do you feel like you're a jurisdictional residents whether they are muslim, jewish or christian should have to have a lawyer before they talk to you were in for you about something they see as a potential problem? >> i don't personally believe they should take that initial step. >> do you believe when you're

sheriff's the duties when they are doing their community policing involved in mergers and before they talk that they have the right to an attorney before talking to a sheriff's deputy? >> if we have a suspicion that they are about to commit a crime -- >> that yes. >> so many questions you can ask before you have to advise them of their constitutional rights. that is one of the fundamental points. >> interacting with the community, not pursuing a crime or respect. you know a lot of information you get are from interaction with folks on the beat. aren't to make it known that i don't think they have to have an attorney present to talk to residents. that was the assertion a little while ago from the gentlelady from california. we don't want our young people to feel they have to be afraid of law enforcement in this

country. if you are being investigated for crime is different but to talk to law enforcement and attorney is not required and i don't think you want that requirement to do your job. i am interested, dr. jasser what do you think should be done in an organized fashion that would help the muslim community to work to more self police small radical agents or elements of the community? i agree the overwhelming majority of muslims are law-abiding good americans and i don't want to paint them with a broad brush but there is that small element in the community that is radicalizing. what would you like to see to curb that? >> i can tell you that i look upon this no different from the cold war. we need to resources and develop

a public-private partnership. we need to stop losing the lowest hanging group of islamic groups in washington. not there all responsible but many of them are. the ones that are not are much less funded, much less endorsed or supported by media, government etc.. we need to create platform is for america to see we are a diverse population. we are not all represented by the victim mongering group that many of as take our responsibility as americans seriously. we need to create a kitchen cabinet if you will of strategy that homeland security is not just the crime problem which is what i have been hearing a little bit. it is a crime problem and we need to work from the ground up but homeland security is more than that. prime minister cameron said the pool in which the violent radicals swim, we need to drain that. that need the generational posture that we build institutions based on liberty within the muslim community to

build forums for debate. we will do the reforms and a theological reforms but you help us with resources domestically into new institutions based on alignment. >> shares baca, you stated this hearing is worth while and you have worked on this for a long time before 9/11 and you mentioned you have an annual forum on counter-terrorism. what would you like to see happen from an organized standpoint that would facilitate the flow of information from the muslim community about potential problems within the community? >> unlike my colleagues in the national sheriffs' association and a major cheese association which i am a member of, these are all the key elements of local law enforcement leadership, to have more concentration on coordinating our regional intelligence centers. we're currently sharing some of the things i testified to and my

deputy throughout the country on an individual basis. if there was a way we could develop best practice in the law enforcement community and federal government combined on a continuum of training, let's say we go to different places to help each other, i give hy credit to the department of homeland security for what they are doing but i would focus on continuing what we have already established. a lot of work has been done by this committee. we are not starting a new. we are fine-tuning and listening to other ideas. if you could look at a subcommittee which i know you have that would allow for my colleagues to come in and talk in a prepared manner about these suggestions you would have a better idea of what local law enforcement needs. >> the time has expired. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minute. >> i thank the gentleman very much and i want to thank

personally all of the witnesses that are here today. i respect the fact that you are here. sheriff baca, you have visited and thank you for your presence here today. i am reminded of some one, proverb quoted by sheila jackson lee, cleaning a dirty kitchen. you can't clean with dirty water. there are no redeeming factual information we will receive today. that can add to the abhorrence that all of us have in the united states of america for terrorism. we don't disrespect the witnesses. but you see it has already been tainted. there are no signs of reasoning coming through this hearing. the reason is because it has already been classified as an

effort to demonize and castigate a broad base of human beings. i can not stand for that. i brought with me the constitution. it is a living and breathing document. the first amendment allows us freedom of religion. freedom of association. and expression. but i will tell you today is that this briefing document is in pain. we could have had a hearing that focused on any number of issues of terrorism. you might have gone back to the cold cases of the civil-rights movement, acts of terror. might have tried to understand why clansman still roam today terrorizing individuals in parts of this country. maybe we would have found out what those who oppose the jewish faith are doing in synagogues. no matter what their religion, maybe we would call and question muslims who are hovering and scared because someone might decide they too are someone who

is eager to do terrorism act. we would be better off if we had a hearing about the importance of human intelligence, funding for the elements of the department of homeland security that can work on human-resources to be able to hear from individuals who do want to engage and help this country promote its values. may i just ask are you a muslim? >> i am a devout muslim who prays and fasts and trying to raise my kids to be conservative orthodox muslims. >> any other muslims on the witness table? abdirizak bihi? >> he raised his hand. >> the reason i ask that question is muslims are here cooperating. they are doing what this hearing suggested they do not do. it is an irony and an outrage that we're wasting time when muslims are sitting before us. a muslim is on this panel

testifying. so i question where are the uncooperative muslims? let me quickly put in the record another aspect of mr. macdonald's statement he was eager to quote. like all of you and like me millions of americans find community, comfort and support in their face. that includes president obama to the christian but spoke in cairo. today reminds us that being religious is never an american. being religious is quintessentially american. god bless america. then i would simply suggest another comment here saying president obama recognizes through words we can play into al qaeda messaging or we can challenge and undermine it. we are determined to undermine it. this hearing today is playing into al qaeda right now around the world. it is diminishing soldiers on the front lines that are muslim.

it is going in the same route as arizona and other states. one quick question, chair baca. can law-enforcement find friends in diverse communities? have you been able to solve problems by developing and understanding and arab officer or hispanic officer, african officer or african-american officer or an anglo officer that happens to be from portugal or happens to have the ability to speak to someone from the balkans in the united states? is that a positive form of law enforcement? >> it is. we have the ability to reach all minorities and sergeant dean is here. he is a sergeant of our muslim affairs office. >> thank you. >> all members and guests will refrain from outbursts. >> i am overwhelmed by this

hearing and the lack of factual basis. >> the gentleman is recognized. the gentle lady is expired. [talking over each other] >> too many mosques in this country. that is outrageous. i don't want to hold another controversial poster. it is outrageous. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> as we are talking about the constitution and the preamble talking about providing for the common defense that is what this committee -- that is our primary mission. that is what this committee is about. it is unfortunate that some have attempted to mischaracterized this hearing as an attack on american muslims. let me be clear. it is not this committee that is doing that but al qaeda that is targeting and attacking our muslim youth as evidenced by the

testimony mr. bledsoe. there have been 27 terror plot and each of them involved extreme radicalization of the muslim faith. this is not to say that all muslims are a threat. to the contrary the moderate muslim is our greatest ally in fighting recruitment of muslim youth. in cases of witnesses with the fort hood shooter and many others shows the threat to america lies within our own country. hassan was promoted in the name of political correctness despite signs of radicalization. these indications included conversations with al laki legal the greatest threat to the united states today. to ignore the threat of islamic extremism in the name of political correctness presents a serious threat to the american people. both attorney-general holder and

secretary janet napolitano have testified jihadists websites present danger to the united states. having worked for the justice department prior to congress i understand the importance to coordinate our reach between law enforcement and the muslim community and i am concerned there are organizations out there speaking for the muslim american community telling them not to coordinate with the fbi and law-enforcement as evidenced by the poster we saw our the council on islamic relations. i hope we can begin the dialogue and ask the necessary questions. i want to read from senator lee been's -- senator lieberman's letter to john brennan. failure to identify our enemy for what it is, violent islamic extremism is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence document to know

your enemy. we have to know our enemy and it is a radical islam. i would like to ask mr. bledsoe and abdirizak bihi, your children were kidnapped and held hostage and sent overseas to yemen and somalia and their lives were destroyed. have these two mosques done anything to repair the relationship? have they told you they are sorry? have they told you they will change their practice? >> i will speak first. i have not heard at all that they are sorry. going back to the lady from texas, we are not talking about all muslims. we are talking about islamic radicalization. that i want to make clear. there's a difference.

i am in the middle. in the middle between two. we are not talking about all muslims. we are talking about the ones who are hiding behind a moderate muslims. they are ones who are a threat to america and the children. >> do the mosques know that they are responsible for the radicalization of your son? >> they know. they are waiting around to do it again to someone else's child. that is why i am here today hoping that the american people are listening. i hope you hear me. i hope you learned something from that. i don't think any other child or any other parent in america should have to go through what i am facing today. >> i agree with that. has the mosque that radicalize your nephew ever apologized for taken responsibility?

>> no. as a matter of fact they call us names like infidels. nobody from the leadership, the islamic organization, none of them have ever met 20 or more somali american families who are refugees, get their kids from the civil war at the college level. those families were hurt. the congressmen do not care, any other organization or the mosque people. none of them even mentioned them. they call us liars. >> and infidels. sheriff baca, you appear -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentlelady from california is recognized for

five minutes. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent that a copy of the following items be submitted for the record. one would be the text of the attorney general's interview and the second is a letter sent to you on march 9th, 2007, political insider article in reference to the 211 hearing. >> so ordered without objection. >> mr. chairman. few members of this committee experience the events of 9/11 more traumatically than you have. based on the experiences chairman king and ranking member thompson produced tangible results and i made every effort to serve on this committee. unfortunately today as a member of vehemently oppose the narrow approach this committee is taking in this hearing. i was born in the 1960s. in my elementary history classes i saw shocking films of american leaders in the 40s and 50s

disgracefully violating the principle of which this country was founded. the only difference history will say today is those shows were in black and white and this one is in color. discrimination is the treatment for consideration of or making a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing based upon a group, class or category to which that person or thing revolves rather than on its individual merits. when elected official or public servants are sworn in for dubee inclusion with the oath there is an understanding not to abuse the power given. one definition of abuse of power is the improper use of authority by someone who has that authority because he or she holds public office. i believe the narrow scope of this hearing is discriminatory and an abuse of power. research by the congressional research center has spoken.

we saw a chart that talked about muslim plots but didn't talk about the 44 non muslim plot which are more than double what we have seen of other extremists. according to the institute of homeland security solutions al qaeda and allied movements are responsible for 26.7 domestic terror attacks. white supremacists accounted for 23%. that is restricting this hearing for the consideration of radicalization of american muslims and not equally of other groups is wrong. the house judiciary committee and energy and commerce committee have not investigated other religious groups or their leaders for failing to cooperate with law enforcement that may have allegedly caused mental or physical harm to children. clearly this committee is setting a dangerous precedent in treating one religious group

differently than another thereby calling into question this committee's actions and whether they violate this country's laws and principles. mr. chairman, i would like to reference to attorney general's actual interview. when mr. holder said it is one of the things that keeps me up at night he said you didn't worry about this two years ago about individuals about americans. he never said muslim americans. also we need to point out that in 2007, i won't say people by name because i respect my colleagues it was that in reference in a political article too many mosques are in this country. there are too many people sympathetic to radical islam. nothing reference to cooperation. in this committee hearing on feb. ninth, 2011 it was said in this hearing we have to focus on those people who harm us. it is the islamic extremists.

these are dangerous things. also want to point out a reference that wasn't talked about in this hearing. i asked michael leader, and national counter-terrorism center director, what percentage of people looked at by your agency for domestic terrorist threats were muslim? his answer for the record, it is absolutely tiny. a minute percentage of muslim population that is being looked at. finally mr. chairman, i would like to ask for the record the whole cause of this hearing was to say there is lack of cooperation. sheriff baca, you told us what you do. the muslim community failed to cooperate with you? >> that is a very good question to ask. what we have here is the perspective that i believe has to be widened in terms of who are the muslims that cooperate?

