was given the brushoff. i cannot imagine that went down

well. >> it remains to be seen if the europeans are keen to hear from tim geithner about what to do now. something has to be done. everyone is well aware of that. there seems to be a bit of optimism that europeans might do the hard choices. we saw optimism on monday that the euro may strengthen the dollar may weaken. that is why we see is opening on wall street. >> coming out at 8:00 eastern, a republican presidential candidate newt gingrich holds a news conference in new york city. then a look at federal spectrum policy and the choices facing broadcasters.

at 7:00 on c-span3, former cabinet officials discuss labor and employment policies. >> no health care, that is the most expensive element. no environmental controls, no pollution controls. you do not care about anything but making money. there will be a sucking sound going south. >> the billionaire businessman made two attempts for the presidency. the first time he got over 19 million votes, more popular votes than any third-party candidate in history. although he lost, he has had a lasting influence on american politics. he is our final candidate in "the contenders." to review other videos and see all the programs in our series, go to c-span.org/thecontenders.

>> the brookings institution hosts a discussion on the future of pakistan and its role in global affairs. he believes the u.s. relationship with pakistan could worsen if the u.s. does not switched to a strategy of containment. this is about two hours. >> the book had its origins about 1.5 years ago. is this better?

it is the outcome of a project that had its origins shortly after i finished a book called "the idea of pakistan" in 2004. it was clear that pakistan was not dealing effectively with a number of economic, political, and other problems. one of the many paradoxes of pakistan is that there are more than enough opportunities in a repressive country. i did not think mr. ref -- mushareff was affected. there were also strained relations with india and the united states. pakistan is important because of its size, resources, islamic identity, quarrels with neighbors, nuclear program, and

status as a sponsor and victim of terrorism. the project that led to this one was an attempt to look beyond the immediate crisis. i have written that pakistan has been marinated in crisis. we wanted to take in medium- range view of pakistan. we assembled an expert group of pakistan is, americans, europeans, and indians. governmentorformer officials. there were some young scholars as well. a post two questions to each. -- i posed two questions to each. were the key field -- factors that might shape pakistan's future? the answers are in the book.

we want to thank the carnegie and rockefeller foundations, the u.s. institute of peace, and several individuals for their support. ellen hughes was the editor of the brookings press. i want to thank the institute. we're fortunate to have several contributors with us and several have recently written their own books on pakistan. they vault recently published excellent books on pakistan. there are others we could have invited but we did not have the time or resources. we decided to make this a longer than usual book launch with two panels. if you paid money, you get two to the price of one.

i will ask the panelists to stay in a recent events may change their judgment about the future of pakistan. i will give them an opportunity to reassess what they wrote a year ago. before we go to the first panel, let me ask one of the contributors to say if you words in memory of one of the participants who was the source of wisdom. >> hillary was a dear friend of mine from the time we served together in pakistan, before 9/11. we know look back on those as halcyon years of our relationship. they were not that great then. is that better?

when i think of hillary, i think of several words. stoicism, rectitude, pragmatism, insight, candor. he was a private person until you got to know him. then he was a very warm person. he was multi-talented. he started life as a naval engineer who served in submarines. he then decided to surface in the diplomatic corps. after serving in europe, he became one of the foreign office's leading officials and experts on south asia. he found his home in the diplomatic corps. he served in india, pakistan. he was head of the fco office in south asia. his last position took him way

out of his line of endeavor and was his -- probably the worst time of his professional life. for six months, he was the head of the british administration in basrah starting in 2003 after the iraq conflict had wound down. he wrote about this in a book called "bad things in basrah." it was not a good appreciation of our effort or the british effort. for a year or so afterwards, he remained rather bitter about the experience. he also wrote two books about south asia.

one was about the advent of nuclear is asian -- nuclearization in asia. the last book was on the transformation of pakistan. it is a very optimistic book about what could be the future of pakistan. he did not dodge trying to tell the truth about pakistan's deficits. steve has written this in the forward to the book that we are launching. i thought he showed his insights by using a term i have not heard before. he said many people think it is either a glass half full or in the on pakistan. he said he thought it was a

glass to large -- too large. that was based on the idea that pakistan may have set out in life with more condition than it had resources to fulfil. i want to talk about our final communications. i saw him a lot in the last few years. last june, only a few months ago, when i arrived in england, i sent him an e-mail saying that i was there. for the first time i got an e- mail back saying he could not meet with me but hope my visit went well. we had two or three more exchanges of the notes -- e- mails. he was always very upbeat. i told him i was writing a paper on public opinion of pakistan.

he said he would love to see it as soon as he got out of the hospital. he was literally on his deathbed when he wrote those things. i think his last writing for publication was about five paragraphs on foreign policy. i think the title was "be angry about pakistan's treachery but do not go nuts." this is a bit long, but it is my memorial to a dear friend. he reflected the constant service of the antique world where people serve for duty. he was not for the fashion of our times. [applause] >> it was sir hillary that warned me off the idea that we

are a delphi panel. he pointed out that the oracle of delphi was a woman and her predictions often lead a person to disaster. let me turn the panel over. we have about an hour for the panel presentation and discussion. we will then bring the second panel appeared to conclude the meeting no later than 4:00. >> thank you for inviting me to participate. i still remember with some regret you are inviting me to participate earlier. i am getting desert without having had the main course. thank you for the lovely remarks about sir hillary.

he certainly was a decent, thoughtful, and created public servant of the sort that one does not see that many of. it is my pleasant duty to introduce my fellow panelists. before i do so, i want to give you some thoughts to frame the discussion. i encourage each of the panelists to focus on things their particular chapters brought in that were unique to them or are under-discussed issues. if i were going to be a panelist, i would have focused on pakistani relations that are going through an awful time at the moment. the central thesis of the book i

wrote with my husband is the pakistan's prime negotiating tactic with the united states is what one might call the art of the guilt trip. one of my more elegant pakistani friends referred to as playing the victimization card. that does not necessarily mean that the trip is an appropriate or the in victimization card misplaced. it is a way of dealing with the relationship that has been difficult for both sides and is that a high point of difficulty for both sides now. i assume this will form some of the backdrop of the presentations. let me introduce the panelists. i will introduce each of them as they come up. the first one is to my immediate left. that is dr. christine fair from

the georgetown university school of foreign service who has a distinguished career in political science, data analysis, and embarrassingly long list of distinguished books. the one i do not see on this otherwise splendid bio is the "cuisines of the access of evil." you can talk about cuisine or something else. the floor is yours for the next five minutes. >> pakistan is in the book. it was the finest book ever. i get paid $15,000 to write it. pakistan, israel, and india are all included in the book.

the dinner -- pakistan chapter is called "dinner with the taliban." when steve asked me to come on board, it was difficult in 2009 to be optimistic about pakistan and it's foundational challenges. in the wake of recent events, it is even more difficult to be less pessimistic than i was. in the chapters are wrote, i laid out a number of foundational challenges. there is a tendency to look at the pakistani problem set of the day. there is the democracy problem, the army problem, the terrorism problem. when i look at the pakistan problem set, it largely reduces

to what i think is a fundamental failure of constitutionalism. fatah is a failure of constitutionalism. that was the optic i had for the chapter. the specific issue of like to focus on today is the source of terrorism. i do not want to rehash what we know. pakistan uses its nuclear umbrella with impunity such that it can use jihad as a primary institute of coercion. many of its proxy's have turned against the state. when i look at the literature of the militant groups, and like to draw your attention to a trend that is less obvious.

