tv Today in Washington CSPAN December 16, 2009 2:00am-6:00am EST
the law was in place, but the people were not doing the work. we also have a lot of places where the laws were weakened. the laws were restricting what banks could do and whether they could become financial institutions, so part of it was getting people to do what they were supposed to do, and part of it was that we need tougher laws. host: up next, we will be talking about the most important political figure of this year. who do you think that is? whoever you been most impressed by, political figure? guest: well, i guess we cannot get our minds off of our own president, barack obama. host: why is that? guest: because he is carrying this big burdett. i think there is kind of a fascination with policy-making decisions, what is going on there, who is important, that we all have. is how is he making decisions,
guantanamo bay detainee's to a prison in illinois. >> now available, c-span's boat, "abraham lincoln." it is a unique contemporary perspective from his early years to his life in the white house and his relevance today. in hardcover at your favorite bookseller and now in digital audio to listen to any time, available where digital audio is sold. >> at this hearing on counter- terrorism efforts in first amendment rights, we will hear about the challenges involved in monitoring terrorist activity. this is just under two hours.
>> the subcommittee will come to order. the subcommittee is meeting to explore whether there are risk activators or keys to terrorist activities to enable them in thwarting attacks while preserving individual's right to privacy and civil liberties. today's hearing is untitled "violent extremism, how are people move from constitutionally protected thought to acts of terrorism." sm?" .
ahmed abdullah minni was a member of this man was a member of the high school wrestling team. ramy zamzam a dental student was "tolerant and engaging." these two men along with three workout buddies from the local gold's gym in fairfax county were recently arrested in pakistan, allegedly attempting to engage in jihad against u.s. soldiers in afghanistan. their disappearance didn't raise suspicion until one of the boy's families found a farewell video soon after and their loved ones frantically contacted the fbi for help in locating them. and to almost all who knew him, najibullah zazi liked to joke with customers, not as it is alleged, plotting an attack on
the new york city transit system with al qaeda. people didn't know what to make of major nidal hasan but surely no one anticipated that he would carry out the worst domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11. in each of these cases appearances proved far different from reality. today this subcommittee seeks to gain understanding of how people who seem like anyone else, those who are capable of interacting socially with friends and colleagues and in many cases are athletes and scholars could be recruited or self-recruited to train to be terrorists. my eyes were opened four years ago when a terrorist cell in my district, torrance, california, excellent police authorities enabled to in connect the dots on attacks to attack local synagogues and a military base. the folk planning to do that are now in jail. this isn't new subject matter for our subcommittee either.
since early 2007, we have held a series of careful hearings to understand how someone with radical views which are protected by our constitution, let me say that again, radical views which are protected by our constitution, becomes willing to engage in violent behavior, and in some cases to seek to inflict maximum harm on the maximum number of innocent civilians. our earlier efforts misunderstood by some civil liberties groups. creating a commission to examine and report on what causes an individual like major hasan to attack. it passed the house by 404-6 in october 2007. only then did the aclu, a witness at today's hearings, which participated in our meetings object to it, and many disagreed that such a commission
should examine terrorist recruitment on the internet yet press reports suggest at least one of the five alexandria men, just arrested in pakistan, posted online comments praising youtube videos of attacks on a u.s. army convoy hit by a roadside bomb in kabul. that is when the alleged recruiter contacted him. youtube videos may have inspired them to travel to pakistan. it also appears, as i said, that the taliban recruited coded messages and facebook to communicate with them. in his written statement, mr. mccloud ball of the aclu, very. helpful to this subcommittee, "honor our values and keep us safe." of course, we must protect these freedoms but we also must prevent recruit frers cherry picking kids from our communities and sending them to become jihadists overseas. i hope our witnesses can help us
separate the inspleecttual process of committing to a political agenda from the operation's process of moving from non-violence to violence, which i'm sure everyone on this hearing panel agrees is not protected. we need to be able to intervene at the right point to stop individuals in our schools, neighborhoods, religious centers and jails who are persuaded by extreme violent messaging, whether through the internet, fred or mentors to commit violent acts. before it is too late. so what are the triggers? the number of americans who are either being recruited or are self-recruiting to carry out terrorist attacks here or abroad is growing. so what are the triggers? recently numbers of young somali american was recruited in minneapolis to join a terror network in somalia. their families were stunned. two carried out suicide bombings. so what are the triggers?
and then there's david hedley, the american citizen who has now been indicted for alleged roled in the mumbai attacks as well as plotting attacks on a danish newspaper. this case is doubly important to examine because he was an american recruited to attack abroad. so what are the triggers? in these cases, terrorist organizations not only successfully recruited americans, but then provided the requisite training to enable those americans to carry out attacks. we don't have too many chances more, too many more chances to get this right. there is a growing list of people suspected of being recruited and ready to carry out terror attacks in our country and abroad. if we fail to find the right way to protect both security and liberty, the next attack, i fear, could lead to a shredding of our constitution. something none of us wants.
i want to welcome all the witnesses in addition to michael mccloud ball, we will hear from doctors stephen wine of the university of chicago, my friend jim of the american institute and jim kragen rand. all of the members of this subcommittee who took oaths to protect and defend the constitution and to provide for the common defense, look forward to your expert analysis and suggestions for tackling this growing threat. terrorists only have to be right once. we have to try our best to be right 100% of the time. i now yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> i thank the young madam chair and thank you for this very timely and important hearing. i think the witnesses, i thank the witnesss for being here today. home grown terrorism is happening right now and right here in the united states. and as we sit here today, someone or some group of peoples in the process are being radicalized to extremist ideology.
most will want themselves to radical thoughts and speech that are undeniably protected by our constitution but there are those on the path towards violent acts of terrorism, and their life's work is to try to kill us. unfortunately, finding and stopping these individuals is like finding a needle in a haystack. we see cases highlight the fact that the united states is not immune to home grown terrorism, and the murders in hood by nidal nassen last month remind us not only domestic radicalization but how vulnerable we are to attack. 13 people, incident people, brutally murder and many other injured by the land of a u.s. citizen, a doctor and a member of the united states military. the threat is real, and we are still at rick in this nation.
case after case demonstrates major hasan said his allegiance was to the koran and not the constitution. tried to get his bosses to prosecute some of his patients as war criminals, regularly described the war on terrorism as a war against islam. used a presentation at an environmental health class to argue that muslims were being targeted by the u.s. anti-terror campaign and was very vocal about the war. very up front about being a muslim first and an american second. daniel patrick boyd, a u.s. citizen and six others arrested in july charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. according to the fbi, boyd trained and in terrorist training camps in pakistan and afghanistan. and then mr. zazi, probably one of the biggest threats we've discovered recently in terms of a cell in the united states
working on behalf of al qaeda, born in afghanistan, u.s. legal permit resident living in colorado, charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. david hedley, a u.s. citizen who attended terrorist training camps in pakistan was living in chicago and planned attacks abroad. we've learned that he was not only planning future attacks but has now been charged with leping to plan the 2008 attacks in mumbai, india. and just over the past few days we're learning about five young men in virginia just outside where we sit here today who traveled to pakistan reportedly to link up with members of al qaeda. it appears these young men were radicalized just miles from where we sit here and 9 danker we are seeing more and more of
these cases, more individuals ooh self-radicalize oesh the internet versus being actively recruited by al qaeda. individuals turning radical extremist thought and then turning to terrorism. mr. smoty, in my home state of texas, in the united states, illegally in this country and living in texas was arrested for plotting to blow up a skyscraper in dallas, texas. according to the fbi, smoty made a decision to act to commit a significant conspicuous act of violence under his banner of subjihad. smoty is one of several recent cases of lone wolf plots. the patriot act is designed to give law enforcement and intelligence, official, the tools they need to detect terrorist plots. as provisions in the patriot act are said to expire this month, including the lone wolf provision, we must not forget that we are still under attack
and that the threat is very real. waiting in until terrorist we need to answer some fundamental questions. how can we identify who is on the path of terrorism without infringing on constitutional freedoms? are there trends and patterns? are there risk factors that make an individual more or less susceptible to going down this path? i look forward to hearing the answers to these questions. i hope this will be the first in a series of hearings on this topic and that in the future we will be able to hear what the government is doing to help understand and combat the spread of radical terrorist ideology. there are outreach programs.
i would request in subsequent hearings we hear from those and others about what is being done and what should be done to stop this problem. what is being done and what should be done to stop this problem. and finally i believe it is important to note that the government alone cannot solve this problem. this not only is a national security problem it is a community problem. we must work together with government, religious leaders, educators and community groups to reduce this threat, and i would ask the witnesses to discuss not only what can and cannot be done by the government, but what really can be done outside of the government? and with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you. let me just point out to the ranking member that we have held a series of hearings on this subject, really, for the last four year, and made a series on legislation i mentioned, we held a hearing a few weeks ago on the threats.
i know that you were detained in texas on official business and not able to tend attend that, but we will continue to focus on this in the hopes of getting it right. i now yield five minutes for opening remarks to the chairman of the full committee, mr. thompson of mississippi. >> thank you, madam chair, for holding this hearing. more than eight years after 9/11 attacks, it is not particularly surprising that we face the growing, ever-changing threat from violent extremists. the department of homeland security stood up in the wake of those attacks as evolved over the course of these past years yet even amidst changing there are con stands. on one hand we are challenged by the constant and continued threat posed by terrorists both transnational and domestic. we're challenged by groups of those willing to penetrate
inconceivable acts of violence. on the other hand, we're supported by the constant efforts of our dedicated law enforcement intelligence and homeland security professionals who helped defend against that threat. there are other constants in that we, too, have a duty we must remain vigilant. we must's vigilant to ensure that those who bear the brunt of detecting, identifying, disrupting and dismantling efforts by terrorists to strike at us, our citizens, our homeland and our allies have adequate resources and tools to do so. we must be vigilant that we do not slip back into a september 10, 2001 mentality regarding the sharing of information. no matter how we say it, knowing what we know connecting the dots, getting the right information to the right people at the right time, we're talking about the same thing. and an environment in which
information is shared is an environment in which better decisions can be made, and ultimately one in which people are safer. finally, we must also be vigilant thant we are doing everything we can to break the link between these groups and individuals they are grooming for violence. we both law enforcement and our communities must keep a watchful eye open for people like von brohm, smoty, but we smuft also be vigilant that those efforts resources and tools are applied consistently in ways that respect the privacy and civil liberties of american citizens, and do not sacrifice our nation's values. but i'm very glad that we have witnesses here before us this morning. i hope your insights will help us maintain both our vigilance and our ideals. welcome to you all and i thank
you for being here. >> i thank the chairman for his remarks and would note other members of the subcommittee are reminded under committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the record. i am now, it is now really my privilege to welcome our witnesses this morning. we will start with dr. jim zogby who is the president and founder of the american arab institute and who appears today because i called him and urged him to fit this hearing into his very busy plans for the month. aai serves as a political and policy research arm of the arab-american community since 1992 dr. zogby has written a weekly column called "washington watch" currently published in 14 arab and asian countries. authored a number of books including "what ethnic americans
really think "and what "arab this: values beliefs and concerns." in 2001 he was appointsed to the exec tick committee of the democratic national committee and in 2006 named co-chair of the dnc's resolutions committee. he has advised me personally and numbers of us here for years on the muslim community and i think it's very important as we review this subject again that we understand the fact that most members of the muslim community are law-abiding citizens and really want to help us get this right. dr. mccloud ball is the acting director of the aclu at the washington legislative office. his office works with congressional offices on a non-partisan basis to ensure american civil liberties be protected. he held roles in the political community including serving on presidential campaigns. his works is an attorney
afforded him the opportunity to argue significant cases on privacy and federal regulatory authority, and before this hearing, before his testimony here, he wrote the subcommittee a very thoughtful letter, which i have reread in preparation for this hearing on how to understand this problem and hopefully thousand get right and he has reviewed some draft legislation on approvement we are considering, and i very much appreciate your cooperation with us. dr. wine is a professor of psychiatry and responses to could as it trophies as the university of illinois at chicago currently serves at the principal investigator of the national institute of mental health sponsored study on add lessant refugees from siberia in the united states, authored several articles and book including "testimony in catastrophe," he was awarded a career scientist award from the nimh on scientist based with
refugee families. finally dr. craigin, a professor at the university of maryland, focusing on terrorist related issues. served three months on general petraeus' staff in iraq in 2008 and her iran publications include "the terrorist, dynamic terrorist threat" sharing the dragon's teeth" and exchange of new technologies. without objection the witnesses full statements will be inverted -- inserted in the record. and i welcome first dr. zogby. welcome, dr. zogby. >> thank you, madam chairman and members of the committee. the issue before us is indeed a critical one. it concerns our national security to be sure, but it also represents a grave challenge to our national character. i come at this exploration from several vantage points, some as you mentioned, an american arab
leader, having worked with those and other arab communities as well. at a ph.d. in islamic studies and also someone who did postdoctoral work on the impact of religion in societies under stress, as a pollster with my brother john spog buy intensively polled communities of interest both here in the united states and europe and across the middle east and as a participant leader in ethnic coalitions in this country that has brought me into close contact with new and not so new americans watching them move from exile politics into the american mainstream. let me begin with a simple observation. despite real concerns that we all share about recent cases involving the arrests of some young men seeking association with dangerous international terrorist activity and the arrests of others who appear to be on the verge of carrying out such activity, we are not
europe. our situation here is fundamentally different than that face by countries on the continent for several reasons. first and foremost is that america is different in concept and reality. i've heard and talked to third generation kurds in germany or al geeians or pakistanis in england who will continue to remain on the margins of their society. they're turks, they're arabs, or they are pakis. they do not become british or german or french. on the other hand, becoming american is a very different process. it's brought countless numbers of immigrant groupings into the mainstream. it is not through possession of a single ethnic community or a single ethnic group has the right to define american with generations diverse communities and religious people of different religious background from every corner of the globe have become american, and the important thing is that not only
do they become american, but america becomes changed as well. because of this rich experience, recent immigrants from arab and muslim countries come to this country in effect with the table set for them. and they find it to be a fertile ground for the ever-broadening definition of being american. another important difference between our situation and europe is that people here do not stay on the imaginal. in fact, because of the extraordinary social and economic mobility available to immigrants, they in fact move into enterprise, the yemeni community in calf i first met 30 years ago picking grapes in the valley are today business owners throughout the country and their children are in colleges and in fact becoming quite successful. it is true we have a problem. but i think we need to put the problem into context. the arrests of these young men that we have seen is certainly one that we must consider, and
we must consider not only the impact on our country but also the impact on the communities affected. let me say the following -- we're engaged in the conflict internationally. no question about it. and it has repair cushion repercussions here at home. those who sought to exploit it, cast it as an irreversible clash of civilization. just as there are some religious and political leaders and maybe a figure in the muslim world who sought to taint america way broad brush of irredeemable evil, there are counterparts here in this country who tried to do the same with islam. all of this exacerbates tension and creates problem on all sides. despite this, the vast majority of american muslims and arab-americans rejected this fermenting clash. they have worked with the political process available to them, they have fought
discrimination, they've combatted hate crimes and they've voiced differences in the u.s. as citizens not as aliens. nevertheless it is a fact that some alienated young men from these communities have become susceptible to anti-social radicalization. this is not new. we've seen it before. in the past four decades that i've been involved in politics, we've witnessed recruitment into white supremacist and christian nation and militia organizations. the black panthers, jewish defense league, the i.r.a. the fact is that the allure of certain ideology and romanticized machismo complete with weapons, training and acts of bravado does provide for some of these young men a dangerous cure to the alienation and feeling ofpowerlessness they
experience. i've looked at cases up and down. there are multiple differences and we have to look at the multiple difference and see what they are. they can't all be painted at one phenomena. what leads to violent action assess a cure to that alienation seems to run through them all, and this is has we must address. i believe that we must address it with a scalpel and not a sledgehammer. if we in fact take a swipe at the whole community we increase the alienation and change the character of who we are marking it more difficult for us to deal with the problem. let me just come to a close by saying that we have to understand what we're doing right. not only what is wrong, but what is being done right.
