>> coming up on c-span, hillary clinton talks about international religious freedom. followed by an analysis of the state department's religious freedom report. >> secretary of state hillary clinton spoke monday about international religious freedom. she said the world is sliding backwards even as progress is made on political freedom in places like the middle east. she also talked about allegations against her longtime aide and praise republicans who criticized efforts to link her to the muslim brotherhood in

egypt. >> it is an enormous pleasure for me to welcome my friend and the secretary of state, and hillary clinton. for the last three and a half years, she has traveled the globe relentlessly covering more ground and visiting more countries and talking to more non-governmental people than any previous secretary of state. under her watch, the united states has ended one more and is winding down another in afghanistan. has reset relations with russia, though that remains a work in progress. and has handled relations with china. and, as we will hear has evolved a sound response to the historic change in the middle east. the u.s. has deep political economic, and moral interests in the outcome of the arab awakening.

the fact the awakening has produced a free elections in countries like tunisia and libya, while it is challenging it raises new challenges of its own. how will parties governed? what steps will they take to protect individual rights, including those of women and religious minorities and what can be done to reduce sectarian violence? the state department's report on religious freedom, and we have ambassador cook with us today that report which was released today examines many of these issues and is the theme of the secretary's remarks. no one who has followed her career over decades in doubt that secretary clinton as a personal commitment to freedom of expression and human rights that runs deep and strong in her veins.

her intelligence and willingness to speak louldy t-- loudly truth has made her an effective secretary of state. we are delighted to have for today. please join me in welcoming secretary clinton. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to join you here today to talk about an issue that shaped the lives of people worldwide as much as any other, religious freedom. i want to thank jessica mathews, for that introduction, and for her service of many years and her leadership as the president

of the carnegie endowment. 15 years ago, she was writing about trends that were beginning to get people's attention. like the rise of information technology and the creation of global networks that existed outside of government. she said those changes would shape global events in ways good and bad and that governments would have to adapt if they wanted to stay on top of global change. she was certainly right about then and i have worked to make the integration of new technology and outreach to civil society groups and the private sector, diaspora communities a hallmark of my time is secretary so that it is not an afterthought. it is not an add-on but it is integrated into the work we do. clearly the work we do will be affected by all of those non- state actors. i want to acknowledge two people.

michael, our assistant secretary of state. someone with whom i have had the great privilege and honor of working over the last several years. and suzanne johnson cook the u.s. ambassador at large for international religious freedom. someone i have had the privilege of working with in the state department and my previous incarnations as a senator. chris and bill, two of my top advisers from civil society. i'm grateful for their efforts. and all of the representatives from congress, from embassies members of the religion and foreign policy working group

and others who recognized and are committed to the importance of this issue and what it represents. earlier today, the state department released its latest international religious freedom report. it opens with the words that guide our work and the work of governments and individuals devoted to freedom of religion around the world. they are the words of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. listen to those words again because much of what i will say today is rooted in our constitution and our belief about the importance of the free exercise of religion. but it is important to remember that these words were adopted by the international community not just by the united states. here they are. everyone has the right to freedom of thought conscience, and religion. this includes freedom to change his religion or belief in freedom, either in alone or

with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teachings, practice, worship and observance. these are straightforward principles that bring people together in heartfelt unity and disagreement. in the united states religious freedom is a cherished constitutional value. a strategic national interest and a foreign-policy priority. it is particularly urgent that we highlight religious freedom because when we consider the global picture and ask whether religious freedom is expanding or shrinking, the answer is sobering. more than a billion people live under governments that systematically suppress religious freedom. new technologies have given

repressive governments additional tools for cracking down on religious expression. members of communities that have been under pressure report that the pressure is rising. even some countries that are making progress on expanding political freedom are frozen in place when it comes to religious freedom. so when it comes to this human right, at this a feature of stable, secure peaceful society, the world is sliding backwards. meanwhile, several countries with the verse of faith communities are in the process of navigating transition toward democracy. they are wrestling with questions of whether and how to protect religious freedom for their citizens. this goes from tunisia to burma and many places in between. take, for example, egypt which i visited two weeks ago. i had a very emotional personal conversation with christians who are anxious about

what the future holds for them and their country. what egypt and other countries decide it will have a major impact on the lives of their people and will go a long way toward determining whether these countries are able to achieve democracy. this is an issue that transcends religious divide. all faiths have a stake in defending an expanding religious freedom. i feel strongly about this. because i have seen firsthand how religious freedom is an essential element of human

dignity and of secure, thriving societies. it has been linked with economic development and stability. and it creates a climate in which people from different religions can move beyond distrusted work together to solve their shared problems. i have also seen how the opposite operates. the absence of religious freedom can create a climate of fear and suspicion that weakens the social cohesion and alienates citizens. that can make it more difficult to achieve national progress. and because the impact of religious freedom extends beyond the realm of religion, and has ramifications for a country's security and its economic and political progress, more students and practitioners of foreign-policy needs to focus more time and attention on it.

today i want to make the case for religious freedom and why all people and government should support it. i want to address the argument that people who stand in the way of religious freedom used to try to justify their actions. >> let me start with what life is like for many who live without this freedom. in the harshest places certain religions are banned completely. a believer can be sentenced to death. strict laws ban blasphemy and defamation of religion. when your words are interpreted as a violation of those laws you can be sentenced to death. violence towards religious minorities often goes unpunished. the message is clear -- if your beliefs do not have government approval, beware. the same message is delivered

by governments that seek the illusion of freedom by creating official, state-sanctioned religious associations. they say, look, our people can practice whichever of these pre-approved faiths they choose. but if people are caught going outside of these associations to form their own communities or receive instruction from their own religious leaders, they can be imprisoned. religious freedom is not just about religion. it is not just about the right of roman catholics to organize a mass or muslims to hold a religious funeral or bahai's to meet in each other's homes for prayer or jews to celebrate high holy days together. as important as those are

religious freedom is about the right of people to think what they want and come together in fellowship without the state looking over their shoulder. that is where the state- exercised right of religious freedom is the first right enshrined in our first amendment, along with the freedom to speak an associate. because where religious freedoms exist, so did the others. it is also why the universal declaration of human rights protect freedom of thought conscience, and religion. they all speak to the same capacity within each and every human being -- to follow our conscience, to make moral choices for ourselves, our families, our communities. these rights give our lives meaning and dignity. whatever religion we belong to. or if we belong to no religion

at all. like all human beings and all human rights, they are our birthright by the mere fact of us being who we are, thinking, acting human beings. they're not granted to us by any government. rather it is the responsibility of government to protect them. this, of course, is not the view held by regimes that block religious freedom. they choose to see things differently. in particular, there are two arguments they make to justify their actions. both are worth examining. the first is that only some people should be allowed to

practice their faith, those who belong to the right faith. they define religion in such a way that if you do not believe what they want you to believe then what you are doing is not religion. there is only one definition of religion. they and only they and the religious leaders with whom they work are in possession of the ultimate religious truth. others, depending on tradition are wrong, heretical, infidels. they do not deserve the protection of the law. they may not even deserve to live. because this is an issue that inflames emotions, it can be hard to talk about it constructively. let me simply say this -- people can believe that they and only those like them possess the one and only truth.

that is their right, though they do not have the right to harm those they think harbor incorrect views. but their societies pay a cost when they choose to look at others with hate or disgust. human rights become real not only in interactions between citizens and their government, but also in those millions of ordinary moments among neighbors and classmates and co- workers, even strangers on the street. every time people choose tolerance and respect over fear and animosity, they strengthen human rights for themselves as well as everyone else, because they affirmed their shared humanity. that is our religious freedom -- excuse me -- inscribed inlaw becomes religious harmony flourishing throughout society. religious leaders have a

critical role to play in this process. we need them to encourage their followers -- excuse me -- to embrace the the principles of peace and respect, which are not only tenets of nearly every religion, but also at the heart of religious freedom. and then, most importantly we need leaders to affirm that respecting the religious freedom of others is in keeping with, not in opposition to one's own rights. when people of all religions can practice freely, it creates an environment in which everyone's freedom is more secure. leaders and governments meanwhile, have their own responsibilities. people can think what they want, but governments have to act in favor of protecting the rights of all.

the world should and must hold governments to a different standard than individuals whether they are secular or religious, muslim or christian hindu, atheistic, or anything else. governments have a solemn obligations to protect the human rights of all citizens no matter what religion as they believe or do not believe. some leaders try to excuse treating some citizens to prevent others by saying that is what the people want. they said they personally believe in religious freedom but if a majority of citizens want to see a group locked up or thrown out of schools or fired from their jobs, well, doesn't democracy mean following the will of the people? the answer is there is a big difference between democracy and the tyranny of the majority. the liberty that democracy

provides does not include the freedom to do violence to the equality of all citizens before the law. that is why universal rights are often embedded in constitutions. they provide guard rails against laws that deprive members of minority groups of their rights. when popular opinion supports restricting the rights of a minority, leaders should remember that they owe their people both their loyalty and their judgment. when rights apply only to some citizens and not to others when principles are subverted to power, that sows the seeds for legitimate grievances and instability. a genuine democracy uses principles to protect the rights of people equally. a second argument that leaders opposed to religious freedom make is that they cannot afford religious freedom yet. they argue that the result could be instability. a rise in anti-government sentiment, the fraying of social

ties, more acts of harassment and violence. this is the same argument that leaders invoked to justify cutting down on political expression, press freedom, or civil society groups, or any activity that questions the status quo and reflects the citizens' democratic aspirations. in fact, long practice and even academic study shows that it is the absence of religious freedom that is correlated with religious conflict and violent extremism. there is also evident that conflict is more likely when states have official religions and persecuted religious minorities. that makes sense, if you think about it. when people are treated as equal under the law, hostilities among neighbors subside and social unity has a chance to grow. so does trusted the democratic process, because people are confident their rights will be protected no matter who is in power.

in other words religious freedom is one of the safety valves. it lets people have a say over important aspects of their lives, enjoying their societies fully, and channel their frustrations into constructive lives. otherwise, it is a recipe for conflict and extremism. some governments are coming to realize this. for example, in libya, since the overthrow of gaddafi, the new government has chosen not to enforce some of his lost that

restricted religious activity. they have enshrined the free practice of religion in their interim constitution and outlawed discrimination on the basis of religion or sect. earlier this year, the libyan supreme court overturned a law that criminalized insults against islam. they have come to realize that the best way to deal with offensive speech is to counter it with speech that reveals the emptiness of the insult and the lies. egypt is grappling with these challenges as it navigates its unprecedented transition.

i met with members of the new government, including president morsi. religious freedom was very present, behind closed doors and out in the streets. the president has said clearly and repeatedly in public and private that he intends to be the president of all the egyptian people. he has pledged to appoint an inclusive government and put women and christians in high leadership positions. the egyptian people and the international community are looking to him to follow through on those commissions. i heard from christians who want to know that they will be accorded the same rights and respect as all egyptians in a new government led by an islamist party. they wonder, understandably, will the government looking explicitly to greater reliance on islamic principles stand up for non-muslims and muslims equally?

since this is the first time that egypt has ever been in this situation, it is a fair question. egyptians are building a brand new democracy. what it will look like, how it will work, how it will handle religious pluralism -- egyptians will be writing the answers to those and many other questions for years to come. as i told the christians with whom i met, the united states does not take the side of one political party over another. what we do is stand firmly on the side of principles. yes, we do support democracy -- a real democracy. where every citizen has the right to live, work, and

worship how they choose, whether they be muslim or christian or from any other background, where no group or faction can impose their authority or their ideology or their religion on anyone else, where there is healthy competition and what we call checks and balances. no one institution or leader gets too powerful and the rights of all citizens are respected and protected. the egyptian people will look to their elected leaders to protect the rights of all citizens and to govern in a fair and inclusive manner, and so willingly. and if voters make different choices in future elections, then they and we will expect their leaders to respond to the will of the people and give up power. we are prepared to work with the leaders that the egyptian people choose, but our engagement with those leaders will be based on their commitment to universal human rights and universal democratic principles. another important aspect of egypt's transition is whether citizens themselves respect each other's differences. we saw that capacity vividly in tahrir square, when christians formed a circle around muslims

in prayer and muslims clasped hands to protect christians celebrating mass. i think that spirit of unity and fellowship was a very moving part of how egyptians and all the rest of us responded to what happened in those days in that square. if, in the years ahead egyptians continue to respect that precious tradition of what every single egyptian can contribute to the future of their country, where people of different faiths will be standing together in fellowship, then they can bring hope and healing to many communities in egypt who need that message.

as we look to the future, not only in egypt, not only in the newly free and democratically- seeking states of north africa and the middle east, but far beyond, we will continue to advocate strongly for religious freedom. this is a bedrock priority of our foreign policy, one that we carry out in a number of ways. earlier today, the united states did release our annual international religious freedom report. this is the fourth time i have had the honor of presenting it. it comprehensively catalogs the official and societal restrictions of people around the world face as they try to practice their faith.

