heatwave on food prices. that is 8:30 a.m. in the final hour, stephen tanekl talks about -- tankel talks about u.s.-pakistan relations. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: good morning. as the july 4 recess comes to a close, congress is returning this weekend the house is looking for more debate over the farm bill and it already passed the u.s. senate and a scheduled vote wednesday on a repeal of the affordable care act known as obama care following the ruling last week by the supreme court. it is sunday, july 8 and will begin with our focus on u.s. foreign policy and hillary

clinton who is in tokyo today for a series of talks on the u.s./nato role in afghanistan or the next decade. will get your calls and comments about u.s. foreign policy generally and the performance of the secretary of state, hillary clinton specifically. our phone lines are open -- you can join the conversation on our twitter page and facebook. or send us an e-mail. there are a couple of articles related to the secretary of state and this one is from cbs news.

she beat the former record held by madeleine albright. there is this from "the l.a. times." she was asked about corruption in the country. she said it is a major challenge to meet the standards of accountability and transparency. the exchange came during this unannounced stopover by the secretary of state. even if her words or encouraging, many in the international community fear much of the billions spent on the country is going down the drain. the latest request from afghanistan is $4 billion _ in the long term needs for the country but also the ongoing concerns about corruption in that country. >> [video clip]

we will work together to set forth a long-term political, diplomatic, and security partnership and it entered into force, just a few days ago. i am pleased to announce today that president obama has officially designated afghanistan as a major non-nato ally of the united states. we see this as a powerful symbol of our commitment to afghanistan's future. later this year, i am looking forward to convening the new u.s.-afghanistan bilateral commission. to intensify our cooperation. our strategic partnership agreement is not ended any other country. our goal is to work with the

region and the international community to strengthen afghanistan's institutions so that the transition is successful and the afghan people themselves can take responsibility and the future of afghanistan will be safer and more secure. host: those are comments from secretary of state hillary clinton yesterday in kabul.

the agreement does not entail any secured a commitment by the u.s. to have them stand. more details from the announcement we heard from the secretary of state yesterday in kabul. our phone lines are open and you could also join the conversation on twitter. let's hear from todd, from michigan, independent . caller: first of all, afghanistan does not have a future. i don't know what we're doing there. the soviet union was in there for eight years. in all of history, no eyes -- no one has ever managed to conquer afghanistan. there is a movie that has been out a few years called "night

company" and i suggest anyone in active service or our leaders watch this movie and take a good look at the mistakes the soviets made. and realize this is just a futile endeavor we involved in. if we were going to do anything there, we should be destroying the poppy fields. host: thanks for the call. this is the front page of " the new york times." defying expectations and bullets, libyans across most of the country who voted yesterday in the first election after more than four decades of isolation and totalitarianism under moammar khaddafi. the voting was far from immaculate. regional rivalry force the

closing of several voting booths. at least two people were killed in her life -- in election- related violence. nate is on the fund from tennessee -- on u.s. foreign policy, secretary of state clinton visited her 100 nation. good morning. caller: good morning. not too long ago, obama was talking to the leader of the soviet union and he thought his microphone was off. he implied that he was going to compromise u.s. security and then we had the scandal and a political expediency were they reveal information. i have a grandson who wants to go into the military. i said to hold off until we get a commander achieve that we can

trust. -- commander in chief that we can trust. secretary of state hillary clinton is a law saying liberal leader. host: your calls and comments and observations about american foreign policy and the performance of the secretary of state who is in tokyo today dealing the nato allies on the future of afghanistan. an event that took place this past month at the brookings institution, the secretary of state was joined by the israeli president shimon peres and he was asked about the challenges facing developing countries like a afghanistan and pakistan and the u.s. roles in those

third world and developing countries and developing democracies. here's a portion -- [video clip] >> consider the 30 african countries that have created or are now creating comprehensive national agriculture investment plans. when we look their own spending, even those countries that have met the goal of allocating 10% of their national budget to agriculture, and then when we add to that, but pledged to support from development partners like the members of the g8, a significant gap still remains. government alone cannot supply all the investment needed to transform agriculture. we need the private sector. that is not only true agriculture. private investment has become invaluable to development across the board. host: secretary of state clinton

focuses on the developing countries and the issue of feeding third world nations. we will have more on developing democracies but we're getting your calls and comments on u.s. policy. chris on the phone, republican line from pennsylvania. caller: the guide said dennison was a lost cause, with secretary clinton going there -- with the guy that said afghanistan was a lost cause, we need to be focused. there is corruption but we need karzai to be gone but we need to stand fast in afghanistan and make sure that even if it is not

a perfect democracy, we want to make sure that al-qaeda cannot come back and to the taliban is stopped and we neck -- and we need to make sure we have marginalized force. there are forces that have been killed and sacrificed. we need to make sure afghanistan is a good country and a decent country at least. i just want to make sure that we think about that. host: this is from "the new york times" --

back to your calls -- from san antonio, good morning, independent -- caller: i think is rejected it is set in america when you look at places like libya and iraq when they have their first free elections knowing they can be killed and 98% show up. we cannot even take three hours of that her employer has to go vote. i think that is preset. one of the problems in afghanistan, we need to break up the clans in the armies. these people have to understand

they are not fighting for clans and more. they are fighting for each other. host: you can join the conversation on our facebook page. we're asking you about american foreign policy and the performance of secretary of state clinton who has announced that she will leave the post regardless of what happens in the november election. she had eight years in the senate in new york and was the former first lady. caller: thank you for cspan and thank you for taking my call. i think hillary has been a very productive secretary of state. look at the number of travel miles she has logged as well as a whole hour of spring has happened under her foreign policy command. it is ironic that what i diem as

republican efforts to deport any progress -- to thwart any progress, she is one of the best secretaries of state we have had. i hope he keeps her in that position and maybe for vice- president in the next election. host: from "the boston globe" -- conjoined the conversation on our twitter page. from developing nations to developing democracies, the comments of the secretary of state last month in washington. [video clip]

>> we did not include everybody in the first run. we excluded women, among others. we had to fight a civil war to extend citizenship to former slaves. we have to be honest enough to recognize that time has sped up and, to some extent, the work that has to be done in building these new democracies is much harder today than it was even after the berlin wall fell. every single move is now scrutinized, spread around the world through social media. it is really hard. even if the people involved are coming at it with the best of intentions, good faith, they will face a lot of setbacks. and challenges to their decision making and other problems that will make what they are attempting to do in the economic and political rom's

very difficult. women are the canaries in the coal mine in these societies. how they are treated, whether they are included will tell us a lot about what we can expect from the democratic movements of that are ongoing. host: that is from last month here in washington. going back to the cbs news.com story -- she visited let the last week. it is the first sunday u.s. secretary of state had visited that country in almost 20 years. she has six months left. she is not interested in serving

another four years as secretary of state of the president is reelected brenda is on the phone from petersburg, va.. caller: good morning court and thank you for taking my call. we are worried about what hillary clinton is saying and what is going on and how they treat women. we have no choice and more in the united states and our reproductive rights and our rights are being challenged all over the world now. i know what i had to do to get the right to vote at 18. 20 years later, people are being disenfranchised and we wonder what is going around -- was going on around the world. look at what is going on in the united states of america.

access to health care is being limited. i have no job which means i am not spending which means there is no demand which means there is now hiring. that is all i have to say and i wish i could say more. thank you for taking my call. host: thanks for the call. back to " the new york times" -- mrs. clinton is arriving in tokyo today for a meeting that is intended to raise billions of dollars for the afghanistan post test 2014 civilian government but much of the rest of her triple focus on building economic ties to the fast- growing nations of southeast asia that becoming increasingly

bound by trade with china. she plans to visit vietnam, cambodia, and laos which is not received a secretary of state since 1955 when john foster dulles visited the newly independent country during the eisenhower administration. there is a photograph as the secretary of state talked about the ongoing situation in syria. back to your calls -- the performance of the secretary of state in u.s. foreign policy, a josh on the phone from michigan, good morning. going on what the last lady said. i think we should be worried about america first. 200 years ago, we basically had good ideas and we have to

correct this and make it better. we have to have positive action. as far as jobs, is old and she can't work and i am 20 and and just starting off and cannot get work. we zero chan add trillions of dollars and cannot pay them back. >guhost: there is a story this morning on the front page of "the houston chronicle." when she was 16 years old, she

was working in pakistan and she was asked whether she was a christian and she said yes and she was tested again and said she is a proud christian and some asset was poured on her face. it is a scar she is now calling her gift from god. michael is on the fun from romulus, michigan, good morning, republican line. caller: good morning, cspan. if you have an id and you are not dead, you can vote. that is guaranteed. my heart goes out to the lady with the acid thrown on her face. that is a terrible message to get on sunday morning tv. i hope the americans, all 300 million of us, see that is very

important. hillary clinton a great american, doing a great job although i should think she -- i think she should do more leading rather than mediating. thanks and have a great day. host: another story from cbs news.com from may of this year -- democrats' line is next, from michigan, good morning. caller: good morning, slavery has never ended. we keep telling our people these laws. -- these lies.

[unintelligible] the black man can be treated like that. stop these lies that we have been freed from slavery. host: secretary of state talking about the issue of slavery and human trafficking and we will hear from her in a moment but this is from "the new york times"--

the issue of human trafficking, the secretary of state called it slavery. [video clip] >> today it is estimated as many as 27 million people around the world are victims of modern slavery. this is sometimes what we call trafficking in persons. i have worked on this issue now for more than a dozen years. when we started, we call the trafficking and we were particularly concerned about what we saw as an explosion of the exploitation of people, most especially women, of who were being trafficked into the sex

trade and other forms of servitude. i think labeling this for what it is, slavery, has brought it to another dimension. host: the comments of the secretary of state on human trafficking. that event is on the cspan of video website. next caller is from corpus christi, texas, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. there is something i've been wanting to say about cspan for quite awhile. i hope you will bear with me. i would like to refer specifically to the last two callers who mentioned we need to solve the problems in the u.s.

first of all, we live in a global community and we always have. naturally, we will have global relations. that is one aspect of life that we just have to accept. having said that, my comment about cspan is that i don't understand why people cannot stay on topic. it is a real simple thing to do. , especially this election year. everything gets turned around and the republicans versus democrats, i cannot think of a better example. you do a great job. i think he received an undue amount of criticism.

please, i wish people would stay on topic and i hope you continue to do a good job. host: thanks for your kind words. we realize it is difficult to get through but we appreciate that comment. let me go back to the story that is generating the question this morning about the performance of the secretary of state --

this conference comes on the heels of a stiff -- secretary of state visit to kabul. details are available online at thehill.com. this is from " the new york times"--

there is a caricature of bill clinton playing the saxophone and hillary clinton in her traditional pence suit. newport karl rove island is next, good morning. caller: i can no longer support hillary clinton because of what she has done. reparations to poland that the holocaust committee. she has written a letter to the polish president requesting he make a decision soon for a holocaust industry and they pay reparations. but preparations they want is $250 billion. they request that the polish people participate. more polish people died and did not participate in the holocaust

than jewish people. host: birmingham, alabama. your comment. caller: my comment is this the irrebuttable she has done well. i feel she will be judged after her tenure. -- my comment is this. she has done well. my comment is afghanistan. this is a serious problem. if we want to put billions of dollars in the country of afghanistan, we have to be sure we're not creating a curtail and influx into our major cities across this nation. host: thank you for the call. this is from our printer page. -- our twitter page.