aiken cite them reaching out to law enforcement, working with young people to create a political alternative so they can voice their opinions as citizens seeking recourse. law enforcement is also working with these committees and doing so quite effectively, and as the situation in minneapolis or northern virginia shows, the work of the fbi or u.s. attorneys can be productive in this situation, and finally, we have a president creating a different atmosphere and space for discourse with the muslim world. this is very important. the answer is not to change who we are or how we react to be more of who we are and continue to do what we do best. >> thank you. mr macleod-ball. >> thank you very much.
chairwoman. good morning, chairwoman harman. thank you very much, ranking member mccaul and other members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting the aclu to testify about speech rights while examining violent ex-freedomism. 1964 barry goldwater said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. extremism is nothing more than a chosen set of beliefs and as such protectedeneder the first amendment. an extremist ideology in and of itself must not bring on government censure. violent acts deserves condemnation. this hearing is entitled "violent extremism." violent is inherently harmful. extremism is not. linking an examination of the two implies an extremist viewpoint leads to violence and that violence associated with it is more worthy of examination than non-ideological violence. even though the latter is more
frequent and caused more lasting damage. we will examine the events which may explain while individuals choose violence as a means for political change. we will steadfastly oppose efforts to examine and thus cast official disapproval upon any minority belief system. in time of national crisis we have often failed to live up to our democratic ideals. during the palmer raids, government created 150,000 secret files on those who held radical views or associations or voice anti-government policies. lawyers who complained about this were subject to investigation themselves. the lusk committee in the new york legislature in the '20s produced a report smearing libertarians as agents of international communism. and senator joseph mccarthy's zb committee and the house committee ruined careers of many loyal americans based purely on their associations. in the 1950s and '60s the fbi ran a domestic
counterintelligence program that attempted to oppress political dissent opening over half a million domestic intelligence files and identifying thousands of individuals to be rounded up in the national emergency. instead of focusing on violations of law these official efforts targeted people based upon their beliefs and associations. the security threat then was no less real during the first red scare and during the cold war, yet government abused its power in responding to those threats. there is some cause for similar concern today. a flawed 2007 new york police report claimed terrorists acts are linked to the adoption of certain beliefs and there is a uniformed four step radicalization process from belief to association to terrorism. but the report was based on just five cases, and ignored the fact that millions of people progressed through some or all of these very same steps without ever committing an act of violence. ignoring those flaws the virginia fusion center cited the same report in deg nating the state's universities as nodes of
radicalization requiring law enforcement attention. a 2008 report by the senate homeland security committee also restated the same flawed theories in arguing for national strategies to counter's it influence of the ideology. more recently, however, counterstunned studies have begun to appear. a united kingdom analysis concluded there is no single pathway to extremism. facing racism, identified a key factor making an individual receptive to extreme it ideology. a 2008 national terrorism paper cited america's greater diversity and civil rights protections to explain lower levels of homegrown terrorism here. in senate testimony one terrorism expert blamed moral outrage at abuses of detainees and the perception of a war against islam as the primary cause of violence, not ideology. he recommended against any measure that would tend to alienate the muslim community. and this subcommittee, i would
say, is show be admirable sensitivity to the issue just by holding this hearing. we don't question whether you should examine this but rather how to do so. singling out for examination violent actions committed by adherence to a particular ideology for scrutiny would pre-determine an outcome that would unfairly cast suspicion on all those who share any part of that belief or ideology. it would perpetuate a perception of alienation fueling the violence. instead our best defense lied in a renewed dedication to the protection of associational speech and religious rights. congress should focus the government's anti-terrorism research on actual terrorist acts and those who commit them rather than on an examination of those who have particular beliefs or who express dissent. fear should not drive our cost policies, protecting our first amendment freedomless honor our values and keep us safe. thank you for consideration of our views and i want to pay special thanks to the chairwoman
for her constant outreach to our office on these issues. >> thank you very much. we will now hear testimony from dr. weine. >> ranking member mccaul, chairman thompson, distinguished subcommittee members thanks for the opportunity to temperature before you today. i'm a psychiatrist, as you heard, who works lab rative with refugee and migrant communities to address priority needs in those communities. over the past two years a group of minnesota somalis crossed the line to violent radicalization through their involvement in al sha bobb. they went to somalia, attended camps and conducted operations. the recruits were males between the ages of 17 and 30, they were born in somalia, raised in refugee camps in kenya then came as refugees to the united states as children and were raised in an impoverished divided community.
they included high-achieving high school and college students, in all other ways, the recruits were indistinguishable from the other members of their community. what motivated them? their movement toward radicalization could be explained by multiple push and pull factors. most of the somali community in minnesota are subject to push factors that distinguish them from other american muslims. such as war exposure, forced displacement. living in refugee camps, poverty, ghettoization, secondary migration, inadequate services and family instability. poll factors also played a key role. internet exposure to violence in somalia and to extremist political and ideological views, the somali warrior tradition, the 2006 ethiopian invasion of somalia bp all of these factors were skillfully ma anyone lated by recruiters who are former el sha bobb fighters who reached
out to recruits through special networking and face-to-face contact. the results at least 18 somalis left home in minnesota and flew to somalia without telling their parents. serve hadn't been killed, four in custody and seven are believed to be in somalia. can violent radicalization occur with more somali americans? in my opinion, u.s. somalis remain highly susceptible to violent randiccalization as long as el shabob is active in somalia. recruiters previous success in convincing the best and brightest young men from that community to go their way showed how susceptible these young americaning are. now, the fbi's success in apprehending some recruiters and preventing more from mobilizing is encouraging, but several key concerns remain. others may have been radicalized and recruit but did not mobilize and they're still there.
wannabe or lone wolves could emerge. no broader preventive efforts have tried to lessen the susceptibility to recruiters. there is a stark disconnect between counterterrorism and both community policing and service provision in these refugee communities. recent events have shown that young men from muslim refugee and migrant groups from other failed states of violent extremism are also susceptible to radicalization. what steps could help? as a prevent researcher with refugee and migrant communities i know that prevention like terrorism itself is local. families and communities, local police and service providers, they all need to be centrally involved. they're in the best positions to identify who is most at risk. but in order to provide help, they require guidance and support. we should draw upon psychosocial and public health expertise and apply it to preventing home-grown terrorism.
i recommend the following steps -- one, conduct research to identify the protective resources in families and communities that mitigate against violent radicalization. two, develop and implement parenting education initiatives to protect against radicalization and recruitment. three, develop and implement community-level prevention that increases community support for at-risk youth, such as mentoring especially where rue creters are known tore active and, four, strengthen the collaborations between at-risk communities and local police and service providers. now, to take these steps, we need scientifically rigorous conceptually based of how radekization ever occurred. journalistic reports are helpful but not enough to develop prevention. we started to work with fames to gather preventive interventions and spread those around, but, of
course, the needs for this type of reventive work can be found in several communities throughout the u.s. the problem is this -- presently no government entity exists committed to sponsoring this research. we need a multidisciplinary commission or institution that would develop and sponsor investigation into the family and community dimensions of violent radicalization in the u.s. and work with governmental, nongovernmental and community part pers's in conclusion, the recruitment of united states somalis oh examples of home-grown terrorism demonstrate in addition to intelligence gathering and law enforcement we need new approaches in counterterrorism for managing those risks through working with communities and families, if not, recruiters will continue to know better how to find and help potential recruits than we will. >> thank you, doctor. i can't help but observe that you described the motivation behind our bill of two years
ago, the one that passed the house of 404-6. dr. craigin, please summarize your testimony in five minutes. >> i'd like to thank the chair and ranking member and the subcommittee on intelligence information sharing for inviting me to testify on the subject of this inside the united states. and also to take this opportunity to commend the committee for recognizing the importance of this topic. over the past 14 years i've explored what motivates individuals to become terrorists as well as what influences communities to sympathize with sayre rift groups. this research can be found in two rand publications including dissuading terror and social science for counterterrorism and would be happy to speak further about other studies in a classified session. unt fortunately recent events brought this topic to the forefront. as you know last week five young american men were raeted in pakistan allegedly trying to make they're way to training camps along the pakistan/afghanistan border. although we have yet to learn
fully about the intentions of these five men they appear to be one of several reasons examples of u.s. citizens and residents who have been susceptible to recruitment by al qaeda and associated movements. indeed examples exist of americans traveling abroad to fight as well as participating in training camps abroad in anticipation of conducting attacks here at home. what happens in these training camps? another individual arrested on terrorism charges described activities in a camp as follows. an introduction to the ak-47 and other guns followed by a 15-day course how to make suicide bombs and rocked propelled grenades and then graduation. so how do people end up in the training camps? research conducted at rand and elsewhere suts no single pathway towards terrorism exists making it difficult to determine precisely how and why individuals are is a spentable to recruitment. having said that for the remainder of mire testimony i will address two questions. first, how do individuals generally progress from
articulating sympathy to actively participating in terrorism? and second what can we do about it? to answer the first question, it's useful to explore the radicalization processes that clusters of individuals and individuals have gone through understood as having three phases. the first phase, termed availableability. environmental factors make them susceptible to appeals from terrorist groups and might inclues peer group influences or frustration with foreign policy. the first phase can occur on the internet, the second phase term recruitment usually occurs after contacting individuals and a planned assigned group. that is our research as well as others suggest recruitment works best when virtual contact is strengthened through social linkages. approved from even criminal gangs in prisons. third phase of the process yields a commitment to action on the part of certain individuals. the final step has been the most difficult to isolate in research and in some instance as specific
grievance appears to have acted as a final trigger. another common factor at least for communities appears to participate in a training camp@$ our research suggests we're best to intervene before individuals depart for training camps because these experiences tend to harden their commitment towards violence, yet in many instances, individuals have not engaged in illegal activity prior to their departure. these circumstances have proven to be the most difficult, so i would like to focus on them. first, beyond u.s. borders, the u.s. government should work with our nations to pressure recruiters. it is well known outside is interested in recruiting new fighter from the united states -- al qaeda is interested in recruiting new fighters from the
united states. so as partner nigss work towards learning recruiters who reached successful individuals with their other countries the u.s. could encourage them to extend programs to focus on western recruits. second, with the united states, the u.s. government should work with local community leaders to develop programs that reduce susceptibility to messages articulated by al qaeda and associated movements. the case of the five arrested in pakistan last week reportedly just brought to the attention of u.s. authorities through muslim community leaders and i cannot imagine how difficult was for the community leaders to call u.s. authorities regardless of outcome. we owe that a great deal of respect and gratitude. nonetheless, more can be done. in singapore, a group of scholars worked with individual arrest and terrorist charges and their families to help reintegrate them back into the community. similar model could be used for u.s. citizens and residents refusing to participate in training camps abroad. which brings me back to the original question how and why
individuals become terrorists. clearly more needs to be done to get a bedder understanding. i urge you not leave it at that. as we move forward we need a better understanding how al qaeda and associated movements retain the loyalty of the recruits. and perhaps more importantly, why individuals choose not to become terrorists. for if we are truly going to develop bearers to al qaeda recruitment in the united states it is equally important we understand motives of those who reject al qaeda's overtures. thank you. >> thank you very much, doctor craigin and thank you to all witnesses. i think this testimony is extremely helpful. we will now proceed to questions, and i yield myself five minutes. to all the witnesses, let me just read a list here. john walker lynn. brooklyn bridge plot, columbia shopping mall bomb plot. load thai, california, sleeper cells. sears tower, fbi bomb plot.
adam gadan. terrorist cell i mentioned earlier. ft. dix six. somali americans disappear from minneapolis. we've just heard about that. bronx terror plot. 14509ing at the arkansas military recruiting station. naji bulla zazi. tariq, nidal hasan and most recently the five in alexandria, virginia. this is a long list. i don't want just to liftie arab-americans or muslim-americans, but this is a long list of u.s. residentses or u.s. citizens in most cases who are somehow experimenting with terror, and while i agree with you, mr. zogby, we need a scalpel not a sledgehammer and i agree that we should focus on actual terrorist acts, and not someone's belief system i truly
agree with that, we need to do something here. we need to intervene. hopefully we will not intervene after the fact, but we will find exactly the right place to intervene to prevent these terror actions. so our second two witnesses, dr. weine and dr. craigin suggested ways to learn more. i'd like to ask our first two witnesses what strategies do you think we, the united states government, this subcommittee, should undertake to intervene at the right moment to prevent acts of terror by people like the list i just read against the united states? >> thank you, chairman harman. i think there are a lot of good ideas expressed by all of the witnesses here today. today. i would reiterate our point that you start with the violence and
not the ideology. adding to the list, we could add any number of ku klux klan whether underground, or any examples of terrorist action within our country. by starting with the ideology and saying you will define and examine those acts, you are predetermining the outcome and your conclusions will cast dispersions on the muslims. >> i agree with the definition of the problem. what's the solution? >> to start with a different universe of actions. you look at what moves different people in different contexts from a nonviolent to a violent situation. that is the best way you are looking at actual historical events and not making assumptions about the future,
but also by definition, if you are starting with a different universe of people, you are not predetermining a focus on the muslim community. >> doctor? >> you asked the question of the hour and it is the critical one. let me make a couple of observations. they are broken up into different groups, but with the exception of two, they will all stop because we were doing things right. cooperation with the muslim community and the outreach and the significant work of law enforcement using the tools that are available to them and working with the communities has been effective in every one of the instances. in the case of nadal that is a horrific act of terror and an awful incident, law enforcement failed and we have to say that.