i believe muslims are cooperating much more outside the organization as well as inside organizations. we have both. you can't look at this from the perspective of who is cooperating based on organization alone. the truth is muslims are just as independent just as concerned about safety. they don't want their homes or their mosque blown up. as individuals they have been doing things with local law enforcement without cover of an organization. even with organizational efforts icy and emerging confidence in the muslim community bigger than los angeles in new york to a degree from my contacts with muslims even in new york. people are getting more realizing to the point that police -- they are basically in the primary focus of prevention

and we have spent a lot of energy in these resource centers to prevent stuff from happening at surge early as possible point. we are doing relatively well. we are not going to eliminate this possible problem but as a nation we are getting better and better and better. this is why i am here. i don't think of these hearings can be negative totally. they have the potential to keep the public involved in this discussion which will lead to better solutions and the robustness of opinions will say that everyone is entitled to say what they are saying. that is what i am thinking. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> terrorist organizations have

become adept at using internet and social media to moderate -- motivate individuals in the united states to carry out attacks. this question is for mr. jasser and sheriff baca. one web site that is key to al qaeda communications was hosted by a web hosting company in tampa bay which has since been taken down. what are your thoughts on how to combat the use of the internet and other technology by terrorist organizations overseas to inspire and encourage terrorist attacks in our country by those who are already here? >> that is a wonderful question. it points to the fact the we have not had any cybercounter jihad. it can only be done by muslims. we need your support to do that and we can with the right

resources by countering that ideology. the islamic narrative says americans against muslims. it creates the narrative that americans go into iraq and afghanistan to convert muslims, kill them and attack them. that is the narrative. we present our strategy to break down that propaganda. we need to have a forward strategy of liberty minded, freedom minded ideas in the islamic consciousness. we can do that but we need your help through creating web sites, a social network. look what happened in egypt and tunisia through social networking. that countered -- most of that was secular muslims that wanted to take control of their own future but when we have a government that produces a report and after action incident report and the word muslim or islam or jihad is in the document you wonder why we're so paralyzed. i need this conversation. if we are going to fix this

cancer that is within the beautiful state that i practice we need to talk about it. it is like trying to treat cancer without saying the word. it is not islam but it is jihad. it is a political entity we can fight on the web very well. we have surrounded the constitution to the jihadists. >> the sheriff's department and our federal and state partners runs a regional intelligence center which is an open source investigating arm but we morph it into the joint terrorism task force when dealing with specific things such as cyberterrorism and these websites. we monitor them. at some point they get shutdown and other times we continue to monitor them because it is an excellent source for what would later be an actual investigation.

there is a broader strategy involving all levels of government in this web site issue. >> thank you. next question for the entire panel. would you like to say something? please do. >> lately we have been seeing the excuse -- kids are recruited by the internet. by cyberspace. i don't believe kids get up in the middle of the night just to walked into a computer. logs onto the al qaeda web site and besides to fly in and explode themselves. that is a weak excuse. the radicalization process takes years. there must be somebody on the ground and to explain his

weaknesses, there is no father or mental or. the process takes forever. internet -- to educate yourself in the academic level of being done. thank you. >> you want to add something? >> i have no comment. >> next question for the entire panel. i don't have a lot of time. what demographics have demonstrated to people susceptible to extreme recruiting efforts within america to what extent our universities particularly at risk? >> that is why we focus our american liberty project on young adults. when you look at the study young muslim adults 15-29, 25% some

justification for suicide bombing. that is not general of the population of muslims. the demographically need to target is figure out because their minds are being shaved and pulled. as prime minister cameron said it is an identity problem. we need to renew the discussion with the country stands for and what our principles are and bring them into that. they feel positive about this country and that will inoculate them. >> time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana, mr richmond is recognized for five minute. >> thank you. we heard quotes from members from the fbi director. if you're going to tell it, tell it all. what we didn't hear was home grown extremists and loan will fact of the are in serious threat to the homeland as al qaeda and its affiliates and that is not what this hearing

deals with. .. spectrum of what's going on in this country without singling out a

particular group. here's some very pointed questions and especially to mr. bledsoe and mr. bihi first. do you agree that part of the propaganda that they use to recruit is that america, the narrative -- the narrative is that america is at war with isla islam? >> no, i don't agree with that. they use as a tool to recruit that america doesn't appreciate african-american and that's one of the reasons you find a lot of african-americans as being recruited because they can use that as a weaknesses. >> thank you for your questions. the particular group of somali americans in dealing with the main thing and the main victimisms is the somali

population in the country of somalia. but it's also part of the american propaganda in the western world and in other worlds. these people have a target and use these kids not only the united states of america but also other countries including somalia that they're shedding the blood as we speak right now for 20 years. >> i did quote you correctly when you said the narrative and the propaganda is that america is at war for islam. >> yeah, that's the narrative for the idea. >> and mr. bledsoe i would say as a young african-american male that's part of the propaganda they choose but i would also say it's a worry to me when so many people on this committee and on congress who have never been a victim of profiling based on

race, religion or others are quick to suggest that that is a legitimate crime fighting tool when it's irresponsible and not the smartest way to fight crime. dr. jasser, do you believe that there's people promoting propaganda based on this alone saying that this is evidence of america's war with islam? >> there may be some exploiting that for that but i hope we're mature as a country to be more pragmatic and practical and use this as an opportunity to go beyond that and not allow an ideology to cloak itself behind a religion that prevents us to deal with it. how else can we counter it? how can we promote those constitutional ideals against those that want theocracy that corrupts the community wanting to put shari'a law in government. how do we fight that if we can't even discuss it because we're

worried about offending sensibilities. how do we treat the nidal hasans of the world when they won't cite his theoretical slipdown and how can i help my children to resurrect their faith of rad indication if we can't to talk about it. >> i think we can talk about it and we talk about it in terms of the religion we don't have to single it out but we can have a honest dialog about race and religious if we talk about the fact that it's not just the muslim religion or the islamic religion that we're targeting. it's a broad spectrum. >> 220 arrests of terror cases in the last two years, 180 plus were muslims. so you're going to waste all this time discussing all the other faiths which i can't help you with while we have a muslim problem that i can help you with, not for those muslims

that's a meyer and we're he have going to waste all those religions because of political correctness. >> every terror plot is important and every life that is loss is important. i would not consider it a waste of time to talk about extremism in any form or fashion because they take lives and we can talk about and i won't go through the incidents but that's important to me to make sure we don't focus so far on one segment that we miss an entire segment that's gone on somewhere else. and that's what's important and i think that there was a way to do it comprehensively and i'm just disappointed that we didn't do it that way. but i think you all had some very good points and i'll yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia, dr. broun. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for all being here. when i was in the marine corps i was taught to know your enemy. i think that's extreme important.

the enemy and the focus of this hearing today is not islamic religion. it's islamism. it's the radical jihadists. it's the radicalization of our youth as mr. bledsoe that have talk about and i think it's critical that we as a nation focus upon doing exactly what i was taught in the united states marine corps, to know your enemy. dr. jasser i'm very appreciative of your work and your testimony and answer to mr. richmond. it's extremely important to focus on who wants to destroy this country? and i believe that there are entities within this country that are supporting those radical jihadists. i think there are organizations that are very public that are supporting the radical

jihadists. we need to know exactly who our enemy is. we need to focus upon that enemy and not let political correctness detour us. i thank you dr. jasser in that regard. i think political correctness is also an enemy of us focusing upon those who want to destroy this country. i don't know a single person on this side of the aisle that is islamophobic. i think every single person and every single republican wants to focus on exactly what this hearing at all about. and that's the radicalization which is a tremendous, tremendous national security problem. and dr. jasser, we've heard a lot about care. and i'd like to hear from you, what's your view of care is and in your view, does care

represent all muslim americans? does care represent you? does care helping or hurting your effort to try to foster peace, to foster liberty and freedom within the muslim community? >> thank you, congressman broun. i'll tell you that we have to realize one of the things we're missing in these demographics that muslims are 4 to 5 americans. the minority of them go to mosque regularly. so we have be careful, yes, practicing our faith is something i loved and i'm involved in that because i take my faith as something that i want to practice actively but many muslims choose not to. that doesn't mean they're not represented by these discussions. that doesn't mean we should ignore them and what happens is the groups that inherently

collectize under the islamic banner is not really consistent with our american ideals and yet in the middle east we -- there's a lot of banter between secularists and islamists because they realize that it's not anti-islam to be against the muslim brotherhood groups and i think you have to realize when you look at groups like cair i believe they come out of that same mentality which is a collectization of muslims and they will avoid in dealing with technology that we need to treat. and the interesting thing -- even the whole concept of american islamic relations -- i teach my kids that being american is islamic. there's no relation between the two. it's basically inherently the same. so the whole construct of it is built upon a separation if you will and i think it's actually -- we may be giving too much importance because it's one of a large number of organizations to serve advanced political islam in the west. rather, there's a sense that

those advocates for those groups want to bring islam here rather than absorb american liberty, american freedom and reform our faith. there's evidence i have of that. look how much work they have done or any of them to modernize the legal systems of our faith to be commensurate with the laws of this land and no the in conflict. you'll find and i put in my testimony groups like the assembly muslim jurists of america that include some of the imams that they worked with. they never made any stances against the fatwas or the islamic groups and they become enablers of ideas that help muslim kids don't really take a citizenship if you don't have to, if you don't want to. you know if somebody creates a bad act they should be killed. this is the law that's on the books. so my biggest fear besides all of this discussion, i hope to generate new books in our

islamic ideaisms and give muslims with an identity consistent with liberty and these organizations are not doing it. >> the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> it's understandable why the issue of terrorism in america elicits outrage and emotion. i have a got for you but one thing i wanted to commend you is that those core values that your deputies take an oath that underscore therized that we all have in this country to be treated fairly by our government. i recognize those rights not only as a member of congress,

taking an oath to uphold the constitution but also, mr. chair on a personal note. it's because my father who cared for me and who loved me was a muslim. he died when i was 8 years old but i'll never forget him. he was a kind and gentle soul. but most importantly what i remember is that his love for people was based on his faith in god. in order for us to make sure that 9/11 never, ever happens again, i urge all of us as members of congress to make our decisions based on sound intelligence, not on profiling, not on stereotyping, but that would lead and fuel more hatred and bigotry. i'm going to ask my question in a second. i commend first responders like

yours because, you know, the best way i realize to appear prepare our country against these attacks is to fully equip our men and women who risk their lives as police officers, firefighters as emergency medical providers to make sure they have the resources. in michigan, the council of american islamic relations have worked with law enforcement. as a matter of fact, just last year they met 13 times with federal law enforcement officials in order to create a better dialog between the community and federal law enforcement. i appreciate any thoughts you may have to better foster relations between law enforcement and the muslim community and if you choose to you can cite some examples that you know firsthand. and if there is time remaining, i would like to yield my

remaining time to member richardson >> well, as we can tell by the testimony of the witnesses and you are questions we have a very diverse muslim community in the united states. first of all, organizations are more helpful than not. i believe that the message and the narrative should be that everyone can pitch in, in one form or another at the right time. when it comes to counting violent extremism, all resources can count and we should not discount any resources in any fashion irrespective of the various points that have been made. when we form the first american muslim homeland security congress -- and this is an organization made up of organizations, individuals including the shira council and mosques that are individualized, what we have when we talk about cair as an organization, cair supported the development of the american muslim homeland

security congress. they support the american outreach program that i'm doing. what i think has happened here is that cair is only a multitude of chapters, not one single organization. in southern california, i have not heard of any substantial complaints from my deputies who are involved in the investigative processes that i alluded to in my earlier testimony of saying don't cooperate. now what's going in other parts of the country, i can't attest to. i have never had a briefing on the whole issue from the fbi as to what their particular position is. but i will say, when i asked particularly the london -- excuse me, after 9/11, i asked cair if i were in your position, i would host admonitions in mosques, if you have that ability to, that advise the

attendees that come to pray to not bring in extremist points of view and this was very particularly important to me because of one mosque that i went to, a young man came up to me when we were a meeting of solidarity amongst the faiths and i had someone with me who was jewish and i was holding the koran and an young man came up and said you are forbidden to hold the koran and it was given to me by the head of the mosque and it's people like you in the muslim community who gave me a bad name and he just walked out and that was the end of that little confrontation. the point here is that i have not experienced anything that suggests that cair supports terrorism in the southern