the sufi shrines have been under attack. this is new in the history of pakistan. about onely talking perpetrator. that is a group of militants. they are a network of groups that overlap. it is a disturbing trend in pakistan, the ability of these groups who remain a minority in numbers to declare who is or is not mujahideen and then prosecute them with deadly violence. this is new. it has seen the slaughtering of shia. idea that a minority has given to itself the right to say who is or is not a muslim is new. one thing that has depressed me

as someone who has had a long time relationship with pakistan is that there is no ownership of the problem and how it arose. if there is no ownership, there can be no solution. i do not think there is a silent majority. for those of us who are in pakistan, people we had known for decades justified the killing of him for being a blasphemer. for those of us who have been in pakistan during times of crisis, it is shocking to find what the silent majority would say. i went to the old city where i had been a student to talk to folks i had known for decades. in their assessment, it was the indians that did it. you have these proxies gone wild

tearing the fabric of the state apart. the tendency is not to diagnose the problem, the reliance on militants under the expanding nuclear umbrella, but rather to externalize a problem anywhere and everywhere it can. following the recent debacle in u.s.-pakistan relations, you will find people saying what is wrong with jihad when you have imperialism? the fact that it is not an embarrassment to say they had jihad, or rather that this is the counterpart to imperialism. he is exciting because he is enervating the pakistani politician. the way he is doing so is not

because for activists to be jumping up and down with glee. he is taking pakistan into a bizarre notion. now he is excoriating the west as he embraces islam. he is doing this as a way of recuperating pakistan's sovereignty. he has the blessings of ghq. he is very softhe is soft, and s not think they are a problem. if you look at how pakistan is dealing with both islamist violence on the one hand and there is no way of getting at this, you have to look at the debate taking place in pakistan

about who the state is for. in this state, a book has been written about the fall plan of the state-nation. what role is there for -- what role is there fors hia in the state? non-muslim minorities, but increasingly they are coming under the gunned from militants. at the end of the day what i'd really see, we have fundamental issues that pakistan cannot resolve. in a functioning state we would bee parties that would meeting eating? the stake was for, what is the relationship between the center and the provinces. in pakistan, and i do not care they are religious,

and they are all one degree or another furtively integrated. -- vertically integrated. if you look at challenges and try to line up what it would take to resolve the issues, that elements of statements ship and electoral politics and not seem to be in alignment to address these challenges. where i conclude that chapter, where i concluded a peace in 2009, and that is contained. the last 10 years of trying to convince pakistan to behave differently with weapons system should disabuse us these are contained. the last several talks i have given i have put forth what i think is a model that we can

debate. it is not perfect, but it is the soviet union. during the period of the soviet union, we were adversaries. we wanted different things in the region. we operated against one another more than we operated with each other. we did not cut off relations, we did not cut off diplomatic relations. we understood the goal, problem set. we invested in civil society, but one way when the system breaks open, there will be people to work with. the final point, and this is where i get my most -- myself was in trouble, as we learned the soviet union could fail. the nuclear problem would be handled. the world was not going to end. going to ambassador schaffer's remarks, pakistan is able to andve the system 's national crisis. we have a lot to learn from the

cold war about how we might manage our future relations with pakistan. [applause] >> thank you very much. our next guest is william milam, once ambassador to bangladesh, and subsequently in pakistan before any of that. we were colleagues in the foreign service, where bill was the shining light among economic officers. i hope he will let some of that light shine through his presentation this afternoon. bill? >> the light may go out halfway through this, but let's see. anyway, i plan to devote most of my remarks or at least the last

part of my remarks to the economy. but because i was one who covered that in the book, in a superficial and not very helpful way, and i think maybe that does bear looking into because in all of the talk we have had, of talk we had about pakistan, one rarely hers mentions of the economy. it is in shambles. that me say first that these purpose -- papers were written first a couple of years ago, revised for the brookings website, and then revised again about six months ago to eight months ago, for the book. they are revisions of revisions. you know something? i think it shows how fast things are moving in almost always that

we want to stand up here and tell you what i would have done differently had i been writing it today. i will go very briefly through those. the first is in an early part of my chapter, i write something that i thought was quite eliminating at the time, but there were certainly going to be a political solution in afghanistan. anyone who reads that's now says, where has this got bed with the second thing says, i write an article called "lost generation," i thought was not too bad, and it did catch the exclusion is elements that crist talked about, but had i been writing it now, i would have translated those in to the enormous volatility and the power of public opinion in pakistan, which drives

everything, including probably i am sure the latest downturn in our relationship. and i would have also written in the part on u.s.-pakistan relations that, were writing it now, i would have played down to almost zero, if you will, the importance of our economic assistance. was a great idea, but i think it is not the solution and never was. we need bigger ideas, i think, or different ideas. maybe not bigger. in regard to the economy, one of the reasons one does not hear about it much these days is because for some reason, hard to know what exactly, things

evidently seem pretty good in pakistan. the people are not complaining. they seem to be working hard to fix their energy problem, to fix their monetary problem. but in fact, i think most economists who are familiar with pakistan would tell you that pakistan is driving over an economic cliff, and who knows when the edge of that cliff will be reached. things are not likely to be able to be -- to stay as they are very much longer. they have, as you well know, because it has been old news now for several months, decided they have no more truck the international monetary fund, which means that in fact they begin paying back the fund next month, i think, and of those -- of that great amount of what

they call reserves, which comes in the foreign exchange reserves, most of it belongs to the fund, and that does not belong to the fund belongs to other lenders, such as china. there will come a time in the near future, unless things change somehow, where they will be down to a very few months' imports, and they will begin to panic, and the exchange route will deteriorate worse than its. and that sense, and they are heading for shortages on imports, shortages of things like energy imports, or actually pulling in their horns and going back to the imf. what would that mean? the imf would mean they would have to agree to some very, very

difficult conditions, difficult economically and probably more difficult politically. they would have to agree to pay much more in taxation. the tax-gdp ratio is now 8%. that makes ours look good. in fact, they have no intentions, although they claim to, to have plans to raise taxes and to raise the revenue base does not look very feasible. they have also adopted a monetary policy which, in the teeth of inflation, does not make much sense at all, because they seem to be, as far as i can tell, increasing the money supply, which sooner or later you will get to some sort of

spiralling inflation dragon food prices up as well as the prices of meredith n.l., as well as having am effect on their foreign exchange rates. i do not think i will go into exquisite detail on this, but i think the next big crunch in pakistan, certainly coming soon -- well, i have a whole minute left. how about that? i do not need a whole minute. the next big crunch in pakistan will be on the economy. how it comes out, i am not sanguine. unless they put their tail between their legs, their hands together, not in a baking bowl, but go to the international agencies, the world bank, imf, and plead and promise, really, that they will make structural

changes in return for a little help. we will see if that happens. i would not bet on it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, bill. our next speaker is shuja mawaz, who was born in pakistan, and since january 2009, the first director of the south asia center of the atlantic council. having had at a distinguished career before that with various think tanks, since at the imf, the world health organization, and various publications, and he is best known in this town for his books "crossed swords ," is a history of pakistan scene to the president of the pakistan

army. shuja, the floor is yours for the next five minutes. >> thank you, i want to add my praise for --some one i work with when i joined the it and the council, we produced the their first publication that my south asia center released in 2009. [unintelligible] all i can do is echoed the comments that were made earlier about hillary. that is where the feedback was coming from. >> that's right. >> my chapter was called the original feature of -- was

called cordially "the future of pakistan." the reason i chose the feature was that it was a bit like yogi berra " about pakistan coming to the fork in the road and taking it. the reason for that is in pakistan there is a great tendency for politicians and leaders to stay purely tactical and call its strategic. there is not an appetite for strategic thinking or planning. as a result, pakistan's economic future is a matter of great concern, and i will not go into the details that bill has just already talked about, but i want to remind people that in spite of all of this, there was a world bank study that looked at 1980 to 2007, the developing

world, and the result that emerge from that was the one country that came out with the highest average drug trade over that period was china, at 9.9%. the country that came in second was surprisingly pakistan, at 5.8%. i cited this purely in support of my contention that growth and development in pakistan occurs in spite of government and in spite of the state, which means there are sinews a strike in pakistani side the, which, if they are allowed to operate, would be able to break -- bring the country back to an even keel l. i was asked to focus on the demographics. for those of you who were here last year when we meediscussed a book on corruption, i apologize, but with a population of about

