it will always be evolving. it will always be fluid. just be open and flexible and be objective. >> i would second both of these comments. measurement is key. it is really important in setting up your plan and

when you got ratings of 9920 points, you may be a core audience -- you have some sort of message in. you do not have that anymore. it is kind of a blessing that occurs at the same time and it will not get what you had before. you have to go to the measure in question and be patient. it goes -- there is a lot of low hanging fruit. do not go to research 30-and 35- year-old when you're doing messaging to 18-year-old.

back to your question. everyone is a different sort of learner. it is content driven. that content can be a video or relationships. that is different components. taking different execution of the central theme. there is ways to encompass that. if you have to target someone, you have to be specific. >> going back to the planning. if you sit down and create a yearlong plan for garver what you want, think about those peaks and valleys. you cannot reach everyone at the same time to your point. what will make sense to reach? certain times when it is better to talk to your demographic. >> the challenge here, people learn differently. i was not kidding about the fact i am not giving my device of.

i think the challenge as communicators is how do you get people through an education campaign and law enforcement to behave differently? it is going to i think require their be an out. they need to have a way not to do it. that has not been part of this conversation. what are they going to do? are we telling them, do not do that anymore. if this is as good as the drunk driving message, you can kill yourself and other people, this is a little bit more difficult and requires a little bit more imagination about how we engage people. at what level, so they are changing their behavior for their own reasons, but also because they consider a common good. we have to give them some outs. there have to be opportunities to do the right thing.

>> thank you. good afternoon. i have to say i am so confused. there are so many mixed messages right now. you turn on your radio when you are driving, messages about how to use your phone, where to get a new phone, what the latest phone is. you go home and turn on the television. there is advertising that has the u.s., fastest, biggest, most technology-driven cars that exist on the road. you drive down the road and there is a sign that says, if you see a drug, called this number or qc an -- you see an amber alert, call this number. there are conflicting signals. my question is do you compete with those because they are

forms of media-driven, or how do you stand up to this kind of competing message, our drivers, a young people and older receiving? >> i am new on this panel. >> one of answer i do have is what we do know from consumer marketing and political and campaign work, the thing that will stand out most is and if there friend or someone important to them is coming with the message. when you look at all the ways of voter might be contacted for campaign, whether there is tv or radio, mail, whatever it is, the single most valuable contact is the personal exchange with someone that matters to them. a co-worker or family member, friend. when i talked before about forming your supporters and leaders and taking people to have their personal stories and

getting them in front of a group of people. not everyone is necessarily doing a media plan or has a budget or psa time they can do. if they know someone who has a story, get 10 others and are those people with specific actions around having an event themselves to share more stories --contact legislature's legislators. the contact is in -- can be enabled at a mass scale but still maintain that the personal residence. >> it is -- there is a lot of ambiguity. there is no doubt. it drives you crazy even from an advertising standpoint. i do not pay attention to 99.9% of the stuff out there. you have to make some

realizations. we live in a mobile society. that will not go away. how do we put this in the context of realizing we live in a mobile society? to the point of ambiguity -- let's be focused. get on the same page and be dogmatic. be smart about how you use the media. it will not out schaub the ambiguity. make some assumption -- some assumptions. we live in a mobile society. how can we modify this behavior? the reality is we will not get rid of this behavior entirely. distracted driving. are going to stop people from drinking a coke as we go down the road? no. do not outshout, just outsh

out. >> we have used a variety of celebrities to carry our messages. what is your thought on the use of celebrities to carry the distracted driving message? >> >> i think it can be dangerous. we see that happen. i think it can be effective. whether or not you use a celebrity, you can use celebrity experiences and those real stories to push your message out and push media. personally, i have had -- not had good experience working with celebrities because you cannot control what happens in the future but it can be effective. >> if you do not have control

over the outcome. >> yes. >> to we have a question over here? >> we are a technology provider. i have seen focus on the communications aspect of this. i am skeptical as a father of a teenager and as a user of an iphone which is beautiful. these things change the way we communicate and they are a part of our lives and we're expecting people to change. they're not ignoring an alarm clock, they are ignoring some other person trying to contact them through that the allies. it seems to me that there has not been enough focus on the technology elements or the standards elements. this is a man-made problem. we're not fighting nature. the hard part is sending a digital message for me to my wife in a moving vehicle to a dozen miles away. if we get a little more corp. --

corporation or leadership about standards to solve when and how we deliver those messages, it feels like we get a lot of bang for the buck. has there been a focus in the d.o.t. where we start bringing in industry and forcing the conversation? on to you have standards, no one will be able to do it alone. we are competing with each other. is there a discussion coming on standards, or is that a natural follow-up to the focus, which is good on the communications element? >> if i can friend that frame -- frame that in a question. [unintelligible] does that fit? n take ader if i cna n shot at that question. we're looking at standards and

guidelines for devices, so maybe we can table that one. >> any other comments? >> my question is for allen moffat. you recommended that we have a message that attacks one of these segments at a time. and get to a success before we go on to the next. are there not also a number of bidders we're trying to address? distracted driving is an umbrella. it covers five or six or more, including cell phones and texting. should we focus on these behaviors at one at a time instead of looking at the whole universe? >> it goes back to defining what

you want to measure. your from johns hopkins, is that right? you come from a scientific and analytical background, just guessing. see what advertising has done for me in 30 years? [laughter] you're right. there is being drilled targeting and old school demographic targeting. there is a lot of slop here and when you get into media habits a. who is doing texting? in order to be single-minded, let's define what is and let's measure what is we want the results out of and move on. my fear is what i see people and i can know from personal experience, this is such a great

cause that involves everyone, you cannot target everyone at once, as much as you would like to, you cannot. you have to be really relevant. the media uses -- forces us to be relevant. the liberal targeting -- behavioral targeting. we have to be specific about who we're targeting and what we get out of it. >> another web question. >> could you comment on the way that media and law enforcement work together? how can media support the enactment and enforcement of laws and how can we use the hook of the new law through the media? >> it is very effective. when we utilize media, we're not

only preaching the general public as we are reaching policy makers. if our message is we may be talking to the general public but policy-makers are hearing it and we go to them to enact laws that will know about the issue and will have heard about it, and we will be able to target the messages to them to pass laws. it is incredibly effective. >> the lot has to be supported by people. it cannot be unenforceable. it has to have the support of people who agree it should be in place. if i was in a position to do some media along the adoption of the new law, i would try hard to define how that law was being perceived by having allies, france, stakeholders and folks, put a human face on that lobing enacted.

it could be the 55-mile an hour speed limit or drunk driving. it could go either way. people have to agree it is a valid thing for law enforcement to be doing. and other people being involved, that is where it validates the law. >> questions of hear? >>-- over here. >> we are a crash education, prevention, and awareness program. we have been actively and aggressively educating the public regarding the dangers of unsafe and distracted driving. it is great that organizations have come out of the woodwork and jumped on the bandwagon. realistically, i have the solution in four words. stay alive, just drive. it is simple. it is effective. it is to the point.

we have been extremely successful in southwest florida. recent statistics show this year, our crash rate for the first nine months of the year- eight months -- has been reduced by close to 15%. our fatality rate is running at 20% compared to last year. it started over and increase in fatalities. i live in a county that has 600,000 residents and in 2005, we had 151 traffic fatalities. i am proud to say the rate dropped to 80. no fatality is acceptable. it goes back to those magic words. still alive, just drive. thank you. >> i gotta get that right. >> i am from hampton university.

i have a question related to my personal experience. my son when he got his license, he also got a cell phone. >> on the same day? >>[laughter] >> a straight-a student, everything. i could not convince him not to use the cell phone unless we are in the car. he always said you guys do not know how to use it. i can use it the best. kids can text without looking. their fingers dance as though they're playing piano. i was trying to convince him- they can do it now with one click.

technology is changing so fast. by the time any message you give becomes effective, that message is no longer valid. we're making rules we do not know how to use [unintelligible] to use that technology. >> i use deceit and -- i unplug when hes phone at night is asleep. was there a question -- how do we keep the conversation in people's faces? >> you ask the technology question. you are going to answer it. it is the emotional question.

it is about staying in touch. not the physical act of putting the phone down. there is a better we're trying to correct. it goes back to the question about measurement. if you said here is the problem, let's test and see what we will learn. there are times to stay in touch and * not to. the you attack -- do you attack it from the liberal approach? -- behavioral approach? let's use technology as our friend. if we're going to stay in touch, that is a given. is there a way to allow technology to do that? can technology allow us to

increase our concentration. can we make this a benefit, not a distraction. that opens up innovation and creativity of thinking. that is where media comes in and were the targeting comes in -- where the targeting comes in. let's make a positive and use these tools at our disposal. >> showing people another way that there is success. >> anything else? >> good afternoon. i am with the driving distracted prevention team. my comments about the previous questions are -- we have a designated texter.

otherwise, i do not and it is someone else doing it. i think that would be a marketable term and that is why would like to ask you. a designated texter. it is not necessarily using your cellphone that we are addicted to. it is the communicating to friends and family members. that is what we are not letting go so easily of. so having a designated texter like the alcohol campaign we have imbedded in our brains, we know we have transferred it to designated texter. is that marketable? what can we do as youth to

utilize social media and other areas that are on every day and we cannot necessarily pay for a television ad, but we can do things on facebook and twitter. >> sure. panel? >> great idea. [applause] stealing that be for later. >> anyone else? >> lots of thoughts, one suggestion about the behavior is, trying to hone in on the behavior is. when you dig deeper than the texting or eating or makeup, but

looking at the behavior of texting and talking, we're at a point of trying to stop something [unintelligible] and the communications can help with that with focus groups to understand what we do not understand right now. what about this behavior is so important that people will do it while they are driving and people do it while they are walking, in meetings, meetings such as this one. people cannot resist, there is something about our brains, the benefits, the social benefits, and so on. we need to understand better. that is the question. second, a thought about the designated texter, that is a great idea. someone mentioned about the idea of looking at addiction studies. we can learn from alcohol and

substance abuse and designated drivers, designated texters, what about addiction? there is something addicting about this behavior and maybe we can look at the 12 step program and other types of and -- interventions for this behavior. >> any comments? >> i think you have 500 people who would be with you right now in the 12 step program. >> i need to sign up right now. >> i feel like there has been a lot done to raise awareness of the issue. i do not think we are at the believability stage yet. i do not think we have convinced everybody across the board is a problem. even if we have, people are not changing their behavior quickly enough to make an impact. i think more has to be done.

