23 million jobs and surpluses. and the way you do it it is voting for a balanced budget. >> we need to keep the jobs in this country. "made in america" is a brand you have talked about. is it time for wages to adjust to a more realistic level? >> absolutely not. if we lose the middle class, we lose america. i am a first generation american on my mother's side. my mother never graduated from high school. the middle class what built our nation. when you have ceo's like my opponent who while she was laying off 30,000 workers in

which herself, that is not the kind of model that we need. >> miss fiorina is running for the senate. there's a big difference between running a company where you have to make those choices and running the government. what is the approach to wages? what is the approach to taxes that will save us from this? >> wages are set by the private sector. we have the minimum wage. i support it. i do not know if my opponent does or not. she is still supporting tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas this is a very relevant conversation. i believe in collective bargaining. i believe in an educated workforce. i believe it is very important that we not lose the middle class. the words "made in america" can be real again. >> thank you very much. we do not have time for examples. the next question is for gabriel

lerner for ms. fiorina. >> in june, he said on fox news that the obama administration had defunded securing the border. you also said that criminals were crossing the border. : security says obama is spending more on border security than president bush. recall land securities says obama is spending more on homeland security than president bush. >> the facts are clear. the border is not secure. when we see murder and mayhem being committed just south of our border, that is increasingly a national security problem. i met recently with sheriffs from fresno county. they told me that the drug war has reached california. i met with an iraq war veteran who was told he could not go hunting in medicine and county

-- mendocino county by law enforcement because they could not ensure his security. i believe it is the worst form of politics. >> let's say that the border is secure. >> but it is not 3 >> it is going to be. >> but it has never been. >> why do you not want to confront the question of what to do with 20 million immigrants unauthorized in this country? >> the reason i do not want to breeze past border security is because we have not secured it. the reason we have not secured it is a matter of political will. it is not money, manpower, or muscle. it is a matter of political will. people are playing politics with it. we have to secure the bottle reporters.

we have to have governors certify that the borders are secure. we need a temporary worker program that works in this state. we do not have one. agriculture depends upon it. restaurants depend upon it. technology depends upon it. when we had an opportunity to have a guest worker program with bipartisan support in 2007, barbara boxer was the deciding vote that destroyed the guest worker program. she voted for an amendment. when she cast the vote that destroyed the guest worker program, her comment was that immigrants were as source of cheap labor that threatens the american worker. >> there are still 12 million people living here illegally if the border were sealed, what would you do with them? we have to act on the idea that you could close the border. then what would you do? >> that is what people are tired of in washington.

we skip over the problem in front of us and talk about something else. the problem is that the border is not secure. we do not have a temporary worker program that works. we have people here who want to work legally. we have farmers who -- >> people are working here. their friends, cousins, brothers, fathers, millions of people in california. >> i am proud that i have received the endorsement of so many in the hispanic community and so many in the agricultural community. the reason i believe i received their endorsement and support is that they understand that you have to deal with the most pressing problems in front of us. the most pressing problems in front of us are that we do not have a secure border. senator boxer vilifying people in arizona does not help. we do not have a guest worker program that works. our state depends upon it.

>> we have to move on to senator boxer with a question about immigration. >> you have the opportunity to answer. it is true that in 2007 you cast the key vote for the amendment that phased out the guest worker program. you said you opposed it because it would provide a pool of cheap labor. you repeated that in your meeting with us out "la opinion -- at "la opinion." ms. fiorina says your vote killed the chance to pass immigration reform. >> my response is directed the temporary worker program that my opponent supports and that i opposed was so draconian that one of the newspapers said it was indentured servitude. it was not drawn up like the jobs bill that is a very good bill. imagine this. you get to be sponsored by your

employer. you work for two years. then you had to leave the country. at that point, if you could be leaving your family. you had to leave for a year. then you had to beg your employer to take you back. that same employer, otherwise you could not come back. we were told in writing that it would have led to an additional 1 million illegal immigrants because simply would have gone underground. it was not the solution. i believe in a guest worker program that is humane. i believe in a guest worker program that is clear. i believe in a guest worker program that senator feinstein and i put hours into that will put people on a path to legality. i believe in comprehensive immigration reform. i do not vilify anybody, but i believe in comprehensive reform. >> what about security? what about border security?

what part does that play in your plan? >> it is a very important part. we have to stop arguing and come together. the way my opponent treats this is she is pitting border security against everything else. she said anything else is a distraction. she does not want comprehensive immigration reform. it is not a distraction to make sure that 12 million people from the vast majority of whom are part of the community, if you follow her thinking, they will all have to be deported. >> what about having the governors certify the borders? >> we have increased border patrol five fold. we have sent the national guard there. we have built fencing. we just got a report from the california border patrol that says that they have the border

in far greater shape than before. apprehensions were down 80%. there is still slippage. we should get it so there is nobody coming over. the best way to do it is comprehensive immigration reform. we need to come together. >> why not simply close the border and reset our whole immigration policy from there? >> we have tremendous commerce with mexico. they are our neighbor. i do not think we should close the border with a country. california's first or second biggest trading partner. >> in the first debate, he said that senator boxer supports extreme environmental groups. what groups are those? >> all i can tell you is that is the only explanation i can come up with. >> what are the names of the groups? >> the only explanation i can

come up with for senator boxer's refusal to step forward and help tens of thousands of people who are standing in food lines in the middle of the most productive farmland in the world and being handed canned goods from china is that she must bfeels she is beholden to a set of contributions coming from a variety of organizations. if you look, i think he will find that barbara boxer is the largest recipient of money from environmental interests. i am not saying all of those interests are extreme, but i can only -- >> but you have to single them out as to which are extreme and which are not. if you say they are extreme without singling them out, that raises the question that they all are. >> i think the question is not what various organizations have in their charters. i think the point is, what is it

that senator boxer believes she is supposed to be doing in washington, d.c.? is she serving the interests of the people of california? thousands were thrown out of work. is she supposed to be representing the interests of the special interests like big labor leadership for the seventh our middle groups? who is that she is representing? special interests or the people of california? >> let's go more specific. i think you opposed proposition 23 that will stop ab 32 from starting in california and from addressing our nation's climate and energy challenges. why is it when this law can enable new industry dedicated to green energy and put california back in the front of the

country? >> we are falling behind in innovation. we are falling behind in energy innovation. all of these thousands of clean, green jobs that senator boxer keeps promising, the reality is that we spend less on energy r&d than many nations in the world. we must be the leader in innovation. we must be the leader in clean, green technologies. we're not on a path to do so because we do not spend as much. our federal government does not spend as much on federally funded r and d. with great institutions that could use the support. our tax credit is now 17th in the world. i believe ab 32 is a bad idea because to deal with global warming requires a serious .lobal solution >

>> would you oppose cap and trade? what is a competent national solution? >> scientists agree that a single state or nation acting alone can have no impact on global warming. i would immediately engage in serious bilateral discussions with china, a nation that uses more coal than we do but also researches more into clean coal. i oppose barbara boxer's bill. it has been called the most expensive piece of legislation in u.s. history. economists agree it cost the nation millions of jobs. they agree it would cost trillions of dollars in lost economic output. barbara boxer has been chairwoman of environment and public works. we do not have a national rational energy policy. we do not have a solution to global warning. she has failed in her leadership responsibilities. >> one of your colleagues who

headed the committee says he thinks the committee has accomplished little under your leadership. he was concerned that the amendments and bills were coming through and not actual policy leadership to the extent that john kerry was taking through the cap and trade bill rather than yourself. have you been ineffective in leadership when your own members say you have not accomplished what you should? >> he is one of my strongest supporters. he was misquoted. i am the only chairman in the senate who ever got two comprehensive energy clean energy jobs bills out. everyone was deficit neutral and would have created millions of jobs. the fact is senator lieberman and senator mccain had two votes on their bill. i got to 54 supporters. we fell short.

big oil and dirty coal were strongly supporting my opponent. i understand that. we're trying to broaden our reach. it took 10 years to pass the clean air act. i am proud to have the support of the sierra club. i am proud to have the support of the league of conservation voters. i have had to go search through history to find a senate candidate who was so hostile to the environment when a clean environment protects our health and creates jobs. >> senator, excuse me. can you answer the assertion that the only way to impact global warming is to act globally? said if california does not take the lead, and others will? does ms. fiorina have a point

when she says the global approach would be more effective? >> we have had conference after conference with china. we have to act. california is not a state that sits around and lets anybody else lead. that is why i strongly opposed proposition 23. it is shocking to me to see someone try to get the united states senate from california would turn her back on the environment. she was named one of the dirty dozen by the league of conservation voters. they looked over all the candidates for the senate. she made that list nationwide. this is bad for our state. take our coast. our coast is pristine and supports 400,000 jobs in recreation, tourism, and fishing. my opponent would open up federal waters to drilling, even after the bp nightmare. she stands with big oil. she does not stand with the

people of california. they revere their environment. it is a god-given gift. it is also an economic asset. we have to fight to make sure that the air we breathe is clean, that the water we drink is pure, and that we preserve our coastal economy. >> thank you very much. we will be back in a moment with more questions for our candidates this is a special u.s. senate debate. we will have more questions for the candidates in a moment. ♪

♪ >> welcome back to a special u.s. senate debate. we are occupied at the moment by the incumbent, barbara boxer. we're here with her republican challenger, carly fiorina. i am patt morrison.

the next question is from gabrielle to carly fiorina. >> young pledged to try to replace the huge health care -- you have pledged to try to replace the huge health care bill passed earlier. we do have voted for a bill that guaranteed some of the 50 million americans without health insurance would be able to get it? >> we need health care reform in this country. we need to be sure that every american has access to quality, affordable health care. i am a breast cancer survivor. i take this personally. this bill has created a host of problems. we were promised initially that it would help reduce the deficit. we now know it contributes to the deficit. we were told that health insurance premiums would stop rising. they are now rising. it is not compassion to throw 16 million uninsured people into medicaid, a program already

virtually bankrupt. it is underfunded in the state of california. we have yet another $3 billion unfunded mandate just handed to the state of california. the of the day, i read the heartbreaking story of a woman in los angeles discovered a lump in her breast. she was told that she would have to wait five months for a biopsy. she was on medicaid. she was on a state plan. in other words, we are not helping people. >> how would you grant health insurance to those who do not have it? >> we missed an opportunity in this bill. the health insurance companies are regulated oligopolies. they are not subjected to real competition. let's open up the health insurance market for real competition. let's subsidize a high-risk pool for high-risk individuals. it would cost much less money than the health care bill.

>> we have the biggest competitive market in california right now. we also have questions about quality and affordability. one of the callers was a cancer survivor and asked how you could justify the opposition to allowing any insurance companies to discriminate or price out people with pre-existing conditions. >> i do not support that. >> but that is part of the provision of the health care law. >> think about what we're learning about this health care bill. when president obama first stepped forward and said our goals were to make sure that every american had access to quality affordable health care. i cheered. we have this bill now were people being thrown off of their insurance. premiums are rising. we are learning now of health insurance companies saying they are increasing premiums as a direct result of the health care bill.

we are being told that patients are being denied care under medicaid because it cannot handle the influx of patients they are being asked to deal with. we are being told by small business owners across the state that suddenly they're being announced to fill out a -- asked to fill out a 1009 for those they do business with to help pay for the bill. we have not solved the fundamental problem. >> supporters say it will increase competition and keep the private insurance companies honest. >> i know that the breast cancer survival rates in this country are 30 points higher than in the u.k. and canada. we have seen the outcome of public option plans. senator boxer has supported a public option since 1992. we have plenty of evidence to suggest we have the highest quality health care in this country. let's not destroy that.

instead, let's make it more accessible and affordable. >> senator boxer, you were an advocate of the option in the debate. you said it would increase competition. if you are reelected, would you support an effort to add the public option to the law? >> i would. here's the good news. the way we drew up the law is that it allows the states a lot of flexibility. the states can each decide how best to do this. i like that provision. i think it is important for people listening to understand that when somebody says repeal and replace, watch out. once it's repealed, you are not going to seek a quick replacement treate. if you have a child up to 26,

you can keep them on your policy. seniors are getting back $250 to help them with their prescription drugs. does my opponent wants to take the checks away? they will be able to get two prevention treatments. the insurance companies cannot walk away from you when you get sick. my opponent says to put high- risk pools in place. i do not think she understands that is in place now. >> excuse me for the interruption. the call for repealing is not just ms. fiorina. why do you think the health care law is so unpopular with the public? >> i think most people want us to amend it and not in it. clearly we can make it better. i am willing to do it. i will be darned if i will go back to where we were before. 62% of our people were going

broke due to a health care crisis. i do not want to go back to those days were the days when thousands of people died every day because they had no insurance. we have community health care centers in this bill. california will get about 800 of them to take care of our working poor. we had gender rating where women were paying twice as much as men. that is outlawed. if you had a pre-existing condition like cancer or anything else, you were out of luck. now if you have a child with asthma, you must get insurance. we need to amend it, but do not end it. it took 100 years to get this done. >> ms. fiorina said some companies are now refusing coverage to children because they say they cannot manage it under the terms of the health care bill. we need more competition than we

have built into the bill. how would you address these concerns when companies do refuse coverage and the competition does not seem to be up to snuff? >> an insurance company cannot turn away a child. if there is someone my opponent knows, please have them call us. we will get on it. a child has to be able to get coverage. they can be on their parents' policy until they are 26. if the company is not taking your child, they are disobeying the law. we have to enforce the law. my opponent says we are doing great. we're 29th on infant mortality behind cuba. we can do better. >> the next question is for carly fiorina. in the debate, if you said you are not running on the issue of roe versus wade, but if there were an opportunity, if you would overturn the decision.

would you introduce legislation to overturn it? >> i would not introduce it. it would have to be the supreme court that overturns it. something else happened in that last debate. barbara boxer engages frequently in a shocking misrepresentation of my record. nowhere is that more unconscionable than her continued assertions that i support the criminalization of abortion. she knows very well this is not true. there are no circumstances under which a woman in california would be denied an abortion. she knows this very well. barbara boxer is engaging in this kind of misrepresentation to change the subject from her own extreme views that are that a baby does not have rights until it leaves a hospital, to change the subject from her own extreme views that a girl seeking an abortion at 12 should not have to notify her mother. the subject of this election is

not abortion. it is jobs and out of control criminal -- government spending. senator boxer has indicated i support criminalization of abortion. that is false and she knows it. >> one point you make is that your husband's mother was devised by doctors to have an abortion. she chose not to. you are married to your husband that you say you love very much. why would you deny those aspects to another woman, the idea of a choice if the doctor advises them not to proceed with a pregnancy? >> i am sure you did not mean that but you said it was a story i made up. i am understand that not all women agree with me. i understand that this is an emotional issue for many women.

i happen to be pro-life. barbara boxer holds a very extreme view. that is the taxpayers should pay for virtually any abortion, any time, anywhere, for any reason. i am only describing her views on this subject. there is no question that in california there is no circumstance under which a woman would be denied an abortion treate. i think this is typical politics. when people want to talk about the things that matter most with jobs, she always punts to the divisive issue of abortion to try to change the subject. >> you say it is a question for the supreme court. let's say you sit in the judicial committee considering a new candidate for the supreme court. will his or her position on abortion be a litmus test for your vote?

>> absolutely not. i have said publicly for many years that i do not have litmus tests for any supreme court justice. >> on the same subject, the question for senator boxer. the point was made about funding abortions with federal money. would you change that, especially under the health care law? would you have women able to access federal money for abortions? >> for rape, incest, and wife of the mother, absolutely. the hyde amendment allows for those exceptions. we all supported the current law. we all have to take a deep breath here. roe v wade is the law of the land. my opponent says she would vote to overturn roe v wade. it means that women and doctors could be put in jail in any state of the union. that is the fact.

we have voted on roe v wade on the u.s. senate floor. luckily, we were able to stop those who wanted to overturn it and criminalize abortion tre an. my view is that i have respect for everyone's view. i will not put my views on anyone else. i support them completely. i believe roe v. wade is a decision that brings us all together. this is a tough, personal, religious, and moral decision. it says in the early stages, a woman, her doctor, her god, and her family will make the decision. i do not want to see the senate in the middle of this personal decision. >> when ms. fiorina says she is concerned about your regard for the rights of babies that may not exist until they are actually born and leave the hospital, what about her criticism? >> i do not understand what she

is talking about. i gave birth to two premature babies. they have now given me grandkids. i cared about them for the entire time i was pregnant. the cared for them the entire time they were in the hospital for a month until they came home. >> would you try to overturn the amendment? but there's no point in going down that road. i believe there are exceptions. i believe it is a good compromise now. in the health care debate, not one pro-choice senator or a member of the house tried to overturn it. >> it is ok to ban federal funding for abortion? >> except for rape, incest, and life of the mother. the states can decide state-by- state. >> the next question goes to ms. fiorina. >> the fight against drugs in

mexico became increasingly bloody and could spill across the border into california. do you think the united states should consider providing military assistance to the government of mexico in its war against the drug cartels? >> we must do as the government of mexico asks us to do in terms of supporting them. in some cases, we have not provided to them all of the support they have asked for. i think what we're looking at is the potential that mexico is approaching a failed state. it is a dramatic term, but a failed state is when a government cannot control the security situation within its borders. i have been many times to the beautiful city of monterrey in mexico. when you have people being beheaded, bodies hanging from bridges, it would be like people

hanging from bridges in pasadena. we must provide to the government of mexico all the support that they are asking for. we have not yet done that. we have not provided all of the support. senator boxer mentioned nafta a while ago. she said mexico is one of our largest trading partners. she is correct. she is not supported trading agreements in the past. but making sure that we're living up to our end of the bargain with nafta and in supporting the government of mexico is an important first step. >> recent studies concluded that most of the traceable automatic weapons used by the cartels in the united states are smuggled into mexico. why do you oppose the federal ban on assault weapons?