right man for the job. ever hear of the clean up woman? with integrity, she will get the job done. next, on our democrats line. good morning. caller: i am shocked i got on. this is great. my thoughts are, i read a book by a great historian a while back. he said the benefits of empire are two, but a few. it simply means we're trying to expand the empire, but who really benefits? all this money we're spending will probably benefit some manufacturers, some suppliers. the halliburton's of the world. it seems to me if we had the money but we spent trying to

police of the world, we might be in a surplus right now. if we thought that through, it is following in the same footsteps of all her predecessors on both sides of the aisle since world war ii. thank you. host: thank you for the call. a lookdemocrats' line, ahead at what we can expect. the farm bill will be front and center in the house. the senate already passed its version. the price tag, around $1 trillion. the two chambers have kept their prices down. this will likely go to congress.

of course, live coverage on c- span. wisconsin, good morning. democrat line. caller: good morning. i am calling to ask that secretary clinton be made aware of and possibly shine a spotlight of the youth of israel and the youth of palestine who are seemingly getting together through social media and communicating amongst each other. working out plans for peace and overreaching the older people. you know, the older heads of

state that are in control, but that are making peace amongst themselves and plans for the future. i would love to see that nurtured by our secretary of state. thank you. host: thank you for the call. on the republican line. caller: hillary clinton does not have the interest of the united states first, in my opinion. she is pushing this one world government. we just sent money to libya. we to be focusing on here at home more. to the previous caller talking about israel and palestine, i do not think there'll be anything until all the palestinians are displaced. that is not going to occur. host: let me pick up on that point because there is a piece related inside of "the washington post."

back host: again, this morning, from inside "the washington post." host: also, two subcommittees on

the health-care law. how the law affects doctors and patients and how it'll affect job creation and economic growth. the victory for the present tempered by the republicans about to appeal. john boehner said it will vote again. it will be the 30th related a vote since the health care bill was passed in the previous congress. the issue of 2012, keep your politics out of my health care. a look inside the court ruling which reaffirms that policy judgments are entrusted through our nation's elected leaders and to be thrown out of office of the people disagree with them. it also declares that the wisdom of obamacare is reserved for the people. the people have their chance to

render that judgment on november 6. another related story on the health care bill, the chief justice of the united states ruling surprised a liberals and conservatives alike. from a management decision, it makes perfect sense. this thought about hillary clinton. obama in 12, hillary in at 16. the performance of the secretary state in u.s. foreign policy. what are your thoughts? caller: i wish she would be clever and not to preserve the sovereignty of this country and be more focused on protecting israel. also, the person who works so hard, please to not hang up on

me. the person who works that is an arab, she is connected with the muslim brotherhood. there is also a sisterhood of around. we have the united nations there trying to control and takeover our country. there were things going on not too long ago. also, little kids were spewing out hatred and vulgarity and everything. and nobody did anything about it. why didn't they pick it up on the news? it was quickly taken off. host: what are your sources on this? caller: the muslim brotherhood our shrine to takeover your country. host: what are your sources? caller: it is obvious.

it has been said over and over again. host: by whom? caller: i have nothing against muslims if they are good people. if their aim is to bring their lot to our country, we need to be careful what we are doing and who comes into our country. our borders need to be enforced. host: what is your source? caller: i heard it over the news. in different places. host: thank you for the call. up next is darlene. good morning. caller: thank you for allowing me to be on. i just want to make a comment that i think a team of obama and hillary clinton is fantastic now only for the planet, but for our country. i think they handle everything in a smart and strategic way. i think there are firm and fair.

i love the way they are building alliances. they have a tendency not to go after any situation alone but for the alliances with other countries. i think the way they have handled iran has been smart, strategic thinking. the 21st century drone of warfare is great. i cannot say enough about this team. i feel much safer as a country because of their minds and the way they are thinking. thank you. host: thank you for the call. one of our tweeters saying it's all over. sorry about that. up next, on the independent on line. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on two issues. one is about the woman who had

an acid a burn and is now in houston. to see someone like that going through this much pain, i think those people are the worst in the name of islam. i would like to point out that similar pain and suffering is being experienced by other religious minorities over there. to the extent that even the graveyard in that country. i had an experience with my own mother whose funeral i attended. we had to pay.

i think we give a lot to this country. unfortunately, we do not control. our qualities do not really influence a day-to-day life. if you tie the opening and the drone strikes kills 20+ people. but i think you start with a positive note about obama and hillary are right, but they have gone on the far side. there u.s. popularity has declined in these countries. host: thank you for the call.

the headline, her cross to bear. the issue of religious persecution. she says the scars are her gift from god. roadside bombs and insurgent attacks have killed 16 afghan civilians. militants are trying to reclaim territory. however, the surgeons have stepped up this summer trying to take back.

killed by three separate the blasts. coming up later in the program, we will have more on u.s. foreign policy in afghanistan was next in that part of the world. good morning. caller: good morning. i disagree with what hillary is doing over there. she is more interested in those arab countries than in the united states. as far as her and obama working together, i think it is denmark. all the people that are working out of their need to hear this. in denmark they have health care, and a 58% tax. if that is what you want, go ahead and reelect obama. thank you very much. host: thank you. a couple other stories.

a finding common ground. the right thing about the so- called fiscal cliff. it would require democrats and republicans to agree how much tax revenue to collect. they almost crossed that bridge last summer. several stories related. looking at what is changing of voters' minds. the washington post on looking at what issues controlled by the campaign that have little or no control. from the new york times, rent hikes. inside the price of power, the democrats have a deep distaste for the rules of american campaign finance and the game

have to play. mitt romney raising money. but he is expected to collect an estimated $3 million this evening -- this weekend. meanwhile, all this weekend on c-span2 and booktv, we're looking at jefferson city, the capital of missouri. the deputy talks about the missouri state penitentiary and its reputation. he explains the love/hate relationship between jefferson city and the state penitentiary. here is a preview. [video clip] >> is this kind of right in the middle of capital city of state of missouri. from 1836 until 1989, this was

the only maximum-security prison for adult male offenders that was run by the state of missouri. basically, the got every individual that was a problem child. this was called the bloodiest 47 acres in america. it is located off of east capitol avenue which used to be called east main street. initially, when the prison was built, it would have been on the outskirts of jefferson city. but the town built around the prison. with the way the city limits in corporate that era, it is kind of right in the middle. it is almost eight relationship for the town to appear without the prison.

as long as everything went smoothly, it wasn't too bad. it was almost like a slave labor. then you have periods of unrest. people would say, we have to do something about that prison. from the time it opened until the very week to the alamo battle opened in texas and until we close in 2004 it was that love/hate relationship. host: all this weekend, you can get more information about our travel around the country. we looked at, among other

things, the so-called 47 bloodiest acres in america. you're watching "washington journal" for this sunday morning. we will take a short break. terry madonna will join us. and what factors should you take in for the price of food? more on this sunday morning. >> and we had pulled in around 9:30. >> the former commanding officer of the uss coal on the advance surrounding the outcome at the 2000 attack that left people dead and injured. >> at 11:18 there was a

thunderous explosion. you could feel all 505 feed of the destroyers thrust up and to the right. it was like we seemed to hang for a second in the air. we came back down in the water. lights went out. everything on my desk left up about 1 foot. i literally grab the other side of my desk and a brace until the ship stopped moving and i could stand up. >> more tonight at 8:00. >> but one of my favorite things to talk about is maybe a half of pigs and half of cows and a lot of turkey. this is a drug they're giving in to make them grow faster. this drug is not withdrawn when they walk on to the killing floor. that means when an animal is

killed, the drug is in there. >> at this week, martha looks behind the scenes of the food industry and finance regulatory lapses. born with a junk food this -- deficiency. tonight at 9:00. "washington journal" continues. host: when you talk about pennsylvania, -- pauses, you need to speak to terry madonna. joining us live this morning, thank you for being with us. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. host: every four years we talk about pennsylvania being a battleground states. al gore winning pennsylvania in 2000 by 51%. john kerry winning the state by

51% in the 2004. and barack obama winning with 54% of the vote four years ago. is it a battleground state? is it a swing state? host: that is a great -- guest: that is a great question. our state gets close at times. if you remove the obama at 10- point victory in two dozen a, those a lot -- in 2008, there have been relatively close. one of the reasons, the same with ohio and a florida, has to do with the large number of electoral votes. among the swing states, florida has the largest. basically, what we're talking about is a large number of electoral votes in a state that republicans have not 145 elections.

they have a chance this year. obama has on average about a eight-point lead on the state. a swing state, but likely democratic is the most people would say. romney does have a chance to win this day. host: if you look at the demographics, the strongholds are for the democrats. if mitt romney is to make this competitive, where does he need to cut? guest: he is not going to do it in the big cities. there are two ways to think about this. one is you have to get your base vote appeared to have to get the turnout of your loyal supporters. in 2008, democrats were more enthusiastic. as a result, obama won the state

by 10 points. go back to debris zero years ago, we saw the reverse. the republicans easily swept the state winning a senate post, a governor's race, five congressional seats shifted from democrat to republican in 2010. the state house had been democratic and fled to back to republican. you have to energize your base and get those of voters out. that is when the swing counties in this swing state. basically, they come down. that is pretty much true for the other swing states. the suburbs are often the key. in pennsylvania, that would be montgomery county. your viewers might recognize the

city as allentown. bethlehem in north hampton county. and then a small but growing county where a lot of folks have come and bought land in the last decade. you win those swing it counties in aggregate, you're likely to carry the state. that is what obama did. that is what the senator did when he won in 2006. that is what past governors have done. key swing in counties in this swing states. host: there also elected people like pat it to me -- tumie. milton shaft eight years as a democrat. there has been this trend and

now tom corbett a republican, changing hands in pennsylvania. guest: that is exactly right. the democrats have roughly about 1 million more registered voters and republicans. but you have a large pool of swing voters. that was the first time a democrat had been elected to a full u.s. senate turned up in pennsylvania since 1962. the republicans had dominated the u.s. senate. of course, arlen specter is well-known to your audience. defeated in a primary a few years ago. pat tumie squeaked out a narrow victory in 2010. the governorship won by nine points. in a democratic state, tom

corbett won 63 of 67 counties. pretty remarkable, as i pointed out in the republican wave of 2010 that saw big changes in congress. guest: when you look at the -- host: when you look it the jobless rate, this may be surprising because pennsylvania's unemployment rate is lower than the national average. why is that? guest: i think largely because of the diversification that has taken place in the economy. particularly east of the river. you get down to the suburbs for you have lots of activity in pharmaceuticals and the service industry. technology. yet expansion of tourism in the northeast. -- you have expansion of tourism

in the northeast. basically, you have a mining area where so-called reagan democrats reside. a lot of conservative democrats in those areas, there has been a brain drain. people graduate from high school. dakota college. they did not return because there are not any jobs there. a much tougher economy. basically, it has been because of the diversification of the economy of this state. byt began in the 1980's led the governor. host: our campaign trip in ohio wrapping up in pittsburgh. while in ohio, he talked about the latest jobs numbers. [video clip] >> we learned that businesses

created 84,000 jobs last month. that means jobs of credit for 0.4 million jobs. including 500,000 new manufacturing jobs. that is a step in the right direction. [applause] yuca goes to mr. romney's website or look at the plant the republicans voted for. that is basically the plan. that is their vision. the basic idea is if everybody is just on their own, doing what they do, everything will turn out just fine. about thes talk number. the jobless number. more importantly, the attitude that people have about the overall economy. clearly, it is that attitude that will drive which way voters cast their ballots. guest: you are exactly right.

for the first time in modern history, pa.'s employment is below the national -- unemployment is below the national average. .