more interesting ways of getting the message out some people believe that and that is the research and other ways of pushing that out more creatively. will be key. we have to give people ways to change the behavior, things they can easily do. we're not asking -- we're asking them to do one thing. not to use the device in their car. >> could you comment on what would be a good mix between media types and that would include things like paid media, earned media, testimonials, what would be a good mix for distracted driving campaign? >> i am a broken record. it depends on who you are

starting and how much money. you can put it into social media or you could put it all into paid advertising. i do not think there is any one right answer to do this, that is when you start to make mistakes. you start to research and confirm your hypothesis before you go into the problem. i would stay open minded and research and determine what the mix is. it is the tail wagging the dog otherwise. >> even if you had all the resources in the world, if you're not reaching your target audience, you're not being effective. we know from the campaign we needed to use paid advertising. we're not getting them through earned media. we may not be getting them through social media. >> in the back.

>> since we all agree that being available and communicating with friends and peers is one of the big attractions of texting or talking while driving, it is easier to ask people to do something. maybe it would be fashionable to update saying driving unavailable and then to update saying available. you could send an update to your page that you are not available during that time. >> i got a text saying the traffic was bad on the way in this morning. >> good afternoon. reynolds.y reynolemily if we can get the younger

generation to stop this awful have it, it will carry on throughout. even the younger generations beyond that will look up to those and so on. are we planning on doing anything as far as teens but even younger teens or tweens, to show them the true distractions. i implore you to please rethink the celebrity aspect. malcomn gladwell wrote "the tipping point" and it idea runshwo a how one through society.

there are connectors. i am with him on that idea, and there are certain people out there who can get points across. it is an awesome feeling to be in the presence of summit awesome people. that is my question. >> any suggestions for how to target young people and get them engaged in this conversation? anything we can do for this group of people? >> that is the key word. conversation. i think creating a sense -- what we're trying to do here is create a sense of a note normal. a new set of expectations for what people do and do not. starting with the ever

generations. that is what we have seen with drunk driving. it is a question of what people's perceptions are. institutionalizing things like a or an awaytexter ir a message that says i am driving. if those could become the normal matter of course as you are spreading the word. that is the thing. it is -- i do not think that will -- the answer is not a particular psa. it will be people taking ownership at the teenage level to make sure that they are defining for their peer group what this new normally is. put that away message up on twitter and put the auto-reply on your e-mail or iphone when you get in the car.

it would be interesting to see how that goes. >> any other questions? one more web question. >> you have probably arresaddres this in some way. commenting on the usefulness of media campaigns and whether it would be effective. >> in general, my perspective is that if you start the planning process by using the word borough marketing campaign, you are generally unlikely to succeed at actually creating a fire marketing campaign. what moves around out there is stuff that people can feel effective with and take ownership of. putting the waway message up, that is something that people

will see and they can take ownership. things like that are as likely to spread the word and touch people as a youtube video of something that will be moving or funny or whatever. my advice is people are thinking about that stuff is think about things people can take ownership of that will keep people's interest and people can feel a sense of power and organizing sensibility about. the ideas that are coming out of this corner are the kinds of things. >> anything else? last question. from the right. >> i am john mcclellan.

i have been listening to the comments. one thing comes to mind. we are a society that punishes sometimes bad behavior or behavior that hertz is like taxing tobacco or liquor. i'm wondering what your thoughts are, most of the smart phones we're talking about are gps enabled. some sort of tax that would be unable once they are detecting movement. there are logistic problems with trains. if you can detect movement, there is some sort of surplus or tax. >> wow. [laughter] i think that -- panel? [laughter] >> no comment.

>> technology is going to help us. i am not sure we should voluntarily insulate ourselves to it. maybe that is what we have done with these devices, right? thank you for joining us. i hope it helps. thank you for listening. [applause] we will take a 10 minute break and go to the third panel. >> later, more campaign 2010 coverage for you with the debates between candidates hoping to replace retiring ohio voinovich.orge oe yanukovy three more debates. the new hampshire's first

district and the focus on the oregon governor's race. the debateow realyou for replacing christopher dodd. >> a look at privacy and telecommunications policy. rick boucher and cliff stearns on c-span2. >> richard holbrooke said the u.s. presence must remain in afghanistan. um.t of reform -- a for this is under an hour. [laughter] >> thank you for that kind introduction. i have some notes here.

i am a better writer than i am a speaker. i want to talk about my experience in the tribal areas of pakistan. after i finished speaking, ambassador richard holbrooke will be interviewed about the difficult task he faces in terms of dealing with pakistan. i first -- one to take a moment to thank my wife who is here in the audience on my left. this kidnapping occurred two months into our marriage. by pursuing that interview with the taliban and getting interviewed, i inadvertently sealed my position as the worst newlywed husband ever. she was incredible in terms of support she provided for the

month were in captivity. all the questions speakers are asked to look at is what do we think history will show for the past two years? i have covered afghanistan and pakistan since 2001. history will look back at an awkward truth and is becoming more clear. that is well the pakistani army has received more than $10 billion in military assistance, it has sheltered afghan taliban commanders who led an insurgency who killed more than 1300 american soldiers and continues to gain strength today. in one interview, the u.s. is at war with its own allies. the rationale for a relationship is it views them as proxies' it can use to counter india's

influence in afghanistan and the u.s. is caught up in this india-pakistan rivalry that is being played out on the ground in afghanistan. we will talk about my captivity to give you a sense of what is the situation in the tribal areas and when i saw there. i was one of the few foreigners to be in that area and see what it is like there. what i saw during my time in captivity is the taliban regime that the u.s. thought it toppled in 20001 is alive and thriving. it has moved a few miles east into the borders of pakistan. living among the afghan and pakistani taliban in the areas are members of al qaeda as well as other militants and the trouble areas have become a

fulcrum where a young afghan and pakistani is are indoctrinated and told to support al-qaeda's goal of establishing a hard line that bans the muslim world. our guards talked about their desire to carry out attacks in the u.s. and that was deeply troubling. one caveat and this is a large caveat. it refers only to the tribal areas. the north, out waziristan or was -- the north, in waziristan where i was held captive. what i am saying does not apply to the other taliban groups operating in southern afghanistan. there is another faction that is thought to be more moderate. the afghan taliban close to al qaeda. i was kidnapped with two afghan colleagues. i did not realize he was with

the network. we were kidnapped outside of kabul. we drove for two days and did not see any afghan government or american security forces during that time. we walked over the mountains into the tribal areas and solve the government check posts on roads had been abandoned. there were young taliban at the check posts. through the seven months in captivity, myself and my afghan colleagues saw that there were foreign militants strolling through the markets and there were very relaxed. i was taken for ride and i watched the local soccer game from the back of a station wagon with my face covered with a scarf but could see militants relaxing and watching these games. there were taliban police patrolling the roads and taliban construction crews repairing roads.

it was a mini-state. there were large explosions in the largest town in north waziristan and there is a pakistani military base but they did not come off to investigate the explosions. throw my captivity, my guards watched videos that created an alternate reality for young taliban. they portrayed a global alliance at war with islam. they believed 9/11 attacks were staged to occupy muslim countries and believed tens of thousands of afghan civilians had been killed in the bombing initially in 2001. i was in captivity during the israeli attack on gaza. and indian attacks on kashmir. they identified with this as a

global struggle. afghanistan believes -- they believed that americans were carrying out forced conversions to christianity and focusing women to work as prostitutes. after living with a young pakistani who was training to be a suicide bomber, he seemed amused by me and he's out westerners and myself as weak and focused on earthly pressures -- pleasures. he heard all christians want to live for 1000 years because we care so much about the riches and joys of the world and heard that american soldiers hunted down a wild animal in afghanistan. if they could capture one, they would bring it to their officers and service to them and the american officers and this would be a great honor for an

american soldier. that animal was a pig and eating a pig is forbidden and considered dirty in islam. he believed that a necktie was a sacred symbols for christianity. when i asked him why he wanted to be a suicide bomber, he said this world was a burden for any troop muslim and family relationships did not matter. his relationship to god was the only one that was important. it helped me understand how they brainwash them. they separate them from their families and say there relationships do not matter, it is about god. that is how families lose touch with these young suicide bombers. all my guards were poorly educated. one of them had a high-school degree. others had a junior high education. a final one had been given a 70ok that describes hwow virgins await a marder who dies. he would -- a martyr who dies.

in spring 2009 when i was in captivity, a gunman shot 13 people in an immigration center in upstate new york. a commander to credit for the attack. my guards were overjoyed because they felt a revenge attack for the drone strikes that have been carried out. there was a radiobroadcast explaining the gunman was vietnamese. the guards asked me, they were puzzled because the taliban commander had said a muslim agents had infiltrated and carried out the attacks. y guards asked me ,we, were vietnamese people muslimst? they believed the pirates were

not shot. they believed that swine flu was god's retribution against people who eat pork. they told me it was their lives -- religious duty to enforce extreme law. i had groups of taliban talk and they spoke of a prophecy they had heard that an army of black flags that would emerge from the afghanistan area in this army would liberate the holy cities of mecca and medina in saudi arabia from an apostate regime that control them. one young boy and that was attending a local madrasah of and i asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up and he said he wanted to be a suicide

bomber. i said what if there is peace in this area and you could do what every like? he said he wanted to be a holy warrior. i said let's say there is definitely peace in this area. what is your third choice? he said want to be a muslim. that is the culture and the ideology that is driving in the tribal areas. i saw close of the impact of the u.s. effort to counter what is going on there. there were drones hovering over us on most of the days of my captivity. one strike occurred just outside our house when we were being held in an area of south waziristan. they fear the drone strike and they are generally accurate. they did kill civilians, but in each of the strikes that occurred in my captivity, that there were militants killed, often foreign militants killed.

