>> what's the common thread? that can't happen without town halls a national dialogue. intimidation is always, always to skip that part. back to my latino south. i think what clicks for me was i will never be one.

i think it would be very unfair to think that i'm just in arab. i grew up in the south. i grew up in the bible belt. being in south carolina really played a role in terms of who i am and my values, and being an american, being a woman. those type of identities are strong. the only time i was able to have the every me was when i just embrace multiculturalism. and accepted that it's consistently shifted. then i had a much stronger level of comfort with myself. >> khaled, given your background and experience, not only the dialogue within the kennedy, but with other minorities, i know this has been an area you have tried to work on but how, not only the benefits of coalition building, but how does this benefit us?

>> you asked the mobilization of unconventional groups that are part of the community, i think an issue that should be addressed is being honest and candid that arab-americans by large, we don't intermix much with other communities. we represent things like interracial dating and things of that nature. we are very cliquish. we tend to hang out with our own. we don't have cross racial ability. before the distress i think institutional building is a moot point. i think because of those problems, arabs have been -- i

think 9/11 is a clear example of that. areas became interested in racial profiling post-9/11. they face these issues decades upon decades. they wanted allies. why should we help you now? when black folks were driving from dearborn at 9 p.m. you guys were not come to our defense. i don't think we've done a good job since 9/11 to be frank with you but kind learn from those lessons. but before we internally have an honest discourse and debate about racism within our community, it can be a very valuable level. >> what he said, essentially. [laughter] it's true. even as an artist growing up in hollywood and try to get the

arab american community to integrate with other races, that's always been like no, we're going to circle our wagons and do it our way and black community can do their thing in the latino community can do their thing and the asian community can do their thing. but there are things, this is the whole idea about inclusion and not exclusion. when you include other races that's when you're going to have that learning experience. when we used to do our axis of evil comedy tour, it was middle eastern base comedy troupe. you couldn't be white and black in our group because it just didn't make sense. why would we have a white guy in the axis of evil? when our group split up, we create a new comedy troupe called just like those based on a movie showing arabs and muslims on the outside world laugh just like us over here. and the comics that went on that tour to dubai and lebanon and egypt were white and black,

italian and german american and the great canadian, and we sprinkled some arabs in their but we made it more diverse. and for some reason it seemed to work a lot better because nine of international dialogue going. it's not just so arab centric. that's not to say that i'm not proud of being arab and the muslim. i very much am so, but within our committee we already know about each other so why don't we extend the olive branch to other communities and religions so they get to feel like they're part of it. whenever a community or religion or culture excludes, then you've isolated yourselves. so it's hard to circle back and say hey, can you help us now? it's like what you said earlier. no, we were there. you were not paying attention. >> i just want to add to that. coalition building, it's a fact. i just want to give a specific

example in my capacity working, last year when the controversy around part 51 and increased level of islamophobia, you know, we actually created a coalition, a coalition that includes all the religious organization, major ones. catholic bishops, all other religious organizations in just one coalition. we were standing shoulder to shoulder upholding america. for that particular portion that was provided, actually -- that particular event we had last year for the anniversary of 9/11 change the discourse here in our nation. >> i have a quick follow-up question to what the gentleman

said. sudanese americans growing up here having black skin, having the arabic language, what challenges to the younger generation space and are those challenges -- is discrimination real on both sides of the fence? arthur young sudanese americans coming, wanting to be involved, and then experiencing racism does their darker skinned colored? >> we see, you know, we see the problem, this particular problem you just mentioned not just here in the united states but actually you can see that a major arab league conference as well. you don't see that, you know, part of the problems in the arab world. they might not necessarily

fully, you might see some of these arab countries whether sudan or somalia, all these arab countries you're in arab league, you know, use don't feel there fully recognized member. they are member, i mean, you don't see them. this is something you can see that. when i said, you know, in any discussion and people, countries from arab world, they never heard of sudan. i mean, i just want to be clear to you. people don't even mention, so i think this is a problem that really needs to address. and i think adc, because the arab american community, because of the way this country, united states is structured, and to embrace a level of diversity i think we have an opportunity and chance, you know, to change that

perception, a perception that when you say and, you know, we should find the arab community and a completely different way. if you are from arab world, you are an arab. that is what we should talk about. >> i just wanted to be a low bit rate and terms some of things that were said at the income and i think it's an important discussion. i also wonder how much is generational. how much has changed with the generation because i know that my. group is very -- has gone to build discussion in terms of who should be included and who shouldn't get and also recognize, there was a tribute to the civil rights activists have come before and really paved the past. i'm wondering when were able to go beyond that to recognize that there has been change and as the advancement. huge amount of where we need to

go, but also wonder without institutions how it will be great. because to challenge that way of thinking which has been passed on through generations as well so we are nowhere where we need to be. but to challenge that, to be more importantly relevant i think you need, and it does have the formalized institutions but faith-based grid where you can have that dialogue to talk of progress and move forward. otherwise what you have is a lot of disenfranchisement and alienated clicks throughout the country. >> i think that's where art comes in. that's where art and culture. it's always festive events or conventions like this that bring people together, i know your point where you're going with having a forum. you end up having a lot of arguments and try to voice your opinion and you don't get anywhere. you need to incorporate some sort of cultural -- i know it happens, but get more people

involved were you're celebrating the cultures through certain art forms, like you said, through comedy, literature, filmmaking. that really opens up the dialogue and i do agree with you on that. there has to be some sort of modified platform that people can communicate with. >> it has to be reflected in the groups. and institution easily comprised of leadership that is lebanese are egyptians. if you -- my thing is this, creating grassroot bridges for committees that have been disfranchised for decades. so, building institutions is all fine and dandy. effectively until recently have done a very poor job reaching out to those communities. so i fundamentally believe on the ability to address core

issues, which are the congress in within our committee. and second, build the grassroo grassroots, people to people kind of ties on the ground that institutions are effectively, not meaningless, but to join in that regard. >> i think the engagement process in itself can be -- >> let me give you an example. a couple years ago i was working for the affirmative-action campaign, a from of action services being an african-american. much about organizing work was with an african-american community. detroit is 90% black. i encountered so much justifiable discrimination going into these communities because they perceived affirmative action to be a black issue. i encountered that for weeks. i dealt with a lot of swearing,

people me calling out, this and that. over a couple of months people started to build a rapport with me. i walked into black churches, people knew my name. there like there's khaled beydoun, a brother, not that kind of her brother. but that's the kind of work that i think needs to be done that has been done until recently. and i think we have two kind of continue the spirit of kind of work that is done in a more robust fashion to build those bridges into communities that are not here. if you look at the crowd, i would guess largely palestinian, egyptian, syrian and so forth. but these crowds have to be more representative of what we perceive what arab-american should be one big. >> there are coalitions that adc

is a part of. one thing when we do, we say listen, the arab world comprised of 22 different pieces. your piece is one of those. we can't do it without you. i will not walk into an algerian or living organization and say i'm half three in, and i'm telling you how you are in a. but we tried to look at the common house and come together on those commonalities. in wind that is strong enough than abc will move. what are the differences between this and this so there's a definite role, we're trying to play and move forward.

but i think one question i had that came up through this, the minority aspect of things. i would ever american, are we middle eastern north african? are we afro air. if we have this imaginary box that identifies is that everyone is pushing for, we all agree we want a box but can we all agree with this box will say or label us as? then there also seems to be the problems. so without imaginary box -- >> brown. [laughter] just light brown. maybe lighter. >> arab-americans have been other. we're putting not why. we don't have access to white privilege. however, you want to classify it as arab-american our middle eastern i think is the question of nuance and so forth. ivory from arab-american because middle eastern american

conflates groups that have certain affinities but don't have precise shared a spring. ironic americans or turkish americans would claim to be distinct americans. >> it's interesting, i think, you know, to the institution building point, i think we need to work on our existing institutions and make them more diverse. and i think, you know, i know i started this but i think i would say something like we would like to include arabs from north africa or east africa, or from the gulf states. i mean, we don't see arab from the gulf states you. we maybe need to have kind of roundtable discussions within our own existing institutions, to talk about these issues. and then we can start to be more inclusive. then the need to build more institution will naturally come.