california terror organization. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and mr. higgins is recognized for five minutes >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm sorry. i actually go back to the gentlelady from michigan, ms. miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sorry, mr. higgins. [laughter] >> you know, mr. chairman, first of all, i want to thank you very much for holding this hearing. i think it is very, very important. and certainly after listening to the testimony today of all of the witnesses, it's very clear that we have situations here in america that we need to examine candidly as we all seek the very same thing which is a strong, safe, secure america and in the run-up of today's hearings we heard an awful lot of talk how we should not be pre-judging any single one group and i appreciate that and after hearing the compelling testimony i think many, many, particularly in the media, we're just as misguided by prejudging what this hearing was about, and i'm very hopeful that this hearing

will actually strengthen our country. i think it's an opportunity to have an actual pivot historically for us and to help us all stand together as americans first above everything else. i would just make an observation. i know so many of my colleagues mentioned we should be having all these other hearings and other groups who could potentially be threats to america and i don't know why we ever had any of those hearings during the last four years. we had the fort hood massacre and didn't have a hearing on it but we are having hearings on fema trailers. i represent a district in southeast michigan right next to mr. dingell who spoke earlier and next to mr. clarke from detroit as well and as you've heard we have the largest arabic population in the country, a very diverse arabic population with lebanese, syrians, iraqi, palestinian, jordanians, yemenis and many, many others and these proud americans make up a very important and vibrant part of our community and, you know, before i came to the congress, i actually had the great honor and

privilege to serve as secretary of state which was two of my primary responsibilities was running the state elections but secondly serving as the motor vehicle administrator. i worked very, very closely with the arabic community to make sure they were registered to vote. if they were eligible and then issuing their driver's licenses and i remember running into a bit of a buzz saw when we had some female members of the arabic community who didn't want to have their driver's licenses photos taken unless they were completely taken. no, if you're going to have a michigan driver's license which is used as a fundamental part of your identity, you have to have a picture taken. and we tried to be very sensitive having a female clerk take the picture after-hours in a book room, et cetera, but we want to be very sensitive to cultural differences but in america, we have equal rights for all. and special rights for none. recent adam gatan who was born

in california and radicalized made a statement. he's known as the american spokesperson for al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula and he made some comments several months ago calling on muslims, and i will quote living in the miserable suburbs of detroit to take the initiative to perform the individual obligation of jihad. and i would say that radical al-qaeda thugs do not speak for our neighbors who stand up for american ideals of liberty and freedom and democracy. and, again, it's my hope that this hearing will reiterate to those in the mosques or just in the muslim community, anywhere, that if they hear of efforts from radical extremists to peddle their hate of radicalization that they understand that they can and they must come forward to law enforcement to assist. and my question would go to mr. bledsoe who your testimony, sir, touched me.

and particularly, how you say how you have muslims in your own home. could you -- how do you think america could better educate ourselves, sir, on the religion of islam where particularly parents might recognize if their children have turned the wrong way on a very proud and peaceful religion to a -- to the wrong side of this religion, to one that is of hate and perverted that religion. how do you think we could better educate ourselves? >> i think we can better educate ourselves by first teaching american citizens, american children what islam is. and what islam is not. i think it's one thing that needs to be done, more americans need to be educated about the religion and not be afraid to understand the religion. i want to go back while i'm

speaking to the sheriff when he spoke about -- you got to call the police when you see different things happening. in the process of radicalized, someone, especially with my son, we did not know what was happening when he was taking his dogs out in the woods and leaving them or taking a picture down off a wall, it is something new to america, it's something new to me. as i couldn't just quickly say -- because you become a muslim that, you know, you cannot do these kinds of things. i felt that was part of the cultural -- learning the religion. but yet, i found out later it was more than. so i'm saying to the american people, it's a process what happens. it takes a while to realize that your child is being radicalized. what i'm saying today i hope someone is listening.

and if you find your child is getting rid of the dog for many, many years or he's distancing himself from the family, staying away from the family, not coming home on college for holidays, perhaps you should call the law enforcement and get them involved. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. finally, i just want to thank the panel. i think this has been a very productive discussion, one in which i have learned quite a bit from. in the aftermath of 9/11, you know, we were all taught that we are not at war as a nation with islam. we were at war with those who highjacked that religion and to justify their murderous and cowardly acts. from that a lot of a lot of

relationships were developed between the law enforcement community, local, state and federal with the muslim community to try to better understand one another. i think we're at a point where progress has been made but still much work needs to be done. and when i look at or hear the sheriff from los angeles talk about the programs that have been developed in your community, it's very similar to that of my community, in buffalo, new york, a smaller city, directly south of buffalo, a city called lawkawana city. it was the home of six men who were convicted in training in their camps in kandahar, afghanistan. efforts are being made in our community now -- they were very young. efforts are being made to

deradicalize, to counter-radicalize and i think that should be the focus in doing the promotion of movement forward in that direction as well. you know, there's a lot of misunderstanding when you get into this issue and people, i think, get invested in their emotional positions that really don't have a factual base. aisles give you an example. in this nation, we have not only a christian judeotradition but christian judeo-islamic tradition in this nation. at the basis of those religions, compassion, forgiveness, love, tolerance. the prophet mohammed is the prophet of mercy. in my catholic tradition i was raised by the sisters of mercy. so i think we all have a lot to learn from one another about this issue. we have a long way to go. the radicalization of muslims in america is in large part

influenced by the convergence of new technology that allows groups to communicate in way that is they never were able to before. al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula has a publication called "inspire." they are trying to influence throughout the world unlike they've ever been able to do before and at their inception. these present extraordinary challenges and so i think that provides a basis from which our nation -- all our law enforcement agencies in each individual state, in each individual locality develop those relationships with the muslim american community because in the end we are all american. and people don't come to this country by and large to create havoc. they come here because they thirst for freedom that we have and that's what they want for themselves and their families. so, sheriff, you want to just elaborate a little bit further on the programs that you've been

working on and i'd be very interested in that. >> well, i'll share with you -- thank you, congressman. i'll share with you what muslims themselves in los angeles are interested in, and this is part of the relationship-building. they're interested and we've given them programs on domestic violation. we've given them programs on gang activities and awareness. youth and teens driving education, the terrorism issue, obviously, narcotics education and awareness and identity theft avoidance and awareness. i was intent on listening to your overview when i wholeheartedly agree with. when you think about it, most americans don't think on a daily basis like we do here, you know, we're obligated to think on a very high level of concern and sophistication and we can disagree all we want. but the truth is that the average american should be able to go about their business on a

daily basis and not have to worry about this because that's what they're paying us to do. so in the context of your question, what i think is the bigger problem is that most muslims don't even know what the koran is all about. this is my assertion. when i go around and i start talking to people, since i've been given a koran i've been obligated to read it and there's references mary the mother of jesus in the koran. there's references to moses and judaism. and according to the widespread belief of scholars of islam that you could not be a muslim unless you honor judaism and christianity. you cannot exclude those two faiths from the internal composition of what the prophet was saying when this whole koran became what it is. that, i think, is my biggest advice to the muslim community in america and get smarter on your own faith. praying five times a day is a

ritual that is important, but it is not islam. it is the ability to have a sense of tolerance for judaism, christianity, and all faiths of the world. that's the message that i think is not being heard by the american public. >> okay. the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i think it's an important time to do it. and time to carry on what this committee was originally established to do and i thank you as well for hanging the pictures in the back of the room again, to remind us of the purpose of this committee that we would understand its liberty and its price of eternal vigilance and i thank the witnesses for being here today. and yes, indeed, for muslims being here and cooperating today

because indeed it is the muslim community that is at the table today and represented at the table today that i think desires to have a change in what's going on and the perception that results from positive efforts standing against the radicalization of their young people and others who aren't their young people are being pulled in and so i thank you for your courage stepping to the table today, sharing with us your story. and to allow that story to be told more, let me just quickly go to a question. dr. jasser, what do you hope will be taken away today for muslim americans and also for non-muslim american? >> thank you, congressman. i hope we see this as the beginning of a dialog and that it's interesting -- you know, some of the feedback i got leading up to this was that what's the government doing getting involved in religious issues? it's against the first amendment but now as i heard the conversation just a second ago,

i saw that religious issues are all right as long as everything is positive. and certainly that's the islam that i teach my children but we have to realize there's many islams out there and if we're going to protect our homelands we need to develop a strategy, a forward strategy with a platform for organizations that are muslim and our government work together in a public/private partnership. i think a lot of the discussion here has been healthy as far as the cooperation that exists. there are a lot of partnerships that exist that have been very successful but those partnerships are about the crime limits, the violence. the problem is far deeper. it's an ideological one. it's where you see, for example, in michigan, there was a shooting of an imam who was basically running a radical sect called uma. and the islamic groups including cair michigan had to have an autopsy done because they're worried of the shooting was inappropriate. no mention of the ideology of

separatism that he wanted to have an islamic state, all of these things that we should be filling the internet with new ideas we're not doing. and our homeland security is at risk because those things cause a continuum of radicalization and we need platforms to begin to do that. the universities, at think tanks, at all the things the governments helps change the society and in changing the agenda so that you can help me create an us and other organizations, there are a lot of other organizations like mine doing this reform work. and not allow just the revivalists to get the microphone but the reformer to say that we want to modernize. >> thank you, dr. jasser. i have many muslim friends both in michigan as well as uganda. in the recent somalian bombings that took place at the world cup -- during the world cup experience in uganda,

thankfully, i still have a very, very dear friend who was at the restaurant who was chaperoning an american group of people. there were christians and muslims in the room at the same body. due to two bodies in between my friend and the suicide bomber, he lived. he transported bodies and victims to the hospital in a van that i've traveled in many times and many miles. after that bombing, word came out from the somalian muslim terrorist group al-shabaab apologizing to ugandas for their lives being lost because their efforts were to go after americans and whites. now, you have experienced it firsthand, mr. bihi. how concerned are you that other young somali males from your community may be radicalized and influenced to join the violent

jihad either in the united states or in somalia? we are very concerned. we're extremely concerned that we have our immediate outreach concerning this matter right away without funding or no support with all those pressures in silencing we won the hearts of young people not to change their minds. we have influenced it -- we have a huge problem because of the long running cold war by al-shabaab in somalia, over 25 years now. we have influenced denmark, the community in denmark. we have interested people some sweden, in london, in lancaster, in liverpool, in malaysia and all over the world, luxembourg, netherlands, we are getting tired every time there's a somali man getting indicted with his intention to do a jihad.

we are victims of vulnerable organizatio organizations attacking us and every time we try to speak up again it's this, we've got problems. we're intimidated by a strong organizationists that are not welcoming our community because we're not going to stop. as a matter of fact, in uganda, it made us -- on the side of the table to do a ramadan, it was a ramadan time basketball tournament for the youth because from my experience, i'm an expert i can say. i have been from the beginning. i don't just mention the media. we find out that recruited and we eye on each other and how successful they are riding these horses and we have to combat when they did that in uganda.