the result is there is a .errifying police gavstate the taliban round of local people the believe our spies and carry out summary hangings. a local farmer was blamed for the drone strike and accused of being a spy. he denied it. pakistani informed militants had tortured him and they disemboweled him and they chopped off his leg. he confessed at that point. they decapitated him and held him -- on his body in a local market in south waziristan. as an example for local people. what i saw in a sense with the drone strike is a stalemate. the u.s. does decapitate these organizations by killing the leaders. the taliban are able to exaggerate the casualties and attract new recruits to fill the ranks. neither side is getting control.

my sense is no real control will have outside control until the army moved into the area and -- in force on the ground. i am sitting here speaking with you not because i was rescued by the pakistani army. i am here because our afghan taliban captors felt so little threat from the pakistani army they got sloppy. the last house they held us captive in was three tenths of a mile from a pakistani military base. on june 19, we were able to scale a wall while our guards slept. we walked to the base and begged them to take us inside. we were afraid there would be pakistani members who would have us back. there was a young pakistani capt. who was a moderate and was talking to his girlfriend on the phone when we showed outup outside.

he apologized for the kidnapping and let us on the base. he said what the taliban follow is not the true islam and it was a perversion of his face. his example goes back to the difficult problem american policymakers face. how does the u.s. back moderate members of the pakistani military and not the isi that are widely reported to be tacitly supporting the taliban. ambassador holbrooke will speak here. secretary gates and others have asked the area to -- ask them to leave the area. it will take the mayor to carry out an offensive. they will -- the military appears to outbluff -- be able to double of the u.s. -- outbluff the u.s.

as far as i can tell, they continue to have this differentiation between afghan and pakistani taliban, with the are fighting. the pakistani army has fought the pakistani taliban in the last three years and you them as enemies of the state. they continue to see the network and afghan taliban as proxy's they can use against india. when i was in captivity i saw the group's work seamlessly. -- the groups worked seamlessly. we were held in pakistani and afghan taliban and the corporation was seamless. faisal shahzad who carried out the failed may attack to setup a car bomb in times square

received his training in the area where i was. when he pled guilty to an american judge, he spent 40 days in waziristan and five of them were spent getting bombed training like my guards. the report emerged of a german who was captured. he is reporting that gunmen were being trained to attack in europe resembling the attacks in mumbai. he named the hakkani network. this would be his first case of the afghan taliban being involved in attempting to carry out an international terrorist attack outside afghanistan. these international plots are what make me believe that withdrawing from the region, having all american troops leave is not an option.

based on what i saw, militants in the area will try to take over. afghanistan has more than 50 nuclear weapons and they could launch attacks against the u.s. itself. people talk about education as the answer. that is part of the answer. one of the places i was held captive in the tribal areas was a school and had been built by the pakistani government to win over local hearts and minds. if you do not have security, you can build multiple schools and health clinics, but they will be taken over by the taliban and made into their homes. the pakistani military, twice oas many have died fighting the taliban. the floods have diverted the forces from fighting the taliban, but i fear that the pakistani military is overconfident about its ability to control the afghan taliban. they believe they can deliver

them in peace negotiations in afghanistan and they believe they can use them as proxies' against india. the pakistani taliban rebel against the pakistani government and have killed and injured more than 5000 people in suicide attacks. the afghan taliban and [unintelligible] will rebel against their control. the next session will be ambassador holbrooke exploiting how to -- explaining how he addressed this. 10 days andned by 1 the ambassador pressured the serbs for my release. during my captivity in afghanistan, and officials in the bush and obama

administration's worked for my release. ambassador holbrooke spend time dealing with my family more than any other official. my first phone call after our escape, i told my wife i apologize to her and she forgive me. i told her my days as a war correspondent or over. when i reached my mother, she was more stern with me. my mother said she was revoking my passport. i suspect ambassador holbrooke would agree with my mother's approach. thank you. [applause]

>> hello, everybody. i met the ambassador webre was foreign correspondent for cnn. over the last year -- i am at abc this week. i am trying to bring more of a perspective from the international world, things that richard holbrooke deals with. it is great to be here with you and here with ambassador holbrooke and we're going to chat for the next half-hour. i would like to first welcome you and appreciate you have changed your schedule to be here in front of this important audience. this is being streamed on line as well. let's start with where david

left off. you have known david through several imprisonments and arrests. >> all of them. >> detentions. first in bosnia which i was covering and i remember being there and david was with the serbs at the time. how do you remember those days? there you were trying to forge peace and having to deal with the humanitarian [unintelligible] as well. >> we decided to stop the negotiations until david was released. i remember someone saying you are crazy enough to stop the negotiations for one journalists who should not have been where he was? i said yes. after three days they got him out. we got a -- my most vivid memory is the last time i saw david

before captivity. it was at the wedding of a friend of ours. he had not been married. they were engaged. he said, i am going back to afghanistan and i said jokingly, did i get yourself captured again. he said that will never happen. as david recounts in his articles and books, he tried to dodge this is inside into the taliban. he tried to explain he was to be regarded in a different way because he had tried to expose the atrocities of the serbs against the muslims. he thought that would make an impact on these people. on the contrary. they googled him, and the first thing that showed up was his relationship to me. n can google.

[laughter] anyway, the interesting thing is when they googled him, the opposite happened. you can confirm this. they are so worthless, instead of realizing what david was trying to do, they got a harsh on him. your best friends with richard holbrooke and he is president obama's special representative for this region. and so did not help at all. is that a fair representation of what happened? >> yes. they watched documentary's [inaudible] >> david was precisely where he was meant to be to expose these

atrocities were there was in -- whether it was in bosnia or afghanistan. he had to pay the price for a long time. the fact the taliban googled means they are savvy. they they know how to manipulate the media space and the hearts and minds space. >> the cliche which is accurate, they are not the taliban of the 1990's. they have learned. it was a worldwide wake-up call for who they were. they have become more sophisticated. but they have not changed their brew roots and their ideology. >> have as their media savvy complicate efforts to match up

to the united states and the international forces trying to defeat them? take that first, the media space. affectedt think it has perceptions of the taliban more than 0.5%. in their region, they are trying to exploit its opportunity -- targets of opportunity, that we're fighting on muslim soils, that we are crusaders. the taliban believes that a 60% of american women are prostitutes. they are playing into a field of abnormal ignorance in which communications was still primarily by radiata -- radio.

>> who is winning that battle a perception right now? >> in public opinion poll at after poll, the afghans remember the blacklists. it is always in the high single digits, and there in any choice, they do not want the taliban back. >> so many americans who are against the war and it would like to see the troops, backed, they always say, the people of afghanistan do not want us there. but in my reporting, i say the opposite. -- i see the opposite. >> millions of afghans put their trust in us. if you go there, you see things which are not well reported in the media, our attempt to train

civil servants, empowerment programs, attempting to rebuild after an agriculture -- afghan agriculture. the country is so broken after years of continuous war and warlord is some reward -- warlordism. it led directly to where we are today, and finally the consequent. it is a broken society. on the core issue -- this is not a popular uprising but i want to make an important caveat. someone says something that they could in my mind when i was working in vietnam. give me to good man and i can take any village in china.

now it is become standard operating procedure. he going to the village, if you kill the main landowner, you terrorize the village, and good people who have no way of rallying begin to become neutralized. and the new takeover. >> let's try to explore that. david was saying, and was noted by the firing across the border, the taliban still exist. the control or they can disrupt -- and tell me whether this is correct and not -- the pakistani government is not going to go after militant groups like the ambassador holbrooke -- haqqani group.

the border has been closed them out. where does that stand right now and how spread out and how effective are the taliban along the border? >> u.s. two question. on the first. -- on the first point, our relationship with pakistan is complicated, more complicated than any strategic relationship i have ever been involved with. at the end of the day, success in afghanistan -- however you define success -- is not achievable unless pakistan as part of the solution, not part of the problem. we can sit in this room and say all the things that a lot of you may be thinking about that, but in the end, we're going to work with the pakistan is, because i believe it is the right policy and i know the administration does. it does not mean that we're not without frustration as reflected

in today's lead story in the "washington post." in the plus column, an area the size it up -- the size of italy when underwater. we were the first country there, very visible, very popular with pakistan people. i am proud of that. at the same time, we have this issues. as far as the situation as the border goes, which is the story of the day, i want to be -- let me phrase this. precisely. first of all, i do not believe that a change to the fundamental relationship between the two countries. they were apparently some events that crossed the border in an area where you know and david spent off period of time there, it is ill-defined and it

is complicated and very rough terrain. it was very unfortunate. an investigation is going on as it should. and the secretary of -- secretary general of nato has expressed his regret about that. i do not think it would change the fundamental relationship. >> has it actually affected a major military point, to allow the area to be used for native goods? >> there was a big attack on one of the convoys. it is not clear who did that. they have linked the attack to these events. >> pakistan close the route for resupply. >> i think the routes are not quite close but they're moving slowly. we will work that out. >> and the other question --