185 million, pakistan have a median age of either 18 or 21, depending on who is counting. yet something like 90 million youth that are going to be fed, educated, and given gainful employment. this particular pyramid structure of pakistan's population is gone to remain over the next 15 years. another challenge going to occur is something like 80 million youth will be added to the job stream by 2015. pakistan is no longer the trajectory which would allow it to stay ahead of this population growth curve. the country is increasingly urbanized, meaning that what used to be small -- small rural towns now have all the characteristics of large cities, and the large cities are now a mega cities on a global scale.

the question is, what will happen when the current census, which is already underway, is completed? if it is completed correctly and if under its rules the country than changes its political boundaries, there is likely to be a political shift in the countryside to the city, because most of the population is now gravitating to the city. now, there has been a tendency in pakistan bust history for the center to acquire power and to take it away from the provinces so that what started off as a federation recently became a centralized state, where all the

power was centered, normally in the military rulers, or even in the civilian rulers when it took over between long military roles. the good news is somehow after something like 18 years of debate, there was an agreement between the center and the provinces and the national financial commission was agreed to placer, under which the three ordered the sharing of revenues between the center and the provinces and try to make up for what had been shortcomings in the previous formula. this was accompanied by the 18th amendment of the constitution, and the evolution of power to the provinces. there was no planning for the indolent nation -- for the implementation of that evolution.

there is a squabble between the center and the provinces with the center is saying to the provinces, you handle all these sectors, and the provinces saying, we do not know how we're provide the resources to manage them. then they understood there was a model which the center had followed which bill rally did too, which was deficits financing. they saw that they had thatpumjab bank, was an atm machine. now i have requests from the other provinces to set up their other banks said they can incurred these deficits and turn to the center and say, please go ahead and play this bill. and it just in sidelight to this shift is even in the military the population that has moved closer to the city's or is in the cities is now in being

recruited by the military,, particularly in the officer class. when i was doing my analysis, that showed in the decade ending 2005, or officers were corroded -- recruited from karachi. sell a shift in the recruitment to districts that were more in central and southern punjab, also districts that are impoverished. remember this is also where the most militant groups are recruiting. that juxtaposition is likely to create a problem. within the power structure of pakistan we noticed a shift also from what used to be a troika situation0's, tod a where there was a balancing

act, where you have an imbalance now, where you have the military, the civilian president and prime minister, and emerging judiciary, and then you have the media representing civil society and the rise of civil society. where does the future take pakistan? a lot will depend on whether there is it the best -- whether there is a debate within the country, whether that debate, which is inspired by the so- called silent majority, that may or may not exist, which they need to have in order to determine what kind of pakistan they want to be. if not, it will continue to be a clash of the old interests, and you will simply have musical chairs from one party to the next. some of the actors may change, but the principals will remain the same. thank you.

>> thank you very much. [applause] [unintelligible] >> the final speaker will be moeed yusuf. is not fair for him to have such a long and distinguished list of publications and care where it stopped at his tender age, but he does. and i would also add that he and i had the pleasure of working together on a group that went to moscow last summer to talk with pakistan and afghanistan specialists from the russian academic establishment. moeed has made something of a name for himself, trying to look beyond the immediate future in pakistan, and that is what i am hoping he will help us, and lightness on this afternoon.

>> thanks for inviting me and having the as a part of the project. my chapter in this book is called "youth and the future," and so some of the things i talk about, people who have come to me and challenge me on the presumptions, essentially to meet what i wanted to get away from, which is, did you see what happened last weekend? my answer is i did not care, because if i am looking at this young generation, you have to move away from what preoccupies us. some of the figures were mentioned. 67.1% of pakistan is below the age of 30. and proportional -- in

proportion, it is second only to yemen. what i did in the chapter was in essentially looked what ever leaders are available or what ever has been written about what the youth are seeing their country do, what they wish the country to become and how they are motivated in seeing pakistan's future. compare that with what are likely to be realities they have to deal with. i will talk talkfour or 5 future-oriented projections. if you look at what the youth of our thinking of and what the perceptions are today, some

stand out. it is a highly conservative generation that is coming up, not to be confused with extremism, but it is aware of its ethnicity, which may or may not be a change from the older pakistan. in terms of politics, it is increasingly frustrated and discontented with the addition, political leadership, the current government or whether who has been greeted by swirling that in the past. there is no philosophical commitment to democracy. if you look at the historic trend, one could argue once that frustration level rises to a point, a backing up of the system is fair game. the most interesting aspect i fight over and over, even by

evidence of talking to people up crossed pakistan, they are frustrated, willing to criticize, but none of them are willing to touch politics, because it is dirty business. the question is, you want change, you what positive change, you're not willing to change anything yourself? who doesn't? then you go back to the same leadership. this is an and result paradox for pakistan. third, with the current mindset, the man was the mind-set is anti-extremist, terrorists are not popular, but at the same time avidly anti-u s as well. these will continue to coexist as i mentioned briefly later. these three things stand out for what i want to say here. in terms of the realities their car to face, some of them are structurally set for pakistan in

the next five years to seven years. education -- all indicators are looking up. qualitatively, not so much. the stratified system is producing three societies within a society. the public education system, mainstream conservative bias, the private elite system, which is one end of the spectrum, and in the seminaries, few in number, compared to the others. witif you look at the narrative in social media now, it is polarized and divided, pointing to the other for the problems pakistan faces. the right-wing sentiment i am seeing, this is a lead to being part of the problem, western- oriented. they are looking at the right and did not understand what needs to be done.

seeds for polarization are found in the way they are being educated. second, i do not need to talk about the economy any more. the next five years to seven years, the projections are grim. you can add these youth and the number put out, coming out in the market and not fighting the requisite kind of outlets required. what that would lead you to something i call in the chapter, the expectation-reality disconnect. essentially under employing them and leaving some out of the force. i did not buy this argument which has been made that while you are socially and economically deprived, you fall to extremists. i do not buy that. the problem is not the supply side. it is the demand side.

