but we also need to add to cdbg funding so that people are not left devastated with no chance to rebuild their lives. i end with this headline, "swamped." because that's what happened in minot, north dakota. that's what happened in other cities in my state as well, bismarck, mandan, my hometown area, many other communities and of course we've got the ongoing situation in devil's lake, north dakota where the lake has gone up 30 feet in the last 17 years, it's now three times the size of the district of columbia, and is within three feet of going over and what will be a major calamity for all of eastern north dakota if it is not prevented. madam president, i implore my colleagues, yes, let us replenish on an emergency basis the fema funds.

that is essential. but let's not stop there. let's also provide meaningful funding for cdbg, because without it, families will have a very difficult time ever recovering from these devastating blows. i thank the chair and yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the snrr way i would. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call being vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. barrasso: i ask to speak for ten minute as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: last week the

president adressed a joint session of congress. he said that regulations put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it. and that's the end of the president's quote. you know, we've heard this same message from the white house time and time again. the rhetoric coming out of this white house simply hasn't matched the reality. in fact, washington continues to roll out red tape each day, and the red tape makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs in this country. the president also said that his administration has identified, he said, over 500 reforms to our regulatory system. he said that would save billions of dollars over the next few years. i appreciate that the white house has identified wasteful regulations. it won't really help our economy unless the white house repeals

them. in january this white house has only repealed -- has only repealed since january, has only repealed one single regulation and it has to do actually with spilt milk. the president's new plan does nothing to fix the regulatory burdens faced by our job creators. it actually adds to the burdens of the job creator of this country. the president has tried to justify this increasing avalanche of red tape and he said he doesn't want to -- quote -- "choose between jobs and safety." well, in today's regimenttory climate, that choice -- regulatory climate, that choice is a false choice. washington's wasteful regulations aren't keeping americans safe from dangerous jobs. the american people can't find jobs because no one is safe from the regulations coming out of washington.

for every step that our economy tries to take forward, washington's regulations continue to stand in the way. federal agencies' funding has increasing 16% over the past three years. our economy has only grown 5% over these same three years. washington's regulatory burden is literally growing three times faster than our own economy. this massive increase in washington's power has only made the economy worse. americans know that regulating our economy makes it harder and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs. the combined cost of the new regulations being imposed by this administration just last month was over $9 billion. much of this cost has been borne by america's energy producers and has cost american workers thousands of red, white, and

blue jobs. now, those who try to justify these policies claim that they will help us to create green jobs at some unknown time in the future. our economy, our job market is not a seesaw, pushing one part down doesn't make the other side pop up. this administration's out-of-control regulation is persistently dragging down large portions of our economy. the president has promised to stop this kind of overreach. you remember that he issued and executive order at the start of this year that was supposed to slow down washington's regulation. so what has this administration done about it? well, in the self months sings the president issued his executive order, hundreds and hundreds of new rules have been either enacted or proposed. for every day that goes by, our job creators face at least one new washington rule to follow.

when the president aannouncinged his nick order, he said that he wanted to -- quote -- "promote predictability and reduce uncertainty." laudable goals. well, a new rule every day does nothing to promote predictability and is the very definition of "uncertainty." the president talked about uncertainty just recently. the main source of uncertainty in the economy right now is washington's regulations. yet there is not a single sentence about regulations in the president's address just this week. and to make things worse, the people most victim used by this uncertainty are the very people the president claims he wants to help. the president said last year that tbh it comes to job creation, he wants to, as he said -- quote -- "start where most new jobs do." he said, "with small businesses." well, the sentiment is right,

but, again, what has he done about if? according to the u.s. chamber of commerce, businesses with fewer understand that 20 employees -- well, they incur regulatory costs that are 42% higher than larger businesses with up to 500 employees. that's not even count the avalanche of new regulations that will come up down the road. this year over 50,000 pages of regulations have been add to the "federal register" already. and the chamber of commerce has said that the president's new health care law alone will produce 30,000 pages of new health care regulations, many aimed at small employers. the president has said that he will keep trying every new idea that works, he said. and he said, and listened to every good proposal no matter which party k078s u comes up wii have a simple idea. if the president wants to know which proposals will work to create jobs, maybe he should require his regulatory agencies to tell him how their own

actions will affect the job market. congressman terry lee of nebraska and i have a bill that will do just that. it is called the employment impact act, senate bill 1219. this bill will force washington to look -- to look before it leaps, when it comes to regulation that could hurt americans' jobs. under our bill, every regulatory agency would be required to prepare what is called a jobs impact statement, and this jobs impact statement would need to be prepared with every new rule that is proposed. the statement would include a detailed assessment of the jobs that would be lost or gained or sent overseas by any given rule coming out of washington. it would consider whether new rules would have a bad impact on our job market, in general. this jobs impact statement would also includes an analysis of any