there was a failure to connect the dots and because our hands were tied because of restrictive ways we approach gun laws and gun information, the fact that he bought a weapon that is not to be used for hunting and sharp shooting, but had records of this man in contact with someone that we have on a terrorist watch list? you have all the information that you gave us of his questionable activities while in the military. yet the dots were never connected and the agencies were not talking to each other. that is a problem that i think we will have to look more closely at. what to do about it? we are doing things right. we are stopping the people and invigorating the cooperation in the communities and changing the tone of the debate in our country that i think is bringing
more people forward and ready to cooperate. that's why people have turned in people and working with law enforcement to stop the problem. >> thank you very much. my time expired. i want to observe that the doctor said we ought to say thank you to the law-abiding member who is do turn in family members or point law enforcement with the problem. i think that's a good suggestion and i would like to say thank you to those community members. we have a full group of members because this hearing is so interesting and i would like to ask unanimous consent can sit with us after the other members. any objection? so ordered. i yield five minutes to mr. mccall. >> behind me is an illustration of homegrown terrorists in 2008. this picture really says it all
in why this hearing is so important and madam chair, thank you for holding this. this is a threat. i was a federal prosecutor and a thought is not a violation of the law. the ideology is not a prosecutable offense. also a experience requires an overt act and that's the first step towards completing that spnchs that does make it a violation of the law. however, it starts with an ideology and begins with a radical idea or belief that eventually does come to fruition. not in every case, but in the cases that we have seen. we have been able to stop a lost these cases fortunately, but some have not.
this case is a good illustration of a case that failed. it was a whole failure of law enforcement as you said. that was absolutely correct. when we had a major in the army, the united states army, the largest military installation of the united states north of my district, having communications foreigning top al questioned recruiters, this was in the hands of the terrorism task force in washington. one of the members from the department of defense. if that information was not shared with the base where the major resided. don't you think general cohen who i talked to at the memorial service, we buried 13 soldiers and i talked to the wounded who said he shot us.
don't you think he would like to have that information? he had a major who was communicating with the top recruiter in yemen? that didn't happen and that information was not shared with the military and ft. hood. i know that is on point because this man radicalized. we don't know if he did on his own or had help from the outside. what can we do and i have so many questions i can bring up, but that case is a classic case of failure. what can we do better it ensure that there no more hasans out there? how many more out there that are a threat to our united states military because we know al qaeda targets the military. they targeted ft. dix.
they bring back the playbook again and again like the world trade center and will probably try to do with the capitol. how can we stop another case from happening again? i will direct that to anybody. anybody who would like to tackle that. >> sure. i can start. i would like to get away from the term. there some examples of that and there was a mentor term involved. during my testimony and one thing to start focusing attention on these mentors. that doesn't have to be in law enforcement, but that is one way to do it. unfortunately, timothy mcveigh was one of them. that's an unfortunate reality
that we are facing today. >> anybody else on the panel? >> yes, i think that prevention is the right word. the question is how you think about prevention. not strictly from a law enforcement point of view, but community policing point of view and from a public health point of view where we try to establish relationships and change behavior upstream before they go too far down the line. we are not doing that right now. counter terrorism in the microcosm of the somali community is limited to fbi criminal investigation and with all due respect to the people who do that important work, i think there still shortcomings
in the area of community policing and preventive approach. there parents and community leaders who want to support the efforts, but they are not involved and engaged. that's what i think we have to do more. >> i worked as a federal prosecutor. one thing we need to do is get involved in the community where we can identify the 1% or less of potential threats. >> let me respond to the question briefly. let's try to stay strictly to the five minutes to be fair to everybody. >> ideology is the paint on the surface that is already there. he meant i'm going to kill you.
i hate you. i am angry. really angry. when i used to teach religion, i used to say theeññ that it is an emotion rather than the word. you judge that action, not the language. in another era, major hasan may have turned to maoism or another religion. the language at the moment to discuss the deep alienation i am feeling is the language of religion. do not let them confuse us with what is really going on here, because that is when we start
using a sledgehammer, and as i am watching the media covering this problem of what happened in pakistan, showing look who is at the mall on service theday, thas the backdrop. tting themselves to service to our country, praying. that was the backdrop. they said they are dangerous and we have to be careful. judge the action. the susceptibility will be there. we have to deal with the susceptibility and not the language they use. >> thank you. i yield five minutes to the chairman, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, madam chair. excellent panel and i thank all of you for your testimony. one of the things i want to do is try to broaden the discussion. we just saw a broad panel of
where arrests have taken place. it only focused on a very narrow type of arrests for certain kinds of things. one of the things i want us to do as a committee is look at act acts of violence and extremism in its totality and not a very narrow focus. we can understand that the bait here is important, but it's a part of a broader debate we need to take as a committee. can you identify for the committee the broad and violent extremist potential that existed here and what groups may be part of what appears in this country so we can see the bigger picture of the discussion?
i will take dr. zogby and we will go down. >> someone not in law enforcement himself, but in constant contact with law enforcement because that's what we do, they are deeply concerned and it's so secret since the election of our president. with white supremacy movements, there is a lot of chatter and danger and a lot of concern. i think that is an area that is something we have to look at. the susceptibility in an economic downturn and in time of war and especially now with this sense of revenge about government is a problem. i think we have to take a close look and continue to look at it. it's the other language used today. >> thank you. >> i want to say this in the right way. i don't want to name groups and
cast dispersion by naming them in this context, but historically there many groups in our country and many are referenced in my previous answer. there remnants left today or people who believe the same things and act to further the beliefs. >> i guess and i accept that, but if you can talk about the ideology rather than the name of the group, if that would give you a little -- >> let me go about it this way. does timothy mcveigh have more in common with an islamic terrorist or a christian believer? most people would say with islamic terrorists. it's not the belief that is the defining moment. that's the paint that may be
present. it may be present in any situation. you start with the propensity for violence, however that may be caused. you add the background material that gives the person the basis for going forward after he or she has the propensity for violence. i'm reluctant to talk about it in that way. i think it starts with the factors that create the propensity for violence that the other witnesses mentioned in their testimony. >> thank you. i'm concerned about the place where three broad processes interact. one is failed states. people who come from failed states where there violent extremement movement and organizations and three is they now exist in migrant communities in this country that face
challenges of daily life. the somalis certainly fit that. so do several other communities that we have to be concerned about. i think this is very challenging. the other broad thing that concerns me is the issue of movement. migration. secondary migration within the united states. i would like to share this back with you. there presently about 84,000 somalis and 20,000 resettled there. 20,000 came from another state where they were resettled. this represents a short coming in the system. when they moved they don't come with services attached. this is a set up for underserved refugee community.
we might think about what other populations in the u.s. that fit that pattern. >> thank you. >> in my written testimony, if you were to broaden the community with the radicalization process, it would include criminal gains and colts. that's one way of broadening it without ideology or naming specific groups. >> thank you, mr. chairman. five minutes. >> i will start to dr. zogby. my regards to your cousin, charles. we are told the united states is less susceptible to terrorists than european nations. do you believe that is still the
case and if the united states is less susceptible, can you go into why. >> the important thing to understand here is having dealt with and talked to these groupings in europe, actually it was the state department and another program i did with bbc who were interested in seeing the differences in what is going on here and there. the degree of alienation is different there than here. here it exists on the margins and there it is much more widespread. they didn't tell their parents. the pakistani kids here in northern virginia didn't tell their parents. that tells you something right away. the community base of support in europe for this problem of radicalization is very different
than here where the problem as i said exists on the margins and the parents actually turn them in or their pierce will turn them in. the process of becoming american is determinative and the more compelling force and the antidote to this radicalization and a sense of alienization. at the end of the day, what we have to do is more of what we do and do it better instead of less. >> the reason i asked the question, when you saw the recent incidents around the country, i was under the impression that europe is more susceptible and given what happened in the recent weeks and months, i started to question that. >> that's why i suggest if you look at each one and take them apart and see where the patterns are, the ft. hood is different than minneapolis.
i would say that one of the things from somali experts and people in the community said since the withdrawal of ethiopian forces, the lure has gone down and the parents turned them in. the u.s. attorney had the full cooperation of the parents and the parents looked upon it as a relief because the people who were preying on their kids were gone. we were doing it well and it is not the mainstream. it's the margin and we have to make sure it stays on the margin. >> we received a variety of mixed opinions to address the issue of radicalization. some say there should be increased cooperation between law enforcement and muslim clergy and religious teens. we want to deter the teens from
going down the path of radicalization. it causes voices we hope to encourage to be discredited as pop ganda. do you believe the government and officials should actively engage with muslim religious and clergy leaders and how can it be done without discrediting? >> i will start by saying one thing and to agree with dr. zogby in that i don't think we see the susceptibility as we do in europe. one thing that's common between the two of them is a separation of the cells or bunch of guys from their own muslim community. it makes law enforcement and relying on muslim community to interact with law enforcement more problematic. they are not separating from american society, but even separate for example their own muslim community. this makes this engagement even more problematic.
i tend to think that engaging like the way our law enforcement are with leaders is the way to go in this area. if you want to protect civil liberties and you are not wanting interest of law enforcement tactics, the way to go is engage the leaders. like we have done successfully, we have really great examples of how this worked. >> thank you. do you believe that domestic radicalization is a threat in the united states? >> there many threats and that is one among them. we are talking abouty semantic issues. we had 1.3 million violent crimes in the united states reported in 2008.
certainly it's a threat. part of that threat is what you mentioned. some people are motivated through ideology and many people were motivated through something other than ideology. the threats, sure. they exist. we ought to be investigating those along with the other threats. >> thank you very much. five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. you stimulate so many questions, this will be a long series of hearings i hope at some point. dr. zogby, i appreciate your making the distinction. i would like your opinion though. do you think the case of somalia is somehow different than those who are recruited to span?
>> it may very well be. that does not mean that we should not have taken measures to protect these kids from recruitment and engagement in activities to who we are and what we want. there is a fundamental problem and if i can take a moment to look at it, it's a problem of exile politics. ultimately we have to make a decision as a country. i remember growing up in a situation where there was no such thing as dual citizenship. now you can have it with many countries all over the world and now vote in elections in countries all over the world while you are in this country as an american citizen and now, you can be a bush administration official in the department of a.i.d. and run for office in lebanon for parliament and
decide whether or not you want to come back to the united states or not. the issue here and i spoke with the jdl before and these guys floating back and forth, i think we have issues here we have to look at as a country. i grew up when i saw the pictures of george washington crossing the delaware, i was on the boat with him. when i saw lewis voted in the
presidential election in this country. that's your country here. make a choice. we have to look at that. i'm not going to be popular with both parties and even people in my own community, but if we do not take the issue of becoming american and take it seriously and make it work with all that it means, we are running down a road that will get us in trouble everywhere, not just in the mideast, but as conflicts emerge everywhere around the world, people say that's my fight. that's my fight. arabs, that's my fight. pakistan, that's my fight. that's not a good situation to be in as a nation. >> what do you suggest? >> public diplomacy, we have to tell the american story there and here. and we have to work with the full gambit of institutions that
policies that worked to make these kids fully participate. the fact that if we hire more americans in government and open to their rank and do more, the overseas will pass by them completely and make sure they are part of it and identify with it fully. >> i want to switch gears and since you are from illinois, i have a question concerning potential movement of hundreds of get mow detainees to illinois. is that going to have some impact on recruitment or a damper to recruitment? what's your opinion on the transfer? >> i know there is ay ing bigger
dialogue taking place in illinois about that and i'm not in a position to comment on that. >> i'm asking for a professional opinion. is this going to have an impact? >> they are very clever and recruiters are always looking for a way to manipulate events to their advantage. i'm sure they will find a way and that doesn't mean that shouldn't be done in moving get mow detainees. i think that the point in terms of prevention is we need to find ways to stay a step ahead of where recruiters are. >> i'm not a psychiatrist, but
unless it involves commitment to due process and provide rights to all of the detainees to determine definitively what their status is, that would serve as the basis for recruiters seeking to point to the united states treating folks with something other than justice. >> doctor? >> i have always been in favor of shutting down guantanamo bay because it was used as a rhetorical device in the al qaeda media, but wherever you decide to move it, you want to give the detainees due process to get down as much of that rhetoric in the future, yes. >> time expired. mr. brown of georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. dr. zogby, your last testimony
was extremely refreshing to me. i have long been a believer that the hyphenization of america is one of the biggest problems we have with radicalization and all these other things. it's true in europe because if you look there, you see the radicals coming out of the community that is not a liegeient to their country and not a liegeient to the european union, but to that radical element within their community. i think a common language, english is the official language of america is critical for us to further exactly what you are saying. stopping the dual citizenship is critical and all those we appreciate your testimony in that regard. i could not agree with you any further. yes, sir? >> i did not mean some of that.
let me explain what i do mean. what i do mean, i oppose the dual citizenship and have to move people from exile into the mainstream. it is wonderful that i'm an arab-american. american is the noun. arab is the adjective. i have a heritage that i'm proud of and gives me joy. >> i apologize for interrupting, but for the sake of time, we come from different backgrounds with different heritages, but being an american is the most important thing in my opinion for all of us. >> the meaning of that being manner is we eat spaghetti and tabouli and we are this diverse culture that has become american. >> i agree with you and we are all focusing on being american. >> i agree. >> i was glad to hear your
earlier testimony, but nowhere is it more real than in homegrown terrorism and the mutating nature of the terrorist threat. ft. hood was a horrible example turning from ideology and an idea logical expression to terrorism and an act. it appears that the political correctness is a roadblock to dressing radicalization and homegrown terrorism and i would like to hear your thoughts on how to address that issue. >> i had people say this before that political correctness is a roadblock to addressing radicalization. in my experience that's not necessarily the case. there is some discomfort in dealing with the term of ideology. in this sense to me, ideology i
think is as this panel suggested a broad brush or is a reer toial device that tends to be used. when it comes down to individual motivations, ideology and research demonstrates that it's not a primary motivating factors in most cases. political correctness if there is a bit of sensitivity maybe. i wouldn't say it has been a barrier in the academic community to address the problem. it's more interpret of what it means. >> i disagree with you. the ft. hood incident and the political correctness was the biggest barrier. it's a tragic terroristic act that one of the soldiers killed was from my district and it was very much in play there. changing tracks, i have one minute left.
i believe firmly that on the ground human intelligence within the communities whether within the muslim community or the protect groups of others being mentioned. i would like your comments about the belief that on the ground human intelligence is the best way if not the very best way of preventing the radicalization to stop the process before it gets to a point of actually causing a terrorist attack. i throw it out for the few seconds i have left. . >> thank you. i think i disagree and agree in part with you.