>> i have a question i guess maybe for you abed. most of the institutes i am part of, peaceful families project which is a women's organization against domestic violence is for a broad coalition, and the woman who heads this half egyptian, the cofounder is half boston, have a iraqi. it's a huge multicultural element. someone at how much of it is within this incident for several of the -- that's not happening it doesn't mean it's happening in american. >> i know particularly within the arab-american community, and i think those involved can attest, we put a lot of thought and research into this subject before we begin working. so it's not like i believe called moon and said we want to go meet with the sudanese. no, we must have spent five, six months researching numbers, researching data. we looked at things such as, from our surveys, if individuals

are palestinians, what are their core issues, try to see the core issues for each country, try to see again what the commonality is. and what we said was working adc offer to this community that will in turn, they would appreciate. for the sudanese american community it was discussing the referendum in sudan. for the moroccan community, it's been providing legal support from a legal department. so you can see the arab-american committee within itself is very, very diverse. there's many issues that we could agree on and there's been issues that we could disagree on even within the same villages. this happens in lebanon where somebody from -- they'll be arguing on what spices to put in their meal. we want to avoid these service conversation, serious fights. we don't want to go down that road. but for us it really took a lot of time. there was a professor from

columbia who really helped us tremendously, and he did some excellent work on this issue and at about the identity issue. it sounds like it's common sense but in a more than ready do was find what sources, can like institutional, what resources we have available that we could give to these different communities to do. and one by one we begin meeting with a local committee groups, the local councils, the local chambers of commerce of these organizations. and in no way did we go in and say we are big and bad, we are from d.c. we went in there and say we want to work with you, want to learn from you. we want you to be on our chapters. and in detroit, in the late '90s we had a problem with the yemeni-american community. it was not as involved and have a very large yemeni-american population in the south end of detroit.

they were becoming isolated like their own little area. so adc went in. i remember going in i was 20, 21 years old. started putting up flyers of adc and the imam called me and said what you doing? this and that. ultimately, what we decided it was made a certain number of positions on the adc detroit chapter open for yemeni-americans. and i'm telling you that now they are our biggest can what our biggest supporters 10, 15 years later in that area. but it was those initial steps, putting them on the board, empowering them on the board. so they empowered the organization. by empowering themselves they empowered adc. so it's definitely i think, i would feel it's an adc phenomenologist because we are the only and largest grassroots organization. and now i will be moderator again. >> sorry. >> it's okay. i have a question for you.

how could art be used -- how can we use the arts to combat these challenges that we have amongst each other alex salmond other ways? >> i think you see it more and more everyday. i mean, they're telling their own stories. when a non-airborne non-muslim goes to see a film about an arab family at a film festival that has become an american films in it, oftentimes they'll change their minds, like, i forgot the name of the movie about the palestinian woman who comes -- does a great film. and a lot of -- [inaudible] >> what. >> white castle. >> that's right. she worked at white castle. see that, right there. [laughter] but when a lot of americans saw that movie, they connected to it

because it was an american story really. it was an american immigrant story. i'm just going to throw this out as an example, but miss u.s.a. last year, -- >> from detroit. >> thank you. [applause] >> lebanese, right clicks one of the first miss u.s.a. was ever for the first time. [applause] >> you can clap for her. i will clap for her. but that shut a lot of people up because a lot of people thought they would see arab women dress like this, you know, very submissive and don't have a voice. she came out guns a blazing. she won and that says a lot. and your strength you see a lot of these arab comedy festivals, you know, up-and-coming arabic communities is awesome.

these festivals and amman jordan has a comedy scene. saudi arabia as a comedy scene. egypt. everybody is starting to not just comedy but literature, film. dr. zogby has a book at. that's important to tell our own stories. we can sit there until our own stories but unless you share them publicly, who knows what someone question i get asked all the time is, you know, do you blame hollywood for portraying arabs the way they portray arabs? i said no, i don't blame hollywood. i blame us. it's our fault it is our responsibility. we have the resources. we have the vision. we have the stories. we have the money. arabs have money. i know back home if you're the relative who as a convenience store and his money and his matches or something, but, you know, that's what i mean.

even before after, after, before september 11 we never use of arabs come out your comedy shows before september 11. after september 11 everybody came to the comedy shows. everybody has a story. the media such a powerful tool but what if you said to come dr. jack brilliantly exposed hollywood and showed i think 1200 some odd clips of cartoons, tv shows and films. were the only portrayed arabs, middle eastern and muslim a negative light. you never saw the arab guy on friends. friends. you never saw the arab doctor on er. you never saw the muslim guy on seinfeld. you just don't get i think when the rest of america and the world says oh, look at these arabs are we are doing their own

story, that's fascinating. i didn't know about that, or look at the story about that person. or the cook and a dance and a brief and eat, they are just like us. i think whatever art form decide to portray that through, i believe is a lot more powerful than a politician has to say. [applause] >> thank you. you can find me at twitter. [laughter] >> manal, arab muslim woman, how often has that cross those intersections, and is there a difference between being an arab woman being a muslim woman, you know, what conflicts are there? >> it's a good question. i think that most people are comfortable between secular or religious divides, and when we and i think the american-arab

committee is when the first to bridges at and say it doesn't have to be polarized. there's a way to be spiritual and religious and be liberal and secular in terms of legal rule of law respect. i think that's very hard for most people to understand. i've often been told and specifically because i work on women's rights. i've often been told and i work on women rights globally not just in the muslim world, suck on but don't isn't that a contradiction? people will say you're working on women's rights, how can you be all of those at once? and get a thing as being able to portray that it does different things. but i had a similar experience in terms of -- i don't want a policy breeze, academic papers but it was until i wrote my book barefoot in baghdad ended from a very simple narrative style that some people resonate. most of the people who ended up the many, the family were children of soldiers. so a lot of iraqi soldiers, families come mothers, wives and

daughters e-mail me at just think about because, their sense is we don't know what's going on, we don't know what the middle east -- one little girl 16 said all envision is desert. she ended her e-mail by saying i like to imagine my father is one of the soldiers helping you. so i mean i think it is true. what you said resonated it's the narrative and the simple format to a good friend of mine from new york who's a marketing and does a lot of literature, he's an agent as well, said think of kelly kmart, think of wilma wal-mart when you're running and i think that's been the best advice i got. >> and if i can echo again what you just said, when you said you wrote the book about, called "barefoot in baghdad," and military wives and children e-mail you, most of the world, they do think that the arab world is just a desert, or strictly bombed out buildings or terrorist camps and all that.

you know, when we made this most recent film, just like us, document, we traveled through dubai, lebanon, and e.g. so many americans would come on the screen -- screenings of our film and would say if i had the money i would take a trip to the middle east more because the film may be want to go see. they did know the when nightclubs in beirut lebanon. they did know that you can go down in egypt and pick up trinkets and stuff like that if they didn't realize there was a harley-davidson chapter, they did realize that divide, there's a big community. the news never shows that. so i think by showing that and strictly through literature or film or television, it's just a broader explanation as opposed, armor growing up, people would always ask me what is arab, what is muslim? and i used to have to explain to one person and another person

would ask an attitude the explanation to another person but i would rather take any optimal to my house one night in a just to you all at once. that's the dod of our because you can capture an audience and tell your story in one big swoop and go to the next place and continue to do that. instead of doing it individual individually. >> khaled, given your background and what you've gone through, how different do you see the socioeconomic and how different d.c. the arab american communities across the country, particularly we know how the committees in detroit as compared to other pockets, and what role does that play and not on the current generation but future generations? >> yeah, i think the arab american communities are very diverse along ethnic, sectarian, national lines but it's also very diverse along socioeconomic lines. me and abed are both from

dearborn detroit. it's a working class and the rising poor community. which kind of conflicts were as an aberration from statistical kind of image of arab-americans being upper-middle-class. they are very financially stable, very affluent. so to speak. and i think that social economics, in many regards kind of shaves a different era american communities frame who they are ethnically and racially. the more affluent tend to want to shift their legal, you know, tend to align themselves more with a legal designation of being white or caucasian. for purposes of access to white privilege, for purposes of political influence, for purposes of trying to achieve a certain economic status. were as my upbringing i just don't get stronger affinity and

identified the person of color, i had a stronger sense of camaraderie and community with african-americans, latino americans who face the same struggles, so when friend who we are in terms of a legal people here in the states, social economics has to be addressed. and we had to kind of focus in on the working class, arab-american pockets in detroit, paterson, new jersey, chicago, different segments of new york, los angeles and so forth. they cannot be marginalized and ignored. went imagining and finally designing and designate where americans are. >> and i think for the record, my family came here in 1978, and in 1980, 81 we moved into a home, one of the government homes for the poor folk, and we lived downstairs and khaled's

family lived upstairs. we were both causing trouble, three and four years old at the time. but i think the upbringing has an impact on your identity, but it's the similar upbringing with the newer communities are facing. 68% of the somali americans in minnesota be live below the poverty line and only 20% graduate high school. so, what impact, or what role could not only organizations like adc but the other communities, kind of play in the assimilation or assisting of these communities in the u.s.? >> i think, you know, abed, you brought a are important subject. i visited the somali community in many of us actually a number of times. there are about 60,000 somali

refugees in minneapolis, and there are about 40,000 of them in columbus, ohio. and this particular communities actually facing huge problems of integration. so they are not really able to integrate into a larger american society. and that's what they needed help. they face major problems, you know, and discrimination in housing, you know, other issues to integrate, bowling and other things. you know, don't know how it, and i think other institutions like adc, other institutions, i think they need to come forward, they need to come forward and find a way to help. and not only institution that belonged to arab and muslims, but i think again the question of coalition building is very critical here. we do not need to reinvent the wheel.