>> assault weapons and semiautomatic weapons are not the same thing. it is a definitional issue. it is illegal today to be buying semiautomatic weapons. most of the guns are purchased illegally. it is a huge problem. we should be enforcing the laws we have. when drug cartels are buying semiautomatic weapons in the united states and transporting them across state lines, they are breaking multiple laws. we need to make sure that we hold them accountable and prosecute the laws that we have. owning a semiautomatic weapon is illegal today. >> the supreme court has extended the second amendment right to individuals to keep and bear arms. >> i answered a specific question to senator boxer likes to confuse things purposely. she likes to say that the terrorist watch list is the same as the no-fly watch list.

i hope she knows they're not all the same thing. the question was about the no- fly list. it is an overly broad bureaucratic list. my sister-in-law was on it. my best friend's husband was on it. ted kennedy was on it. when the tse keeps a list that does not work, you should not be denying americans the right to bear arms. it took my sister-in-law years to get off the list. she is a 72-year-old grandmother. >> the next question goes to senator boxer. it is from gabriel lerner. >> in the four years since mexico militarized the drug war, the death toll is close to 30,000. the police forces are riddled with corruption. what do you say to those who argue the military approach has made the problem worse? >> mexico is its own country

with its own elected leaders. the best thing we can do is try to work with them and help them. i would never tell mexico the way to go after the drug cartels. clearly we have to make sure that we help mexico in their efforts. >> your opponent said you want to give terrorists the same constitutional rights as u.s. citizens. >> i do not know in what context she is talking about. >> that was in the first debate. >> it is she is talking about the ability to get a trial, i would leave it to the prosecution. either go to a military court or a civilian court, wherever you can get justice swift, and fast, and the ultimate penalty. give them flexibility. >> the government in afghanistan -- is the government in afghanistan worth supporting? >> we have to make sure that

everything to do with karzai and the afghan government is transparent. i worried about corruption. i worried about the corruption in iraq. i do not believe in nation building. i believe in nation helping. if they cannot get their arms around the corruption, i do not see why we would send them our hard-earned dollars. we have to rebuild america. we're going through tough times here. >> go ahead. >> i support president obama beginning to bring the troops back in 2011 tyrian i am on a bill that would state we should have a clear exit strategy. that is what i wanted for iraq. i did not vote for the war in iraq but i did vote to go after bin laden. it is important that america not have an open checkbook. we cannot do this forever. we have to take care of our own. >> the line to be drawn in

afghanistan is the line of corruption? how do you decide when it is time to pull back from the government? >> you need an exit strategy. you have benchmarks. the president knows he is trying to get the afghan people to stand up, defend their own country, go after the taliban. we can be there to help them. we cannot be their military. i am encouraging the president to continue the plan to begin bringing home the troops in 2011. that is his goal. then we ask for very specific exit strategy with benchmarks. >> we had a coin toss. ms. fiorina won that and is to have -- gets to have the closing statement. >> thank you all for the opportunity. this race presents one of the clearest choices in the nation. these are very tough times. we need job creation.

i am fighting for those jobs every day. when my opponent had her chance as the head of hewlett-packard, she laid off 30,000 workers. she shipped the jobs overseas. she enriched herself. she says she is proud of her record. that is her record. i want to see the words "made in america" again. i want to stop the tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas and give them to companies here. my opponent supports tax breaks. she was proud to stamp "made in china" and "made in india" on her products. there's a huge difference on other areas. my opponent is fighting for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. i want to extend tax cuts for the middle class. i did vote for the biggest tax cut for the middle class. it was part of the economic recovery act. i just voted for a small

business bill. my opponent opposed it. she even opposed the teacher bill. we paid for that. we're putting 16,000 teachers back in the classroom. she called that disgraceful. my opponent does not represent the people of california when it comes to the environment. we need to have a fighter for the environment and the jobs that go with it. thank you. >> senator boxer closing stateme. now the closing statement from ms. fiorina. >> i was a secretary and held accountable for my work. when i became a ceo after many years of hard work, i was held accountable by customers, shareholders, and employees. ctingor boxer has been aski for 20 years in washington as if she is not held accountable by

anyone but herself. she voted to increase her pay by 40%. she has become a multimillionaire in washington. she has written three books. let's look at all the things she has not done. she has not helped prevent a massive tax increase to the middle class. our farmers still do not have water. our children are not getting educated well. our small businesses are being crushed. people cannot find a job. our debt is spiraling out of control. a woman came up to me recently and said she was voting for me because she was afraid for her children's future, please do not forget about us in washington, d.c. barbara boxer has had 28 years to serve the people of california. ask yourself what she has accomplished. her own hometown newspaper would not endorse her because they described her as an ineffective leader. i think the results of her 28 year tenure in washington are crystal clear. she has been ineffective. she does not solve the problems of the people of california.

we can get our economy going again. we can help small businesses begin hiring again. we can become the most innovative state and nation in the world again. we can change washington and hold them accountable. but first, we have to change the people that we send to washington terry >. >> this special senate debate was presented by "la opinion" and kpcc. coverage and audio of the complete debate will be available at laopinion.com and kpcc.com next week, you can request the vote by mail ballots. be sure to vote. on behalf of my colleague and the candidates, thank you very much for listening.

>> do you have an old car, truck, or boat taking up space in your garage? donating your used vehicle goes a long way -- >> wrapping up the debate from last week between canada it's in the california senate race as we continue our focus on campaign 2010 today. in kentucky, rand paul and conway took part in the first debate. paul said he believed the age for medicaid and social security may need to be raised. this is a shift from his remarks earlier in the year. you can follow all the races in campaign 2010 by going to our website. coming up in about 15 minutes, we'll bring you today's white house briefing with robert gibbs. he will likely address questions on the departure of rahm

emanuel last week. until then, your phone calls from today's "washington journal." twitter.com/cspanwj. "--stan's ms your was on pakistan's ambassador was on "face the nation" yesterday. let's see what he had to say. guest: sometimes people in the united states think about pakistan and take it as all flat land. even at the drones, everybody in waziristan -- cannot identify everybody in waziristan. we have lost more soldiers and more officers than any other country from terrorism. the only factor is the capacity

of our military to go in issues about stability, etc., are all behind us. pakistan is saying that we will take all tourists on the pakistani side of the border -- all tourists on the pakistani side of the border but you will do it on a our time line. host: that was pakistan's ambassador to the united states talking on cnn yesterday on "state of the union." we wonder what you think of pakistan as a reliable partner. this from "the washington times ." "gunmen attacked tankers in islamabad on monday. it is a move likely to delay the planned reopening of a supply route through pakistan. aelevision pictures showed u

towering inferno of fire coming from the trucks, which were fully up outside islamabad en route to afghanistan while the unknown assailants attacked a convoy with guns and molotov cocktails." this the fourth attack on trucks carrying supplies destined for nato troops. our question for you this morning, do you think pakistan is a reliable partner? we will look at some of the news surrounding what is happening in pakistan as well as afghanistan and get your reaction. let's go to our first call, michael in las vegas, nev., on the republicans' line. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: fine, thanks. caller: working with th -- coming back from india, i was working with some actors on a

film. a press conference was on the web, all over tv there. i'm an actor. but the name michael allen -- host: tell us your thoughts on pakistan, since you're just in india. caller: it seems that they split it, muslims, and all the muslims decided to concentrate in pakistan. most of your violence is going on in the northern area. a lot of times it is down to rock-throwing and stuff. basically, the problem is nationality. i was there for close to the hotel during the mumbai situation, and it comes down to very simply having other people to your dirty work.

host: let's look at this story from "the new york times." ona's steps of drone attacks the taliban in pakistan. american officials said the cia has drastically increased its bombing campaign in the mountains of pakistan in recent weeks. the strikes are part of an effort by military operatives to cripple the taliban." let's go to grendell, sue on the democrats' line. caller: thanks for having me on. do i feel they are a partner? no, i don't. we are is sending billions of dollars to the government and they cannot take care of their own people that are flooded out. now they are burning the convoys. i know it is the taliban, but where is the government? where is the government helping

us out? i'm sorry, i think we should get the heck out of there, and that is my opinion. host: looking back, more from " the new york times." "the cia has launched 20 attacks with the armed drone aircraft since last month, and more than twice the number in a typical month. this expanded campaign comes as top officials are racing to stem the rise of american casualties before the obama administration's comprehensive review of the afghanistan strategy set for december. officials are also evaluating reports of possible terrorist plots in the west for militants based in pakistan." let's take a look at more comments from the ambassador to the united states from pakistan , who was on cnn yesterday. >> the local situation in pakistan is that the united states is not that popular. secretary clinton, when she went

there, try to reach out, and ambassador holbrooke try to reach out to the pakistani people, but the fact remains that the elected democratic government in pakistan is limited by public opinion to the extent of what it can do. people in washington sometimes get all excited. every john, joe, and in jayne covers it and tries to cover the complexity of the story in a simplistic way. pakistan is an american ally and we cannot do everything the americans think we should do because sometimes we do not have the capacity or the need. we will work of those things out and that is what we're doing now-all the political noise, the fact remains that we are working together going after all terrorist groups, and the few groups that are remaining, we will target them.

we will target them with american help, but it will be technical help and not personnel on the ground. host: our question for you this morning, is pakistan a reliable partner? now was pakistan's ambassador to the united states, reflecting on how pakistan ne -- on how pakistanis see the united states. we're talking about the two countries in light of the afghan war. "at the new york times" talks about the drone strikes the cia has launched, particularly in the mountains of the country. "it reflects mounting frustration in afghanistan and the u.s. that pakistan cost of government has not been aggressive enough -- pakistan's government has not been aggressive enough in this logic militants from their bases in the countries western mountains. in particular, the americans believe pakistanis are unlikely

to launch military operations inside north waziristan." san francisco. good morning. do you think pakistan is a reliable partner? caller: unfortunately, it is one we're stuck with at the moment because of its long, common border with afghanistan. 19th century british statesman, a great power, only has permanent interests. we should keep that in mind when dealing with pakistan and afghanistan. thank you. host: from "the new york times," "general david petraeus recently issued a veiled warning to top pakistani commanders that the united states could launch unilateral ground operations and the tribal areas should pakistan refused to dismantle militant works and in north waziristan,

according to american officials. david petraeus wants to turn up the heat on the safe havens, said one senior official, explaining the sharp increase in drone strikes." what do you think about pakistan's involvement? should they be doing more to help the united states in afghanistan, or are they walking a thin line themselves as they try to do with their neighbors on the border? as we look the other stories related to this, we had our recent message from al qaeda leader osama bin laden. he sought to exploit discontent following this summer's devastating floods and it pakistan. it says that region -- he says that the regional governments are uncaring. "usa today" reports that "it was

the third message in recent weeks from al qaeda figures concerning the massive floods that affected around 20 million people in pakistan." rockville, maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. my comments on pakistan is that they are definitely an ally of ours, but it is complicated. they are in nuclear power, and since they are an islamic nation n, they are target not only from outside, but within. also, the isi is not exactly simple to figure out. they have to aid us and we have to aid them. the drones are not exactly helping the situation, because we are killing too many innocent people and that has to stop. but i definitely believe they

are an ally. host: "the new york post," and editorial opinion piece, from an american enterprise institute visiting scholar. "nato supply trucks being set ablaze an accent should send chills up the spine of every american -- set ablaze in pakistan should send chills up the spine of every american." he goes through some of the concerns he has. "last year, the u.s. launched 45 predator drone attacks into pakistan. this year we may almost triple that number, with 22 in september alone. u.s.-led nato forces in afghanistan are running cross border raids into pakistan to flesh out taliban insurgents.

all this adds up to a u.s. effort in pakistan had the reminiscent of the one we undertook in laos in the 1960's, one of the springboards into the vietnam quagmire." jean-marie joins us, democratic caller. caller: i think the united states should stop making other countries fight for the wars we start. if pakistan wants peace there, they have every right to not send their forces in. host: all right, let's go on. arlington, virginia, john on the republicans' line. caller: i would say to the last caller that 9/11 clearly started this around. the whole discussion of pakistan -- one of the biggest reasons these groups got started who are

in certain groups or terrorist groups, what ever you want to call it, in pakistan, is because of kashmir. the united states at least publicly does not want to do a thing to settle that problem. that is with india and that is the root of most of the problems with these radical groups getting set up. if we work a reliable ally to pakistan -- were a reliable ally to pakistan, in the forefront of getting a settlement for the kashmir issue -- if that could be solved, a lot of this stuff would go away as far as the formation of these radical groups. host: republicans, the number you can call --

a moment ago arthur herman is a visiting scholar. he says that despite efforts or perhaps because of them, pakistan has increasingly become the epicenter of terror plots against this country. ive times square bomb plot to theg mumbai-style attacks toward the last week." david, independent line. caller: my opinion is pakistan is definitely not an ally of the united states. yes, there may be the military that is backing the united states for political reasons, but the rank and file pakistanis, more than 70% are

strongly anti-american, anti- western, pro-al qaeda. this is not a country that the united states should even pretend is a friend. it would be in america's interest to be more pro-india, because india is a democracy in that region and india, like the united states, has been attacked, like mumbai, by the terrorists. if anything, the united states should set up special operation forces to the northwest province find bin laden, because the pakistani government is never going to do it. the only way we stop these plots, like in europe, is to do what dwight eisenhower our did in world war ii, go for nothing less than total victory. we will have more americans dying, because that is the only way we will ptu an end to it, by going for the jugular.

host: a message from twitter. i assume he is talking about extremists, because he refers to islamists. russell on the democrats' line. caller: how are you doing, c- span? thank you for taking my call. i just wonder why the questions -- that -- christians that said in a leadership and faith leaders that sit in leadership never go and pray with the holy books and everything that is good. i don't understand why it has to be all this killing. next month we will be voting and going to the polls. nobody in fayed park suburban going and sitting down and just reading the whole book -- nobody in faith just talks about going and sitting down and reading the holy book. i would like to hear someone of a fake call in -- someone of

faith call in and say why there is always more and no meetings about faith. host: the nato supply route into afghanistan was shut down recently. let's go to comments from the pakistani ambassador to the united states talking about this on cnn yesterday. >> i think the supply line will be opened relatively quickly. i will explain it to you. according to general petraeus, the pakistani team has already arrived in khost and investigating the incident. allies have to reassure each other that it was basically because of the fog of war. americans have assured us that it was. we will investigate it jointly. on the security side, we cannot take the risk -- there are

tribal people there who are not necessarily under the full control of the government of pakistan. i don't expect the blockade to continue for too long. it is not a blockade, it is just a temporary suspension. the other lines in pakistan are still open. 60% of major's applies go through pakistan to afghanistan. tot: pakistan's ambassador the united states, talking on cnn's "state of the union" yesterday. "the washington times" picks up where he left off. "the new incursions and the closure of the supply route, and now in its fifth day, have heightened tensions between the united states and pakistan, whose long alliance has often been an easy -- uneasy.

the u.s. and britain warned their citizens sunday of the increased risk of terror attacks in europe, as washington is saying that al qaeda my target transport infrastructure." maryland, democrats' line. good morning. are you with us? caller: how you doing? host: fine, thanks. what do you think about pakistan? is it a reliable partner? caller: i don't think so. first of all, i don't think so. host: and why not? caller: pakistan is a poor nation, and i understand lifting them up is a good thing to do, but given the situation america is in, should we be focusing on pakistan? host: and you don't think so? caller: i mean, it is recession and people are still out of

jobs, people are still trying to find work to do. money is going out of america. host: use a focus on here at home. -- you say to focus on here at home. that is from maryland. looking at the region, "the wall street journal" says "the afghan government said sunday that it had begun disarming private security companies that protect the countries major infrastructure, convoys and international installations, fulfilling president karzai's order to dissolve all security firms here by year's end. coalition officials and western diplomats have publicly praised

the move, agreeing that some of the dozens of security companies operating in afghanistan stoke popular resentment with their trigger happy behavior and might even have colluded with the taliban. the coalition troops in particular are trying to put their reliance on private contractors." pennsylvania. good morning. what you think, is pakistan a reliable partner? caller: just listening to that ambassador, they are not our allies. it just want our money. they are not helping, really. and those bombings that they are doing are not efficient. we are good with our drones because we have human beings and their brood -- because we have human beings in there. host: do you think we need pakistan? do we need them close?

caller: i don't think we need them close. ignore them, really. they are not helping. they are obstructing our travel for the supply routes. how can that be helpful? host: we have a comment from twitter. rick on our independent-calling from arkansas. -- independent line is calling from arkansas. caller: i think we need to drop a new. -- a nuke. host: on pakistan? caller: yes, that region. host: what do you think that would solve, would accomplish? caller: uh, i think it would

make a difference. it would make a difference. host: next call. do you think pakistan is a reliable partner? caller: i think it is somewhat a reliable partner. we are fighting the whole nation. we are fighting a whole different type of people. i have been to vietnam and i've been to vietnam for two years. this is a very complicated situation. if we leave them alone, if we leave the militants alone, then we will be fighting here. nobody understands -- they blame the democratic government, the republican government. if you do nothing, we've really got a situation. 9/11 -- how would you like to see those every year, or once a month?

all our lives, we ever fought on other shores. the american people got to understand that we are in no ways kind of prepared to fight a war here. host: we have a comment from twitter. some questioning of the direction of the president's decisions regarding what is happening in afghanistan and pakistan region. looking at other news stories that are in the papers today, "win or lose, gop can make health care law a target." this in "the washington post." "repeal and replace -- that is what republicans are saying about the new health-care law as they look towards the november 2 midterm elections. if they win at the house, and possibly the senate, they say,

among their top priorities will be to undo president obama's signature legislation. the odds that republicans will win a veto-proof majority in november are generally considered slim to nil. so does all this talk about rolling back the law amounts to mere sloganeering crux not necessarily. but at least during the next congress, the true bedell will be probably fought at the margins, over initiatives republicans are planning in order to slow or disrupt the administration's preparations for 2014 at." congress is back home right >> you can watch "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 a.m. now the white house briefing with robert gibbs. >> questions about the terrorist threat in europe.

does the white house have any reason to believe the threat is here? >> let me talk largely for one second. obviously, the alert issued by the state department is based on information about potential threats in europe. we want travelers to be alert and aware. the particular threat information, as i said, deals with europe and is not related to the united states. having said that, we certainly know that al qaeda and their affiliates seek to do us harm and attack us here. we remain village -- vigilant about protecting our homeland. i think that is all i have to say about that. >> can you update us on security for the past few days starks >> i am not aware of other calls.

the team at state and inside the building have worked in conjunction with their european allies in talking through intermission and steps that we are taking. the president was briefed on this on saturday here in the white house. i assume there was some discussion about this in the daily briefing but i do not have anything specific. >> to the people traveling in europe, they could be more vigilant but they are not sure. what does the credit -- >> there is an extensive amount of the formation on the state department's web site. in many ways, you should think of this as the taking common

sense, precautionary steps. many of them are listed on the web site with the alert. this is not a travel warning telling people want to go. this is simply to raise awareness and alertness for those who are there to reports this -- suspicious activity, be aware of your surroundings. all of that as listed on the web site. i think those are precautions that are good to bear in mind as you continue to travel in europe. >> finally, are you aware if the administration has received five from european allies that could affect tourism there? >> none that i am aware of. we have worked in conjunction with our european allies on this. as you know, the british took a similar alerts for their citizens traveling in parts of

europe. we have, for many days, been working deeply in conjunction with those in europe. >> it is an entire continent. why are you being so broad? fox -- >> to give the best available information for those traveling in the area to be alert. >> a u.s. barone of the strike killed eight germans in pakistan today. any information? >> i do not have any information, but if i did i would not get into it. >> what about the reports that you may been leaving us stocks >> i refer to what i said on saturday about that. people in this building are focused on what they are doing here now, much like ibm. i am happy doing what i am doing.