it designates countries of particular concern that have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. this report sends a signal to the worst offenders, that the world is watching. it also provides information to help us and others target our advocacy, to make sure we reach the people who most need our help. in the obama administration, we have elevated religious freedom as a diplomatic priority. together with governments international organizations, and civil society, we have work to shape and implement united nations human rights council resolution 1618. it seeks to protect people under attack or discriminated against because of their faith. we raised these issues at the

highest levels of international settings. i personally have discussed religious freedom in every region of the world, sometimes over and over again. we have appointed our first envoy to the organization of islamic cooperation. we have launched a strategic dialogue with civil society, in which we collaborate with religious leaders to promote religious freedom, a conflict prevention, and mitigation and development center-religious dialogue. it includes a foreign policy working group that has provided concrete recommendations on how we can strengthen our approach to religious freedom and engagement with religious communities. beyond diplomacy, we expanded our assistance to individuals under attack because of their beliefs and to human rights activists working in hostile environments to promote religious freedom.

these men and women are doing vital and often dangerous work with great courage. we are proud to stand with them. as part of our human-rights dialogue with china, for example, we have taken chinese officials on site visits to see how religious organizations in our country provide valuable social services. we organize a visit to a catholic charity that provides help to people with intellectual disabilities, an organization that fights discrimination against arab-americans, and more. we are also taking the message of tolerance and inclusion to young people. a few years ago, hannah rosenthal and our special representative to muslim communities attended a tolerance summit together. it came away with an idea. they began asking young people to pledge to spend just one hour working with people who do not look like them or pray like them.

jews were encouraged to volunteer to clean a mosque, muslims to help elderly christians get to church, and other examples. it has elicited commitments from young people are around the world to spend tens of thousands of hours walking in someone else's shoes. it has even become one of the london olympics official initiatives. it is something that we all have a responsibility to do. seven years ago, when i was a senator, i spoke at a dinner on religious liberty. i challenged everyone there to think of ways we could personally for their religious freedom. including, in the words of eleanor roosevelt, "in those small places close to home." i said it was up to each of us to ensure that our nation,

which has always been an exemplar of religious freedom, continues to be. our mission is as important today as it has ever been. the united states was founded, amongst others, by people fleeing religious persecution, who dreamed of a place where they could live according to their beliefs, without fear, without shame, without the need to hide. today, we are that place. with all of our challenges there is no doubting the importance of religion to the vast majority of americans or to the fact that people of faiths and people of no faith live in america openly and at peace with each other. the religious life of our nation

is vibrant and alive. that has been possible because of our citizens' capacity over time for tolerance and respect. but also because of the work of our government, all three branches, to uphold our constitution, to take extraordinary care not to favor one religion over another, and to protect equally the rights of all. this has required perpetual vigilance and effort. we all know there have been clashes and stumbles and vigorous, impassioned debate along the way. we are still searching for and moving toward that more perfect union.

of course, we like any non- divine entity are not perfect. but we should be proud and grateful for the wisdom of our founders and for the diligence of those who came after to protect this essential freedom. it is rare in this world, but it should not be. people are not asking for much. they just want to worship their god and raise their children and make their homes and honor their ancestors and mourn their loved ones in a way that speaks to their hearts and reflects their beliefs. what could be more fundamental to human dignity than that? that is what religious freedom makes possible. that is why the united states will always stand for the value, the principle that religious freedom represents, not only for us, but for people everywhere. it is not only a value that we enshrined in our constitution. we know from long experience it goes right to the heart of the stability and security of so many countries in the world.

in this inter-connected world we live in, that means it affects the stability and security of the united states of america. thank you for understanding the importance of this value and principle, and i hope for seeking ways to continue to further it, protect it and spread it. thank you very much. [applause]

now i think we will maybe take a few questions, and jessica? in no particular order -- here come the microphones. >> thank you so much madam secretary, for what you do in the world and for the united states. i am egyptian american. thank you for caring about egypt. i am the founder of a democracy for egypt. my question to you, madame, is not only the question in egypt -- i don't know if you read the last report that the change for egypt is asking president morsi right now that he is not delivering what he promised in forming the new government. you mentioned that you will be observing closely and if there would be steps taken.

if you could enlighten us on what is next. thank you so much for your effort. >> well, thank you, and let me start by saying that i do recognize that a democratic transition is a complicated one for any country, and in all to humility, it took us quite some time to get it right, to include all of our citizens, starting with african-americans and women and truly fulfill not only the letter of the constitution but the aspirations of our people. as i monitor what is happening in egypt, i am conscious of how challenging it is to get off on the right footing, to be absolutely clear what your principles and values are. as you are aware, and there was certainly a very concerted

effort by the president and the freedom and justice party and others associated with it, including the muslim brotherhood, to make commitments about the kind of inclusive a tip that the government would represent, the respect that all egyptians would be held in and the protection of the rights of all egyptians. now we are waiting to see how that gets translated into action. we are certainly aware of the forming of the new government, with the announcement of a new prime minister. we are waiting to see who is in that government. that will be an important step along the way. we are looking for ways to support the government, particularly in fulfilling the economic aspirations of all egyptians. but we are going to judge by actions, not words. and the actions the actions are really just at the very beginning stages.

it is important to make absolutely clear to everyone that we're not supporting any individual party or any individual. there seems to be a view on the part of some that we are but that is not the case, never has been the case. we have supported a transition that we hope as lead to a democracy, which, as we have made clear, is not just about elections. there were mistakes in the past, and some of the ways that we shorthanded support for democracy in our country, let's have an election and democracy and maybe we never have to have another one.

one election, one time. we don't have to be held to any standard as to how we continue to reach out and respect people. i have made it very clear that that is not the case. an election does not a democracy make. we are emphasizing the independence of the press freedom of religion, the kinds of things that we have learned over many years of practice of what sustains a democracy. as egypt adopt a new constitution, as it votes again for parliament, as its government takes office, we will see a recognition, a commitment to what we view as essential for democracy to be sustainable. now, am concerned that respect for religious freedom is quite tenuous. i don't know that that is going to quickly be resolved but since 2011 and the fall of the

mubarak regime sectarian violence has increased. attacks on christians and muslims, sectarian violence, from both communities, has cost lives. we don't think there has been a consistent commitment to investigate and applied the laws equally to the perpetrators of such violence. that it and sends a message to the minority community in particular, but to the larger community, that there is not going to be any consequences for acting out one's own religious prejudices or social and securities.

that is the kind of recipe that can quickly get out of control in terms of conflict and also undermined the new democracy. i am urging the egyptian government at all levels to respect the rights of all egyptians. and i am urging those who are concerned, not only christians, but also moderates, liberals secularists, to organize themselves. this is something that i started talking to the tahrir square veterans about shortly after the fall of mubarak, that it has been my experience that when democratic space opens up, when freedom opens up and

authoritarian regimes are falling, those who are unorganized will not be successful. how is that for a profound statement? [laughter] but all too often, people who are in the moderate liberal world that don't have the same commitment to organization and follow-through that those whose beliefs are so certain that they know exactly what they are going to try to achieve. there is the religious dimension, at the constitutional inclusive of the dimension, but there is also the political dimension. in a democracy, you have to get out there and work to elect people who represent your views. otherwise, you are going to be sidelined.

it is my hope that as we judge egypt's leaders by their actions, egyptian activists really get more focus on how to influence of the government themselves. i know this is a long haul, but that is the way democracy works. it does not happen overnight. oh, my goodness. [laughter] i don't know, jessica, you should be calling on these people. this young man in the middle in the striped shirt. >> very lucky to see you here. >> thank you. >> religion sometimes mixes with other issues like terrorism. the terrorists, the separatists, mobilize supporters. how to protect religious freedom and counterterrorism as well as a counter-separatism?

thank you. >> that is an important question, because oftentimes when we talk about religious freedom, there is a tendency for people to worry about the free exercise of religion somehow supporting terrorists and separatists. i have almost the opposite view. i think the more respect there is for the freedom of religion, the more people will find useful ways to participate in their societies. if they feel oppressed, if there is not that safety valve that they can exercise their own religion, they then oftentimes feel such anger, despair, that they turned to violence and become extremists.

now, there will always be people in nearly every society who are going to believe that god is talking right to them and saying, you know, what you really need to do is overthrow the government, what you really need to do is to kill the unbelievers. there will be people like that. but we're talking about organizing society for the vast majority of people, having people who exercise their religious beliefs lawfully protected by the law, and people who engage in violence harassment, intimidation, or other antisocial criminal behavior are punished by the law. but one should not be punished or harassed merely because of who one is or what one believes, unless their actions associated with that. that often is difficult rub in many areas when we talk about religious freedom.

you know, it is not just religions against one another. it is even within religions -- within christianity, within judaism, within islam, within hinduism. there are people who believe in their version of that religion is the only right way to believe. in some of the countries we are most concerned about that are majority muslim countries, it is intimidation and violence against muslims who are in minority sects that we must worry about. we watch for many years the conflict in northern ireland against catholics on one side and protestants on the other. i think you are right that there always are issues about terrorism, separatism. but those should be dealt with under the law without infringing on the rights of people whose religious beliefs are different from the majority.

i hope that governments can begin to make those distinctions. it is not only important to do because you don't want to breed extremism, which you can do by cracking down on religion, especially if it is associated with the different ethnic group or tribal group, other identifying characteristics. but it is also because if you are not careful, people will feel that they are in a life or death struggle to protect their religion in the majority against the minority. i remember going to bosnia after the end of the war in bosnia, and a woman telling me that she couldn't believe the hostility she started to feel from her neighbors. she said to a neighbor, "why are you behaving like this?

we have known each other for many years. we went to school together we went to weddings, we bury our dead together. why are you treating me like this?" the answer was, "because we were told if we did not do that to you first, you would do that to us." if the government doesn't step in and say, no, we are not going to let people be acting this way, we are not going to let them be discriminating, we are not going to let them be harming others on the basis of religion or any other characteristics but focusing on religion, they can get out of control of any government.

as we know, governments and sometimes stoke religious discrimination for their own political reasons. you have problems at home, the economy is not doing well. let's go find an enemy, let's go find people who are over there. they are of a different religion. that gets everybody excited. you like a match and you cannot put the fire out. we need to be thoughtful about sorting out the problems posed by extremism and terrorism from legitimate religious differences that should be tolerated respected, and protected. >> we have time for just one more. may i ask you, when the secretary is finished answering this question, to stay on your -- [unintelligible] >> jessica, why don't you call on the last person?

>> i am serving as the general counsel of the american egyptian strategic alliance, working to bring together egypt and the united states in a stronger alliance. one of the things we been talking to the egyptian government about is this issue of religious freedom, and we told them, look to your left, meeting places like jordan lebanon, and palestine, where muslims and christians particularly in palestine, have lived in peace for centuries. i am wondering if your conversations touch upon that. look to your fellow arab countries, where it is not a problem, frankly. just a quick follow-up question. i appreciate your emphasis on america, but we also have our problems here with respect to, of course, is, phobia, which i am sure you are aware of.

i'm wondering if you have comments about his recent activity in, targeting one of your own aides. >> well, on the first question there have been disturbing recent developments with christians being attacked and driven out of iraq, christians in syria feeling like they are really going to be at risk almost regardless of what develops in the terrible conflict that is now raging. christians feeling that they are under pressure in lots of places in the middle east, where, as you rightly say, they have lived for centuries it side-by-side. i think it is quite important for us to unpack that. why is it happening now? what is it?

of course, it is a new political identity, it is an effort by islamists primarily, although not exclusively, to claim a democracy and see how it fits within their pre-existing from works of belief. there's a lot of attention and concern going on right now across the arab world, particularly in places where christians have lived and would love to continue living. has several questions in egypt told me, our people have been here and i can trace my family back two thousand years. i love this country i want to be a part of this country and i want to help build this country. i just hope i will be able to. it is at this point that leadership is incredibly important.

leaders have to be active in stepping in and send messages about protecting the diversity within their countries. frankly, i don't see enough of that. i want to see more of it, i want to see more of it. we did see some of that in our own country. we saw republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that have no place in our politics. we have to set an example, there is no doubt about that. we have to continue doing so. but we also have to expect other leaders to do the same. when i think about how scared so many minorities, religious minorities are all over the world, and governments -- i believe that governments have a bigger role to play and leveraged than they exercise. to many governments, particularly in these fast- transitioning societies, when there is so much going on at the same time -- too many governments believe their religious freedom is something you get to after you deal with

everything else. it is just not a priority for them. we want to raise it up on the visibility list of what the need to be dealing with, and to try to send a clear message. you need to stand up for the rights of your people. you are a leader of a diverse society. if you are in a rock, you need to be protecting every community, not just one or two at the most. if you are in lebanon, you need to be standing up for every community. similarly, in egypt, pakistan, indonesia, china, india, and where, leaders need to be out front saying that an acting on a. -- and then acting on it. i am hoping that we will see more actions that move in that direction, and the united states will continue to push and prod and persuade and, if necessary

look at ways to use consequences that can send a very clear message that we believe you will not be successful, you will not be stable, you will not be secure, you will not have a sustainable democracy. let me add one other thought about this, though. in some societies, what we're seeing, going back to the young man's question -- terrorism, separatism, and religion -- there can be as fertile ground if the government is not paying attention to all the needs of the people. we also are going to have policies that, if you are living in northern nigeria, you will see more development so that you do not only see -- take on the security front, but take it on the economic development front. there are lots of ways to try to knit this together.

it is probably the most exciting time but the most daunting time to be a leader in the world right now, especially in these new transitioning democracies. there are just so many high expectations that will be so difficult to meet. stand for principles, stand for values, and lead them to the space they should have to exercise the most precious freedoms human beings should have gone are regardless of who their leaders are. the united states will stand ready to assist them in any way possible. thank you very much.