basically they came here before us, you know, the jewish community went through difficulties. the catholic communities with the difficulties. the arab-americans community went through that, and so if we just need to use these experiences and help to integrate, i think that is very crucial. and we actually started doing that. i mean, having roundtable for them with a number of institutions to help them how to integrate, having a number of roundtables with governments, actually a couple of months ago i was in minneapolis with governments, with the federal government's and myth with somali lives. in fact, just to discuss how they could help them, but integrate and understand their rights as, you know, new immigrants. >> the past few years i've been

working with iraqi refugees have been coming to the country and also with syria and egypt are just recognizing that these committees are deal with a lot of. >> host: . and beyond the trauma of war ending survivors of war, just the idea of coming to a new country. so in addition to integration, sometimes being in an environment which is the same, being an invite with same i would and the same dialogues and most of the recipes i've spoken with want to be him among other iraqis is not necessary a bad thing. and has to be providing the right counseling which again would often want to skip and get to living the american dream. so i think that's just an added element that's important to factor in. >> thank you. >> just another thing. you know, we always read and talk about, you know, america is a melting pot, right? but i think the pot is not melting anymore. when i went to minneapolis, you know, i really found somalia. like i visited the somali

community so i see little somalis all over. you see huge building and then when you get into that, when you go into that building basically you in somalia. and also you can see that in other immigrant communities as well. in california, you know, chinese committees and others. so you see that. so i think maybe you need to talk about this more. >> and along those lines one statistic is that community in metro detroit has $9 billion of peer-to-peer transactions each year. peer to peer. that's $10 for me that khaled spend. that's definitely something that is a good trait of a community. before we had to questions and answers, i just have one question for everybody, by want to ask ahmed to those more about "just like us" film and its opening. >> well, funny you should ask. [laughter]

well, in 2007 we've gone to the middle east as the axis of evil, and we toured through jordan, dubai, lebanon, egypt and kuwait. and they shot as a tv show. we did 27 shows, in five countries in 30 days. and it was on tv, kind of became more well known over there. and then we went back a second year and we did a tour but it was in pockets we didn't really get to shoot it as a documentary. then the third year, three is a charm, third year we decided to mix it up and take international comics. so there is whitney cummings was one of the first american hinault caucasian female comics who came with us, and a british, well-known british comedian, tommy davidson from in living

color, a lot of comics that you would recognize. and we just went on this whirlwind tour. i made a move for a couple of recent one was once part of a tour be with the actor vince bond, like five years ago called the wild west comedy show. and being on the tour it was an inside peek of what it's like to make a documentary about a comedy to big those almost like going to school for free. and the country need inspiration. but the driving force behind it was when i go to the middle east and for this comedy shows, i would come back to america and my american friends would say what we doing in the middle east, and i would say i was doing comedy shows. and asked me which military base? [laughter] and i would say it wasn't a u.s. tour, and was in a military tour for the truth to it was for arabs. and they were shocked at the

always like, in english? and i'm like yeah, we did it in english. anderlecht, and they did it? , yeah, they get a. they human beings. [laughter] they have internet. they are on facebook. they are poking and tagging every day. i was frustrated, again going to your childhood and answer the question of what it's like to be an arab or a muslim. now i'm answer the questions of you arabs and muslims laugh on that side of the world. so, out of pure frustration, about four days before we launched the tour, my business partner suggested that we film it, so i scrambled around. i hired to camera guys, one is in the back of the over there, now he is my producer. ration hand, taylor. [applause] >> he's a 6'3" white guy from arkansas. [laughter] and i said you want to go to the middle east with me for a month and should this documentary? before fish the were documentary, he said yep.

but his parents called him and were worried for his life. they were afraid that something might happen in the middle east. and i said he will be fine, he will be fine. he show some amazing footage. we shot 200 hours of footage. we cut into a 72 minute documentary. we have done 25 film festivals. we have premiered at the tribeca film festival, and it's a documentary about the celebration of culture and comedy and family. and we just did a deal with lions gate films that will come out on video on demand, dvd, and don't download it because i know you like to download. if you have a dvd and everybody has a dvd. but we are self releasing it into theaters. it's in theaters in d.c. at the landmark this weekend. and its opening around the country, so wherever you guys are, michigan, boston, l.a., san francisco, it's going to roll out in theaters there.

so we encourage you to watch the movie because it's an educational piece, and a lot of non-arabs and non-muslims always leave the movie say i didn't know that about the middle east, thank you for sharing that. we tricky with the comic but we have a message in the movie. so "just like us" -- just like us movie.com. any support. [applause] >> one quick question, maybe take 30 seconds or so. ahmed, we'll start with you. what does it mean to be an arab? >> i don't know. i don't know. i mean, it's a part of my agenda and i guess it means just being aware of justice and that part of life. everyone holds hands a note and hold a gun. what am i supposed to say speak was what is the most arab -- for me, it's the food.

[laughter] spoke on more of an indian, you know, food lover. i guess been coming in, i guess what it is, the one thing it is is family. you know, all the other expense i've had is really the arabs kind of when i was in libya, people when incentive they wouldn't let me pay for the taxi, people would let me pay for the the. it was checkout, come live with us. in america my love for private face, that's what eric means for me is this overwhelming hospitality. i came up with an answer. [applause] >> well, it's again, as a sudanese arab american, i think, you know, it means to me a combination of mine, really my background, my ethnicity. and it helps in a way that you

can, you know, can communicate easy with a number of countries that speak arabic. but i think, you know, what i would like to come if i can phrase a question different, what i would like to see what means arab to be is really whoever speaks arabic. it should be really considered arab. because really, i mean, the arab-israeli town, if you can speak arabic, you know, you should be considered an arab. thank you. [applause] >> how about you? >> i have a question for you actually. let me ask you, if you are an arab, what would you want to be? >> what would i want to be? that's easy. i would want to be dead. [laughter]

i guess the biggest thing about being arabic as i think the family thing is would they come and also bigger than the family is having a strong community, a broader sense of community which feels like family. >> what does it feel to be an arab? to kill the infidel. [laughter] >> that was a joke. somebody are like maybe he is serious. i think the thing that makes the most proud of being an arab issue in my culture with the rest of the world, and that's i think a lot of the reasons why -- i don't know what happens preconception, but do you choose to be an arab or are you just born an arab? so some people say that you actually have a choice, that before you enter your family that you say i want to be an arab come you come out and july, i messed up. [laughter] can i get something else off the

menu? but then you come out, you, in this world and you are arab, so you have to deal with it but the best way to do with it is to share with other people and to explain, we do have a responsibility to explain. if we just come if we just sit there and deny our culture, and the rest of the world will deny us. i think sony was touching on it earlier, the assimilation doctor. i have a lot of friends who like after september 11 they were introduced themselves to somebody and be like what's your name, tom? my name is mike. your name is mohamed. so holding onto that is important to hold onto the culture, sharing it is i think the most important thing. >> thank you. [applause] spent i think we'll open it up to just -- just a couple questions. we have a few minutes that we can squeeze in a couple. is that microphone on? we don't want to turn on --

>> go ahead. we can you. >> i am from palestine. i'm from the bay area. san francisco. thank you. ahmed ahmed, i'm a big fan of you. we would like to back into the air. i have a two-part question. it was mentioned in the beginning, i have a lot of friends that are lebanese, but they don't identify themselves as arabs. i would like to know each of your thoughts on that. and what can -- the next question is, not all lebanese, you know, some lebanese. i actually of great lebanese friends that they call themselves airs. the next question is, you know, on the consensus when we don't have that arab box, how can we put that on the form? and i mean, why isn't it on the

phone to begin with? so i would like you guys to address that as well. thank you. >> who wants to answer the lebanese question? >> your lebanese. >> he's have lebanese, half egyptian. >> you are full lebanese together. >> together there is one. together you guys are phoenician. [laughter] spoke the lebanese thing, first of all, you can't force somebody to identify one way. it switches to identify as phoenician or maronite or whatever it is the want to identify as, that's their prerogative. you're not going to want to integrate individuals giving ever american anyway. but there are some complex kind of historical you know cultural factors that determine why somebody chooses not to identify as arabs are a lot of maronite lebanese friends trace their roots back to the nation's. like -- or canonize, exactly. that could be air. a lot of this is historical

debate or sociological kind of debate. so it's really kind of an individual subjective decision. but that goes back to the idea, is the idea and ethnic or racial one is a cultural one, is the touchstone of being arabic linguistic or political, or is it genealogical? i mean, my perspective is it's only speaks arabic, you know, their mom throws a slipper at them here and there, they're probably going to qualify as arab. but again, individuals should have the subjective right to identify the way they want to identify and. >> as far as the census bureau, there's a lot of history behind this issue. and at one point we were on the census form. we could have a whole other panel on why the committee shifted and wanted to be placed, change herself to white on the census form, and here we are back decades later been asked to be put on as arab-americans again.