>> are you ruling it out? >> i have not had any conversations about it. >> are you thinking about staying or leaving? >> i love my job. >> we all love our jobs. [laughter] >> i would say the ferocious this with which you are asking this question may be a signal to your employer. i will not talk about my job. >> there has been talked about what the congress might consider after the elections during the lame-duck session. i'm wondering if the president would have any problem with any specific legislation being passed in the lame-duck session. would you be concerned at all if a major energy bill were passed and finalize in the lame-duck? would he be injured about a major immigration bill passed

during the lame duck session? >> it is hard to know what that would mean. >> i mean and lean a philosophical -- >> there are obviously, and i mentioned this last week, there are a number of important things that continue to need to be done that did not get that the end of the regular legislative session. we have a treaty that we believe need to be ratified to the senate. there is a very large tax debate that will have to be settled before the end of the year. we of the reauthorization of the children's nutrition program. there are a whole host of the judgeships that have lasted for too long. i've think we will have a new budget director that will lead to be confirmed by the full senate. there are a number of things that need to be done.

i can look in my crystal ball. the president continues to believe that energy and immigration are tremendously important priorities. >> there are bold, controversial legislation and problems with introducing them during congress. does the president think that because they are so big that they should be considered by the next congress or would he be ok, philosophically, with either of them being addressed by a lame- duck congress? >> it is hard to get around the hypothetical. look. let's take immigration. the president has been very clear. the courts have upheld that we cannot have a password of immigration laws for every state. but it does not make a lot of sense.

the president wasn't supportive of the senate taking up and and thathe dream activ obviously did not happen. we continue to look for ways to work bipartisan in to look forward on immigration. >> robert, just to follow up on the thread. can it be described as a new thread or a series of patterns that are leading authorities? >> for a lot of reason, i do not wish to get into the nature of our intelligence. we are concerned enough for those in europe to be alert to their surroundings. that is what the state department's job is in issuing such an alert to ensure that those who are traveling remain

safe. >> was there something specific that happened? >> we have been tracking various threats for awhile. i do not think this is tremendously out of the norm in terms of ensuring that those who are traveling in europe are aware of what is out there. once in terms of the next two years, how does the president to you going the next two years? what is his vision? >> i do not want to write off the rest of this year since this is the first week in october that we have a lot of stuff, as i just mentioned, that we need to get done.

we will have time to think through in the next year or the year after that. we have not honestly spent any real amount of time discussing legislative tactics for a strategy for january. we have a lot left to do in october and november. you heard the president say when he is out talking about what is important to the american people and what is important to him, there are a lot of legislative priorities that we did not finished. i mentioned a few. we need to continue to finish the business for this year. that is where our forces -- our focus is. >> from the day we became aware of this latest plot, the

president made clear we need to do everything possible to disrupt this flawed. is it a specific plot we are talking about here? >> that sort of speaks to its self. i do not want to get into the nature of the era intelligence as it relates to all of this. -- into para-intelligence. we have been tracking charts for quite some time. the president meets frequently with his counterintelligence team in the situation room and the oval office. he has made sure to ask them what tools they may need to to deal with the threats that are either overseas or those that could impact us here at home. we do all that we can to share information and insure that we are taking all the necessary precautions as it relates to those threats. we have known for quite some

time and this is not based on anything you read their that al qaeda and their extremist affiliate's seek to do us harm. >> he mentioned the state department and the team here. are they and also dealing with other intelligence agencies and speaking with them directly? as it relates to this, my sense that what is happening at the cia, they are interacting with many of those. the nsc is dealing with their counterparts all over the world. >> i want you to put your dnc hat on for just a moment. [laughter] when did you first hear about that? >> i have not had any discussions with anybody hear about that. >> here?

[laughter] >> i said saturday i had not been involved in any conversations here, there, in alabana, -- alabama, virginia. dnc does not stand for what it stands for for you. [laughter] >> and go ahead. >> do you sure the assistance and some democrats in the last few days that things are tightening and not looking as bad for democrats in the election? >> i think you have seen over the course of several weeks a tightening in the public polls of the that the generic ballot. you see a tightening of the so-

called "enthusiasm-" on both republican and democratic sides to tell the pollsters that they are certain to vote in the next election. we have seen a site -- seen a tightening in that. i think part of that is a broader swath of the electorate now focusing on the upcoming elections. there have been a whole host of things that have helped that. the president has made the case effectively about why people need to be involved and what is at stake. look. i think those trends will continue up until election day. >> do you think the democrats could lose the house? >> i still believe that democrats will control the house after election day in 2010. >> how about the senate? do you think that is in

jeopardy? >> i think we will control both after election day. >> following on that, it still sounds like the margins will be different probably after the election. i will not make a prediction one way or the other. are there talks internally about how this may affect the legislative approach on the hill? conventional wisdom is the first two years to get the big things and then perhaps you go for singles as opposed to home runs from this point forward. >> this is unrelated to the question, but i will say this. there are a couple of things important to what we did in the past two years of will be important going forward. that is implementing both health care reform and wall street reform. as you mentioned, -- they are pretty robust legislative packages and there are many facets that -- the assets that have to be implemented.

we have not spent any appreciable amount of time worrying about were thinking about legislative tactics, strategies before next january. we just have not. >> it is it too early to say whether he would follow the president clinton approach to go towards the center? >> it is four weeks from tomorrow from an election day. in terms of the political calendar, that is where the focus is. >> will this mean a different relationship with the hill? >> we discussed that there will be fair the obvious stylistic differences. he has been very involved in dealing with the hill in his role as a senior advisor.

he has relationships on capitol hill that go back certainly longer than the president has been here. in different legislative battles, those relationships, he has used his knowledge of and relationships with different senators to talk to them about different issues. i think in many ways, he was very involved in strategy relating to capitol hill. as chief of staff he will have an even larger role. >> just to get a sense of what you expect people to do with the information about a travel alert. if you have a conversation with your close relative, family, sibling, or friend what would you tell them if they are going to paris, rome, or berlin? how should they react differently? >> i would say again, and i will

mention this you go to travel.state.gov there is a list of things that are important. in terms of being aware of your surroundings, understanding how to move to route the surroundings, where to go in the event of an emergency, how to act in terms of traveling alone, traveling at night, things that are important to be aware of. again, suspicious activity, who to go to, what to tell them, what to be on the lookout for. i will say those are all very cursory of what people should be thinking about if they are traveling and when they need to be cognizant of. >> you would not tell people to be worried or overly concerned? >> let me take this from a

governmental perspective. we would not be advising administrative officials to do something differently than what would be -- what we would be advising us. the information that came out sunday and was just to do that, make people aware of an alert to that information, not to dissuade them from travel there in the beginning. >> after the mid terms in terms of a legislative agenda, how concerned are you about one in to stand in the way of things like the health care bill. how concerned is the white house about those efforts? >> obviously some of that would depend on what the numbers and of being as related to earlier questions. i think they will wake of the day after still with majorities

in both the house and the senate. i think you have heard the president talk about and other officials talk about what walking away from health-care reform would mean. what has gone into the fact the last people that are sick not to be discriminated against. and allows for preventative care to be administered without charge. to walk away from that, we extend the life of medicare. we have made some tough decisions in health-care that impact the deficit and debt in a positive way. walking away from that will have real world implications than those opponents would need to tell the people would that would mean for real americans, walking

away. why on earth would you go back to come and i know senator corning and others have talked about this as recently -- senator cornyn and others have talked about going back to the rules of related to wall street, to learn -- wall street, derivatives, a whole host of risky financial transactions. why would you want to go back to the same rules that cost this verses what is now in place to prevent something like this from happening is i think the discussion some republicans are having with the donors but not with voters. >> do you think he would do a good job as head of the dnc? [laughter] >> i will say this. i think we have a wonderful chairman and the dnc right now who is doing an extraordinary job. i think all you need to do is

look at the news today at their ability to excite the base and grass roots to contribute in the very same way that people did in our election. they do not take money from pacs and lobbyists. they are getting small donations from people out in america. >> you and others at the white house have said many times that you tried to work with the republican candidate just decided they wanted to be obstructionists. >> mitch mcconnell said in "the new york times" that their strategy was to oppose everything. i was quoting mitch mcconnell. housingu're looking at in washington that 100% of the plan goes on washington or do you believe the white house and democrats share some of the blame?

>> if you were to ask us if we have done 100% of everything right the answer would be no. bipartisanship has to be a two- way street. whether the example is mitch mcconnell saying that we had a very defined strategy of opposing everything which is in many of the votes. the president still tells the story that we were in the oval office and we were getting ready to go in the motorcade to capitol hill to meet with house republicans and talk about their recovery act and someone hands as a statement that says, "the republican caucus will oppose this." the cars were idling and no one was sitting in them to go and have a discussion before they said no.

>> just to be clear, the white house does share blame or it does not? >> is the leader of the house republicans opposes an economic recovery action before the president even gets a chance to speak to the members of his caucus minutes before he is supposed to arrive, the leader of the senate republicans says they will say no to everything. it is hard to get by partisanship. it is hard when the leaders of both the house and senate of the republican party both say no. >> i wonder if looking ahead to next year if you think the white house needs to change how we work with republicans or if it is up to them to change. >> if their strategy -- >> i do not expected to speak for them. >> you cannot get them to

cooperate on everything if their answer to everything is no. if they're starting position is no -- look. who would have thought we would have judges who sit for 240 days to pass out of a committee? who would have thought that someone said that for three months a small-business bill to cut and eliminate capital gains taxes on small businesses would be universally opposed by republicans except for a few in the senate that help to give the bill through? we have got a decent number of questions today about what we will do in january. our focus right now was on the remainder of october, november, and december before we get to january. >> the take away from that, i guess, is that it is up to them to change and you guys, for the most part, have done what you

need to do. >> the president has reached out to him and asked republicans to participate in the activity that we know of as government. regrettably, the strategy from the very beginning from mitch mcconnell to those that serve in the senate from john bonner -- boehner was to say no. it is hard to overcome that when there is a strategy to say no coming from the leadership. >> i have two questions about fuel and fuel shipments. what, if anything, is the administration doing to get fuel and other supplies to get fuel across the border from pakistan into afghanistan? >> we are in discussions and working with the government of pakistan to address the

concerns relating to the closure of the border there. we believe we are close to yielding and producing some results on that and may have more on that in the future. >> when are those discussions? >> i believe they are right now at the department of state. >> with their diplomat? the other question, robert, is what, if anything, is the government doing to stop the flow of fuel trucks going from iraq into iran? >> i do not have any guidance on that, but let me try to find something on that? >> how far in the future could that be? >> we are working government to government. we express our condolences for what happened several days ago in pakistan with their forces.

we are working through the border closing right now. >> are you aware of the border shipments from a rock into a run? -- from iraq into iran? >> are they trying to find agreement on issues like climate change and immigration? >> we continue to work -- look for opportunities to work with them. i think today's events in focusing on the public-private partnerships with businesses and on addressing these skills challenge, certainly that is one. i think there are a whole host of things, certainly energy,

immigration, and many others present opportunities to work with democrats, republicans, business, labour all across the political spectrum. >> is it important to the ministration to appear to be pro-business? -- is it important to the administration talks >> obviously the president is being pro-american business overseas. increasing our exports -- i will say this. the steps that have been taken to secure the financial stability, to secure and strengthen the recovery, to ensure that auto companies do not go bankrupt and out of business, i think that is very pro-business. had the economic situation been

allowed to get worse, i do not think it is likely that businesses would have seen a recovery without consumer demand. >> does that include being pro- maastricht? >> again, we want to make sure that what is good for wall street is good for main street. we have to insure that there are rules and responsibilities for everyone and not a new set of rules or just one set of rules for wall street. that was the common sense sort of axiom behind wall street reform. we had to have a set of rules that worked for everybody. we had to have a set of rules that ensured that those on wall street had responsibility for their actions and then we did not unnecessarily by heavy risk- taking ahead of everything else. >> can give us a sense of what

the next four weeks will look like in regards to the president campaigning? i feel like -- do you feel like a bomb has been effective messenger? >> i do not have a list of his schedule. there is a dnc event this week. i am doing this for memory. he travels to new jersey on wednesday. he would go to prince george's county in illinois on thursday. on sunday he is in philadelphia. i did not have the entire block in front of a. obviously, the president will be out there making the case and discussing what he thinks is at stake in this election. >> do you have a sense that rallies are as effective or if there will be a similar mix? >> i think the president will continue to do a mix of different events. i think the anecdotal

information that we have gotten in wisconsin around the madison yvette has been quite positive. >> robert, you said earlier that there is a difference in stability or styles between the new chief of staff. i wonder if you could speak about the personnel changes being complicated and that we already know about in the white house staff. is the president looking to change direction or tweaked things in a particular way? is the guiding principle more to continue the course stocks -- continue the course? >> prior to any change in personnel in the chief of staff's office, he was undertaking, again, a very natural reorganization as we were ending the natural life expectancy of some staffers who

work here. people who were, not surprising, after two years go back to teaching, business, or what have you. he was undertaking that project. obviously, the president is weighing for some of these decisions and some personnel changes. this is based on people leaving. obviously there's a lot that goes into any of these texts. you have to have people that work together, people that drive the policy process, people that come up with ideas. there are a whole host of different things. some of this depends on who is already there in the group were a job opening his impact fauve wars and a -- for a job opening

with the impactful. all of the other members of the economic team as well. i do not know if there is just one thing that anyone is looking for. i think there is a whole host of different decisions all of which go into the personnel changes. >> i have three questions. can you discuss the rally that happened on saturday? [no audio] >> i think that the president and the people working here as well as people in the democratic base understand what is at

stake for weeks from tomorrow and they understand the work that has been done and the work that is left to do. i think -- and luck. -- look. our hopes of what we want to see out of this election are largely the same. we will continue to work with people on the democratic side of the aisle as well as those who watch on the republican side of the aisle to make progress. >> can you specifically talk about some of the nuances -- >> it is not my place to get into the nature of our intelligence except to discuss what the alert does, what it means, and that the president meets regularly with the

counterterrorism team to insure that they have all that they needed to keep us safe here at home and abroad. >> it has taken this long to capture hawkish -- capture bin laden even though he -- >> i doubt anyone who has stood here in this administration or the last who would not have liked to capture or kill him by now. i think that is certainly the case. we will continue to take the steps necessary to keep us safe from him and others like them who plot and plan to do us harm. >> you are very strategic in what you say to us from the podium. [laughter]

>> there is a fastball coming. [laughter] >> brace yourself, okay? >> a curveball. >> is a hanging curveball. >> can you say for sure -- stop it. [laughter] can you say that you love this job that much of that you are not even considering? i want a straight answer. [laughter] >> i do love this job. i have not had any conversations about the future. i not intend to have any conversations about the future in the next few weeks. i do not mean this to be sarcastic but everybody who works here is focused on the thousands and thousands of things on there to do this that they have to do every day. i promise you i was here almost all of saturday on might well be

considered most of the -- one of the last 40 days of the year. i would have loved to be running around outside but there was tons of work to do here. we've were focused on doing that. >> i am hanging on every word you say. he said in the next few weeks he will not have any conversations. what is happening in the next few weeks? >> i am happy to answer questions about the travel alert or policy. >> we got that on saturday. you are the news. you are the president's mouthpiece. i am not flattering him that. seriously. [laughter] >> i know. givinging to try to bee the information on a whole host of issues are far more uncertain -- far more important than me.