the demand for militancy as trumped the supply. the access to militancy is quite open at this point, and it that continues or not. quickly throughout -- let me throw out quickly five projections. there is going to be a tussle that will continue, but the traditionalists seem to have the upper hand at this point, given the way the use mine sets are set up and what the realities may be. second, there is a likelihood of an increasingly fractured and polarized society, and the narratives are already pointing in that direction. i will go into some detail as to why make that case. there are bears at lights evidence points to. you can be disillusioned and not

do anything. in pakistan's case the extreme sectarian, ethnic, and provincial affiliations, to add -- can come together in various ways. what one can say in terms of projection is none of them -- is that none of them look pretty. it depends on how bad it gets 15 years ahead. politically, you can look at about 60 years and a project for, and there's not much change there. democracy is a proper option, but if the leadership continues to fail and the military has a role in treating to that failure, and if they continue to fail, i did not rule out a systemic change in terms of either going back to the military or coming up with some kind of creative model which does not reflect a democratic dispensation. the problem is that the frustration levels are so high

and the structural problems are so deep that no government, any projection i do, i did not come up with any scenario where in the government's can perform well enough for the people. there is always this expectation-reality disconnect was shot pushes that militants the sentiment among the youth. there is one change that is happening, and we do not know how that will play out, and that is the organization in pakistan di. the whole of the feudal belief is shaky. whether the next generation or the urban bourgeoisie to become more prominent have a different take on politics is questionable. you would argue yes, but in pakistan passed case, my experience is is not a landlord and a feudal holding that is a

problem, it is the fuel mindset, which permeates the urban elite and in some ways the urban elite surpasses the ruler ones. whether that will bring positive change or not we will have to wait and see. finally, i think pakistan, given the mindset and realities, akistan's internal divisions enough that they will not allow a consensus to be forged on any platform in terms of politics, either a pro-taliban platform or an anti-taliban platform. i really did not see that as the real danger. what will happen is that the narrative of the street right

will continue getting conflicted with anti-americanism and imperialism that is being imposed upon the region. that publication, the trajectory nti-u.s. atremist, and i the same time, and you go to crisis to crisis. . you go from a fight to the next one. thank you. [applause] >> that you very much, moeed. still have a little bit of time for questions. let me urge those who wish to ask questions put up your hand. i will try to recognize people as i see them. identify yourself and your

affiliation, and above all, i hesitate to say this, try to be brief so your friends and the rest of the audience had a chance ask their questions as well. >yes. we have a mike coming. >> the substitution of the state as the state starts failing. look at urbanization, and education, security. in all these areas, the state is failing, but you are surprised

by the private effort across all pakistan in each of these areas . education is diverse. it is aggressive. it is making a substantial substitution for the state. [unintelligible] given by contractors to provide supplies. finally, security. most of them in the cities, security is provided by private forces. the question that i am asking is, as the state fail, these

substitutions are very important. probably should pay some attention to that. >> important observation about the apparent substitution of private fort state efforts. the gentleman in the blue shirt behind him. >> hi. my name is tony, and i had the opportunity to be ambassador hillary in baghdad several years ago. he referred to me as cousin, although i do not know that there was a direct lineage. i wish there were. i wanted to ask you two see ones. with regard to recruiting in the army, and we knew of the army as strong influence, i am not sure i crest complete, but you mentioned that recruiting in karachi outstretched those of other areas. i would like to know what the

facts might be from that institutionally, and then especially as it relates to international relations. then can somebody tell us a little bit more about the level and character of education s horace of the upcoming generation, and particularly, what is the philosophy that is prevailing there -- secularism, tolerance, intolerance? i have heard conservatism. could you expand on that as it relates to the education of the. -- to the education of the youth. >> the fact that there is more recruitment from karachi banned from the other districts, which are areas of maine recruitments of soldiers, was surprising.

there has been a tremendous internal migration within the country. no way of pinning down the nature of what has occurred. the fact that people are living in cities, they are acquiring all the traits of urbanization, and the points of view that in the cities as opposed to those who live in the countryside and grow up in the countryside. that will have an effect in time. in terms of the effect on the aretary's politics, increasingly conservative as the rest of the country now. a lot of the traditional records are not going into the military, so we will have to wait to see where the urban poor rossi will head and -- urban bourgeoisie will head. >> i had the privilege of

working with shuja, and i raffle of a team of economists, if large said a panel stated that allowed us to look at those districts producing officers. a couple of things. i have a paper coming out. the first is that increasing the pakistani army is recruiting from the less educated. there is on to beat this minimum threshold. the areas producing these officers, that is because even at higher levels of the era of the officer corps, and the perquisites are appealing, but for junior officers it is not that great. thinking of a family making an investment in education allocation, it makes sense then go to the private sector.

we see a sweet spot in terms of education for the military, even though they are coming from districts that are less well educated. they're coming from areas that are more socially liberal, and you can quibble with how we define that, but we define socially liberal as those districts where the gap between male and female education narrowed. you had a generally liberal district, you have women who are more educated than men. the other thing we used to look at this was the age of first marriage. when we look at those metrics, and you can dispute whether they are -- those are interesting. the interesting thing about that finding, you can find steady from last year, the urbanization and the social liberal fighting was interesting. for those of you who know pakistan, it is in the urban

areas where political islam thrives. it is not the purview of the villages, has a lot of people here are under the belief. that is it for my comments. >> it briefly, i see the pakistan education system as comparable to the burress of south asia, which is to say it is terrible. there is a conservative bias that that is what you would see across the region for the most part. where i think we miss the point is talking about education in isolation. the context is more important. the context, the young pakistani generation now coming up is not conducive to tolerance. it is becoming more and more intolerance. it is becoming much more intolerance and polarized. -- intolerant and polarized.

>> i am the former director of operations at the world bank, and i would like to direct a comment to shuja. talk about the -- you touched upon the evolution, and the government is doubted this particular thing as a great success. my contention is that it is mired down in capacity shortage, both at the individual level, not so much individual, but certainly at the institution and mostly at the policy level. if this institutional capacity and other forms of capacity, are lacking at the center, what chance is there for it to evolve that this would be successful at all? if you agree with my contention, and number two, to do, what can be done about it? >> i think i did mention that

the idea was a good one, but there was no planning for the implementation. in my brief comments, i did not go into details of that, but this is exactly it, the capacity was not there at the center, and it is not there in the provinces. what you have done basically is moved whole sense of responsibilities to the provinces, including a whole chunk of receipt that you physically shifted to the provinces without a means of being able to put them to produce. this will be a difficult transition for the provinces, but still, the very idea that pakistan is not diverting -- reverting back to its idea of a federation rather than a centralized government, which success of dictatorships, military and civilian both, could take advantage of is a good thing. maybe there is some hope to go

back to the comments were the class is too big and the question is how do we fill its. -- it. >> hi, i make visiting journalists from pakistan. i want to make a comment to what was said. blasphemy is not there at issue. -- is not their issue. that is why the guy who killed --[unintelligible] in pakistan, we have two types of military organizations.

[unintelligible] bair toward the west of the indus. they followed that sector. that was my point. blasphemy is the issue of the -- it is not the issue of the -- thanks. >> briefly, you are absolutely wrong on every single point you made. i do not need to say anything else. what people were shocked at one the -- came out in support of -- that was their problem for failing to understand who they were. they're not the only issue. they are not the ones supporting

these militant groups. false. >> we have time for one more question. >> hi,i. isn't a question that pakistan narrative has failed from the beginning? pakistan was created in the name of islam, was really supposed to be based on the founder of pakistan to be a country for everybody. since that narrative has consistently failed and the establishment of the people who feel threatened that pakistan is threatened, they are trying to find a new ideology, and there is that will keep pakistan together. i want your comment whether the spread of fundamentalism and

extremism at is fanned by the fear that without islamic cement, pakistan is going to disintegrate. thank you. >> i will exercise the privilege to attend to respond to that. pakistan was founded as a homeland for the muslims of the subcontinent, and the founder spoke eloquently on what he believed that this meant, and i am sure you are familiar with the quotation from his speech before pakistan's independence. i think it is fair to say no issue has been so hotly or consistently contested in pakistan, as the issue of what that means, what it means to be the homeland for muslims, what it means to be a muslim country, and so on, and it would take far longer than we have available this afternoon for me to let have introduced the two