i don't think we can be making decisions based upon individual associations with groups no matter how bad their reputation may be. however if law enforcement acting properly determines that it has probable cause to believe that a particular set of individuals are appropriate to investigate because they anticipate or committed unlawful acts, certainly they ought to go and investigate. if you want to wait until they commit the terrorist attack or break the law before they intervene, we have to intervene before that. when you have cause to investigate, it doesn't necessarily mean an unlawful act has been committed. we are talking hypotheticals, but the community has a rigid set of procedures. it has a basis for determining when to open a file in a set of
circumstances. those have been in place for quite sometime. members of this committee i'm sure are aware of those procedures better than i am having worked in the law enforcement community in the past. >> my time expired, but i would appreciate a written response. thank you, madam chairman. >> that are request is acceptable to all of you? thank you very much. i yield five minutes to mr. green in texas. >> i thank the witnesses for appearing today. there words from south pacific that are important, i think. a song has the words you have got to be taught in it. you are not born an evil person. a terrorist. you have to be taught. you do have some mentoring that
takes place along the way. the process of being taught you to hate, we have the opportunity to negate this process. we cannot do it inconsistently. we really have to develop consistency in dealing with hate. we are right to talk about how persons of ill repute from other places can do dastardly deeds, but must also with that equal degree of fervor condemn those who were born right here who have been terrorizing people for scores of years.
we have to use the same language when we talk about the kkk and talk about the evil they represent. be as committed to eliminating the kkk and its evil as we are to eliminating others who would perpetrate evil. the consistency has to be there. having lived under circumstances where fear was something that i had to cope with, i know that we have not done enough to be consistent with our rhetoric. we cannot allow tolerance of
hate and expect to overwhelm others with our desire to do good. dr. king reminded us it's not the work of evil and the actions of the evil people, but the inaction of good people that really can make a difference at what we do. good people, people of good will have to use free speech as people of evil will will use free speech. free speech has to have a price when it has hate in it. the price has to be people of good will stepping forward and saying this is wrong. this is hate that you are preaching. we have to get people to a point where they will do this and perm nate the entirety of the community. my question to all of you is
a counter narrative from one corner of our society and being helpful to narratives to those who want to reach counter narratives and they should be spoken and they should be listened to. my concern along with the doctor is that people who are powered or on the margins to decide to preach the counter narratives against hatred and fear. thank you. >> i really appreciate your comments. the kkk grew out of a radical christian part of its history. yet i would say there was more in common between the kkk and
the islamist groups who have attacked our country than the kkk has with mainstream christian values. that's the point of our comments. that you have got to look not at the ideology that serves as the foundation for the organization, but in the action. whether you are looking at the kkk or some radical islamic group who attacked us or non-idea logical attacks like the anthrax attacks or columbine. >> would you let the doctor have a comment on this. >> i will. we were entertaining the notion of the members having one more question. maybe you would like to continue your time. >> i would not wish for it to be
my time. dr. zogby, please. >> i remember in the clinton years, the dialogue was an effort to entertain us in who we are and how we relate to one another. we held a stunning event on hate crimes and i was a participant and found it moving. we need more and not less. it was too dependent on the president and we didn't begin a program of encouraging people independently to begin this conversation in their communities and on their campuses, etc. president bush did a stunning thing. he focused the nation on the american muslim community and said they should not be seen as
the enemy. we had an avalanche of people in hollywood and in various forms of the media and politics and this house and the senate. people began having meetings and talking about it. my community, i will tell you the measure of our country is my community, the arab and muslim community as well never felt as respected even in that most vulnerable of times even with hate crimes because of the support we were receive for example institutions around this country. it all started with the president doing it. i think we have an opportunity to do that again on many levels and not be afraid to encourage a reexamination and recommitment to what it means to be american and what it means to be a diverse country of many strands woven into a fabric that made us great. if we allow that to define us and take those and i maintain
isolated events because each of them and many of them are different. some of them are criminal converted to islam and some are people who went postal and some are recruited to fight foreign engagement not to attack our country despite that that is wrong and should be dealt with. they are wrong and we have to look at them and not a sledge hammer, but a scalpel. one of the things is to begin not just in this hearing, but among our people so we can recommit our value. >> i am woefully over. you have been more than generous. >> thank you, dr. zogby. >> members who were interested will be able to ask one more brief question starting with mr. mccall. >> mr. green, thank you for the questioning. i think you hit the issue. it's hatred is what we are
talking about. my grandfather lost his job because of the kkk because he was a catholic. it was a white supremacy, a religious extremist movement. not unlike what we are seeing today in terms of a radical islamic extremist movement. not to categorize all christians or muslims, but we are talking about a radical form of hatred, a perverted sense of these religions taken to a radical point. action is taken by some in a terrorist event. the kkk perpetrated terrorism in the united states. i think radical islam portrays islam. maybe it's a matter of semantics
here, but the ideology and the belief system, you can't take it out part and parcel. it takes an individual to a point where the hatred is such. he meant i hate you. that's what he meant. that's what drove him to kill. the belief system is the beginning of the process and the process we have is how in the constitution we have to monitor activities of radical ideology and beliefs and to be able to prevent and deter that radical
belief. with that if anybody would like to comment. >> that was a brief question. yes? briefly, please. >> i believe i disagree with your statement that it starts with the radical belief. it could come in the middle or the end. it's the propensity of violence that is the factor here. when you exercise your responsibility to examine the issues, if you exclude other ideologies and the kkk from your investigation, you run the risk of missing something that may be critical to understanding. >> i completely agree with that. . >> thank you. a question, please. >> how do you find a question?
>> in the two terms i have been here, i have noticed that we often react to fear rather than courage. i am tired of that. i have to tell you i'm impressed with the panel and what i have heard today. i want to associate myself with your comments on different things on what we can do. to that end, your discussion of being a yemen-american or irish-american, how much they view themselves as a soldier versus a citizen in their involvement. >> they do not. that's the important thing. the majorities of the communities see that ethnicity as part of their heritage and origins. the land where daddy came from.
that is the nature of exile politics and the nature of the kids whose parents came after the hungarian 1956 revolution was squashed. whose parents talked about we are going to go back and the kids one generation are saying no. this is home. that's the process we have to encourage. it's your heritage and your history and you can be proud of it, but this is your new history and this is the america that we become. i therefore think that we don't want to discourage the yemeni americans from feeling proud about their heritage, but make sure the american side is strengthened and given a sense of purpose so that they identify the way that they express their concern about what's happening in somalia is by voting for a congressman who will support their position on the issues or by getting engaged in the discussion about what can america do to change politics in
afghanistan rather than i am becoming a soldier because i don't belong here. the alienation we have to cure and that is the key here. >> doctor? >> we should remember, a lot of these are kids. 17 years old or 19 years old. in high school. they are not national agents making logical decisions backed by the balanced view of the world. they can act impulsively and quickly in response to a charismatic person. that makes them vulnerable. >> how desensitized are the kids? >> to? >> to violence. >> the ones that i know, they are not violent by nature, most of them.
one wanted to be a doctor. they see themselves as healers, but they are desensitized to violence in their communities subject to a lot of community violence. one of the kids who went to somalia was really struck and wrote on his facebook page of the drive by killing of one of the kids in minneapolis and said that could happen to me. i think that changed his view of the world. the point i want to make is, this is the it takes a village idea. parents and community leaders, not just one person, but all these people have to be involved in the counter poll against that one recruiter. ultimately we have to convince a 17-year-old acting alone and impulsively to stay on our side and not to go to the other side. >> thank you.
>> dr. brown? >> thank you, madam chairman. a quick question. i believe the only way to stop terrorism in this country and worldwide is for the peace in the muslim community with what we are most focused upon now. i think it's the peace loving muslims as well as elsewhere to say that's enough. we had enough of this and we will put a stop to it. it's true within all communities whether it's in our communities with the kkk or other communities. i think the way to stop this is for people to be within that community to say no. we will prevent it ourselves within our own community. do you agree with that, each of you and if so, how can we promote that more so as a community and as a government from the u.s. governmental
a government entity to address that. >> dr., how would you do that though? how would you reach out to the somali families and to any others not only in this country, but worldwide? >> we are. i would do it in the spirit of collaboration. the best protection of your community will be people in your community stepping up. yet we know certain things about say how to prevent teenagers from doing other bad things like drugs, gang involvement or sexually risky behavior. let's merge the expertise from science and community values and let's get that work done in community on the ground preventive activities.
>> thank you, doctor. that was quick. quicker than anybody else. >> thank you, dr. brown. let me conclude with no questions, but an observation. first, we have a problem and this subcommittee is dedicated and has been dedicated over many years on a bipartisan basis to find a solution. to find the right intervention strategies so that this problem of people becoming terrorists, whatever their motivations are is hopefully reduced and we prevent the death of hundreds or thousands of innocent americans, probably on american soil, if possible. we have a problem. the second point i want to make is security and liberty are not a zero sum gain. i said this over and over and over again.
you get more of both or less. i predict that if we don't work together on the right intervention strategies and there is another major attack or series of attacks on u.s. soil, the first candidate will be our constitution. i don't want that to happen. i appreciate that the panelists and others are here. i don't want that to happen and therefore we need to focus on what are the right set of intervention strategies. third point is we are not limning inquiry to the arab american community or the muslim american community. we never were limiting it. the comments of numbers of members about an inquiry were valuable and the comments of the witnesses about this. they were valuable. we felt a very good record here. finally to dr. weim, that bill
was well-intended. i don't think any of you dispute that. the goal of setting up a multidisciplinary commission was to give us better advice and it wasn't to tell us what to do. 20 to develop a legislative strategy, but give us better advice to act based on information and not based on emotion or passion or personal flaj a prejudice that any of us might have. i continue to feel not necessarily that that bill has to be law. i know there strong objectives. working together on a strategy is imperative and i want to leave that with all of you and people are nodding, so you are in. you're in the tent and a strategy perhaps based on a way after recruiters specifically, perhaps based on a better understanding of good community
policing and good community strategies and certainly including the words thank you to those who are trying to help is a way forward. so i want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony. and the members for very valuable questions. if members, in addition to dr. broun, have other questions in writing, i hope witnesses will comply. having no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. e speaker pro tempore: without
objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself 4 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, this bill has one overriding goal, to prevent iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. the prospect of a nuclear armed iran is the most serious and urgent strategic challenge faced
by the united states and we must use all of the diplomatic means at our disposal including tougher sanctions to prevent that from becoming a reality. a nuclear armed iran would spread its influence by intimidating its neighbors, it would, with near inpunity, continue to support terrorists and destabilize the middle east, it would spark an arms race in the region that would tear the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to shreds and most frightening of all it could in the light of iran's repeated threats to wipe other nation off the map result in the actual use of nuclear weapons. when one considers the regime's ideological nature, the fact that it sent thousand of children to their deaths in the iran-iraq war and the current disregard for the human rights of its own citizens, it is clear the iranian regime is anything but a rational actor. and we certainly cannot take the chance that a nuclear iran would
be -- would behave responsibly. with each passing day the situation becomes more urgent as iran takes additional steps to developity nuclear weapons capability. by many estimates it would have that capability by some time next year and even the predictions that they could not be ready to deliver a bomb within five years have to be reevaluated on a shorter time frame based on recent revelations about iran's nuclear program. in september iran's efforts it to construct a new secret uranium enrichment facility were exposed to the world and what was tehran's response when the international community rightly condemned them for that action? declared it would build 10 mors. it could have been resolved without -- more. it could have been resolved without further actions but regrettably iran has not unclenched its fist. the regime has refused to endorse even a confidence
building measure agreed to by its negotiators in geneva that would have seen iran ship most of its low enriched uranium abroad to be further enriched for use in iran's civilian medical research reactor. that deal would have brought everyone significant time, delaying iran's nuclear arms clock for up to a year as negotiators dealt with the heart of the issue. iranian compliance with the u.n. security council requirement that it spend its enrichment program altogether. by rejecting the deal, iran retains its full stock of low enriched uranium, enough to serve as the basis for one nuclear bomb and it forces the world to respond urgently. the bill before us today is an important part of that response. it will take advantage of iran's considerable dependency on refined petroleum imports. it would sanction foreign companies that sell refined petroleum to iran or help iran
with its own domestic refining capacity. dy depreviousing those companies of access to the united states market. and in to so doing we're asking no -- and in so doing we're asking no more of foreign companies than we do of firms. i believe the passage and implementation of this act would have a powerful affect on the iran an economy. and i believe it would force unpalatable budgetary choices on the iranian regime, vastly increasing the domestic political cost of pursuing its nuclear program. that said, i want to reiterate that my overriding goal in moving forward with this legislation is to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. as we move toward a likely conference with the senate, most likely early next year, and as the administration continues its efforts to pursue stronger multilateral sanctions, i am open to making adjustments to the bill that would make it as effective as possible in meeting that objective, including
providing incentives to other nations to join us in supporting a strong multilateral sanctions regime. one possibility would be to provide an exemption for companies whose host nations are already enforcing robust sanctions in their national law. but for now it is sufficient to say that iran has had ample time to respond positively to president obama's generous engagement offer, regrettably the response has been only one of contempt. it is time for this body to act. i urge the support of this legislation, reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. kucinich, for permitting me to speak on this. i have great respect for the chair and ranking member and i deeply share their concern about
a nuclear armed iran. it is something that i think we are all frankly deeply opposed to, we're deeply concerned about in terms of the potential instability in that delicate region and frankly around the world. but i do think there is deep concern that the approach that is being offered here is not calculated to reach that objective. first and foremost there is cords and i would add to the record, mr. speaker, a letter from the deputy secretary of state, mr. steinberg, talking about the problems of sanction legislation on the senate side, if i may. that talked about how we are injuring a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international
pressure on iran. it's not at all clear, mr. speaker, that moving forward right now with new sanctions on companies of other countries that are involved with the petroleum activities is actually going to be helpful at a time when the administration is ramping up its international efforts to try and deal with iran. i think efforts that we all support and feel need to be as productive as possible. i think there's also a very real question about whether this focus of this legislation is going to be -- has its intended use because there is nobody in the iranian government, in the revolutionary guard, in the inner circle of either the president or the supreme ruler
dealing with export controls that have actually developed other countries' capacity, including those that aren't friendly to us, or are companies of other competitors around the world. i think we need to be very careful here. it's going to last but by no means least, mr. speaker -- and last, but by no means least, mr. speaker, i'm concerned that the united states is the only country in the world that doesn't have a thoughtful sanction policy. when to impose them, how to impose them and most when to take them off -- most important when to take them off. i would respectfully suggest that this is not the right time, this is an instrument that's not likely to be successful and it may complicate efforts.