so we immediately organized and organized 400 young men to play basketball. >> i wish you all good success. >> the time of the gentleman is expired. >> thank you. >> the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> i find this hearing grossly incomplete and i feel without the representation of the department of homeland security, the fbi, the department of justice we are seeing a very exude discussion with the exception of sheriff baca are here. i think these anecdotes are interesting but i don't believe they're experts. i would suggest if we're going to be complete in this hearing, we should also be investigating the army of god and their website in which they openly praise christian terrorists as

part of an effort to look at home grown terrorism in this country. let me start by first asking dr. jasser if you believe the majority of mosques are recruiting terrorists -- >> that's not what i said. >> i'm just asking you. >> i don't believe the jennifer majority of mosques are actively recruiting terrorists. >> do you believe that you have expertise to be speaking? >> that's the question that the theocrats ask me all the time so it seems like you're asking the same thing. my love of my faith, my demonstrable experience in dealing with this issue of reform of knowledge of not only my scripture and my practice of faith but the constitution i think positions me pretty well to deal with it and be part of the solution. i'm not sure who else you'd like to solve this problem but i think it's only muslims that can do it. and it would be sort of like asking at the time of the american revolution that you want to have testimony about the church of england's threat to

america and you would only listen to the priests. you know, that would be wrong because it was the lay community that ultimately, the intellectual lay community that understood their faith and brought about the change the establishment and i hope you don't look as expert as something that get handed down of clerics most of whom are part of the problem. >> but i'm an practicing roman catholic. i go to church every single sunday. i'm a lecter in my parish. and i'm so more prepared to speak about the pedophilia in the catholic church because i am a practicing roman catholic. and i think we do need to have experts come here to testify on home grown terrorism in this country. and while i appreciate the anecdotes of those who have spoken, i don't think that they are necessarily very enlightening. >> well, this -- >> sheriff baca, let me ask you, how important have muslim americans been in your efforts

to foil terrorist plots in l.a. county. >> in l.a. county, we haven't had an attack as such and i think that the ability to prevent is what we're trying to do more than anything else. our way of success across the nation cannot be weighed alone by los angeles's model. what i do believe is that if i were a new yorker or if i was a d.c. resident or even someone in the fields of pennsylvania, that there's a whole different reality about terrorism when it happens in places that you love and have grown up in, in a more specific way and, therefore, the variability of the panel today is that i speak about what i do to prevent terrorism. these individuals have a more intimate weigh-in on the way of terrorism. the doctor on the other end is a scholar, probably perhaps more

than a medical doctor but the truth this is the most difficult subject to get your arms around. and i believe that our country is doing magnificently given all the complexity of a big country that spreads not only throughout the mass land of america but everyone around the world particularly the countries abroad where i'm stepping in, where i'm helping, i'm helping the middle east police departments and i'm dealing with muslims that are in my profession around the world -- we didn't even get into that because we're not going to deal with anything without the connectivity of resources outside of america with those that are inside america. >> if i could interrupt for a moment. one more question, i'm running out of time. >> yes >> i don't know how much discussion has been had about the lone wolf phenomenon. but certainly the congressional research review has spoken about the lone wolf. we've seen it in the jared

loughners, the timothy mcveighs, in some of the -- the christian day bomber and the like. so what would you say about the risk of home grown terrorism coming from what are called lone wolves? >> well, it's definitely there. you know, the concept of a lone wolf terrorist is based on a variety of explanations. but they're definitely part of the element of an attack that will occur similar to the one in new york. but there's always help. you know, there's -- the lone wolf theory is an interesting one. rarely does anyone have the smarts enough to pull off one of these attacks on their own. so i think the fact that there's a lone person -- whether it's abdulmutallab coming out of nigeria on a christmas holiday period -- they'll execute on their own as a single person but behind them there's always

someone around that's a pure jihadist, violent jihadist who is helping them accomplish their mission. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack, is recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank the members of the panel, particularly, mr. bledsoe, and mr. jasser. i do consider your testimony expert testimony. you live it. >> i want to say thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. >> you live it every day. you have been fighting for it in minneapolis every day on a daily basis. i commend you for your courage, your conviction and i applaud you mr. bihi you're living in minneapolis and minnesota. i understand what you've gone through and i understand the trials and tribulations that you have gone through as well and i commend you, sir, not only you but also your family members that have also had to have been brave through this whole thing as well. because you, sir, have been under persecutions entities that's supposed to represent the muslim faith and i commend you,

sir, and mr. bledsoe, and i just can't say that enough and thank you very much for your courage. mr. bihi, you are representing voices from minnesota, families whose sons have been radicalized and sent abroad to wage jihad against muslims and non-muslims living in somalia. at the forefront, i want to recognize here and in a very public way that minnesota somalis are by and large good people. and who are here chasing the dreams that my grandmothers just like you. raising children to be good americans and bettering the great state of minnesota and i reject the message from some on this committee and these hearings as doing anything but initiating an open process and not only protecting muslim americans but protecting all americans. my goal is to put a spotlight on

this particular issue and then refocus this lens on the small number of individuals and organizations in the muslim community that are 100% committed to totally implement islamic law which is in direct violation of article 6 of the constitution of the united states. so again, gentlemen, i thank you very much for your commitment to this. sheriff, i just have a couple questions for you if you don't mind, sir, and thank you for your service in the corps. >> simper phi. >> i'm a navy guy. and i won't you won't hold that against me. i have a question for you in regards to cair. you are weir that this is hamas and brotherhood -- and muslim brotherhood; is that correct, sir? >> no, i'm not aware of that. >> okay, sir, let me bring this

to your attention then. this was actually proven -- the fbi identifies 1993 philadelphia meeting as a hamas meeting and that all attendees of this meeting are hamas members. the two people that were in that meeting were both founders. so my question is, sir, basically that you're dealing with a terrorist organization. and i'm trying to get you to try to understand that they might be using you, sir, to implement their goals. >> well, thank you for asking me that question, but it sounds more like a possible accusation, me being misused by an organization that, quite frankly -- let me just answer you this way. i'm an elected official as you are. if the fbi had something to charge cair with, bring those charges forward and try them in

court and deal with it that way. there is a reality in my culture as a police officer that you have facts and you have a crime. deal with it. we don't play around with criminals in my world. if cair is an organization that is, quote, criminal organization, prosecute them. hold them accountable and bring them to trial. >> my time is limited, sir. >> are you saying that the fbi was wrong in identifying that cair is part of hamas? >> let me say this, you don't want to cause a conflict between me and the fbi. we work together better perhaps this committee works together. [laughter] >> that would be an understatement at this point. so i'm just asking you the question, a hypothetical then, if you knew that cair was a terrorist organization sponsored

by hamas, would you continue to work with them? >> you're asking me a question that i'm not qualified to answer because i'm not representing hamas. i'm not representing cair. i'm not representing anything other than your personal safety, and i do work well with your police in the great state that you represent. >> sir, i'm doing the same thing. i'm just trying to protect the united states of america citizens. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and the only addition this committee usually does get along pretty well. the gentlelady from new york, my colleague, recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and let me say that today's hearing has been a great congressional theater. certainly the equivalent of reality tv. i'm just really appalled at the fact that we have not really

gotten to a substantive conversation about how we define terrorism, how we define the whole idea of radicalization because just in listening -- if i had my eyes closed and listening to mr. bledsoe, mr. bihi, not to diminish what they've been through because their experience is real, but i have parents in my district who can sit and talk about their children being recruited, their children being brainwashed and their children are gang members, okay? and the bloodshed, the lives that have been lost in communities like mine across this nation since i've been here has not been an issue of homeland security. and when i hear dr. jasser talk

about the concerns about the elements of radicalization of existence in islam, i'm also reminded that there are those same elements evident in christianity and in judaism. i know because i represent all three states in my district and as someone who was directly impacted by 9/11, and who has lived in a community where we have respected every human being irregardless of their background, their ethnicity, their religion, to see us come to this day where we are pointing fingers at one another, i don't see the benefit in it. i see the benefit in the approach of sheriff baca. i see the benefit of us opening up the dialogs, but i don't see the benefit in stigmatizing, in

finger-pointing or even creating the specter that it may occur even if it doesn't, as being something worthy of where we should be in our collective humanity in the 21st century. and so while i can empathize with the challenges faced by the families, we can all point in instances in our districts where families are suffering and the goal is how should we address the suffering through dialog and enlightenment which is where we should be in the 21st century. i would like to take this moment and yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from california, ms. laura richardson. >> thank you, ms. clarke for the record i want to clarify and build upon the question, the last question i asked you sheriff baca. there have been two issues that mr. king brought up for this hearing, one was the fact of our

american muslims cooperating with law enforcement and the second issue is the scope and so i just want to clarify -- your answer was you think these hearings are good and i agree having an open discussion about problems and preventing terrorism is good but what i want to clarify for the record so it's not used against us is do you agree that discussions like this should not -- sure, we should talk about preventing terrorism and radicalization but should the scope be so narrowed only to include american muslim community or should other communities and other groups also be discussed in this same fashion because thus far, we haven't been told of those hearings. >> i believe it depends on the timing and scope. i know that you've heard significantly from all four of us, and i think these witnesses are incredibly important. but if you try to package it all up in one big group, we'll be

here for three weeks. >> but mr. sheriff baca, i'm not suggesting in the one time but it's very important that we get this answer and i've got 32 seconds. the question is, don't you think there should also be a discussion of the other groups? >> oh, definitely. >> thank you. >> in my testimony, you know, morale cal extremists acts of crime are occurring in the united states of america on the reports that have been given by members of congress and myself on this committee that non-muslim extremists are a problem in this country. and, you know, and we don't have to go too far back in history to understand what the ku klux klan is all about and i believe the sensitivities are, as the sensitivities are if you lived in new york, you lived in washington and you lived in places in the united states that were harmed by these terrorists of 9/11, or if you lived in parts of america where you were

lynched or you were ultimately had your churches burned down, there's no difference in the outcome. and so i think there's a reason for different points of view on this matter, but i'm glad for the consciousness that we have here on the discussion because i am a very strong opponent of any kind of violence that is basically on indiscriminate, whether it's holocaust violence or just one individual, either way, the damage is unacceptable to civilization. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, again, you've heard this before, but thank you for having the foresight and the courage to put this hearing on. mr. bihi and mr. bledsoe, a colleague on the other side referred to you as not expert -- your testimony is not expert

testimony. and i think the word she used to describe your experiences was interesting. mr. bihi, mr. bledsoe, take a shot at that. what you both have gone through is interesting, the word you'd describe it? >> no, i use to describe it as a tragedy. i'd also like to say the person who was speaking on the other side, i'm wondering how did they get on the commission to speak about some of the things they're speaking about? [laughter] >> we're not talking about how much of professional or expert. we're speaking about what happened here to our children and what we're speaking about what may happen to your children. we're speaking about the danger. i think most of the people that are here on the other side are talking about political fear.

and that's what i mostly hear here. there is -- now, there are a population of a small population that we're talking about that is islamic extremists who we're worried about stepping on their toes and they're talking about stamping us out. not just stamping us out but everything that america stands for. i'm wondering when do people pull their blinders off. >> mr. bledsoe, to that point of, what do you think they're afraid of, fear of what? >> i think they're afraid of political fear, perhaps not getting re-elected or something. but this is a real thing happening in america. if it's not going to happen by not doing anything about it -- if you ignore we don't have a problem, then you're inviting the problem to come again. >> mr. bihi, what word would you use to cite interesting to describe what you go through? >> there's no words to describe

what i went through or those families went through. we basically put our neck out, all of us, and we destroyed ourselves. well, if we do it again, this type of environment over time we are facing for speaking out for our country and for our children or for our communities, yes, we will do it because the immensity of the danger, the immensity of the danger, the person or the organizations that was very successful could change the brain -- [inaudible] >> we love so much and maybe go to the worst place on earth and explode himself, that organization is dangerous. and me or my brother being here as experts we are looking for justification. we are looking to save the rest. our kids died, my kids died,

many of them died, we paid the price for speaking out. we never stopped and we saved hundreds and hundreds in the united states. thousands around the diaspora so i think to reward those families who speak out. his son is in jail. we are trying to save the rest. not looking to be experts but we are the damn best. >> dr. jasser, why are so many other muslim organizations afraid of holding these hearings? they didn't want to hold this hearing. what in your estimation are they afraid of? >> you know, that's a great question, and i think, you know, at the end of the day, change is very difficult, you know, i was asked about -- what am i doing here? my family asked me that frequently because of all the pressure we get because of what i do. it's not an easy task taking on an establishment, taking on a mentality that will not change

or reform and realize there are changes that have to happen in ideology in order to prevent this cancer from happening. so the pressures are innumerable especially for a minority population. it's interesting that they're circling the wagon instead of, i think, the best way to let the fear of muslims melt away is see us leading the charge. so in many ways also we're not intellectual equipped, i think, from a religious standpoint because we haven't had the infrastructure built in liberty and theology because so many muslims i think don't understand the faith well and have not been educated in a western mindset and we have to build these infrastructures to allow that reform to happen but it's a lot of tribalism, i think, and circling the wagons and that has to change. and they don't want -- making change is difficult. >> thank you all. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. davis from illinois is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of the witnesses for coming. as i've listened, i've heard the constitution being mentioned a number of times. i thought of the preamble that simply says that we hold these truths to be self-evident. that all men are created equal. and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. and that among these of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happine happiness. >> [inaudible] >> the same way with equal rights, equal protections under the law and the opportunity to pursue what they think

especially as long as it is not violating the rights of others. sheriff baca, i've always been, since i've known about you, impressed with your law enforcement career, especially, the way that you handled things like law enforcement, misconduct and the way that you try and bring people together to understand the role of law enforcement. and i was just thinking that, you know, the city of chicago is looking for -- [inaudible] >> [inaudible]