but i can say this, at adc were taking steps to address this issue. we are asking for minority status for different government programs. the census form itself is a legislative fix, and on an act of congress will get us onto the border although we have a strong relationship with the department of commerce, with the census department, it's something that is going to take a few years and it will take time, but will we get there? i think we will. and i was serious about the discussion of what would be put on that box because that is the point of that's the phase we're in now. that's the question we're being asked now. we don't think we would be asked that question if we're not ready ready to move forward and assets is somehow. so we'll keep our fingers crossed. >> the right to vote. >> i would just add, if you look at the iraqi constitution process, article ii, which is a huge debate, because a lot of iraqis inside the country did not want to be called an arab

state. they still see themselves as iraqi. so i think similarly with a referendum in egypt recently, article ii, same article, was it a controversy. a lot of people from sudan would also argue, other people would not say they're not arab but their sudanese. it's recognizing that it is a very deep controversial not only political and historical but social construct and has influence back home as much as it has here, you know, we should be resisted the urge to say you are arab because there's a lot more dynamic that goes on there. >> thank you. next question please. >> couple, to make a quick question at hand just for clarification. in respect of being arabic we debated as the, the racial carpet an array like the comment about it simple by bike someone who simply speaks arabic. different backgrounds and its wonderful traffic from rocco to egypt to kuwait to do by

recently. but i grew up watching ahmed, going to ahmed sammie restaurant. share his culture and his love of life and music with the committee. so very appreciative of that. in san diego we were not a large population of ever american so they were galvanized by a tightly knit group that was well educated professional, good business owners that is such a very strong adc that were very instrumental in creating good, allies with different minority groups prior to 9/11. we did that on campus and on a broader sense. but moving to los angeles recently there is no common thread. they are quite weak in angers and in popular culture where ellie is the hub of popular culture and media, the broadest reach, we have a missing link. i was talking to jack shaheen about the. we so have to connect the dots in los angeles and we have our

different communities that are part of the religious institutions or is -- >> i'm sorry to cut you short. what is your question? >> they were connected with -- the agency was very good at bringing them under a common blanket. our new institutions need to do that our generation kind of loss at a cyberspace but how are they getting connected? how to bring them in and have them consider institutions any positive manner? >> this is the newer generation? i think -- >> generation x. was dragged in by their families. spoke to take a quote, we are going from the arab street to the arab between. and really, what adc is utilizing is social networking. social media. i mean, facebook, twitter. i don't know if -- just use that younger generation and her father, you want to talk

generations, to generations of a family working at adc. i mean, energy shows that there will be different mindsets and different ideas coming forward. but we have a full-time staff person doing our social networking, social media. it's very important some of our chapters don't even print flyers anymore. there's no more posting of events ally coffee shops, unless you really want. but really it's a social network, facebook blasts. our advertising money is now facebook advertising what it used to be newspapers, so it's definitely something -- >> my question wasn't just a d.c. any recommendations the? there's the network of arab-american professionals in l.a. >> i think the question went to ask is there so much out there, there's so much different network, so my different voices, how are going to make ourselves for our cost identity relevant.

and it really is the engagement. it listening to them. i've been to so many panels in the last two months that are analyzing the youth, but very few feature the use. in fact, in the last have similar strengths of the only person representing youth is manal. i'm 36 but i no longer use. and i'm proud of my age. so where are the youth and why aren't they on this stage answering a question? >> i'm still young. i think i would count. 29. still young. >> i have a complex question to ask which covers a bit of all that you what you said. i think there are two things we need to look at. first, what's happening in the arab world. like an immigrant brings a lot of their biases, a lot of their ideas, values, to the united states or whatever they immigrate to. and so i think that speaks a little bit to what you were

saying about why some of them show up and others to my question is, have you noticed as i did that prior to 9/11, and it is generational, i think manal is quite right, that the older generation of arab americans just wanted to melt. they wanted to be this melting. and they were scared. the, has to be considered. what after 9/11 i don't know if you agree, but there seems to be division about arab americans react to get some assorted become even more invisible and become mike and john or whatever and others like me and my daughter was an actress and playwright and writes about these things want to be more visible. we want to show up big because like a lot of you said, especially,, if we don't show up, we can expect other people to do it for us. so i would like to hear if you saw a difference after 9/11. >> if i can address that i think

9/11 was critical on many leve levels. the idea of melting for many before 9/11 was not an option. for a lot of arab-americans who have specific, like my colleague to the right, he would never have the of passing or assimilating as a caucasian american but most folks think i'm puerto rican or dominican. the opportunity and a position to melt or assembly has not always been an option for many arab-americans who look a certain way. and even have specific names. so 9/11 was a critical turning point at many levels but i don't think is a very critical turning point for a lot of arab-americans who never had the ability to melt or pass pre-9/11. >> i also think a lot of the ire

of americans when the other way and were pro-arab, were the people that were on the forefront of the artistic community. were as light, let's say, the average arab-american who worked the nine to five job, had a family would attend the show didn't really want to be on camera or on stage or have to name on paper or in life. they were more accepting to just kind of sit back and be invisible and quietly support. but it was like your daughter and people on this panel, and whoever has something to say, we are the ones who are, like, i was asked to change my name several times. my agent said you should change your name to rick. [laughter] does this look like a rick? this is mustafa. >> i think that the other way of blending in was to meet the good muscle or the good arab. and i think it was a temptation. i would be a millionaire if i got a dollar every time if i say where are the modern arabs?

they don't fit your stereotype tactics is almost a quest by the other in. state department meetings, meetings i was out there was this desire to fulfill the stereotype to give you to navigate, you were not the arab representing the committee did you adjust an exception. so i think that's what the melting came in was there was this desire to be the good arab, present a good face. the class or civil liberties, challenging, the dod of america is always accountability. i osha is the founding fathers statement in terms of benjamin franklin, he who sacrifices libya for security deserves neither. we lost that spirit and i think that's what the blinking in. we were trying so hard to prove our american that we forgot that being an american is holding our government accountable, the essence of being an american. the other issue that emerged was that was almost an official handing over of the baton. it was the young generation whose folks had full confidence in the american identity to say,

this is not making sense. they are the ones who stepped forward center stage and said i can challenge you and your i'm less of an american. and i won't accept you to make the claim. [applause] >> after 9/11, i think the arab-american and muslim-americans, they face with the question whether we wanted to be, you know, integrated or we want to be assimilated. and you know that's very political culture. and because there are certain level of years, i mean, if we are assimilated actually we would be accepted by the larger american community. but if you're integrated and kept our culture were integrated to the american society, but we kept our, you know, identity as an arab from different world, that might be rescinding a danger to the larger american

community. i think that was a critical question that need to be answered and even that question is generational. i mean, people who are first generation, they will answer it in a different way, and second generation they have their own antics i think these are the major factors spent with i know we're running short but real quick, i don't even need to go back to 9/11. but just to go back to the current arab popular uprisings. post-9/11, there was this big identity question, are we ever, are you muslim, are you arab muslim? that was a point of discussion. all of a sudden we have seen the terms of arab and muslim become one. and the community really address both issues one way. okay, the popular uprisings though and will begin happening, the arab identity begin coming back slowly. that's the main reason we're having this panel. what's happened in egypt, what's happened in tunisia, what's happened in libya, syria,

everywhere, you have arab americans, christians, muslims, regardless of religion standing saying we are proud to be arab. these are our people. in the younger generation, i have never in my years at adc we just began receiving phone calls from students saying, you know, i'm half lebanese are have egyptian, i want to enter the summer, i want to be a part of this. so these uprisings really have had a significant positive impact on arab american identity, more so than the impact of 9/11. and that's the main reason i work really escalated since february. ..