>> secretary of state hillary clinton met with the kenyan president while traveling through africa. they talked about regional security issues and the need for fair elections. the secretary is also scheduled to meet with the outgoing government in malawi. >> now more from the latest state department report on religious freedom. this time, from a briefing on afghanistan and pakistan for its treatment of religious minorities.

>> good afternoon. today, we have our in your release of our international religious freedom report. here to present that to you is our ambassador at large for international religious freedom, suzan johnson cook. >> thank you. good morning. good afternoon. we are releasing the 2011 international religious freedom report. for the first time, it covers the calendar year in uses new technology to improve search ability. this congressionally mandated report reduce the status of religious freedom in 199 countries and territories. throughout the year, our office work with governments and civil societies to produce a report that is comprehensive detailed, and accurate. later today, secretary clinton will give remarks on the

importance of international religious freedom and its fundamental human right. let me just reiterate now. religious freedom is universal human right. he is essential for a stable, peaceful and rising -- it is essential for a stable, peaceful, and thriving society. we stand with all who are denied the ability to choose, express or with their faith really and we remain dedicated to protecting this universal human right and the vital role it plays in ensuring peace and stability for all nations. freedom of religion is not just an american right. it is the right of all people. it goes hand in hand with freedom of expression, speech, and assembly, and where it is restricted, all of these rights are at risk. for this reason, religious freedom is often a bellwether for other human rights. it is the canary in the coal mine. unfortunately, in too many places, these rights are not respected. this report details increasing

entitlements against a range of communities. several themes will strike you. you'll read about the eight countries the secretary has designated last august as countries of particular concern including places such as north korea, where religious freedom does not exist, and iran where it deteriorated from a horrible situation. you will see that in countries around the world anti-semitism is on the rise. evidenced by attacks on adults and children and the desecration of cemeteries. let me share with you some other troubling trends. in a number of countries individuals were detained or imprisoned because of their religious beliefs. in iran, there is a death sentence just for his faith. the government continues to detain over 100 bohai.

in other countries increasing ly using blasphemy to curb it is freedom. in saudi arabia, blasphemy against the people, the interpretation of sunni islam continues to be punishable by death. this february, a februaryman -- this february, a young man was arrested for questioning his take on twitter and he remains in jail without charge. in pakistan, authorities continue to invoke these of these applause. hundreds of muslims and non- muslims were convicted of blasphemy. the christian remains in prison awaiting an appeal of her 2010

death sentence for blasphemy. some of those who criticize the blasphemy laws have already paid in their lives. a minister of industry affairs a governor have already paid for their lives. and half of the countries governments abuse of religion or do not intervene in cases of societal abuse. in egypt, the former regime and discriminated against religious minorities and failed to curb violence. these patterns have continued during the transition. last october, security forces attacked demonstrators in front of the egyptian radio and tv station in cairo. 25 people were killed and hundreds were injured. most of whom were cops --

christians. today, no government official has been held accountable in this attack. in burma long tensions erupted in violence against communities. in other countries governments this use laws to restrict freedom of religion expression and creativity. the selfand tibetans protesting chinese policies desperate -- chemistry desperation. russia in this pakistan and up to national security to restrict the rights of peaceful groups. other governments use registration laws to restrict the rights of religious communities. in number of countries including hungary and central asia have laws that make legal

registration for religious communities difficult. this means an unregistered groups are ineligible for state financial support or tax benefits and unable to own property. in some central asian countries and registered groups are frequently unable to gather to worship. this favoritism can empower societal abuse. in several countries governments limited the right to wear or not we're religious attire. this decision should be a personal choice. and increasingly european countries enacted legislation to ban entire covered -- covering the face. some countries force women to cover themselves entirely. saudi arabia, iran, somalia, and forced modesty codes for women.

these challenges are daunting and it is easy to focus on the bed -- bad. change is possible. as ambassador at large for religious freedom, i have met with government officials and people from all around the world. the ideas they cheer about new ways to come together in build hope for a better future are exciting and inspirational. for example the state department has launched the 2012 hours against hate campaign to promote respect regardless of religion culture, gender disability or sexual orientation. using social media, this campaign mobilized young people to volunteer time to work against intolerance and hate and we are partnering with -- we are excited to be part of the summer olympics.

citizens everywhere, part of this campaign. efforts like these change the story of a into one of acceptance in peace. it takes all of us. governments, faith communities civil societies, working together to ensure that all people have the right to believe or not believe. each of us has a role to play in promoting religious freedom where it is most vulnerable. when i read the report, and think about the people. i think about the men and women who might have met in vietnam neisseria, morocco turkey those i sat with in the vatican. people men, women, youth, who are trying to practice their faith and raise their children and their families freely. most of all, i think about the

people whose freedom has been taken away. and whose lives are still at risk. 1000 days plus incarcerated. many names we cannot call. i think about the tibetans who have self immolated more than three dozen entities in the many others in danger, and the families of those lost loved ones because of their faith, we dedicate this report. rededicate ourselves to continuing the fight on enter -- we dedicate ourselves to continuing the fight on religious freedom. let me take this opportunity to wish our warmest regards to muslims around the world as they observe this month of ramadan. it is my pleasure to receive your questions. thank you. >> i am focusing on 2011.

when we had the launch of the arab spring, do you have hope that in 2012, the criticisms will be alleviated? are things changing as the arab spring movement progresses? >> bric question. the great question. the arab spring continues to happen in places like egypt. they are still in transition even though they have just elected the president. their president has declared he will be more inclusive in his cabinet. he has declared there will be a -- as they formed a constitution, it is an opportunity to include religious opportunities. we're looking for them to hold accountable those who are perpetrating violence. we are looking to protect religious people inan appeal to all religious human rights.

ithat is my answer to your question. they are in transition. we are looking to them to honor what they said they will do. >> i was looking at the executive summary and i was wondering if you could extend the comment on cuba and you say there has been any improvement in respecting religious freedom. on the other hand, you are saying there is still significant restrictions. how do you reconciliate post two status? can you elaborate on what is going on now? the real is the pope's visit was this year. were they gearing up to the visit and that is one of the improvements? can you elaborate? >> this report is about 2011. there are places where the government has pragmatic openings. the government is encouraging religious groups to be able to

travel there and be able to have an opportunity post the pope's visit to engage the communities of a fair. -- communities of faith there. we hope we can work on those issues. >> these reports cover situations in 2011. north korea had a leadership change at the end of last year. and you see any sign of change in institutions? what is the expectation for north korea? >> north korea is on our country is of particular concern last year the situation is horrible. where we can, we have multilateral relationships and we try to press the government to improve their situation. it is deplorable. there is not a strong religious freedom going forward. they're not focused on it at

all. we are asking them to work on all of their universal human rights. >> the report is from 2011. i want to ask a question about russia. the reduction in religious freedom in the last six to a months. >> -- 8 monthys. >> the continued to miss use the extremist amoss. we are urging the government to not miss use those laws and adhere to the declaration and international covenant of civil and political rights. they still have the issue of the misuse of extremism lost and we will continue to monitor the situation. we are concerned about the people who are affected. we will monitor the situation. >> the question on iran, the report says that religious

freedom deteriorated further from the egregious situation but at least in the executive summary, some of the issues you mentioned, the restoration of the 20-year sentence and the continued incarceration of the christian pastor, that does not suggest it is worse than it was before. what else is significantly worse? >> iran is a country of political concern. it is stagnant. it has not improved. we are concerned and congress is concerned. on july 8 that is the of thousand day of incarceration. the u.s. issued a statement of his release. there are sanctions that have been imposed on them. 14 organizations and four

individuals have had to sink in the post on them. we continue to assess the situation and we repeatedly tried to monitor the situation. >> it says it has deteriorated further from the egregious situation. you just said it was stagnant. >> deteriorated from 2011. the situation is bad. it is not improving. that is what i should say. it is the haqqani and other religious minorities that are being detained and we are looking at that situation very closely. it continues to be a country of particular concern. >> at a congressional hearing last week, a representative said the u.s. should be taking a stronger approach on human rights and religious freedom with china. he mentioned sanctions, which can be imposed.

taken that the situation has deteriorated further, the persecution has intensified what other pressures is the state department considering? >> thank you. this past week, the chinese human rights dialogue was held here. i raised religious freedom issues. it is complicated where there are many conversations going on. we raised the issue andabout many groups. we continue to press the government. there are unregistered churches. they do not have a chance to express their faith in believes. we continue to press the government in terms of freedom of expression and religion. i am also an advocate for human

rights. we will not let up. >> could you tell us what kind of response he got when you raised the question? >> there was discussion. you know, the discussions will continue. is it ready to release the report in terms of what the results are? i would not be doing that. thank you. >> what do you consider what is happening in syria? >> it is a tough situation. we are seeing as much in the media -- we are looking to help. the president has called of the removal of himaside. religious freedom, they need to do with it. we are looking for -- >> what about the cpc? are they the same? >> in 2011, i refer you to the

report. >> it is deteriorating. until there is a post-assad regime, we will not be able to tell you in terms of how they can move forward. 2011 and 2010 pretty much deteriorated. >> he meant the countries that are cpc's. did you add or subtract? >> they are the same. the same 8. >> obviously, the situation with the christians was a factor in secretary clinton's visit to egypt. i am wondering what assurances you have been given from president morsi because the

interim government did not -- they took action against the christians. have you been given assurances by president morsi that he will look at this situation? to what extent could you use aid as a lever to make sure the government -- >> the secretary was just there. she invited a number of groups including religious groups and minorities to meet with her. i also met with kristin to hear -- christians here. -- president morsi has said he will include. we're looking for him to follow through. >> we have time for one more. if you have questions not answered -- [inaudible] >> i have a question about china

because earlier this year, in the human report, it included [unintelligible] in your religious freedom report, did you cover this issue? how will we take measures to push china? >> we are concerned not only with the tibetans and the uighurs but we are concerned with others. we are concerned people have the upper seniti to express their faith. -- opportunities to express their faith. >> will you take any concrete measures to help improve the situation? >> we urge the government to not only focus on -- we urge the

government to focus on everything i stated previously. we are looking for all people to be able to have the opportunity to express that. religious freedom is for people to believe or not and we want them to have the opportunity. >> i apologize we could not get to everybody. the secretary can take questions at the carnegie endowment. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this weekend on "american history tv" the turning . of the civil war gettysburg or the seven day battle for richmond? >> george mclellan's failure in robert e. lee's emergence as a field commander marked a decisive moment in the eastern theater that in turn profoundly

shaped the larger direction of the conflict. >> gary gallagher on the week- long june 1862 battles that drove the union army away from the confederate capital. tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern. sunday, more from "the contenders" -- we look at key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed history. >> i remind you that extremism in defense of liberty -- >> barry goldwater, the 1964 republican candidate who lost to lyndon b. johnson and 730 eastern and pacific. this weekend on c-span3. >> at the foot of that bridge, i was speaking. -- beaten. i thought i was going to die. >> 1965 john lewis took part in a voting rights march in

montgomery alabama 0 that took him across a bridge. >> we came within hearing distance of the state troopers. a man identified himself and said, i am a major of alabama state troopers. this is an unlawful march and it will not be allowed to continue. one of the young people walking beside me said give us a moment to kneel and pray. the major said -- >> "a cross that bridge." sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> this is a discussion on the state of campaign finance following the supreme court to texas and united decision. panelist said that groups that do not have to comply with disclosure laws are outspending those that do. they also talked about how changes in campaign finance could affect this year's presidential and congressional elections. from the bipartisan policy

center, this is one hour 20 minutes. >> ok. welcome, everybody. i am a senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center and i have more than a passing interest in this issue as a running -- as i have been running campaigns for congress. we will not talk about the last one. i was kind of there when the history changed and win campaigns began to become very expensive. it is a matter of personal interest to me as well as a matter of great interest to our country, but we are delighted to welcome you for a sixth event in our democracy project 2012 election series. the project is cheered by myself -- chaired by myself and others. the topic today is the capital

behind capitol hill. development of finance campaign -- campaign finance. i suspect our panelists will not be limited to what is happening on capitol hill. we will probably talk on the presidential race, as well. that is material. sometimes in this debate, i think that capitol hill gets neglected because we talk about the money going into the presidential race when the impact of money on congressional and senatorial races is probably greater than it is in presidential races. as i mentioned, having witnessed the increase money has had on our election and at every level of government over the last three decades, as well as the growth of superpac and related entities in the last few years i believe that it is important to break down the numbers in disgust to what degree money will affect the upcoming elections. our panelists are very, very talented and able to do that. i want to raise this point. these are not questions about money and politics, the amount

of superpac money and soft money, hard money. these issues go to the basic essence of our democracy. that is our our elected officials able to make decisions based on what is in the public interest? or does money prevent them from making decisions that affect people in their daily lives? the amount and volume and intensity of money affecting public policy -- simply put does it by vote? does it by outcomes? if it does not why is it given? why are people putting this huge amount of money into our political system other than trying to influence the course of history and the direction of our government? the other thing is how does it affect the issue of stability?