different sides to this. what did this all mean for pakistan's future? what you are seeing this playing out on a backdrop that is not just religious, it is social, it reflects the elements happening around the world between moslems and non-moslems and within the moslem world, and all these things are coming together in a rather dangerous brew that the people of pakistan are front have to sort out, and those who wish i said well from other countries are going to have difficulty dealing with. with that, let me thank my panelists, and steve, our valiant convenience. the decision has been made that we're not going to have a break. we're simply going to shift panels. this panel will do its best to

get out of a way as quickly as possible, and to let the next distinguished group take our places. [applause] >> welcome. immediately to my left is pamela constable, a staff writer for "the washington post." she has extensive experience in covering pakistani affairs, having served as the south asia bureau chief. she was also bureau chief in

kabul from 2002 until 2004. she has continued to follow events in the region closely, as reflected in her new book, " playing with fire

administration. he is the author of his own recent book on pakistan entitled "deadly embrace." on my far left is joshua white, the youngster of our panel. he is a ph.d. candidate at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies in the jennings randolph peace scholar. he spent time in pakistan doing research and has presented his findings in numerous forms an inmate testimony before the congress street he is an active participant in several high- level u.s.-pakistani dialogue straight his current doctoral work focuses on decision making in the islamic parties in pakistan. last but certainly not least, to

my right, is marvin weinbaum, a scholar in residence at the middle east institute, and a professor at the diversity of illinois, where he was director at the program in south asian and middle eastern studies. he is -- he has also served as analyst for pakistan and afghanistan in the bureau of intelligence at the state department, where i first got to know him. he has written extensively on pakistani topics for a wide variety of journals and books anthologies. he has long been one of this country's leading authorities on pakistan. as with the previous group, i would like to invite our panelists to gaze out at the next five years to seven years of the future of pakistan, predict where it is headed. it has now been a year and a

half since the bellagio conference was held, and the biggest change that has happened in the region during that period has been the dramatic downturn in u.s.-pakistani relations, and i would ask the panel to funnel that phenomenon into their five- minute remarks and discuss where things may be headed in that relationship, which suddenly seems to have an enormous impact over pakistan over the short- to medium-term. the me term to pamela. >> can you all hear me? is this on to about that? we are both at an advantage and a disadvantage in the second panel. a great deal has already been said over the last hour and a

half, and i did not want to repeat the points that were being made before. we do not have that much time, if we're to our schedule, less than 45 minutes. i'm going to be very telling dramatic here, just makes a bullet points. the previous speaker talked about the solidity of events of which i am certainly a minor victim. i had to revise my recent book something like six time after it was finished and at the publisher to accommodate such things as floods, covering the country of pakistan, the extension of general -- the killing of -- and then, worst of all, for many reasons, the capture and killing of osama bin laden, of which we were only be able to get something like one sends into the final, final, final version of the books.

the second part i want to make is in reading through these chapters and listening to all these comments, i am struck by the extraordinary commonality of the diagnosis. speaker after speaker, chapter after chapter, everybody seems to generally agree on a set list of problems that asset has been facing for very long time and continues to face. it is also striking out pretty bleak prognosis seems to be. i have not heard much in the way up optimistic forked-looking, places for hope. if you look at the places where people would like to look hopeful, there's always in the down side, media. media has an enormous potential for positive change, but also has a downside.

it is pandering to the lowest common denominator in many cases, which is extreme emotionalism, anti-foreigner, anti-americanism, a lot of bad things happening with this great new medium. to judiciary the judiciary and, there been enormous changes -- that has had its disappointing side. not that much has changed as a result of the restoration of -- it has been quite a disappointment, the nadir which was the positive accession -- exception -- yes, there are some positive points, but juries to get be a great things are not going very well. i want to talk about a couple of

things where i think there are some opportunities possibly for help, for ways that things could be improved. i want to talk about, since we're being asked to, the u.s.- pakistan relationship. we all know it is getting worse. i want to focus particularly on this issue, because i work a lot about on that on the two years i spent researching might recent book. that is public opinion. it is very true that , yes, most pakistanis do not support terrorism, cockeyed, the taliban, or cutting off people's hands. at the same time, the body of evidence shows that anti- westernism has never been higher in pakistan and is now. it is across the board, and we're not talking as other students have said about four alienated starving people.

we're talking about all kinds of people. we're talking about broad public sentiment. i would posit there are two reasons this is happening. three, i guess. one is, and i said this in recent talks, what i see happening is this growing confluence of not what i call the al qaeda school of thought , of thoughttwo other phenomenon, one of which is the growing emotional and very emotional tensible lness abou islam. this to bele feel the case. there needs tho to be a much

better, and narrative. that needs to be countered. pakistanis feel frustration. people feel alienated from the state. people feel they have nowhere to turn. they're getting very mixed messages from their leaders, from television, politicians, religious leaders. they did not really have anything to graft onto except their religion. there are many ways they can go. if you look at what is happening on the campus of punjab university and the appeasement going on, it is very alarming. we do not have enough time here to talk about solutions, but i think there are many areas where it if you want to put it ing up moderation,

trying to isolate the extremists fringes. it is the only thing that is going to make a big difference in the long run. [applause] >> i would like to return to bruce, one of the architects of the obama administration policy toward the region. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be with such a distinguished group. i want to underscore the importance of this project i have been benefiting from it from conception, being able to

read and i can say that a deadly embrace would not be the book that it is without having benefited from all the drops. -- drafts. we are, once again, in a debt to his leadership. because of the time and because of a very sore throats, i will try to make two points very briefly regarding pakistan's immediate future. i fear that we are seeing the creeping establishment of pakistan's fifth military dictatorship under way right now. what do i mean by that? it is not going to be a repeat of the era, it is going to be something more subtle. in many ways, it is another

military dictatorship. there is a group in power that makes decisions irrelevant to what the popular vote, what the popular majority is and what the elected government is. that is a phenomenon we are increasingly seeing in today's pakistan. it has been in essence for the last three years. we are seeing a qualitative change in the power of those four legs. some will say that this was always inevitable. because of the nature of the president was, the nature of how it came to power, was doomed to fail. that is clearer in retrospect than it was in 2008 and 2009. the witnesses are profound and they go to the very core of the weakness -- of the politician

that he is. it is the benefit of 20/22 0 hindsight. the facades of civilian government is likely to go on. there will still be president and prime minister. behind that, they will have very little of the real power. the media will continue to be very active and alive, except when it criticizes the army to seriously. the judiciary will be able to do what it wants to do as long as it does not challenge the military. behind the scenes, the army will decide the key issues of national security and allocation of resources. one can say, this is not new in pakistan. that was in some dispute over

the last three years. there was an attempt by civilians to change that. the civilian government itself and many of its leaders, this includes the president, are increasingly intimidated. and scared to death, frankly, of what the military can do. memo-gate is the ultimate illustration of all of this. it is ironic, since the whole purpose of the memo, was to prevent a military dictatorship, it is facilitating the development of a military dictatorship. i hope that to ever wrote the memo, and to ever wrote about the memo, can live with their conscience about what they have done in the interest of self- promotion. the model that pakistan is becoming, unfortunately, is the

south asian version of algeria. a country where the military roles behind the scenes. it is very hard to know who in the military is rolling behind the scenes. an assembly of generals who make decisions behind curtains, behind a false fronts all the time, not a single powerful person, but a collection of them. in the case of pakistan, it is the corps commanders. the good news is, i do not think the process is a revocable yet. i think it can still be turned around. i think pakistanis can prevent this from happening. new elections to produce strong mandates for a new government could turn this around. it is no guarantee by any means, but it is a possibility. left on the steady drip that it is, i see pakistan going into its fifth military dictatorship.