>> no flattery. >> i need that, too. >> does the administration believe [no audio] >> afghanistan and pakistan? >> right. >> we have strong and in form partnerships -- in foreign partnerships. we have a strong ally in common pursuits with pakistan to address extremism and the threat that it poses a. we would not be in afghanistan were it not in their interest or hours to be there to insure that what the taliban has in control that they do not control it again. we understand what that means for us.

the unencumbered ability to plan and execute attacks against our country. in pakistan, we have seen a renewed effort by the pakistanis to address the threat that not just impacts us but their existence as well. >> the upcoming elections are a referendum. are you comfortable that a majority of the american people support the sacrifices made for pakistan and afghanistan box -- afghanistan? >> i think the american people understand very much what is at stake and what the important mission we have. obviously there are political

viewpoints that vary across the spectrum. the president, though, understands what we must do in addressing the threat to those countries and to us. that is why he made the decision to send more troops to afghanistan. that is why we have an increased cooperation with the pakistanis in order to make progress against those two -- those that seek to do as both harm. [unintelligible] >> have any give it -- have any guarantees be given to the other side? >> former senator mitchell and secretary clinton are very involved on this on a daily

basis. they are the president foxy rep. they are working actively -- they are the president's representatives. i would quote to you what former senator osaid this weekend. the palestinian authority asked us to continue these discussions and efforts. they both want to continue negotiations. we are working with both parties to try and find the appropriate way forward. i do not want to get into when diplomatic negotiations might have gone on. i know that they are actively working each and every moment of the day to try and find a way forward in direct talks. >> it looks like the defense authorization bill and the repeal of do not ask, do not

tell is in trouble. is that something that is even being discussed within the walls of the white house cannot appealing that decision? >> the department of justice, last i heard, was reviewing the case. obviously, the president has a deeply held view that this is a law that can and should be changed. we worked to make sure that happened in the past -- house and we were unsuccessful in the senate. that will not stop us from trying. without being totally aware of all the discussions here, and the justice department is running a series of arguments as

they make those decisions. >> ultimately the power resides with the president. he can it shocked them not to be he can instruct them not to repeal. >> are there any plans at all? i listen to you talk about the priorities for lame duck sessions on thursday, friday, and today. not once has the defense authorization been mentioned. >> again i will say that off the top of my head, i would not necessarily say which list is completely exhaustive. understanding again the president deeply believes we need to change this. >> what are the most noticeable in the media differences with the new chief of staff today? >> i thought it would feel or look a lot different. i do not know why i thought that.

it did not, honestly. in many ways, it is the same group of people-ron emmanuel -- minus rahm emmanual. pete has some stylistic differences. he was involved in every one of those meetings, every discussion. we continue to be very focused on many of the things we had in front of us on friday with rahm and are continuing to do so with pete. i cannot stay awake that late. i watched "saturday night live" today. i cannot speak to the accuracy, but it was quite entertaining. thank you, guys.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> l. little later, we will have more campaign 2010 coverage with a debate between candidates hoping to take over for the retiring senator. that is live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. our coverage of campaign 2010 continues at 8:00 p.m. eastern with three debates. first, the race to be the next congressman from new hampshire's first district. one hour later we focus on the race for governor in oregon. after that, the race for the senate in -- center in connecticut replacing retiring chris dodd. interest groups are spending five times more on the 2010

midterm election than they did on the last midterm. conservative groups are outspending democrats seven to one. the increase has been made possible in part by a series of supreme court rulings allowing corporations and interest groups to spend money on political activities. senator baucus is asking the irs to look into them to make sure they are in compliance with federal tax code. "the communicators" concludes a four part series on communications, technology, and the internet. that is tonight on c-span2. >> and trustees van's student video documentary competition. make a 5-8 minute video on it this year's scene. tell us about an issue, event, or topic to help you better

understand the role the federal government in your community. be sure to include more than one. of the. download your video to c-span by january 20, 2011, and you could win the grand prize of $5,000. the c-span a student can documentary program is open to all students grade 6-12. log on to studentcam.org. >> robert menendez question whether if bp released the bomber's early to get a deal with libya.

this was that the senate foreign relations committee. the cancer stricken bomber was given a compassionate release by scottish officials last year. this is 2.5 hours. critical hearing to shed some light on the troubling circumstances surrounding the early release of abdel baset al-megrahi, the convicted pan am 103 lockerbie bomber. there are those within my own government and certainly within the scottish and british government and even some of my colleagues who wonder why we have collectively pursue to hold this hearing today. why we have been pushing for an investigation into the early release of al-megrahi. my staff and i have heard from many people who say you will never get al-megrahi to return to prison, so why bother? why they ask what we have a strong relationship between the united kingdom and the united

states? why when we have so many other important issues to worry about like afghanistan and climate change, would you go down this road? why? i will tell you why. because on december 21 of 1988, 270 innocent people were sent to their deaths at the hands of a libyan terrorist, a mass murderer named abdel baset al-megrahi. 189 of the victims were from the united states of america. 34 of them were from new jersey. 53 of them were from new york. all told with loss citizens from 21 states and the district of colombia. we are here today because it matters to those who lost their lives, to those who represented them, and most importantly, it matters to their families.

it matters very much, it matters also in terms of the standards that we set for our fight against terrorism. do we send a message that a convict did terrorist, a mass murderer can ultimately after a period of time before he and live in the lap of luxury? is that the message we want to send to other would-be terrorists in the world? so it matters to our national security as well. so we will never forget, nor should we, and so i am so so sorry that we are inconveniencing those who would rather sweep us away into the dustbin of history. we are here today also because we view the terms of the 1998 lockerbie justice agreement clearly stating that any sentence must be served in the united kingdom. in the letter of agreement from the united kingdom and the u.s.

acting permanent representative to the united nations, formerly approved by the security council resolution 1192, it states quote, for the purpose of the trial we shall not seek their transfer to any jurisdiction other than the scottish court sitting in the netherlands and it felt guilty for two accused will serve their sentence and the united kingdom. the language of the agreement could not eat any clearer. they would serve their sentence and the united kingdom. we are a nation founded on the rule of law and then the rule of law or notion of justice is turned on its head for whatever reason, we believe it is our obligation to turn it back again. it is our obligation to ask hard questions, to demand answers and to get the truth no matter where it leads or who might be inconvenienced by it or could the fact is that the scottish government claims to have released estero megrahi from prison because he was dying of

prostate cancer and had just three months to live. they offered him compassionate release, something that clearly is permissible under scottish law, but precedent provided that certain conditions be met. had those conditions been met, had laws and precedent been appropriately followed, while i was still to humanly disagree with the decision, i would respect the right of the scottish government to exercise its jurisdiction. but as we will see in the testimony, the release on compassionate grounds was deepld perhaps even intentionally skewed to allow for mr. al-megrahi's release. scottish law allows prisoners who are suffering and have three months or less to live to convince-- receive consideration for compassionate release. as scottish authorities said, mr. megrahi had three months or less to live, so they sent him home to die.

i would like to have the video played now of mr. al-megrahi's release and trip back to libya. >> the the video is important for two reasons. we will hear testimony about the

reality that someone who has the ability to walk up and down a flight of stairs by themselves based upon determination that had only three months to live would not likely be able to do so. and also because the images at the end, at his reception in libya, paint an image that is incredibly upsetting to say the least, to have a heroes welcome, flag-waving admirers praising him, celebrating his return. a man who is supposedly dying and here we are 13 months after he landed back in libya, and mr. al-megrahi is still alive, living in freedom. that is why we are here today, to get to the bottom of this mischaracterization of justice. obviously the three-month prognosis was wrong get shockingly scottish authority still to this day insist the initial prognosis was correct. on mr. al-megrahi is a life instead of living three months, he has lived 13 months and

counting which clearly means someone was wrong or worse. this committee and the families of the victims want to understand how and why the decision to release was made, what were the circumstances behind it, who made the medical judgments that led to it, whose interests were served by this release, and for those interest interests as gus in advance of his release? now we have tried to get the answers and a more comprehensive way. we have asked for cooperation of numerous representatives from the scottish government and from the united kingdom government and representatives of bp. over 30 people were asked to cooperate with their investigation. all refused. now i understand the right of any foreign government official not to choose to participate but these were clearly unique sets of circumstances in which i think the raider cause, the greater good, the greater transparency would have led to a

degree of cooperation. they include former u.k. ministers of justice, former u.k. ambassador to libya, the scottish secretary of justice, mr. mccaskill, dr. ander fraser the chief medical officer for the scottish prison service, dr. peter k., mr. al-megrahi's care physician, the consulting urologist, dr. stone said mr. al-megrahi's consulting oncologist and many others. so i want to make it clear for the record that we also change correspondence with mr. al-megrahi's scottish lawyer with a simple request. authorizing the release of your full medical records regarding the dyke houses, treatment and prognosis of your prostate cancer. we also asked and they were unwilling to do so at this time to allow for publication upon his death. according to the response we received from the attorney

mr. al-megrahi had declined those requests as well. among those from bp who refuse to cooperate with his investigation were tony hayworth, the ceo and andy inglis the chief executive of bp exploration and production, phillip broussard a chief executive bp north africa, en smile, vice president for strategy and markdown a consultant and former am i 6 intelligence officer directly involved in this matter. all refused to incorporate. i am most concerned about the refusal of bp to send a single representative to this hearing. i am concerned that dp operating in our country extracting resources seeking permits for further drilling is hiding information. i am concerned given their refusal to testify and tell us what they know about their lobbying efforts and advocacy for mr. on megrahi's release, giving their pitiful early reactions to the devastating

spill in the gulf and their initial withholding information on the seriousness of this spill that they are simply bad corporate citizens. hiding information and then, hiding it now from the committee i find reprehensible. i frankly don't know how bp expects to continue to do business in america if this is the way they treat americans. including the families of the victims of al-megrahi. i don't know why given the circumstances ep should get a single permit to do business in this country again and i will be looking at that and a separate form. let me finally go to the essence of what we will hope to achieve in the hearing and i apologize for the extended nature of this opening statement but given the challenges that we have had, we need to set the frame or care about we are trying to accomplish. notwithstanding the stonewalling this committee has been subjected to, today's hearing will thoroughly explored two central issues, first how such an incorrect prognosis was made. i think we will make quite clear

if the basis for al-megrahi's compassionate release was so incorrect that the scottish government knew or should have known it was incorrect. and second at the scottish government did know that mr. al-megrahi had more than three months to live why would they release him? we are here today to do what we can to get to the bottom of this. we'll look to ourselves as a nation founded on the rule of law and we owe it to the family so in the absence of those witnesses we have gathered experts who will testify today about mr. al-megrahi's medical diagnosis. they will tell us about the treatment he received in the prognosis. they have evaluated the published specs released by the scottish government. these medical experts will be offering fair assessment of that information and according to their written testimony they will confirm what we have suspected all along, no medical professional familiar with prostate cancer given the fact could reasonably have given a three-month prognosis to

mr. al-megrahi. i also want to announce at the outset of this hearing that we have uncovered new information that the medical experts have considered. first an official with the scottish government confirmed it was the general practitioner, dr. peter kay who gave this a three-month prognosis when not one of the cancer specialists was willing to say that the three months wasn't appropriate grounds for an appropriate prognosis. we also have new information directly from a scottish government official concerning mr. al-megrahi's treatment. the medical report released by scottish officials does not state that mr. al-megrahi received chemotherapy and in fact al-megrahi statements in august of 2009 stated he had not received chemotherapy. we now have information from george burgess, a scottish government official closely involved with al-megrahi's case who now says al-megrahi did in fact start chemotherapy in july of 2009.

we have publicly released redacted medical records that say nothing about chemotherapy that a scottish government official who says subtwo was receiving chemotherapy. i am not sure which version of the scottish government story to believe but i do know one thing. the discrepancy raises a number of questions, including why the information was not forthcoming and why, and-- medical experts have said in her testimony that when a man has prostate cancer and you believe he has less than three months to live, you do not give him chemotherapy. instead you try to allow him to live out his remaining days in as much comfort as possible. this leads to new questions. why is it denied an official government documents that al-megrahi received chemotherapy. why did those documents not reveal the facts that mr. al-megrahi received chemotherapy in july of 2009?

and in fact, why these discrepancies? these questions may not be answered today. we will finally likely only find the answers if and when british authorities finally undertake a truly independent inquiry which i have urged the prime minister to do as well as my colleagues in a meeting with him. when he was here in the united states. and then there is the larger question, question we will explore further in this hearing, why were the scottish and british governments so determined to release mr. al-megrahi? we have an expert today who will testify about commercial concerns that may have influenced u.k. thinking on the merits of mr. al-megrahi's release and held libya uses its oil interests as a foreign-policy tool. we have a lot of ground to cover so i won't take any more time. i appreciate our distinguished colleagues, who have been in

pursuit of justice here for the families of pan am 103 from the very first days of the tragedy, and without objection i will turn to him first because of this schedule and then turn to other members who will wish to make an opening statement. with that, but they recognize senator lautenberg. >> thank you very much mr. chairman for your diligence. >> if you would move the microphone, senator. >> thank you mr. chairman for your diligence and pursuit of the truth as to what happened with this grotesque process that we learned about and saw on the screen today, where this murderer was given a hero's welcome, and i think it was designed deliberately to give word to the world that libya was thumbing its nose at what

amounts to a human atrocity that was perpetrated by it-- the release of this man, this man who murdered so many and i thank the witnesses for being here and i particularly want to note the presence of family members, mr. brian flynn from. >> moderator: new jersey who lost his brother. john patrick flynn, age 21. someone i have gotten to know very well as i have many of the victims families. bodman eddie from cherry hill, new jersey, his son rick was aboard that plane. he was 20 years old. eileen walsh from round rock new jersey who lost a father, age 62

and a pregnant sister, lorrain, age 31. adelaide merrick lost her sistet her husband and father, peter at age 35. so mr. chairman when we see what we can describe as an act of betrayal, that is what we are looking at, an act of betrayal. unfortunately by a country that has been one of our best friends, scotland, and so we look with your direction here,

to learn the truth. i started with, on a commission appointed by president bush and for the past 22 years, i have personally witnessed the quest for justice these families and the incredible decision to release this murderer. 270 lives were lost in the pan am bombing. 38 came from our home state of new jersey. they were on and is in trouble. the average age on the airplane was 27. many of the victims were college students returning home for the christmas holidays. instead of joy, they were robbed of the contact with their children and their families,

never to see them again. soon after the bombing, i was appointed to a presidential commission by, as i mentioned president george bush to investigate this bombing and we were dispatched to lockerbie to learn more about this act of terror. as i saw first-hand, the scottish authorities were clearly determined to get to the bottom of this mass murder. policeman and rose-- i saw combing brush and grass, looking for the slightest clue, the diligence that would into this search and the final conclusion were clearly a consequence of their friendship to us and the consequence of the damage that happened to families not only in the airplane but people on the ground in the small town of lockerbie who perished at the same time.

they were absolutely committed to not leave any stone unturned as they combed through the foliage and grassy areas, searching for even the tiniest scrap of evidence. finally, over 10 years after the heinous act, the perpetrator al-megrahi, was brought to trial i worked hard here in the senate to secure funding so that the victims families could attend the trial that took place in the hague. megrahi's conviction brought them a small degree of comfort, knowing that price would be paid for this unconscionable deed and that megrahi would spend the rest of his life behind bars. unfortunately, the events of last summer tour of part this small satisfaction that they had that justice was being pursued.

al-megrahi was supposedly suffering from a fatal form of cancer and the scottish government decided to release this killer back to libya on so-called compassionate grounds. what irony is this that this man who took these lies and and without a thought about it, planned carefully and decided that this was his idea and it was his management that brought better plane down and in heat is released on compassionate grounds. we were told that he had just three months to live than it was more than a year ago and this murderer is still fêted as a hero and while megrahi was sent home to his family, his big dems never made it home. to add further pain, to the victims families, this murderer

got a a welcome unsubstantiated by anything done in his life when he arrived in tripoli, libya. many questions surrounding the circumstances of megrahi's release remained unanswered. the first is how the scottish government came to the diagnosis of megrahi's's am in a deathbed whether cancer were ever consulted. we have also learned that bp entered with their influence anxious to get access to libya's oil in the months leading up to the release. and, it does not enhance their reputation to see that the company that misled americans so often when trying to cure the problem that developed in the

gulf of mexico became involved with another business deal that they wanted to enter into. it didn't matter with home and who was a culprit in this terrible atrocity. so, with that help of lockerbie bomber got out of jail free, perhaps bought with bp's oil. we don't know what drove these commercial interest and perhaps others to play in the final decision but we are absolutely, mr. chairman, evidenced by you and by senator gillibrand and the people from this committee, determined to find out. i requested this hearing some time ago, last fall soon after megrahi's release to get to the bottom of these questions and i'm pleased that the committee is holding this hearing today, but i am disappointed that the scottish and the british

governments refuse to show up at this hearing. it is outrageous that bp has refused to cooperate. if they are committed to the truth than i have to give us the answers we need and the victims families deserved. make no mistake about it, we are not going to stop asking these questions. we seek answers in the plea for for the truth on behalf of justice for the families of pan am 103. those who commit vicious acts of terrorism must know that they will be punished. it took over 10 years to bring megrahi to justice and we are not going to give up, even if it takes another decade to discover the truth about his release, and i thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this critical hearing. >> thank you senator lautenberg and thank you for your continuing commitment to helping us get to the truth. senator gillibrand.

>> thank you senator lautenberg for your testimony and your passion and your dedication to finding justice in this matter and thank you senator menendez for holding this hearing and for your extraordinary leadership in demanding justice and accountability and doing all that you can to bring light to an area for all of us. i also want to thank dr. james mueller, chair of the urology department at roswell cancer center at the university of buffalo who will be joining us later today for hearing and offering testimony. we have the a moral responsibility to investigate why a convicted terrorist responsible for taking so many innocent lives including 185 americans now walks free and lives in the lap of luxury. we have to know how an oil company was able to read the actual profits from the course of these events. if we don't know what went wrong, we will never be able to make sure it is right in the future. if we don't don't know how they

guilty terrorists could go free, then we will not be able to hold international terrorists accountable in the future. the mystery over al-megrahi's medical type noses becomes clearer every single day. experts are testifying today that his diagnosis was a sham and that justice was compromised to serve bp's financial interest. reports are extremely concerning from conflicting analysis of how megrahi's diagnoses, bp's own admission of its involvement in this case. that is why we ask for an independent inquiry. did bp financial interest in drilling in libya contribute to or influenced in any way directly or indirect we the release of how megrahi? dp admitted in 2007 that it told the u.k. government it was concerned that the delay might,

the delay in concluding a prison transfer might hurt the deal they had just signed. it also has been reported as special adviser to the company former of am i 68 well-connected raise the transfer agreement within justice secretary jack straw. mr. straw's letters to the ministry can amos gaskell indicate that the british government gave into libya's demand for a convicted lockerbie terrorist negotiation to go free. this evidence although circumstances a is deeply troubling. not just for the families of the lockerbie victims or for all americans and all nations of the world who are committed to bringing terrorists to justice. last summer working with my colleague senator menendez, senator lautenberg and senator schumer i called on the u.k. government to get an independent

investigation to this manner. we had a productive meeting with prime minister cameron during his first visit to the u.s. and he pled that his government would do all it could do to read review the documentary evidence related to the al-megrahi case and stated that if they are review turned up concerns they would consider a full investigation. we have the tools of our own right here in our own government to take a long hard look at this case starting with this hearing today. we hope to uncover the real reasons that a convicted terrorist was released. i am grateful that prime minister cameron took time to meet with my colleagues and i on this matter during his first visit to america as prime minister and i appreciate his pledge to us that his government would read review the documents in a matter however i still believe we do need a full investigation including testimony of the al-megrahi release so we can learn from this mistake-- and what steps

can be taken so that justice is served and terrorists are held accountable in future cases. be under discussion we need two things. we need the u.k. government to continue their review and to receive to a full and independent investigation into this matter including taking full testimony and we need bp to release all the correspondence on this issue so the public knows that we are getting all of the evidence and all of the facts so we can have transparency and full disclosure in this case. i am hopeful that we began, as we begin to uncover the facts today that we will learn more about what happened here because justice must be done in this case. if we are ever going to win the fight against terrorism, the rule of law must hold strong. thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing and thank you senator lautenberg and senator schumer for your leadership on this matter. >> yes, senator lautenberg thank you very much.

thank you senator gillibrand for your statement as well as for your leadership in your consistent effort in this regard. appreciate all the help you have glanced the chair in our efforts to get information. before i call the first panel let me asking adams consent to include.manson to direct route including the 1998 lockerbie justice agreement u.n. security council rebel with-- resolution 1192 the scotland act 1998 statements and relevant documents to this hearing. without objection so ordered. lets me as the first panel to step forward and as they do let me introduce them. our first panelists are from the department of state and the department of justice. we appreciate those of them being here. ambassador nancy mceldowney the assistant secretary of staty is the principle deputy assistant principle deputy assistant secretary of state of the bureau of european and eurasian affairs at the state

department. she is served as u.s. ambassador to bulgaria, the deputy chief and turkey and baqubah opera by sean and has served as the white house director of european affairs on the national security council. she has held a series of posts at embassies abroad. and we thank her very much for being with us today in the forward to your testimony. joining the ambassador deputy assistant attorney general bruce swartz. mr. swartz was appointed deputy assistant to the attorney general in january of 2000. he served as deputy independent counsel in the hud corruption investigations as counsel for international law and enforcement. he was also detailed to the u.k. serious fraud office. he served as counsel to the assistant attorney general and if a law clerk to justice harry blackmun. thank you very much both for being here. i'm hoping that your testimony and your answers to the questions can help us get to

some of the facts and with that, ambassador let me start with you a five minute summation or so of your testimony. we shall include both of your full testimonies for the record and with that ambassador you may start. >> thank you very much senator. i would like to begin by thanking you in the members of the committee for convening this very important hearing. i am also pleased and quite honored to be able to join you and to offer the state department's perspective on the circumstances surrounding the release last year of abdel baset al-megrahi who was convicted in 2001 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the bombing of pan am flight 103. lockerbie was an act so savage that even today, when reminders of terrorism are daily events as all of us had seen when we op