>> those voters tend to be conservative, dmtion, many now voting republican, tend to be culturally conservative and surprisingly enough many of them fiscal conservatives. in the eastern part of the state where the swing voters tend to live they tend to be culturally liberal but fiscally conservative so that tends to produce an interesting tension about what issues tend to be more important. the economy, it will drive this election. and voters in the polls i've done and others have done will make a judgment based on whether they think the economy is likely to get better, whether they're more optimistic than pessimistic about the future, whether they think what president obama has done has made their life better or not. and folks tend to personalize these issues, as opposed to look at sort of the macroeconomic trends like gdp growth and unemployment figures. voters typically tend to look at it very personally,

how it affects them and their families. >> host: our guest is joining us, he is a graduate , an author of several books, an official in lancaster county and currently the director of the center for politics and public affairs at franklin & marshall college. jackie is on the phone, good morning. >> caller: i'm wondering, we're seeing signs now, say, about the coal industry, save the coal industry, fire obama because he's really -- on that, and another reason we're having a good economy here is because of shell and everybody is concerned they're going to -- they already have a bunch of dumb restrictions and i don't know, i think if obama gets reelected i think things are going to get really bad here with omabacare hitting, i don't think people really know what's in that bill. i mean, nobody knows it

because they didn't read it. >> guest: thank you jackie. terry madonna. >> guest: the caller makes an interesting point about the folks, it's natural gas produced by deep shell drilling called fracking, it's somewhat controversial because of the possibility of environmental damage due both to air -- both air and water pollution as a result of it, but if done properly, it can be a boon to a state. pennsylvania is sitting on what some say is enough natural gas to supply our country with that energy supply for 50 years, and it will produce thousands and thousands of jobs, and so depending upon where you live in the state, it gains more support than in other parts of the state. if you're down in the philadelphia suburbs, for example, there's greater concern in the poll that i've done about the environmental effects of it but folks in the energy producing areas understand

the job creation aspect of it, and in our state legislature, just before they took off for the summer recess, the legislature adopted the biggest single tax credit for a company in the history of the state, more than $1.7 billion that will go to the shell petrochemical company to build a plant in western pennsylvania that will take natural gas, turn it into ethane and ethylene, used in the production of plastics. you didn't think you would get a chemistry lecture. i had an alert about that myself, steve. but they say alone, that could produce 10,000 jobs, many of them in western pennsylvania. so huge energy production state, big issue. i don't know how it will play politically. it's hard to be against the energy production itself, but some concerns,

obviously, by the environmental community about the effects of -- it would have long term on the health of the environment in pennsylvania. ho host steve has this point, he says pennsylvania is no longer a swing state. when was the last time republicans won the election there? of course he's talking about the white house. 1988? george herbert walker bush? >> guest: correct, that's correct, 19 # eight. again, if you get rid of obama's big victory, ten points, the elections have been relatively close. and interestingly enough, and this sounds fascinating, if you take a look at the money in 2008 spent by the presidential campaigns, on tv advertising, from about, you know, the middle of september to election day, when you really get into the big spending, pennsylvania tv stations, second most money spent in the country, $25 million, florida was -- had more money spent than any state, $30 million, ohio

was third with $17 million in tv expenditures by the candidates, by their campaigns. then if you look at visits, pennsylvania was the third most visited state, 46 visits from labor day to election day, by the presidential candidates. ohio was the first. as you might expect. sixty-two visits to ohio by mccain and palen and biden and the president. so those three states, ohio, florida, pennsylvania, really have seen more than 60 percent of the visits in the fall in '08 and more than 60 percent of the tv advertising. so it is interesting that pennsylvania, despite the fact that it's voted democratic for five straight elections remains a visited state. this year, this year, right now, 4 1/2 million dollars, spent by the romney

superpac, not a nickel out of the romney campaign on tv advertising, $4 million in pennsylvania by the president's campaign, and by his superpac. the republicans, then, have spent more money in pennsylvania than the democrats at this point in the campaign. >> host: tom troy is keeping a close eye on neighboring ohio, another key state for democrats and republicans, the president kicking off his two-day bus trip outside of toledo, ohio, he's joining us on the phone, a politics reporter for the toledo blade. thank you very much for being with us. >> guest: good morning. >> host: some say as ohio goes, so goes the nation. is it critical for both campaigns? >> >> guest: that's the history here. the last election that the state went with a candidate other than the winner was 1960. so yeah, if the history is that ohio -- you have to

carry ohio to win the election, and the candidates are certainly campaigning like that's the case this year. they've been here -- obama has been here about seven times in 2012, romney has been here about nine times and we expect to see a lot more of them. >> host: you look at a map of ohio, the northern part of ohio, the cleveland area, toledo, these are strongholds for the areas that the president won, that's where he campaigned, along with a stop in pennsylvania on friday. the southern part of the state, cincinnati, tends to be more republican, the center of the state, deiton, is going to be inundated with campaign ads as this part becomes the swing region in this part of the state. can you elaborate on that? >> guest: i can say it is true the northern part of the state is democrat-rich. it's also auto industry-rich. there's a lot of automobile manufacturing plants up

here, as well as auto parts plants, and that is a signature as far as ohio goes, that automobile bailout of 2009 was a signature achievement and the president has talked about it a lot. every time he's been here. so has the vice president, biden, and they expect that to be a big selling point. but this is where the votes for the democratic cancan date are, coyohoga county, the most important and it's important they turn it out, lucas county, coyahaga county, and in dayton and columbus, too, but those counties are surrounded by huge republican counties as well. >> host: based on his comments over the weekend how strongly is the speaker of the house, john boehner, from southern ohio in the romney camp, is he committed to the romney campaign? >> guest: he says he is. he made the point that he

opened to -- that he was there to open two romney offices in the state. i've heard john boehner since the beginning of his campaign that his focus was as speaker of the house rather than the presidency or campaigning for somebody else. so i think he was just, you know, kind of distancing himself a little bit, just as i think we've seen the governor of ohio distance himself a little bit. you know, there's presidential campaigning, then there's doing my job which might be speaker of the house or governor of the state. >> host: a final question, tom troy. as you look at this campaign, the next four-months and what you will be seeing in your state of ohio, what do you expect? >> guest: i expect a lot of visits from the presidential candidates. they've told us to expect that. this last trip that obama made was very intensive. i mean, in addition to the three big speeches he made,

he made about four or five sort of unpreannounced stops which were just chock full of photo opportunities for him, some not so desired, i would guess, but i mean yeah, we're going to see a lot of them. i'm wondering what romney is going to do up in this northern tier, how he's going to respond to this automotive bailout issue. i don't think he's really given a strong response. >> host: if you could tom troy stay on the line. i want to share with you and terry madonna the comments that mitt romney and his wife, ann romney, made on july 4th with jan crawford of cbs news, the question focusing on running mates: >> i think it's someone that can obviously do the job but also will be able to carry through some of the other responsibilities. i think this is such where our country is in such deep trouble right now, and i think it's going to take someone else, that's going

to be there are mitt, that mitt will enjoy with the same person alt type, that will enjoy being -- spending time with him and also, confident, capable, and willing to serve this country. i think there's lots of good people out there that feel that, fill that bill right now. >> do you think he should nominate a woman? >> we've been looking at that and i'd love that option as well, so there's a lot of people that mitt is considering now. >> do you have a favorite? >> i like to think that i have a few that i really like a lot. >> and governor? >> what she said! >> [laughter] >> host tom troy, if you read between the lines, same personality type, somebody he is comfortable working with. some speculate that senator portman fits the bill. >> he fits the bill, unless they're looking for a woman of course. he is supposedly the same

kind of -- he's perceived as having this wonkish personality, not a high charismatic guy, but very, you know, dedicated and hard working, and i guess -- yeah, a lot of people think rob portman is in the top tier of vice presidential candidates for romney. >> host: tom troy who covers politics for the toledo blade, joining us from toledo, ohio, thank you very much for being with us. >> guest: nice to be with you steve. >> host: we're talking calls an comments, joining us is terry madonna and there's this e-mail from arnold sigell who says if romney outspends obama in pennsylvania, he will win. terry madonna? >> guest: well, not necessarily. i mean, you need enough money to get a threshold of ads and set up a campaign. not everybody -- and remember that we're not into the fall campaign yet.

we'll see. this state is far more important for barack obama than it is for mitt romney. remember that if the president were to lose pennsylvania, he would surely lose oo and florida, states that are not nearly as democratic as pennsylvania is. the other point is that remember that george bush won the presidency without winning pennsylvania. and just locally, or in a statewide race in 2006, when bob casey defeated rick santorum by 18 points, he was outspent by senator santorum by $7 million in the state, so you need enough money, but i think before it's over, the president will be spending probably more money than the romney campaign in this state. >> host: our next caller from big bear, california, newton is on the phone, the republican line. thank you for waiting, good morning.

>> caller: thank you for taking my call, welcome to the c-span death chair. >> thank you. >> like. >> caller: like i was telling my wife, the sunrises in the east and sets in the west. sure enough, it does, just like california is in a solid blue state, and throughout the union, we have red and blue deep colors. but i feel, being a california resident, i've seen the numbers shift due to our state economy. i mean, you're looking at the blue getting dark blue to real light blue and people shifting more moderate, center, and you know, with 9 percent unemployment, you know, harry reid in nevada at 20 percent, you know, you're going to find a lot of these states really being players, and secondly, you touched on health insurance and medicare, and i think the big problem is how everything is overinflated

from prescription drugs to hospital costs, $3800 for an x-ray and an interesting person told me on the bus, they said you know what, the reason it's so high, they have to offset the uninsured. i don't know how true that is and i got a trivia question for you real quick: has the incumbent president ever let his vice president go before running for a second term? thank you. >> host: thank you for the call newton, love the trivia question. ter yeah madonna. >> guest: fdr. franklin delano roosevelt, not one, but two vice presidents, he switched. it's not totally uncommon. you know, go back to the caller's big point. i wish more states were competitive. yeah, california is likely to be won by the president. in the field poll we just released recently, the president still has, steve, a pretty substantial lead.

unfortunately, the dynamics of american politics are such that as i pointed out, five states got 60 percent of the tv money and 60 percent of the visits in 2008. and that field may be expanded a bit. could go -- there will be 10-12 states that are not arguably what we call swing states. we have north carolina and virginia that are in the mix. virginia is sort of the newest, if you will, and the largest of the states that we call swing states that will get a lot of play. typically a republican state that's now because it changes in the washington suburbs in particular has been going through, you know, the demographics of it have changed a good bit. so ten to 12 states, that's where the campaign will be fought, that's where the campaign will be won by either obama or mitt romney. >> host: a caller, mitt romney will pick rob portman as veep but it won't let, auto workers, he let detroit

go bankrupt. >> guest: look, the vice presidential selection is very fascinating. and when we think about -- we know the presidential candidate wants to pick a candidate from a big swing state, lots of electoral votes, and the vp can make a difference. let's think about this for a minute. barack obama picked joe biden. three electoral votes in delaware, a safe democratic state, george bush picked duck cheney from wyoming, three electoral votes, safe republican state, gore, a neighboring state -- we never want to pick a running mate from an adjacent state, you want to go across the country, you want a safe democratic state, relatively small, and george herbert walker bush picks who? dan quayle from indiana, another relatively small

state, safe republican. so we're all debating will he picks someone from a pivotal state, marco rubio, florida, 29 electoral votes, rob portman, as you point out, but when it comes down to it there's probably one election in american history where the choice has made a difference in a presidential election. the first thing, do no harm, the person on day one does not want to have a complex set of investigations going on about their pick. tom eagleton and george mcgovern, big example in 1992, and then when you look at it, it's basically about are you qualified to succeed. you've got to pass that threshold, steve. and are you qualified to succeed, do no harm, get out in the campaign trail, play the little role of attack dog, do it in a way that's responsible. >> host: you said a vp

making a difference in one occasion. are you referring to 1960, kennedy-dyson ticket? >> >> guest: absolutely where he delivered texas. some say not legally, and three southern states, absolutely. i mean, it's tough to find another election -- you might go back to the 19th correctoryo century and find it marginally so but certainly not in modern times. >> host: nortonberg, new jersey, democrat on the line, good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question to the gentlemen is about the swing states, when you go to pennsylvania, the idea they put on there, i don't have nothing against i.d.s, per se, what my problem is why was that not done two or three years before a national election, not just a few months. who affects people that cannot have it.