while i agree with the gentleman's objective, i don't agree with the legislation and urge its rejection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the gentleman. since its secret nuclear weapons program was publicly exposed in 2002 iran has manipulated nations, world leaders and the united nations on its march toward possessing the capacity to unleash nuclear havoc on the world. current and past regime leaders have made their intentions quite clear. the destruction of the state of israel, the extinction of the jewish people, a world without the united states. iran has already produced over 1,400 kilograms of low enriched uranium which can easily be used for a so-called dirty bomb. new iranian documents have been revealed reportedly detailing a
program to produce and test the trigger for an actual nuclear weapon. nuclear experts note that there is no other possible use for such nuclear technology except for a nuclear bomb and in september of this year media quoted international inspectors saying, and i quote, they believe that tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is working on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic war head, end quote. and u.s. officials have calculated that iran already has stockpiled enough uranium to produce one nuclear weapon even as it expands its enrichment capabilities. we have arrived at the press miss and we are staring into darkness. in february of 2006 the congress adopted a concurrent resolution citing the iranian regime's repeated violations of its nonproliferation obligations, underscoring that, as a result
of these violations, iran no longer has the right to develop any aspect of a nuclear fuel cycle and urging responsible nations to impose economic sanctions to deny iran the resources and the ability to develop nuclear capabilities. the idea that we can rely on the so-called international community to handle this problem has been shown to be a mirage. but we too have failed to act quickly and decisively. failing to implement the iran-u.s. sanctions that are already on the books. now, we must use the lifmented time we make to impose sanctions so painful that it should threaten the iranian regime survival, but only threatened with a loss of power will they be compelled to abandon its destructive policies. the bill we are considering today, mr. speaker, the iran
refined petroleum sanctions act ratchets up the pressure on the regime by addressing a key thing, an ability to refine products. in iran, it is estimated to have imported gasoline directly or indirectly from at least 16 countries, including china, india, the netherlands, france and the u.a.e. as well as global oil companies such as total and shell. to stop this trade, the sanctions we are considering today must also be adopted by our allies who continue to talk about the needs to act but hide behind the claim that the u.n. security council must act first. but the u.n. security council due in part to russian and chinese opposition has demonstrated that it will never impose meaningful costs on the iranian regime. there is no shortage of measures available. what is lacking is the will.
beyond this bill today, mr. speaker, the broader question is whether we will be bystanders, complicity in our own destruction. as -- complicit in our own destruction. if you will not fight when your victory will be sure, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival, end quote. for our survival and for that of our friend and ally, israel, render your full support to this legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, ron paul. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chairman states that the main purpose of this bill is to prevent the iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. that isn't even as a powerful statement as was made that
enticed us into the iraq war. it was to claim this they already had them. now, this is a pretense and yet here we are taking these drastic steps. my reason for opposing this bill, i think it's detrimental to our national security. it doesn't serve our interests. i oppose to it. in the late 1930's and early 1940's, the american people did not want to go into war. but there were some that were maneuvering us into war and they wrused the argument that you needed -- used the argument that you needed an event. in june of 1941, sanctions were put against japan incidentally and ironically prohibit oil products from going into japan. within six months there was the bombing of pearl harbor. and there are now talks -- there has been talk in the media and we heard about it, we need to bomb iran.
and that's what the people hear. the sanctions are a use of force. this is just not modest. this is very serious. and the way this is written it could very literally end up with a blockade. it could try to punish our friends and cut off trade. and this cannot help us in any way. we'd like to help the dissidents. we'd like to encourage them to overthrow their government. but hardly should we have their c.i.a. with u.s.-funded programs going in there with a policy of regime change. they know these kind of things happen. we've been involved in this business in iran since 1953. and it doesn't serve us well. it backfires on us. it comes back to haunt us. one of the goals explicitly expressed by al qaeda and their leaders has been they would like to draw us into the middle east because it would cost us a lot of money and it could hurt us financially.
and the second reason they wanted us over there is to get us bogged down in an endless war. and for the last decade that is what we've been doing. we are bogged down to the point we're very discouraging to the american people, very frustrating, no signs of victory, no signs of peace but we're bogged down. these were precise goals of the al qaeda leadership. and, also, one of the purposes of enticing us over there and being involved is to give a greater incentive to recruit those individuals who become violent against us. and this has been unbelievably successful. so we've been involved in iraq. we've been involved in afghanistan. we're bombing pakistan. and almost this is like another bonus for those who want us to be attacked is that we are over there and just fermenting this anger and hatred toward us.
that is why i believe this is not in our best interest. it actually hurts us. once we say that we are going to something like using force and prevent bioproducts to go in means that we have given up on diplomacy. diplomacy is out the window. and they're not capable of attacking us. the idea that they are on the verge of a bomb, you know, our c.i.a. said they have been working on it since 2003. and the other thing is if you want to give them an incentive to have a bomb, just keep pestering them like this, just intimidate them, provoke it. this is provocative. they might have a greater incentive than ever. they can't even make enough gasoline for themselves. i mean, they are not a threat. they don't have an army worth anything. they don't have a navy. they don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles.
so it's not a threat to our national security. i see our threat to our national security with this type of policy which could come and backfire and hurt us. i want to read number 5 in the bill. that particular item, because it makes my case rather than making the case for those who want the sanctions, i think this literally makes my case. number 5 said on october 7, 2008, then senator obama stated, iran right now imports gasoline even though it's an oil producer because its oil infrastructure has broken down. if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products that starts changing their cost benefit analysis, that starts putting the squeeze on them. the squeeze on whom? on the people. this will unify the iranian people against us. if we want to encourage true dissent and overthrow that
government, which is more spontaneous and honest, i would say this is doing exactly the opposite. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. a few unanimous consent requests. i first recognize the gentlelady from new york for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: for how long is the gentlelady recognized? mrs. lowey: i rise in strong support of the bill's expansion of economic sanctions against iran and businesses. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: gentlelady. -- the gentlelady is recognized. ms. berkley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit my comments for the record expressing my strong support for h.r. 2194. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection. ms. berkley: thank you. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. further unanimous consent request. a member of the distinguished -- a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connelly: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit my comments for the record voicing my strong support for h.r. 2194 because america's patience is not limitless. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the chairman of the middle east and south asia subcommittee, someone who has been very focused on this issue, the gentleman from new york, mr. ackerman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. ackerman: i thank the speaker and thank the chairman. i rise in strong support of a sanctions bill that will strengthen the obama administration's ability to conduct effective diplomacy. the world, and i mean both our allies and others, needs to know that the u.s. congress is dead serious about sanctions should diplomacy fail to resolve the real concerns about iran's nuclear program.
for those who worry that sanctions may lead to conflict, i would suggest that the opposite is true. with iranian proliferation on the horizon, it is reckless. if you don't want war it seems to me that you absolutely must back the toughest possible political and economic sanctions. it is true that sanctions alone are almost certainly not going to be sufficient to force the iranian regime to change course. but if we are serious about stopping iran's race for nuclear capability, we must apply the maximum possible pressure by enhancing our capacity to unilateral sanctions, as we're doing today, by implementing crippling multilateral sanctions and by developing a strategy that applies more comprehensive pressure than just diplomatic engagement followed by sanctions. president obama's offer of direct engagement with iran already helped to heal a
i'm so pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, the esteemed minority whip and a member of the committee on ways and means, a true leader who understands the clear and present danger that iran presents for the state of israel and for the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentlelady as well as the gentleman from california for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. mr. speaker, a nuclear iran would be a game-changing development that poses irrecognizable damage. yet, with the each passing day, the regime in iran forges ahead to make the nightmare scenario a reality. these are times of sharp partisan rankor in our nation's capital, but today we have the chance to come together to make a major step forward in the
interest of world peace. the time for decisive action to head off iran's nuclear program is now. by passing the iran refined petroleum sanctions act we send the overdue message that the cost of doing business with iran is too much to bear. mr. speaker, this legislation leverages our economic muscle, to punish any individual or company who sells or ships gasoline to iran. it offers one of our best chances to convince iran that it is firmly in its interest to abandon its nuclear ambitions. as iran takes a more belligerent approach to its nuclear program, the united states will not fall asleep at the wheel. we must lead. with the passage of this bill, we must and will rally the international community in order to stop the middle east from moving irreverseably
toward nuclearization. mr. speaker, i urge passage of the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman. i also come here with enormous respect for mr. berman, ms. ros-lehtinen, my friends, and if i thought for one minute that this bill would help the united states or protect israel or undermine mr. ahmadinejad i would support it. but i do not. and i do however take great comfort in the chairman's and the chief sponsor's earlier comments that in the conference process that he is open and willing to adjust the bill and
perhaps if these adjustments and improvements are made i can support it at that time. but i am faced with the bill before me and let me just say that i think that this bill will help ahmadinejad, that this will have the same effect that we have seen as embargos and other sanctions. i point to a couple of examples. one being the example in cuba where we put in an embargo there and ever since then the castro regime has been able to blame everything that has gone wrong in cuba, including tropical storms and hurricanes, on the u.s. embargo. it has helped that regime stay in power. we see the same effect happening in gaza. i've been there a couple of times. the fact that we've got an embargo there and a block aid has caused many in gazza to rally around the flag -- gaza to rally around the flag in this
case, hamas, and that has helped them. that's the -- that's the effect this bill will have in iran. we have watched very closely. this past week tens of thousands of students in iran in the green revolution have come to oppose and call for the ousting of ahmadinejad and his regime. what this will do, however, is this will undermine that opposition. this bill is focused on cutting off gasoline supply to the poor, to the working class, to the middle class families, the very he people who are supporting the revolutionary movement there to get rid of ahmadinejad. we are in a way, i think, substituting a plan that will not work for one that could very well work. we are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this bill. i hope earnestly that as the sponsor of this bill has
indicated, the chairman, mr. berman, that there will be important changes perhaps made during the conference process. host: that does happen. and i hope that -- process. i hope that that does happen and i hope i'll be able to support this bill when it comes back from conference due to those changes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa and global health. mr. smith: mr. speaker, chairman berman's iran petroleum action -- act significantly ratches up strong -- ratchets up strong bipartisan on iran. given ahmadinejad's extreme hostility toward israel, his outrageous threats to annihilate israel from the face of the earth, and his obsessive hatred
of jews worldwide this bill strengthens penalties on those who not only sell or lease or provide to iran any good understand and services to iran -- goods and services to iran. and has other sanctions as well. mr. speaker, any serious effort to peacefully stop iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, which i believe they will use if they acquire them, requires the strongest political and economic pressure that we can muster. h.r. 2194 is a step, the right step, in that direction. i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kucinich: this legislation obstructs the obama administration's ongoing negotiations with iran, amounts to economic warfare against the iranian people and brings us
closer to an unnecessary military confrontation. i'd like to delineate point by point the objections to this bill. first of all, i agree with mr. paul that the bill is opposed to our national security. i have a letter here as mr. blumenauer submitted for the record from the deputy secretary of state which points out the serious substantive concerns of the administration including the lack of flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign policy consequences, quote-unquote, this letter from the obama administration, december 11, 2009, ask unanimous consent that it be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: second, i ask unanimous consent that an article from the national journal online dated november 2,
2009, be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: in this article it points out that a gas shortage will be created in iran, that iran subsidizes its gasoline, that the regime wants to shrink the program so the u.s. will be creating the gas short and. and the regime -- and the regime -- shortage. and the regime will blame the u.s. third, the revolutionary guard has already been able to build its coffers by being able to sell things on the black market. it's widely underinto that these sanctions -- understood that these sanctions would put the revolutionary guard in a position where they can make more money selling oil on the black market. number four, this proposal would throw energy politics of the region into chaos and the broader geo political landscape is thrown into chaos. russia, venezuela, our european allies, all come into play in
ways. number five, it undermines our diplomacy, it isolates us from our allies, it isolates us from our trading partners. number six, it undercuts international energy companies who work in a back channel road to try to help us with our diplomacy. number seven, it undermines democracy in iran. all of us have seen those pictures, they've been all over the tv and the internet in the last few months, about a growing democratic movement in iran. this sanction will force all people to close iran's leadership, it will strengthen the hardliners who undermine democracy. next, it will make the u.s. presence in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, even more dangerous for our troops. number nine, it's a path to military escalation. i will be discussing that later.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, can we get a little summary of the time remaining on this complicated -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 8 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from ohio has 15 minutes. the gentlewoman from florida has 8 1/2 minutes. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to the chairman of the terrorism nonproliferation and trade subcommittee of the house foreign affairs committee, the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: as one of the six original co-sponsors of this legislation, i rise in support. the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, attacks the whole concept of the use of sanctions saying that american sanctions against japan led to our involvement in world war ii. if you think that america should have remained neutral in world war ii, you should vote with the
gentleman from texas, mr. paul. iran has been found to have vite late -- violated the nonproliferation treaty andity commitments under that treaty by -- and its commitments under that treaty by the united nations security council by the votes of russia and china who also voted to impose some limited sanctions against iran. my district contains, i believe, more iran an americans than any other in -- iranian americans than any other in the country and those who support the effort for democracy in the homeland support the idea of sanctions. this bill is but one step that we need to take in rationing the economic power on the regime in tehran. this bill amends the iran sanctions act. it is important that that act be enforced both before and after we adopt these amendmented. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired -- amendments. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: before i yield to -- well, i'll yield to mr. paul for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman. if the gentleman from california didn't like my analogy about how we were maneuvered into war in world war ii, i think it might be a much more appropriate to compare it to the sanctions on iraq. there were those in the 1990's that wanted us to go to war in iraq. they were looking for an excuse. we put strong sanctions, continued flying over their country and bombing thousands, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of kids died, because of those sanctions and eventually they got their war. we ended up in the war. anybody who believes that taking gasoline away from the common person in iran is going to motivate them to get rid of their ayatollah, it's the ayatollah that carries the
power, that's not going to happen. it just does exactly the opposite. so this is why i believe this is a much greater threat to our national security, it does not help us, it doesn't achieve the goals that are set out. for instance, we now commonly say that the iranians have no right to enrich. well, they signed a nonproliferation treaty and they have not ever been told that they are making a bomb and yet what we're saying in this bill, that they can't enrich anymore. so in a way you're violating international law that's saying they can't enrich period. so that's -- that is just, you know, looking for trouble. now, what else this bill will do is it's going to push the support of the iranians in another direction. it's going to push them towards india, toward china, russia and
security is threatened by this. i mean, we are overstretched, would we're broke, and this is part of the strategy as i mentioned before. our arch enemies in that region want to bankrupt us. and they want to stirrup hatred toward us and they want to bog us down and they're achieving what their goals are. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, a member of the committee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kirk: mr. speaker, congressman andrews and i are the two grandfathers of the bill and this policy. after 4 1/2 years of working on this legislation i strongly support this bill and especially its underlying policy which is the last best hope for diplomatically ending iran's nuclear weapons program. in january of 2005 i wrote to the secretary of defense with a
comprehensive analysis of iran's economy, discovering a critical weakness. despite its status as a leading oil exporter, iran has so mishandled her domestic energy supply that the regime relies on foreign sources of gasoline for 40% of its needs. in 2005 and again in 2006 congressman and ruse and i introduced the resolutions calling for the multilateral restriction of gasoline deliveries to iran as the most effective sanctions, to bring their leaders in compliance with their commitments to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. in 2007 we introduced the iran sanctions enhancement act to extend current sanctions to the provision of gasoline to iran and this year congressman brad sherman and i, we introduced the iran diplomatic enhancement act. this bill today is modeled after our bipartisan legislation. a restriction of gasoline deliveries to iran administered through multilateral sanctions and enforced by the world's most powerful navies will pit our greatest strength against iran's
greatest weakness, all without a shot being fired. for the bill to succeed the iranians must believe also that it will be enforced. otherwise we will go down a failed policy of diplomacy in the absence of effective sanctions. my hope is that the senate quickly takes up action on this bill and then the administration provide needed enforcement. i want to truly thank the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, chairman berman, our ranking member, ileana ros-lehtinen, congressman andrews and congressman brad sherman, for all working for me. this has been five years of my life working on this legislation. this is bipartisan legislation which offers the last best diplomatic hope to resolve this problem. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for
three minutes. mr. kucinich: i would like to point out that the organization of iranians in the united states known as the national iranian american council, have issued a statement, a staff report dated monday, the 14th of december, 2009, that this sanctions act, quote, will only contribute to the iranian people suffering by seeking to restrict iran's supply of heating oil and fwass lien. prominent members of iran's opposition movement, such as mousavi and karabi and others have all spoken out others against such sanctions that punish innocent iranians. that's unquote. i ask unanimous consent to that this report from the national iranian council be submitted for the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. kucinich: i have an analysis that's done for americans for peace now, which is a strong group in support of israel, at the same time they
did an analysis and summary of concern about h.r. 2194. one of the points that they make is that, quote -- this is a quote --, the crippling of refined petroleum sanctions leads to the very problematic conclusion that the u.s. is seeking to inflict widespread suffering on the iranian people in order to force them to put pressure on their government. if is an approach few believe will achieve the desired goal and many believe could well backfire to the benefit of the regime and so anger at the u.s., not the iranian government, unquote. i ask unanimous consent to submit this analysis for the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered . mr. kucinich: in the legislation that we are presented with, it speaks to the purpose of h.r. 2194 as being -- as advancing along feelings of friendship for the iranian people. we're telling the iranian
people we have feelings of friendship for you. we like you so much, but we're going to cut off your home heating oil. so we're asking the people when they're freezing -- again, these warm feelings of friendship. i think people will find that the expression of friendship isn't to be believed and what is happening here is an efforts to punish the people of iran for the policies of their government which our obama administration is trying to still find a way to deal with diplomatically. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: well, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased now to yield to one of the great supporters of this legislation, the speaker of the house, the gentlelady from california, ms. pels.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i'd like to acknowledge the great leadership of our chairman, chairman berman, and ranking member, congresswoman ros-lehtinen for their efforts and leadership to bring this legislation to the floor. all members of congress, regardless of party, agree a nuclear iran is simply unacceptable. it is a threat to the region, to the united states, and to the world. the american people have great hopes for our friendship with the people of iran. we look forward to a day when iran is a much more productive member of the community of nations. until that day, though, we must ensure that iran is prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons which threaten the security of the world.