>> it is inconceivable that the alleged closing, which is not a full closing anyway, will continue more than a short period of time. if you go to the kuiper pass, it will have a causal effect on the region. but the dangers there. judy how do you determined that the pakistan is, despite the efforts of the general and the better realization between the united states and pakistan on security and cracking down on home ground threat, have you determined that they are nonetheless not going to go to the haqqani network in northern west respond -- waziristan? >> i will let them speak. this is their country. they have limited resources and

many challenges. right now there 70,000 troops working in one area. having said that, we have always said that we think more can be done in this regard. >> it is their issue, but also yours, if you are not going -- if they are not going after the threats, then you're going after the threats. >> i'm got -- i am not going to buy into the phraseology. >> have you determined that you have to take out the haqqani network? >> i am not going to get into that. >> that as a direct question. >> i am not going to get into that. [laughter] the first time i met christiane, it was sarajevo. i'm going to tell this question -- tell the story right now. i came out of a gaggle with the president, and suddenly there's

this table in the back. she appears on top of the table with her camera and says, this is the question that everyone backs off. >> you use to answer the questions. [laughter] >> i still do. didn't you say that the taliban are more sophisticated now than when they blew up villages. >> in media terms, sure. they have not changed their tactics, the brutality. judith they have in their ied i's, which are the weapons of te moment, very difficult to counter. for all of us looking from afar and listening to various statements that come out of this administration, especially the chairman of the joint chiefs, who feels cautiously optimistic

and he mentioned several areas. looking from afar, it is difficult to get a real idea of what is happening on the ground. would you say that you are breaking the backs of the taliban? is the military after breaking the backs of the taliban? >> i am not one to prognosticate. >> what is happening right now on the ground, not tomorrow? >> an area where the taliban is under immense pressure and been really hurt, like the it area. there are others for the taliban is holding its own. there may be some areas where they are making limited in red. but the influx of international troops have made a real difference and created more space for an effort to push them back. >> are you optimistic? >> has said, this is not a game.

as you remember from the bosnia worse, i would never answer that question. we have a job to do. i am not the "wise at the end of the tunnel" stuff. >> our you today compared to where you were your go? >> the taliban is under much greater pressure than they were a year ago. >> there has been a lot of talk about what the united states is going to agree with or back in the afghan government will get into meaningful negotiations with the taliban. most people say that there is no full military solution to this and there will eventually be a negotiated solution. can you give us a status report on the likelihood of any negotiation -- meaningful resolution with any element of the taliban? >> let me start by reminding you

that from the beginning of this administration, david petreaus, mike mullen, president, hillary, everybody, we have always said that there is no purely military solution to this war. what does that mean? it means there's to be some kind of eventually political solution. president karzai has repeatedly preached out in public, including his inaugural speech last november, his speech in london in january, his speech at the conference in july which hillary and i perhaps, and many other places. the terrain is going to be clear to everyone. we understand, everyone understands you are not. a stamp out the taliban by military force. -- you're not going to stamp out the taliban by military force.

there's been a unique dynamic the continued for over 30 years with ships and groups and the enemy is not a single enemy like the north vietnamese or like the bosnian serbs, like most wars. it is all these different groups within you cannot negotiate. the let, whose goal is to provoke conflict between india and pakistan, and the overlapping of different goals -- it is a uniquely complicated problem. having said that, of course their discussions on what the basis of an outcome that does not involve on military solution which continue. there is no current form your task of the taurus -- of the sort you're talking about. -- there is no current the thornier tasks of the sort

you're talking about. this.very mindful of all of us have discussed this seriously, and we understand its importance, and we have been talking to afghans, the pakistan is, and other important participants in the region about this. >> when you talk about a negotiated resolution, it includes the taliban. >> i'm going to avoid the were negotiated. it carries the implication like dayton or camp david. >> ply avoided? even if it does not of formal process -- is not a formal process like dayton, i did you have the afghan government? which is it? >> their many variants.

you want me to -- well, there is the situation which -- there are many different elements. judy the reason we are confused is that the military commanders say, yes, this is a good idea to bring the elements of the taliban who are reconcilable into an end of the conflict. in order to do that, we must knockout blow -- we must put them on their heels of that they understand that there coming at this proposition of weakness. >> you have just answered your own question. you laid out a scenario with both of those options. it is absolutely possible. that is why i emphasize to the script that there are different enemies out there. -- to this group that there are different enemies out there. there's so many different groups, high-volume mentioned one. >> this is a very important

idea. we have been there very many times before and conflict resolution. the original partner of the united states, they went to afghanistan, the no. alliance. abdullah abdullah lead the no. alliance. he said to me, d you really think that the taliban, which is committed to a worldwide islamic caliphate, committed to obliterating the rights of women, ordinary individuals, is going to negotiate with a government that it believes is an infidel? the mindset, i am trying to ask you, that they're no meaningful talks going on right now. do you think that there is any space for this idea to germinate? >> first of all, there is space for this idea to germinate.

secondly, your question implies a partial solution. and i want to go back -- general petreaus and i talk about this a lot. he went through something similar in iraq. there are groups out there which switched allegiances. they will fight against foreigners, then allied themselves with the foreigners. that also happened in iraq. some of these groups are simply defending the valley they have lived in for century against the latest the external threat. the distinction you made between reconcilable an irreconcilable is a well-known distinction. some it is not possible to talk to.

then you go on to the other groups and you say, some of those are splintered internally. some of these people are in constant dispute at the commander lovell. someone will call on a cell phone to someone who is a relative of our friend in a local area, and says, we're tired of this war. we like to come in from the cold. we need your reintegration program that president karzai and failed in january -- unveiled in london. >> how many has brought in from the cold? it is not yet operational. tonight give me that look. >> why not? it has been along time. >> because the government of afghanistan has not yet gotten up and running to the level that it should be. >> is an important issue. how much time to you have? the president has put a fixed

deadline on this. each time you talk about positions -- conditions based, mri? >> if we say july 2011, weird. a spiral into the wrong place. that withdrawal will begin on a careful, conditions based -- not a deadline. it is the beginning of a drawdown process and there is no end date stated. it is conditions-based, related to this that we're talking about. back to the reintegration program. this is a very important program. no one can be satisfied with the current operational levels because we do not have in place -- and the afghan government does not have employees yet --

in the key areas, the people who will implement this program. the project is like everything in afghanistan -- it is constrained by circumstances of this tragic tormented country. this program like any other program we talk about is not going to be where it should be. i fully agree with you as to its imports. we have an important member of the congress here today, jane harman, who is authorized that general petreaus can use of the $100 million of his of emergency fund to support this program. while the afghan government is still trying to organize it, and i agree with you if it is too slow, and you're just there, jane, you must of talked him about this -- general petreaus and his team are putting into place this program at the local

level. and it is proceeding. >> for some unknown reason, to me, anyway, there is a report on the ground in many of these places -- nation-building in this term, the term is a dirty word. and yet everyone right down to the ground level to have to work in these places, almost unanimously they say -- maybe they did not use that term, but the only way to do this is to do serious, long-term -- what is the right term without nation- building? not just reconstruction, but alternative economic futures, development, education, all the things that have to happen in order to win these wars.

how much are your hands tied by the real distance that successive administrations in the united stations have. bridge a margin the previous administration made this up a dirty word, specifically doldrums' fell. -- donald rumsfeld. there was a program in the defense department that he shut down. many are in much greater danger because they do not have security. and i want to play a tribute to them because that is the part i am overseeing. but to get back to you, nation building became a dirty word because it was spun out in the wrong way. you call of what everyone, but we're not building a nation. we're trying to help them

rebuild. agriculture is a perfect example. as i mentioned earlier, they were an agricultural export country. they were the breadbasket. they exported to their neighbors weeks and grapes. they even exported could riesling winds -- could resoiling -- good riesling wines. it is the poorest non-african country in the world. it is a massive job but it is not nation-building. they know who they are. bear in mind that afghanistan has ever had a separatist movement like you saw in yugoslavia, that exist and sudan, and even in neighboring pakistan and india.

>> some of the leaders of said to me, you have this huge country so strategically located which -- with by large a population that wants international forces there, that has aligned itself with progress. they want education, the one economic development, they want to stand on the run to feet and they are not looking for analyst charity or hands out. given the opportunity that presents for the united states and the west, but totally different narrative, is it not five times more important to really go after the bids that you are involved in, the economic development, to give them an alternative to selling drug production? >> the short answer to your question is is. the more complicated answer is,

in order to make that work, to be integrated with the other aspects, and must include a similar program in pakistan. congress signs the checks. and they have legitimate concerns about accountability, transparency, and so on. having said all that, i will be very clear, i want to go back to july 2011. president obama and secretary clinton and the rest of us have all said repeatedly that there has to be a presence in afghanistan after the combat troops leave. they will eventually leave. this is not an open-ended commitment. the president has said repeatedly this in his speeches. we cannot repeat the mistake of 1989 when the soviets crossed the bridge back into the soviet union and united states

immediately turned its back on afghanistan, a country that we had been so involved in, and it just imploded and broke up and then the pakistanis moved in and started the various things we talked about earlier. it will require economic and developmental aid, including the issues that you and i have raised, agriculture, women, we cannot turn our backs on this. we cannot have the dramatic cover photo on "time" magazine on an ongoing reality. the woman with her nose cut off. the headline said, what will happen if we lose afghanistan, but the photograph is something happening today. we cannot change -- change the culture and we're not trying to change the culture.

that is part of the culture? >> of course. >> that is a criminal act by the taliban. >> i do not want to go in -- >> to say that that is the culture -- >> do not misrepresent what i said. there is a strong culture in afghanistan which you know very well, and derrick things that we consider unacceptable and which hillary clinton and colleagues including myself -- let me finish. you made a very serious misrepresentation of what i've said. yes, because we have a culture against torture. >> and an equally strong culture of trying to fight back. i am not saying that your trying to let that happen. >> i am not condoning these things. i've given my whole life to fighting them and so has hillary.