>> that i've been looking for, searching for and wanting to see ever since i've been involved in public life and so i simply commend you for the way you have expressed yourself to date. .. >> and w enthralled the

whole time. what do you think causes groups that they can successful recruit and radicalize young people, especially in neighborhoods and communities like the one that i just described? >> i do know a little bit about chicago, and you're speaking mostly what they call black muslims, and mohammad and malcolm x followers. i think there's somewhat of a difference, but as for the recruitment part, i think the recruitment part could come like when people are denying we have a problem, and that's one the recruitments people go after.

if we don't have a problem, then they can recruit easier. >> well, i agree that i do mean african-americans, but i must confess that my breath is much bigger, much wider, much broader, and i interact all kinds of muslims priech -- pretty much on a regular, ongoing basis. what i'm really trying to get at, i guess, is are there situations that would cause individuals to believe that they are going to be successful? i mean, i don't go hunting unless i think some game is there. i don't go fishing unless i think there's some fish in the lake. >> my i answer that, sir? >> no, there are professional people out there looking for just that.

there's professional people out there looking to recruit american citizens, not only in chicago, but a lot of other american cities. >> sir, if i may add, yes, there are many reasons towards looking at our youth. number one, if you look at the similarities of those missing from minneapolis or from denmark or copenhagen or from sweden, they all share one thing. they are mostly from single-mom households, young men who do not have mentorship at home are almost 85%. number two, they are looking for very similar smart young people who never had any problems. third, they are looking for a swath from america and those with encounters who are from countries that will not have a problem when they are

training -- they can go back and slip into those countries, and they are their policies on the idea so they can just order them to those dirty, wicked jobs. >> thank you very much, and thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. davis. the gentleman from pennsylvania, former united states attorney. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to thank the entire panel. i know it's been a long process, but i really do believe that we're gaining a great deal from your insight. sheriff, i want to thank you for the work you do. i know you represent all law enforcement. i had the good opportunity to come into the united states attorney just a week after 9/11, and i watched colleagues like you all across the united states fan out and reach into the community, and i have to say we got a great deal of dialogue from members all across including many who practiced the muslim faith, so i don't think the issue really today is so

focused on, you know, the question of dialogue. it's as much the question of are we getting the right ability to communicate in a way that helps us prevent the next event, and i have been aware that one of the things we were asked to do by the very experts that are not here today was to go out into the community and speak to folks just like you so we could understand better how to handle this, and i tried to look at the broad spectrum of things put forth quite a bit here today, but dr. jasser, i'm going to focus on something that you touched, and it's into this area between this elephant in the room that we're not supposed ton talking about -- religion and jihaddism. --

jihadism. you made a statement about political islam, and then i was struck by your word -- how can law enforcement effectively do counterterrorism in our country without recognition that political islam and its narrative is the core ideology when at its extreme it drives the general mind set of the violent extremists carrying out attacks. that's what we want to prevent are those attacks. can you describe in more detail what do you mean by "political islam?" >> thank you for asking me. it's vital to understanding that. as we've heard repeatedly, islam faith, the moral constructs of integrity and honesty and virtueness and what i bring to the scripture and my relationship with god as the judeo-christian tradition, and there's political islam, bringing a thee karattic state based interpretation that views

the islamic law as islamic jurisprudence. i may practice it in my life, but that's a choice. our organization believes it's no longer religious law, no longer a religion if government coerces you to do that. that antagonism of this country's understanding of the establishment clause and the beauty of liberty and wanting to put in islamic states like iran and th taliban had in place or the wahabi system in arabia, or there's versions of political islam that are 4.0 that use democracy in elections, but yet end up still based not in reason, but societies based in screw scripture where the only people who can have opinions are scholars of islam, and therefore me, like myself, get the snitch from proceedings because we're not experts in islamic law.

that's what we're up against. they are trying to create a global home generality of islamic statings, and there's those who believe in democracy, and you can look at the threat by looking at why most of the radical groups around the world were hatched from muslim brotherhood ideology. people should read up those ideas and look at what they've done, and as we understand that, you'll see a lot of those ideas influencing identification. i put in my materials in the appendix charts that look at the radicalization projects. one was from the nypd report, and another counterterrorism report, but there's feeder intuse that. the primary feeding is the separatists feeling from some muslim youth that they dream of a utopia to bring the state back to the way it was at the time of the profit mohamed. he mixed roles of being a head

of state, a general and a messager of god. we have to create new ideas. some call that modernization, new ideas that separate those roles because based the time square bomber when in front of the judge, he said it was because he was a muslim soldier. the community is looked by these individuals as being a political p unit, a military unit, and until we separate that, you will never stop terrorism. >> the time expired -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> three members added today by unanimous consent from indiana, my friend mr. carson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the hearings, appreciate it, and thank you, ranking member thompson, and to the witnesses. quickly, i don't think this conversation should be given over totally to the intellectuals. i know we have disagreements, but i agree with your premise. we have to be very suspicious

about these so-called gatekeepers relating to the religion. i think all muslims and positions should have a contribution, and we should mine -- minimize experience relating to testifying. having said that, as a proud american-muslim, sheriff, baca, i spent over a decade in law enforcement including some time in a intelligence capacity with the department of homeland security. thank you for dispatching the sergeant to meet with me as i visited l.a., but during the time i worked in law enforcement, i worked with informanets and cooperates witnesses in a variety of cases. in every case, one reality held true that those who trusted law enforcement, the judicial system, and the government were likely to provide useful information in a very timely manner. also, those who felt singled out

or targeted were much less likely to provide useful information as well. since the establishment of the department of homeland security and the passage of the patriot act, there have been considerable discussions about certain law enforcement and intelligence practices that may do more to spur anti-american sentiment in the muslim community than to apprehend terrorist plotters. national security letters, wiretaps, as well as under cover investigations in mosques caused many muslims to fear that their constitutional rights are being disregarded in the name of preventing terrorism. can you tell us, sheriff, how these and other law enforcement and intelligence practices have impacted muslim populations in l.a. particularly, and also tell us if you have any suggestions about how this committee in congress might better structure the procedures to protect civil rights while maintains effectiveness. >> well, that's a very tough question to answer in a short

period of time, but i'll make my best effort. intelligence gathering in and of itself is an interesting subject, and as we know in many of the experiences the united states has gone through since 9/11, that intelligence in and of itself moves the subject matter around meaning what you believe is in one report, modified by another report and modified by another report that ultimately leads to where is the p under the shelf, and i don't think anybody in the law enforcement world involved with intelligence gathering, and i'm pleased to know you have been, understands that if you don't have the authority in the intelligence world to make an arrest at the time that the evidence demonstrates its

imminent that it should be done, then the question is what intelligence do you believe and what intelligence don't you believe, and who are your sources, and what are your source's motives for providing you the information? it's very clear to me that if atoub's dad came to a place station anywhere in america and said my son is acting a little weird and i need help, that we would know exactly what to do, but this was not the case. the process was morphed into an intelligence mode, and then it went into a status file as opposed to an active file, and i think we've corrected that in our federal intelligence gathering system, but if we look at intelligence as being the bible of all truth, we're in deep trouble in this country. what we have to do is we have to continue to improve what we do

to use techniques that are clearly not obscuring evidence, but clearly making sure that the evidence is, in fact, what is being reported to be, and i think there's a whole different discussion that the intelligence committee can deal with or the subcommittee, but when it comes down to the truth of all forms of investigative work, then it is not an exact science 100% of the time, so what are the safeguards? there's rules to follow. now, we follow the rules that the federal government set forth in intelligence gathering at the local joint centers and the joint terrorism task force, so we have the rules in place, but the rule element is another issue with me, and that is that if we have intelligence officers that have a bias about a particular group they're up vest gaiting, you're going --

investigating, you're going to have problems with the communication capabilities there. i believe in bias-free policing. i believe in public trust policing. i don't believe you can judge one muslim for the acts of another. you can't judge anybody from the acts of another. what we have to do is get to the point where whatever's being advised to congress, we say, okay, we get it. we had a hearing, now we got to go out into the communities that are affected by this subject matter, and i welcome the continual die -- dialogue and examination, but i do believe we always do need to be mindful of what's going on in the intelligence community. >> the time of the gentleman expired, and sheriff baca, my understanding -- >> yes, sir? >> understanding from the talking with the ranking members you have to catch a plane at three o'clock? >> yes. >> whatever time you leave is up

to you. when you leave, i want to thank you sincerely for your testimony, contribution, and your patience. >> and i thank you you, mr. chairman, and your committee. it's been a pleasure. >> thank you. >> will the gentleman yield? >> absolutely. >> thank you, sheriff. i know you made a big sacrifice to get her. your testimony has been absolutely essential to this committee. thank you much. >> may i follow a response? >> no, actually on to the next. i now recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i'd like to thank each of our panel of witnesses here for participating in the hearing. americans of muslim faith today are a part of our nation's community and play contributions to the quality of life in this country, and they are our neighbors and our friends. muslims serve honorably as policemen, teachers, and in

armed services, and some, indeed, have given the ultimate sacrifice in our freedom and our way of life. my deep respect to the muslim community as the foundation upon which i approach this critical issue, so it's with alarm and frankly with a degree of sadness that i conclude the radicalization of our youth intent on spreading violent islamist extremism is indeed taking place in this country posing a serious and increasing threat to our security, and that's why i respectfully reject the charge that this hearing is unnecessary and assault on any particular faith. i see this as a conversation all be it an overhyped one, but it's a conversation that must take place, and i commend the chairman for remaining steadfast and holding a thoughtful dialogue on this subject. dr. jasser, i want to address my

first question to you, sir. a note that in your written testimony you conclude one paragraph with this line, "the liberty narrative is the only effective counter to the islamist narrative." you have my attention, and i fully agree with that and what are the next steps to play that out and to use that -- that proper message to counter what's taking place now? >> yeah, you know, i think i look at my own life about why i turned out the way i did and nadal turned out the way he did. i grew up, for example learning that our system of governance, people are innocent until proven guilty. i think what we need to do is we don't have -- we talked abroad about nation building and how that doesn't work. we shifted now into institution building. it's interesting how somehow we

compartmentalize things differently abroad than domestically when, n., it's the same issue, the same diagnosis. the concepts of liberty -- my parents was blessed to have an education and the understanding of separation of church and state he internalized, but there's no educational infrastructure to bring democracy to many of our own heritages, so if we're going to get these ideas into the communities so that it becomes part of the institutions we build and take on and remind emuam means teacher, not religion. you don't lead society or have a role in government. this whole process needs institutions that you can help us build, provide the infrastructure to do that, but yet allow muslims to do it. it doesn't cross the first amendment because your role is to advance lib tearty, advance

freedom, advance ideas of human rights, universal human rights concepts, and then you make sure we live to those and our islamic institutions endorse those and then we engage in media and muslim media these ideas because now the islamic media is not having to discourse. it's about polarity of being muslim, islam, advocating islam versus the west. that can go away with institution building. >> thank you. in the short time we have remaining here, what role have foreign u emaus playing and have played in spreading islam. >> i can't tell you how important that is in that what they're doing and former cia directing had talked about the fact that the saudis spent over