a full-page ad by the knights of columbus -- help us men the tone of american politics. a lot of folks are not talking about tone, stability. respect for institution, how the public views government. the question is, how does money the intensity the volume, and the relationship between money and lots of negative advertising impact how the public views our political system? is it different than before? our panelists can give us a perspective on these things, as well. this is an important topic. i want to turn things over to my co-moderator. >> thank you. non- introduce the panel. -- let me introduce the panel. michael is a professor of

political science at the state university of new york. he has written in books and academic articles as well as popular articles on campaign finance as well as other topics on congress and institutions. bob is the senior fellow at the center for responsive politics. formerly, he was special assistant to a staff director at the federal election commission, where he spent 30 years really knowing the numbers from the inside and now we are hoping he can tell us from the outside what really is going on. rob is a partner who heads of the election and political law practice group. he has clients across different parts of the political world. you work more on the republican side, i think?

and eliza is staff writer at "cq" where she covers campaign finance. she spent a significant amount of time writing on those issues for "national journal became -- "national journal." we will ask some questions very broadly to start off. we will let the panelists tell us what the landscape is for campaign finance this cycle. what is new? what is significant? we will have some back and forth. then we will turn to you. let us begin with michael and ask you -- let me plug a couple of reports that have just come out from the campaign finance institute. one literally off the presses on the national parties. the other one at the end of last week on the presidential the

nation's from the second quarter. -- donations from the second quarter. michael has put them into context. i am not asking you to summarize reports, but i want to ask you what is new this cycle? what is big? what is different? where are we going? >> sherer. thank you. thank you for asking me to be part of this. i will give a really big for an overview of what is important. i'm hoping to help from the conversation. i will do the national party's record. for those who are catching this on video you can get it at www. campaign no say -- campaignfinanceinstitute.org.

i am not going to go through the details. some of the big conclusions are worth mentioning. we will look at the table numbers 2, 4, and 5 which compare political party seats over time. we will look to the amount of money and resources. to se thet the fram,me the bipartisan reform act -- mccain- feingold put contribution limits on money that parties taken. because table four and five go back to 2000, it lets you see that after mccain-feingold the party is managed very quickly to replace all the soft money they lost. mccain-feingold did no harm to

the political parties. they did this through three devices. one, they got a lot more support from small donors. two, the committee's collected more from members of congress. 3, the dnc and rnc got help from the presidential candidates. as a result, or because of it the parties became the most important players in congressional elections. in the closing months, the parties were spending more in competitive districts then the candidates, other groups through most of the decade. the situation looks different here. the parties are still raising a lot of money. almost all of the money comes from the national committee and most of that can be attributed

to a fund-raising committees. if you look at the dnc you the amount of money form small donors is -- you see the economy from small donors is about the same. the amount coming from $30,000 plus donors is up 42% of the total. that is through the president to a joint fund-raising mostly. the congressional party still a different story. hear the sources of funding have not changed. the level has not changed. the senate are down a little bit. if yes what this means in an election -- if you ask what this means in an election, the party received our level, but the rest of the world is changing a lot. i know bobble talk about independent spending from non- party group.

if they raise the same amount and the rest of the world changes, that means less power relatively for the parties. we should talk about what that means. rather than be doing that, i am going to say what does that say about policy questions? should anything be done about that? what should the future agenda be? i can start by saying as a matter of advertisement that a lot of people will be doing a lot of thinking about what the future ought to be. there is a lot of thought that yet has to occur. broadly, what we are hearing are two different kinds of answers. on the one side, we hear people who say let us have unlimited contributions and then the money will go to the parties in candidates. well, i think that would

probably do away with or affect candidate's specific superpacs, but i do not think that will deal with the major driving engine. the other side says everything flows from the supreme court citizens united decision. let us amend the constitution. i personally do not fall on either of those camps. i think that i support contribution limits in amending the constitution is problematic. i also think that by stressing this point so much, we miss how much of what is going on relates to policy that is not constitutional level. it is statutory, regulatory. i will give a couple of examples and then i will move on. s candidates s -- kendeigh-pacific superpacs

grow out of loose definitions of what counts as coordinated spending. there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent a policy maker from redefining that. constitution would clearly not only allow, but the supreme court has encouraged extended disclosure. internal revenue service fully within the constitution is looking at the non-profit associations. there are many other ideas under consideration including the political parties'' aid. the court has clearly upheld the constitutionality of public financing. as i have co-authored articles that mention the strengths of matching funds to reinforce the role of small donors, the experience in new york city

scammed the extent to which these -- and the extent to which these programs work, they bring in more people, they change the incentives for candidates, the change the mix of people. candidates have an incentive for a poor neighborhoods. governor cuomo has introduced an idea that has a pretty good chance of passing that would extend the new york city style programs and most of the federal bills on the agenda. they include something that looks like the new york city board of the program. not much chance of anything happening on the federal level. a pretty good chance that there will be action in a lot of states. i think that will help set policy conversation agendas for the future and having set an agenda, that is a good place for

me to let this conversation move forward. >> bob, you are the one we said way to. two of my former constituents were charles and david koch. everybody thinks i am close with this family although they worked different with me. -- against me. can you talk about independent expenditures 501c4's, and other forms of soft money? what are the trends showing? >> in no way, this is a disadvantage because most of us do not hear about this. i will outline it. we will talk about the subtext you mentioned. in this election cycle we have seen an explosion of expenditures.

these are advertising messages, communications with voters in specifically at supporting or opposing identified the candidates for federal office. more than $200 million has been spent on independent expenditures in this cycle. that is everybody kind. -- everybody combined. i want to stop there for a minute into because i am old and i have seen many cycles of campaign finance activity, i wanted to pull back and look at how that compares to a similar kinds of activities. in some cases, very similar in the past. during the 90's, the same kind of huge contributions from individuals and corporations have been. -- were acceptable. they could not use it for

independent expenditures. they could not say this is for the candidate, but they could run issue advocacy kinds of advertising, which really got to the same in a result. the message was clear to voters. we have been there with that context. after mccain-feingold we saw the growth of other kinds of organizations. in a similar kind of way. messages that encourage voters to not be stupid. i spent some time this spring looking back to compare the levels of activity for those kinds of things. i wanted to get a sense whether

or not this phenomenon in 2012 was actually so much change or was it just a kind of a definitional thing where we defined the activity now as independent expenditures in before it was something more complex or more esoteric. during the spring, it seemed to be the case that there was not huge growth in the activity. if you compared it with the 1990's -- that has changed in the last couple of months. if you remember back to those days the parties were increasingly successful in raising this kind of money over the years. you could apply that trend line for soft money activity. if you took that in 2002 and extended it for 10 years, you would come very close to where we are today. in some respects, you might say that the world has changed a lot.

it is where we might have been otherwise. that is true as long as you stand another definition. we talk about the information actually reported to someone. one of the problems with understanding these kinds of activities whether it is campaign finance or other context, is that we define -- understand the information and so we follow those specific values. even though it may be that the activities go beyond that. it has migrated in another way. in this year, the examples of that are the 501c4 organizations doing the same kind of messages. these issue advocacy kinds of campaigns, including a very elaborate media campaigns in state and throughout the country where there is no

reporting. it has been defined at a way in mccain-feingold on the basis of what is causing some indication. you have to report these things if they are within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of the general election. there are estimate-based on tracking -- estimates based on tracking of media. that is $70 million. just in the presidential context in that kind of activity. there are philosophical reasons why those questions exist. merkel -- there are important. i do not want to diminish that. that is an important consideration. this same kind of activity focused on campaign in a direct way has increased the level of activity by a least a factor of

a third. over and above what we see routinely reported. whenever we have these issues of how much money there is and how it is used, the devil is in the details. in both the context of how we define the activities and how we understand what is actually happening. they can be pretty different things. it is an example of the problem with the regulatory system being as important as the constitutional questions in terms of how we end up understanding what is happening. >> one quick follow-up. you made the case that there was a lot of money that might be called independent in the past that was going to the parties. almost by definition, money could not have gone to primaries when they went to the parties. a lot more money being spent now with the independent expenditures in primaries.

>> yes. it is an interesting phenomenon. certainly, in the presidential context that was a key part of the republican campaign. how much independent spending there was. kept a couple of campaigns alive longer than they would have otherwise. it has an important role. it gives people choices they would not have had . we will see today in a simple in the texas senate race where a candidate who really was not considered to be viable just a few months ago because of the timing of the election, very aggressively. it looks like ted crews might be successful. sometimes it is support from the candidates' family members who could not give unlimited

contributions. sometimes it is groups that are philosophically devoted to having competition in primary. -- primaries. the committee for primary accountability spend money on both sides. on the basis that there are a lot of -- if you want competition and change and candidates to be responding to their constituencies the place to be active is in the primary. they look for safe candidates who were not paying attention to folks back home. they tried to find a viable opportunity and support what they thought was that opportunity across party lines. it has had the effect of making these primaries more interesting and competitive, but also more polarized. >> i think we want to come back to that question.

let me turn to rob. maybe you could play out changes in the legal landscape and what has been significant. i know people focus on citizens united as a game changer. there are many cases. many significant issues. what is different this round? >> well, i really want to go back to the 2003 because the reality is although there has been some change in the legal landscape, by far, the most dramatic change in the campaign finance system was the mccain- feingold law. it was enacted in 2002 upheld by the supreme court in 2003. if fundamentally changed the way our campaign finance system works. i was surprised by some of the ways in which michael

characterized the data, michael malbin. what you will see is only today in the 2012 presidential cycle are the political parties just buy a little bit exceeding where they were in 2002, the 2002 cycle, which was in off-your aear election. just now the parties are pulling themselves off the map. the mccain-feingold deprived them of soft money. what mccain-feingold did is it shifted the weight of our campaign finance system away from the national political parties and towards outside groups. this was widely predicted by the critics of the mccain- feingold law. wahthat we see is tjhathat we are

reaping the world with set in motion by mccain-feingold. it is true that the parties are now doing a better job in raising money and there has been an uptick since the last presidential election cycle in absolute terms. in relative terms, the parties are being left in the dust by the outside groups. that has had a dramatic affect on our political system in good ways in bad ways. the positive the effect has been that this is the most competitive, turbulent vibrant election we have had in this country since thisthe federal like jim -- since before the federal election and the early years of the 20th century. tremendous increase in the competitiveness of this election both in the primaries and now even in the general election.

a much greater pluralism of each in this election and that is a positive development that ouside groups and contributed -- have contributed to pick it is unhealthy. the political parties traditionally are moderating influences. when you move the money away from the political parties to the outside groups, you tend to radicalize the system and we hav eseene seen that trend. it has become a long-term trend. this is an unhappy example where the campaign finance laws are not just affecting money, but they are affecting politics in a profound way. there is a reason we see more extreme groups, much more prominently involved in the political process this year than was true in the past. there are those competing

trends, one of which is unhealthy. the other is healthy and a value judgment where you come down as to the relative benefits. citizens united was someone important and there have been other recent court and regulatory decisions that were somewhere -- someone important none of them had near the impact today as mccain-feingold. >> so, i want to ask eliza this, but this is the ocercover of "the hill" magazine. i am not sure he would necessarily agree he is anxious, but you could take obama out and put any elected official in our country in that place. from romney all the way down to hundreds of members of congress and challengers to them. they all seem to be seema false -- seem to be planning a fall

fund-raising's breed. you have covered these elections for a long time. how do you see these developments affecting campaigns? >> in part, the anxiety that the president probably judoes feel is due to the notion that the biggest change goes back to 2003 when the law was enacted. certainly, that law was important. i think that candidates and parties and activists felt it was merely as dramatic as citizens united. i think if you talk to people who are out there in campaigns they are really boiled over. they do not see this election as being comparable to any campaign before. it is that part -- it is the first presidential race and

citizens united was enacted and it has changed things. not only do we have this growth and superpacs but the empowerment of taxes. one of the things that is overlooked sometimes is citizens united did not just the regulate corporate spending, but also any inc. groups, including a non-profit. there is a greater reason for 501c4 groups to spend politically. i am not making recommendations for solutions, but i do not think that the numbers really lie and there are important reports that really illustrates the shift here. the center for responsive politics and public integrity analyzed the numbers from 2010 and concluded that outside groups that do not disclose their contributions outspend

those which do by 3 to 2. we are seeing that again in 2012. this is not a scientific analysis but if you look at independent expenditure so far by superpacs it is about $135 million on campaign-related expenditures. if you look at undisclosed campaign expenditures, yesterday there was analysis because you cannot actually analyze these expenditures in the same way because they are non-profit groups and they do not disclose on the same level. they looked reports from groups that follow broadcasts and tax records and all sorts of things and we came up with $172 million so far. that tells you -- recognizing these are not definitive numbers, even an off-the-cuff estimate suggests that undisclosed expenditures are now vastly outpacing disclosed expenditures. just to go to the implications,

i think without imposing a value judgment, there are definite dangers to this, both for political players and for voters and candidates. i think the danger really is absence of transparency and accountability. i think some corporate spenders are already feeling this. groups that have been treated to the chamber of commerce. some of them are feeling public relations blow back. there are corporate leaders who are very concerned about the public-relations fallout from their political expenditures. there might even be some kind of self correcting down the road that has nothing to do with new laws or new regulations or constitutional amendments. some corporate spenders might simply say, this is too much risk. the risk for us as journalists and citizens and voters is that we might not be able to follow the money, which is not something the supreme court intended. we all know that the court came down 8 to 1 in favor of full

disclosure. i think disclosure is the key issue going forward and i think all roads lead to the irs. that is a kind of tricky place for the road to leave. as we all know, nobody wants irs to go after outside players. republicans on capitol hill are very worried that the irs has already sort of towson -- sort of showed signs of going after political groups. they have written letters to them telling them not to do it. u.s. groups like the aclu don't like the disclose act because they think it would chill activism by outside groups. these are tricky questions. i recommend people really set aside ideological answers and start to really grapple with these tough questions.