>> at has been our on wavering

and categorically stated position ever since. it is the view of this administration that the decision by scott authorities to release megrahi and permit his return to libya was profoundly wrong. it was morally wrong because it was an affront to the victims' families and the memories of those who were killed it was politically wrong because it undermined the shared international understanding on megrahi's imprisonment and run from a security perspective because it signaled a lack of resolve to ensure that terrorists are decisively brought to justice. as secretary clinton and president obama have repeatedly stated, our resolute conviction remains that maghrahi not a free

man and should be serving out the entirety of i will focus my efforts on the efforts of the united states government to ensure that megrahi remain in scotland. i would like to briefly describe to his imprisonment a first blood part in november, 1991, after a joint u.s.-cut investigation, both the united states and scotland brought criminal charges against two libyan nationals. the united states made clear throughout the 1990's as libya resisted handing over the accused in the face of a un security council resolutions and

international sanctions our resolve that the perpetrators of this crime must be brought to justice. in an effort to break the long stalemate, the u.s. and u.k. governments jointly proposed in 1998 and exceptional arrangement for the libyan suspects to stand trial before a scottish court established in the netherlands. these arrangements are described in detail in the august 24, 1998 letter to the un secretary general offered by the united states and united kingdom that you, senator, have made reference to. in this letter, the united states and britain confirmed to gather that if found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the united kingdom. as the joint u.s.-u.k. clatter rhetoric -- letter clearly reflects, at that time megrahi

was transferred to face trial, there was a shared and clear understanding between the united states, the united kingdom, and libya that he would serve his sentence in scotland if convicted. on july 3, 2009, the british foreign office confirmed in a letter which has now been made public, a letter to the scottish authorities that stated that in the late 1990's the u.k. government was committed to ensuring that the lockerbie accused were tried before a scottish court in the netherlands and if convicted of they would serve their sentences in scotland in accordance with scottish law. in response to u.s. requests in 1998 for binding, legally binding assurances that the accused would not later be transferred to libya, the then british government maintained that it could not enter into a

legally binding commitment that would constrain hands of a future british government's but they nonetheless assured us of their political commitment that if convicted, megrahi would remain in scotland until the completion of his sentence. in january, 2001, he was convicted of 270 counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. as libya accepted responsibility and complied with an agreed settlement on compensation to the victims' families, evarts began to read into great the country into the international community and steer it onto a more positive path. the un security council formally lifted international sanctions in 2003. in december, 2003, with encouragement from the united states and united kingdom, the libyan government announced its landmark decision to voluntarily

dismantle its wmd and missile programs. in recognition of this shift toward libya eventually becoming a constructive contributor to international peace and stability, the united states embarked on a step-by-step process of normalization and removal of sanctions as libya followed through and implemented its commitment this process culminated three years later in 2006 in the reestablishment of full diplomatic relations between the united states and libya. at no point during this three engagement did the united states ever deviate from its longstanding position on megrahi's continued imprisonment in scotland. during this same period, the united kingdom pursued its own real engagement with the libyan government, re-establishing

diplomatic relations in 1999 as libya cooperated with the lockerbie trial and handed over the accused. in may, 2007, then prime minister tony blair traveled to libya to sign a series of bilateral agreements including a memorandum of understanding on negotiations for a prisoner transfer agreement. during this same 2007 visit, bp sounded exploration and production sharing agreement with the libyan government. this committee has expressed a legitimate interest in knowing what role bp may have played in the process of negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement for the pta. both bp and the british government has acknowledged publicly their discussions that took place on this issue in october and november of 2007.

according to foreign secretary heggs' july 22 letter to senator kerrey, a bp told the u.k. government that failure to conclude the pta could negatively impact british commercial interests including its own. in attempting to provide this committee with all relevant information, we have examined all available state department records and have not identified any further materials beyond publicly available statements and correspondence concerning attempts by bp or other companies to influence matters related to megrahis' transfer under the pta which got authorities. given the scottish authorities would be the ultimate arbiters of any transfer application for megrahi, their vehement public opposition to his eligibility

under a potential pta and their anger upon learning a specific inclusion would not be included in the agreement, these factors are reassured us through much of 2008 that they share our views on his continued imprisonment in scotland. throughout this period, we continued publicly and privately to restate u.s. government views and we have public documents to share with you to that effect. however, a new element was introduced when we m learned withgrahi's diagnosis terminal prostate cancer in 2008. the former foreign secretary later explained to the house of commons in october of 2009 that "british interests including those of u.k. nationals, british businesses, and possibly

security cooperation would be damaged, perhaps badly, if mwegrahi were to die in a scottish prison rather than libya appeared about the foreign secretary further stated" given their risks of adverse reaction from libya, we made it clear to them that as a matter of law and practice, it was not a decision for the u.k. government and that as a matter of policy, we deathnot seeking megrahi's in scottish custody. weeks after his diagnosis in november, the u.k. and libya signed the pta and entered into force on april 29, 2009. six days later on may 5, the libyan government submitted as its application for his transfer to live libya under the pta.

the united states continued to communicate to the u.k. and the scottish authorities our longstanding policy that megrahi should serve out his full term in sentence regardless of the state of his health, the impact on other countries' interests, or the possible libyan reaction. as the u.k. and libya to move forward with the pta, we intensified our average to dissuade scottish authorities from transferring him to libya. secretary planted highlighted our longstanding position directly to the scottish first minister soon after he took office in a meeting in washington, 2009. two months later in april, the united states formally communicated to both british and got his government's that the imminent entry into force of the pta did not change our longstanding position.

we also underscored this message in april to senior officials in tripoli and as my colleague from the department of justice will clarify, so did attorney general holder in a june phone call to the scottish justice minister. on july 24, megrahi submitted his application on compassionate grounds. subsequent to this application during the second week of august, the state department again communicated to scott as justice officials and to first minister directly our steadfast conviction that megrahi should remain imprisoned in scotland for the entirety of his sentence as previously agreed. we took the exceptional step of releasing this diplomatic community publicly because we felt it was so important to clarify our views. given the compassionate release

was under consideration in attenborough, we also underscored the scottish authorities that should vacant -- proceed with compassionate release despite their objections under no circumstances should a permanent megrahi to return to libya. we argued that if they decided they must release megrahi over our protest that he should be confined to scotland, remain under the close supervision of authorities, and that an independent and comprehensive medical exam clearly established that he had less than three months to live. let me conclude by noting that

wins the scottish justice minister announced on august 20 that while he had decided to reject the application for transfer under the pta but would nonetheless grant his application for release on compassionate grounds, he explained his decision by noting that there had been no contact between bp or scottish authorities on this issue and that the decision was based solely on judicial grounds without political or economic consideration. he also stated and status subsequently that the decision to proceed with so-called compassionate release was based on the medical advice provided by the scottish prison service and that additional medical experts compensated by the libyan government played no part in the decision. while the department of state has no evidenciary basis to

disprove these statements, we believe that the fundamental truth remains that the decision to release megrahi back to libya was a grievous mistake. british prime minister cameron has stated that he shares these views and as previously noted has undertaken a review of available government documents to see if further material can be brought to light. we have also called upon the scottish government to be as transparent as possible in eliminating their decision and in particular we believe a decision by the scottish authorities to release the medical documentation that led to a determination of megrahi's life expectancy would be appropriate and assist in further understanding the basis of their decision. as present obama has stated, all the relevant facts in this case should be made available. this committee, the victims'

families, and the american people deserve nothing less. we value this committee's important efforts to help us achieve this goal and appreciate this opportunity to cooperate with you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, family members of the victims of pan am 103, thank you for this opportunity to appear this morning on behalf of the department of justice to discuss the release of a convicted pam -- pan am 103 bombing. i would like to make three points this morning. first, the department justice has pursued this case relentlessly. our prosecutors and investigators have done this for over two decades. as part of this pursuit of justice, the depart of justice along with the department state has taken the on we bring position that al-megrahi should

serve his entire sentence in scotland and should not a return to libya under any circumstances. third, again as part of that commitment to this matter, upon his release, the department of justice through the attorney general and the director of the fbi took the unusual steps of publicly and specifically denouncing this step by the government of scotland and furthermore made clear their disappointment and distress that continues to this day. let me turn to my first point. the department of justice has been involved in this matter from the day of the bombing itself. the federal bureau of investigation with its legal attache in london on the day of the bombing quickly established contact with the scottish police and on the next day, an fbi team

was dispatched to scotland. as the senator noted today, the scottish police engaged in an enormous investigation which we were proud to be part of our with closely collaborated to ensure that justice was secured in this matter. after many months of relentless effort on both sides of the atlantic, prosecutors in the criminal division of the department justice and the u.s. attorney's office here in the district of columbia, presented a case to a grand jury here in washington. on november 14, 1991, an indictment was unsealed charging megrahi and his co-defendant with the bombing of pan am flight 103. that same day the lord advocate of scotland announced the filing of parallel charges in scotland. with your permission, i would like to recognize the commitment

of the career prosecutors and agents, some of whom are here today. the witness advocates who have dedicated their careers to make sure that justice is done in this case. my second point is that as part of this commitment to justice, the department of justice at the highest levels in every communication has made clear our unwavering position that once the division was obtained, megrahi should turn -- should serve the entirety of his sentence in scotland and not be transferred or released to return to libya before the conclusion of his sentence. indeed, the potential place of in prison and was one of the earliest issues raised by the united states in connection with negotiations for trial before a scotch court in the netherlands. the ambassador has noted that the august 24, 1998 u.s.-u.k. letter to u.n. secretary general

of firms that if found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the united kingdom. while there was not any international binding agreement, the british government in 1998 assured us of their political commitment that if convicted, megrahi would remain in scotland until the completion of his sentence and the department of justice actively participated to in the negotiations that led to this conclusion. the united kingdom entered into a memorandum of understanding with libya and negotiations for a prisoner transfer agreement and sign such an agreement in november of 2008. the prisoner transfer agreement entered into force in november of 2009 and only a few days there after, libya applied for a m transfer foregrahi. the decision on the transfer rested with the scottish executive. accordingly, the united states consistently and at the highest

levels, communicated our vehement objections to any transfer by the scottish authorities and megrahi to libya. in a phone call to the scottish prime minister, attorney-general holder was adamant that assurances had been given to the united states government that any person convicted should be held. this was reiterated by secretary of state clinton and mr. mechanical noted above -- both of these calls. subsequently to the prisoner transfer application, on july 24, 2009, mgerahi submitted an appeal for compassionate release based on has prostate cancer. previously acknowledged compassion and release was provided for and presented a different issues in prisoner transfer that could be discussed

at the time such an application once the application was made, the united states made explicit our opposition to any such release and took the position that our opposition were overruled, it should come under two conditions -- first that the independent and comprehensive medical exam should establish that he has less than three months to live and second he remain in scotland under supervision. as you know sadly, neither condition was met. that brings me to our third point. the department of justice's unusual immediate and unequivocal public denunciations of the decision to release megrahi. after his release, attorney general holder condemned his release and maintains that he should have been serving his entire sentence. similar views were stated by the

fbi director robert miller. his former position as assistant jerk attorney-general had led the investigation that led to the indictment in 1991. on august 21, 2009, the day after he was released, director mueller brought a letter to scotland that said the release was inexplicable as it was detrimental to the cause of justice and makes a mockery of the rule of law. most importantly, director mueller said that the action makes a mockery of the grief of families who lost their own on december 21, 1998. in closing, let me say that the sentiments expressed one year ago by attorney general holder and director mueller remain those of the department today. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you both very much for your testimony.

let me join you, mr. schwartz, in thanking all the career members of the justice department and the victims' advocates who worked so diligently to bring the murderer to justice. we thank them as a sure all americans thank them very we will do seven or eight minute rounds. we'll go to the second round if we needed and the chair will start with himself. i want to get to something that you both made rather clear. i want to not even allowed a scintilla of doubt. it has been suggested a broad and some domestically that there was some equivocation by the government of the united states as to the release of al- megrahi even in the context of compassionate release.

the united states opposed the release. was there any equivocation of that position in any of the correspondence and communiques going back and forth? >> thank you for asking that question. i appreciate the opportunity to correct the record there was no equivocation in any u.s. government communication to any entity about our views that megrahi should never be transferred to libya and that he should serve his full sentence to its entirety and scotland. we stated that privately to government the fresh kills. we have stated that on numerous occasions publicly in press statements and media interviews. i am troubled to hear that there are suggestions that there was anything less than absolute

clarity about the u.s. government position and i am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify the record. >> would that also be true for the justice department? >> i think it is important to clarify the record. as you noted at the outside and i mentioned in my statement, the united states government always recognize that compassionate release was a possibility under scottish law. we knew that from the original negotiations in 1988. some of the confusion that may arise and the in correct complications arise that in discussions prior to megrahi's application, the united states government acknowledged that's got a flood did provide for this and it could be considered by this got to paris at the appropriate time. theithstanding that,

issue always remained one of what would be done when he made his application for compassionate release and beyond that what compassionate release would mean. the understanding of the united states government was that this would mean that he essentially would serve the remainder of his time and a hospice in scotland or hospital and would die outside the prison inside scotland. obviously, it was never contemplated that compassion release would be used as a vehicle to transfer him to scotland. that would be nonsensical perry the united states have been adamant that he not be returned to scotland as a prisoner. we would hardly have signaled that would be acceptable for him to be returned to live up. >> you acknowledged what's got a slow was but you made it clear that was your expectation that al-megrahi would not be released outside of scotland? >> absolutely.

mccaskill's statement about the release itself in which he points out that the united states through attorney general older and secretary clinton was adamant that he not be returned to libya. >> those -- in the 1980 agreement, was it the understanding of the allies say said if the individuals were found guilty, they would serve their sentence within scotland. >> we believe we had a political understanding that he would serve his sentence in scotland. >> do you believe his rage on compassionate ground breeched the verbal agreement and the political understanding set

forth in the justice agreement? the suspect convicted would serve their sentences folly? >> the political understanding we had was breached by the return of him to libya. >> madame ambassador, are you aware of the august 2009 document that stated the primary reason for concluding prisoner transfer agreement was to secure the return of al-megrahi to libya? "for the past seven or eight years we have been trying very hard to transfer mr. al-megrahi to libya to serve his sentence here and we have tried many times to sign the agreement without mentioning him that it is obvious we were targeting him." are you familiar with that?

>> i am. i am also familiar with the desire and the efforts of the scottish authority to have him specifically mentioned in the prisoner transfer agreement said that the potential for his transfer would have been excluded. there was also discussion between the eight scottish and u.k. authorities about scottish desire to have all future individuals associated with the bombing excluded from that agreement. in the course of the negotiations between the u.k. and libya, as authorities have acknowledged, they were unable to secure that agreement. they concluded the prisoner transfer agreement in what they call the standard form which makes reference to no one. >> in your testimony you cite the letter from the british foreign secretary and he acknowledges the bp exploration

agreement. >> during months in 2007 about libyan opposition to the possible exclusion clause in the prisoner transfer agreement, there were conversations between bp and the u.k. government. there were discussions between october and november 2007 and at least two contacts in the same time between bp and the foreign policy adviser in contact with with our ambassador in tripoli. bp has been made aware that failure to agree to the prisoner transfer agreement fit have an impact on u.k. commercial interests including the libyan ratification of the bp exploration agreement."

based on that statement alone, is there not the ability to have reasonable suspicion that the united kingdom's decision to conclude a transfer agreement that did not specifically conclude him was based on the concern about relations with libya, commercial and otherwise? >> there is basis to assume that. it also notes that there were political, security, and economic considerations that were involved in the u.k. decision making. >> thank you for your questions and your testimony.

format of around the time discussions were made. you've testified we had the doj to this goddess justice and cicatrix clinton spoke. what was the response received by both the doj and state department verbally on the issue? >> as you stated, we were very clear and very categorical about our position which has not changed that megrahi should serve out his complete sentence in scotland. it had been our understanding throughout this period the scottish government agreed with us. scottish first minister has gone on record publicly stating he was opposed to the prisoner transfer agreement that he wanted an exclusion for megrahi and so it was our expectation then and the discussions that we

held in the early part of the year that would continue to hold. it became clear to us over the course of this summer and particularly in late summer following the submission of megrahi's request for compassionate transfer the scottish authorities were considering that option and that is why we reached out and again reiterated our opposition but also as my colleague has noted also clarified if they were determined to go forward despite our opposition they should at ann embrum -- at a minimum undertake a comprehensive medical exam i believe this committee is asking for and ensure megrahi stayed within scotland. >> center, if i may to that department of justice perspective as the investor has

noted through the first half of 2009 the issue was one of prisoner transfer since the agreement had been concluded with the prisoner transfer agreement entered into the force and application had been made by libya for the prisoner transfer at the beginning of may. the calls made by the attorneys general holder and by securing clinton were part of the series of communications to the scottish authorities tall levels on this issue. the attorney general's call took place june 26 the following the application for the prisoner transfer. he had a conversation with justice minister mccaskill and the conversation as reflected in justice minister mccaskill's statement at the time of decided prisoner transfer issue was clear as he said the justice said the attorney general was, quote come at a measure into

been given to the united states government that any person convicted would serve his sentence in scotland. many of the american families spoke of the comfort they played on these assurances over the past ten years. but clearer understanding was reiterated to me by the u.s. of state, hillary clinton. the conversation was then a direct and forceful one in which the attorneys general put forth the position megrahi should not be transferred back in the under circumstances. that time no application had been made by megrahi for compassionate release and the issue came up the decision was that any discussions about that could be taken -- to place at a later time when scotland considered the issue under its own law. >> one thing i want to discuss further because it brings into question the content of the conversation and where the assurances were made and whether they were provided in a way that

i think was appropriate. there's a letter dated here july 3rd, 20009 george it was for initiative for the trial. and it creates a commitment in relation to the future imprisonment of the prisoner, al-megrahi. you ask if there are any

additional commitments given to the united states in this regard. they go on to analyze what permissions were given to the united states government. the author concludes that our position, which both articulated was very specifically given, "we have concluded the discussions following the joint u.s.-u.k. letter was committed to ensure that the accused were tried before a scottish court in the netherlands and is committed -- if convicted they would serve out their sentence in scottish. we fulfil this with the human acting as an intermediate to libya. in conjunction with the then lord advocate was keen to ensure any political assurances would not bind the had the hand of successive governments. we could not rule out the fact

that relations with libya might one day change. the u.k. government consequently did not give the u.s. a commitment in relation to the future of them accused." is that consistent with the conversation that no real commitments for given at the time? if you to to hold in confidence any information we pass do. this letter was not supposed to be made public. i would lead to delve into this a little more if the u.k. government was not specific with its insurance to us or if they were and then went back on their word. what happened between the conversations with the u.s. government and when a decision was later made for compassionate release based on relationships with the country of libya? i want to know if that was economic and based-on drilling?