i came here, normally i have a -- i have this and i have the other, and other people, that is part of suppression. i don't get how they put it on, and it happens in every state who governs, the assembly and the senate republicans. >> host: thank you for the call from new jersey. >> guest: the caller references a photo voter i.d. law which our legislature passed a couple months ago that's been controversial in the state, it's modeled after indiana law. it's pretty restrictive in terms of the identification that you have to supply when you go to vote. and there's a big controversy over that law, whether it does involve voter suppression. the second question, steve, is how many people will it affect. the republicans in the legislature, they control our legislature and the

republican governor signs the bill into law, said that that maybe affects fewer than 100,000 people, the democrats say closer to a million, but just this past week, we've learned that perhaps slightly fewer than 800,000 people might not have one of the i.d.s, the main one that would be used of motor vehicle identification in order to qualify to vote. so it's turned out to be very controversial, and what didn't help, the republican side, was that the majority leader of our state house, in a speech before a republican gathering, actually said that romney would carry the state because of the photo voter i.d. law, and that statement by the way made the colbert show, it went viral, it became something of a national story. so the caller is right. it is controversial, regardless of which side you're on on the issue. >> host: a followup from

an earlier comment from arnold who said that obama did not bail out the auto industry, he bailed out the union. join the conversation on our twitter page, twitter.com/ c-span wj, and "washington post" pointing out this question, how could anyone accurately estimate the outcome of the election three months ahead of time before the conventions, before the debates and twists and turns of the fall campaign, despite all the noise from the campaign trail, from the onslaught of tv ads and daily rallies, to the frenzied news coverage, factors beyond either can -- candidate's control largely determines the result, according to at least one pool of thought. terry madonna. >> guest: that's an interesting point. if you go back to the spring of 1980, reagan was behind carter, clinton was behind bush, 41, george herbert walker bush, then when you come out of the conventions in 20 08, and you folks were there, i covered it in part for some media, i came home

from minneapolis, saint paul, i did a national poll, others were doing them, there were about five polls out, steve, within a week or so of the convention, and guess what? what we saw was that the race was about even. i had john mccain up by two points, i think, another poll had him up one, the obama -- the polls that had obama, one, two, three points, and then we had the collapse of lehman brothers, in the third week of september, when obama shot up to a lead, seven, eight, nine points, depending upon the poll. he won by seven points. in other words, the caller makes a point that there could be some event that could provide a shock wave into the electoral system. literally between labor day and election day.

there will be bounces out of the convention which we know about. they typically don't last, meaning because they're made for tv, they're choreographed, they're made to put the candidates -- the campaigns in the best light possible but the caller does make a point that in an election that's very close right now, about two points, seven points ahead for obama, swing states, very close, many of the swing states, something could happen that could affect the outcome of the election. >> host: next month we will be in tampa for the republican national convention, early in september the democrats gather in charlotte, north, william march keeping a close eye on republicans and florida politics. he covers this from the tampa tribune. thank you very much for being with us. >> guest: glad to be here. >> host: we remember so well in 2000, tim russert saying on nbc news, it was florida, florida, florida. of course we know what happened in that election.

could we see a repeat in terms of the importance and closeness of the race in your state, 3 1/2, four months out before the election? >> guest: steve, in any election in florida is going to be close and this one is looking very close. the most recent polls are showing obama ahead but generally less than the margin of error. the most recent one, the only poll i'm aware of done since the supreme court decision on health care, shows obama with a lead of less than one point. others have shown him with two to 3-point leads. >> host: marco rubio continues his book tour and there were early reports he was not being vetted by the romney team, mitt romney quickly trying to correct that. how serious do you think he is as a potential running mate for the republican candidate? >> guest: that's a pretty speculative question. it would surprise me if he isn't being looked at but to take you to the story that

you referred to, it's based of course on anonymous sources, surprised me a lot. there are reasons why rubio would not be the best running mate. one is his level of experience. the other is a significant amount of political baggage here in florida. but it would surprise me if he's not being looked at, generally speaking. he's not thought of as the top of the list, currently. >> host: i want to share with you more from this interview with jan crawford on cbs news, asked about the negative attacks seen in advertising in pennsylvania, ohio and in florida. here is ann romney last wednesday on cbs news: >> i feel like all he's doing is saying let's kill this guy app i feel like that's not really a very good campaign policy. i feel like mif -- mitt's got the answers to turn this country around. he's the one that's got to

bring back hope for this country which is what they ran on last time but the truth is this is the one that has the hope for america. ho host william march and ter yeah madonna, i want to ask you about the negative ads because a story in the politico and "new york times" indicating the negative ads by the obama campaign had been working thus far. william march, your thoughts >> guest: it's hard to tell. i haven't seen any results in polling that would prove that. obama's largest lead in florida occurred in early spring, during the republican presidential primary. but both sides are inundating florida with ads right now, and both the romney campaign and several independent groups that back romney are huge purchasers. one just announced, crossroads, karl rove's

group, just announced a $6 million ad last week and that's the latest of several. >> host: terry, what about pennsylvania and negative ads both from the campaigns and 527 groups? >> guest: i tend to agree. i've not yet seen a lot of activity in polls. pennsylvania polls now show the race tightening a bit. but the general impression is that romney has not responded well particularly to the negative ads dealing with jobs. the fact that the -- the argument that he shipped jobs abroad, that he doesn't care about working men and women. the general sense from reporters is that that's working around the country. but in the battleground states, it doesn't seem to have moved the -- the reporter just mentioned n. florida it's not moving them t. doesn't look like in ohio where the race is very close, or in pennsylvania, despite the fact that i don't think romney has responded terribly well to them. hose host william march, as

you follow the process for the republicans and preparations for the conventions next month, when do you think mitt romney will make his announcement of a running mate? will it be right before the convention in your city of tampa or could it be at the convention itself? >> guest: i don't see any reason for romney to wait until the convention itself. and i've been expecting it almost any time. i would expect prior to the convention. the reason is that it doesn't seem likely that he's going to pick -- make the kind of pick that john mccain did, where he chooses a candidate who is specifically designed to stir up the base, to stir up his supporters as mccain did from sarah palen. romney is more likely to pick a simply reliable solid, safe choice and there's no reason to wait until the convention to do that. >> host: william march of the tampa tribune joining us

live on the phone, thank you for sharing your perspective with us. >> guest: thank you, steve. >> host: richard is here from punxsutawney, pennsylvania, where we hear from every spring. >> caller: i want to say that i believe the democrats in this one term has done enough damage and all we can see in the future is more damage, because he's not -- he's not going to quit taxing. it's going to cost us more. the bill they just passed, if you sell your house, you're going to pay 3.8% to the government, and that's a new tax. that is a tax. >> host: thank you richard. ter yeah madonna. >> guest: well, look. there's going to be a big debate over one aspect of the health care bill that romney didn't handle well by consensus, which he now will argue that you know what happened as a result of the supreme court decision is

that it's -- that paying for the mandate is not a tax, that it's a penalty, and i think we're going to hear an awful lot about that and republicans will obviously come back to almost $16 trillion in national debt, the decifit this year, 1.3, $1.4 trillion. we are going to hear an awful lot about that and we're going to see competing philosophies play themselves out with some democrats arguing they want more stimulus and more spending and mitt romney arguing that leave it up to the markets and the private sector to create the jobs. this is going to be an election, steve, in which i think the choices are going to be clear, the path to the future will be very different, depending on which candidate gets elected, and i think that's very clear. i remember rick santorum campaigning, and other republicans said this during the primary and caucus season, this is the most important election of their lifetime. that's what they were saying. given the potential for the

directional change, they argue, for the country. now, with the congress likely to remain unchanged we'll have to see what any new president can do, whether it's obama second thermoor romney a first term to get an agenda through congress that will largely still be in republican hands in the house and the 60 votes that you need in the senate to do anything. maybe we just have four more years of gridlock. >> host: date line, "the new york times", sunday style section of the "new york times", the $3 million weekend, mitt romney spending the weekend in the hamptons, raising money for his own election. deron moore has this point: >> and this from the wall street journal on july 5th:

tbeft guest if you go back to florida in 2008, look, obama wins the state but only wins it by three points, the lead, as william pointed out, on average, is about 1.7, two points lead that the president has in this state. florida, what, 5237 votes, to decide the election? the entire presidential election in florida in 2000. so i don't know that that's an indicator about where romney stands. but there is a complaint that romney has not clearly spelled out where he would take the nation. hoping i think that the dissatisfaction with the economy will lead the swing voters in the swing states to vote for change and vote for him. and i think he's likely to be more specific, but as you know, the more specific you get, the more likely you are to find folks who will take issue with it, the other campaign will certainly tend

to tear apart your specificity and that often gets you into some difficulty. >> host: terry madonna joining us from franklin marshall college. and our next caller is from georgia. you have to help me with the name. >> caller: crickamoga. thank you for taking my call. the question i had was i had heard that mr. romney had required ten years of back tax records from his potential vice presidential running mates, and if that is so, i wonder why won't he just -- why would he release just ten years of his tax records and do you think there will be pressure on him in the fall to release more of his tax records. and if you do have time, i had a question about the presidential debates for mr. mr. mcdonnell but i don't know if you have time. thank you. >> host: what's the debate question charlie? >> caller: i was going

through my mind while on hold, since 1960 from kennedy and nixon, i think ef one that's won the debate has won the election, whether it be carter over ford, or reagan -- i think reagan defeated -- or carter in the debates. what do you think the debates will hold? thank you. >> host: charlie, thank you for the call. >> guest: i think there have been a couple of transformative moments in debates. reagan certainly, and undoubtedly kennedy in 1960. that's usually set as the classic. you know, it's pretty fascinating, going through this primary and caucus season, i don't remember a time that when the debates that were covered by cable and the networks played such a role in helping or hurting a campaign. look at what happened to governor perry in the debates. you know, it didn't do -- performance was pretty sad, ended up, you know, he has

to get out of the race. on the other hand, rick santorum did very, very well, allowed him to hang in. you got to be careful about that. but the debates this time could play a much larger role than historically they have, even though we've had some debates in the past that have been -- in which a candidate has had to prove something and often has done that, and that's worked to his favor. >> host: we're staying along the retail campaign events with joe bidden spending time in scranton, pennsylvania and another bus tour by the romney campaign, expected to head back to pennsylvania. do they make a difference? >> guest: probably not as much as we would guess. but look, the difference is you get kind of a down home -- it's not a fly-over, you're not flying in and flying out. you give the impression that it's grassroots-oriented, that you're close to people. the press still covers t. you'll get the same kind of

press coverage you would. i'm not convinced that it's the be all and end all, but you're trying to create a narrative and in this case the narrative that you're close to people, you understand their problems, you relate to them. i think -- and then it allows you to take a message to a particular place, as we pointed out. you go to ohio, you want to talk about automobile recovery, the president did that, he comes to carnegie mellon in pennsylvania, he wants to talk about students and their future, but you get that if you fly into someplace. so my sense is that it matters in terms of the impression that you're trying to leave people that you're more or less like them, just plain folk. that -- it doesn't work as much as i think they think the campaign strategists -- probably not. >> host: terry madonna, we will be checking with you often during the next couple of months yowrks website, samdm, franklin marshall/edu

politics. when is the next poll coming out? >> guest: august, we'll do one before the convention and one at the end of september 6789 it's going to be a fascinating campaign. >> host: terry madonna, thank you very much for being with us, appreciate your time. >> guest: thank you. hose host the washington journal continues and we'll focus on food prices especially in light of record temperatures throughout much the country, the director of the international policy institute is going to be here to talk about the drought in the midwest, the impact of what you'll pay at the grocery stores and international food supplies and later a look at u.s.-pakistan relations, stephen tankel of american university joining us. the washington journal continues in a moment.