>> and i know we're running really close on time, just a few minutes left, but if we could make the questions quick, then we could -- >> okay, thank you. i'm from michigan, originally from egypt. and my question was specifically about the identity, the religious identity versus the national identity. because in michigan, and i actually am seeing that sometimes i notice that the community is trying to identify more with the original, you know, religious background rather than the national common

arab background. you can sense that even in the funding sources, you know, the mosque or the church, they tend to be able to generate more fundraising than towards on argument like adc. >> no, it's always easier to raise money for that regardless of religion. but it is definitely, and we could talk a little bit more, but the question of religious identity, i mean, it did play a role. and a lot of arab-americans -- from our research what we've seen was arab-americans muslims tend to say they're muslim first. arab-american christians tended to say we're arab first. that was prior to the arab spring. when we began, went back to the same people we interviewed and did our research on, it was almost unanimous. we're arab, across the board. so that's why i feel that event really propelled the identity, you know, to the forefront. >> well, i think, i mean, just from personal experience i've

always felt that the arab institutions are so highly rooted in sec laism that automatically -- secularism that automatically, i used to joke that me and some grandmother were the possible punjabis in the audience. that's changed over time, and i've been involved with adc since i was 10. so i've seen it grow and change. and i think likewise the reaction was, you know, a lot of people who go to islamic events who aren't necessarily, you know, practice anything the way people think they should be weren't welcomed. so it's the incollusionivity issue and how do you become inclusive. i think it's very hard for women, it's very hard to be women and independent, and that's the question where do you actually fall on the line. most of the people actually fall on the middle ground. >> you've got to be quick. >> yes, thank you. i want the panel to address two challenges. one is take off from what abed was saying. it seems like when the uprising

came up, many of us became proud arabs. to that point, the first challenge. what is it in the identity that i want to emphasize to my children to have them say, i am an arab? they don't even speak arabic. their mom is an american. what is it? i don't want to wait for another uprising or whatever it is. i need to know what this substance is for me to have them say, yes, i'm an arab, and i'm proud it's not just food. second challenge, the thing is that with the fellow here talking about more comforting to actually identify with the religious identity versus the arab identity. it is rampant of a problem in sudan, and keldeans call themselves not arabs, and many regions of our own arab world, they simply say, no, i'm not an

arab. look, it's not just the question of choice that i am a proud arab, but i'm responsible to have me also provide the atmosphere for people to say, yes, i'm an arab, which are the my, when -- comfortably, when they are british -- >> the question, i'm sorry. because we are really -- >> these are the two challenges i want to address. >> well, i mean, first of all, there's a lot of ethnic minorities in the arab world. the arab world is very prod. broad. you can't impose a certain ethnic or racial designation on the people who choose not to be arab. if they come from a different lineage and they have their own proud norm ty systems and -- normative systems and culture, they can choose to latch on to who they want to be. i don't think imposing arabness on somebody who doesn't want to be arab isn't going to go. >> i think it's a very good trait. >> next question. >> i'm 100% wasp, and my arab

wife asked a question just a while ago -- [applause] my daughter acts and writes in plays about being arab in the arab world. my question is, three months from today will be the tenth anniversary of 9/11. there will be a firestorm of media coverage. i think it's wonderful that the levant and north africa are getting together in the unite, but to what degree are people really planning on how to convey the positive about arabs at that time? i think what you're doing is absolutely wonderful, and i think there's a huge need. i as this wasp travel in circles, people here in washington are supposedly sophisticated, but, boy, are they ignorant.

so i guess my question is, what are you thinking of doing -- >> and that's a very good question, i could tell you -- i don't know if that's our cue, but i could tell you there is a national dialogue between a number of national organizations across the board on how to best address and what events we will be doing for the 9/11 anniversary. and it's definitely something on the radar. and by the way, in anticipation of a backlash or, you know, hate crimes against arab-americans, we've already began meeting with u.s. attorneys and local shfs and local law enforcements in the major cities such as new york, chicago, detroit prepping them for, you know, what we feel our concerns and what we hope does not happen. so we are putting our safeguards up. >> but -- >> [inaudible] >> i was just going to ask, clearly, you know, i think it is also wrong to see the 911 anniversary as just an arab-muslim issue. really this is an american

issue. we are a part of america, right? so i think that we need to address the issue of such. that's why i think, you know, the stronger voices are going to respond to the anniversary of 911. it is what's happening right now through the coalition building, right? >> uh-huh. >> there is something called prepare new york. this is going on. there is a lot of things, you know, actually working on this. so we're thinking from all kind of per spent -- perspective, providing the religious community's working very hard nationally to provide a religious voice for healing and reconciliation and moving forward. this is just one, i can go on and on. >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but our next panelists are here. >> just two seconds. i would just say show up to the mainstream activities so that you're not doing your own thing. >> if we could combine the last

two questions because we have a great panel who came in from out of town, and we're already cutting them in for under -- >> should i ask? is. >> yeah, just go ahead. >> i'm from syria, i'm an american, and it's great what adc is doing and, you know, trying to bring arabs together and talk about our issues. but as was said, don't, like, we need to build bridges with other ethnicities and backgrounds in the united states such as, like, you know, caucasian-americans, hispanics, black and even jewish-americans and try to talk about our issues, show who we really are? what is adc's agenda in the regarding of that issue? >> oh, that's very clear. adc has been on the forefront of coalition building long before 9/11. in the 1990s we began project hope which was a project geared at getting alcohol out of inner city stores, particularly in chicago. and it's picked back up again. we're a coalition executive

member of the leadership conference and civic -- civil and human rights, the lccr, we're the only arab-american organization, we're the only arab-american executive member. i sit on countless, countless coalitions. we lock with la raza, adl on certain issues, i mean, there is not a group or an organization that adc is probably not a part of. we really serve the coalition as probably number one, in fact, it is in our board resolutions. and every year since 1980 we have taken a stance on coalition building. >> i just think that it's important for every individual to take on that same role. i mean, for example, women's issues is my issue. i'm a proud member of the national organization for women, i'm a proud sponsor of planned parenthood, and every time i walk into one of the meetings, it's like what are you doing? what the hell? it's a disconnect. >> >> i think we've got to get to the last question. >> i think it's important for

every individual. >> it's along the lines of the previous question, and my question has to do with the integration of more recent immigrants. there's a huge influx of arab professionals who come here as immigrants and eventually become americans. and i think there's a huge disconnect between raich-americans -- arab-americans and those m cooing in -- and those coming in. the problem is i see that more recent immigrants are unable to identify with the arab-american community and integrate very well. so the question is how can adc help with that? and the other question has to do with arab-americans living here, how can they reconnect to back home? there are many jewish everybody organizations sending people back to israel for trips. >> the i can answer that question really quick. one, we can help in any way. we are a membership organization, we're a grassroots organization. the raich-american community is very large and diverse. unfortunately, we tonight have the -- we don't have the resources to send people for trips back home. we barely sometimes have the

resources to send abed back home to detroit to do a program. so give us your support. adc has a reputation, it's got a brand. once members join, i mean, yes, from our end we can do a little bit more to reach out, restrategize on how we're going to reach the membership, but once we do reach the membership base, the onus is on them to tell us what they want to do. our legal department, for example, addresses issues that arise from a survey given at the end of every month, and it's those policy items we work on. it's truly a grassroots organization where the agenda is set by the members, and that's important. once we reach those members, every one of them is different from the somalis, lebanese, so we have to work and tailor our messaging, but the services are there. and we do have a free legal department, too, which offs -- >> a resource that might be helpful is upwardly global, and they take people and they'll actually translate it to

american accreditation. >> finally, we are in the forms of developing a business professional council which we'll be discussing, hopefully, in an e-mail in a couple weeks. thank you. thank you to our panel. [applause] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> the next panel is going to begin shortly, and it'll be a continuation of what we just began, mobilizing effective -- [inaudible] thank you. in [inaudible conversations] >> up next, a house oversight hearing on justice department subpoenas on a gun tracking program. the senate's back at 10 eastern and will debate a couple of president obama's nominations to be district judges in new

jersey. votes on the nominees are expected around noon eastern. they'll also work on economic development legislation. live senate coverage here on c c -- c-span2. >> last week the nuclear regulatory commission's inspector general issued a report that suggested the commission's chairman withheld information from other commissioners in order to stop work on the yucca mountain repository. a house energy subcommittee will look at the yucca mountain issue and management of the nrc. live coverage begins today at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later here on c-span2 former national security adviser brent scowcroft talks about foreign policy challenges. he'll be at the national press club for the ford presidential foundation journalism awards. live coverage at 1 p.m. eastern. >> next month on booktv's "in