iran must take the necessary steps to demonstrate its willingness to live as a peaceful partner in the international community, and we must use all of the tools at our disposal, from diplomacy to sanctions, to stop iran's march towards nuclear capability. today, with this legislation we give the president a new option, a new tool, the power to impose sanctions against companies that supply iran with or support its domestic production of gasoline and other refined petroleum products. by targeting iran's ongoing dependence on largely imported refined petroleum, we reduce the chance that iran will require that capacity to produce nuclear weapons. a pillar, mr. speaker, of our national security is diplomacy. and in the case of iran, we must use it. we must exhaust every remedy. i commend president obama for
standing with other u.n. security council leaders earlier this year to condemn iran and to work toward an agreeable diplomatic solution to end iran's development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. however, as we have seen, iran has refused to accept the reasonable offer that was thrown on the table a couple of months ago. instead, it has reiterated its resolve to continue its uranium enrichment program, the cornerstone of its nuclear program. the international community must, therefore, consider stronger options. we have that opportunity today to give the president the option with a waiver to use in the best possible way. now, i've heard, as mentioned, the state of israel in some of the debate here today. and israel certainly has proximity to iran. iran is increasing its capability both to develop a weapon of mass destruction and a capacity, a delivery system
to deliver that. this isn't a bad israel. israel is, again, close and its development of a weapon of mass destruction is a threat to the region, but the development of a weapon of mass destruction anyplace in the world is a threat to the entire world. and it is not in the national security interest of the united states. so while israel may bear the brunt or be the closest target or target of words -- hopefully not anything else -- they have carried this fight, but it's not just their fight. the fight is all of ours. i mentioned diplomacy is the pillar of our national security. another pillar of our foreign policy and of our national security is stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. imagine what the reaction would
be if iran had a nuclear weapon, what that would evoke in the arab world in terms of their interests in having weapons of mass destruction. it simply cannot happen, and with this legislation today, we strengthen the president's hand to grant, to use or to withhold this particular sanction. but to have the capability to use diplomacy in a stronger way. i urge all of my colleagues to support the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. with that i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, representative paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. paul: i talked to somebody today that would be voting for these but admitted that they won't work in its mere symbolism. already they tonight think
these will do much good even those who will vote for it. very possible to enforce is one reason, and it will create a black market. and these particular sanctions are most difficult to enforce just because of the nature of the way it's written. one must understand a little bit about the pressure that's put on this country to act in a defensive way. they happen to be surrounded by a lot of nuclear bombs. and they don't have a history. the iranians, as bad as they are for their leadership and how bad their regime is, they're not expansion is territorially. how many years has it been since they invaded another country for the purpose of taking over another country? it's just not in recent history at all. but the countries around them, india. india has nuclear weapons. china has nuclear weapons. pakistan, israel. china, the united states. they're all around them. i'm sure they feel like a cornered rat. but what i see here is
propaganda. propaganda to build fear into people, to prepare the people for what is likely to happen like in the 1990's, fear of weapons of mass destruction. well,omeday they might get a weapon of mass destruction, and unfortunately i am just really concerned that this is going to lead to hostilities because this is the initiation. the fear is building up. so too often in this case -- and we talk of peace at the same time that we pursue war. we pursue war and we use these efforts to push our policies on others. and quite frankly we don't have any more money to pursue this policy, whether it's used by the military or even try to buy france by giving them a lot of money. it just doesn't work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. paul: i urge a no vote on this resolution in the interest
of the united states security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend from indiana, mr. burton, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and south asia. he deals with this issue every day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor. god bless you, my son. let me say that i heard the arguments from the opponents of this legislation. and my question to them would be, well, what's the alternative? you mention one, two, three, four, five, six, seven reasons why we shouldn't do this but iran is developing a nuclear weapons system. if you look at the "times" and the bbc, iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb. and it's the mechanism that explodes the nuclear bomb. now, we've been waiting and
gulf, if you have that -- persian gulf, it would suffer us because it would hurt our economy from top to bottom. so i wish my colleagues would stop and think. do we let them just go on and not do anything about it, or do we start ratchetting up the pressure on them, put a little pressure on them, make them stop developing this nuclear weapon system because if they don't the alternative is unthinkable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: could i ask how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has seven minutes. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to mr. flake of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman from indiana mentioned, what do the opponents of this resolution have in mind, if not these sanctions then what, what do we
do? i think you're hard pressed to find anyone who will rationally say that this measure will have any real effect. this is a statement resolution more than anything. and to the extent that it does bite -- right now we don't export any refined petroleum products to iran. but some of our allies do. those allies that we need for real sanctions that may or will bite. and if we hope to get them onboard, the last thing we want to do is get out in front and take measures where there will be action on our allies that we need for sanctions that might actually have an impact. so the notion that we have to do this or nothing is simply false. we need to address this situation. we need to do it in a way that we don't alienate the people in iran who when you're on the streets of iran people are not vehemently anti--american. we need to keep it that way.
-- vehemently anti-american. we need to keep it that way. hopefully they'll get mad at their leadership rather than the u.s. i think that when you look at the history of sanctions you're hard pressed to find examples where that kind of action works. you try to entice some kind of rebellion on the people that you want to help and somehow they'll bring their government rather than those who are imposing the sanction. again, multilateral sanctions can work. multilateral action can work and it needs to work. but in order to do that you need to give the administration the flexibility through a combination of diplomacy and other measures to work with our allies, to bring measures that will work. and so i am glad the gentleman has stood up to oppose this and want people to know that we weren't all in agreement here. that there are other members -- the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. . ms. edwards: i'm disappointed that i'm here to support the act because it is the extraordinary lack of cooperation on the part of the leadership in iran that brings us to this point. though i share many of the concerns expressed by the opposition, like many, i was hopeful at the beginning of this year and this new president and administration that we would approach iran differently and the leaders in iran would respond. the response from the iran leadership particularly following their flawed election has been anything but forth coming. they rebuffed a plan for the transfer of low-grade uranium and materials. they have led the world community along in the belief
they were negotiating fairly and with integrity and they are pursuing enrichment. this posture is both unfortunate and misguided. attempting to test president obama's resolve and commitment to transparency, deterrence and accountability. it's my hope that our actions today will enable additional leverage for president obama and his team within the governing multilateral institutions and countries. they have to united states that -- to understand that the united states is serious in transparency and accountability. mr. kucinich: i yield myself two minutes. this bill claims to express international diplomatic efforts to halt iran's uranium enrichment program. it actually undermines those efforts. passing legislation effectively forces our president in one direction, diminishing the power of the president and his
diplomatic team by significantly limiting the tools the administration can utilize. it proper jets a negative image in the united states at a time when we need broad international support to succeed in our negotiations. former international atomic energy agency director al-baradai has stated that sanctions against iran will be ineffective. and in a speech to the board of governors this year, he recognized the important developments with respect to iran's compliance with iaea inspections stating and i quote, we are not in a state of panic because we have not seen diversion of nuclear material and have not seen components of nuclear weapons, unquote. in addition, he states, quote, we went through this during the
time of iraq when the agency went exactly through that hype, fabrication and took a war based on fiction and not fact and hundreds of thousands of people dying for the agency to become more strong and credible because we were sticking to the facts unquote. section a-1 of section 2 of this bill says, quote, the elicit nuclear activities of the government of iran combined with ballistic missiles in support of nuclear terrorism represents a threat to the united states, its allies. this language makes dangerous accusations that have been repude dated by the iaea. we cannot afford to make the same mistakes at the cost of the innocent lives of the people in iran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida.
ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, a member of the budget committee, and committee on financial services, a co-sponsor of this bill and a former chairman of the republican study committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. given the state of iran's nuclear ambitions and poor record at transparency, it is clear that the united states must lead the world in pressuring iran to give up these ambitions. there is no option. iran's energy sector is the backbone of its economy and provides the majority of its government's revenue. but iran's energy infrastructure is deteriorating badly and in need of modernization. without this modernization, its energy sector very well may deteriorate and along with it consequently, its economy and possibly even its regime. the act gives the president an important tool to help persuade the iranian regime to peacefully give up its nuclear ambitions.
a nuclear-armed iran is unacceptable. it could provide rogue nations and terrorists with nuclear technology. it constitutes the looming threat to the national security of the united states. iran's behavior not only jeopardizes the stability of the region but threatens the existence of many of our allies in the middle east, particularly the state of israel. i encourage all of my colleagues to support the iran refined petroleum act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: how much time is remaining? how much time do we all have here? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has four minutes. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from florida has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield two
minutes. one of my colleagues talked about what is the alternative? the only alternative is to impose sanctions. we know from a report two days ago that iran's foreign minister has said its country was willing to exchange the uranium for processed fuel as the united nations proposed. the article goes along to say, but according to the timetable, western powers have appeared to have rejected. we need to get back into those negotiations. i have some points to share. here's what we can do. the debate in iran is focused on two shipments of 4u00 kilograms. what is proposed a phased delivery to control of iran's low-enriched uranium of three to five months for a total of 800 kilograms. the iran foreign minister said they put 400 kilograms under
iaea custody. iranians want guarantees to continue delivery from russia and france and once it's delivered to iran for medical purposes, they will send another 400 kilo grams to iaea control. the shipment of highly enriched uranium to iran and low i-enriched uranium from iran are confidence-building measures which forms the basis for further cooperation. second, we need a pledge of guaranteed delivery from the participants. third, the u.s. offer of assistance would modernize the instruments for the tehran reactor. iran's willingness to continue with its transparency and full scope iaea safeguards, including short-notice inspections.
iran's willingness to participate in geneva five. six, iran's willingness to participate in multilateral expert meetings on nuclear and nonnuclear and consideration of broad range of topics. we don't need these sanctions. we need diplomacy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm so happy to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the the gentleman from california, mr. royce, ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. royce: time is not on our side. today's "washington post" reports that iran has learned how to make virtually every bolt and switch in a nuclear weapon. it is mastering the technology to enrich uranium, which would fuel that weapon. a secret nuclear facility located on an iranian military base was recently revealed.
for years, iran has been slapping away all of our diplomatic overtures. quote, our outreach has produced very little, unquote. secretary clinton's words, not mine. today, the world's top terrorist state has its tenth ta calls throughout the region. they are in yemen, iraq, lebanon, gaza, afghanistan, syria, sudan. its agents and proxies are practically everywhere in its aspiration for regional dominance, not to mention our own back yard. tomorrow's nuclear iran would have a compounding effect with severe consequences for regional security and u.s. security. the time for action is long past now. this bill would help address this threat, targeting the regime's achilles heal. but we need a broad-based policy
not just based on iran's nuclear program but one to protect u.s. and its allies and speaks out against human rights abuses and bolsters its democracy supporters. disturbingly this administration has backed away from missile defense in europe and the democratic movement inside iran. the administration must realize that promoting democracy in iran and improving our national security go hand in hand. i would just mention that sanctions help bring down apartheid in south africa and ended the south african program to end nuclear weapons. as ranking member of the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade, i support the pass eaming of this legislation, of which i'm an original co-sponsor and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition?