the second point i would beg is also one that is relatively simple. the united states and nato today are fighting a proxy war in afghanistan. this has been true since 2005 as well. many of the bales behind this proxy war are falling apart. -- veils behind this proxy war are falling apart. the entire world, the united nations, nato, the international community, is backing the karzei government. the pakistan government is not there. it has been backing the taliban fort some time. the assassination of the president on september 20 it was a defining milestone in the process. it's clearly put pakistan on the side of the force that does not want to negotiate, not interested in a political process.

up until september 20, we could hope there would be a political process in afghanistan. when that bomb went off, that hope came to an end. they find themselves on an increasingly dangerous and as lead toward collision course in afghanistan. there are some breaks built into the system. whether they will prove to be strong enough to prevent disaster from happening, i think it is becoming in question. [applause] >> thank you, bruce. >> thank you, it is great to be back at brookings institute. i see so many familiar faces in the audience. i want to make one point about the u.s.-pakistan relationship. the first, u.s.-pakistan

relationship, bruce has written a lot about containment towards pakistan. i think there is a lot to condemn -- command that line of reasoning. -- come and the line of reasoning. it is not the most helpful contract. i want to explain why i think that is the case. a lot of people use containment as a shorthand for limited cooperation on matters of mutual interest in the environment of some discord. i think that can be an element of policy contained. you can also call that in the number of other things. you can call that a modest transactional relationship. you can be realistic about the areas in which we disagree. another characteristic of

containment is that containment means planning for the worst case. on this point, i would contend that we already do that. we do a lot of planning for the worst case. we planned for realistic worst- case scenarios, non- proliferation scenarios. we spend a lot of time planning for, what happens if there is another mumbai attack? what is the fallout of that? we also spent a lot of time planning for highly unrealistic worst case scenarios. what if the taliban will into islamabad and decide to do something there? i think we already occupy ourselves with this kind of planning. again, we do not need to call that containment. the third, one of the senator characteristics of containment is putting pressure on proxy.

we saw this during the cold war. the metaphor does not entirely fits because our primary area of peripheral engagement with pakistan is in afghanistan. it is the proxy engagement that is currently carried on in afghanistan. that is likely to decrease over time. the one area where we're likely to continue to engage pakistan is in relation to those groups that come from pakistan to engage in transnational activity. there is something changing in the u.s.-pakistan relationship. the scope is narrowing. there is more suspension -- suspicion. we can call that something other than containment. in my chapter, i touched on a number of different things. i speculated about looking ahead

in pakistan. i want to touch briefly on three of them. the first is what is going to inppen with islami afghanistan. i would like to highlight what chris mentioned. one of the disturbing, surprising things has been the vitriol and the violence directed against what has traditionally been seen as a more moderate expression, a more moderate branch of islam in pakistan. we have seen bombings against shrines. elements ofeen those supposedly moderate groups that have become violent as well. this was mentioned by the questionnaire. the attack was brought to the

surface, it -- a whole stream of radicalism that many people had not seen before. it is not that everybody is crazy in pakistan. we have to see the dividing line, not so much as between the liberals and the extremists. what is the balance today between the liberals and the extremist? but to look inside of all these groups and to ask some more focused questions, like what did they believe about who can enforce the sharia? a lot of these questions will come down to who can take sharia into their own hands? accounted forced into their own hands? as we look to the future, the dividing lines between those two -- those groups ever going to be more stabilizing will fall along questions like this. i mentioned in the chapter, i

speculated about the prospect of a civil -- a center-right government and marching in pakistan. at the time, i said, -- a farmer to adjust now, i would say, -- we could have a very interesting discussion on what that might look like and how it would impact u.s.-pakistan relations. it would not do anything dramatic to the relationship. it would allow some of the military centers of power and others to deflect even more of their problems with the united states on to the parliament, rendering them moveot. i have been studying islamist politics, i've spoken to the party is about to they would

like to align with in the next election. i would expect that some of the parties would like to be part of a center-right government. there is now a whole post of -- host of opportunities at the provincial level for policy- making that did not used to exist. there are a host of opportunities for islamist parties and coalitions to play around with education policy, and with health policy, and other things. one final point, i know this has been a discouraging afternoon, the one area where i take issue with is when i looked at the nationalist problems of pakistan, of ethnic fragmentation, these terrible visions of what the state will become. i am more sanguine on this point.

the most troubling kind of question is one in which the taliban get really smart and decide to appropriated for their own purposes. today, they have not done that. we've seen the government to a lot of positive the things. the 18th amendment involves a number of powers. there have been little outbursts of demands for provinces. all of these are possible over time as part of a grand political bargain. the state has been quite adept at dealing with this. at a meeting some demand in a minimal sense in order to preclude a broader tendencies in

society. i would not to be borrowed a lesson from what india did in the 1950's and 1960's with the state reorganized site -- organization, but there are parallels in how they have quieted these tendencies. the state is more coherent than what people give it credit for. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, joshua. >> i guess you'll come away from this session thinking pakistan is in crisis. i can understand why. the trouble is, this is hardly a new observation. in fact, the immediate crisis is lost. certainly, what we recognize our

many of the ingredients that we would have thought would be a game changer is along the way never came to fruition. whether it was because of the vehicles for change were not there, whatever it was, we tended to focus of the deal on a certain resiliency in spite of everything. maybe an inertia. in any case, the spark was not there. it is not surprising that when i wrote my chapter, and i laid out six possible scenarios, which include all of what we have heard this afternoon, i assigned probability to them. i give the greatest probability to muddling through.

i do not entirely back away from that. it just seems given what we know about the country, what we know about the propensity for change when all the same players seem to be on the scene perpetually, and everything changes, but nothing really changes. even with this continuities scenario, there will be changed. we also have worried about -- we also have worried that if it is ok, there is a silent majority. we have heard that before. somehow they stand apart. if only they had an opportunity to express themselves. it is a state which is taking it away from them and they are more reasonable, more likely to be tolerant and so on.

if you do not like the silent majority, civil society is there. if you did a time -- if you give a time, it will be able to step up and put one of my best scenarios afford. that is where i was when i wrote the chapter. i am not backing away, but i must say, with the events of this year, it has led me to question whether it is going to be business as usual. we are seeing a series of developments. for example, which we once thought of as the jihad emerita of, some of the conspiracy theories, you cannot leave

pakistan or the media and not say, these have become a consensus. we come back to a word that was used earlier. are we seeing something qualitatively different emerge? i leave open that possibility. what has happened here -- is the army simply manipulating things? it seems as though the politically aware public has gone beyond even were the military wants to be. what we have seen is the ability of the policy elites to act with a certain amount of independence of the public, which they have done right along. one story for the public, there

are degrees -- their degrees of freedom have shrunk. then i see something like what with the media and the cable owners apparently matched a day or two ago and they came out in favor of suppressing stories written abroad that the critical of pakistan. these are the champions of expression. the cable media has opened up all kinds of opportunities. what i am really concerned about, and i think others have reflected on in one way or another, there is a strong element of continuity, but is it being torn by the kind of

rhetoric that we are hearing consistently? the narrative has not just anti- americanism, but islam is a challenge. they do not have to win elections. the soul of onwon the country. that is the insidious development here. as we try to dialogue with pakistan, we like to think that we can work within the rational boundaries. if we face -- it leads us to

wonder whether -- we recognize we have to. pakistan is there, we need one another. we have to find at least those common denominators. find agreement. it is in both of our interest. my concern is obviously how much more difficult that has the,. -- has become. no one has suggested the way out of this. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, marvin. i would like to add my own cautionary note. things are bad now, a very bad. basically because our goals in afghanistan are incompatible.