i am making a point that we do not want it to happen again. but it happens even now. it is not just the taliban who do it. it is part of an ancient culture which is an extraordinary stress. it does not just happen in afghanistan, as you certainly know. >> we've got one more minute. >> i have to finish the core point. after the troops leave, we must remain with economic and social development to prevent this kind of thing from happening. and we must be there to train the afghan police and army. that is not going to be cheap. it will be an international weapon. the coast your question about nation-building. >> let me ask you this. it goes right to this culture thing. you at the beginning said 6

cents, depending on how people find -- define that. i want to ask you about that. a number of people say, we promise to bring them democracy and dissent that and cannot because of their culture. if we cannot because they're not disposed to it. do you think sometimes that people, maybe in the west, get the wrong idea? that democracy should be a western-style democracy or not at all? >> success -- i would define success as a country that is at peace, and in which its government, and i do not just mean kabul, because afghanistan has not been run entirely by the center because of the ethnic groups and the lack of communication and so on, but a country which is stable enough to work on its economic development and build its

institutions and give people literacy, which is critically important. illiteracy is the greatest gift to the taliban. and rebuild its institutions, and that has an understanding in islamabad said that its neighbors with overlapping strategic interests can live together in some degree of harmony. we will never have a day when it will be violence-free. like many other countries, there will be residual movements, tribal elements, special tribes that will keep fighting. but getting it out of the world arena and letting the world supported. it is not an easy task and i did not want anyone to be misled. it will not be easy to do. but that is the part of the process. our coal corp. -- core goal

remains defending our national interest on the ground. the times square bomber went to that border area to be trained. the enemies of the united states are still out there and we have to take action. >> thank you very much indeed. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up and a little less than a half-hour, the first televised debate between ohio's u.s. senate candidates. lee fisher and former republican congressman. they're running to replace george of one of which -- voinivich. then three more debates -- new

hampshire, organs candidates for governor, and later at 10:00, u.s. senate candidates from connecticut. >> the communicator's concludes of four-part look at telecommunications policy with the leaders of the house subcommittees. tonight on c-span2. >> that justice department today announced a lawsuit accusing minute -- major credit-card companies of anti-competitive practice. mastercard and visa have come to a settlement with the government. we will also hear from eric holder on the terrorist threat in europe. this is 20 minutes. >> could afternoon. today the department of justice along with seven state attorneys general filed a civil anti- trust lawsuit in new york

challenging the rules of visa, mastercard, american express put in place that prevent merchants from providing discounts to their customers. these three companies run the largest three credit card networks in the united states. every time a consumer uses one of their credit cards to buy something from a merchant, they pay that merchant a fee that is passed on to consumers through higher prices. in 2009 alone, the three credit card companies and their affiliate banks collected more than $35 billion in these fees. these, mastercard, and american express do not just impose fees, however. they prevent merchants from offering customers and consumers any cost savings options such as discounts or rewards for using less-expensive forms of payment. the companies put merchants and consumers in a no-win situation.

they do not even think about trying to get a discount. these restrictive rules prevent price competition among credit- card networks, which means it increases business costs and higher prices. with today's lawsuit, we are sending a very clear message -- we will not tolerate and that as competitive policies and practices. we want to put more money into consumers' pockets by eliminating credit cards rules, and we will accomplish exactly that. even as we filed today's lawsuit and we're pleased to announce that we have reached a proposed settlement with visa and also with mastercard their results are antitrust concerns with their use of these rules. if this is approved, companies and retailers will be able to provide their customers with

more options and cost-saving incentives. and for consumers, they will be able to receive discounts and ultimately enjoy the benefits of lower prices. for example, if you use the preferred lower-cost credit card, airlines could offer you more miles or merchants could provide you with a rebate. merchants will also be able to inform consumers which cards will lower business costs to the most, allowing the savings to be passed on to consumers. today's settlement will enable some of the session and mastercard customers to receive the benefits of competition right away. while this is an important step forward, as long as one critic carbonate continues to employ these rules, there is more work that needs to be done. we need to make sure that every consumer has access to more choices and lower prices. that simply will not happen unless and until american

express's restrictive rules are strange. because of these rules, some consumers will continue to pay higher prices. that is unacceptable. we will continue to pursue litigation against american express until we ensure a fair market for every consumer. american express maintains the industry's most restrictive merchant rules. american express also has the highest fees of any credit card company. they refuse to give merchants the ability to offer rewards to consumers to use a less expensive card or even to provide information to consumers about the cost for using american express cards. most important, american express's rules prevent many other merchants they -- from taking advantage of the rebates

now allowed by the settlement. because they have refused to change their rules, consumers are being held hostage that they deserve with the settlement. we cannot allow this to sustain and we will not. our ongoing case against american express, we will continue to work to increase competition to create greater savings for merchants and lower prices for consumers. i am very proud of the outstanding work that christine any antitrust that have done to address our antitrust concerns as well as the cooperation of the state attorneys general. i also want to thank the many economists who've worked countless hours to get us where we are today. as this process continues, you'll have and deserve my

continuing support. i thank you all and all of like things to turn over -- turn things over to our assistant attorney general. >> thank you, general holder, in your steadfast leadership in protecting consumers and businesses. i like to echo what thanks to the other -- the ohio attorney general for taking the lead on this case. in addition to ohio, the states joining today are connecticut, iowa, maryland, michigan, missouri, and texas. their efforts helped to bring about this important step that allows merchants to offer their customers more cost -- more options, including discounts, rebates, and other benefits. i just want to take a moment to explain what the litigation undertaken today against american express and the settlement with mastercard and visa are so important. to put it in perspective, there is a substantial amount of

interstate commerce at stake here. more than $1.6 trillion in transactions every year, and as the attorney general said, the companies collect more than $35 billion annually in merchant fees. if every time a consumer uses a visa, mastercard, or american express, the merchant pays the fee. when merchants agree to except these cards, they commit to abide by the network rules. merchants face penalties, including termination, if they violate these rules. among the three card network, american express is the most restrictive. we believe these contract restrictions are unreasonable and restrain trade and competition unnecessarily. for example, american express prohibits a merchant from engaging in any practice that promotes less expensive cards over american express.

and that prohibits the merchant from offering a discount to a consumer who chooses to use another card instead of american express. in other words, even if one card is much cheaper than another, these rules prevent merchants from sharing with consumers the savings when a less expensive card is used. these restraints insulate card companies from competition, increased cost of payment acceptance for merchants, increase payments, and slow down innovation. to echo the attorney general of's statement, we want all consumers to benefit from more choices and lower prices. we want all merchants to have the freedom to offer their customers the most credit card options in the least expensive manner possible. today, with an hour visa and mastercard salomon, we are partly there. however this matter cannot be

fully resolved until american competitive rules are struck down. there is no reason for these pro a tip -- prohibitions. if they stifle competition and that means consumers and merchants pay the costs. we all strive to reach resolution as quickly as possible. my staff and i have our eyes on the ultimate goal, to ensure that every consumer and merchant benefits from a competitive marketplace. some of the staff working on this matter are here with us today. the team is led by the deputy assistant attorney general and others. i want all of you to know how much the attorney general and i appreciate all of your efforts on behalf of businesses and consumers across america. as the attorney general has said, we have just begun. we have much to do. and we look forward to your questions. >> i am from bloomberg.

i wanted to ask about the litigation in brooklyn. merchants want to ask about the freedom to add surcharges are you going to have -- do anything on that remark would you bring this matter to an increase in march it did the litigation and settlements today, we're looking at the rule that prevents purchase from discounting cards. we're satisfied that the sets and mastercard have addressed these issues in the settlement that we've entered into with them today. american express wants to maintain those rules. these are the rules we believe are a part of the effort to -- of anti-competitive practices that we have reviewed. there is litigation in new york on a similar matter. we have addressed the practices that led to our investigation. >> of one to be clear -- it

sounds that you're saying that and to use the immediate change until the litigation with american express is resolved. you get out to be clear. for the 4 million customers -- merchants to only accept mastercard and visa, they should be of a change. across the 7 million merchants except american express, the american express ltd. since stay in place. in those businesses, burdens are hamstrung by the american express rules. >> should we infer that there are no prospects whatever of a settlement with american express? >> we remain open at any point at time whenever of party wants to address our concerns. we're more than happy to sit down with them and go through

with them what it would take to address our concerns. there is a settlement filed with mastercard and visa, and the terms with which we would sell would be very clear to everyone. >> could you address the state department issued -- were you involved in those? what is your understanding of this, and what it means for actions here in the united states in terms of changing security measures? you've seen a huge rise in these cases in the past year- and-a-half in the united states. >> let's unpacked that. i did participate in a call that was chaired by the chief of staff, where we discuss the issuance of this alert.

this is an accumulation of evidence -- intelligence that has been gathered over the past few months and the decision was made to share to the extent that we could that information with the american people and to issue that -- alert. it is a timely thing to do. it is not an admonition to people not to travel to europe, but only to use caution while there. when using mass transit, be cautious. in marketplaces, and use caution to avoid perhaps political demonstrations, things of that nature. keep your guard up, keep your eyes open, and use common sense. >> hall but here in the united states? there is so much activity that is believed to be possibly

unfolding in europe. do you worry that longwall operators or others or to merge it in the first in the precipitated the alert is also directed at europe. that does not mean that we're letting our guard down with regard to the united states. we a scene of the past year attempts by al qaeda or its affiliates to attack the united states. we saw that in detroit. we saw that in times square. the threat to our homeland is a continuing one. >> on a related topic, are you saying that the [unintelligible] >> i do not want to get into the specific intelligence that we have gathered. i would say that the thing that

precipitated the alert was intelligence that was directed and concern europe. >> talking about the black panther case, i don't think we have heard from you on this case it. what he think the allegations of the justice barman -- department? >> we have to look at the facts. that is what i urge people to do. the top career person in the sun will rise division made the determination that the way this case was resolved, an injunction against the one person who had a stick or something at the polling place, was sanctioned. the inspector general is in the process of looking at this matter. we have great respect for his abilities and capabilities. opr is looking at this matter as well. in a larger way, one of the

things i draw from this is that people have to understand the way in which the civil rights division was run. and how it was politicized and how hiring was done there, and some people want to go back to those old days and want to have a civil rights division that is not nearly as effective as it is now or as it has traditionally been. i am not going to allow that to happen. as long as i am attorney general, we will have an effective, aggressive civil rights division. the notion that we're tossing in the civil rights law on the basis of race or gender is simply false. >> [unintelligible] >> there is no basis in fact for that charge.