$90 million in spreading their ideas in two generations. >> including america? >> including the united states. there's mosques in cincinnati and l.a. and new york, all across the country that have been part of saudi investments in their ideology abroad, and in order to counter that, we need a strategy to help counter those institutions that are building those ideas. >> dr. jasser and to the all the witnesses today, thank you all for being here. i applaud you being a bold voice on this subject, thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman for yelling, and now i recognize the member from texas, a former member of this committee, mr. green, good to have you back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's an honor to be back, and mr. chairman and ranking member thompson, i came by today because i love america.

i love what america stands for. i love the pledge of allegiance. it means something to me, liberty and justice for all. i love the declaration of independence, all persons created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. i love the constitution, a copy of which i hold in my hand, we the people, is what it says, and then it goes on to say with this very first amendment, the very first amendment, congress shall make no low representing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. by the way, this clause recognizes religion first. it's the first of the first. the first, and i want you to know not only do i love america, but i love the american people. i love them regardless of race, creed, color, national origin

ethnicity, or sexuality. i love the american people, and because i love the american people, i want to say in clear and concise terms i have no problem with discussing terrorist organizations that are rooted in religion which is why i want to discuss the kkk. the kkk requires that its members profess a belief in jesus christ. the kkk says that the christian faith is the white man's religion. the kkk says that jews are people of the antichrist. the kkk wants to preserve the true gospel, the gospel of the white man's religion.

by the way, i'm the son of a christian preacher. i have some credentials when it comes to christianity. i was born into christianity. i was baptized into christianity. no one can say that i'm less a christian than anybody else and i'm no more a christian than anybody else. we have had 100 years of terrorism perpetrated by the kkk on jews and african-americans and others in this country, a hundred years which brings me to my point. mr. chairman, i love you, and i love all of my friends here today. i do not assign any malice or forethought to anybody. i don't believe anything has any degree of ben nevada lance associated with it, but i tell

you it's not enough for things to be right, they must also look right. it may be right, but it doesn't look right when we take on islam and allow this to take place and we don't tell the truth about the abuses associated with the kkk and christianity. christianity according to the kkk is the reason why they do what they do. why not include the kkk in this discussion today? why not have a broader topic that does not focus on one religion. it doesn't look like, mr. jasser, when we focus on one religion to the exclusion of others. you're an intelligent chiewm, and you understand what i'm saying. it's not about what you are defending and the points you are making nor yours -- it's about

the fundmenteddal fairness associated with freedom of religion in this country, and we don't single out one religion and give the appearance by in so doing that there is something disastrously associated with being a part of this religion. regardless to all disclaimers that are going to be made, that is still a perception that some people will have, and i want you to know that when i board an airport, i am looked upon with an eye of suspicion. for some reason people tend to think that i am muslim. for some reason a person told me i needed to go back home to my foreign country, that i don't belong in this country. for some reason people think that people who are muslim, many, how many is many? >> the time expired. >> i still -- >> the time expired. >> thank you for the time, mr. chairman. may i just say this, mr.

chairman? >> surely. >> lets not only have things be right, but look right and not single out the american-muslims. >> i now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, and i want to yield 30 seconds for them to respond if they'd like to to mr. green's comments. >> again, i think he's making a point. i mean, today we're not talking at this hearing about kkk. we talking about extreme islam, radicalization of american citizens. i hope that you get that so you can be back in this hearing. that's my hope. thank you. >> would the gentleman, mr. dun can yield?

>> it's up to the gentleman. >> "news week" article said this, the left is wrongly defending islamism and extremists and at times violent ideology which it confuses with the common persons islam which i add is a religion. while the right is often wrongly attacking the muslim faith, which it confuses with islamism. thank you, guys, if pointing that out this morning. i want to thank you for sharing story of your sons, and as a father of sons myself, my heart goes out to you. nor anyone wishing to limit anyone's first amendment rights, but rather i believe we are raising awareness of islamism, a political ideology and how that ideology is used in this country. i'm regularly astonished and outraged, outraged by this administration's continued failure to single out who our

enemy is. mr. bledsoe said in his testimony there's a big elephant in the room and the society continues not to see it. you say the wrong is caused by political correctness and fear. there's a slide, hard to read, but 23 you look at the 9/11 commission and see how many times hezbollah, hamas and others are mentioned and look at the lexicon, you see zeros by the fact they don't mention al-qaeda, muslim brotherhood. it's an astonishing contrast, but what i came here today to comment on and dellive into is a different line of thought, and it's this -- an issue that is of particular concern to me and my constituents, and that's the threat of sleer ya law to the u.s. institution.

authored by robert currently deputy under secretary of the navy, and he states that the centerpiece of al-qaeda's strait jihadism is exploiting muslim's sense of religious obligation by declaring a jihad against the west and among regimes. the islamic conference represents 57 member states declares that it has a considerable weight within the institutions where it makes others listens to the voice of islamic oma and presents the image of modern islam open to dialogue and bearing the message of peace between men, but according to the oic's own declaration on human rights and islam article 25, it clearly states that islamic sharia1 the only source of reference for clarification of any articles in the declaration. as the united states constitution, law of this land, any attempt to subvert it results in submission. i it is my desire to see

hearings not only here in this committee, but house armed services committee, intelligence committee, jew dish rare comment, foreign committee, examining the role it plays in assessing the degree to which jihad organizations like muslim brotherhood and prompt organizations influence american muslim communities. i ask this to dr. jasser, do you feel u.s. government did an adequate job learning about miss line up religion and how does islamic doctrine shave the response of local muslim communities 20 law enforcement efforts that target islamic jihad. >> thank you, congressman, a wonderful qe. there's various forms of islams around the world. it means different things to different muslims.

at my home, it's a private thing. do i want it in government? absolutely not. it's the dock rat of the enemy. they want to create an islamic state. there's no concept the muslim brotherhood has because there's different lenses of which we see the world. allies of other democracies that are secular, but to be an ally of an islamic state with vee ya is impossible. they are still based in islamic from the 1th and 14th century. they have not created a new school of thought, and what happens is intellectual islam or authoritative islam still has not absorbed the ideas of a western society based under god rather than under islam, and our forefathers had this discussion of not having the word "christian" in the founding

documents. the islamic community has not gone through that evolution. we're avoiding it. we need to address it and address the fact the government -- we not only accept the laws of the land as a minority, but even as a majority, we want the same laws. the they have a doctrine that they believe in that they follow within their own organization based on islamic law allowing a duality that i think effects their identity 3 caix with the society. i know many mosques that don't teach that. they look for the right books. if you go and i tell all of you to go to the islamic book services. >> the time expired. >> you won't find too much reform work in that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, also a former member of the committee. >> thank you, i yield ten seconds to mr. green. >> i'll be brief. >> i thank god we did yacht -- not have a hearing on

christianity and how it is radicalizing young american boys. we could have. we did not. that's my point. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. green, good to see you both. we've been here since 9:30. i was thinking a little longer than that. we were here since the beginning of this committee, and wasn't my idea to leave, but they put me in something else. >> we miss you, bill. >> yeah, sure. sometimes. we'll see in another five minutes where you're saying the same thing. [laughter] this hearing is not on islam, but the muslim community. there's a big difference. when you admonish people and they don't know what they're talking about, here's the title of the hearing; correct, mr. chairman? >> [inaudible] >> muslim -- well, it says it.

that's what we're talking about, but the extremes many times in the eyes of the beholder. all of us are bound to mischaracterize and stereotype. i don't believe anything i've heard and i was in the hearing quite some time today, parts of it i wasn't. i was in another meeting. i don't think i heard anything from any of the panelists, and thank you for being here, of trying to bring -- lead to a conclusion that we should start stereotyping more or we should start profiling because you always have to find a response or an answer to what you are trying to attack. we want to protect this country. we love this country. democrats don't love it anymore than republicans and vice

versa. i must say to you mr. bledsoe, when you say the other side, i don't know what the hell you're talking about. we are all in this together, sir. my heart goes out to you. we're in it together. let's get it straight from the beginning. i am convinced that this hearing would result in good because when reasonable people will conclude that the greatest majority of muslims like every other community in this country are patriots, are patriots to america, right, dr. jasser? >> yes, sir. >> you agree with me? >> yes, sir. >> every sit down that i've had, and we've discussed this with the fbi, about my own district. i come from patterson in new

jersey, the second largest muslim community, patterson in its environments and the country. i grew up in the neighborhood, arabic neighborhood. i ate more of that food than italian food. that doesn't make me know more about the community, but take my word for it and i'll stand corrected if you come up with something else that every time i sat down with the fbi about my own district, i was told many times that there is no hidden agenda in that you need not fear the recruiting and the very recruiting that we're talking about today in this hearing. now, does that mean that every district in the country? does that mean chairman king's district has the same review? i don't know.

some pretty bad people came out of some mosques, and some pretty bad people came out of catholic churches, ect., ect., but we candidate -- we got to do everything we can to avoid a wide brush because it gets us nowhere, and we can't defend our own children and neighborhoods if we have bad information. why should we be surprised? we know our enemies are probing this system every day. they come in many forms, many shapes right now as we speak in this hearing the the enemy is probing our systems, no question about it. we need to be strong. the graph you showed a few moments ago is very hurtful to the very community you are investigating, very hurtful, and it's very hurtful to the administration because i don't think one administration wants to protect us any less than another administration. that is foolish.

>> the time expired. >> it doesn't lead to any resolve, mr. chairman. >> even after five minutes of that, i still love you. >> all right. >> i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, also another former u.s. attorney, mr. marino. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chair for this desperately needed hearing. i want to thank your courage and your leadership for bringing this to the fore front, and i hope that we have more of these hearings, and for my colleagues on the other side, i will tell my good friend that i'll be with you shoulder to shoulder for the hearingings on the kkk and any other racist group that defiles this country. >> ten second yield. >> no, sir. >> you will address me, but i can't respond? >> the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time. >> we should have done it today. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time.

>> tomorrow -- >> the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time. >> out of respect i will be there with you, 3wu the issue today is terrorism. >> the clan is a terrorist organization that has been in establishment for over 100 years. >> mr. green is a guest of the committee, mr. marino, it's your time. >> thank you. this hearing is not about religion with all do respect, but about terrorists, people who kill men, women, and children in the name of religion which is a blase -- blaphemy in and of itself. i thank the witnesses for being here, their courage to stand up as americans in america before america, and the world and tell the truth.

as the united states attorney, i prosecuteed a home grown terrorist, and he is in prison now for 30 years, and it was the right thing to do. now, the questions that were asked today were well thought out and professionally asked. you excellently answered them, but as a freshman congressman, i think sometimes we fail to ask this question of you, and doctor, i'd like to present this to you, and the other gentleman can respond if we have time. what do you expect from us? from congress? what should we be doing to promote the fact that this is not about a religion because i have many friends that are muslims and love this country as much as any one of us do.

what do you expect from us? >> thank you, congressman. i hope and pray as i do this work that you develop the political will to deal with this problem, that we separate all the thee at tricks -- theatrics and concerns and get to how to solve the problem and our enemy is using a language some people articulate as offensive. as a muslim i'm telling you it's not offensive. i want to deal with that. we use the language, use words like "jihad" and things like that at home, but i don't want my children to take the predominant thoughts of those that are right now predominating the web. cyberjihad, the reformist mind set is hard to find on the web because we don't have the resources. we need the political will, the maturity of the nation to discuss religion, say things that are not right, but not get offended and respect religious

practice and the first amendment is freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion, but yet somehow we've gotten so polarized we can't do that, and i hope because what's going to happen and the charts show it is that we've seen exponential increases in attacks, and the law enforcement will continue chasing their tail thinking community outreach works, and we're not training the pool of ideology because we can't confront it. it's surrender. >> i have less than a minute left. please. >> call a terrorist what it is. you know, say what it is. i mean, many times i've been hearing people saying everything but what it is, and so the gentleman said next to you, when i spoke about the other side, i was talking about the side that didn't understand what this meeting's all about. >> okay.