>> i will have the investor address the latter part of that question but this is the case in the discussions that took place regarding the the plates of trial and how long the prisoner would serve the united kingdom was unwilling to buy and future governments with regard to possibility there might be a prisoner transfer agreement at the time of course the discussions took place in 1998 there was no prisoner transfer agreement with libya and as a result there is no as we mentioned internationally binding agreement in this regard with regard to the service of the sentence. nonetheless, it is also made clear as we have reiterated where there was a political understanding that megrahi would serve his time in scotland. the entirety of the sentence and again, referring to justice minister mccaskill statement as he points out in that statement while the u.k. declined to provide a full

explanation of discussions it appears to me the american families and government have an expectation or led to believe there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in scotland. some of the last letter i want to cite to inform this discussion is written two weeks later july 17th 2009 from lord [inaudible] to mccaskill, and he does raise the issue that this is going to create issues with regard to the relationship with u.k. will be a relations. is this man and by emphasizing this principal of course for humanitarian reasons but also because of the shadow which may otherwise fall over the u.k. libya relations and especially the interest of the scottish members and indeed others which

is the plebeian economic relationship working group. what does it stand for? the all ec members, for good with it stands for but i think it's an economic group. >> thank you very much for making reference to both of those letters. let me first and briefly touch on the july 3rd letter and the caliber of the commitment between the united states and the united kingdom and just to reinforce their was we sought but did not conclude eighth legally binding agreement in 1998. so there was no legal impediment on the basis of a legally concluded agreement between us. but it was our very clear

understanding that we had a political commitment that megrahi's transfer to libya would not happen. we proceeded on the basis of the understanding that while at some point in the future it might be a theoretical possibility in practice it would never happen. and i think that is our understanding. that is what is clear in the 98 document. that is what is made clear in the 09 letter that he made reference from july 3rd, 2009 and also in the argumentation that we made over the course of these many years we pointed of it wasn't simply the commitment that we felt we had a shared understanding that we felt we had, but also the gravity of the crime. whether the commitment were there or not, the judgment about whether it was right to release

him given the circumstances of the crime we argued it was not. secondly, on the letter from, and i also apologize if i mispronounced the name, an individual, the letter of july 17, 2009, which understanding is from a member of the british parliament who is also the president of the business council that exists between libya and the united kingdom. i have seen that letter. i have also seen mccaskill's response to that letter in which justice minister mccaskill says the decision rests with the scottish authorities and the decision will be made solely on the basis of judicial concerns without economic or political considerations. >> let me go through a around and pick up where you finished. it is clear however while the

statement is made the scottish officials who stated they oppose a broad prisoner transfer agreement that would apply to al-megrahi at the same time made a decision to release among the compassionate grounds essentially accomplishing the same goal is that true? they knew that the libyans wanted al-megrahi. they knew about this whole debate upon how the prisoner transfer agreement would be constructed, and they also knew they had the opportunity to release him on a compassionate grounds so there were parallel tracks. >> senator, i would go further and say had al-megrahi been transferred under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement, theoretically he would have been placed in the libyan jail. because he was granted

compassionate release, he is a free man today. >> in that respect then, i look at the scotland act of 1998, which has been introduced into the record, scott and as a result of that has jurisdiction over the matters of criminal justice. however, the united kingdom retains powers under foreign policy, immigration and national security. despite this little fact both the united kingdom and scotland publicly maintained the decision to release al-megrahi was solely in the hands of the scottish authorities. however, if you look at the scotland at the united kingdom reserve the power as i said of the foreign policy national security and even air travel. so let me refer specifically to part two of the act entitled specific reservations, section

home affairs, subsection b6 entitled immigration and nationality. in it, the scotland act of 1998 notes the united kingdom retain the authority over matters dealing with, quote, immigration, including asylum and the status and capacity of persons in the united kingdom who are not british citizens. later in the same section the act refers to reserve united kingdom power over, quote, travel documents. so, given the fact that al-megrahi is not a british citizen, doesn't that mean that even if they decided to release him from a scottish jail on compassionate release the united kingdom retained power over his power from scotland to libya? >> senator, i am not an expert

on the u.s. constitutional law we, and so i believe the only people who could answer that question definitively are u.k. and scottish attorneys. it is my understanding and this has been stated publicly by both scottish and british authorities that the authority for taking the decision on megrahi's compassionate release rested with the scottish authorities based on the evolution, the devolution of arrangements you've explained. it is also my understanding as you've noted that the united kingdom, the government in london retains responsibility. i can speculate about whether the united kingdom could have closed the border or somehow prevented megrahi's physical return to libya had they chosen to do so at a time, but the government in london than u.k.

government said this is a decision that rests with the scottish authorities. we will respect and observe their decision. >> mr. swartz, did the justice department notice of scotland act of 1998? >> mr. chairman, i, too, but have to say that the complexities of the dilution are ones we are not perhaps expert to comment on, but would note in addition to the investor's point of course this prisoner transfer agreement which was the impetus for the first consideration of the transfer was of course negotiated by the united kingdom under its authorities foreign policy authorities and the decision as the investor pointed out, compassionate release was under devolution one for the scottish minister to make and the first instance but again, one that we believed would involve the release within

scotland and therefore not oppose issues regarding transfer >> seems to me that unless somebody reads the act in a different way certainly this was in one respect of foreign policy decision after the compassionate release to allow mueller to physically least, and certainly travel circumstances a reserved to the united kingdom seems to me that could have respect of the scottish government to allow compassionate release, and then ultimately still however retain him by virtue of their powers. i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure it out. >> let me ask a final question. as you said that, there was -- you were not able to get a legally binding agreement, but had these political understandings that were about as significant to our government

at the time. why is it we could not conclude, explain for the record why we could not conclude a legally binding agreement, concern about how prosecution would take place and the lack of coming to an understanding? >> mr. chairman, the position taken by the united kingdom was one that the current government couldn't find a future government on these issues and therefore was not prepared to enter into a legally binding under stood agreement as opposed to an understanding megrahi would serve his sentence. of course of the time the 1998 initiative of the united states and united kingdom was the tenth as the ambassador pointed out to overcome the intransigence with regard to the trials to accused to the pan am 103 bombing and we believe that part of justice and the colleagues at the department of state to secure these circumstances and again as the ambassador noted we believe the nature and the gravity of the

time would add to that political understanding and would lead to the service of the entire sentence in scotland and in accordance with scottish law. >> so in essence it was our desire to seek prosecution that had us makes a determination based upon what the british were telling us that this was the best way to move forward to seek a prosecution. is that a fair statement? >> yes mr. chen and we believe this was the best most efficacious way of moving forward obtaining the u.n. support for this approach. >> and the final question, mr. ambassador, you know, you both have said it is a very strong and unequivocal position of the united states that al-megrahi should not be released, certainly not allowed to return to libya. you both said there is a very clear in the absence of an absolutely legally binding commitment and a very clear political commitment and understanding between our respective countries and understanding for their strength by the gravity of the crime

committed here. so however that understanding did materialize as we thought. what political recourse do we have or what does this teach in terms of a breach of trust for the future? >> senator, as you know, this administration expressed its deep regret and outrage about the decision. following the decision, we called for megrahi to be returned to scotland to serve out his full sentence, and we continue to do that. we have also called on both the u.k. and scottish authorities to make all information available to ensure we have full clarity about the circumstances that led up to this decision. those are efforts we are

committed to continuing as we have been connected committed to ensure justice is brought in this case for over two decades. >> do we believe, does the state department believed that the desire for an independent inquiry conducted by the british government has promised to cameron suggested when he was the opposition leader that something would be desired? >> as you know, president obama said he wants all of the event information brought to light. primm mr. cameron also committed to you and committed to the president and he will undertake additional examination of u.k. government documents to see such an inquiry is justified and should be conducted. we are waiting to hear from the u.k. about the results of that examination. >> thank you very much. we appreciate it and your time.

>> thank you. now let me introduce the second panel of experts who will be a testing medical issues as well as instruction between libya and the united kingdom. i would ask them to step forward as we introduce them. first we have dr. james mueller. correctly associate director and senior vice president for translation of research at croswell center in buffalo new york he is a highly respected oncologist who will provide insight into the diagnosis and treatment options. he's the chair of the national comprehensive cancer network skype wan panel for prostate cancer. the guidelines are the gold standard for prostate cancer, diagnosis and treatment. he's also called and written extensively on the subject and we want to thank him very much for being with us this morning. dr. oliver is the second member of the panel and a respected authority on issues respecting

prostate cancer. he is the professor of cancer research and medical director of the department of medicine and urology at tulane medical university, medical center and the last 20 years his research and political interests have focused primarily on prostate cancer. he's published extensively on the subject ranging from genetic studies on prostate cancer to the clinical trials of experimental agents the past chairman of the integration panel for the department of defense medical research program in prostate cancer and we thank you for coming today to the committee. our third panelist is jeff porter. dr. porter is a consultant, consult on the middle east and africa and spent a career as an analyst with extensive experience in the international investigative community. he's lived and worked in the middle east and bought africa and was an authority of middle eastern history and libya and holds a b.a. in islamic studies and an m.a. in arabic and ph.d. in middle eastern studies from new york university.

dr. porter, thank you for joining as well. as with previous panel, i would urge you to summarize your statement in about five minutes or so. you're false statements will be included in the record and with that we will start with dr. mohler. >> thank you. i'm honored to come before you today to provide my expert opinion about the compassionate release granted to mr. al-megrahi into those of five. i believe the time of his release he hadn't received proper treatment, nor did he have less than three months to live. in fact i am not tall surprised he appears alive and well today almost 14 months later. i'm qualified to offer these opinions because i'm a professor of three institutions, board certified urologist, 23 years of experience and have treated over 2,000 men with prostate cancer. i published over 200 review

articles and a book on prostate cancer. i and chair of the department of urology at roswell which is one of the nation's 40 designated comprehensive cancer centers. particular expertise reflected by my chairmanship of the national comprehensive cancer network that you referred to. what was mr. al-megrahi's status of the time of his release from prison? to understand this, we must review his prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. according to the medical report released by scottish authorities, mr. al-megrahi was diagnosed september, 2008 with prostate cancer that was in terrible because it had spread to his bones. fortunately for him, advanced prostate cancer can be put into remission and almost all men and by starving the cancer of the male hormones it needs to grow and spread. he responded to hormone

treatment is response was short-lived and he had the rapidly growing prostate cancer and has some bone pain in july 2009. up until that point, mr. al-megrahi's treatment was standard of care, but then things became very confusing. scottish officials released him for compassionate reasons because he was believed to have three months or less to live. in my 23 years of experience, caring for more than 2,000 prostate cancer patients and reading clinical studies that evaluated thousands of patients and similar conditions, there is no conceivable way a cancer specialist or anyone familiar with the treatment of prostate cancer could have given mr. al-megrahi a three month survival prognosis. let me explain why. a patient with prostate cancer with an accurate three month prognosis would have to be

almost bedridden. but dr. free sure's medical reports said mr. al-megrahi's cancer did not restrict or remove his ability to carry out any particular task and he walked down the stairs from the airplane upon his arrival in libya as you saw in the video. a patient with prostate cancer with an aggregate three months prognosis would be given palliative or and of life care focused on pain management and making the patient as comfortable as possible. however, scottish officials, doctors and mr. al-megrahi himself reported in july, 2009 that i quote, different treatment options had been discussed and a new treatment had been embarked upon. this new treatment may have been a new hormone treatment or chemotherapy. but the effectiveness requires at least six weeks to evaluate an evaluation that would not have been possible prior to his

release. so if mr. al-megrahi had three months to live, why is he alive today? in order to understand why he is alive, we must learn what happens to men like him who receive chemotherapy. and every three week outpatient chemotherapy treatment program was shown to reduce pain and extend survival on to weld on the study is reported on the new england journal of medicine in 2004. in fact, men just like mr. al-megrahi survived an average of 17 to 19.2 months from the start of chemotherapy in those two studies. today and one year ago when mr. al-megrahi was released, men had many other options, even if they failed hormone treatment and chemotherapy the prostate cancer can be managed with three other forms of treatment, another kind of chemotherapy or

radiation. finally, he could benefit from any of three classes of drugs which include immunotherapy which has been in the news recently, better drugs that prevent the production of male hormones from a week or loans made from the adrenal glands such as [inaudible] or a small molecule that works better than the drug mr. al-megrahi received. in fact, it was discovered in london and new evidence from the large trial in the united states suggested extends life and men like mr. al-megrahi. so if his cancer didn't respond well to hormone treatment, why is he alive today? mr. al-megrahi's sayliyah meant that his cancer was aggressive. as such is prognosis was worse than others who responded more favorably to the hormone treatment. however, his prostate cancer

rapid growth actually made the response to chemotherapy all the more likely since chemotherapy works best against rapidly dividing cells. therefore i am not tall surprised he may be alive and even a well more than 14 months after beginning chemotherapy or other treatments such as abiram dimond for his rapidly growing prostate cancer. i also believe in a physician with training and experience in prostate cancer would find a three month prognosis for a patient in mr. al-megrahi's condition difficult to believe and possible even ridiculous. in short, ladies and gentlemen, i am not the least bit surprised that mr. al-megrahi is alive today and it should come as of so we no surprise to the cancer specialists who cared for mr. al-megrahi either. i sincerely thank the committee for the opportunity to provide this statement. >> thank you very much. dr. sartor?

>> thank you, mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen. thank you mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen. i'm pleased to offer my opinion with medical prognosis to mr. al-megrahi, and i think we really need to go back to the 2009 and look no further than the report issued by the scottish government. they did bring in some specialists. with the specialists were not able to conclude as he had a prognosis of three months or less and in fact they were not willing to say that. and i believe from my many years of political experience and expertise medical science would not support a prognosis of three months or less. my name is dr. oliver sartor, have a long list of qualifications some of which you have red, medical director and the head of the prostate cancer program at tulane university medical center, and i focus on patients with advanced prostate cancer for over 20 years. i treated thousands of patients and published over 100 articles as well as many book chapters as

well. as you are well aware, when he was released for his, quote compassionate reasons and in august of 2009 was stated his life expectancy was less than three months to the scene and international television and showed the video today and i will state based on those videos alone i would conclude the prognosis of less than three months was enacted. for patients or going to die in three months particularly bed bound prostate cancer is the disease when it spreads to the bone and causes weight-loss and severe problems and causes pain and this individual was greeted the crowd. i saw the original video just to let you know when i saw it i was a bit befuddled. yes i saw on television, not just the video here. we are thinking why is this man being released? it wasn't clear to me then or now why he was given a prognosis

of three months or less. when we go back to part of the medical report released by the scottish government dr. andrew fraser noted august 10th, 2009, just two days before his release, dr. al-megrahi's condition did not restrict or remove his ability to carry out any particular task. this is very important because we looked at prognosis in part based on the performance status and given his life restrictions i simply don't understand the three months or less. beyond the images i have alluded to, i also had the chance to review some of his medical data. when he was diagnosed he was treated appropriately and given hormonal therapy and standard therapy. after initially responding to the treatment subsequent began to grow. that is not unexpected it doesn't cure these type of

patient. but at the time that his hormonal therapy was beginning to fail and he will refer to this, the variety of non-effective therapies approved by the fda and approved in the treatment of the various european countries as well about using chemotherapy for the patience for survival. and if we quote the original data, and i will go back to the fda it was either 18.9 or 19.2 months of expectant survival using chemotherapy for patients such as mr. al-megrahi, and clearly if he was candidate for getting chemotherapy at the time and there were discussions that the was the case we would not even anticipate less than a three month prognosis and that we would have anticipated much more. based on this information, it becomes difficult for me to understand why he was given that

three month or less prognosis. he was considered to be a candidate for chemotherapy and showed the way to the 19 months survival. by the way more studies suggest even longer and why they were saying three months again befuddles me. so, in summarizing i just don't think this was a reasonable prognosis. i think the cancer specialists who evaluated his case actually recognized that because they would not state he had three months or less and his prognosis and furthermore, i take this position independently based on my experience with treating thousands of prostate cancer patient. the fact that he remains alive today is not at all unexpected, and it leaves me quite frankly to be skeptical of the process whereby he was determined to have this prognosis. thank you. >> thank you, doctor. dr. porter? >> mr. chairman and distinguished members of the senate foreign relations

committee, i would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding libya, its energy sector from its relations with the u.k. and scotland. the release of al-megrahi was an important foreign policy goal for the libyan government, and as pursued for a long time. obviously the issue of his incarceration in scotland colored relations between london and tripoli three negative study north africa and the last six years a specialist focusing on political risk in north africa in the middle east with a focus on libya. more recently i've begun working with investigative firms that deal with fraud and corruption investigations overseas. am i and alice is objective diagnostic, factual based and impartial. thank you. >> it's clear from the outset his release was important and a foreign policy goal for the libyan government. first, the libyan government

never recognized the legitimacy of the ruling which led to his incarceration, nor did recognize the ongoing incarceration of al-megrahi. second, the leader colonel muammar qaddafi felt as if he had been duly compensated for his pronunciation of weapons of mass destruction in 2004 and he felt as if perhaps his renunciation of weapons of mass destruction should have wiped he comes from an important guide. one of the ways in which qaddafi retains power in libya is to the management of politics securing his release was critical for his ability to maintain the tribes support for his leadership and having secured his release guaranteed they would continue to support qaddafi. last, 2009 was the 40th anniversary of his revolution in libya and his release guaranteed

a silvery symbolic event suitable for marketing the location. libya has a history of pressuring the firms to achieve its foreign policy objectives. i will limit myself to a couple examples here for the sake of time. but what is clear is the companies doing business in libya are exposed to the political risk. for example, in 2008, the two employees of the swiss see firm were detained and arrested in retaliation for the rest in geneva of one of qaddafi's sons. he returned to tripoli and this was employees remained in custody in tripoli. in 2009, the canadian firm headed for canada saw its libyan oil production cut in half following criticism from the canadian prime minister of the

celebration that marked his return to tripoli. in 2010 representatives of the oil firms doing business were brought in before the government and chastised following comments from the state department criticizing his call against switzerland. so it's clear from these limited examples there are many more doing business in libya is fraught with political risk and libya uses the presence of the firms to achieve its foreign policy objectives. given the government's willingness to squeeze the firms in order to achieve the foreign policy goal and the importance of securing his release, his release from scottish incarceration removed one element of political risk for the firms doing business in libya. that said, libya is a sovereign state and the u.k. is a sovereign state and each determine its own foreign policy and tries to secure its own security interest as well as its own economic interest.