>> this is consumed an enormous amount of the public's attention. is there a discreet plot? do you have all -- your arms around what you think it could be? judy and i would not say that we have specific information about a particular place or time. but we have sufficient information that justifies the issuing of the alert. many of you might remember back in 1999 when we had the mullen and thread. we had to make a determination in government. we had information that was not as specific as we wanted to be said that you could are rest somebody. and yet we thought it was incumbent upon the then is to advise the american people about the information that we had so that what they could conduct themselves in a way that minimizes the chances than anybody would be harmed.

>> last question. >> the follow on the question about whether there is any threat domestically, what is the significance of this terror threat to europe to the american people to keep hearing about this and wondering whether there orsome thread or some ankgle potential problem that exists in the and that it states that was not here before this particular non-specific threat? >> al qaeda and its affiliates want to do harm to american interests, both abroad and here in the homeland. we have seen that very recently as i indicated before, both in detroit, the attempt in times square. the reason to believe that al qaeda is trying to do exactly

that. we are monitoring to the extent that we can all the things that we should know about. it is not a basis for us to issue anything other than what we have done, a threat focused on europe. i want to emphasize our guard remains up. our attention remains focused on the united states as well. and there is a basis for what we have seen over the recent past. >> of follow-up to that? what is osama bin laden's link to this? this presents a threat stream? >> i do not want to get into specifics about the nature of intelligence that we have. let me say that there is certainly a foundation for what -- the alert that we have issued, in conjunction with our partners and allies, in

gathering information from a variety of sources. we use human sources, we get -- we use other means, and it is accumulation of all of this that led us to where we are today. >> "the communicators" concludes a series on telecommunications. >> thank you for joining us this afternoon. >> delighted to be with you. >> we start the day with oral arguments and a number of decisions made in turning down appeals and such. an interesting request from the

court to find out more about allegations of torture at abu ghraib. >> the legal issue in the case is whether or not the people who were detained at abu ghraib can sue government contractors working for the military. this is not a lawsuit aimed at the federal agencies or the military at all. it is aimed at two government contractors which provided interrogators and interpreters to the military at abu ghraib. the court asked the solicitor general, who often gives legal advisor, whether or not the court should hear an appeal by maybe 18 iraqis or their survivors who were held as civilian detainees at that notorious prison in baghdad. >> you look at the first day of

the new term -- how does this differ in terms of last term, in terms of this scope of the types of cases? >> i think it is -- we always say in the spring came, the next term is not would be terribly interesting. and then the term starts and that court starts hearing cases, there's going to be interesting stuff. it is going to be interesting on first amendment issues. one of the major cases coming up, the hearing on wednesday, the right of people to stage public protests against the privacy rights of people who are holding funerals for their dead military heroes who have come back from iraq or afghanistan. this is really a very fundamental test of how far the first amendment goes to protect really quite ugly protests that

invade the privacy of someone's personal events, a private funeral. >> a case coming before the court tomorrow of personal privacy, what is the case about which the margin and it started out as a case about the government's right to make background checks on civilian employees and contractors who work for the national aeronautics and space administration at the jet propulsion laboratory in pasadena. o larger issue in the case is whether or not there is a constitutional right to privacy that cannot be demanded by the federal government. the larger question is the scope of this information and privacy. this is a potentially major outcome, constitutionally, resulting from the court review. kagen has recused

herself from a number of cases. >> at least in the first three months of the term, she will have to step aside because these are cases in which she had some bold and her former position as united states solicitor general. and she was the government's support -- chief advocate before the supreme court. ofs an unusually high number disqualifications. thurgood marshall had the same situation by he did not excuse himself from as many cases as justice kagen is going to. the importance of this in cases that might divide the case -- the court totally, there is a real prospect that the court could divide 4-4. as a result of that, you really get no decision.

that is at issue in this case involving the privacy of employees of the contractor at the nasa facility in pasadena. >> and we wrap up the first day of the new session with the first time ever three female justices in the court. in a different feel or towed to the court as you will always today? judy know, everyone is excited about the prospect of seeing three female justices on the bench. one hears a debate that goes on and elsewhere in the country about whether or not women judges see things differently than men justices. justice o'connor used to say there was not in the difference in how women and men look at legal issues. that is one side of it. justice ginsberg has said that at least when it comes to cases involving women's discrete in dresses, their rights not to be the targets of discrimination,

women and men judges to see things differently. but everyone expects justice kagen to be an active participant on the bench and in oral argument. i did not get to go to oral argument today, but reporters said that she seemed well prepared in the first case that she sat in. she knew what was going on and appeared to be entirely comfortable. >> lyle deniston for scotusblog. >> this week the supreme court begins its term. you can find out more about the court in our latest book, "the supreme court." reporters to cover the court and attorneys to argue cases there. revealing unique insights about the court, available and hardcover wherever you buy books. and also as an e book.

>> now live to toledo, ohio, and the debate between lee fisher and former republican congressman bob portman. live coverage on c-span. >> good evening and welcome to tonight's debate. the first of the campaign here. i'm your moderator.

gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. the ohio newspaper organization is sponsoring this. eight newspapers make up the organization, including "the little blade," "the columbus dispatch," "the cincinnati enquirer," among others. our panelists are tom troy from "the toledo blade." , how it is from -- thank you all for being here. each candidate will have two minutes to respond. the other will have one minute of rebuttal.

mr. fisher will begin with a two-minute opening statement. >> ohio, washington, main street, wall street, export goods, export jobs -- and begin this way tonight because this is a very clear chores between someone who has traveled ohio, fighting for the people of ohio, and someone who has spent the last 20 years fighting for the special interest. as attorney general, i opposed -- i helped struggling families get to their feet. i have been in every corner of the state in the middle of this unprecedented economic storm, working to save and create jobs.

what about congressman portman? he would never know it by listening to him tonight, but here is who he is. he was a lobbyist for a foreign country. he was a congressman who supported the deregulation of wall street. he was bush's trade adviser. "the washington post" has described him as mr. washington. if you want to know who we are for, see who is for us. he has received more money than in either washington candidate from lobbyists. he is no. 2 in wall street money. do not worry, he is on his way to being number one because he will be one of those who leads

the fight to repeal wall street reform. i think it is time that congressman portman took responsibility for his role in helping cause this recession. he knows better, despite his commercials. this is not a steep recession. this is a national recession. mr. washington had his choice and now it is our turn. >> thank you. mr. portman, two minutes for your opening statement appeared >> thank you. thank you for being here tonight and thank you to the organizers. i chose to come to toledo to announce our campaign. i wanted to come to talia because as part of the state too often gets left out. i have been back a dozen times since, for factory with its meeting with workers, small- business owners, the economic summit folks.

what i have seen will not surprise you. you feel it. our state has fallen behind the rest of the country. we have lost 400,000 jobs in the last four years. our unemployment rate has nearly doubled. in fact, right now, ohio has one of the top 10 highest unemployment rates in the country. we have lost businesses to other states. we have lost many of our bright young people. my opponent has been the lieutenant governor of ohio. he was the director of economic development in ohio, responsible for making jobs. you just heard from him and you just heard his attack. all of those attacks are partisan attacks and they are discredited and a couple of them are downright false. he will do it all night. and i think he will do it because he wants to distract us from two things, one, his record, and, second, the federal policies that he is supporting.

he is a strong supporter of washington's health care law which is not working for ohio, the stimulus package which has not worked for a believe that ohio and our country are headed for the wrong direction. i believe there is a better way. there is a better way on health care, on taxes, on spending which is out of control, on energy and regulation, to help get private-sector jobs back. check out our jobs plan. i was born and raised in ohio. ohio can come back, but we have to transform washington. >> thank you. >> mr. fisher, in this campaign, you have been very critical of international free-trade deals. yet, ohio export trade top $20 million, with a 29% increase

over the last 12 months. would protective trade policies reverse ohio's growing prominence as an export state? >> exports are good. as the director of development as lieutenant governor, i promoted exports. we have counseled callous businesses throughout ohio, including many right here in west ohio, helping them access the 14 different markets in which ohio has offices. the question is not whether exporting goods is a good thing. the issue is whether or not we are exporting to many jobs and paying the price for it. when you have fair and balanced trade, you can do both. but when you have a deficit, that means you say we will export goods, even if it means the price we pay is jobs leaving the state at a record number.

the bottom line is that we are selling too little. we are buying too much. we are producing too little and producing what we do do in china and elsewhere. it is an easy four-part solution. you increase exports, reduce imports, bring production offshore back to america, and you bring incentives back to america to do more production in ohio so that we have more "made in america" as opposed to "live in china." i want more trade, not less. i want more exports, not less. i want it to be fair. i want it to be balanced. i do not want hardworking people who have spent their lives in manufacturing and technology losing their jobs, not to mention the businesses and industries we're losing almost every month to another country.