>> the problem is right from the beginning we start tieing their hands. first tieing of the hand was a recommended minimal force of 30, they got 20, 35 percent less. what they do to us, they want to conduct a campaign in the east to collapse the enemy, put as much press on it. without that additional 10,000, could not do it. we had to do it sequentially. what did that do, protracts war, dries up casualty, evaporates political will at home. second problem we have, another handcuff, is petraeus wants to keep the surge forces that the president gave him, the 30,000, much longer at a much lier level. they're all gone before this year is out. so that's where we are at the point of your question now. given those two things, those dynamics, have already happened. there is pressure on the commanders to stay on a schedule that transitions

our combat forces in 2013 totally, not 2014, and then be out of there by 2014. in my judgment, what is happening to support that is far from condition base, that is a date that we're moving to and by god, we're doing it. we should take that pressure off of them so that they can come back and say look, we have to slow this down a little bit. >> with nato forces scheduled to withdraw from afghanistan in 2014, military experts testified on the progress of afghan security forces. watch the hearing online at the c-span video library. >> washington journal continues. >> >> host: we want to focus on food and food prices, mcmo torero is director of the international food polity research institute, good morning and thank you for beinwith us. tbeft guest pleasure to be here. >> host: this headline from "the washington post" and much of the country has been dealing with this over the last week and a half, here in washington, d.c., the middle region, record

high temperatures, 105 degrees, you head out west to the farms communities, the same type of story, and the impact all of this is having on crops in this country. >> guest: it has a significant impact because of the role of the u.s. in the world in terms of export of corn, soybeans is extremely important. what we're observing is that the price of corn has increased around 30 percent in the last week. the share of the u.s. in the world is around 52 percent. it is significant. so any change in the supply from the u.s. immediately affects global prices and international prices. >> host: corn, you're seeing higher prices at grocery stores but it is such a critical staple for feeding livestock and overseas sales. >> guest: exactly, so the issue with corn is that it is -- it will have an effect on food, and meat especially, and that will create and affect prices especially in developing countries that are net

consumers of meat at this point in time, and in the u.s., the price of corn will have a 2nd-round effect. what is important to understand is that before this, the world was facing enough supply so things were extremely good in terms of corn but today, depending upon what happens next week, if there is no rainfall and that continues, that would put pressure on the price and that's what we're observing. we are observing volatility, as with soybeans. we are observing a permanent increase in prices which will of course have -- which will have the effect on animal feed. >> host: we certainly understand supply and demand affects food prices but also futures. can you explain? >> >> guest: the number is 30 percent on future prices but future prices are affecting today, so the prices set in december are raised significantly. what we're observeing in the price today is a function of

what we have in terms of future prices so basically what the futures are doing is to capture the supply side and the demand side and that's what we are looking at and helps us to predict what will happen in the future in terms of corn prices. hose host congress has been working on the farm bill. i'm not sure how closely you've been following the details of it. the senate passed the farm bill, price tag, about a trillion dollars, the house is now working its way through, and the big question, how to pay for it. my question to you is what impact does this piece of legislation, this five-year bill have on farmers, specifically and food prices were generally. >> guest: i don't think it will have an effect on food prices. basically food prices are driven from fundamentals, that's what we are observing. the problem on food prices, especially corn, soybeans and wheat, which are essential, is that the -- there are a few countries which produce and export

this commodity. it could provide support to the farmers and help them to cope with the changes but i don't see a direct effect on the food prices which are driven especially by fundamentals. >> host: our guest is with the international food policy research institute as we talk about food prices, the drought and the impact on what we pay at stores. our phone numbers: >> if you're an independent, we have a line set aside for you outside the u.s. or join us on our twitter page, facebook or send us an e-mail, journal at c-span.org. is there anything that farmers can do i light of these record high conditions and obviously lack of rainfall? >> guest: it's difficult to do something at this point, snok at this point, basically they are waiting for rain and they need rain

urgently. there was something done before, this was a switch from soybean crop toss corn because they were expecting higher prices in corn. the problem right now is that they can predict for the future but there's nothing they can do now. i don't think anything they can use to be able to reduce what they are facing because of temperatures at this point. at this point we need to wait. what other countries are doing is putting pressure. for example, china is increasing production of corn and soybeans and is putting pressure in terms of the prices. so i don't see too much that the farmers can do. of course they can try to use their -- there was an experience in china, they tried to resolve the problem, so it's -- that's the only thing i can see they can bring up and bring in technology, but china is producing a different tier so it's difficult to change that.

>> host: a resident of peru, ucla, getting his doctorate, our guest is here to talk about food prices and the impact the drought has had on the price we pay. brock is on the phone from butler, missouri, democrats' line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i work in agriculture, and i noticed in 2008, the price of corn surged -- well, all grains surged upward. how much of that was due to speculation? you know, corn on paper versus actual bushels in the united states? >> guest: okay, first of all, with what's happening today, there were a lot of different elements playing the role. of course there was the drought on russia and some of the commodities that the supply wasrous \dollars/{^ed} -- reduced but at the same time, you had problems in rice the prices of rice and wheat.

in addition you have a high level of oil prices, with the use of corn and soybeans to biofuels and certain foods. all that came together and created what we were facing in 2008. what we face today is different, a result of a drought, and one of the key -- u.s. is a key exporter of corn, soybeans, around 40 percent so, that is clearly being reflected in price. what is the role of the speculation, on the question you were asking. basically, in 2008, we were able to do analysis and trying to understand how much the price was suck of-based, because of an increase of the market. what we found was there was a sigma affecting -- in the sense that the commodityies increased substantially, especially in the highest levels in 2008, because of an increase of activity in the market. basically what happens is if i start investing in the

market because there was funding at a high level as a result of the housing crisis then that creates an acceleration, i have more circulation, or a loss of circulation of activity and that puts pressure on prices. but a big chunk of that was also because of fundamentals. today i don't see that happening. we also found that in 2010 and 20 # one, we don't find a link to speculation. in addition, the markets have liquidity and that's important. speculation by itself is good, it's not bad but the problem is excessive speculation, when there's too much speculation in the sector, which is far away from what we are implementing. >> host: our guest, maximo torero with the food policy research institute. you can log on to ifpri.org. john says he's arrest idea, let's eat corn and burn

gasoline. what's your response? >> >> guest: that's the problem. that's very important. that was something that came, there was a whole section in the report trying to bring up the flexible mandates but flexible mandates that really have a meaning in the sense that they are really binding when you have the extreme levels of prices or extreme levels of volatility. if you look at what is happening in the u.s., 30 percent of the corn is now being used in biofuels. and that's a significant proportion for a country which is a key exporter of corn. now, what we should do and what we keep recommending is that we need to find a way to have a flexible mandate that would allow countries like in the case of the u.s. to switch from production of corn for biofuels to production of corn for food. basically, what happens is that you need a trigger, and a trigger can be a situation where you have extreme levels of prices that we are observing today. when you have extreme levels of prices, then you trigger and transfer you cannot use more corn for ethanol and

use it for food consumption. that would resolve the problem. it's not bad to have a new demand for it, in the use of corn. the problem is, we have situations we are facing today, it doesn't make too much sense to put more pressure on the food consumption, and instead of -- and moving that production to ethanol production. >> host: demoines register, a couple of points, the dry conditions hitting the midwest, iowa, other american states, resulting in less grain production this year than originally forecast, also the u.s. department of agriculture saying that iowa's corn crop rated just 62 percent good to excellent, well below the 82 percent rating just a year ago. a comment from one of our viewers saying we cannot ignore what the federal reserve can do to food prices can we, trying to stimulate the economy but harming the fixed income and the poor. maxine, joining us on the republican line, good

morning. >> caller: i'm a first time caller so bear with me, i'm a little nervous. what i wanted to know is if in the -- if the government figures -- in the inflation figures, why is it they exclude food and gas when that's two of the most important price things that we have in our lives and it does affect fixed income people? i want to know why they exclude those two from the inflation rate. hose host thank you maxine. >> guest: look, i don't think those are excluded. it should be part of the bass -- basket in looking at inflation in the world. what you must understand, you are observing key staples, corn or soybeans, it is transferred to, bread, for example, consumption of bread, so you have an idea, the transformation of a 1 percent price of wheat t. goes to a 2 percent increase in the price of bread. bread is composed by wheat,

by then you have a lot of other inputs in the production of bread which of course brings it to the .2, .3 increase, so that is why you don't see the sail changes of what you observe in the basic staples in terms of inflation index. for sure, increases in prices of the staples in food has an effect over inflation and that's what we have seen in 2008, 2010 and we'll be seeing today. butit not one to one. it's a lot less than the one to one. >> host: why is it when you go to grocery stores, you can get 5-10 ears of corn for a couple of bucks. are grocery stores making money off other items, where are the profits for the chains? >> guest: sure. especially in the case of corn and wheat and not soybeans because they are used more for animal feed stock, the effects is directly on bread in the case of wheat, especially on raw corn thaw eat sometimes but it's not a corn that we use to produce feed stock or

commodities, but also, directly through what is dairy and meat. so we will have an effect on dairy and meat and that's where prices start to change significantly for the consumers. now, this normally comes from the input, basically what the companies will do is play with the different inputs, they have to produce a commodity and produce it in a different share or percentage. that's what i was explaining before in the case of bread. so if you look at the evolution of prices of wheat in 2008, you won't see that the bread increased at the same levels. it would have been terrible if that happened. you would see the price of bread increases on a lower percentage than increasing in the wheat prices. >> host: maximo torero, yawn is on the phone in north carolina, an independent line, good morning. >> caller: good morning, first time caller. thank you very much this morning. i live in north carolina in a rural area, and lots of people around me grow food and can their own food.