to what degree can we regulate activity by nonprofit groups that appears to be political? it might actually be advocacy in a more legitimate context. >> there are many corporations beginning to face a ballot access proposals by shareholders. some of them relates to how they spend their money for political purposes. that may be free market working. trying to deal with this issue. i do not know how effective it will be but that points out what you talked about. >> i am to follow-up about disclosure. three things about disclosure. the republican position on disclosure used to be pretty universally that disclosure was a good thing. it was a good thing. now, there is a philosophical fulargument being made much more

strongly about maybe some contribution to not be disclosed. maybe there are groups that do not speak as freely because they feel they will be castigated. what about the interest of companies, groups, those who do not want their money to be disclosed? there is a principal and interest. we can take up -- if political parties and candidates had more freedom -- if there was more freedom to give to them, with undisclosed money flow there? is it just sitting out there because individuals and interest groups want some money to be spent, but they do not want accountability. what it actually go as accountable hard money to parties and candidates if it were disclosed? i open it up to anyone who wants to weigh in. >> i thought it was interesting

that eliza said that data shows more money being spent by the outside groups that do not have to disclose activity. 501c4's and 501c6's. that highlights the relative insignificance of the citizens united deal because that activity took place before citizens united in the same kind of way. it takes place after citizens united. the irony is that citizens united allows for disclosed groups superpacs that have to report every penny, and we see the bulk of the money flowing away from those disclosed group to the undisclosed groups and that is the trend that id date back to -- i date back to mccain-feingold. that trend has been on upper trajectory and it will not stop. if you change the rules so that

candidates could raise this kind of money, political parties could raise unlimited money political parties could coordinate their activities with candidates, that would all be disclosed money. the candidates and the political parties are with in the fec's disclosure regime. that is where we want the money to be. mccain-feingold has forced the money outside of the fec regime. and into these outside groups. that is where the bulk of the money is going. not to the superpacs. >> if there was a reason why those restrictions were put in place rechecked it depends on whether you -- it depends on whether you think this is bribery or extortion. [laughter]

during that time i would go and give presentations to groups, and after the sessions in the hall of the hotel people were constantly coming up to me saying can you not just put a stop to this because i'm getting strong-armed by these people in congress or the a administration. it meant no difference. it was not so much that there was pent-up corporate or institutional interest in participating financially, but you had party leaders acting as a concierge at the white house willing to provide a sleepover for a certain amount of money or leaders who wanted to get $1 million for the congressional campaign. that was an environment the congress decided was not a

tenable. >> how come the money is still flowing, bob? >> it is not the same money. one of the conclusions many are surprised by is there is not a flood of corporate money. >> of course there is not. it is disclosed, right? >> even at the levels that we see, it is not a flood. >> but it is not disclosed. we do not know where it is coming from. >> that is a problem. >> it could be coming from corporations. >>-sure in some cases it is. >> thank you. just to go back to the notion that this dates back to mccain- feingold more than citizens united, it is true that outside spending was happening in 2008 and 2010, but before 2003, it

was disclosed, and in 2004 it was this close to the irs. it is the disclosure that i see as big dramatic change post- citizens united. there are suggestions that we relaxed the limits on candidates, and problems with that. one is the statement that you made, that the supreme court has said we are permitted to regulate the nation's based of the appearance of corruption. i am not sure this conservative supreme court would go as far to say we should end contribution limits. that is one question. if disclosure of leads to discrimination and harassment, why are candidates not intimidated and harassed? if you buy the argument, you would not have disclosure for

the candidates in different parties. people are saying these outside groups are extensions of the campaign. again, to go back to the supreme court, the supreme court has said it is ok and constitutionally protected to have a boycott. so far, attempts to not back disclosure laws, for example in ballot initiatives, have not withstood court muster. i am not raising a value judgment but i raise the question as to whether the court would agree it is intimidation and harassment. >> item going to ask a question -- -point to ask questions, and looking around i am the only person that has actually received a campaign contribution. how has this effected the behavior of the people receiving the money?

is there any data that shows? after all the essence is constitutional, effective, proper and legal but the impact is whether the people who are getting the money are serving the public or not serving the public. one of the things i do not see is how it effects the behavior of politicians. robert biersack. >> there are two ways people are behaving. there has been a lot of studies. people like to point out there is no demonstrable effect on public in visible activities like roll-call votes. the dispute is about how much you can see in roll-call votes. that is a place you least expect to see an effect.

what you have in studies is demonstrable agenda setting effects. people who say we should not get into this problem because it will hurt us with this set of donors. i have so many good things to spend my time and, do i really want to go there? there is a new book of looking at state legislatures. this is thoroughly demonstrated. the people that bother showing up a subcommittee hearings, you can clearly tie this to contributions. others probably want to play in the this but i want to respond to the -- weigh in on this, but i also want to respond to the left point on this. just a quick factual thing on

bob said it was a lot of the same old lines robert biersack in this case, the one thing that is new and not president is the independent spending commit -- president is the independence and the -- spending committee as an extension of the candidate. that is new. that is basically blowing away contribution limits. we need to talk about that. that is really about seeing value in contribution limits. if you do not the committee's are thick leaves made out of some sort of material. i do see contributions. i think there was plenty of documented evidence of quasi- extortion during the soft money period and before watergate, and

i think that is a problem, and it is a problem different than truly independent spending. did mccain-feingold drive all of this money to the other system? i do not see it. there were not disclosed -- you cannot draw tramlines with an undisclosed money -- trend lines with none disclosed monday. what you do see is -- and disclosed monday. were you do see is 2000 was the high point. people raise money because they were anticipating mccain- feingold, but people came back in 2004 to the 2000 level. they came back in 2006. i agree that it is important to be concerned about parties.

i agree that we ought to think about ways of letting parties do more, but i would argue that should be done, or i would ask to explore how that can be done in a manner consistent with limited contributions to control the other demonstrated facts of quasi-extortion that did exist. >> somebody want to weigh in on the quick pro quo question raised? >> it is not just a pro crow question. his behavior that fear region because of fear nobody wants to do it compared >> i'm sure i am not the only one on the pedal that read mechanical -- mcconnell-sec. there is great reading there. there are all lot of politicians that said this system stinks. it might not read like classical

definition of corruption, but they knew it was not right. they were running into fund- raising events where my-donors with him them checks so the money -- mega-donors could go in and give them checks and the to go into the coffers of the dnc or the rnc. also, if you talk to candidates and abacus, one of the things that -- advocates, one of the things that shocks them is how early the money is being spent. people are spending at a lot earlier of a phase and that puts a lot of pressure on people and that is why you see headlines like the one you held up that suggests the president is very scared. >> clearly, i do not think anyone would dispute it raises the level of anxiety.

you just do not know when a significant amount of money will be in your race and a moment's notice without a lot of advanced information. it has caused two things to happen. it has extended the campaign. i spent the weekend in ohio, not for political reasons, but it is hard to avoid pockets in ohio. i noticed that sherrod brown the incumbent senator up for reelection was very aggressively advertising on television now in mid-to-late july, which is unusual, and he was reacting to an aggressive ad campaign coming from the chamber of commerce, and not his opponent, the rnc but from an outside group. it has expanded the campaign, perhaps adding to the level of discourse in improving voter

information, but certainly it has caused people to spend money they otherwise would not be spending, which means they have to raise more aggressively from more different sources, and that adds to the cycle. >> my fellow panelists seemed concerned about candidate anxiety. i am not the least bit concerned. there was very little candidate anxiety after the 1970's act, which created a long cost basis in our political system in which incumbents were protected by the high walls established by the federal election campaign act, and by the difficulty campaigners had in raising money in a system fed requires them to raise money in small increments without the help of -- system that requires them to raise money in small increments without the help of

institutions. outside groups are helping to bring those walls down, which creates turbulence, competition pluralism in the system, all of which are terrifying to incumbents. that is a good thing actually. that is the way democracy is supposed to work. what some analysts have referred to as extortion, i have news for you -- there is still fundraising going on today after mccain-feingold, after citizens united. there is pressure on corporates to put money into the system. they might not hear directly from the kennedy but they hear from proxy groups -- candidate but they hear from proxy groups in the view that as essentially the same thing. i also agree that there is a fig leaf notion that there is a

separation. we could certainly have a healthy debate about whether we need a much more clear definition of independence as opposed to ordination, but that has been around for a long time and oddly enough, the campaign finance reform committee does not deeply engage on that a valid question. the supreme court has assumed that expenditures by outside groups would be truly independent and there is an argument to the head there. anxiety among officeholders, i think that is terrific. >> can we have a healthy debate quickly? is anybody want to take up this question? >> i have a kick. reform groups are not happy about this. they have tried to get the sec to take action on this,

pressure obama to appoint new people to the ftc which has tried to come up with independent risk coronation definitions, and has not succeeded. it is not ignored, but hit it -- it has stymied the federal election commission. do we have a system in pace to police fundraising and -- to police -- in place to police fundraising, and if not, what would take? >> one last question while we get the microphones ready -- can you open your crystal ball and think about the fall. we have not talked about the presidential financing system, which most would agree does not effectively exist anymore slowly going away in the

primaries, and i assume both candidates will not take public money. with both parties raising money, what will the election looks like? finally, when the congressional races going to look like? -- what are the congressional races going to look like? will they be bombarded by outside money? what is your crystal ball for the fall as we look ahead? >> i am convinced that neither candidate will win or lose the presidency based on a lack of funding support. that does not make sense to me. between the parties the groups, the campaigns, they will have sufficient resources. you have to remember that a lot of television advertising effects are fairly dissembled in some ways. there used to defining

candidates if people are not familiar with them, but the shelf life is short. these candidates are well defined i think there will be incredible amounts of spending but it will not determine the outcome. >> in congressional races it could make a big difference? >> it may very well. in that small set of 30 or 40 house races and the six or seven senate races, where control of the chambers is in play, then it can make a difference. >> the future is now. if we want to know what the fall will look like, it is happening now. the ads are often they will stay up. i think the impact will increase further down the ballot, but i think there are congressional and senate races where it could have an impact, and it is important to keep in mind super

pacs are spending at the state and local levels, places where an outside group could flip the race completely. i have my eye on six months after the election. i cannot wait for good data that we can analyze in draw strong conclusions about what these changes have meant. i think we are operating in the realm of the theoretical, and to some degree weather the citizens united ruling had a dramatic impact. i'm looking for a to see how different this election was from those that preceded -- forward to see how different this election was from those that preceded it. >> a huge amount of money is being spent in state and local races. in my home state of kansas, home of koch industries, a significant amount of money is being put into local races.

>> eliza, six months after the election, that's where i want to go. underline the fact even though robert kelner and i have two similar sets of questions, we might not have the same proposals. there needs to be coordination to what constitutes independence. ~ well, we to think seriously about political parties. -- >> -- two, we need to think seriously about the political parties. that needs to be part of the agenda. >> we want to hear from you. we have microphones. >> thank you very much. ian from brookings. you talk about the volume of

money, but if money is potentially a problem, and i will take that off of the table for the question, is it the -- is it the amount of money or gerrymandering the number of districts in play creating a funnel effect, accentuating the problem if there is a problem? how does that play god? >> -- play out? >> i would just say that the redistricting process has been with cause for a while. it has been systematically abused by both political parties to draw political boundaries in their own party's interest. i do not really fault them for that. that is the way the system as currently structured. i think these two things go hand-in-hand.

the redistricting process reduces competitiveness. i think the way money functions in the political system has for some time reduced competitiveness in the system. it would be difficult to disentangle those two effects and judge which is the predominant effect. >> we did some interesting tests in california where there are likely to be competitive races because the districting is different, and that might be true in other states, too. >> we never report coming out on read this -- we have a report coming out on redistricting and the simple point is there are a few less competitive seats than there were in the last cycle but it is a similar number. when we are likely to see is because there is a universe of competitive seats, and some of that is due to redistricting

and some just due to close races, there will be a lot of money concentrated on these 30 or 50 races. i am not sure the districting has exacerbated that as much as it has created a universe of small, competitive districts. the other thing we noted is there are a lot fewer people holding districts that they should not hold. democrats holding strongly republican districts -- that used to be the case not that long ago. here you have to think about the transformation of our political system and primaries where you have people, where if you are trying to hold a republican district and you're a conservative democrat, you have to look over your left shoulder. here, the money going much more into primaries from their own raising as well as independent groups is significant and it

could contribute to polarization. >> it was a good question to ask because it is worth pointing out that i do not think anyone on this panel -- there are probably people out there in the world, but a much smaller number -- nobody in this panel has said there's too much money spent on political discourse. the conversation has been on sources in fact, candidate effects on this group, but that is a difference conversation. by asking the question you pointed out something that was not said and that is important. >> another part of the room here. >> the gentleman that there. >> there is the microphone. >> yes, king live. -- thank you. i am a howard university student. my question is can a property

man and a non-property man become equal through the vote? i thought that is what our democracy was. when i listen to the conversation today eliza, i am glad you brought mcconnell verses sec. mcconnell was one of the people for disclosed, he saw good things in that, but when he came -- when it came down to disclose, he voted it down. robert as you said, you think anxiety is good for and democracy, but if our political elected officials are anxiously campaigning and not governing for the people how is that democracy? thank you. >> well, i think the founders intended for us to have a vibrant campaign season. if you look back at american

history, before the federal election campaign act in the 1970's we had a long history of competitive races particularly house races, and it has been the case for a long time that members of the house are engaged in a continuous campaign because they have a two-year term. i think that is a healthy thing for us. it was disturbing when we reached a point not so long ago that house members felt relatively assured that after they made it through their first term of office and were reelected once that they were basically locked in to that seat for life. because of redistricting, and the way challengers were discouraged. while i understand candidates do not enjoy the process of seeking out support from various constituencies funds from

various constituencies, it is a fundamental and important part of the democratic process. >> as a former office holder and money raiser myself, today political viability is the same as the ability to raise money. in large part, over any other quality, certainly by q experience wisdom, judgment -- i am not a fool to believe that in a business you need to know how to raise your capital in the product -- public sector, but this is a business of ideas and doing the public interest. if money is the primary criteria, he goes to your criteria, property as opposed to non-property, and it is money the primary criteria for participation in american politics today? that is an important question. >> michael then eliza.