>> he has decided to run an anti-ohio campaign. lee fisher is demagoguing on trade. ohio depends on exports. 25% of ohio factory workers have jobs because of exports. we need to expand exports. yet, we although lieutenant governor fisher said he is for export, he is not he does not support -- he is not. he does not support the trade agreements. he supports higher taxes on u.s. companies, both small companies and big companies. he supported the watching to an approach -- the washington approach. this will make it more difficult to keep jobs here. we need to enforce our trade laws and expand exports. if we do not do that, we will

hurt all hire workers. . >> certain sectors can be heard by foreign competition. what the say to people who have lost jobs to foreign countries? what responsibility does the u.s. government have to assist those people? >> again, trade should be about two things, one, ensuring that we have a level playing field, enforcing our trade laws. i did that when i was in a position to do it. i sued china, the first person to ever to do it and we won. it helped ohio. we also started some other cases that have now been successfully prosecuted in china. i have been there. i have done it.

we need to level the playing field. ohio is dependent on exports. export jobs pay more and have better benefits. we cannot allow ourselves to not continue to give ohio workers that opportunity. sometimes trade has a destructive effect and we have to make sure we minimize that. but when it happens, we have to make sure that the government steps in and offers the retraining that they need. i'm not just a strong supporter of the current trading system, but i am for revamping the system. under fisher, ohio's 44 in the country in terms of getting money actually into worker retraining, over $3 billion that comes into ohio from the government. that money is not well spent. columbus takes up too much of that money. we are first in the country to get workers to retrain in need.

>> if you go to thinning industries, it is hard to look at those men and women in the eye and say that there is not damaged and when we have free trade. because of nafta, 50,000 jobs have been lost. because of trade with china, 100,000 jobs have been lost. think about this. the trade deficit in the united states, there is about $800 billion. that means they are selling as $800 billion more of stuff than we are selling them. that does not make any sense at all. the bottom line is that we can do both and we must do both. when congressman portman was the trade adviser, he refused to put quotas on steel pipes despite

the fact that he was asked to do it. his record is not what he says it is. >> your lieutenant governor when ohio lost jobs and the unemployment rate climbed. why should voters in this economy send you to the united states senate? >> in the middle of a national economic storm that has affected every single state in the country, whether it has a republican or democratic governor for lieutenant governor, states have two choices. they can go down in the basement, put a cover on the heads, and pray for a better day. or they can do with the governor and i have done, take risks, got to the front yard, plant and plow, weather is good year, bridgestone tires, whether it is ammo, the list goes on and on.

we have worked to save jobs one job at a time. if you are unemployed and there are too many people unemployed, the unemployment is at 10%, which means it is 100%. i know that. let's be honest about this. it is not a stick recession. it is a national recession. only one state in the country has broadened the most capital investment three times, which is ohio.

that is about 200 dozen dollars a year. are there reforms that we can do. i will fight for it if i am elected to the united states senate. i think it is irresponsible to say that, when you like some parts of the bill and you do not like others, you will repeal the whole thing and start a lower yen. congressman portman was in congress and in washington d.c. for 20 years. he had his chance to do something and he did nothing. now he wants to go back and repeal it and start all over again, even though he had that chance. it is far more responsible to take a look at what works in the bill and what does not. if you repeal this, you put insurance companies back in charge of your health care, exactly the wrong thing to be doing.

today, if you have a prior medical condition, thank you to this law, they can deny you coverage anymore. now, if you want to get a mammogram, you do not have to have a code pay anymore. are there things we should improve in this bill? of course there are. there is no question in my mind that she -- that we should not be taxing health care benefits. we should have better physician reimbursements. those are things we can do. human it. you do not ended. if you kill it, it is irresponsible. >> our next question is from joe. >> john boehner threw a lot of hate at the democrats for suggesting that social security's long-term viability could be preserved with a few basic reforms, including means test and benefits and raising the retirement age for younger americans. do think these ideas should be off the table? if so, what would you propose to

ensure social security's long- term liability? >> i do support getting it out of the firing line on the floor of the senate and the house and getting it into a bipartisan commission where smart republicans and democrats who do not have to run for office or election can give it their best recommendation. i am ok with an up or down vote on that. at least that way, we will still get the best thinking. as long as this is a political football on the floor of the senate and the house, given the high for partisanship that makes me sick and disgusted and it does so for most americans, we will not get this solved. it is a sacred promise with the seniors of our country. there are ways we can solve this. one of the ways is to not raise -- raid the social security trust fund when he did when he was the budget director.

>> we need to strengthen and preserve social security. i know it is getting close to halloween, but i would ask lt. gov. lee fisher to stop scaring seniors about social security. he gave a more reasoned answer tonight because he is not on the campaign trail. but when he talks to seniors, he says do not touch it. no one should be doing anything to attack social security benefits that senior citizens deserve and rely on. when lee fisher was talking to a group of seniors in cincinnati recently, he gave his scare talk about social security and demagogued on it appeared at the end of the conversation, one of the seniors asked all of -- what all of the seniors are asking.

what is your solution? his answer? elect me. that isn't -- that is a political answer. >> thank you. our next question comes from tom try. >> mr. portman, given the direct threat posed by the taliban and al qaeda, is it was for the u.s. to withdraw troops from afghanistan as president obama plans to do beginning next year. >> tom, thank you for that question. there are additional concerns in europe about the terrorist threat. this war against terror continues. i hope your administration continues to view this as a war. because it is. president obama has supported and lee fisher has supported

leaving afghanistan on an arbitrary drakdate. the taliban and al qaeda will simply wait us out. this is what the people in afghanistan are saying, including president karzai. this is what the people are saying all around the world. america will not be able to protect them and us against terrorism. if we have an arbitrary deadline to withdraw, again, they will wait us out. afghanistan will again become a safe haven for terrorism. the potential is that it becomes a platform for another attack, like 9/11. we cannot allow that. again, as we look at the news today, we realize that the terror threat is real and make sure that we do not create that safe haven in afghanistan, for them to attack freedom-loving people in the world, including in america. >> there is no issue more

important to any member of u.s. senate or congress that our responsibility as to whether or not to send young men into battle and to make sure that, when they are there, they were safe. these are not easy decisions and they should not be political. hopefully, they will not be. i just happen to believe that iraq was a misguided war. afghan -- afghanistan millicent's after 9/11. but we have taken our eye off the ball. as a result, i think it is time to bring our troops home. how to make something very clear. we never, never, never, never, give up the fight on terrorism. if we have learned anything since 2001, you cannot fight them with conventional warfare.

if anything, we should step that up, but we should put less of our men and women in harm's way. >> thank you very much. i want to give our panelists a heads up that we are doing wonderfully on time. we will likely have the opportunity for two extra questions. >> mr. fisher, as you know, lake erie is critical to the economic and recreational vitality of the toledo area and the state as a whole. how would you advocate for swift action from the federal government to keep asian part out of the great lakes. >> first, i want to go back to something congressman portman said. he said he liked my answer, but his has not like the other answers. i will go back to my other ranchers because i don't to disappoint him. what i neglected to mention tonight and the people of ohio should know is that one of the most vocal proponents of

privatizing social security is congressman portman. that means that seniors will be able to put some or all, hover much they want, of their social security into the stock market. which means, on thursday, the me make a lot of money. but on monday, they me be washed out. imagine what would have happened if congressman portman and president bush had privatize social security during this economic recession? it would have been a disaster. about asian karcarp, there is no greater resources america than the great lakes. i felt that the white house was not being tough enough in dealing with asian karcarp.

they are literally eating other fish throughout the lakes. we have not close to the locks in chicago. we should do that immediately. the governor and i have been very clear to the obama's administration, that they have been too slow, and that they need to be focused on protecting lake erie. that is the most shallow the great lakes. we are ithe most in danger of them. first you let the men and then you spend all your energy in getting rid of them. >> thank you. >> this is a huge issue and it is a jobs issue ther. there is a $7.5 billion industry. it is that threat by the carp

infestation. they have now discovered asian carp dna in the lake. in terms of the attack a moment ago, another partisan attack by my opponent, it is not accurate. i do not support privatization of social security. what i do support is strengthening social security for the future. i know that lt. gov. fisher would like to distract us from the fact that, in his tenure, we have lost 400,000 jobs. unemployment is one of the 10 worst in the country. i know he would like to distract us from the legislation he has supported, like a stronger government role in the government option appeare.

>> mr. fisher just mentioned the bipartisanship that group's congress. in this campaign, you have been harshly criticized for your ideas and proposals. you have been highly criticized by ohio's junior senator. considering that, if you went, how will you work with him, particularly given your fundamental differences on trade and job creation? >> that is an interesting question. senator brown is the other senator from ohio. i do not think we have not had a senator running for election that has not been partisan.

i have talked with senator brown about this. i told him i look forward to working with tension and be elected to the united states senate. he has said that he looks forward to working with me should be elected. i spoke with george voinovich today. he is a guy who is looking to leave the united states senate. -- to lead the united states senate. i can defend each one of them as good, fiscally conservative pieces of legislation that helps to move our state for it. i will work with anybody, democrat, republican, independent, who wants to help me move ohio. the debt and deficit we have now is unfair to future generations. taxes are going up at year end on small businesses all over

ohio, making it harder to create jobs. we see more burden with the deregulation. we have to give ohio employers more help. i will work with anybody who wants to work with me to help ohio and to help small business. >> thank you. >> i do believe it is very important that you work across the aisle and work with members of the other party, just as i did when i was in the state legislature. but i think is also important that you not be a rubber-stamp for your party, that you'll be able to stand up to your own party when they think they are wrong, as i have done many times in my career and many times even while president obama has been president. but watching congressman portman, i cannot tell you i have seen any time that he has departed from john boehner and the republican playbook. george voinovich, to his credit,

stood his ground. he opposed the tax cuts to the wealthy billionaires' and millionaires and he supported a strong reasonable small business jobs bill that congressman portman opposed. i would suspect that that was being a rubber stamp for republicans. if you will be bipartisan, you will have to show it. >> thank you. >> does ohio's economy need another dose of stimulus money from washington? if so, what do you think might realistically pass? >> although that stimulus has held, it has not been enough. that is the bottom line. john mccain's economic advisor said that, without it, we would have lost another 8.5 million

jobs. but the bottom line is that making progress is good, but it is not good enough. here's what i think we should do. number one, we should end the tax breaks that congressman portman supports to the large companies to ship jobs overseas. number two, we should have a new national jobs creation tax bill modeled after one that i have been using for the last four years in ohio that is a powerful incentive for businesses to create jobs right here in ohio. we should make the research and development tax credit permanent. it is ridiculous that it remained temporary. there has to be extended every couple of years. we are an innovative state and an innovative nation. finally, it is outrageous that we have bailed out the wall street banks but we have shortchanged the small businesses. the small businesses we see

everywhere are 90% of our economy. they have not missed a single payment and cannot get a loan. that is why i have supported a $30 billion pool of money to go to community banks with requirements that they get that out the door to small businesses to help them survive and to grow. i do not care what you call it, whether it is a stimulus or anything else. i just want to make sure we create jobs and do it by giving incentives to create american jobs and ohio jobs and give incentives that encourage of shoring and outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas. -- encourage off shoring and outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas. >> he thinks the stimulus was not enough. that is what he just said. $800 billion -- over $1 trillion

when you include the interest -- is not enough. this package was sold as taking unemployment below 8%. in ohio, is over 10%. this is the stimulus package and said it would create several jobs. ohio has lost almost 150,000 jobs since the stimulus package was signed into law. he wants more of the same. he was to put tax increases on u.s. companies at a time we're trying to climb out of this recession. that does not make sense for our workers. that would cost 17,000 more jobs in the state of ohio. the tax increases he is talking about -- we have already lost 400,000 jobs. we do not need to lose another 17,000. >> mr. portman, you have been critical of the capt. trade energy bill in the house. what would you do to reduce u.s. dependence for an oil?