the pakistanis want a friendly state and they do not think the karzei government is back. if we pushed too hard, the danger is, things could get a whole lot worse. if we were to come to blows with the pakistan army, the only force in society strong enough to prevent a jihadist takeover of the state. i believe you with a paraphrase of colin powell. break it, and you own it. >> thank you. you talk of a fifth coup.

is this going to be a function of the structural changes and the makeup of the pakistan army? the fact that they are not going to be interlinked with the last, in the view of what has happened in the 20 years? to what extent will this be due to the personality of the army chief? they tend to have different personalities and 10 to play different roles. -- tend to play different roles. >> i very carefully avoided using the phrase "coup."

the process is much more slow- moving than that. much more insidious. it is a process of power all moving into the hands of the army leadership. if you look back to 2008, it was not in that case. are changes in the officer corps leading it? they may affect the tone of what the new dictatorship looks like, and it will be more anti- american than ever before. the intensity of anti- americanism amid young officers is astounding. the personalities is less important than it was in previous dictatorships. i can envision a situation in which an army officer leaves

after a historic, but the leadership continues. the collective leadership, which is making the decisions now. in that sense, it is a transformational figure. he does not seek all power in its hands. -- and his hands. at least yet. >> i would like to add two quick points. it is important to remember that most important thing for the army leadership is public opinion. they do not want to be out in front of public opinion. that is why they waited so long to move against the taliban. public opinion is getting more conservative and more emotionally islamic. that is very important to remember. the same people are very, you know, civilian and military. it is the same society. if you looked at what happened

after the assassination of osama bin laden, they were completely caught off guard, they were completely obsessed by this at the top. -- obsessed by this at the top. = = upset by this at the top. thank you. >> i would also add there is really not that much of the change. the army is basically -- has always basically call the shots on national-security issues. they have been inclined to let the civilians run domestic affairs and economic affairs. i do not think there is anything at all unusual about what is going on. it is more of a reaction to this current dramatic downturn in u.s.-pakistani relations.

>> i have listened to all of the panelists in both discussions. steve writes beautifully. every time, he says, this is my last book. one of my observations, i tend to disagree with her. the only reason he is becoming popular, every political party in pakistan right now. people are frustrated with each leader and every party.

when they look back, they do not see anybody else. he has no experience. my question to bruce, a few years ago, when we were having lunch, you mentioned the obama administration supported the consolidation of democracy. after making that recommendation, how do you think the political establishment is working in pakistan? do you see a silver lining on the war on terrorism? the extremist islamic militancy is marginalized, and how can we make this relationship between

the u.s. and pakistan more sustainable, which is critical for most countries, for the region, and for the global piece? thank you. -- peace. >> silver linings are hard to find here today. you asked me how i think the support for civilian government has turned out over the last three years, and i made it clear, it is not doing well. that is not the fault of the american effort to back it up, but we made mistakes. it has more to do with dynamics of internal pakistani politics. in 2009 president obama embarked on a policy toward pakistan which i called engagement with drones.

that strategy made sense at the time, but i think in light of these developments i laid out, the growing weakness of civilian government and the growing intense evocation of the proxy wars, it is time to shift to a policy of engagement and containment. that is to say to continue to engage pakistan to support the development of civilian government, help the economy, help pakistanis, but help contain the worst excesses of the pakistani army. we are not doing enough on the containment part, slipping and sliding on it, but without a framework. i would like to underscore that drones is not a sufficient policy.

the tendency in this administration to use drones as a solution. drones are an effective tactical instruments, but not a strategic policy, and we need to reset our policy toward one of engagement. >> we have time for one more question. >> you mentioned the creeping -- a possible game changer in new elections, and then you mentioned disaster, if the u.s. and pakistan continue on a collision course. i want to say as a pakistani i believe new elections will not be the game changer we hoped they might be because the verdict of the people will be more divided. i think will be more easy for

those who have kept -- to carry on manipulating the policy. my question is, given the probability that we will continue on this course, what do you think disaster will be? could you please spell out what you mean by "disaster"? >> there are any number of disasters out there. another mumbai attack, a mass terrorist casualty incident in the united states that is postmarked "pakistan." becoming a hot war. it could be limited hot war. i would before not to end on the

disasters that are coming, because i know is easy to fall into the trap of extreme pessimism about pakistan. you are almost always right when you go down that road. i prefer to go down the road of optimism. i remain an opposite -- an optimist about pakistan because of the pakistani people, and what i had seen written in the pakistan media. the media is still made up of scary stories, but is also filled with a lot of thoughtful pieces by people who recognize what is going on in their country. that is a source of optim ism. i did not rule out we might have a silver lining sunday for the people of -- some day for the

people of pakistan. >> my fear is the united states does not have things -- does not have the ability to make things better, but has the ability to make things worse, and i hope the act responsibly with our dealings with pakistan in the future. >> that may think this panel and the first panel, which are a brilliant series of discussions on pakistan. when i wrote my book on the idea of to pakistan, i said this could be a major foreign policy problem by the end of the decade, and unfortunately i think i am right. i worked for george shultz once, he said hope is not a policy. somewhere between hope and despair, and mike chapter, which had the benefit of leading these

other chapters, i looked at the question of whether it pakistan is irretrievable. one more point. my first book of pakistan was banned and pakistan. given what martin said, this program is not banned in pakistan. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up, making each holds a news conference in new york city. on c-span2 and, it is "the "ommunicators appea.

tomorrow morning, paul tonko talks about extending the payroll tax holiday. then senator johnny siakson. and then announcement of the postal service that it will cut services to reduce costs. live tuesday at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> it is so convenient to listen to c-span with the free c-span radio app. you get all three c-span television networks. you can listen to our interview programs. c-span, available wherever you are. find out more at c-

span.org/radioapp. >> now today's white house briefing. topics include negotiations of congress on payroll tax cuts, the arrest of the faa's administrator, and the downing of a military plane in iraq. this portion is 20 minutes. [unintelligible] does he support their plan? >> it has been reported on by the associated press. i did not want to get ahead. it is the case we're working with our colleagues in the senate as we did on the proposal which was voted on and which earned the support of more

than 50% of the u.s. senate last week. we will work as the president just suggested with congress to find a solution to this important challenge, which is expanding theexten payroll tax. >> where do you think you are in the process, the you think you are in a place right now where you have the support of many republicans on your idea of extending the payroll tax cut, or are you still trying to get them tobuy in? >> that is a great question to address to that a number of the senate and house who are republicans, that while the republicans -- while the president has noted, there have been indications from leaders that they now agree with the proposition that independent

economists have made clear is the case, that extending the tax cut is very important for economic growth and job creation and allowing middle class americans to experience a tax hike in january which have a negative impact on notch them personally, but on the economy and of jobs. that is progress. as we saw in the senate vote, the surprising senate vote on the senate measure, there seems to be at issue not with pay-for s, whether or not it is a good idea to cut taxes for a hundred 60 million americans. to put it another way, we are coming down to it, the clock is ticking, to the point where if congress does not act, middle- class americans, 160 million americans will have their taxes go up on january 1.