>> the question is a really good one. it is correct that the liability is the same to raise money. -- viability is the same as the ability to raise money, and it is a lot easier to raise $10,000 from one person than $100 each from 10,000 people. one of the nice things about small boehner matching funds is that without restrictive -- small donor matching funds is that without restrictive regulations -- with the matching fund system does is it gives candidates positive incentives to go into -- into poor neighborhoods and get people to give them $25.

this works and it in franchises people that are not playing. that is a goal to think about. it is not one that has a distorting effect. >> it is interesting to hear the focus on competition now in the wake of citizens united. i have heard a number of people say the extra money is great because it enhances competition, and what i often think of when i hear that is the analysis i have read about the system. if you want a system that enhances competition, for better or worse, look at how public systems have worked. a lot of people that never ran before party elected. there is higher percentages of women, minorities, ethnic groups holding office than you do in a

conventional system. i am not making a value judgment but in empirical data, i think public financing would enhance competition more than anything else. >> there are also reasons to be hopeful about the technology, too. we want to read this to be three sources that the money buys -- communication with voters -- we want to redistribute the resources the money buys -- communication with voters. the technological campaign that allowed president obama to be successful in 2008, communicating with voters that do not crowd out the other potential uses of those tools as that continues there is reason to be hopeful there. >> a question right here. >> my name is george. does the amount of money spent

effect the quality of information voters get positively or negatively? >> actually, the studies show -- we know that ads distorted. we know very emotional, and unfortunately, we know they are more informative than the news. there is not a negative effect between advertising and levels of information. if anything, it is positive, and that is perhaps surprising. >> anybody else? ok. right here. microphone coming from this direction >> -- direction parent >> edward from "sunshine -- direction. >> edward from sunshine press."

-- from "sunshine press." responding to the money not having any effect -- >> i did not say that. >> well, i'm sure the money i have written about is in three digits, and i'm sure that is true for a lot of people in this town. corruptly influences elections or it is spent by fools. there is no other way to parse that. my question is this about 15 years ago the pacific rim economies, the tiger economies sort of collapsed, and a major reason was the government's were bought off.

they were not legitimate and their economic successes were not a result of producing more and better widgets of buying off the crown or presidency in that country. what do you think will be the effect if big money is able to prevail in our elections over a couple of decades? what will be the effect on america? is it conceivable that when capitalists get their wishes, they destroy themselves as seemed to have happened in the pacific rim economies in 1997? >> this goes to accountability, transparency, and the risk to the business community which business leaders are already sensitive to. it might be worth looking at a

gallop poll that came out yesterday which suggested that for voters, the issue behind jobs in the economy is corruption in the government. that really surprised me. that suggests voters are concerned about what is happening and it is higher on their radar screen than in previous elections. >> what is so interesting about that survey and others like it, is that over the years the percentage of the public that believes the public -- the government is corrupt and that lacks trust in the government has steadily increased even as we have clamped down on the campaign finance system, with each federation of the reforms and the increased regulation -- iteration of the reforms and the increased regulation of campaign financing, right through mccain-

feingold, the have stained -- stayed on a trajectory. it has not reduced the cynicism. there are levels that have very little to do with campaign finance. >> i expected you to take up the point in this way, you are talking about one-party governments -- the question of competition, and whether the money is really flowing to challengers of outside parties -- that would be one response to this. >> i do not think you can remotely compare our system to the system that prevailed in asia and southeast asia. they have much more significant problems than we do, thank god and their political systems are nowhere near as transparent and filled with disclosure as ours

is. big money, if you want to look at that phrase, has been present in our system from the founding, and we have survived the low 200 years. >> i would echo what bob iger sec said. modern technology empowers people. i saw that -- robert biersack said. i saw that in the motion picture uprising regarding the issue of what the government should do to deal with film piracy and hundreds of thousands of people petition their government a respectable but the institutions were doing and prevailed on their members of congress to change positions. that is that a factor we have seen before.

we have same pressure on government, but not this instantaneous pressure. that as bad possibilities because of the facts are wrong it can be destructive and disruptive but it is in power in force and i do not think they have that in singapore or other countries you are talking about 10 >> i continue to be a bit -- talking about. >> i continue to be amazed. we went through this financial disaster in 2008, 2006, in large part because there was not transparency, huge amounts of money traded among people that did not know who their counterparties where who the trsaction was what, whether they were honest and straightforward about the nature of those transactions, and we've virtually collapsed the system. why we would want a political process where you do not know

who the parties to the transaction are, at the end of the day it escapes me. >> we might have times for one more question, right in the front. let's take two. >> maybe at the same time. >> ok. we will answer them together. >> is this on? what i have is a clarification on the question of television advertising. even in the era of this increased different forms of technology, you know, is still and increasingly the primary means of communication in the campaign. expenditure is increasing at a greater rate than the overall campaign expenditures. the second thing it is, and i

think you said this correctly bob, the advertising in presidential campaigns does not have as much impact because there are so many other sources of information, and it has enormous impact on races below the level of presidency where there is no other source of the information, and that is a serious question for the help of american democracy. >> ok. second question, and we will answer them together. >> thank you. larry. i am the sole proprietor. david brooks's this morning in "the times" said this election was boring and consequential and he mentioned be incredible outpouring of advertising this early is aimed at the uninformed

and the uninvolved because the party is seen to be -- to believe and the candidates seem to believe that there are so few undecided that they're really going after the people that do not pay attention by negative advertising. could you comment not only on what david brooks said, on the undecided and how to move them. >> ok. the significance of lower races and also on the money, and targeting undecided voters. >> i will quickly note is not just advertising that causes election outcomes. it is also the ground game, and one of the reasons candidates on the left are worried it is they just do not have as much money. conservative outside money is outpacing little outside money

by more than three-to-one. if elected labor unions and other types of grass-roots groups, and even democratic candidates, they are really trying to knock on doors and give voters out that way. groups on the ride are doing the same thing. it will be interesting to see how effective these ads are. some might conclude it was awash in a waste of money. people will try anything to win an election, especially one as close and as high-stakes as this one. >> this is the most micro- targeted election in u.s. history with the technology evolving to the point that both candidates are able to target motors with precision we have never seen -- boaters with precision that we have never seen before, and one of the effects of that is that they are not aiming at the best bulk of

the public, but a more narrow demographic and constituencies. on the ground game point i heard some celebrating about looking back at six months after the election, but the problem is most of the data will not be there because a lot of the ground game takes place in the undisclosed world, sponsored by 501 c groups that do not have to report activity much of the activity will -- activity. much of the activity will be in visible even to academics or journalist who might want to analyze what actually happened. >> on that note, we will thank you for panelists and close the pedal. thank you. good job. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> "mother jones, call magazine

staff reporter in the kroll says the simpson united decision has changed the nature of campaigns. he will join us to talk about the history of current and financing. you can call or e-mail him on wednesday morning on "washington journal." >> in the weeks ahead political parties are holding platform hearings in advance of summer conventions but democrats voting next week and on final platform recommendations in detroit. follow in mid-august as republicans start their campaign focused. coverage begins august 10 in a philadelphia with the reform party and an live coverage of the republican national convention beginning monday, august 27 from tampa florida and the democratic convention live from charlotte n.c.,

starting september 3. >> the coalition of african- american pastors held a press conference opposing president obama decision on same-sex marriage and they say have launched a nationwide campaign to convince african americans to withdraw support from the president. this is 35 minutes. >> thank you for coming out to this news conference today. my name is william owens i'm here with my wife, my baby, and my son eric of the pastor's daughter with us today, they

came in support -- my son. all of the pastors better with us today, they came in an effort to save the family, that marriage be between a man and a woman. the time has come for a broad- based assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one of men married men and women married women. we wrote the president and mr. eric holder may 2 requesting an audience with him to discuss this very issue. he has not given us the courtesy of any reply. the coalition of african- american pastors consists of 3000 742 african-american pastors, and he has totally ignored us not giving us the pleasure of even answering our

request, which is discourteous and unprofessional, first of all. also the president has ignored the black community because he feels he has us in his pockets. we are not in his pockets. because he is black we refuse to give him a pass. we will announce a program very soon called the mandate for marriage. i have asked my son william of los angeles california, to head the group up when we go across the country asking people to support us in our efforts to save the family. with all of the challenges and the problems facing the african- american community as we are lowest in the the scores on education of any group in america.

we are -- we have fewer jobs. prisons are full of the african- american men. there are more men in prison than in college. go to any court room in the usa each day and you will see those courts full of black men on their way to prison, but they have chosen something to cater to the homosexual community hollywood, the big-money people, choosing their course and ignoring the people that put the president where he is. the president is in the white house because of the civil rights movement, and i was a leader in that movement, and i did not march 1 inch, 1 foot, 1 yard for a man to marry a man and woman to marry a woman, so the president has forgotten the price that was paid, where people died, suffered and gave

their blood to have equal rights in the united states. for the homosexual community and for the president to bowed to the money as it do this did -- judas did to jesus christ is a disgrace, and we are not going to back down to take action and change the course the president is taking us in. as an example, some people say because of a position cit filet has taken they do not want them in their district is a disgrace. it is the same thing that happened when they did not want a black coming into the restaurant or staying in their hotel. now they say they do not want us in their cities. well, we will not take it. we will stand up. they will learn that they cannot

do that by destroying religion, the family. it will not happen on our watch. we will stand up. we must appoint new methods. [applause] starting this mandate for marriage, protecting the family, families of all colors,. mothers, how will you feel, one year, 10 years, 15 years from now, comes and tells you i want a wedding, i want you to give me away, and she is going to marry a woman? your heart will be broken. think about what you are doing by giving the president a test in this -- a pass in this arena, by saying that it is ok because we are black, you are black, and we are quick to stand with you. mr. president, i am not going to

stand with you, and there are thousands of others that are not going to stand with you with this foolishness. [applause] so we would like to conclude by bringing in more speakers and saying that we want people to go on our website. 100,000 signatures4marriage.com and sign up with us and let the president now he has not done a smart thing and it might cost him the election. he did did because of money, -- he did it because of money, and he thinks there are more people -- there are more people that what marriage to be right than there are homosexuals.

i assure you, and i think it is going to cost in the election. in the end, i would hope the president would become wise come to his senses, and know that he has made a mistake, and we can come back together, the people who put him in office, and admit that he made a mistake. all people make a mistake. he has made a bad mistake that will effect the history of this country, and i am ashamed the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful road. he chose a road to endorse same- sex -- is on natural it is not in the scripture. it is not natural for a woman to have a woman. for a man to have a man. if god intended that he would have made a third sex. he did not do that. we want the president to know we

will oppose his position until the end, until the last day. now, i would like to present with you -- for you -- my son will head up the mandate for marriage campaign we will start this week to get people involved. speak for a second. >> first of all, i want to say thank you to my father for taking a bold, historic position. i am proud to call him my father. i celebrate 27 years of marriage in october to one woman at one time. we have four children. he has led by example. i'm excited about heading up mandate for marriage. this is designed to give people a chance to learn and express their values and why marriages important to them. we will take this to the road and we will be teaching people the value of marriage and giving

people the chance to express why they believe as we believe. there will be more information coming, and also a book. you can learn more at the marriagemandate.com. >> thank you william journal -- williams jr.. now we have janice hollis. >> good morning. i am the presiding prelate of covenant international fellowship of churches in pennsylvania. i think this is a travesty in terms of the position but commander in chief has taken on a global scale and i am really proud that dr. owens has started this particular mandate to call order to where we have disorder in the highest office in the land, and i am privileged to stand here with you, dr. collins, to support you in whatever way is not -- dr.