depth," author, activist linda hogan. her week books include "the woman who watches over the world, ""dwellings, and her latest, "rounding the human corners." join our three-hour conversation taking your phone calls, e-mails and tweets for linda hogan, sunday july 3rd at noon ian on c-span2. >> to me, it's just unconscionable. this is treason bl action on the part of the bastards that put it out. it involves secure information, a lot of ore things. what kind of people would do such things? >> 40 years ago this week "the new york times" published the first installments of the pentagon papers, and today at the c-span video library you can watch perspectives from the people who made history. search, watch, clip and share. watch what you want when you want. >> a house panel has subpoenaed

the justice department about its gun tracking program in mexico. the program, run by the u.s. bureau of atf, was designed to stop guns from if ending up with drug gangs in mexico. congress requested details about the program. chaired by darrell issa, this hearing is an hour and 40 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. today's hearing is on obstruction of justice, does the justice department have to respond to lawfully-issued and valid congressional subpoena? the oversight committee mission statement is, we exist to secure two fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know that the money washington

takes from them is well spent. and, second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the bureaucracy. today's hearing in specific is on the question of the powers and execution between the co-equal branches of government and the constitutional role of congress to maintain and check on the executive branch. as the principle investigative committee of the united states house of representatives, this committee serves to protect the right of the american people to

know what their government is doing. the compulsory authority of this committee is an essential tool of transparency and accountability of the federal bureaucracy. without it the executive branch would be free from any oversight, shielded from the vigilant eye of the american people and their elected representatives. and prone to more waste, more fraud and more abuse than the nation has ever seen. no administration, not the last one i served under, nor this one, likes congressional overseat. oversight. and we often are accused of doing it for partisan reasons or because of a particular administration. for the most part, we do it because administrations come and go, but the bureaucracy goes on and outlasts any president and

any cabinet officer. every administration needs oversight. this administration has had more money and more challenges to deal with that are fiscal in nature than most. however, the checks and balances on the constitution are to a great extent what we're dealing with here today. the administration has not yet come to recognize the role that this committee plays in preserving the rule of law, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. the united states supreme court has long held the power of the congress to conduct investigations is inherent this legislative process. moreover, the court has recognized that this power is broad. since first learning of the controversial program, operation fast and furious, i have worked

closely with senator chuck grassley to get to the bottom of the strategy by the federal bureau of alcohol, fact and firearms to allow heavy-duty arms to traffic into the hands of mexican drug cartels. atf field agents opposed this reckless program which has been responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians in mexico and even responsible for the death of a 40-year-old border patrol agent named brian terry. together with senator grassley, i have sent 16 letters to department of justice and atf requesting information on this program. after giving the administration enough time to respond to a formal request, it has become clear that the compulsory process was needed. on march 31st i authorized a

subpoena for material documents needed to conduct thorough investigations into this matter. to date, the administration has provided only a handful of documents, all of which, i repeat, all of which were already publicly available on the internet. while withholding those that provide real answers. our committee was asked whether we would come for an in camera interview or in camera observation of additional documents. we went only to find out that those documents were so redacted as to be useless, even for in camera review. since that time as many as 31 democratic members of congress have expressed their serious concerns about the administration's response to this committee's investigation. these members noted that the american people deserve prompt and complete answers to the questions surrounding this

operation. moreover, these democratic members do not believe that the doj investigation should curtail the ability of congress to fulfill its oversight duties. today's hearing is not, i repeat, not about the facts of fast and furious program. on wednesday the committee will have ample opportunity to hear about the program and how it has affected the lives of people living on both sides of our shared mexican border. rather, today's hearing is about a constitutional question. it is about whether the administration is legally bound to respond to a lawfully-issued and valid congressional subpoenas. to obstruct a congressional investigation in this way is a serious matter. this is not the first administration to flirt with this breach of the public trust.

and it will probably not be the last. but on our watch, and this is our watch, this congress will not shrink from its constitutional responsibility, and this committee will leverage every power at its disposal to enforce the rule of law. today's witnesses will help the committee as we wade through the constitutional waters, and i look forward to a vigorous debate among our members. i might note that this, this hearing is one of the most important because it may, in fact, be the one that sets the course for whether we work together on a bipartisan fashion to do our constitutional obligations of oversight. with that, i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i welcome our panel of distinguished witnesses, and we have a valuable opportunity today to examine not only

congress' authority to conduct investigations, but also the historical precedent of committees in exercising that authority. today's hearing is being held in the broader context of investigations currently being conducted by two different branches of government. on the one hand, the department of justice is prosecuting dozens of individuals in federal court including defendants accused of murdering border patrol agent brian terry in arizona on december the 14th. as well as 20 other defendants indicted for firearms trafficking and other crimes involving international drug cartel. on the one hand -- on the other hand, in march this committee launched an investigation into allegations that mismanagement and abuse in atf gun trafficking investigations may have enabled some of the same crimes.

the allegations made to date are very troubling, and new information we obtained raises additional concerns about the role of various actors involved in these incidents. i believe that the executive branch and congress can and must achieve both of these objectives. the department's interest in prosecuting these crimes and the committee's interest in investigating the management of atf programs are not, and i repeat, not mutually exclusive. i'm particularly mindful that agent terry's family has lost someone they held very dear. they deserve not only for the killers and gun traffickers to be brought to justice after the fact, but they also deserve direct and straightforward answers from their government about whether more could have been done to prevent his murder. to answer the question posed by the title of today's hearing,

yes -- and i repeat, yes -- i do believe the department must respond to the committee's subpoena. even though it was issued unilaterally without committee debate only 15 days after the chairman's original request for documents. i believe this committee has both the authority and the ability to play a constructive role in investigating these matters. but there's a second question. the hearing title should have posed, does the committee have an obligation -- and i want the witnesses to listen to me carefully -- to proceed responsibly to avoider remember rabble damage to -- irreparable damage to ongoing prosecutions. again, i believe the answer to that question is, yes. historically, congress has taken great care to insure its investigations do not harm ongoing criminal cases. in most instances committees have tailored the scope of their inquiries to avoid impairing

open cases. committees have been meticulous in providing the department with opportunities to warn them if information they obtain is under seal, relates to grand jury information, identifies cooperating witnesses, may endanger someone's safety or would impair ongoing criminal investigations if released publicly. now, i hope the witnesses will address that question also. no member of this committee wants to risk compromising criminal prosecutions involving alleged murderers and gun traffickers for international drug cartels. that is why these types of reasonable accommodations protect not only the integrity of the criminal investigation, but the integrity of the committee. reckless disclosures complicate a trial and cast a cloud over the committee's current and future investigations. i believe that both the executive branch and congress have an obligation to help the other achieve their constitutional responsibilities rather than manufacturing

unnecessary conflict. for the benefit of our witnesses, let me note that the department has now asserted executive privilege -- has not asserted executive privilege to withhold documents to date. it has produced or made available for review more than 1300 pages, some public and some not. the department and the committee have agreed on search terms for electronic searches, responsive e-mails which are now being conducted for 19 officials approved by committee staff. last week the committee conducted a six-hour interview of the special agent in be charge of atf's phoenix office, and we have scheduled an interview of his supervisor, the atf deputy assistant director. these actions demonstrate good faith. at the same time, the department has expressed serious and legitimate concerns about the scope of the documents encompassed by chairman issa's subpoena, including records that identify individuals who are assisting this investigation, that identify sources and investigative techniques, that present risks to individual

safety and that prematurely inform subjects and targets about our investigation in a manner that permits them to evade and obstruct our prosecutorial efforts. finally,s it is in this area that the committee stands to benefit most there the expertise of our witnesses. i look forward to hearing about the ways other committees have conducted their investigations to obtain the information they need, they needed while accommodating the department's legitimate interests, and i trust that our panelists will not only address the first question, but address the second question, too, that i just posed. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the ranking member. all members will have seven days to submit opening statements and extraneous material for the record. we now recognize our possible of witnesses. -- our panel of witnesses. mr. morton rosenberg is a fellow at the constitution project here in washington d.c. mr. todd tatelman is a legislative attorney in the

congressional research service, american law division. certainly someone we rely on constantly. mr. louis fisher is a specialist in constitutional law at the law library of the library of congress. i'm sorry, mr. fisher, did i get something wrong? >> i retired about a year ago. i'm with the constitution project also. >> okay. you're with the constitution project, but your tenure another the library -- tenure at the library of congress is also appreciated, even if slightly in the rearview mirror. and professor charles tiefer is a commissioner serving on the commission on wartime contracting along with our former member, mr. shays, i gather. gentlemen, you, you'll all have five minutes. pursuant each plus or minus, and then we'll have a round of questioning. pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses here are to be sworn. would you, please, rise to take the oath.

and raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. again, we don't have an extremely busy dais here, although we may have many more members flying in the next few minutes, so try to summarize your written statements in five minutes. understand that your entire written statement will be put into the record. we first recognize mr. rosen berg for -- mr. rosenberg for five minutes. >> members of the committee, um, i want to thank you for affording me the opportunity of appearing here today to talk about these important and interesting issues. a little over nine years ago i appeared here with my friend and fellow panelist, charles tiefer, when this committee was successfully investigating the

bizarre cover-up of over 20 murders by informants with the knowledge of their fbi handlers and the likely acquiescence of their fbi and department of justice couriers. that case to get into mr. cummings question, involved open investigations that were going on at that particular time. charles remarked to me before today's hearing that the committee could have saved a lot of time and effort by playing a video of the 2002 hearing. but as i will briefly detail, though our conclusions with respect to what we found in 2002 are the same, that law and history require the justice department to comply with your lawfully-issued and valid sub -- subpoenas, there are differences here that need to be thought about and, perhaps, addressed. i have a sense that was -- i'm

sorry, that was expressed by sherlock holmes in the hound of the baskervilles that there is a dog here that has not yet barked. when i first began working in this area in the mid 1970s, the mere threat of a subpoena was usually sufficient to get compliance. the only exception was when the target was a cabinet-level official, and that tended to require a subpoena followed by a threat of a contempt citation and sometimes a subcommittee vote on contempt. when the executive pushback began in the early '70s, the executive world changed. a subpoena became almost always necessary and a vote of subpoenas were frequent and countered by direct executive claims of presidential privilege. by 2008 there have been 12 votes of contempt against cabinet-level officials, all ultimately resulted in

substantial and complete compliance with congressional informational demands, and all relied on the established case law of, on investigative authority starting with grand v. daugherty and sip claire v. the -- sinclair v. the united states which also dealt with the important question and settled the important question, i think, that an ongoing department of justice trial doesn't stop congress from getting witnesses to talk. but the true key to those successes was evidenced in the will of those investigating committees, an aspect of inquiry that may be severely tested in this and in future investigations. one of the differences that i've alluded to is that in 2002 the president expressly asserted executive privilege. but the rationale given for invoking the privilege then was exactly the same as is now being

urged by doj. the longstanding policy of the department that it never shares information with congressional committees about open or closed criminal or civil litigation or investigations because either it would undermine the independence and effectiveness of it law enforcement mission, damage pretrial publicity, reveal identities of informants disclosing government strategies, methods and operational weaknesses, chilling the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by doj attorneys and, most important, interfering with the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. to me, that's the same dress with a different coat. they are setting up a possible claim that is very interesting. but i'll get to that. that's the dog. a second difference is that the

law respecting executive privilege has dramatically changed over the last 15 to 20 years. as i indicated in my, in my written testimony, the supreme court's 1988 ruling in morrison v. olson cast a significant doubt as to whether prosecutorial discretion was a core presidential power of which executive privilege may be asserted. and that doubt was magnified by two d.c. court of appeals opinions dealing with espy and judicial watch in 1997 and 2004ment taken together with previous high court decisions, it is now the law of the circuit most likely to rule on privilege disputes, that an assertion of presidential communications privilege will be held to be limited to the quintessential power and nondelegations of presidential power. and those are the core functions

in the constitution. and one of the core functions is not prosecutorial discretion. the third difference emanates from the important 2008 district court ruling in house judiciary committee versus meyers. that case arose out of the removal and replacement of nine u.s. attorneys in many 2006. in 2006. the white house counsel heir yet meyers -- harriet miers and josh bolton were subpoenaed, but at the direction of the president they refused to comply and were ordered not to even appear on the return date on the ground that the claim of privilege by the president gave them absolute immunity. from be committees process -- from committee process. both were held in contempt of congress, but the attorney general ordered the united states attorney not to present the citation to a grand jury as is required by the congressional

contempt statute. by resolution of this house, the committee filed a civil enforcement action. the department of justice contested the validity of the authorizing resolution and defended the notion of absolute immunity. the court upheld the validity of the authorizing resolution, finding that the longstanding supreme court recognition of implied power to investigate and to compel production of information including, included an implied cause of action to redress the institutional injury caused by the deprivation of the information that was being sought. it also rejected out of hand the absolute immunity claim of the president. the miers case, i believe, is a dog that hasn't barked. it is a two-edged sword. while it recognizes the house's right to seek judicial assistance of constitutional-based right to secure information from the executive and refutes the notion

that the president can cloak subordinate official with absolute immunity from compulsory process, it leaves open the door for executive judicialization of the congressional subpoena enforcement power. current doj dogma is that it is unconstitutional for either house of congress to use the criminal contempt statute or the inherent contempt power to punish presidential appointees for following presidential orders to withhold information from congress. doj currently has the potential power to string out your investigation, to refuse to obey it and then when the time for contempt comes, can say, no, you can't go to court for criminal contempt. you can't use your inherent contempt power. all you can do is to bring a civil action. and a civil action will extend and delay your constitutional ability to enforce what the case

law and what the many examples that we have shown in our, you know, in our papers about your powers. >> thank you. mr. tatelman. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member cummings. i appreciate the opportunity for crs to be invited here to testify on behalf of that institution, we thank you for all of the work that you do for us, and we hope that we can continue top of service to the committee as we move forward. like my former colleague, mort rosenberg, i want to focus a little bit more on sort of the traditional history and sort of lay the groundwork for the congressional prerogative here and the constitutional basis sis for the power the committee is asserting to exercise. it's important to note, and i think our written testimonies do so note, that there is a long and consistent practice of legislative oversight of the other branches of government, be they either executive branches

or in some cases judicial branch and oversight of the courts. that history goes all the way back to the british parliament and the parliament against the crown. it was connell firmed and practiced by the various clone call legislatures. the early congresses made no hesitation about their ability to conduct extense e inquiry and oversight into actions of the executive branch. state courts and, ultimately, the united states supreme court have consistently and overwhelmingly affirmed congress' constitutional authority to conduct almost exclusive oversight of the executive branch, broad oversight of private persons and parties, and investigates into any and all areas in which congress feels there is a legitimate legislative purpose. probably the best and most persuasive example that i can find for you is, in fact, congress' own actions early on

during the constitutional every rah. back in 1792 the second congress instituted an investigation and started an inquiry to determine the cause of more than a thousand american casualties in the ohio valley at the hand of some indian tribes involving the actions of major general arthur sinclair and his military exploits in that era. initially, after congress found out about the issue, there was a motion on the floor of the house of representatives to pass a resolution calling for the president and the executive branch to conduct the inquiry into sinclair's defeat all on else own. it was complete he rejected by a vote of 45-21. a second motion was found to create a select committee of members of the house of representatives representatives and to vest that committee with the power to call for all persons, papers and records as may be necessary to assist the committee in its inquiries. this resolution passed 44-10.

luminaries such as james madison both voting against the presidential investigation and for the more face of -- formation of a congressional select committee. what's even more interesting, however, and more of note and relevant here is the response that they got from the executive branch which also included many framers and founders who had been present at the constitutional convention including president washington and then secretary of the treasury alexander hamilton. according to notes from thomas jefferson, after the committee was formed and sent its inquestionty to secretary of war henry knox asking for papers related to sinclair's expedition, the cabinet met in president washington's study and agreed that the house had a legitimate right and interest in both conducting the inquiry and in requesting papers and documents. they also agreed the information should be given over to the congress unless there would be injury to the public. and absent a showing of that injury to the public, the documents were to be disclosed. and, in fact, several days later mr. knox made the documents

available to the committee. i think what's most relevant and important about this early example is that not only the participation of those who helped draft the founding documents that attorneys and specialists in the constitution like this panel are currently interpreting today, but also the consistency with which all of the people whether they be in the congress or in the executive branch viewed the house's prerogative to both create the committee of inquiry, demand the papers and receive them from the executive branch who, obviously, had a vested interest in performing its own investigation of the events that had occurred. i want to briefly jump forward about 200 years or a little less than 900 years -- 200 years to mcgrane v. daugherty which is, as mort mentioned,ed, the seminl case of congress' oversight and investigative power. as most of you are probably aware, it was ultimately a spin off of what was then the teapot dome investigation into the oil leases that the executive branch

was engaged in. specifically, it was an information into then-attorney general daugherty's failure to prosecute and bring certain causes of action against various people who had participate inside that scandal. there was a committee subpoenaed to the attorney general's brother who was located in ohio as president of a bank out there. he, ultimately, was subpoenaed both to appear before the senate and testify as well as to provide records and papers. he refused and remained in ohio. the congress passed a resolution issuing a warrant for his arrest and that he be brought before the senate for an inherent contempt trial. when he was arrested in ohio, he immediately called for a writ of habeas corpus from a district court in cincinnati. that writ was granted and sub wently appealed by the united states government to the supreme court. the supreme court reversed, unanimously, and described -- as chairman issa quoted -- the power of inquiry of congress as, quote, an essential auxiliary to the legislative function. mcgrane's rationale and theory