>> is the plan the president to focus more on the american people? >> the president himself, as well as members of his team, will be engaged with members of congress and key staff members to push forward a plan to reach a conclusion, to get it passed, and signed into law. i do not want to forecast what form of participation that would take in terms of either the president or other members of his team, but you can be sure there will be a concerted effort at every level, both in terms of the public articulation of the president's views as well as discussions with members of congress. >> how concerned are you about

reports of voting irregularities in russia? >> i believe secretary of state clinton expressed the administration's position earlier today with regard to the elections in russia. we have serious concerns about the conduct of those december 4 parliamentary elections. the concerns are reflected in the preliminary report the observation mission, including lack of fairness in the process , that tends to stuff ballot boxes, and manipulation of voter lists. equally concerning our reports that observation efforts, including the nationwide global network, and independent media outlets, including experienced harassment. we applaud the initiative these

and other russian citizens have taken, a positive development that the report highlighted. >> can you believe that? i am not a holiday spirit. the family research council and cbs news but reported a 93-7 senate vote to approve a bill that includes a provision which repeals the military ban on sex with animals or bestiality. thus the commander in chief approve or disapprove of bestiality in our armed forces? >> i do not have an answer on that.

[unintelligible] >> i have learned my lesson. we will let everybody get a chance. [laughter] >> i am wondering if you could explain what the u.s. ambassador to belgium meant in his comments about anti-semitism regarding israel cost policy? policy.l's this administration condemns anti-semitism to iin all its forms. the ambassador has expressed his regret, bidding he strongly condemns anti-semitism in all its forms. this administration has consistently stood up against

anti-semitism and we will continue to do so. our record on this speaks for itself. whether it was opposing one- sided efforts to single out israel with the human rights council, speaking out within the arab world. to your question, the ambassador himself has addressed this, so i will direct you to his statements. our position is quite clear, and our record is even clearer. >> as it represent the administration 's point of view? >> i think the ambassador has spoken on this, put out a statement on it, and our position is very clear. i would point you not just to our record against opposing one- sided efforts to single out israel, speaking out against incitement in the arab world, or

opposing efforts to cut negotiations at the united nations, but the key at the nation's commitment to israel's security?th we have to look at our clear position on this as well as our records, and i think -- we are talking about -- only asked me because he is the ambassador and works out of the state department for this administration. let me be clear about what the policies are, what the administration's positions are. >> is the ambassador of the reservation and a bit? >> let me be clear about our

position, and i quoted him because he is right, because he said he condemns anti-semitism in all its forms. >> in terms of how the paper the tax cut, republicans outlined a plan in which wealthier americans were asked to sacrifice to means testings of social programs. does that not meet the requirements of the wealthy paying their fair share? >> two points. was a small portion of the proposed means of paying for the payroll tax cut extension in the republican measure that went down quite decidedly, with not even a majority of republican vote spit there was a window dressing aspect of a measure that was forcing the reopening

of the budget control act, the agreement that the president and members of both parties made a few short months ago, and the president made clear his position on reopening that agreement. exactly what people get frustrated about with regard to washington, when leaders in washington say this is my position, i signed on the dotted line, you have my word, and months later evelyn want to change the rules on the sequestered or change in terms of the agreement on spending cuts, which i would point out discretionary spending cuts that a already been agreed to in congress would bring us to the lowest percentage in terms of not discretionary defense spending as a percentage of gdp since dwight eisenhower was president. these are quite dramatic cuts, quite serious cuts, and the

inclusion of the measure you talked about was a small part of the republican pay-for. >> it meets the requirement, but not enough? >> it does not pay for, so it is not enough to pay for it. i do not want to negotiate the particulars of an end game or get ahead of senator reid or senator casey in terms of the proposed compromise or a new measure to extend the payroll tax cut. while that measured does asked in some way wealthier americans to pay their fair share for a little bit more, it is not in and of itself, any where closer to paying for this tax cut. >> the speaker is expected to put up his proposal later this week. after that, do you expend in negotiations with -- >> time is running out.

i did we can expect -- goodness. that is quite all right. this administration cost white house will be working with leadership of both houses, to get this done. there is not a lot of time to waste here. it is the essential for the health of our economy and out of fairness to 460 million americans to get this done. >> why not initiate now? >> let's be clear. we're working with congress. because as you know we do not announce any conversation or meeting that the president has or the senior team members have demeaned where working this issue. we worked hard, which shows that

we got the votes last week pit it got a majority of the u.s. senate, including the republican vote. the senate measure got 20 republican votes, or 20 votes overall. we're pushing this. there were not for the leadership, we might not be debating this come and the republicans in congress might not be even taking up that issue cut extension. our friends in senate are moving forward. >> are you in conversations with republicans? >> i will not read out every meeting of conversations we at had. we do have conversations with republicans, yes come on this matter and others. >> a quick question about the faa administrator, arrested this weekend for dui. >> the president was informed of

this in the last hour, as ever been in the white house, as well in the department of transportation were made aware of this just in the last hour or so. he did not have a particular reaction, just passing on the information. my understanding is that the administration has requested to take a leave of absence from the faa. secretary lahood accepted that request. >> no reaction? >> he reacted as you might expect. [unintelligible] i would refer you to the department of transportation. >> the president be asking for his resignation? >> what we have at this point in terms of a matter that just came to light within the last hour or so, we have the administrator

requesting his own leave of absence, and for further disposition i will refer you now to the department of streets petition. >> on iran, you have a missing military aircraft that has crashed in iran. how badly damaged was the aircraft? >> i will refer you to questions on that matter to the department of defense. >> nothing on that? >> it depends on the question you asked. i will not get into detail about the aircraft or other issues involving incident itself. >> the iranians say they shot it down. do you deny that? >> i refer you to the -- president roosevelt gave a

historic speech kansas. it is one of those words you have read. this was 111 years ago. the point that the president is making by speaking in the same location, the ideas that the president roosevelt put forward about the need for americans of all kinds to get a fair shot and a fair shake are very much at issue today, and the president's bspeech will encapsulate the debates we have been having this year over our economic policy and over our economic future. he thinks it is an opportune time and location to try to put into a broader perspective that kind of debates we have been

having and the issues that are of vital importance to building and economic future in this case in his mind to give middle-class americans a fair shake they deserve. >> who is not giving them a fair shake? >> it is abundantly clear and as clear prior to this most recent economic crisis that the middle class in this country has been squeezed for lyme -- for a long time, especially in the last decade this has been an issue that has animated this president before he was sworn into office. it was the reason why he ran for president, as he articulated many times. it is the focus of his work here in office, the need to do everything he can through his authorities to help the middle class expand and help those who

aspire to the middle class gain access to it. if you step back, the speech will provide a context to the debates we have been having this year and will continue to have, but it goes to some of the issues we're talking about now, the absolute necessity and fairness of extending the payroll tax cut for middle-class and working americans. the need to have the senate confirmed the consumer watchdog, because republicans have made pretty clear they did not oppose him personally, but they are wrong to try to block his nomination in order to prevent the consumer protection bureau for a having all of its authorities to take action to protect consumers. we passed that legislation because consumers

deserve protections that they did not have in the financial crisis that led to the worst recession since the great depression. >> [unintelligible] the president talked a lot about the -- can you identify specific areas where the president has been a look at in the past three years that has helped? where has he succeeded? >> when he took office we were on the part of an economic calamity, the likes of which could have been even worse than the great depression. people were predicting global economic collapse, unemployment as high as 25%, the need to nationalize the of banks, etc., etc., the elimination of the

domestic auto industry. the result of that, including the 25% unemployment would have been -- we know you are enjoying this, and jake. [laughter] let me finish my thought here, which is everything this president has done on the economic front has been focused on giving middle-class americans economic security that they have lacked now for a substantial period of time in which has been even more sorely in need because of this great recession. >> tonight, a look at federal spectrum policy, with dake gatfuekd,' -- with dale hatfield. -- with dale hatfield.