alternative plans that might be better for the economy. and, most importantly, it would require regulatory agencies to look at how new rules might interact with other proposals coming down the road. the problem with our regulations is not only that they're too sweeping; it is there is a there are too many of them. so it makes no sense to look at an individual rule in a vacuum. and enacting hundreds of them without knowing the cumulative effect of all of them together could spell death by 1,000 cuts to americans who are trying to work and support their fem fami. also in keeping with the principles of transparency, this bill would require every jobs impact statement prepared by a federal agency to be made available to the public. the american people deserve to know what their government is actually doing. and federal agencies in

washington need to learn to think before they act. requiring statements from these agencies on what their regulations will do is nothing new. for 40 years the federal government has always required its bureaucrats to ask the question of whether thei it will impact america's environment. have to file environmental impact statements. what i'm asking for here is a jobs impact statement. past generations of legislators rightly recognized the importance of america's land and air and water, but it's important that we recognize the importance of america's working families as well. america's greatest resource, our nart resource, is the american people. and we're talking about people who want to work, are willing to work, are looking for work, and yet cannot find a job.

the employment impact act will force washington bureaucrats to realize americans are much more interested in growing our nation's economy than they are in growing our government. so i'm going 0 continue to fight, madam president to see that the employment impact act is passed and signed into law to help get americans working again. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: nt,

are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i want to echo the comments made by my colleague from wyoming regarding regulations. that is something that i hear from small businesses all across

south dakota traveling my state during the month of august, i toured businesses. i visited with farmers, ranchers and small business people. that was a recurring theme. one thing that people continued to bring up unsolicited. and when you asked them questions about what can be done to help create jobs, to get them investing and putting their capital to work, that was the overwhelming response. it came back literally every single time. businesses are concerned about the overreaching regulations coming out of washington, d.c.? and the economic uncertainty that it creates. part of it has to do with the predictability that businesses need to make long-term investment decisions. if they don't know what's going to happen next in washington, d.c., it makes it awfully hard for them to plan. as a consequence of that, we see billions of dollars, trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines right now that could be invested and could be put to

work, could be getting people back to work in this country. and so last week we all listened with great interest as the president came out to a joint session of congress and made a speech about a jobs plan. he talked about pass this jobs plan. he's been traveling around the country making that same argument. and what was interesting to me about that proposal, and of course the speech itself was sufficiently vague. it was very difficult to know exactly what was in that proposal, where more of those details now are coming to light. but it sounded eerily similar to the very same proposal that we voted on a couple of years ago here in the united states senate. it ultimately became law. it was called the stimulus bill. it had a price tag of nearly $1 trillion. and the assertions that were made at the time were along the lines that if you pass this, it will keep unemployment below 8%. we all know now that employment is over 9%.

and since that stimulus bill was passed, we have lost 1.7 million jobs in our economy. there are 1.7 million fewer americans employed today than there were when the stimulus bill passed a couple of years ago. and so the question then is: why would we want to go down that same path? in many respects, this proposal is like that one because it consists of more spending and more taxing and more borrowing, all the things that we believe are detrimental to the economy in the long run, and they do nothing to address the concern that was raised to me by the small businesses across south dakota and the issue to which the senator from wyoming was speaking. that is the issue of overregulation that we keep hearing from our businesses across the country, job creators in our economy. it strikes me that if the president is serious about actually doing something that will create jobs in this country, it ought to involve

putting policies in place that will be conducive toward long-term economic growth to provide the economic certainty that these small businesses across this country are asking for. right now there's uncertainty wr-rd to tax -- with regard to taxes. tax rates are at least locked in now until the end of 2012. beyond that's it's anybody's -- beyond that it's anybody's guess. there is a concern that any proposal coming out of washington that deals with deficit reduction might include higher taxes. that's certainly something the president put on the table yet again yesterday as a proposed way to pay for his new stimulus bill. and there is this repeated and just consistent assault upon small businesses in the form of more regulations. the president backed off of the ozone regulations, which is something that everybody reacted very favorably toward in the business community and the people that i talked to, but

there are so many other regulations out there. the co2 emissions regulations, appropriated dust regulations, regulator, change in the classification for coal ash. there are all kinds of regulations coming particularly out of the e.p.a. but not exclusively the e.p.a., coming out of agencies of this government that are creating greater uncertainty and making it more difficult and more costly for small businesses in this country to create jobs. so why not focus on that issue? why not focus on getting the free trade agreements, three of which are -- three free trade agreements that were essentially negotiated during the previous administration have been languishing now because they haven't been submited to congress for ratification. the president talks about promoting free trade and creating jobs through exports but you've got three free trade agreements that were negotiated back in 2006 and trefpb. khropl -- and 2007. colombia was 2006. panama and south korea were june of 2007. the president gets up and talks

about i want congress to approve these free trade agreements. we can't do that until he submits them to the congress. we would love to approve those free trade agreements. it would mean thousands of jobs in this economy. we know that. it is low-hanging fruit. it is something he could do today that would do something positive to create jobs in this country. as an example, in my state of south dakota, in 2008 the top-three crops in my state, corn, wheat and soybeans, in those three commodities we had 81% of the market in the country of colombia. 81% of corn, wheat, soybean's market. in 2010 that had dropped off to 19%. it is a major collapse in our market share in that country simply because we have not ratified this free trade agreement, and in the interim we have had other countries that have moved in and filled the vacuum. most recently here, the canadians in august, i think,