has been picked up and cited extensively by supreme courts since then. courts such as the supreme court in watson v. the united states, quote, said the power of congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. that power is broad. it encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. moreover, in 1975 the supreme court in a case called eastman v. united states servicemen fund genre lying on mcgrane, sinclair and watkins said the scope of congress' power of inquiry is penetrating and far reaching as the power to enact funds under the constitution. in sum, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member, there is very little question that congress' constitutional authority vested under article i is sufficiently broad to encompass the inquiry that the committee is trying to see. that is not to say, however, that congress' power is not

subject to certain constraints. the question really is whether or not any of those constraints are legally based on politically based. legally-based constraints would include, say, for example, the power not to conduct unlawful searches or seizures or require that people at the direction of this house such as the capitol police or the sergeant at arms engage in violations of the fourth amendment. another example would be compelling witness testimony when it might be contrary to their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. and yet a third legal possibility would be a legitimate and valid claim of executive privilege or presidential communications privilege which the court in united states v. nixon in 1973 recognized as constitutionally-based. on the other side of that coin, are the concerns ranking member cummings made which i term as politically. they're not legally or constitutionally based which gets into questions such as whether or not this is a responsible course of action or whether or not the committee has any sort of an interest in

seeing the prosecution successfully completed or not interfering with the justice department's internal investigations or processes. those are completely legitimate questions for this committee to consider, but they are ultimately for this committee to determine whether or not they are proper or proper exercises of this committee's power. the constitution makes no such limitations or restrictions and places no such limitations or requirements that congress overcome those, merely, those are left for the political branches to negotiate and work out amongst themselves. and with that i'll turn it over to my panelist. >> thank you. mr. fisher. >> thank you very much. a very important hearing to explore this. when committees ask for documents from the administration, they are typically told initially that you can't have them, part of the deliberative process, it's part of the active litigation file, it has to do with either pending or ongoing investigations. that's just the opening statement by the administration, and as you know, at that time it

all falls back to committee as to how the chairman -- how determined you are of your understanding of your constitutional duties. i refer in my statement to a study in 1949 by an attorney who worked at the justice department who said that when congress and the administration collide, the administration prevails every time. of course, that budget true in 1949 -- that wasn't true in 1949 before or after. it's much more complicated, and you have to have p each branch understand its limits and each understand its duties. um, i think a much better exlaation of what congress can get through its constitutional duties comes from another attorney who worked at the justice department, and can his name, antonin scalia, and he testified in 1975 before a senate committee. and at that time he was head of the office of legal counsel. and he said, and i think his words are quite good, that when there is an impasse between the

two branches, his language, the answer's likely to lie in the hurlly burly, the give and take of the political process between the legislative and executive. then, he said, when it comes to an impasse, the congress has the means at its disposal to have its will prevail. now, on these classes, it may be tempting to think that there's a winner and a loser. i think when congress does not push its constitutional powers and gets the document it needs for a thorough investigation, that there is a loser, and the loser is the public. it's constitutional government, and it's a system of checks and balances. in 1982 president reagan, i think, set a good framework for these document fights. he said historically good faith negotiations between congress and the executive branch have minimized the need for invoking

executive privilege. and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the branches. at the present time, you have a subpoenas, and as you said in your opening statement, subpoena is not satisfied when you have to have committee staff travel to the justice department to sit in camera and look at documents that are heavily redacted. there's no way the committee can signify its constitutional duties. in 1981 attorney general william french smith said that when congress is going after documents, it has a better chance of getting it when it's pursuant to legislation rather than pursuant to oversight. i don't think there's anything to that distinction at all. you have as much right to oversee the laws as you do to enact them. and if there is anything to that distinction, every time you do an oversight hearing, you could

just introduce legislation, so it doesn't make any sense to me. as far as getting access to documents in cases of ongoing criminal investigations, mort talked about the fbi corruption case. my statement goes into a good deal of detail into the i said law matter. congress got the documents it needed. finally, your success in getting documents, i think, depends a lot on bipartisan support, committee act anything a bipartisan manner is much stronger. in i think it's -- in this case i think it's even stronger when two chambers of congress are after the same documents. if you do not get the documents you want, there's always the next step after subpoena is not satisfy today go toward contempt, and my statement gives a lot of examples where that has

come about in the past. and through the contempt procedure, congress can get the information it needs to satisfy its constitutional duties. thank you very much. >> thank you. professor tiefer? >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking minority member. um, for 15 years i was counsel to congress, four years as assistant senate legal counsel and 11 years as deputy general counsel and general counsel in the house of representatives. during that time i worked on a very large number of investigations like this of the justice department or enforcement agencies, and i reviewed the extensive history that my colleagues at the panel have talked about. um, i want to briefly point out the similarities of those instances before focusing on today. um, in 2002, as mort rosenberg has described, i gave full-length written and oral testimony to this committee about a similar issue during the

bush administration involving an fbi informant program. and as was laid out in my full-length, um, memo at that time which i am including as an appendix to my testimony today, this showed that this particular committee has the full right to obtain the documents it needs for oversight over enforcement programs, then fbi, today atf. in 1992 i worked with a house subcommittee investigating the rocky flatts matter. that was a grand jury matter, and the same extreme arguments made by the justice department that congress can't go anywhere near grand jury investigations were raised then, um, and the committee succeeded, nevertheless, in the getting the evidence that it sought. um, in 1987 i was special deputy

chief counsel on the house iran contra committee, and i want to point out some similarities of the arguments raised today and then. um, points that were correctly raised by mr. cummings -- and i will talk about the two sides, both that these are not arguments that disable the committee from going ahead, merely that call for it to follow an orderly process as it is following today, um, and as it should follow down the road -- were there cooperating witnesses who were called after deliberation? yes. robert mcfarlane, former national security adviser, a co-conspirator of oliver north and john poindexter who were the key defendants was called and questioned even with the risk that that would create line of

his testimony that could be used to say, look, he's saying one thing in one place and a different thing in another place. um, was there a possibility that the congressional investigation could endanger ongoing investigations or could complicate the trial? absolutely. oliver north was called as a witness, john poindexter was called as a witness. they were shown the documents that would be used against them. they were shown the most persuasive arguments and most persuasive questions, the most persuasive things that could be used to show that they had engaged in illegal conspiracy, and in a way they got a preliminary view of what the trial would consist of for them. um, i, i would say, um, that that doesn't mean one drives roughshod over the justice department. one starts, as this committee is doing today and as its predecessors have done, as i have testified and for that matter 30 years ago when i was

just starting in this business, i came to a house subcommittee and heard people who are the age that i am now talk about watergate and the struggles they'd had during watergate with getting evidence. so it's a live progression. it's not just in books up on the shelf with dust on them. it's live committee chairmen dealing with real issues like the ones you have today. um, what the way the justice department should make its points? well, first of all, it should provide most of the important documents. it doesn't start by withholding, it starts by providing. secondly, for anything that it doesn't deliver right off the bat, it should issue an invitation for them to be viewed by members and staff. i heard the chairman describe that an inadequate invitation had been made, heavily redacted documents under circumstances it couldn't be viewed. that's not the right way to proceed. and finally, if they do say we're going to withhold some documents because they're highly

prejudicial in if a concrete way to an open place, then they have to provide a privilege log so the committee itself can decide what should be withheld. i might say during the recent litigation over the u.s. attorneys terminations in the previous administration, one of the arguments that prevailed in court on behalf of the congressional inquiry was that the administration had not provided that privilege log, a document withholding claim is not valid unless a privilege log is provided. and i thank the committee. >> thank you. and i'll recognize myself for five minutes to get started here. professor tiefer, you, you mentioned ollie north and ran contra -- iran contra. in iran contra, ollie north was a participant in the iran contra and, ultimately, was charged, convicted and then overturned to

a serb extent -- certain extent because of congressional activity meaning we, the congress, granted some partial immunity. that immunity led to a decision that the inevitable discovery wasn't met, that that discovery was based on, if you will, his testimony. is that roughly your understanding? >> that's well stated, mr. chairman. >> so this would be a classic example of what we have to avoid. we must avoid providing immunity to somebody that we believe is guilty of a crime unless we understand right off the bat that that immunity is essential to further discovery and that this individual is, by definition, not the perpetrator. the worst thing to do is to get the kingpin and let them off. and i'm not trying to disparage colonel north, but it does appear as though he was the, to a great extent, at the center, ultimately, the target, and he got off.