while u.k. firms may have benefited from al-megrahi's release, there is no evidence that they caused his release to the best of my knowledge. the u.k. companies do not represent the largest block of foreign firms operating in libya. there are also french and italian and german firms that have extensive presence, but u.k. firms and investments and libya are high-profile including three large costly oil and gas exploration commitments. it's important to note these investments from the u.k. firms and libyan oil and gas sector predated his release by at least two years. it's likely that al-megrahi's ongoing incarceration in scotland could have jeopardized the u.k. businesses and tripoli and at the very least his on going incarceration would have posed a threat to their continuing ability to do business. his release reduced that risk, but i have not seen evidence that proves that the risk posed

to the u.k. firms caused his release. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony. we will start a first round of seven minutes and then have another round of necessary. let me in my first round in going to focus on the two medical experts and come back to you, dr. porter come in the second round. dr. speed -- dr. mohler cony made it clear it isn't medically possible for three months to live prognosis in august of 2009 to be given to mr. al-megrahi; is that fair to say? >> yes. >> you saw the video earlier in the presentation and he alluded to the fact that mr. al-megrahi could walk on the flight of stairs unassisted, does that tell you anything about his medical condition or the accuracy of a free month prognosis? >> i want everyone here to understand prostate cancer is a

very slow growing disease, so we talk in prognosis in terms of often years. it would be very difficult to give a prognosis of three months to a prostate cancer patient who is able to negotiate a flight of stairs not knowing what his laboratory situation is more organs that this was you don't know if there is any threat to his life post except you can presume by is still being alive 14 months later that there was not. the biggest problem here is the scottish authorities in the prisons were still exploring treatment and in fact indicated in the records in july they added a new hormone treatment and in july if they considered chemotherapy and according to george burgess he received his first dose so one would never give a three month prognosis to anyone when you were still trying to act of treatments that

are likely to extend survival by 18 months or more. >> as a matter of fact if someone would be considered for chemotherapy treatment or receive it you wouldn't do that the last three months of their lives. >> of the inception of that treatment. chemotherapy is still rather toxic and to withstand a fourth regiment of toxic year which usually consists of every three weeks treatments for a minimum of six treatments one does have to have what we call performance status and the patient clearly had that as evidenced by his ability to negotiate stairs which is one of the criteria we use but is a good indicator of ability to withstand a regimen of chemotherapy. he clearly was a candidate. >> doctor in a patient with cancer and accurate fremont prognosis with physical

condition what we expect that patient to normally be? >> they would usually be unable to walk unassisted. they certainly would not be able to climb stairs and would most often be bedridden. they could be suffering a renal failure from obstruction of the kidneys by the cancer. they definitely would have lost their appetite and would be losing weight and they would look like a prison camp survivor. they would be anemic. they could have liver failure. they would have had to have decided that they would not seek any more active life treatment. they would be someone who is in pain and the physicians would be seeking to he alleviate the pain and would not be exporting any other types of treatment. >> finally based upon your review of the medical records the scottish government released did his physical condition match someone with an accurate three

months prognosis'? >> no, as a matter of fact the final report by andrew frazier that led to his release actually indicates he shouldn't have been released, and i quote, concluding specialists view is that in the absence of a good response to treatment, survival could be in the order of months and no longer many months, so dr. frazier said that without any additional treatment, survival could be months but they were pursuing active treatment, therefore negating the possibility of a three month prognosis. >> thank you. according to the scottish government medical report, the cancer and in neurology specialists and consultants did not agree with of the stream of the prognosis on; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> why do you believe none of the consultants offered to the

total 33 month prognosis based on the information you have? >> certainly first of all they probably have more information than we do today because i have had the full medical records to review including laboratories it could be important, but some of the specialists i know are extremely well qualified, typically in london, and i think that he knew that this was not a patient with a 20 month prognosis and he would not agree, so could we get a panel of experts, not prison doctors but the real experts in the disease, they did not agree with the less than three months prognosis. >> now, it seems based on the medical report and from the discussions my staff has had with the scottish government it appears the three month prognosis came down to a dr. peter que who is a general practitioner and dr. frazier who you referred to is also a general practitioner. and i have great respect for the general practitioners and we

will enter into the record the frazier's medical records without objection and so ordered. in your experience what one wants to rely on a general practitioner to provide a prognosis for a patient with advanced prostate cancer like mr. al-megrahi? >> no, it is a rapidly evolving field. there are new therapies that were eluted to. there is a science behind it. there are grants we can utilize. it's not in the purview of a general practitioner. this is a specialist decision. ..

>> thank you very much mr. chairman. i have a full statement and with permission i would like to-- for this position virologist is there any area in which you disagree? >> i am not aware. >> do you have any way with what you know now and i don't know if you have seen any recent videos of this man, do you have any idea or any thoughts on what his potential lifespan is at this time? >> i don't really have very much information but i understand that he is actually still able to walk and you know the fact that he is alive today at 13 months after he was given this

quote three month prognosis clearly indicates that initial prognosis was wrong but today he might even be living more than three months. it is hard for me to evaluate in all honesty. >> any ideas? >> i would agree with that. i think now that we know that patients getting chemotherapy for symptomatic advanced prostate cancer live beyond the 17 to 19.2 month survival that were used for fda approval of tax it here. probably closer to two years, so if i were going to make a wager, i would wager on another year, but i have to remind everyone that contrary to what many believe about physicians we cannot predict the future, and i think here we have a couple of family practitioners who are guilty of predicting the future. >> mr. chairman i just want to concur. we all have great respect for family physicians.

i practiced medicine for 25 years. actually have a letter from tulane accepting me into the urology probe women 1977 so i have great respect for that institution where you train and i looked at it like you did, that there is something wrong with this whole thing so i guess the question to mr. porter from a historical sense what really happened here? we are looking at a mission impossible script to say how did we get this guy out of scotland and then back to his home and let's get them out on the medical and try to fool some folks? what do you think happened here? >> at the risk of speculating i don't have any direct insight into what really to place between the u.k. government, scottish government and the bolivian government but as i said in my opening comments it is clear that securing al-megrahi's release was a top priority for the government in tripoli and it is also clear they were willing to go to great lengths including potentially strong-arming the u.k. firms in

libya in order to secure his release and that appeared to be what transpired. i certainly don't have the expertise my co-panilist have regarding his health or his life expectancy at this point but as you have correctly pointed out, he is alive and well. or, he is alive. i'm not sure how well he is and it appears as if libya has achieved one of its fundamental foreign-policy objectives in this instance. >> mr. chairman i just wanted to commend you for your efforts to continue focusing on this and we wanted to have hearings during the summer. we were unable to do that and you have additional research done, folks on your team going out to make sure we would get this additional information and i want to thank you for bringing these medical experts and specialists here today. >> thank you senator barrasso. thank you for your insights as well. i have a question i would like to ask dr. porter and i appreciate you being here as well in your own right. you said that in your testimony

i just want to make sure i have the highlights here correct me if any of this is wrong. that mr. al-megrahi was important to qaddafi because of a series of issues. number one, that mr. al-megrahi 's family tribe was politically important for domestic purposes to qaddafi. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> that would placate hard-liners who might challenge qadhafi. >> that is correct. >> they also believe al-megrahi was innocent? >> yes. >> and he felt he gave up to qaddafi gave up too much in 2003 weapons of mass destruction deal and he wanted something more for what he gave up. is that a fair statement? >> he stated so himself. >> now, when libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction program to normalize

relationships what role did the british government play? >> when libya began to search for ways to return to the international community and come out of international isolation one of the first governments that the libyan government approach to us the u.k. government and i believe that tripoli saw london as a fair and potentially beneficial interlocutor for libya on the international stage. so the initial discussions for libya's national community began between london and tripoli and then incorporated the broader international community. >> and didn't the british accelerate their normalization with libya at a much faster rate particularly in commercial tribes? >> at what time? >> when the libyans went to them to say, we want to stop our

isolation, we want to be integrated didn't the british at the beginning of that process move for example much quicker than the united states and other governments did? >> while the-- was returning the world was experiencing a spike in oil demand and oil prices and one of the things that libya presents to the global community is abundance, high quality cheap oil and so as the u.k. was beginning to enter into negotiations and discussions with the libyan government many countries, the u.k. included were interested in trying to get into libya in order to secure those oil assets. >> dr. porter as the united kingdom was playing an important role in normalizing libyan relations with the west, this also allowed them to establish trade relations with libya quickly and pretty aggressively. it resulted into lucrative deals for oil companies with close ties to the united kingdom, a

513 million-dollar oil and gas exploration deal for shelf and 8,900,000,000-dollar oil and gas deal for bp. both of these deals were announced by the british prime minister in tripoli. besides being quite large deals were they different from other deal struck by western oil companies in libya? >> yes sir. >> how so? >> libya had conducted for open bid rounds for oil and gas acreage. normally what happens in an oil company is the acreage they would like to acquire they prepare a bit. those bids are submitted and opened publicly and the awards are allocated and assigned sometimes after the awards have been allocated. neither bp or shell participated in the bids-- neither bp or shell required acreage to bid rounds. instead they acquire their acreage through direct bilateral negotiations with the oil corporations in the nl see. one of the things that

distinguishes the bilateral negotiations from the bid round format is bilateral negotiations result in better terms for the international oil company in this case bp and shell. one of the things that distinguishes bilateral negotiations is the type of projects bp and shell were pursuing were big. they were complex, they were technically difficult. they were very capital intensive. one of the things that allowed bp and shell to pursue these negotiations was that they have the expertise and they also have the capital in order to guarantee or convince the libyan oil corporation that they would be able to manage the projects they had undertaken. it is also worth noting that the only other types of companies that have the capital to be able to pursue these projects are happy expertise to pursue these projects were already in libya. these tend to be referred to as the super majors. the last two super majors were

bp and shell. >> is not also true that their negotiations allowed for greater company share? >> they negotiations allowed for -- the company share of the production of oil that was about four percentage points higher than the average production and awarded to ioc's that had acreage due to bid for matt. >> okay. >> so you cited a couple of examples. going back to an earlier example, in 1971, libya national bp assets or a foreign-policy dispute. isn't that true? >> that is correct. >> was a dispute involving iran taking control of several islands as a matter fact.

should then bp clearly would have known full well that libya uses its access, its natural resources and oil in the pursuit of foreign-policy. >> that is entirely true. bp as well as any other foreign firm that does business in libya as well aware of the political risks about as you rightly point out vp itself had been the subject of a particular political grievance that the libyans had with the u.k. government in 1971 with the iranian occupation of the islands in the persian gulf. >> so it is fair to say that that'll libyans have the modus operandi of using commercial rewards or recriminations in order to receive their foreign-policy goals? >> yes i don't think that requires any further elaboration. >> given the fact that al-megrahi's release was such a high priority for libya and on the fact that they libyan government routinely leans on oil companies to either reward

or seek recriminations to achieve its foreign-policy games, would it be surprising if bp did not feel pressured to help libya gained al-megrahi's release? >> i can't comment on that as i don't know what the bp executives were feeling or thinking, but what you can say is i am sure bp was well aware of the risks that al-megrahi's ongoing incarceration in scotland posed to the viability of bps business opportunities. >> it certainly would have been the pattern release from the libyan government actions up to and including that day tat they were not reticent to go ahead and use their economic power through their resource to oil to try to make companies make an argument back in their country in support of their ultimate a of you. >> yes.

>> finally, there are commercial connections of significance between the united kingdom and libya that goes beyond energy. do you have any sense of that in your studies about for example the recent arms deals between the united kingdom and libya? e.u. are entirely right that the u.k. commercial interest in tripoli expand well beyond oil and gas including arms deals and infrastructure. i think one illustrative statistic is that the volume or the dollar amount of arms deals between the u.k. and tripoli increased tenfold from 2008 to 2010 so there is clearly a dramatic increase in the dollar amounts of arms that the u.k. sold to tripoli after or in the run-up to and then after al-megrahi's release. >> thank you all for your

testimony and your insights and from your respective expertise. the committee appreciates it. we are going leave the record open for 10 days to give members of the committee to submit additional questions and so if you receive any we would ask your cooperation in submitting your answers in in writing as soon as possible and with that we will excuse the three of you. thank you very much. your testimony has been very helpful. let me close in seeing no oher members at this time. in summary i think what we have learned in this hearing only raises additional questions. frankly as i said at the outset, i am deeply troubled by the lack of cooperation we have received and getting to all of the facts. i am also incredibly troubled that the executives at bp chose not to send a single witness to appear before this committee or answer any of our questions. it seems to me that he would want to do so in the interest of

transparency, of making your case whatever that case might need and so the absence speaks loudly. but what we have here today is that there were clear anomalies in mr. al-megrahi's care, starting with my staff center views in scotland. we heard a contradiction to the previously released medical reports that al-megrahi did actually receive chemotherapy and today we have for testimony that medical professionals familiar with cancer diagnosis and treatment would not give chemotherapy to a dying man. and even if we settle for the story that the scottish government told in their public document that he did not receive chemotherapy, the medical experts again said that giving the medical record and a video we all saw today of him walking up and down the stairs to cash his victory fly, was not the video of a dying man. given the flawed process used to certify his release i guess there shouldn't be much

surprised that he is still alive today. what is a surprise is that he is free and living in libya. we have learned that the diagnosing physician dr. peter kay a general practitioner and not an oncologist or is the scottish government maintains neither dr. has any specialization in cancer diagnosis or treatment. i have to say i'm very disappointed that we cannot get the scottish government to answer questions about the issue of chemotherapy or provide any more detailed medical information to clarify a series of discrepancies in their medical release decision. based on what we have learned today, and in our research leading up to this hearing my view is that the scottish government's three-month release process was in this case incredibly flawed if not purposefully manipulated. we have learned as i said in my opening statement at the terms of the 1998 lockerbie justice raymond have clearly been

violated. that agreement specifically states that any prison sentence that were to be served in the united kingdom. it clearly states in my quote, for the purpose of the trial we shall not seek their transfer to any jurisdiction other than the scottish court sitting in the netherlands. if found guilty the two accused will serve their sentence in the united kingdom. the language of the agreement could not be any clearer and i think that the testimony of both the state, department and the department of justice could not be any clearer as well in terms of what that understanding meant. finally we heard from expert today who testified about commercial concerns that could have influenced scottish and u.k. thinking of mr. al-megrahi's release. the united kingdom had significant commercial interests at stake in their relations with libya. oil and gas aspiration in particular and libya does not

maintain a clear distinction between the government and the marketplace. we heard that bp was well aware of the political risks of doing business with libya and that the return of mr. al-megrahi was of great importance to the libyan government and was more than willing to use its commercial leverage with the united kingdom to ensure his release. we are the reasons why both scotland and the united kingdom governments could have wanted mr. al-megrahi removed from u.k. soil. we also heard that there are a variety of other commercial motivations and fair-minded of how the libyan government uses commercial interest to penalize a reward countries and nations based on its foreign policy goals. the unanswered questions we are left with are deeply troubling. why was the 1998 lockerbie justice agreement broken? how does the scottish government explained the chemotherapy issue and why was the advice of four of their own cancer specialists ignored?

why was mr. al-megrahi released at all given what we do know and most troubling of all, who if anyone stood to benefit from his release? i am disappointed as i said we have not heard for many officials of bps to their involvement in the case public report. serve mark allen, a former mi-6 british intelligence officer, being hired by bp to make the case to the united kingdom of the importance of the prisoner transfer agreement and we will have heard what else in those conversations took place. in my view, if bp is not willing to cooperate with this committee to get to the bottom of why convicted terrorist was prematurely released in violation of our agreement with the british and scottish governments than perhaps we should make bp paid all claims of two families, fishermen and everyone affected by the gulf disaster before any mutual

permits are issued to them. it is certainly an option i will be exploring. there is simply too many unanswered questions. i fear we have not heard the truth about mr. al-megrahi's clinical care and we call once again for the full release of his medical file. we also believe that the absence of truth leads to uncertainty and this uncertainty only creates more and more questions in a darker and darker cloud. given what we have for today, given the fact that have come out i would hope the british government will open their own investigations into what led to the release of a terrorist who killed 270 innocent people. prime minister david cameron said that as the opposition leader before he was prime minister, very clearly something that i fully agree with. he said quote, i don't think we cannot trust the government to get to the bottom of this so i

think the time has come for an independent inquiry led by a former permanent secretary or former judge to find out what more papers need to be released so we can see what the british government was doing in our name. end of quote. i believe he was right then, and i believe it would be right now. so, our efforts here have come not quite to a full close. i can assure the families that we will be issuing a report that will include many of the facts based on our findings and that i hope that that report will put this gross mischaracterization of this in perspective for the world to see. i hope it will clearly send a message that we do not expect convicted terrorist to be allowed to be set free because it undermines our very effort in terms of the national security,

our collective fight against local terrorism since all the wrong messages to those who would be terrorist and i think it is incredibly important for us to be able to initialing that report, to hopefully create a greater opportunity for the public pressure to rise to have an independent inquiry by the british government as we asked the prime minister in a meeting with him when he last visited the united states. so that in fact we can get to the truth and get in to the truth will set us free. without seeing no other members, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> that is live at 7:00 on c- span. our coverage of campaign 2010 continues at 8:00 with three more debates. first the race to beat next congressman from new hampshire, the first district. next, it focuses on the oregon governor's race. >> local content vehicle are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm election.