20 seconds. >> i think that -- [inaudible] about religion. this is about saving families and young people who are supposed to be doctors and the security of this nation. i think we should forget about our conditions and just take an opportunity and take advantage of muslim families, american muslim families coming forward, demonstrating to be heard what's happening in their community. i think it's a great challenge. i thank the committee. i thank congressman king. this is very important, and it should continue to open the doors. nobody hates me. i see my own community hurting me, and i want you to allow me to deal with that. i want to deal with that. i don't want somebody else i don't know -- >> the time expired. >> i yield -- >> let me thank all the

witnesses and the sheriff who left, i want to thank him for his testimony who's been before the committee a number of times. we thank you for your testimony, and also on a personal note, thank the ranking member. this may spite, this meeting went easier than it could have, and i thank the ranking member for making a number of procedural agreements prior to to the committee to avoid unnecessary problems we could have had. thank you for that. members of the committee may have questions that we'll ask you, and the witnesses can respond to them in writing. the record will be held open for ten days, and without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a look at the rayburn house office building on exom hill this morning, one the buildings

still inspected after yesterday's earthquake. most of the other congressional office buildings reopened, and it's business as usual during this august recess. the house and senate meet friday for pro forma sessions foravoiding recess sessions. we'll have live coverage of that short senate session here on c-span2.

>> the martin luther memorial is rehoped today, and now watching hurricane irene. so far, events are going on as planned. this evening, there's an international gala honoring global leaders for peace. this includes andrea mitchell and others. you can see live coverage at 7 p.m. on c-span. the dedication ceremony is on sunday weather pending with president obama and others attending. you can see that live on c-span.

>> notice the color of the bourbon, that color you see is coming from the char of the inside of the barrel. this char is where bourbon gets all of its color and a lot of its flavor. currently, they've discovered over 200 chemical flavors just in the oak and the char from the barrel. >> this weekend we highlight frappingfort, ken. look for the history and literary life of kentucky state capitol on booktv on c-span 2.

vice, violence, and corruption and urban renewal the the life of soldier, john porter. a visit to buffalo trace distill ery, one of the on only open during prohibition for medicinal uses of course. booktv and american history tv in frankfort, kentucky this weekend on c-span2 and 3. >> up next to denver for the annual western conservative summit sponsored by california university centennial institute giving a speech about free enterprise versus big government from author brooks, president of the american enterprise institute. we begin with heather wilson who is currently running for a u.s. senate seat. this event is about 45 minutes.

[applause] >> well, thank you. it's a real pleasure to be with you this afternoon. i appreciate having been invited here to your western summit, although there should be more new mexico. next year, let's make this a two-state effort. [applause] it's also a great pleasure here to reintroduce author brooks because he's one the nation's thought leaders on one of the nation's most important lessons we should take with us from this experience this weekend, this opportunity to refresh ourselves, to reenergize ourselves from the luxury of our time here to the. now, too often when we talk about economic policy, our words are not words at all. they are numbers, unemployment rates and interest rates and margins and return on investment

and bottom lines. i graduated from the yale force academy, started and ran a successful smart business and reformed a state child welfare agency and served in the united states congress. i'm comfortable with numbers. free enterprise is not about the numbers. it's about the dream. [applause] it's about the dream. my grandfather was a pilot in the first world war, in the iaf shortly after it was formed. he helped with a small group of other engineers who not even high school graduates to concert machine guns because it made off for a better day if you didn't shoot off your own propeller.

[laughter] that was innovation. after the war there was not much work in scottland, so he came to the place where dreams are made. he came to america, the land of opportunity, where he could build a small business, he opened airports and started a welding business and started being a barnstormer in the 1920s and 1930s, and for $5 he gave people the chance to fly like a bird over air own farms and towns and see things they never expected to be able to see in their lifetimes. my grandfather started flying shortly after the wright brothers, and he lived to see a man walk on the moon. that lunar landing that a short 40 years ago landed on the moon and landed the american flag had

less computing power than the cell phone in your pocket. we believe as americans in free enterprise. we believe in free enterprise because innovation uplifts the american spirit and is essentially american. there are few people who understand that better than author brooks. his path to the presidency of the american enterprise institute has been shall we say unconventional. i can only imagine what his parents thought when he decided at the age of 19 to drop out of college and travel and record albums with charlie burg. god help my kids if they go that route. [laughter] he returned to college, earning degrees in math, economics,

languages, and public policy. he's a classical french horn player who worked on a theater model combat for the united states air force. now, there's a combination. before joining aei, he was a professor at syracuse university. his latest book is "the battle, how the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape america's future". please welcome author brooks. [applause] >> thank you, heather, for that really gracious introductionings and thank you to all of you. it's such an honor to be back this year,. this event has been one of the premier conservative events in the united states and this is a testament to the organization and vision, a great constitution that many of you support. isee the people who support my

own constitution, aei here. i see the fodys and others involved with the organization for years and foster freeze, there's so many of you who have been involved in the free enterprise movements with so many organizations that matterment thank you. i'm just honored to have an opportunity to have a few minutes with you here today. i'm going to report to you from washington, don't leave just because i'm about to do that. [laughter] first of all, i'd like to say it's a tough assignment to follow dennis. he stole all my jokes. [laughter] he started off by giving his liberal credentials, and so in the spirit of competition, i'd like to mention that, i mean, he says he's from brooklyn, new york. i'm from seattle shesz washington. [laughter] some of you know who are friends of mine know i'm from a family of artists and professors from seattle, washington, liberal

artists and professors from seattle, washington. i'm effectively from the soviet union. [laughter] what heather didn't mention is, you know, my parents were indeed disappointed when i dropped out of college at 19, relieved when i went back to college at 28, but by the time i was 28, there was another disappointment in their lives when they heard a rumor that something might be amiss with my political views. [laughter] my mother decided she was going to get to the bottom of it and got up the courage one night and said, author, i have to ask you an uncomfortable personal question, and i said, what is it? this can't be good when your mother asks you if she can ask you a personal question. she said, have you been voting for republicans? [laughter] so there you are, dennis. ..

>> and then another conversation over the battle and over and over again from 2010 to 2012, you know, that sounds kind of untenable to a lot of americans but i say bring it on because that is what we elected in 2010 is to have this battle. [applause] >> for a lot of americans these

are complicated budgetary issues, very esoteric and confusing arguments but really there are only four facts that americans need to remember about this debate today. number 1, this is not a fight between republicans and democrats. this is a fight between stateism and the american dream. we have been sliding for 75 years toward a european style social democracy. in 1940, the federal government, federal state and local government together occupied 15% of the gdp. by 1980, it was 30%. by 1988, it was 32%. today it's 37%. by 2038, it will be 50%. that is not the america of our founders. the 50% of the gdp goes to the government. it's not right. it's a little too sad to be an applause line.

fact number 2, government spending lowers the quality of our future. this is an economic fact. in rich countries we know for a fact that a 10% increase in government spending is associated with a negative 1% gdp change. if you want to lower gdp growth, increase the size of government. that is a hard fact. we are sacrificing our future, we're pulling the ladder up behind us. our kids going to have a poorer country because what this government is doing today. fact number 3, people hate it and are screaming for people in washington to stop. and they think that people in washington are not listening. that reminds me when i was a kid, my dad, who is politically confused but very funny used to say, son, when i die, i want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. not screaming in terror like his passengers. [laughter]

>> that's how americans feel right now. fact number 4, there's not very many ways to get out of this problem. we can borrow, we can cut spending, we can raise taxes or we can do some combination of those things. borrowing is pretty much out of steam. we pretty much cut that one off and we're going to have to stop so we're talking about cutting in taxes. now, if you listen to the president of the united states, which i know you do -- when you listen to the president of the united states you hear we need a balanced approach, we need a balanced approach to solve a by which he means yeah, we'll cut the government a little bit but we also feed to raise taxes. he will claim that polls support balance and this has started to put conservatives in a real panic in washington. conservative consultants are

starting to tell politicians to do some ground on this. the president is making inroads of the population by talking about balance. we got to have an argument as to why that's wrong and we do. the argument against balance is this, it doesn't work. the economic argument basically comes from facts around the world. the economists at my institute have looked at 21 countries over the past 37 years. oecd countries, the rich countries, the developed countries that have had financial crises and debt crises over the past 37 years. sometimes they try to solve their debt crises with borrowing and sometimes they try to solve their debt crises by cutting. what works? it turns out the answer is really clear. the average failed fiscal consolidation, which is to say the average debt crisis where the solutions failed and the country either defaulted or went into depression triad to do

50/they tried to do it half with cuts and the over half for increases. the other successful country was 85 cuts and 50% tax increases and the best countries of all, the most spectacular recoveries of all in their economies for ones that went completely over the top of spending cuts and gave tax decreases like in the 1990s. [applause] >> so those are the facts. those are the facts from economists who have got the data. politicians can talk till they're blue in the face about needing balance and i can tell you right now it's not going to work. here's the problem. that's a pretty compelling argument to me and that's probably a pretty compelling argument to you, but not everybody is at this summit. and not everybody works at the american enterprise institute. a lot of people are just living their lives and getting kind of a lightweight understanding of what's good on with the issues and they say, let's just be reasonable.

they need a better case for why we need to cut government. you can give them a commonsense case like, look, we got a spending disorder in this country. you have to fix it by spending less and that kind of works, too. but let me tell you the real problem. it is true that about 70% of americans who agree with you and me that free enterprise is the best system for america's economy despite ups and down. the question comes from the pew research organization in washington, d.c., that ask that question, is free enterprise best. 70% of americans say yes. 70% of americans say we need less government. but at the same time, if you ask americans shoobz we make any changes to the social security system, 77% say no. that is the paradox of american politics and it shows you that the commonsense and economic arguments that you and i know and love are not going to cut it anymore. we need a better way to sell our case. and that's what i want talk to you about right now.

how do we sell the case for free enterprise? how do we say that the president's balance is no balance at all. it's going to take our economy off the rails and it's going to wreck the dream that our ancestors fought for. the real question is, why do we care? why do we love this country? what is it that makes us exceptional and unique? and the answer is this, free enterprise is not important to us 'cause it makes us rich, although it does, free enterprise is important to us because it brings us liberty and it makes us happy and it's the fairest system. in other words, what's written on my heart and yours about the liberties that makes us exceptional is that that is the most moral system and it's time for us to start making moral argument. that a problem is that people on

the political right always tend to make materialistic arguments because we have materialistic arguments. we have the data. we know how the economy works. they don't. and they talk about -- they act as if, you know, if you make prices up, people will buy more of things. if you wreck the incentives to do something, people will do them anyway. they actually will defy the laws of economic routinely and we don't do that, consequently, we rely on arguments about economic efficiency. but they don't resonate and here's the irony. we believe in the morality of free enterprise. we want economic opportunity for anybody including the poor but we make our case of materialistic terms. they're the true materialists. they believe that you can solve the cultural problems of poverty with a welfare check as long as you call it social justice. that is the most materialistic philosophy possible. they are materialists who speak like moralists. we are moralists but we speak like materialists.

and that's why our case loses because that fundamental irony. so we need to start to get comfortable with the moral terms for why we care. our founders knew this but we've forgotten. remember the second paragraph of the declaration of independence, which assures us that we have unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you've heard this a thousand times but what you may not know is that that document was essentially derivative of a document called the virginia declaration of rights that came 30 days earlier from george mason. in that document the unalienable rights were life, liberty, and the possession of property. now, the discussion of a document between thomas jefferson and benjamin franklin was over that last part of the phrase. possession of property didn't seem quite moral enough for the most radical experiment in human freedom in the history of the

world. they changed it to the pursuit of happiness because they wanted to move from materialism -- from materialism to morality. from property to pursuit. and it's time for us to make that change once again today, to remember a very founding concept of this country. modern social science research shows that our founders were right. if you want to convince people to stand up for freedom, if you want free enterprise to be paramount in our understanding of the economy, you better talk about morals, fundamental new economic and social science research shows that people are more rash -- are less rational and more moral. that the parts of the brain that actually process morality will crowd out rational thinking and make moral pronouncements first. sometimes hours earlier. this is how we have to talk to people. and our experience shows this is how big changes in policy happen. for many years, in the 1960s and