collins, to support you in whatever way i can in pennsylvania since pennsylvania is a swing state. the president needs to know that he has presented a dereliction of duty, simply because he has touted himself as a broad thinker, a person that can have a conversation with anyone, yet he has selectively chosen to overlook this intellectual body of black leaders and we take great offense to that. he needs to know he does not have a task, as dr. owen's previously stated. we will hold him to the fire, because at some point you have to make it known what you stand for and we know this position is a political one, and we are offended. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. now we call bishop charles nauden to the stand from los angeles, california, representing the bishop was on

our board. >> thank you dr. collins. it is a privilege to be here. -- dr. william owens. it is a privilege to be here. in order for us to understand to tell -- what is taking place we must understand what marriage is -- from the biblical point of view the union of a male and female constitutes a marriage, a whole life between a husband and wife. the bible said marriages the hon. with god. in the genesis god made things that were good he made light and he said that was good -- he made light, and he said that was good. he seek -- he made water, and he said was good. he made trees and plant life, and he said everything he made was good. he then looked at man and said it is not good for man to be

alone. in the second chapter he put man to sleep, it took a break out and made a woman. he did not make another man, but he made a woman. man and woman can only supply and fulfil the need that is lacking in each other. so, same-sex marriage -- it is impossible to fulfill the needs in each other. it might last for a while, but to fulfil the need that god has planted in a man it has to be a man and woman. jesus reiterated that in matthew when he said a man should plead to his wife. it is impossible for a man to be a wife and a woman to be a husband. again, the book said he should leave his father and mother and plead to his wife, and not his

partner, but his wife, and they shall be one. i am here to support this move and, and i thank you very much. we thank god, that if we do things the way god guidelines it will strengthen our families and not weaken our families. i think same-sex marriage will weaken our families. thank you very much, god bless you. >> thank you, bishop. we also acknowledge bishop neo of germany, and rev. dean nelson -- bishop neo of germany, and reverend dean nelson -- neal of germany, and rev. dean nelson. another point that should be made, is if you watch the men that have been caught having sex with little boys, you will note all of them will say they

were molested as a child. a man molested me in my home, wherever they said they were elected, and for the president to condone this type of thing knowing the full facts is just press -- irresponsible. rev. dean nelson. >> good morning. -reverend dean nelson. i served as chairman for the frederick douglas foundation, a christian political organization that advocates for righteousness, justice liberty and virtue. dr. martin luther king jr. once stated that if the church does not recapture its prophetic his zeal it becomes any relevant social club without moral or spiritual authority. i believe that the challenge before the black church today is whether or not we want to become that irrelevant social club or if we want to recapture

the prophetic voice that we once had. i stand today with this great coalition to affirm our position on traditional marriage. it is our belief the marriage is between one man and one woman and the right of marriage should only be afforded for those to whom it was originally intended. the frederick douglas foundation was a lead participant in north carolina that help to see large numbers of african-americans come to the polls and affirm traditional marriage there in the great state of north carolina. we also have plans to route our 19 states that we have a chapter to push -- throughout our 19 states where we have chapters, to push for justice and a firm original marriage, and just as in 1980, when the southern

baptists had to relinquish support for one of their own jimmy carter, when he was serving as president and running against ronald reagan, we are challenging the african-american community to reevaluate its strong, cold-hearted support for president obama because -- old- hearted support for president obama because this is an issue that we need to be clear about not just for this generation, but for generations to come. we believe this election is a pivotal election, and that those who hold the bible as sacred, and those, particularly black americans, who are part of the democrat party must reevaluate today whether or not they will stand for biblical principles or political policy.

it is our hope that many within the black community will stand with the word of god will stand with truth and will become a strong independent voice for the soul of america. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, rev. nelson. we want to make it clear we are not democrat and not republican. this is not a political party. this is not the platform of any political party. it is our conscience. one big difference in the civil rights movement and the movement today to endorse same- sex marriage is when we were in the civil rights movement, most of us were very poor. but people were very poor, but they voted with their feet, they march, but their voice be heard and turned this country of what -- around. we asked black america once again to step up and do what we

need to do. we do not endorse a candidate. we do say vote for what is right, what is scriptural, and what is honorable, and we do not want america to go down the drain, starting on a slippery slope with a black president. it might look good today. he might be finished today. he might be proper today. but when your children, and tell you they're going to marry a person of the same-sex, you are not going to be very happy, and very angry you it into the big lie. thank you very much. if there are any questions, i am available. >> if president obama does not change his stance, is the coalition ready to support kennedy mitt romney? >> we are not going to support any candidate. that is not our role. we are going to let our mission be known, and our mission is to keep marriage between a man and

woman. we will not get into the politics of it. we have a social issue that we will invest, but not get into the public -- political realm. >> what about critics who are against gay marriage, and the administration says over and over again it is homophobia and bigotry if you do not support people being able to love who they want to love? >> that is a good question and i will ask you honestly? they call me that, and what if i call them sissies? we are not that. we believe what we believed to not put things on me. >> reverend, what is god's position on polygamy? >> this is about same-sex marriage. >> i need you to define the biblical definition of marriage. >> of marriage is a marriage between a man and woman. >> i am not going to get on

another track. >> talk to me about abraham's marriage. >> madame, next question >> what is god's position on polygamy? >> reverend, what is god's position on polygamy? >> are you going to stand here and demand that i answer your question? this is not about polygamy. this is about same-sex marriage. you said you would answer questions about marriage. >> yes, sir. >> you said president obama condones the molestation of children. >> i did not say that. >> i could read you, you said you will note that all people caught having sex with little boys say they were molested as a child and for the president to condone this kind of thing as irresponsible. >> for him to condone same-sex marriage is the road to

homosexuals being more able to do that. i have never said that president obama condolence to -- condolence sex with a man and a boy. >> do you see athere will be many more challenges facing our families if this stands. in every state this has been on the ballot, in every state where it has been on the ballot, we have one. people like the president and others have chosen to take over and not done with the people wanted. they have not won in one state. >> can you explain how there is a difference between

homosexuality and civil-rights? >> there is no comparison. you could not go to white restaurants. you could not go to a white hotel. they have never been denied those rights. never. they do everything. we feel they should have the best jobs, the best of everything, but not marriage. >> i am wondering how you respond to think there is more than one issue to consider. they say they agree with obama on other issues. >> i might agree with him on other issues also but there is not one issue more important than holding the family together. it does not matter if you have a lot of money, and if your family is destroyed, what does it mean?

>> in a recent survey, 18% said same-sex marriage is a critical issue. do you think this issue is something that african- americans can get behind even the numbers say it is not in the top five? >> i think so. that is why we are going across the country. the same question was asked of the civil rights movement. i was a junior pastor and we went to a restaurant. we had to go to the back door. the pastor stood in that back room where we were waiting for our food and said your grandchildren will never be able to go into the front door of the restaurant. seven years later we were going into the front door. we can make a difference if we join together. >> you would like to see tha 18% of african-americans become

higher. >> absolutely. i know it is possible. we are going to work very hard. >> why is it not the case now? >> we have not been out there doing what we are doing. >> is the community not aware of this? this is against their values and you need to go explain that? >> every time it has been voted on, the african-american community has voted against it. in every state. no exception. but i think that african- american community must be aware of the damage. i think they are looking at the fact that he is black, really have a black, half white they are looking at that instead of what he is doing. he has ignored us. he has ignored the black preachers. he has ignored the black press.

when the civil rights movement was going on, most white presidents were against us. he has ignored them. he does not come to our conventions. he did not go to the naacp convention. he did not go to the ame convention but he goes to anything they want. because he has those locked up. he does not have us locked up. >> african american children are born out-of-wedlock depending on which studies. do you feel that the reason for such high out of wedlock births is because the family has fallen apart because of gay marriage? >> not because of gay marriage. one reason is we tolerate it. we do not teach against it. i have a baby and a mother could have had an abortion. she did not have an abortion.

she wanted us to be the parents instead of our gross having abortions and children being born out of wedlock, we have addressed this that black menaces must get up and say if you do not want the baby there is somebody else who will love the baby. our baby has been the joy of our life. >> can you talk about what you're coalition is doing to encourage black men to maintain the heads of their household and not leave their children? >> absolutely. i am glad you asked that question. i know what can be done to the black community. i started this ministry, the way i built my nation was getting black and manning college. in four years, we put four hundred black students in a

predominantly white university. they had 5%. when we left, they had 22%. these boys were on the fringes. some had been to prison. we walked to one young man at of prison who had served and was in court on another case. we convinced the judge to release him and the judge to sentence to that young man to a degree from the university. yes, it can be done and we plan to do it and the black preacher has to do more than just talk about this. he has to talk about the home, he has to get into the community and love those girls, love those families. >> what about civil unions? there are people who say it is not marriage. >> it is not different. >> how we intend to take the

marriage mandate is to do just that. part of the purpose of the mandate is not just to expose the wrong but to celebrate the right. part of the purpose is to equip those marriages and bring out the beauty of marriage. that is one reason for the mandate. >> can you talk about, how many signatures have you gotten? when did you start? how far along are you on that? >> i do not have that number. we give out our website, so there are several thousands. my wife keeps a count of that. i do what i do. >> can you give us details about the mandate project? what are you guys going to do? how big of a budget? >> we just started. we have our first fund-raiser august 16.

we just started. but we are going to go nationwide with that agenda, just like the president has gone to hollywood. we are going to people who support us, whether they be $1, $1,000, we are going to ask for support because we need money to take this agenda nationwide. i will take one more question. >> can you tell us your affiliation? the mention being a part of a larger church body. >> i am a member of the church of god in christ. >> in your remarks, he said this is not a political of bent but in the press releases as you are looking to --

98 days until the election i clearly this is not a political backing. can you tell us, who supported the president in 2008? >> i think most of us did. >> to do specifically? >> i did. yes. >> can the others respond? >> would you like to respond? >> i did not support the president but we have a grass roots efforts in north carolina where we have large numbers of people who supported the president but have withdrawn their support. >> are you talking about people who are not going to vote because of this issue for the president? >> for us, our challenge really is to ask black americans to

withhold their support particularly those who are christians. however, as he may have noted in north carolina there was a poll this show that 20% of black americans said they were going to support governor romney. that was not an initiative we were pushing but there was a poll this show that 20% of black americans were going to vote for governor romney. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

when you start going comment if you get into political. i do not need to know it. >> do you have something planned? >>thank you. >> i was wondering if maybe you

could answer this. if you talk to this people in this administration, they say people against it do not talk about anymore all context. they say they are big hits. they do not bring up that it is a matter of believe. -- bigots. they do not bring up that it is a matter of belief.

>> we have to be really clear about the way is that we alone are self -- own ourselves and our history. >> the former president of the

college rights about politics and african-american history. this sunday, at your calls and tweaks. -- tweets. >> walter chung spoke on the house floor this week about what he called the failed u.s. policy in afghanistan. he suggested the project implemented in afghanistan will not be sustainable by the afghans once the u.s. leaves. he also called on americans to tell the government to bring troops home now. >> thank you very much. i tried to get here once a week to talk about our failed policy. last thursday an article reminded us of the difficulty trying to change a culture like afghanistan.

for centuries the outside influences have been trying, but we are never going to be able to change the police systems and culture of the middle east. the "mitt could he" article stated that parts of afghanistan were stuck in the 14th century. we are supporting a corrupt country and a culture where it is commonplace for grown men to have sexual relations with young boys. the american taxpayers should be outraged to know that their tax dollars are going to support this kind of practice. yesterday "the washington post" published an article titled, "u.s. construction projects in afghanistan challenge by inspector generals' report." while discussing the fact that projects implemented in afghanistan by americans will not be possible for the afghans to sustain once the united states leaves, the questions for policy makers in washington is whether the massive influx of american spending in

afghanistan is actually making the problem worse. one such project to provide electricity requires purchasing diesel fuel to run the generators enough to power about 2,500 afghan homes or small businesses. is projected to cost the united states taxpayer about $220 million through 2013. i mean, mr. speaker, it's just billions and billions and billions and billions going to afghanistan and very little accountability. and yet we are cutting programs for the american people. i don't know to me imakes no sense at all. mr. speaker, again i brought this poster today. this is a new one i purchased myself. mr. speaker, there's a little girl holding her mother's arm. the mother is being escorted by an army officer, and the little girl is looking at the caisson carrying h father. her father is under an american

flag. the father was killed in afghanistan for america. i would say to this family, you should be very proud of your father. i would say to congress, why can't you understand that you've got a failed policy in afghanistan and these young men and women are dying, these young men and women are losing their legs and arms and yet we keep sending $10 billion a month to a corrupt lead where they have the practice of adult men making love with boys over therin afghanistan. i just don't understand the congress to be honest with you. mr. spear, as you know and many know i have cam lejeune marine base in my district. the last 10 days three marines have been killed in afghanistan. i salute their families and thank them for the gift of their loved one. how many more young men and women have to die in afghanistan?