>> is an exciting opportunity for ohio to take energy and converted to jobs. the cap and trade at what cost 100,000 jobs in ohio. that is a study by the american manufacturers. the alternative is developing nuclear power here in ohio, natural gas -- there is natural gas revenues ohio -- if we move forward with clean coal technology, with green technology, not just hydro, but also solar and wind, we can use some of the manufacturing capacity in ohio and create thousands and thousands of jobs. nuclear power, for example, there are several factors i have visited that make things for nuclear power. it is an opportunity for us to use the best work force in the world, which is ohio workers,

and to take all that manufacturing capacity that we can use and create more jobs and opportunity here in ohio. that is the alternative. guess what, when you do that, you make us less dependent on foreign oil, which is also incredibly important to our national security and economic security. finally, it is a cleaner environment. you use nuclear power that is the emission-free. you use clean coal technology, which takes the co2 out of coal and makes coal cleaner burning. these are exciting opportunities for our state. if i'm elected to the unit said -- to the united states senate, i will be focusing on energy. check it out on our website. >> thank you. >> 53 years ago to the day, october 4, 1957, the russians

sent something into space called sputnik. it was a reawakening in america that we were behind. we are behind today. the solar panels and the wind turbines are being made in china. not enough of them are being made in america. we're depending on countries that qaeda's and sometimes even want to kill us for our oil. -- that hate us and sometimes even want to kill us for our paneloil. we should gather around and say this is our time. this is a time to move toward a clean energy economy that works on solar and clean energy. we should teach your children not to rely on others. it is exciting. working with manufacturing companies in the last four years, we can absolutely do it.

>> we have the bonus round now. we will ask more questions. >> mr. fisher, and if you win, one of your duties would be to vote on nominees to the supreme court. what criteria would you bring to judging a nominee? if you could quickly go through the four most recent nominations, would you have voted for chief justice roberts and chief justice alito? >> i have had the great honor of working for a federal judge, interestingly enough, a staunch republican judge who was appointed through the effort of ray bliss. i admired the fact that he hired me knowing that i was a staunch democrat.

he taught me a lesson. the common that the law on to be blind to politics and ideology. first of all, i do not have a litmus test. i tried to gauge whether this person, when they put on that road, they understand that they have to become one of the most powerful people on earth that can affect what happens for generations to come. we have seen that with some of the seminal cases. i want to make sure they are bright. i want to make sure they have practical experience in life and not just purely in academia. and i think it is fair to say that we need a divorce court in every respect, in terms of gender, in terms of race, even in terms of the kinds of law schools they go to. i would have voted for it in medicaid and -- for elena kagan and justice sotomayor.

for justice roberts and alito, i did not pay as much attention to their confirmation hearings to say that i would have voted against them. i do not have enough information. when you are senator, you listen to those hearings and you pay attention. i was running the center for families and children and did not see those hearings. i cannot tell you i would -- i am not sure what i would do in those cases. >> the senate does have a solemn responsibility and that is the confirmation of judges. i would only confirm the judges who had the judicial temperament and did not legislate from the bench. we are elected as legislators to be accountable to the people and judges have a lifetime

appointment. george voinovich opposed elena kagan's nomination because she did not have experience. i think i would've done the same thing. i believe that her record, if there was one, she would have legislated from the bench. i hope that i am wrong and that she ends up being a better supreme court justice. >> thank you. the next question goes to rob portman. >> mr. portman, would you articulate your view on financial reform aimed at cleaning up wall street? would you want to repeal some of it? if so, why? >> i appreciate you asking that question. i have counted six inaccuracies in the partisan attacks. that is one of them. i am disappointed in what passed in the unisys congress on

financial reform because it did not solve the problem. everyone knows that the housing market triggered the collapse of 2008. barack obama has said as much. yet this legislation does nothing to try to help on that issue. these two organizations, fannie mae and freddie mac, have backed up mortgages. they were not touched in this legislation. why? because the democrats on the committee are very close to fannie mae and freddie mac. by understanding is that the taxpayers has already spent $200 billion shoring of these entities and get there are no reforms in there at all. i think legislation did not go far enough in a certain regard with regard to how it dealt with wall street. the big wall street firms, including goldman sacks, were for the legislation. they are concerned about the new

mandates, the new regulations, making it harder, not easier, to get credit. companies are having trouble getting credit in ohio. banks are finding more pressure from the regulations and the mandates. i made my payments on a regular basis. we have to be some plan going forward. we would like to expand. we 6 -- we could create more jobs here. but i can get a loan. creating jobs in ohio is making sure the community banks in ohio have the ability to make loans. buying the stock of banks is like a mini-partarp. that is a bad idea. >> thank you. >> i had a law school professor who once said it was better to have a fence at the top of a

cliff then to have an ambulance below. wall street reform was critical. if we did not build that fence at the top of the cliff, we would be destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. as far as i know, all of the wall street firms are thrilled with the fact that congressman portman is one of those who want to repeal the reform. having a consumer financial agency that looks out for the consumer, everything ranging from credit card rates that are outrageous to the kinds of speculative derivatives trading that occurred when banks played with middle-class families money and lost it, almost as if it were some sort of gambling casino, that should never happen again. and congressman portman was one of those. by the way, democrats did, too. they voted for repeal in the glass-steagall act and said

banks could go and start speculating. we need to go back to the point where they cannot. >> at this point, we have closing statements, two minutes for each gentleman to give their closing statement. rob portman, you go first. >> i want to thank the for your reporters here today. they are on the campaign trail with us a lot. they had good questions. thank you for the opportunity to talk directly with ohio birdervoters. what i heard from lt. gov. lee fisher is that he is proud of his record at a time that we lost 400,000 jobs in ohio. he wants to have it both ways, i guess. he is proud of certain things that happened and the ones that are okay, he will take credit for them. the ones that or not, he will blame somebody else. i do not think that is the right record to take to washington.

more important to me is what he voted on. i am running because i believe we're headed in the wrong direction. i think ohio is headed in the wrong direction and the country is headed in the wrong direction. we need some fresh ideas. again, check out our jobs plan at robportman thought.com. our great state and the workers of ohio deserve it. i was born and raised in this state. jane and i raised three kids here. i want to make sure that ohio can get back on track. we can do it. this is a great state with innovators and inventors and entrepreneurs. but we need the climate for success. that is why i am running for and it's it's senate. i ask for your vote tonight and i expect to see you on the campaign trail.

>> thank you, mr. korman. mr. fisher, two minutes. >> rob and i both have our wives to tonight. i want to thank all of you for giving us this great opportunity. we have had a lot of facts and figures tonight. i think going to take a different a poet -- different approach in my remaining minute. it is a story. i got a call from the mayor of norwalk, ohio. she said, i do not know what to do. the bank is about to close down norwalk -- i spent the day meeting with the mayor and the community and business leaders. we convinced the bank to back off, to reconsider and give the company second chance. we gave it the great company a loan and some people in the community stepped up and more

than matched that loan. we save the company and save many of the jobs. one of the jobs we saved was a woman whose husband was in an auto accident and had been in a coma for several years. during those years, the only thing that kept her going, her anchor, her lifeline, was that job. i have learned that a job is much more than a paycheck. it is about hope and dignity and purpose in someone's life. i am proud of the work we have done at cooper tire, the work we have done at norwalk furniture, at schindler elevator, at goodyear, a bridgestone tire store, alcohol, and many more. am i satisfied? of course not. i'm not satisfied because there is no governor or lieutenant governor, democrat or republican who will be able to do it.

the governor of indiana has said there is something beyond the control of governors of lieutenant governors that can only be fixed in that broke a place called washington, d.c. >> thank you, mr. fisher. that is our debate tonight. thank you for being with us tonight. thank you to you all at home for watching. we have a special thank you to all of our panelists tonight. thank you also to the ono for sponsoring this debate. thank you to c-span for bringing it to you. a reminder that election day is november 2. have a great night.

>> thank you for joining us for the ohio u.s. senate debate. >> if you missed any of the year ohio u.s. senate debate you can watch it at 11:45 p.m. eastern here on c-span. we have more political courage coming up tonight. up next is the first congressional district in new hampshire. after that, connecticut state attorney general richard blumenthal and republican linda mcmahon face another debate. they're looking to fill chris dodd's seat.

for more information, visit tbc- span.org/politics. >> it is a debate between new hampshire first district candidates. carol say porter and former manchester mayor frank intginta. this race is rated a toss up. >> this week, the supreme court begins its new term. you can learn more about the nation's highest court in c- span 2 latest book. reporters cover the court and at