1970s, this country was destroying the lives of the poor with welfare. we remember this. generations didn't work and were in poverty. they were degraded in public housing. they were stuck in systems in which they would get checks from the government and had no skills to create value for themselves or value for other people. it was a scandal and it was immoral. in 1984, a scholar by the name of charles murray at my own institution wrote a book called "losing ground" he said you know the problem with the welfare system, it's not because it was expense, although it was, it's because it's hurting the people it's supposed to help, and that's a basic violation of stewardship and he made the case and that's what won the days. for days people have been arguing our traditional welfare system making economic arguments but it was the moral arguments that had traction. it took 12 years and it's going to take us 12 years, too.

we have to come back here year after year for 12 years and fight the good fight for a decade, i'm up for it. i bet you are, too. and let's remember -- [applause] >> let's remember that it took from 1984 when welfare reform was proposed as a moral issue until it was signed into law in 1996, and it was the best single thing that america did for its poor in our history. it was a great moment, and that's the kind of moment we need to have. so what is the moral case for free enterprise? in a nutshell it gives us the best life and the fairest system. i want to talk about those two points and how we should be talking about them. what is the pursuit of happiness? you know, we hear -- we've heard this 1,000 times and we thought about it a little. but does that mean the ability to make a lot of money? clearly not. that's not what our founders meant. and there's a lot of research

that shows that money, in fact, as your mother taught you does not buy happiness. sometimes we seek money but that's not what we really crave. the research shows that what we truly want as individuals, what brings us happiness, what is the pursuit of the most satisfying life is what we call earned success. earned success is a belief that you are creating value with your life. and we have studies that show that people who are earning their success are the happiness people. we have one study at aei that compares two people that are precisely equal across a vast population. this is data collected by the university of chicago. if you take two people who are just the same in age and race and religion and education and they both feel that they have earned their success but one earns eight times as much money as the second, they will be equally happen. sometimes richer people are happier than poorer people but it's not the happy, it's the

earned success. the government can't spread around earned success. they can spread tons of money around but they won't make anybody happier with redistribution. only opportunity will do that. earned success is the moral promise to us from our founders and from us to future generations. are we upholding that moral promise? i ask myself a lot in an environment we can't seem to get below 9% unemployment. 20 years ago, 19 years ago, my wife and i moved to this country from spain. my wife is a spaniard. she's never lived in the united states before and as an immigrant she was worried she was worried there would be immigration. she was worried that there would be limited job opportunities because her english was not very proficient at the time. and in the first months she had four job offers. she said to me, and this is really paradigm-shifting stuff,

it really rocked my world. i was a musician in those days and i was still a little mixed politically. and she said this is the greatest country in the world if you want to work. is it still true? it's got to be true. we got to work for that. it still has to be the greatest country in the world for people who want to work. if that's not true, that's not an economic problem. that's not true, that's a moral problem. for us and for our kids and for our kids' kids. now, when you ask a liberal about the most moral systems, they will talk to you about fairness. listen to every ninth word in what barack obama says in his speeches. he says we need a tax system that's fair and balanced. they'll say we need more fairness by increasing taxes on families making over $250,000 a year. he'll say the rich need to pay their fair share and he wants to

live and raise daughters in a fair country. now, that sounds great if you don't think very much about what fair means. because what he means by fair is equal. he means redistribution. when he says we need a fairer system, he means we need to spread the wealth around. that's something that we call redistributive system. if you don't think that's powerful, consider that 18 to 29 years old voted for obama by 68%. and how did it get done looking at the exit polling? he didn't get it done because he said he was going to give an interesting and innovative treatment to worried -- to treatment or any of the policy ideas he was talking about, not even obamacare. he got those votes from 18 to 29 years old because he kept saying fairness over and over and over again and the republicans had nothing.

they had nothing to say about fairness. that my friends has got to stop and it's going to start with you and me. [applause] >> what is fairness? the answer is rewarding merit. that's what true fairness is. if you ask americans what do you believe is the fairest system, they will tell you, it's one in which rewards go to hard work and ingenuity. and it's one where penalties go to corruption, laziness, free riding and incompetence. that's what most americans believe is free. if you work harder than other people, you deserve to have more than other people. and if it's equal, that's not fair. that's unfair. and it's time for us to argue for fairness. now, that's why your ancestors came here. you know, they weren't sitting over there in europe saying i want to get to america so i can get a fairer system of forced income redistribution.

you know, i can imagine, you know, some potential immigrant in india today going i want to go america because i want cash for clunkerclunkers. they want the fair break for their hard work. now, fairness is based on merit only exists, of course, if there's a real opportunity. you don't have real opportunity that, in fact, merit isn't real and that isn't fairness so here's another question we have to be able to answer because you're going to hear this all time. sure that sounds great but people are born different and some people have advantages and some people have disadvantages. and that's absolutely true. in point of fact, i had really, really good luck. i was born into a family where my parents had christian faith and they loved each other. and they had high value on education even though i apparently didn't. and it was something that is

responsible for virtually every bit of success i've had today, and i realize that that i was the highly advantaged person. and so we can actually try to base our society on the idea that some people are lucky and some people aren't but that, of course, is a ridiculous way to base your society because there's a lot of opportunity that everybody has and our moral obligation is to create more opportunity. now, what are the facts on opportunity today? basically there's a lot of mobility in this country. if you look from the federal reserve bank of minneapolis' data on income mobility, you'll find that the bottom quintile, the bottom 20% of earners between 2001 and 2007 -- 44% moved up during that 6-year period. the bottom fifth didn't say stuck. 1 in 2 practically moved out of the bottom category. that's fantastic. 1 in 3 in the top category moved

down. fair's fair. you're rich you're not necessarily going to stay rich. you got to be good, too. and if you're good, and you're poor there's still plenty of opportunities to succeed. many believe we're a land of opportunity. the source of data goes back to 1972 and ask, do you believe that success is based on hard work or lucky breaks? 70% year after year have said hard work. it is simply a pathological point of view that we are not an opportunity society. now, that said, the moral imperative for you and me is to make sure that we're an opportunity society. so i ask myself today, what am i doing to make sure that more people who are economically and socially vulnerable are getting more opportunity? because if i'm doing my part and it's reasonable for me to suggest that success and fairness are a question of merit, and i'm comfortable going

out and saying, redistribution is not merit. it's unfair. income equality is not merit. it's unfair and to say we have a concept of what true merit is, what true fairness is, we want a fairer incomed economy. entitlement reform is critical because it's not fair to steal from our children. it's not fair to hand money to -- tax money to unions because they have political power. it's not fair to make poor people wards state. it's not fair to treat america like an atm machine. it's not fair enough and it's up to you and me to start going fairness to fairness with the liberals. and if we do, we'll start to win. [applause] >> here are my closing ideas and

i'll get to questions and answers if you have any. some say there's really only two possible futures for us in this country. future number 1 is social democracy. i mean, we've been careening toward it for 75 years. we like to pretend that we're not. we like to pretend, you know, sometimes that stops and we remember our values and government stops growing but i have the data. and you've seen the data. the government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. and some people believe that it's inevitable. we're going to become a european-style social democracy and people are going to accustomed themselves to it. right now 70% of americans take more out of the tax system than they put in. 51% of americans have no federal income tax liability. when ronald reagan took office the top 5% of earners paid 35% of the taxes. today they pay 59% of the taxes. at what point will we hit the tipping point and people actually says this is pretty

good those guys pay for everything and we'll become just like sweden. the other possible future is to not be like sweden. it's to be like greece because the welfare state is unsupportable. it becomes too expensive. and the state collapses on itself and we get permanent austerity. that's a scarier future. that's what a lot of economists think we're facing. here's another path but it's going to take a lot of hard work and a lot of courage and i'm going to say it again. it's not a 15-month political struggle between democrats and republicans. it's at least a 10-year struggle against stateism from both parties. if we are honest with ourselves, we will remember that republicans are almost as culpable as democrats for the size of the government today. unless we can accommodate ourselves to that, we will not succeed. [applause] >> to get americans' hearts to

understand that we need tectonic changes and not just minor fiddling with our economic system we're going to have to start making the honest moral case for earned success in true fairness. that is our moral obligation to our fellow citizens and future generations to stand up for the country that we love. if we don't, we'll have violated the promises of our founders and we will have reputiated the dreams of our ancestors. i know that you will stand with us at aei and fight for this. that's why you're here. and so my last word to you, thank you. [applause] [applause] >> dr. brooks, thank you so much.

and friends, as before, please stand and wait until a microphone is brought to you so that our worldwide online viewing audience can see and hear you as you answer your questions. be sure to put a question mark in it. i see carl hoops front and center. can someone get a mic in front of carl hoops. there you go, carl. >> thank you. my question to you is, we have this great struggle going on right now in congress, whether to do the best we can with only controlling one-third of the government, we'll fight for everything, which i think mr. carlson advocates. what would you advocate congress do until we elect a republican president? >> thank you. that's a tough question. are there any other questions?

[laughter] >> thank you for that. i have the opportunity to answer this question for republican members of congress two days ago. i was confronted with that from the congressional opportunity caucus, which is a subset of the republican study committee which as some of you know are some of the most conservative members on the house side and i basically said, look, if there were a military campaign and we had two years given what republicans have in the congress with the -- the clear clear mandate they got in november of 2010, you'd say, what are the battles? it's not this is the only battle. what are the battles? the continuing resolution, the budget fights, the debt ceiling, the next continuing resolution, the omnibus spending plan. the debt ceiling fight again and plan it out and say, what are we going to do to make sure that this -- that the moral case against government spending is coming up again and again and

again and again. and when you have a to do under those moral circumstances is to make sure your energy and your troops are martialed in the right way. and my question to the republicans and i ask this with sincere humility to them was, are you marshalling your energies in the right way given the fact that the next big fight is at the end of september? are you ready for the next big fight at the end of september? are you going to be exhausted and are your constituents going to be exhausted from it? this is a long fight, my friends. until 2012 and 10 years beyond. the biggest fight will be if the republicans win because you're going to have to hold them to account and you'll have to make sure they don't go completely native like they did the last time and start acting like democrats. and let me tell you, that takes a lot more courage. it's pretty easy to stand up to barack obama and say, i disagree with your values. no kidding. it's a lot harder to stand up to republican president and say, you are not representing my morals. that's a much harder thing to do. [applause]

>> so my short answer to that is, remember the long fight. take your wins and go on to the next one. if it's a sustained effort with courage and understanding the timeline, there's a much, much higher likelihood of success and i think they took -- some of them disagreed with me but they took it quite well. thanks. >> thank you. >> i'm glad to know that someone like you is speaking to the republican congress 'cause god knows they need it. my concern is one of language. every time there's an hour news break or something, i hear the nation is two days away from default. so for months now, the population has been imbued with this fear of default. when there's never been a risk of the united states developing over $29 billion per month in bond debt. how do we get our leaders to --

when they get language like that, to stop and say, first of all, we're not talking about default and change the argument to our argument. it seems like they can't speak. >> well, it's true that they can't speak. in general this is the biggest problem we have in the conservative movement is a lack of ability to connect with people emotionally. once again part of it is 'cause we actually understand the economics and so we rely on the economics. and the second it's an embarrassment to talk about what's written on our hearts because of relatively delicate experiences we've had in culture war fights over the past 20 years, which has had -- made for some tough times in conservative coalitions. so that said, what do we talk -- how should we be talking about the debt ceiling and the likelihood of default? one way to take care through this is roll through august 2nd and find out that the world won't melt down.