how many more taxpayers' dollars have to go to prop up a corrupt leader? afghanistan will not survive under karzai. the taliban will eventually take over. and, mr. speaker before closing as i always do first i like to ask the american people to contact their members of congress and say bring our troops home now. at least no later than 2014 and stop spending our taxpayers' money when you can't even account for what it's being spent for in afghanistan and spend it right here in america and build our roads, schools and infrastructure. so on behalf of this little girl and her mom, and all the families who have given loved ones dying for freedom in afghanistan, i will close this way. god please bless our men and women in uniform. god please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. god in your loving arms hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. goplease bless the house and senate we will do a what is

right in god's eyes for the people of today and people of tomorrow. and i ask god to please bless the president of the united states to give him wisdo courage, and strength to do what's right for god's people here. and three times i will say, god please god please, god please continue t hikes at the foot of the bridge i was beaten. i thought i was going to die. >> a 25 year old john lewis took part in a march to montgomery alabama that would take them around the bridge. >> we came in within distance of the state troopers. a man identified himself and said i am major john macleod. this will not be allowed to continue. one of the young people walking beside me said give us a moment

to kneel and pray. the major said, a trooper's advance. >> sunday at 8:00. >> nominees for u.s. ambassadors to afghanistan and pakistan testify before the senate last week. they are both veteran diplomat and have served in the u.s. embassy. they answered questions on the u.s. transition in afghanistan as was the country's relationship with pakistan going forward. it was reported that brand paul objected to the nomination. this is one hour and a half. >>there are more meetings going on then there are hours and available moments to get to

them. everybody here to consider the nominations of those who are selected to serve in the very important post of afghanistan and pakistan. ambassador james cunningham and richard olson are experienced and talented diplomats. i am convinced that they bring the combination of intelligence and experience diligence necessary for both of these critical assignments. today's hearing comes -- pick the newspapers and afghanistan and pakistan are swirling around. the assigning of the strategic

partnership agreement marked the beginning of the end a new face of u.s. engagements in afghanistan. the world is not going to simply walk away or abandon its investment in a stable afghanistan. our task is to leverage our commitments into a transition that prevents afghanistan from backsliding into widespread ethnic or sectarian violence. coordinated and economic transition will be challenging. there are several key steps that we need to focus on. we must prepare now for the afghan elections in 2014. it is the political transition that will determine whether our military gains are sustainable. our role should not interfere in domestic politics.

it is critical that afghans must pick their leaders fairly and freely. transparency in new election laws is a critical step for afghans in order that they have a choice and a voice in the election. our strategy has to go beyond reconciliation in order to support a consensus among key afghan stakeholders. too many afghans are preparing to fight to secure their interests. i think we need to send the message that the united states

supports a comprehensive process that is transparent and respectful of all groups, including women. to leave behind a force that can support key terrain. there are questions about the viability of that. we have two years to lay that foundation. as i talk to leaders in pakistan, there are a difference in stated interest about the size and scope of that force. there is a connection to those interests with respect to each country's forces that it is making right now.

we need to continue to focus on combating corruption on emphasizing support for human rights and on human law. as we begin to build -- or as the afghans gained confidence about their future, we need to move in the areas of economic development and stability. despite the progress that was made in tokyo to pledge $16 billion in donor aid afghanistan could face a major economic crisis. we have made significant achievements over the past decade. the gains are fragile.

sustain them it will require continued investments. our approach must take into account afghanistan's worsening humanitarian crisis. there is no shortage of challenge here. our strategy to have to continue to reflect the interconnectedness of the region cost challenges, and central asia to iran. what happens in the region as a whole will do more to determine the outcome in afghanistan than any shift in strategy. pakistan remains central to that effort. it is this secret that last year it was challenging in a relationship.

many pakistanis believe americans will simply abandon the region. pakistan continues to hedge its bets and rely on certain strategic groups. there should be a more cooperative relationship and we see accusations regarding afghanistan-based insurgent initiatives in pakistan. the recent developments with pakistan have fled to the reopening of the critical nato supply lines. serious policy makers on both sides understand that we have more to gain by finding common ground and working together in areas of mutual concern. i think we need to point out

that pakistan has suffered grievously at the hands of al qaeda, the taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups. then 6000 security forces have died from terrorist incidents since 2001. pakistan is facing an energy crisis and political infighting complicate efforts to address deteriorating situations, and none of us are unfamiliar with those kinds of dynamics here a home. we have been trying to work with pakistan to create a stable economy. often the reward for diplomats to succeed in difficult postings is tougher assignments with longer odds and our

nominees today are no exceptions to that rule. james cunningham has served a tour in afghanistan. i want to note that his wife and his daughters are here today and we welcome them. all of you, all three of you. it is good to see him here today. i was them in kabul and i'm delighted to welcome him back. richard olson was the coordinating direct your in kabul. i am confident his previous leadership will serve him well as he works to strengthen our relationship with pakistan.

we are pleased to welcome them. ambassador olson, i believe your daughter is here, isabella. she is interning in senator udall's office. got an inside track. we thank you for your service and we thank your families for their service. senator lugar. >> thank you. i join you in welcoming our distinguished nominees and their families this morning. the foreign relations committee is taking up these nominations at a critical time.

we look forward to hearing the administration's assessment of the situation and the plans for moving forward. american policy in afghanistan has been evolving on the margins. troop levels are anticipated to be reduced in the coming months. the united states continues to spend enormous sums that country that may contribute little to the united states vital interest. we need a clear measure of what must be satisfied to achieve the original intent of the mission. it is in central afghanistan is viewed the broader context. if we reapportioned our worldwide military assets without reference to where they are now, it is doubtful that a rational review it would commit so many resources to

afghanistan. the country is important but does not hold that level of strategic value for us, especially when our nation is confronting a debt crisis, our armed forces have been strained and we're attempting to place more emphasis on east asia. al qaeda has a more significant presence in afghanistan. to the extent that our purpose is to confront the global terrorist threat, we should be refocusing resources on pakistan, yemen, somalia and

other locations. the question becomes how to transition to an efficient strategy for protecting our vital interest in afghanistan over the long term that does not involve open ended expenditures and large military deployments. the pakistan side of the border has a different dynamic. al qaeda and other terrorist groups maintain a strong presence in the country. there is no question the threat of these groups, the safety of pakistan eight nuclear arsenal and pakistan's intercession with other states make it 8 vital country worth the cost of engagement. the contradictions inherent in the government necessitate that we comply intents oversight to make sure our diplomacy advance our objectives.

our ambassador will be the critical player in evaluating whether our programs are working and contributing to a partnership between our countries. in 2011, almost 3,200 pakistanis died in terrorist-related incidents. our countries have strong incentive to cooperate. i appreciate the sacrifices that our nominees have already made on behalf of the united states national security. i applaud the commitment they are accept another afford to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. >> ambassador cunningham, if you would lead off. full statement will be placed in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman and

members of the committee. i am truly honored that president obama and secretary clinton have placed their trust in me and i look forward to working closely with you. i welcome frequent opportunities to consult with you. i've been serving as deputy ambassador in leading a mission of some 1100 dedicated staff from 18 u.s. government agencies. i intend to follow and pursuing the approach for the important

challenges before us. we have achieved a great deal over the past year including completion of our strategic partnership agreement which will guide our partnership now and beyond the transition in 2014. the strategic partnership sends a clear message to the region that afghanistan will have the support of the international community. if confirmed, i will build on this successful diplomatic campaign, underscoring our commitment that will contribute to stability in the region and it never again be a source of a terrorist threat to the united states.

on september 11, 2001, i was in new york. i said the 9/11 terror attack was not just an attack on the united states but an attack on all. that struggle between terror and those values continues today and will continue for some time to come. we're turning a page in afghanistan. we have created an unprecedented for a mark of support for afghanistan consisting of a web of commitments. our strategy for a stable afghanistan has five elements. training afghan national security forces. building an enduring partnership with afghanistan.

promoting regional stability and economic integration. at the lisbon summit in 2010 we established a timeline for transition. the afghans are taking on responsibility for security and taking the lead now for some 75% of the population. security forces will reach their full strength soon. at the conference in december last year, afghan leaders presented the outlines of a strategy to ensure afghanistan stability beyond the troop drawdown. the international committee committed to supporting

afghanistan from 2015 to 2024. in may of this year the strategic partnership agreement was signed. secretary clinton's announcement that the president and designated afghanistan a major non-nato ally -- the international committee committed to providing the afghan security forces the support and funds they need for systemic. the government recognize that nato and its partners have a crucial role to play and invited nato to continue their support after the mission concludes at the end of 2014. the international community gathered in tokyo to further define the concept of mutual accountability and a share economic assistance.

the japanese announced the international committee had pledged $16 billion in aid. the adoption of a framework which a firm that international assistance to afghanistan is not unconditional. the government must act decisively to ensure the returns are sustained and irreversible. that must include fighting corruption, strengthening the rule of law. so today, the pieces of the structure for --

the security transition it does not mean we are abandoning afghanistan. the taliban appeared to be taking notice. they are signaling an openness to negotiations. to create the convictions for inclusive national dialogue among all afghans about the future of their country. we have been consistent about the necessary outcomes of any negotiation. insurgents must break ties with al qaeda and abide by the afghan constitution including the rights afforded to women and minorities.

the taliban face a clear choice -- they can enter an afghan peace process or face increased national security forces supported by the united states and our allies. a constitutional transfer of power. president karzai has confirmed -- all afghans have much to gain from a successful political transition and should support it. the united states is committed to working with international partners as they choose their next leader.

i will not play down the difficulties. we will continue to support the afghan people with a new president and the hard work needed to bring the security and stability which the afghan people desire and deserved after decades of violence. i would be honored to leave the u.s. mission in afghanistan in the import work of enhancing the security of the united states. thank you, mr. chairman and i look forward to your questions. >> ambassador olson. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, i thank you for the chance to be here today. i appreciate this demonstration of confidence by president obama and secretary clinton. i look forward to working closely with you to events america's interest in pakistan.

have served in the foreign service and have worked many of these years in the islamic world, as recently as the ambassador to the united arab emirates. through my career i've been thankful for the support of my family, especially my wonderful daughters. i do not need to tell you how important pakistan is to the united states. the united states has a clear interest in supporting a democratic pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbors. continued engagement is important to pursue the continued defeat of al qaeda.

to encourage regional stability and to support economic stability within pakistan. instability in pakistan would undermine what we are trying to achieve in the region. pakistan is located in a tough region and continues to face economic stagnation and is home to 200 million people. extremists have killed over 30,000 soldiers and citizens. pakistan is a country with great potential and a talented people. the last seven years have been difficult for u.s.-pakistan relations. despite many jaundice, we have continued to engage the pakistanis at the highest levels.

the reopening of the nato supply lines -- today in islamabad, there is an understanding with the pakistanis ministry of defense in the opening of the grand alliance and communication. i hope to build on the opportunity to define our shared interest with pakistan in practical ways to work together to achieve them. we share an interest in combating the extremists that threaten our countries. they have lost more troops and civilians to act of terror than any nation.

we have captured or removed from the battlefield more terrorists on pakistan the soil than from anywhere else. we share an interest in supporting political stability in afghanistan. we want pakistan to be a full part in supporting afghan peace and stability. pakistan officials have told us that more than any of the nation they have a vested interest in seeking a secure afghanistan. promoting democratic and economic stability is also in our shared interest. a transition of power from one civilian power to another. we share an interest in combating the use of improvised explosive devices. ways to increase border controls to restrict the flows of ied

precursors. supporting private sector growth across borders is essential to creating jobs for pakistan's people. a tremendous impact on increasing cooperation in line with secretary clinton's vision. our continued assistance which is focused on five priority sectors also helps promote a secure pakistan and stimulate economic growth over time. i would consult with the congress and with this committee which has played a vital role in supporting our goals in pakistan.

to help the pakistan it leadership and your counterparts understand how the american people view pakistan. please allow me to rewrite how honored i am to have been nominated as u.s. ambassador to pakistan. i thank you for considering my nomination. >> thank you very much. we have a competing meeting in the finance committee on the tax extenders which i need to attend shortly and i think senator casey will chair. i apologize to our witnesses. let me ask you -- you are well aware of the cross currents on the hill with respect to the relationship with pakistan.

i have met with the ambassador to talk this through and they are well aware and the most recent step to reopen it is an effort to try to settle things down. some people in congress are advocating a more precipitous kind of reaction to the current state of affairs. some want to suspend aid. could you state the congress as you go over there how you see that? why that would be ill-advised, in your judgment.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. our relationship with pakistan is critical to our national security interest, primary in the area of counter terrorism cooperation. over the past decade, we are in the position of virtually eliminating al qaeda as a threat to us. i think that we want to continue to formulate a relationship that allows us to strengthen

counterterrorism cooperation. i was pleased that in your opening remarks do mentioned the perception of many pakistanis that the united states had disengages in the 1990's. i think pakistanis in the government and outside are concerned about what will happen in afghanistan post 2014. we have put in place some very strong measures for assuring afghans and the region that we will be engaged after 2014. this is the great significance of the assistance on a predictable basis and provide a stable basis for an ongoing relationship.

if we can continue to emphasize our engagement over time, it will be possible to build the kind of productive relationship based on mutual interests that will serve us over the long term. >> what do think the pakistan the attitude is about the network? >> with regard to the network, i think this is one of the toughest challenges that we face and i would say at a personal level as well as professional level, i have been in kabul and i was at the haqqani network and have seen the attacks that took place. i have a certain amount of skin in the game for this issue. we do know that they are based --

we have taken some actions against the haqqani network. keep leaders have been designated sensing their travel and their finances. the question of the designation of the haqqani network is with secretary clinton right now. we will continue and this will be a primary focus of my activities and my diplomatic engagement to encourage further measures against the haqqani network and further squeezing

of the haqqani. >> i look forward to connecting with you when you get out there. thank you for that. ambassador cunningham, i assume you had the opportunity to read the piece i "the new yorker." could you comment on the number of articles that seem to be appearing, talking about how afghans are planning for the fight and laying the groundwork for a longer confrontation as we draw down rather than engaging in the fight for the democratic process and other things. give us your sense of that state of play.