what is being done to encourage more americans to either have an herb garden or grow some of their own food, thereby encouraging them to get outside more and that kind of thing and i'd just like to know your comments on that. thank you. >> host: thank you john. >> guest: last year, there has been a significant moment in 2007-2008 towards home gardening and that's an option. people with grow their own food in a home garden but i don't think that will resolve the key problem of corn and soybeans and potentially of wheat because of the relationship between corn and soybeans. what it does is help you assure your own food security but remember, again, the inputs used for all the -- for food stock, animals, is based on the corn and soybeans and doesn't depend upon what you produce in your home garden. we need to be clear on that, on what we are observeing in basic staipes, at least --

staples. >> host: the headline is washington, d.c., and of course, up and down the east coast and through the midwest, dealing with triple digit temperatures, this viewer, joseph ramiro saying do you have an opinion as to whether global temperatures are rising and what is contributing to the increase? >> guest: it's very complex to argue that historically we have a significant increase of global temperatures. i remember when we were in the 2008 crisis, a farmer was asked in an interview we had what do you think of the temperatures now and he basically said we are facing things we've faced in the past. sure, there's a lot of information that we have that shows there could be a potential global warming, but i don't think what we are facing today is that. i think what we are facing today is the same thing that happened in 2007-2008. the bigger difference to the past, to ten years ago or eight years ago, is that now we have a significant increase in the global demand of meat and of basic

foods and that increases the staples, okay, despite having countries growing less we have a significant increase and we have a reduction, historical reduction in terms of the stocks so today, when you have a stock in the exporting countries that affects prices and that we have been seeing since 2007-2008. i don't see any change in the global portfolio of who is producing or who is exporting. basically the same four countries or five countries, depending upon the commodity, are the ones which are defining the national price and we don't see a change in that. so i think that that is the way to go, the way to go is increase the global portfolio. if you have the resources and you put it in four places, anything that happens in those four places will automatically affect your portfolio and that's what we keep seeing. remember today, countries are in a recession, we have a crisis in europe, not too much growth in the u.s., and the same happening in other con neves and despite that we have this increase in prices, so the demand could

be shrinking but you're facing a significant increase in prices in two basic staples because basically one country, the u.s., a key exporter, half the exports of those commodities are being affected by this climate. >> host: vince on the phone from massachusetts. good morning. >> caller: good morning. hi. my question is how come that the stores are eager to go up on the price of food, when the price of gas goes up, but when the price of gas goes down, the food prices don't go down? they stay up or go up -- they still go up higher. >> host: thank you. >> guest: that's exactly what happens when you have ao when you have a market that's not completely competitive, a market structure when you have key players, big supermarket chains, whenever the prices

go up they can increase the prices and they will be resistent to lower the prices. so when your market structure is concentrated, then that will happen. the same happens if you want to move to the farmer side, in the input market. we have finalize dollars the biggest tally in which we show the 30 markets, normally the prices have gone substantially up because of the oil prices in the last years, but has not gone back to the levels it was supposed to be, given the corn price and the market is -- you have four or five key players, and something similar happens with the food chains, where you have bigger players in the food chains and therefore, they will be resistent to reduce prices. >> host: a followup from one of our viewers, what expect has genetic cropping had an input, are we seeing unforeseen consequences of genetic farming. >> there's a lot or seen from genetic engineering, on

gmos, there could be a potential in them but you need to be careful in analyzing them an being able to effect them. there's a lot of logging against them but the important thing is to look at science and how that can resolve problems. you have crops which could be resistent to droughts. what we are facing here, that could be resistent to certain levels of drought which could help productivity and growth. >> host: steve, good morning, democrat's line. >> caller: yes. i have a two-part question. first of all, diesel, and the corn prices do have a lot to do with feeding the animals and cattle and hogs and chickens. sometimes there's not enough grain around to feed the animals and you got to figure hay in there. everything needs to feed these animals.

two is, as far as the consumer goes at the grocery store, you'll see the products weighing less or getting smaller and the prices will increase. so we're getting a double whammy that the price is getting hit, and there is a lot of inflation that the person does not see. >> host: thank you steve, from illinois. >> guest: on your first question, yes, there's a significant increase in the demand of meat in the last years. just so you that you have an idea the population of the world will grow to 9 billion that means we need to increase the production of meat to around 70 percent, which is 460 metric tons more of meat. so there's a significant demand on feed stock. what that means is that would put pressure on the production of course, because what you need is a lot more supply of corn,

around 75 percent more in the production of corn and soybeans to be able to create the feed stock. i think that's okay, that's good, and that's an option and a good option for the farmers. where i see more the problem is with the ethanol polices and biofuels because there is not going to meet or -- or produce food for consumers but going to the production of energy and that's a big change that's happened in the last years, which before, as you mentioned, normally the price of food was affected by the increase in oil prices but now, the connection with energy is a new connection that food is facing. it's a new competition for the same resores. that's a problem we need to look at carefully and that's where the mandatings are and flexible mandates will be a profit. in terms -- a problem. in terms of the prices of food and inflation, there's something i mentioned before, that's what creates significant problems, is remember, 2007, 2008, there were a lot of political issues because of inflationary effects on the

developing countries as a result of an increase in food prices. there is where we need to have a concern and there is where the government can have short term polices to alleviate the polices. if you were a country, mexico, for example, where corn is crucial because of the tortillas, a basic staple, the country has established polices that will protect the consumption of tortillas to avoid prices going up because it is politically significant. >> host: this from the food policy institute, from 200 five, to 2010, the figures showing in metric tons from 50 to # 50 metric tons, the portion of corn production used for biofuels in the u.s. let's go to tom in pittsburgh, good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you? >> host: fine, thank you. >> caller: thanks. i've worked in agriculture as a farm hand on and off for years in pennsylvania, and i got two questions:

one, i've read about weather modification being possible to make it rain, china has done it, russia has done it. where is the debate on that. two, what about the u.n. treaty from 1977, environmental modification convention, and weather warfare, could that be cause of a drought. >> host: can you address either or both parts? guest guest i didn't get the second point but let me talk on the first point. in terms of weather modification and how you can resolve the problem, i think there were good experiences in china two years ago. china had a huge drought in the corn belt and they were able to save most of their crop. what i understood they do is they use technology to be able to get weather from the underground and that's an option. i assume in the u.s., given the producers in the u.s. or on a new frontier, they're

already doing that and trying to save as much as they can, their crops. so i don't expect that the u.s. is not using the state of art technologies, they are normally on the frontier, but anything to help increase water to this point would you essential. >> host: let's look at this chart, the u.s. is major exporter of maze, corn, wheat or rice. who do we sell to? >> guest: to the whole world basically. in the case of soybeans, the main one is china, china imports 35 percent of soybeans and that's why we're facing significant pressure in soybeans now. if you recall, a few months ago, there was a significant revolution happening in south america, argentina, pear gay, brazil, which are key exporters of soybeans and we're seeing volatility. in our measure of volatility, soybeans is moving to moderate, and that's extreme volatility. in the case of wheat, exports goes around the world. the key importer of --

importers of wheat are northern africa, cairo, also, south america, central america are key importers of wheat. in the case of africa, subsaharan after cash that's not too important, so the price of corn, international price of corn won't affect too much subsaharan african country but it will affect american countries and asia. >> a caller saying let the market determine where crop prices go, eliminate ethanol and mandates, the result will be food. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yes, i just wanted to ask him abouto oal hello? ho ho you're on the air, go ahead, mark. >> caller: i just wanted to ask him about every year, the farmers receive subsidies from the government and that's to keep the prices level or

down. i was just wondering, is there a lot of corruption that they have to go and have another subsidy bill every year? i mean, it just seems like we're beating our heads up against the wall. they keep raising the prices, no matter what. >> host: thanks mark. and that was a comment from an earlier caller as well. give guest in terms of the ethanol subsidies, there were in previously years, especially in 2008 onwards, there were important subsidies in terms of ethanol and there were mandates established in the case of the u.s., which was the one who promotes the switch from corn to consumer -- consumers to ethanol, to around 35 percent. that's the maximum level of the share of the production of corn moved to ethanol. and of course that put significant pressure over prices. now, lately, in the last years, in the last two

years, the subsidies have been eliminated from ethanol production, so it's not an issue of subsidies in the ethanol production, but we do have the problem of the mandate, which although they are quote unquote flexible they are not as flexible as needed and they are not responding to the excessive prices like the ones we are facing today in which, of course, what happens is there shouldn't be corn for ethanol and pros of it -- and most of it should go for food production. so yes and no. the most important thing, polices create problems not only for the u.s. but also the world, especially the share of the u.s. in terms of the global export of these commodities. in terms of the subsidies indirectly but the farm bill or mechanisms through which farms get support, i don't see that there's a significant change from what has been happening in the past. the same happens in europe also. so i don't see the problem there. i see that those are mechanisms through which they try to support the production and productivity of agriculture and i don't

see what we are facing today in terms of corn prices is because of it. the problem today of prices of corn is because of the fundamental issue, the weather issue, the drought which is affecting the potential use and affecting and creating significant losses in production. so we need to separate what is a policy, what is a fundamental, and in this case, i think it's a clear case of fundamental. >> host: to our audience on c-span radio if you just tuned in, our guest, mcmo torero, international food policy research institute, director of the market, trade and institution division. butch is on the phone, milwaukee, republican line, good morning, thank you for waiting. >> caller: good morning. i have a question on biofuels. it was touched on a hair earlier. i had heard that biofuels get a guaranteed amount of the grain crops, and if that is true, is that based on a percentage or based on a set amount? thank you. >> host: thank you butch. >> guest: i don't think that's the case, but i am

not 100 percent sure. i think the problem with biofuels, and where we need to look at, is is it directly linked to the price of oil, so the price of oil is approximately over $100 a barrel, and then biofuels become extremely profitable and of course you can move production into ethanol and it would be extremely profitable for producers of corn. if biofuels is under $100, then you have a problem an therefore you can move out into consumption. so for example n. the period of 2008, the price of oil was around $130, it was extremely profitable to move corn towards ethanol. in 2010, 2011, something similar happened, and it was profitable. that's the complexity of the mandates. the mandates, what they do is basically offer is window for corn to move in and out, depending upon the international prices of oil and that is what is transferred to volatility. before we didn't have that link. so now, if i look at the world corn production for consumers, then i see that the producers can move in

and out and deliver supply of ethanol which automatically is transferred to the prices of con and that is reflected in volatility and we have seen in 2011 there has been an increase in volatility historically. in difference to price levels, which have not been in their highest in 2007, 2008, 2010, 20 # one or today, with the historical prices so volatility has changed significantly. >> the website, ifpri.org, international food policy research institute. thank you very much for being with us on c-span. the border is now open along afghanistan and pakistan, which is a significant development for u.s.-nato -- u.s. nato operations in afghanistan, the policy game by secretary of state hillary clinton. joining us, the washington journal continues, stephen tankel, a professor at american university here in washington, d.c. to talk

about pakistan. it is sunday, july 8th, the washington journal continues. we're back in a moment. >> i was turned back to my desk an doing routine paperwork when at 11:18 in the morning there was a thunderous explosion. you could feel all 505 feet and 480 tons of destroyer violently thrust up and toit right, it's almost as we

hanged in the air as the ship was doing this odd dimensional twisting and flexing. we came in the water, lights went out, ceiling tiles popped out, everything lifted up about a foot and slammed back down. i literally grabbed the underside of my desk in a braced position until the shipped stopped moving. >> more with commander kirk lippold tonight on c-span's q & a. >> one of my favorite drug toss talk about is this ritopamine, which is in maybe half of pigs, half of cows and a lot of the turkeys, and most was drugs they are giving is to make animals grow faster but this particular drug is not withdrawn when they walk on to the killing floor and that means when an animal is killed and meat is sold to safeway or whatever, the truck is in there. >> this week yeb on after words, martha rosenberg looks behind the scenes at the food and drug industry.