the the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. we're always ready on this side. i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentlelady from@@@@@ @ @ @ services education and natural resources committee and the mom of cole. >> the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, honorary ranking member. i rise in strong support of 904. as i mentioned before in august my husband and i visited israel and the people in israel want nothing more than to live in peace with their neighbors. many have said repeatedly they want israel wiped off the map but the israelis are realistic about peace. they know it comes from strength. superiority, from letting your enemies know that they cannot
defeat you. that is a hard, realistic peace. it's clear iran wants to break that peace and destabilize that region and make israel live in fear. after delays, we must now back our words with actions. iran must be held accountable. as iran takes one step after another towards nuclear weapons, it edges towards war. a vote in favor of this bill is a vote in favor of continuing a hard peace in the middle east and showing the rest of the world that a nuclear iran is not an option. i pledged to do all i could to maintain and expand a difficult peace. i urge my colleagues to join me in this quest. a strong first step is passing h.r. 2194. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from new york, the chairman of the western hemisphere subcommittee, mr. engel.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, only a few short months ago the world learned of a secret enrichment city. if there was any doubt, this revelation dispelled any shred of that doubt. it was kept secret and was built deep in a mountain on a protected military base. this is how a country skeels a nuclear weapons program and defies u.n. security council resolutions not how it develops peaceful technologies. it is limiting refining. it will peen liz companies that export refined petroleum products to iran. it's my hope that the administration will apply the additional sanctions to make clear to the ahmadinejad regime that the world will not accept its nuclear ambition. the u.s., allies and u.n.
security council have realized that a nuclear-armed iran would be a danger to israel and nuclear nonproliferation regime. it is unacceptable and we must support this legislation. to my colleagues who say sanctions don't work and only hurts the local population, the same argument was made against south african sanctions. those worked. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? mr. berman: can i be wreck niesed. the gentleman who first introduced legislation on this subject, who i worked closely with the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i thank the ranking member, the chairman for their guidance and i rise in strong support of the legislation and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. mr. berman: my colleague from virginia, the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran for
unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for unanimous consent consent. mr. moran: i would like unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record at this point. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.. who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i believe we have 40 seconds left, i'll be glad to use them at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 30 seconds. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. you can do a lot in that time. sanctions, when fully enforced, weaken oppressors and signal support for the opposition. they send a clear message to dissidents and those hungry for freedom that we stand with them. this will force the regime to use its resources to take care of the iranian people, something they have not done, instead of using its funding to develop nuclear weapons and the
missiles to deliver them. support the iranian people, support peace and security, support this bill. i thank the gentlelady for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the majority leader of the house, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to thank the chairman and i want to thank congresswoman ros-lehtinen for her leadership as well. madam speaker, every member of this chamber understands the deep danger inherent in a nuclear iran. that danger includes a new nuclear arms race. as iran's regional rivals scramble to build competing arsenals, plunging the middle east into an ever greater
instability and the world into a new era of proliferation. the danger includes as well a nuclear umbrella for groups like hamas and hezbollah. terrorist organizations. who may take any advantage of their state-sponsored protection to stage more brazen and deadly attacks, on israel, certainly, but on the rest of us as well. the danger includes on a more basic level a new era of fear for all those in range of iran's missiles, fear that could equal or surpass what we ourselves experienced in the first days of the cold war. those consequences, madam speaker, will be felt even if iran's miz isles remain on the launch pad or if its nuclear weapons remain buried. could we imagine those weapons being used? we would be foolish not. to as long as those weapons are
in the hands of a regime whose president denies the holocaust, stokes hatred and openly threatens its neighbors, and the united states of america. in the months since last summer's election, we have seen the character of the iranian regime more clearly than ever. we have seen it in the dissent silenced, in opposition leaders threatened and jailed, in peaceful protesters beaten and shot for the crime of demanding that their votes be counted. we have seen a regime founded on violence and violent disregard for the opinion of its people and the opinion of the world community. even so, our administration has, and i think correctly, in my view, pursued a policy of engagement with tehran. that engagement reversed years of diplomatic silence that did little to slow iran's growing
nuclear program. it showed the world our patience, our commitment to addressing the common threat through diplomacy, and it gauged tehran's honest willingtons resolve the crisis at the negotiating table. america's policy of engagement always came with a timeline. time for tehran to negotiate in good faith, or as so many members have said on this floor today to show that it was only using talks as a cover for continuing enrichment of uranium. sadly, time is running short. there is still no diplomatic agreement. the enrichment continues and the threat grows. the past months have brought revelations of secret iranian nuclear facilities a lack of cooperation with the international atomic energy agency and a refusal to comply with security council demands to suspend enrichment.
just today, "the washington post" reported that, and i quote, iran has learned how to make virtually every bolt and switch in a nuclear weapon. according to assessments by u.n. nuclear officials, as well as western and middle east intelligence analysts and expert that language in the paper today that is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the iranian regime. none of us want military conflict. economic sanctions are not as effective as we would like them to be. but we just recently heard from a leader, the chancellor of germany that a nuclear armed iran was unacceptable.
prime minister her tell spoke from this rostrum. this is not a perception they have united states, it's a perception also of those who live in europe. even more proximate to the nuclear threat that would be caused by iranian arms -- nuclear arms. the bill was designed by chairman berman and his committee to target iran's economy at one of its weakest points, by penalizing companies that help iran import or produce refined petroleum products. even though it is an oil producer, iran imports a great deal of the refined petroleum that powers its economy. so these sanctions that i propose will increase the high cost of iran's self-imposed isolation from the international community. they're also a proportional response because they're tied to iran's nuclear program. we should never take sanctions
like these lightly. even as we stand with the protesters facing down repression at the hand of their own government. we understand that these sanctions will affect the lives of many ordinary iranians. for the worse. but we know that economic pressure has worked before to alter the behavior of outlaw regimes, especially when such pressure is widely supported by the international community. certainly we must hope these sanctions are. we know these sanctions are our best tool against the nuclear proliferation that risks the security of millions in the middle east. let me say that we have 250,000 or more americans within range of iranian missiles. we know that tehran can choose at any point to negotiate in good faith, abandon its aggressive nuclear pursuit, and
rejoin the community of nations. we shouldn't hope for change of heart from that regime but we can hope for change of behavior. a cold understanding, that as long as iran builds the capacity to catastrophically attack its neighbors, its economy will suffer deeply. these sanctions have the power to force that choice. i therefore urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. it is time. it is time to do more than talk. we are willing to talk, we want to talk, but talk without action is not acceptable. let us pass this resolution, support the administration in moving ahead with the international community on imposing sanctions that will make not only the middle east but the international community, safer. i thank the gentleman for the
time and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, the vice chair of the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia of the house foreign affairs committee, mr. klein. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. klein: i rise to support the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. it is deeply disappointing that the iranian government continues to choose to isolate itself. the iranian government has chosen its clandestine nuclear program other joining the community of nations and allowing its economy to thrive. that is why i worked to include an important provision in today's legislation that requires companies applying for contracts with the united states government to affirmatively certify they do not conduct business with iran. it gives companies a single
choice, give business with -- do business with the united states or do business with iran. we cannot allow the u.s. government to be a financial crutch of this rogue regime, not on our watch and not on our dime. iranian businesses will have a choice as well. the choice is economic isolation or work to change the behavior of the iranian government. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: one of my colleagues read the cite -- cited the "washington post," but they couldn't authenticate where the information came from. after a while it has the ring of ewe rain yam -- uranium from najar.
we have to be careful this sanction doesn't put us on the path of military escalation. you have to think, why has the obama administration expressed concern abou expressing concern about this legislation that this legislation might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts. that there is serious substantive concerns, the lack of flexibility that this would put on our president, his negotiations. now i want to submit by unanimous consent, comments ooze director general about the iran situation. we have got to be careful that we're not making -- and we're not giving our president the time that he says he needs for diplomacy. >> gentleman's time is expired. who seeks recognition? mr. berman: may i inquire, does the gentlelady have further
speakers? ms. ros-lehtinen: no time. mr. berman: -- i would if i could. i'm now pleased to recognize for one minute a very patient member of the -- member of the committee on homeland security, the gentleman from texas, mr. green for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you. madam speaker, today we will impose sanctions. we will sanction with this legislation or we will sanction the unacceptable status quo to which i say, not on my watch. let history record that even if i could not do enough, i did do all that i could. i support sanctions to avert a tyrant from a acquiring nuclear weapons of mass destruction
capable of creating an inferno unlike that which even the mind of dante can imagine. to act later may be to act too late. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio has one minute remaining. the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of his time. mr. kucinich: this is starting to sound like the debate over iraq. my concerns are is that this resolution is opposed to our national security, it undermines diplomatic initiatives, it creates a gas shortage in iran that in a sense the regime would blame on the united states, it will
benefit the revolutionary guard nits effort to gain profit off a black market. it will throw the energy politics of the world into chaos with russia, venezuela, and our european allies coming into play. it will undermine our diplomacy, isolate us from our allies, isolate us from trading partners, undercut international energy companies who try to work with the united states back channels in diplomacy, it will undermine democracy efforts in iran, it will make u.s. presence in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan more dangerous for our troops. this sanction resolutions is unfortunately a path toward military escalation and as such, it should be defeated. . mr. berman: madam speaker, i have heard i guess three reasons
put forth about why people should not support this legislation. but first, some hint of a belief that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, our report lists activity after activity that iran has undertaken to hide its activities from the iaea, to build enrichment facilities that have no purpose in the uranium enrichment program, to talk about neutron triggers, the purpose of which is to detonate. it is an offer by russia and the support of the p-5, a chance for a nuclear energy program and has spurned all those offers to pursue this. that, to me, there can be no serious doubt about that.
the second argument is, so they get a nuclear weapon, we can contain them. for the reasons i gave in the beginning and i believe it believes the proliferation regime, containment is not the right policy. and the third argument is these sanctions are going to hurt the iranian people. i was here in 1986 when we took up a prohibition on any new investment, not investment in the energy sector, any new investment in the apartheid regime in south africa and what was the argument against it? any new investment, curtail economic growth hurt the population of the majority of the people of south africa. don't wreak havoc. we did not listen to that argument and we acted those sanctions and europe followed. the south african american --
the south african business community was faced with the sanctions. it is ludicrous to think people who are risking their life, liberty and their limbs and doing everything they can to express their opposition to this regime in iran are going to turn into a unifying force behind that regime because the oil gets higher. we are working with the after they return this morning at 9:00 a.m. the house is scheduled to work on the defense spending bill and the jobs bill. as always, we'll have live coverage here on c-span. >> on today's "washington journal" republican congressman
donald manzullo. we'll look at the tea party movement with the president of tea party.org dale robertson and kay hagen discusses the fight over health care in the senate. that's at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> now available, c-span's book abraham lincoln, great american historians on our 16th president. it is a unique contemporary perspective on lincoln from 56 scholars, journalists. abraham lincoln in hard cover at your favorite book seller and now in digital audio available where digital audio down lodes are sold. >> the obama administration negotiated a deal yesterday to
purchase a prison in thompson, illinois, to house detainees from guantanamo bay. pat quinn and senator dick durbin met with the president at the white house and discussed the agreement with reporters. this is 10 minutes. >> we want to welcome everybody here. my name is pat quinn. i'm the governor of illinois. you have seen the letter today from the secretary of state and the secretary of defense and the attorney general and the secretary of homeland securitiened the head of the bureau of national security indicating that thompson, illinois, has been selected to be the prison in our state, the state of illinois, the land of lincoln to incarcerate detainees
from guantanamo bay as well as to be a site of a new federal prison that will be located in western illinois. we believe in security and safety at all times. this will be the most secure prison in america and no one has ever escaped from a federal prison. the security enhancements which will be put at the thompson prison will make it the most secure maximum security prison in our country of all time. we think that is very important talmts to protect the safety of people of our state as well as our whole country and it is also important to note that any detainees that are going to be incars rated at this prison will only be allowed to speak to their lawyer. they won't have any visitors. this means a lot for our state in terms of economic opportunity. western illinois. severe unemployment. more than 3,000 jobs will be
created. more than $1 billion in purchasing power brought by having a new federal prison. a great majority of the prison that will be housed at thompson will be used by the federal bureau of prisons and it is something that our country needs. federal prisons are overcrowded and it is important to incarcerate anyone who commits a crime against people in a proper way. i join with our united states senator, senator durbin. we received letters from the community of thompson as well as other communities nearby since this became known more than 30 county boards, city councils, chambers of commerce, have passed resolutions of support. local community is united in wanting to have this prison located at thompson, illinois. we look forward to working with the federal government to make sure this is done right for our
country. we always believe in helping our country. the most important thing americans can do at this time in the war against terrorism is work together and work behind our military and make sure our country is safe and sound and democracy is safe. going to have senator durbin speak now >> for several years now it has been clear that we need to close guantanamo bay. it was a decision made turned bush administration, a decision supported by the secretary of defense robert gates and supported by general colin powell and general petraeus and president obama. the question is to decide where to transfer the remaining detainees. we estimate there will be fewer than 100 that will be ultimately transferred out of guantanamo bay. the governor the president came forward and asked if we would accept that responsibility. we looked carefully and closely.
the people of our state of illinois has v risen to the challenge to serve this nation. we do it every day. time and again we have done that. illinois was the first state in the nation to build a federal super max prison. we have done that before and we're doing it again. we believe this is in service to our country to make sthearn guantanamo bay is phased out and the -- sthearn guantanamo bay is certain that guantanamo bay is phased out. our state unemployment numbers, the most recent ones were 11%. some parts of the state like northern illinois even higher. people are desperate for good jobs. the jobs we're talking about are some of the best. over 3,000 new employees in this area, half of them from local people getting jobs with good paychecks and good benefit packages. these are jobs that you can use to build a family, build a neighborhood, build a town and a
community. that's what we need desperately. went to the source. we want to the people in the area who'll be directly affected by this decision. the support for this type of prison is overwhelming and it is bipartisan. at every level as governor quinn has said. people understand that we can safely and securely hold fewer than 100 guantanamo bay detainees. we can do this. we have done it before. this will be the safest prison in america. president obama made the right choice for our country. his home state of illinois stands behind the president. we see this as a great opportunity to not only serve our country but to provide meaningful jobs for a lot of people desperate for work. >> thank you. i'll be very brief. i want to thank the governor and the senator for their strong voice of support in bringing to
resolution a national security issue of the highest order and thank people of illinois for stepping forward at this important time. in taking this action, we are removing from the terrorist organizations around the world a recruiting tool that guantanamo has come to symbolize in recruiting terrorists and potential terrorists, warriors of the future that would harm our nation and seek to alter the way we live. we think by taking this action, guantanamo will soon be closed and that we know that this facility is going to be extremely secure. we also know that the military personnel that will staff this security and the people that will run this security also know how to do this in a very safe
and secure way. that is going to be a facility that will be very safe and will pose no danger to the community and we'll take all steps necessary to maintain security of the people of illinois, the surrounding neighborhoods and also enhance our national security. thank you very much to you senator and governor for stepping forward on behalf of the people of illinois. we're most grateful to you for this action. [inaudible] >> we say the same thing about president bush's call to close guantanamo. would you say the same thing about secretary gates who served under both administrations that they somehow forgot 9/11, that is an unfair statement plt we will never forget. we will make sure those responsible for it will be held accountable. >> we are going to appeal to
members of congress. many wondering where this was going to be ultimately resolved. i think the president in coming to his home state has made it clear that we think this is not only a safe facility but a great opportunity for our state so i'm hoping we can get bipartisan support to do it. >> what is the funding level? >> we are still negotiating between the state and local government. i think the prison costs -- already $145 million to build in 2001. under our law we have a commission that will have a hearing a week from today near thompson to answer all questions. ultimately the sole authority rests with the governor, that's me and we can try the get a fair market value. under our law we will have several aphrasals taken and sell
it to the federal government for the fair market value. >> sent up to the hill to refurbish it? >> that's on the bureau prison side and the department of defense as well. >> what about these military tribunals, senator? >> i don't know. it came out today i guess that a lot of us didn't know that there is not going to be military-commissioned trials. >> it is not a new development. there are military tribunals taking place now at guantanamo. they have decisions made on the premises and the same thing will happen here. it is the safest way to deal with it. it will be behind the prison in america. they will be in place in
thompson and subject to the department of defense supervision. >> let's stick with this topic. >> have you been told, senator, have you been told when the -- how long the construction of the upgraced would take? is there a timeline on that? >> i'll find out. i'll let you know. >> governor quinn, do you expect -- >> on c-span this morning, health care legislation opponents protest on capitol hill. then senator joe lieberman and president obama comment on recent developments on health care. later, it is today's "washington journal."