>> thank you to our civil servants, our military, all of us to fight in the fight of freedom. that fight is in washington. >> we have to get the deficit under control. that is one of the first things i think we need to do. >> the 24 congressional district is a new district created after the 2000 census. it creates a lot of volusia county. it is one of the most government dependent districts in the united states. that is because of the space

program. with the winding down of the space program, there is a lot of unemployment. it was carved out for the first who won the race. he was the speaker of the state house at the time the district was created. he was a hero in carving out this district. yet it is only barely a republican district. 23% of the voters are independent. suzanne kosmas was able to win this district largely because of ethical problems. running as a moderate democrat, winning the votes of independence, pushing the ethics charges, she was able to win that race. as a member of congress, she has sparked a moderate stance.

she voted against the house version of the obama health care plan. in the end, she voted in favor of the senate bill. she is responsible for its victory. she has been -- she does not defend a health care plan as a whole, but selectively defense aspects of the health care plant in order to not be associated with everything that has happened in the obama administration. her opponent is sandy bottoms. she is a longtime state representative who won a very contested republican party race. there was only a 2% difference between the republican candidates running. cindy adams was the one with the smallest -- sandy adams comes from law enforcement. when she was first elected to office, she was voted in as a

democrat. she is pro-military and has a strong self presentation as a candidate. >> we all have the same concerns. the dead of carnation, the deficit, that we want someone to take control of that. someone who will listen. they do not feel like they are -- they're representative currently is listening to them. >> what about all of the displaced workers here who are skilled workers? been training for them, new employment opportunities for them, what national legislation the candidates will support. suzanne kosmas has a little bit of advantage.

she is in a better position to deliver the goods. >> we worked every day to try to improve. we brought $371 million to central florida. >> because it is a republican leaning district, it leans bear the republican, but does lean that way. it has a history of republican representation. he was a very conservative republican. for the republicans, it was a fluke that he lost. it was not because of a change

in political thinking. they think it is their district and they want it back. >> local content vehicle are traveling the country. as we look at some of the closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, this is our website, c-span.org/lcv. >> that communicator's conclude a four-part look with the leaders of the house subcommittee on communication, technology, and the internet. tonight, on c-span to. -- c-span2. >> we will hear about efforts to reduce the potentially dangerous behavior spread -- behavior.

this focuses on the communications and media coverage of the issue. >> good afternoon, everybody. i hope everyone enjoyed their box lunch. not many vegetarians in the room. i am the moderator for this next panel. ina communicator, a partner in the firm, a strategic communications firm here in town. the run campaigns and provide people with real time advice about how do with the media.

the summit is meant to bring -- u.s. had a busy morning. thank you for coming. i did not think there is any question about level of leadership and engagement by this group. i have talked to an awful lot of people to believe passionately in solving this problem. for this group here, this panel, the challenge will be fairly straightforward. how do we as a community translate all that energy and enthusiasm into a compelling communications strategy to educate people and change his behavior? we have hundreds of laws that are being proposed, as many of 90% of the american public agrees that distracted driving is dangerous. the facts are grimly compelling. people die. one in five fatal crashes

involved distracted driving. everybody from bmw to best buy has a campaign on this. the national safety council has a study that shows, this is your brain. this is your brain on distracted driving. even the old practice involved. what is the problem, right? -- even oprah winfrey is involved. i am not letting my wife leave for followed at home because i need to find her. i have a security blanket of knowing where she is. it is part of our dna, whether it is consequential and important or trivial and silly, these are in our lives. we all know this. our panel today has are their hands full. we have three distinguished experts in three distinct

fields. we will start off today by introducing the founder of the firm believes did digital, a leader in online advocacy. jo serves as the new media director. he oversaw all on-line aspects of this on president fundraising, communications, and grass-roots mobilization effort. prior to the campaign, he led his firm's work with howard dean. he holds a bachelor's degree in political science at georgetown university. i will turn it over to joe. [applause] >> thank you very much.

i drew the car to talk about social media here for everybody. there is a lot of mystery sometimes about how organizations and causes should deal with social media. whether you are a heavy user or a never user of twitter or face but -- facebook, whatever part of this movement you are in, you have something that you can do to wrap your head around and make use of its for you because there are hungry people out there looking to purchase and get into the cause. if we could get the slide going. my takeaway here for review is anything you can remember about social media is it is not just a communication platform to push up the message. it is not a fancy place where all the kids are organizing online. it is a very concrete organizing

medium for you. a couple of tips to take away with you as you go back to the grass-roots organizations. the authentic. -- be authentic. speaking in a human voice. tell the stories which are the most powerful component of turning people around on this issue and getting them passionate about it. that authenticity is what will drive the involvement and make people come back to you. build relationships with those people. social media, when it comes to organizing, is not very different from organizing in a church basement. people want to have a relationship with their leaders. they want to have a relationship with their organization. that call and response, that ability to have that back and forth conversation, is key.

are your leaders with the resources. if you are someone who stumbled into this movement, what were the things that you went to look for straightaway? what were the things that people are discovering this issue need to know about? the different laws and the different states, the different ways they can get involved. people will take action when they first learned it there is a low barrier to entry. they will take secondary action if you are met them at -- if you arm them. be specific. let people know exactly what the challenges are. in the awareness out there of the particular legislative battles, but also about how exactly they can get involved where they lead. be as specific as possible.

you want to be where you think everybody might go when they start to discover this issue, including the group's and forums on line. finally, measure everything. look at how many clerks come back when you send out an e- mail. look at how many people respond. did you send all a twitter message or you'll post something on facebook, looked at everybody -- look at the measurement. measure how many people come to the website and how many are signing up for your e-mail.

perhaps you need to get that sign up higher. that is the captive audience that you want to have with people who are interested in the cause. whether it is e-mail, twitter, facebook, taking in organizing approach, lowering the barrier for people to get involved, and telling that passionate story. thank you very much. [applause] >> brevity. thank you, joe. i am going to join his twitter because that was fast enough where i can follow it. now we are going to hear from the president of worldwide partners. the world's largest network of independent advertising agencies. he leads the growth and strategic direction of the company on behalf of its partner

agencies. over the last five years, they have grown over 50% and now has over 20 international accounts. al has guided national and international advertising campaigns. he is a leader in marketing and business and published in publications worldwide on topics ranging from the global economy to a business management and advertising. [applause] thank you, everyone. it is an honor to be year. i want to answer the one question that is on your mind. i am in advertising. it is all true. "mad men" -- it is all true.

i missed the a three martini lunch, though. let me start by asking a quick question. so here has been to seek motivational speakers? a tony robins, an investment adviser, a great sermon at church? a great political speaker? we have that energy and that jews. you are in that room and you feel that passion. -- energy and that juice. you are on the leading edge of this issue, there is no doubt about it. the minute you walk out this door, guess what happens? not only does your juice start to reduce a little bit, but they do not have the juice. look at all of these idiots text

in and talking. and doing make that. -- and doing it make up. not an easy thing to do. at the risk of being a very, very rudimentary, i want to deconstructs a little bit and go back to basics. as my father always said to me, -- i do not want to assume that you know all about advertising and market. thank you. we can go to the next slide. the messaging, what will we tell people? who are we going to talk to? what is the structure we will put all this in? how will we use the media?

it has gone a little more complicated over the past several years. what is distracted driving? good question, right? the assumption is we all know what distracted driving is. read the press releases, we see distracted driving. everyone has different definitions, as we saw in the psa. the first step -- the first mission of this group, garbage in, garbage out. pick your analogy. i think you understand i'm going with this. let's define what distracted driving means to people. is it -- is about consumer electronics, the kids in the back seat, or dealing with my own brain? a to pointrom point b. and i had no idea how i got there because i am deep in

thought. we need to define what distracted driving means. it is ultimately important. we have to narrow the playing field. we do not want to estimate always that people know what we're talking about. we will not be relevant. and we will not be actionable. let's define what is we're talking about. exactly, that is my point exactly. [laughter] distracted meeting, what you know? this is the target? it depends on where you live. most major metropolitan areas, it is everyone. i live in the san francisco bay area. i guarantee that it is worse than d.c. or in new york. you watched it happen right before your eyes. we saw some of the target audience over the lunch today. it really does not matter what i

think. it really what -- it matters what the target thanks. a game like to play with clients, if you had $1 to spend, who would disbanded against? -- and so would you spend it against? it is everyone. yes, you are right. but you have $1 to spend. that is really important. who is the target audience? it dries the budget, it drives the messaging, it dries the media, it drives the timing. the temptation is -- my daughter wants to go on to an acting career. slow down.

you'll get there. you will have to take your time and be persistent. my fatherly advice to you would be, take your time. pick off one audience that a time. do not bite off more than you can shoot to begin with. -- chew to begin with. what is the media? if i would have cost you that question 10 years ago, you would've said, it is a little television, that is media. it is really blurred. it is messy. what is the media? do not go down that hole. just be very cognizant and keep it simple. these are some very broad pockets to think about. advertising is the emotional connector. what you saw in that room was a

visceral reaction. whether you liked it or not, there is a visceral reaction that advertising can give to you. it helens' cannot do is you are talking about. -- it hones in on who you are talking about. this is becoming increasingly more complex as it merges with social media. the to have become very much intertwined. the beauty about pr is that it gives you a third party credibility. it is not just the media anymore. it is the consumers, all of you. we are the p.r. machine now. that is all about social media. obviously, you have digital marketing and events and direct marketing. these help you get engaged and make a commitment. the minute you do something through direct marketing, you are saying it is ok.

you do advance on a local level and it puts that relationship in context. you start to internalize and personalize your feelings. all of these things can work together. very, very rudimentary. you guys have a great structure in place. you really do. no different than a corporation. think of yourself like mcdonald's. start at a very high level, the corporate level, where the messaging strategy takes place. and you start to drift now. -- drift down. you have a great structure in place to make all of these media mix. at the end of the day, you have the messaging, the media, the structure, and the target audience. if you are patient and

persistent, you'll realize the vision. 10 years from now, hindsight is 2020, but i wanted that hindsight. remember 2010, we were struggling with this issue? now we have -- i cannot believe i talked or texted while i was driving. that is the vision i had with this. these are the tools to help you get there. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. before we open it up to you and your input, i would like to introduce madeleine milano. she has been with the company for more than 22 years,

managing, developing, implementing communications. since joining the firm in 1994, she is provided the strategic communications device. currently, she provides strategic councils and overseas -- aimed at reducing tobacco marketing to children. her credentials are also particularly strong in highway safety, having done critical work and positioning of mothers against drunk driving and the air bag and seat safety belt campaign. please join us. [applause] >> good afternoon. if social media is the shiny new object and advertising in the sizzle, i would say it earned media is old reliable. i say that with affection

because it is one of the most efficient and reliable tools that we have in our communications tool box. let's go over the basics. it is getting the news media to cover your story and your message on your terms. the advantages are that it is generally less expensive. it is generally a more credible because it is coming through a third party. for the most part, that is how it has been. it is easy to target the audiences. you are able to approach the media and the tablets were you know your audiences are frequenting. all coverage is not equal. there is good coverage and bad coverage. the disadvantage for earned media is that it is really difficult to control the message and the placement. for a reputed story, it is hard to maintain interest. that is why we are talking about this today.

arent media is definitely not free. -- current media is definitely not free. it takes resources, whether it is your time or out-of-pocket expenses. the most effective tool is an integrated approach. if you just talk earned media, the most effective way is to plan for its as an ongoing thing throughout the year. something -- back up. not there yet. something that is important to note at this point, and i feel very strongly about, is that you really should consider media as your partner. i do not think everybody does. the media plays a key role in helping us on social issues. they had been our partners in trying to increase seat belt

use. when i worked on the air bag issue back in the mid-1990s, and it was a coalition with auto and insurance industries and supply makers and government, we were just hit with a constant barrage of crisis media. we figured out how to use that to our advantage and really use that crisis environment to put the urgency on the issue and use it as a teachable moment to get parents to get kids in the back seat. it worked very effectively. earned media was our only tool at the time. there was no social media. it is important to think about media as your partner. actually, can you skip to slides forward, please? developing your story -- build support for your issue, the

reporter's role is to provide timely and interesting information. the audience is retarded and the report date -- reporter is an intermediary. -- the report is an intermediary. you are thinking about your target audience as these guys have mentioned. what is the message? i am not talking about one single element. i am talking about the over arching message in campaign. kraft your message using key message points. do not get beyond three or four points. do your homework about the reporter. make a plan said that you are reaching out to the folks that really do cover these issues, though ultimately care about these issues. you can build relationships over the long term. how do we generate our media? let me go back to the second slide. it is a little bit out of order.

i am not sure if any of you saw this, but it was a clever appeal by a local church. this thing made it around be internet. i even saw it mentioned on cnn. these are some of the obvious and traditional forms of generating attention. news conferences, with dwindling staffed and reporters, and you want to hold a news conference if you have something visually to show and tell. it is really for breaking news. it is not as much used anymore because it is hard to get reporters to cover an actual event. more and more, we are using media briefings. doing conference calls and video conferencing. you are being sensitive to their

time and still giving them the information that they need. the power of a good story, these are all important for getting attention. user generated content. next slide. it is really importance that you are making a plan, a year round plants, developing a plan that has multiple tactics and had links to get your story out. this is an issue that has a lot of legs. there are lots of interesting components to it. employer read them -- employ a read them, peaks and valleys. you cannot talk to reporters every day about the same issue. but you can get them to pay attention to you at key times about the year. develop new angles, attached news coaxed. -- attach news hooks.

final slide. science, new research, repurchasing research, the finding does new nuggets of information that are appealing. there is a lot of great information about the democratic -- demographic. these are all surveys. these are ways to get to the attention, demonstrations. showing what it is like to be distracted behind the wheel and have that impact driving in a controlled environment. right along with law enforcement, where you have laws and they are being enforced. the power of the human interest in this story is really important. emerging technology, if you walk

through the hall down here, there is a lot of great stuff out there. we found reporters to be very interested in an emerging technology to see how we can control the situation moving forward. thank you. [applause] >> the magic here is how you take these three disciplines, advertising, social media, and earned media, into a magic integrated campaign that does the three things that the panel suggests. they can agree with me or disagree, but joe's point is that this is not a monologue. this is a dialogue. this is a conversation, getting people to change their behavior over time because they are

coerced. the social media is a perfect way to build relationships and continue this as a dialogue. you did not change the person from your opponent vote to your votes before the stock in the middle. they become undecided before they changed their mind completely. what we are doing with this overtime is bringing people on board to a positive that thing and not necessarily as a result of coercion. there may be a few police officers in the crowd that would say maybe it would be a difficult thing to use only law enforcement to get this done. we need an integrated conversation with our audience. with al, we agree on the message. most of the time, the biggest challenge dell lot of people have when they agree on

something, they all figure they know the best way to communicate that. the subtle differences in those messages can often time blow the whole thing up. let's agree on what we're going to say and say it over and over again. he also focused on audience targeting. be precise about where you are putting your resources because if you are missing them, you are wasting your money. the media is your partner. i know this. i did this, too. the media as a partner, they need new information every day. new data, new technology, new, new, new every day. news stories. that means you are building a narrative. he starts out by telling a reporter where the story is going to go. every element of your narrative

it makes sense and the context until -- when you have a plan, show how the story arc works overtime. those things -- those three pieces are invaluable. we will not open it up to your questions. it is a little brighter here then i expected. i am looking for people with microphones. beautiful. >> over a number of years, we have had effective national campaigns for impaired driving, should there be a similar national psa campaign for distracted driving that would create a single tagline, a single message said everybody could sort of writer long lead? instead of all the multiple small campaigns? >> feel free to elaborate.

interesting been that is happening -- we talked about consumer fragmentation. we as marketers and advertisers have perpetuated that to the point of no return. just when you think you haven't figured out, you have a thousand messages out there. it is probably better to have one brand, one voice. it is a very simplistic standpoint, but then it really gets tailored and filtered to each audience. we are fragmented and segmented. you need to start with something. i am old enough to remember the anti littering campaign. my 2 cents would be start with a central theme and adapted for each medium and to each market and to reach target.

>> anybody else? >> if there is to be such a campaign, that there be a response mechanism in its four people to come and learn more about the issue. so many people slides have been touched by this issue. having a welcome sign out for people who want to step up and tell their story, it should be built into that. that is frequently lost. >> i personally would love their to be one overarching message and campaign to address this problem. it will take time for that to evolve. we do not have laws in every state. this is something that we should strive for because it is important for people to get one single message over time to impact behavior change. >> one of the things that joke is probably more talk about --

more comfortable with that i was initially, you do have to have an overarching schematic that everyone can buy into. ultimately, aren't you really training a bunch of spokespeople? whether you want to or not, and its age, everybody is a spokesperson. keeping people involved through the techniques that joe is talking about are crucial, even if we do have a unified theory in what our message should be. >> i think this is a very important panel and very relevant. i am executive director of wired safety. we are one of five charities that makes up safety advisory boards. i traded the distracted driving

community page on facebook today. -- i created the distracted driving to manage page on facebook today. anybody can use it to help steer their message. if we can put them in one place, we can find a way to work together and that work better. i think it is crucial. this is a very big issue that takes a lot of stakeholders. this panel will help drive this, enabling all of us to work together for a common cause to make sure no one dies, no one is hurt. if you go to facebook, it is distracted driving. i have some of these kids recruited. >> all right. yes, ma'am? >> i am with the aaa foundation for traffic -- traffic safety. how would you measure the effectiveness of communications programs and how would you suggest we measure effectiveness?

>> i will take a crack because i think my answer will be different than the others. but we are working with an organization, we actually measure not just the broad reach and impressions of the communications programs, but the number of opt in. if you are running a program, how many people you get signed up on e-mail. how many of them opened the e- mail. how many of them take the actions that you are looking for, the key metrics. a good benchmark is that the number of people you are reaching, if you can get about 15% of them to sign up over time, that is success. 65 million people voted for president obama in the last election. we had about 20% of them signed

up on e-mail. that same sort of rule applies down the chain of organization. looking at not just the overall outreach, but what you were collecting off of the most enthusiastic 15-20%. >> i will take it from prayer for different angles. -- i will take it from three or four different angles. people in advertising really do not care about what people think as long as the people that matter take the action that you want. there was some discussion. the first thing to do in terms of research is doing the research among the different targets to make sure the messaging is on target and relevant. that can be daunting national

level. i think you should start drift downward into the state and regional level. it is a mixture of what joe was talking about, measuring the medium. it is great that we have a bunch of friends on facebook, but i want to see us doing something in the marketplace. behavior drives attitude and i think that is really important here. do the research upfront to form the messaging. do the research on a local market basis to see if we are getting the french or the >>. -- getting be friends or the clicks. the interchange is all that matters. then we can use one or two of those models. we have a broad base campaign, these two regions seem to be doing a better job of getting results. why is that? i talk about learning your way to success