tonight at 9:00, part book tv this weekend on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. >> host: our focus for the next 45 minutes, stephen tankel, professor at american university and carnegie endowment for international peace and awe tore of "storming the world stage". we'll talk about the book in a couple of minutes. thank you very much for being with us. let's begin with the apology that came from secretary of state clinton, she said in essence we are sorry for the losses suffered by the pakistani military. why was the border closed, why is it now reopened and what is its sigma for u.s. nato operation necessary that snrn guest the border was closed in november of last year following an airstrike that killed 24 pakistani soldiers. the u.s. argued that this

was an incident, battlefield confusion, the pakistanis were quite angry and they closed the border, and then ultimately, this got handed over to parliament to try to decide the future of u.s.-pakistan relations and they made several conditions. one was that the u.s. apologize for the drone strikes and three, they were talking about raising the price in the event that the border reopened for supplies from $250 per truck to $5000 per truck. the u.s. obviously was not prepared to do that, there was a lot of wrangling for quite some time. ultimately, this week, the u.s. and pakistan agreed to have that border reopened. the price is $250 per truck. that was the original. and secretary clinton say she was sorry for the loss of lives, but did so without making a formal apology along the lines of saying we apologize. >> host: let's explain

the sigma and geography of this region. you have iran in the center, you have the u.s. troops in afghanistan, and to get in and out of afghanistan over the next two years, as we begin to pull out by 2014, you can see the route that would include pakistan, would include this direction, and a far more difficult route as you head above northern part of the country, across north of iran to get back into turkey >> guest: that's correct. after the border was closed in november, the u.s. and nato forces were using a northern distribution network which actually runs from the north of afghanistan into the central asian stage and through russia. as you rightly noted, that is a much longer route. the cost is much higher to move supplies through there, and particularly when it comes to the drawdown, to move a lot of the hardware out especially, sensitive material, lethal material, intelligence-slated material, to bring it up to the states, all the way out to russia, that was going to be quite difficult. it was very significant for

the u.s. in terms of cost and in terms of comfort of bringing all that equipment out as they draw down going into 2014, that nato forces are able to do so through pakistan. >> host: again, going back to this math, iran right in the center. >> guest: iran is there as well. obviously, given that the northern distribution network was running through the central asian states and russia, the concerns there were, a, the fact that the states would seek to look to cut a very hard bargain in terms of cost and b, it's a much longer route, in some cases, dumping out in siberia or the baltic sea, so you have to protect your convoy a whole lot longer. >> host: if you look at this region and of course, from the '60s and '70s, iran was an ally of the u.s., with the shah. much has changed since the carter administration. do you see that changing again in the next 10-20 years? guest guest there are those that argue that the u.s. and iran are natural allies.

of course the nuclear issue and a whole host of other things are getting in the way of that right now. there's no secret to the fact that iran is a player in afghanistan, and can make the u.s.' life more difficult or easier, depending upon what that engagement looks like. and -- but in the sort term -- short term, until the question of iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is settled, it's unlikely we're going to see a major shift in that regard. >> host: our guest is professor steve tankel of the american university here in washington, d.c. and author of "storming the world stage". what did you learn in putting this together? >> guest: this is a book primarily about the pakistani group responsible for the 2008 mumbai attacks. what i was really interested in is the way in which the group has evolved and the role the pakistani state has played in that and one of the key things that came away for me from this was that pakistan's continue support for some of these militant proxies, that is so

infuriating to us and many others, is the result not just of their geopolitical calculations in terms of afghanistan and also to check their historic rival, india, but it's increasingly become embedded within the structure of pakistani society, so there are domestic pairers to action as well, all of which means there's no switch that can be flipped to turn this around. it's going to take steady, long term engagement, patient -- determined patience, excuse me. in the meantime it's going to be important that the u.s. works not just with pakistan where it can but also unilaterally where necessary and multilaterally with other actors in the region to contain some of threats coming out of that country. >> host: let me follow up because in the book, in the introduction, you say when the government of president bashar although i'd with the taliban in 9/11 it fractured this aalignment:

>> that gives you a sense of the history of our relationship with pakistan, it's not always been that close of a relationship. >> >> guest: it has not. it was close during the early years after pakistan's creation. it took a real downturn in the 1990s, and one could say that the nature of the u.s.-pakistan relationship after 911 gives a whole new meaning to the term shotgun marriage. the point now is that the relationshipieie -- other other we're not going to be as close as either country indicated as some point and what people here in the u.s. are struggling with is in some ways how to manage divorce, wherein there's minimal collateral damage and afterwards, the u.s. and pakistan can have a normal relationship, rather than necessarily what one talked

about, this incredibly close strategic bear hug. >> host: you point out: >> what are you talking about? >> >> guest: my sense is over time, groups are not only growing militarily powerful but putting down firmer roots within pakistani society. we see that for example with the leader of this group, part of what's called the pakistan defense council. he is able to operate above ground and the pakistan defense council is a conglomeration of right wing parties which is working on leading a two-day protest into islamabad, the capitol of pakistan, against the reopening of nato supply lines. they are seeking to have influence on policy beyond serving just as militant

proxies. >> host: we're focusing on pakistan, our guest, professor steve tankel, good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question is part of an extension of what you were saying. what will happen if the united states drastically reduces our commitment to pakistan, in terms of pakistan's relationship with india, with china, with russia? how is this -- how do you foresee that things might change? >> guest: short answer to the question is that we don't know exactly how this is going to all play out. but my best guess is that ultimately, as the u.s. scales back its -- continues to engage, but not along the lines of trying to seek a strategic breakthrough as we did a couple years ago, the u.s. has turned itself inside out to try and find a way to get pakistan to break with militant proxies.

it's tried inducements, course -- coercive measures, seen as potentially creator more space for the right wing in pakistan, and so i think we're moving towards -- we should be moving towards, bill, somewhat more transactional, more distanced relationship but one in which long term, patient engagement takes place. we create the conditions or we seek to create the conditions whereby pakistan ultimately cycles through its options an finds that the best option available to it, you know, in order to avoid becoming increasingly isolated is that it must normalize relations, not just with the u.s. but also with its neighbors like india, but that is going to be long, arduous process. >> host: let me ask you what some call galwol diplomacy, the secretary of state meeting in afghanistan and other countries, trying to help a way for afghanistan to generate $4 billion in assistance over the next ten years.

does pakistan say hey, wait a minute, we want some of that money as well, is there a quid proquo between what pakistan is doing for the u.s. and what they may call on for from the u.s. in the future? >> guest: the quid proquo has taken form in coalition support funds wherein the pakistani state says we are engaging in counterinsurgency operations along the tribal areas, that area between afghanistan and pakistan, an expending our own money and in return, we want to be reimbursed. part of the deal to open up the supply lines this week is that the u.s. had been withholding approximately $1.1 billion in coalition support funds and will now be -- the administration will now ask congress to reimburse that. of course the u.s. has also promised other civilian aid to pakistan, and so there is a quid proquo in that regard. certainly, their economy is not in great shape so all this money helps, but i think one of the lessons we've learned over the last couple of years is that when it comes to changing

pakistan's behavior, you know, the song can't buy me love comes to mind. we're not going to be able to buy them off. the amount of money, certainly the amount of money we can throw at it, billions of dollars, are not nearly enough to get pakistan to change its strategic calculus. it will do that when it sees doing so to be in its own best interests. >> host: in addition to the work at american university, our guest is a non-resident scholar at the carnegie endowment for international peace, a graduate of cornell university, he also studied at the london comool of -- school of economics. john is on the phone from fryberg, maine. good morning. calcol good morning. my question was with the three leaders of the countries, iran, pakistan and afghanistan over the winter meeting at a high level to the point of three of them standing on the same stage with their hands up, i was wondering what their alliance is or if any details of that meeting was

ever known. >> host: thank you very much for your question. >> guest: the nature of that alliance is important, and to be quite honest, from where i sit, can be obscure at times. pakistan's relationship with iran is quite complicated. pakistan is a sunie muslim state, iran is a shia muslim state, violence has been sponsored back and forth across that border by both countries, as well as in afghanistan. of course, in afghanistan, iran was not a friend of the taliban, again, because of those religious differences, but the enemy of the enemy is my friend, and so there are indications that iran has provided some support to the taliban to be used against the u.s. and so we're talking unfortunately about wheels within wheels. where all of these relationships with characterized by a degree of separateness and a degree of togetherness. and that can change based on events. and -- but while iran will

be a player in this region and in afghanistan, it would be incorrect to say that these are in any way hard and fast alliances. >> host: professor tankel, steve saying what is pakistan's best bet for a successful economic future? india seems to be improving, their gross national product faster than pakistan. guest give that's a great question and actually right. one of the things that the pakistani establishment and of course in the security establishment recognize is that unless they get their economy in order, none of the rest of this matters. unfortunately, they've been unable to do so as a result of political infighting, structural barriers, as well as this continued commitment to using militant proxyies, you know, abroad which has led to a degree of isolation for pakistan.

ultimately, its best bet is to break with this sort of security-related obsession and to try to harness what is going to be a demographic boon over the next 20-50 years as you get increasing numbers of people coming into the job market. if it can create jobs for those people, then pakistan could experience an economic resurgence but it's got a long way to go towards that and to my mind, one of the key things that the u.s. should be seeking to do is to create conditions in which, as i said, you know, pakistan looks around and realizes that the only people who can help them are themselves and that their future lies by tieing themselves more closely to india rather than fighting against them or pushing back against them and trying to coattail off of that because they could experience their own economic resurgence if given the opportunity.

>> host: ben is on the phone from vermillion, ohio, independent line with steve tankel. if morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a question in regard to the coercion that was there on pakistan, coming into the conflict, it went with iraq, that tremendous pressure had been put og then, talking about bombing, and back to the stone age. what currently is the pressure militarily that's put on pakistan? are the seals still going in there, and carrying out operation necessary pakistan? i'll take my answer off the air: .

forces on the ground for high- value targets -- especially since the rate last year to get osama bin laden. to a degree that there are a lot of boots of the broad operating there, i certainly do not know about it if they are. that would be by design. i would come back to say that a maximum military leverage, even though that hangs over pakistan,

that has declined significantly since 9/11. host: largest pakistan? how many people live there? what is the structure of the government today? how close is our relationship? guest: pakistan -- when we talk geographically, we have to talk relative to neighbors. particularly india. it is smaller than india. we are talking 180 million people. that number will grow over the next 25 to 50 years. it has a civilian government. of term, its out will be the first to do so. as we look over the zero capital, for those who complain about gridlock, that is nothing compared to what is happening in pakistan.

where the party in power has managed to maintain power, but at the expense of getting a whole lot done. of course, we are talking about the country in which even though the military is not currently running the country, there is a series of military coups and it is the most powerful institution in the country, which complicates domestic politics and relations by laterally. host: who are pakistan's allies? guest: russia and pakistan -- alk ofhas been a top o relations. pakistan says their allies is china. they have spoken at this -- about this as higher than the highest mountain.

what china is interested in is selling military equipment. they want to use pakistan as leverage against india, which is tied to's bible in the --. china has not helped pakistan economically. this is a relationship that is long-lasting. pakistan is not getting what it is looking for. it has close relations with saudi arabia, but that relationship is probably not as strong as it used to be. the u.s. is always an important ally for pakistan. the nature of that relationship is changing. it has dawned upon the pakistan these that they cannot -- pakistanis that they cannot rely on us. host: you review how and why it the nation was formed? guest: it was born out of partition at the end of world war ii as the umempires were

ratifying. the british granted independence to british india. in doing so, india is a hindu majority stake. the muslims in that country argue that they would never be able to get a fair shake in a hindu majority states. dedicated for their own. that was a partition. india was formed and pakistan was form. there was actually west pakistan, which is what we know is the geographic entity today. it east pakistan, which is bangladesh. they seceded in 1971. india it interceded a resounding defeat. some would argue that they are still recovering. host: at the back to your phone calls as we discussed pakistan. that is on the phone from new jersey. good morning the republican line.