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> on today's "washington journal" republic donald manzullo. we'll look at the tea party movement with the president of teaparty.org, dale robertson and senator kay hague opinion. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> book tv this weekend. timothy carney suggests that president obama is really a champion of big business and wall street. his book is obamanomics. after greg mortenson on girl schools. get the entire weekend schedule
on booktv.org. >> groups opposed to health care legislation held a rally on capitol hill tuesday. speakers included republican senators tom coburn of oklahoma, jim demint of oklahoma and richard burr. we'll also hear from radio talk show host laura ingram. >> the rally is about to begin. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome tim phillips, president of americans for pros parity. and let's give them hand and thank them right now for what they are doing.
[applause] we gather today with a very simple message for this president and for majority leader harry reed. keep your hands off our health care. right? [applause] you know, since this past summer we -- almost 500 on our bus tour rallies. for places like ocean city, maryland. any marylanders here? down to little rock, wilmington, north carolina. any north carolinaians here? any pennsylvaniaians here? and my home state, leesburg, virginia. where are the virginians here?
jefferson bail, indiana. you bet. we have been to evansville myself. across this country the crowds were big and the passions were intense. we have learned something that we already knew, folks. when americans face a challenge, we stand up and fight for our freedom. that's exactly what we are doing. [applause] that's exactly what you're doing today and every day across this country. out on the road of these events i hear one question more than any other question and it is this. can one person really make a difference? you heard that, right? because all of this grassroots act vism and tea parties, taun hall meetings, does it really make -- town hall meetings, does it really make a difference? next year i have a feeling we're going to rock this whole country. what do you think about that?
applause if you think grassroots activism and you individually can't make a difference, let's take a very quick stroll down memory lane. remember last spring? all the political pundits said this health care takeover was a done deal. remember that? speaker pelosi and majority leader reed said don't worry. we may not need the whole summer to get this wrapped up. the president said by august i want this bill on my desk. remember that? the media was talking about the history in the works. by that they mean bigger government, by the way. but they forgot one thing. do you know what they forgot? they forgot the american people. you better believe it. they forgot you and they forgot me and they forgot our place across this country. beginning this summer, we had our say, didn't we? august moved to labor day.
labor day slipped to october. october slipped to thanksgiving and now we stand here just over a week from christmas and we have a message for the probable cause. he is not going -- for the president of the united states. he is not going to have this bill by christmas either. [applause] that's right. kill that bill. kill the bill. kill the bill. kill the bill. kill the bill. kill the bill. kill the bill. kill the bill. you know, this rally today, rush limbaugh called it a code red rally. as usual, he's right. many of you are wearing red. i forgot mine, i've got to be honest. i failed in that regard. it is a code red because we don't want the u.s. -- losing our health care freedoms.
it is also a code red for someone else. you know who that code red is? it is majority leader harry reed and his friends in the united states senate. isn't that right? the scheme is falling apart. have you noticed that? as the american people see what is in this bill, our senators may not read it but you're reading it and i'm reading it. we know what's in that bill, right? more government, more spending, more debt, more intrusive government, especially. i'll tell you something. the american people are saying no. the people of america are with you and with me. they are with us. i just want to mention two polls. i think the helpful to be edge couraged and to know for these guys across the street, when they asked do you support the
health care reform coming out of washington, 61% of our fellow americans say no. [applause] of washington, 61% of our fellow americans say no. 61%. [cheers and applause] we all heard the president say, and i know you've heard president obama c. this: if i can just communicate with the american people, if they can just hear, we will pass this legislation. have you guys heard that? he has gone on every prime time show possible including david letterman, i'm not sure if that's helpful but he did it. and it is a problem for the president. the american people are hearing him loud and clear. they don't believe what he's singing about health care. they know better. three things the president says about health care that we know are not true. number one, when the president says don't worry, i know the
budget deficit is bad but my government health care takeover won't raise the deficit a penny do we believe that? [booing] i don't even think most of the guys in the senate believe that. i think only a few professors at harvard believe that maybe. the second thing -- the second thing he says, number two -- [chanting "liar!"] -- the president says if you like your current health care coverage, what? you can keep it. we know that's not true. we know what happened to our health care coverage. it's just not true. number three, the third thing he tells us, government will never get between you and your doctor.
we know that's not true. [chanting "liar!"] and so today when the american people hear this, they know it's not true. they know that when government gets bigger, freedom and free seeds. they know that when you spend more money our deficit goes up and that is on my children, my four children, your children and grandchildren, the american people are smart. they know what is at stake and they are with us and we are winning if we keep fighting. are you going to do that? are you going to keep fighting this fight because we can win this thing if we keep it up. we can do this. i understand there are a few folks from new jersey. any new jersey folks? [cheers and applause] i want to hear from somebody that is a dear friend of mine. he is the state director of americans for prosperity. he's one of the great leaders in
this country and certainly new jersey. please welcome your friend and mine, steve. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, everybody. ladies and gentlemen, fellow americans we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, amongst them our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [cheers and applause] and the health care bill -- to health care bill we are fighting today gives the government control over our lives, underlines how our liberty, and it certainly doesn't make anybody happy. [cheers and applause] barack obama, harry reid, and nancy pelosi are out of touch with the american people. [cheers and applause] but they don't understand or choose not to understand that we are in doubt by our creator with these rights and they are not coming to take them away. [cheers and applause] because we are going to kill the
bill. [chanting "kill the bill"]@@@@@ kill the bill. kill the bill. >> as americans we cannot allow the pen to be mightier than the sword. we heard that over and over again but this is a nation built on sacrifice and the blood of ancestors and those who have given for our liberty and freedom to defend what was given to us by our creator. we cannot allow that to be wiped away with a simple signature of barack obama on this bill. [applause] this is a moment in history that we're going to look back on and tell our children and our grandchildren that we stood and we fought to defend those rights. kill the bill, my fellow americans. kill the bill. bill, my fellow americans. [chanting "kill the bill"]
and one last thing -- one last -- one last thing. one last thing. if these senators think that they are in safe states that they can do this, all i ask them to look to the hopelessly liberal state of new jersey -- [cheering] -- and the state of virginia, the great state of virginia -- [cheering] -- that only a month ago elected conservative republican governors. [cheering] we are not getting up. thank you. god bless you. god bless america. [cheers and applause] >> i tell you what, he's going to turn new jersey around with your help from new jersey, right? we are going to turn to new jersey about. [cheers and applause] back in the spring and winter when this health care battle
first kicked off, there was one group, conservatives for patients right, that was the first group in the breach with television ads, with research focusing on what this health care bill would do, and the head of the group is here today and i want you to give a warm welcome. this was one of the first guys in the breach, rick scott, come on up. [cheers and applause] >> this is a great day to kill the bill, right? [cheers and applause] everyday is a good day. who is from florida? anybody? [cheering] all right. so we started conservatives for patients' rights last winter, and the first -- the first interviews we did every reporter said this is a fool's errand. what you're doing, this bill will pass and even earlier than ten they told us it would pass by the end of may. no way. [cheers and applause] they said the american people are ready for health care
reform. obama-care reform. no way. what we want is better health care, lower-cost, not more government and more taxes. [cheers and applause] >> [inaudible] >> that's a good point, no killing babies. one of the first things we did as a documentary on the u.k. and canadian health care system. these are the stories. a 19-year-old girl goes to get a caps mere test, the government doctors is no you can't get it until your 20. she goes back at 20, they say you can't get it until you're 25. at 23 she gets cervical cancer, two years to live. is that what we want in this country? >> no! >> they seem know it is too expensive, you can't get it. is that what we want in this country? >> no! >> that's why we are here! >> to years of waiting to get her hip surgery.
is that what we want? >> no! three >> we don't want government health care. we've seen it. what do we have in massachusetts today? government health care, long waits, hospitals having to sue to get paid. it's a disaster. we don't want government health care. we want to work costs. that is what we want, less government. [cheers and applause] everybody knows if we stay active we will win. [cheers and applause] the goal of the other side is to wear us down. we will win. we just have to kill the bill and stay active. show up each and every day and we can do it. [cheers and applause]
[chanting "we will win!"] we put out -- we put out numbers on the go 72% of americans will vote against you if you vote for this bill this year. [cheers and applause] we need to let everybody know we will vote against the next year if they vote for this bill. so, i have the distinction opportunity to introduce the next speaker so he is known as the idea machine, think tank -- individual think tank, 18 years in congress, head of the freedom works. he's done a great job. let me introduce dick armey. [cheers and applause] >> i'm looking at all you folks out here. how many of you worked hard all of your life, pays your taxes, served in the military --
[cheers and applause] i've got to ask you what is unpatriotic about that? [laughter] i've never seen so many attractive domestic terrorists and all my life. [laughter] [cheers and applause] i know that when you get done here you're going to go home to your imaginary jobs, that is what astroturf does. [laughter] let me say it's so great to see you here today. this is such an important expression of our concern that so important to members of the senate seat especially on this weekend. this is the time when they can cast the vote that will change america forever. [booing] fundamentally devonish your freedom commodore of liberty, your right to be your own person as the lord god intended you to read this nation is devoted to protecting and so it is the time to make this statement and when i leave today in just a few short minutes, i'm leaving here to go speak to a group in arkansas in front of that
senator's office because the need to hear and see us out at home too. [cheers and applause] so on behalf of myself and the 750,000 enthusiastic activists of the freedom work it's great to be here together. we showed up last april 15th. they said they are just a one chip program, they will never be back. we came back and they said they are just passing through town, they don't matter. we went to the town hall meetings the congressmen and senators and light as in august. they said you're really not welcome here. we've really don't want to hear from you and you've got no business talking back at me. [booing] but i know that you are not willing to go away. then september 12th how many of you were here september 12? [cheers and applause] at your own expense, by your own initiative, for your own purpose
to make your own statement; is that correct? [cheers and applause] how on american is that? [laughter] you mean you actually came on your own terms? to say what he wanted to say? and to be heard? [cheering] you sound pretty much like terrorists to me. [laughter] i'm so glad to or not real, you would be frightening. [laughter] look, this is such a critical time. they don't have the votes or they would have this dirty deed done by now. [cheers and applause] they don't have the votes because they have seen you show up in april, and july, in september, and august, and now they are afraid you will show up in november. [cheers and applause] let them know we will be back.
[cheering] now it is my pleasure to introduce the next speaker -- [chanting "we'll be back!"] did you hear that? all right, lamar was going to introduce but he's not here. i can't pass up my moment because the last moment that doc coburn -- to practice medicine all his life -- the last time we were together i had the amazing opportunity to watch him received a lecture on health care from a woman named um, um -- madoxx, a television personality -- [booing] -- who i am told has a ph.d. in
something that doesn't matter -- [laughter] -- who knew she was good to lecture the physician because she had actually gone to a doctor once. [laughter] so, when doc coburn has the strength to stand up to this world renowned expert on health care. but in the meantime, we have a treat, and i have to tell you, michele bachman from the great state of minnesota -- [cheering] >> hi, everybody! [cheers and applause] hi it's the charge of the life brigade. [cheering] you came before and you came again. i guess they must be deaf, they
can't hear you. [cheers and applause] but our message hasn't changed, has it? >> no! >> our messages as we are citizens of the united states. we are the owners of freedom. we expect you to maintain or freedom. [cheers and applause] and we are not leaving until you understand that no means note. what part of no don't you people understand? [cheers and applause] you are an absolutely beautiful sight with every day that passes we learn more and more on this bill. number one, there is a marriage penalty in this bill. [booing] and medicare advisory panel took a look at this bill and they said not only will lead not save money, it's going to cost money. it's going to tax you. we all know it will prove to be
the largest middle class tax increase in american history [booing] we also learned this bill will create something very odd. it will create an iron ceiling on wages. so if you make $59,000 a year or more, and that's joint, husband and wife in come, then you will lose the health care subsidy, most likely your employer will pay an 8% fine but guess what, once the employer pays that find their obligation is don, no more health insurance for you. rather than getting a tax-free benefit of health care you have to go out and purchase your own health care with after-tax income. so if you are making 58,000 get government subsidized health care what incentive could you possibly have to make 59,000,
where you have to go out with your own money and purchase an additional policy? this is redistribution of wealth. this is. [booing] i think joe the plummer figured that out a long time ago. that out a long time ago. [cheers and applause] joe wilson white? >> yes! >> let's tell them once and for all, kill the bill! [chanting "kill the bill!"] yes! [chanting "kill the bill!"] one thing government hasn't necessarily figure out is how to do the right thing, and the right thing always is in
conformity with the constitution of the united states and the declaration of independence. [cheers and applause] let's ask our president, let's ask. , let's ask the speaker of the house where in the constitution is the authority to force an american citizen to buy a product or service against their will? we're in the constitution? [cheers and applause] [booing] we're in the constitution can we have our businesses pay a fine of 8%? where in the constitution do they have that authority? [cheers and applause] maybe they need a course in remedial reading to find out what is in our constitution. let's tell them the number one -- the number one area in our constitution is to preserve and protect your