caller: good morning. just this week, the state department designated afghanistan as a major non-nato allies. i would like for you to speculate, discuss what the implications of that for u.s.- pakistan relationships are. host: thank you. that announcement was in the works for many months and was announced yesterday in kabul by secretary clinton. guest: great question. non-nato allies -- this is building of the strategic partnership agreement that u.s. and afghanistan signed several months ago. the fact that afghanistan is a major non-nato ally means they will have access to u.s. military training, u.s. military they will, and

receive higher levels of a. as far as u.s.-pakistan relationships, this says it is another message to pakistan that the u.s. is trying down, but it is not exiting the area. it intends to have a presence and influence in afghanistan. to the degree that pakistan things that it will be able to unilaterally call the shots post 2014, this is not the case. beyond what this means for pakistan, i would point to the message this sends to afghanistan. which is, again, that while the u.s. is drawing down, it is not going to abandon afghanistan. afghanistan will not be abandoned to the same fate it was during the 1990's after the u.s. and saudi arabia supported the afghan leader to drive the soviets out. afghanistan was led to its own devices thereafter.

to bring in full circle, that opened the door for the taliban. all of this is designed to signal that we are not going to have a repeat of those events. host: in from albany, ky. -- good morning from albany, ky. caller: morning. we could definitely grow with pakistan. especially with large trade. we can process corn, mayflower. -- make flower. steel products, metal products. they have been over surplus. we can take those to china. we can take them to pakistan. the surplus that we build provides a high-quality, low- cost product that is available

for consumption and will be sold off their shelves. we welcome them to the growth of our global free market and i would like to hear your comments. thank you. guest: thank you very much. one of the things that the aistan theis want is relationship with the u.s. that moreill less done on aide are on trade. that would be helpful. my expertise is not in the areas of our food production and exportation, but that would be helpful to them. they are an agricultural nation. they would like to export more. they make a lot of textiles. that is an area they would like to build trade with the u.s.

there is a textile lobby here in the u.s. that they will have to get through. to this point, that has not happened. they are keen on building a better trade relationship. i would argue while trade with the u.s. is important, one of the real key is for pakistan will be to increase trade regionally. one thing we should be encouraging is progress on relationships within the area that allow for more trade among those different neighbors. ultimately, that will have a stabilizing impact. that will be a good thing for the u.s., which will have interest in south asia for the foreseeable future. that is one of the reasons why we have to have very cautious optimism, but we should be encouraged by the fact those indian and pakistan historic enemies are seeking to pursue

progress on the trade front bilaterally to the degree that that can develop, that all be a good thing for the area. that will be a good thing for us, as well. host: from washington, d.c. please go ahead with stephen tankel. caller: hello. this is bought in d.c. -- bob is d.c. are you aware of a fellow in pakistan? guest: why are you asking? i would like to ask this question of all guests on c-span. are you a jew? host: i have to ask you what relevance this has to anything. caller: you really should call it southwest asia. it has relevance to all geopolitics. the other side of geopolitics is

russia. right now, we are talking about pakistan. host: turkey is another country, entirely. although i do not think that is what you meant. -- guest: i am not been to get into questions of faith. i am not. we will move on. host: i want to ask you about this that you wrote in april. you basically talked about the geopolitical goals. what are we trying to accomplish? guest: absolutely. while stability in pakistan is important, and that is a long- term aim, it would be dishonest to say that our top priority is to destroy or at least continue to degrade and al qaeda.

we went to be able to drive down from afghanistan without them descending into silicon flight. we are seeking -- civil conflict. we are seeking to a more normalized in teachman with pakistan and pakistan's stability is important. in concert with that, we are seeking for pakistan to dismantle its military infrastructure. one of the points i was trying to make was that there has been a degree of inconsistency in the u.s.'s relationship with pakistan. i made reference to this earlier. we are not necessarily wrong to seek some sort of strategic breakthrough. but, we have not succeeded in achieving that. we sort of turned ourselves inside out looking for different carrots. if one were to talk to different folks in different agencies, you

would get different stories on what the u.s. approach to pakistan wants. my sense is in the last couple of months, we are coming together on more consistency. my hope is that we are moving towards -- i come back to this idea of long-term engagement with determined patience. that does not necessarily mean a strategic bear hug. in means of the u.s. continues to engage with pakistan, it will also continue to seek unilateral solutions to some of these problems in the event that pakistan is not able to deliver. i think that the reopening of the supply lines is an imperfect example of that. the best case solution was that pakistan reopened those supply lines. when pakistan's asking prices were too high, the u.s. worked

through arrangements to carry on for seven months and tell the pendulum swung back in our favor and pakistan indicated it was ready to reopen those supply lines at the same cost that we had been paying seven months ago. host: another look at those supply lines being called a miracle. allowing u.s. troops and nato to move through afghanistan. -- pakistan. guest: it is important to put this in context. the president never apologized. in pakistan, there are many who

feel that the apology from the secretary was insufficient. the words "i apologize" were never said. what the secretary said was "both sites acknowledge that mistakes were made and we are sorry for the loss of pakistan in soldiers' lives. " to me, that is a small price to pay for being able to reopen those supply lines. one of the bigger mistakes that pakistan has made repeatedly and that certainly made in this case is to put misperceived national honor before national interest. really what they did in this instance was a walk themselves too far on the ledge and they could not figure out to get back. we are looking for ways to get them back. we should be leery of repeating those mistakes. this is a decision that i would

the taken with minimal thoughts at the end of the day. host: our guest is stephen tankel. good morning. thank you for waiting. caller: i saw the general from afghanistan earlier. this ties into pakistan. a caller asked him about the motivation for 9/11 with the pakistan the leader -- pakistani leader and a host did not let the general answer the question. we got a tacked on 9/11 by the pakistanis because of the u.s. relations with israel. you can google it. we don't discuss that. it is all about israel. host: you brought up. you can respond if you want. guest: as we get into the

question of 9/11, there were numerous motivations for that. of course, one of which was u.s. foreign policy. i do not think there is a secret to that. that has been well acknowledged. it was al qaeda's game to try to unify all of these jihadist group is. one could argue that they have resoundingly failed. al qaeda is by no means dead, but it has weakened. to my mind, the u.s. is a strong enough nation that it does not need to be changing its foreign policy because mohamad would like it too. host: mitt romney will be travelling to israel. president obama has not been there in the first three and a half years of his administration. what does that tell you about the state of relations? guest: moving outside my area,

president obama took a harder line with israel than his predecessors. from my perspective, that is not necessarily a bad thing. many people within the area tend to think that a two-state solution is probably the least worst way forward. to a degree to which that can be discouraged by speaking forthrightly -- that is important. from where i sit, i do not release the u.s. support for israel as a nation. host: there is a piece related to this.

if you want to check it out on the "washington post" website or into a's issue. let us go to the drone attacks. guest: drone strike remain a very controversial issue between the u.s. and pakistan. for a long time, there were conducted with a wink and a gun. the pakistan the rink -- a wink and nod. the pakistanis turned their head. increasingly, that has become a real bone of contention. although even in my conversations with pakistan officials, they are willing to say do not end them but we would like to be a greater part of that process. the devil is in the details. that is something that neither side has been able to sort of sync up on. i do not know they will be able

to. in terms of the wider issue of the drones, from my personal usefuldperspective, they are tool and a tool that should remain in our toolbox. one could question the degree to which using them for signature strikes -- there is question about that. host: we are on with stephen tankel. a professor at the american university. we have a call from arlington, massachusetts. good morning. caller: hello. pakistan has a lot of subgroups. there is a lot of dissent

amongst ethnic groups. what are the long-term prospects considering the internal conflicts with the ethnic groups? host: thank you. guest: thank you. unquestioned. to add perspective, punjabis dominate not just in the government, but in the military. as the caller said, there is resentment about that. pakistan has faced ethnic struggles. the s a lot of the violence is not motivated by different ethnic groups. in terms of what that means for the future of pakistan, i think it is too or early to write the

country's obituary. a lot isse that is used to le muddling through. there are different types of muddling through. i must pakistan can solve some of these -- on less pakistan can solve these identity issues as a lift economic issues -- unless pakistan can solve identity issues and economic issues, we could see areas where the government is not able to exercise its which of control as forcefully as it would like. that means that we have lots of different sub-state centers of power that are competing against one another. ultimately what all of that does -- it makes it much more

difficult for pakistan to confine some of the other nationwide problems that continue to hobble it. all of that is to say that they will continue to see a identity problems. just one of a number of problems pakistan is facing. the trends are not pointing in the right direction. host: mohamad on our line for independents. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: good morning, stephen. thank you for having me on. i wanted to ask you what is going on with the government of pakistan and his haqqani network. it sounds like there are insurgents helping. why are we giving aid to a government that is assisting them into killing our men, our soldiers?

how do we end that? guest: that is a great question. for context, the haqqani network is arguably one of the most lethal insurgent forces in afghanistan. a lot of its fighters are in a tribal area, where the drums strikes have taken place. -- drove strikes have taken place. there is evidence that suggests that they get support and guidance from pakistan's military and its intelligence service. as for why the u.s. continues to give a, for a while, the thinking was that perhaps the u.s. could induce pakistan to break with this support. they could by the pakistan is off.

it continues. although at much smaller levels. quite frankly because it is a door opener. it still gets us influence in pakistan, although not as much as we like. $1.1 billion in coalition support is reimbursement. certainly from the pakistani perspective. that is a u.s. paying -- getting a good deal for shipping money through. the civilian aid that was earmarked was done so because it was an inducement in the u.s. was seeking to try to strengthen civilian institutions in pakistan that are less about military proxies' and bring stability to pakistan and signal that the u.s. was not going to abandon the country. they were helping pakistan would decide they did not need the how haqqanis.

there is no magic bullet for getting pakistan to break with these actors. we have to use coercion, which that could empower the right- wing. or, scaling back our aid, which we have done. but continuing to maintain some type of relationship that takes a long view towards pakistan ultimately coming around to its own conclusions that this behavior is not only unacceptable, but is not serving its own interests. host: stephen tankel, we will leave it there. professor at the american university. thank you. guest: thank you for having me. host: "newsmakers coming up" -- coming up, "newsmakers with lee saunders. we will discuss the failed attempt to oust scott walker in and relations over the

recall election. [video clip]journ >> the e-mail said this -- i feel like i have been hit in my gut. my teeth are loose. my mouth is bleeding. i am going to go back to bed and i am going to wake up and be fired up and i will be working very, very hard to support the work of the middle-class and working families across the state of a wisconsin. that is all i remember. they will continue to be engaged. we were born in wisconsin, our union. we were there yesterday. we are there today. we will be there tomorrow. i am optimistic that we will win in the end. we were able to -- the senate in wisconsin.

there is a lawsuit now where the courts ruled that we could get it back here we are one to make strides in we will treat this as a priority state for us. host: lee saunders is our guest on "newsmakers." he's the head of municipal employees. this is available anytime on c- span.org. we will continue "washington journal" tomorrow with niels lesniewski, paul bishop, and matthew wald. matthew wald. deta