15th, they had their own blat tral trade agreement colombia. we may go down to zero market share if we don't act quickly to get these agreements approved. it is not a function of us wanting to do it. it is a function of the president smith those agreements to -- submitting those agreements to congress for ratification. we cannot get them implemented absent the president of the united states sending them up here to capitol hill. so that's something that republicans would love to work with the president on. we would also love to work with the president on a moratorium on regulations. i think it would make perfect sense given what we know about what small businesses are telling us in terms of creating jobs and hiring people and investing capital, that regulation is a huge impediment to that. why not, at least for the forseeable future, until such time as we start getting the unemployment rate down and get people back to work, put a moratorium on all these crazy

regulations coming out of washington, d.c.?. there are literally millions of jobs that are impacted by these various regulations, according to estimates that have been put forward by organizations like the chamber of commerce and others. there are millions of jobs, madam president, in this country impacted by the issue of regulation. i would think it would make perfect sense for this president to say to us as part of his jobs package, his jobs plan, we want to work with you to put a moratorium on regulations for a two-year period, until the end of his term in office, whatever that period is, but at least some amount of time so that businesses in this country know with some certainty that if they invest their dollars, they're not going to be slapped with some new regulation coming out of washington, d.c.?. there was a story this morning about 500 jobs lost in the state of texas over a new e.p.a. regulation. we've seen examples of that in my state of south dakota. we've had coal-fired power plants that have been nixed because of this uncertainty that has been created by regulations

coming from washington, d.c.?. so that's something that republicans here on capitol hill, if the president wants to be proactive in terms of job creation and actually having a forward-looking proposal and plan for job creation in this country, he would certainly get cooperation from lots of folks up here on our side of the aisle when it comes to the issue of regulations. another thing that we would be happy, more than happy to work with the president on is broad-based and comprehensive tax reform. we all talk about it and nobody seems to be willing, at least from the president's perspective to, put forward a proposal that would actually broaden the tax base in this country, lower the rates on businesses and individuals, and i think lead to an enormous amount of economic growth. most people that you talk to, again, most businesses suggest that right now in america the complexity in the tax code, the rates in our tax code make us

anticompetitive. we lose jobs every single day to other countries around the world who have lower tax rates. and so businesses are taking their capital and investing it overseas, creating jobs overseas as opposed to putting it to work here in our country simply because our rates are not competitive. and a good example of that of course is our corporate tax rate which at 35% is the second highest in the world, second tonal japan, and they were going to lower theirs prior to the tsunami. but the fact of the matter, madam president, is we have tax rates in america today that are making it very difficult for our businesses to compete and to keep those jobs and keep that investment here in this country. so what do you do about that? well, if you lowered taxes broad-based across-the-board tax reductions on businesses, lowered taxes on investment, i think you would see an explosion of economic growth and get these businesses, provided that there

is enough certainty associated with that -- in other words, we don't do it for a short period of time; we do it for a long period of time -- you'll see businesses pick up on that signal from washington, d.c. and begin to invest again and get a rate structure that is competitive with other countries around the world. so tax reform, regulations, regulatory reform, moratorium on regulations, trade; those are all issues that we are more than willing to work with this president on if he is willing to work with us because those are policies proven over time that actually will create jobs for this country. again, the things that we consistently hear, i dare to say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hearing the same thing i'm hearing. i certainly hear it from colleagues on my side who in their travels in their individual states are repeatedly visited by small businesses. and when they go to make contact with their small businesses, hear this over and over again.

these are the issues that the american business community is saying that we need to address if we want to get people back to work in this country. and so, i'm certainly hopeful that the president will change directions away from what he is proposing to do now, which is a very similar path to what was done two years ago, which we all know has been unsuccessful. if you look at it based upon the metrics -- and again, i'm talking about job creation, if you look at it based upon the employment rate in this country, the unemployment rate has gone up, the number of jobs lost has gone up. the amount of our debt has gone up by $4 trillion. we have borrowed more. we are spending more. and we are getting nothing in return. in fact, the very oppose of what we hoped to get, and that is job creation. that approach has not worked. let's don't double down on that and go back and try the same failed policies again. let's change he direction. let's go a different direction

for this country. and i would hope the president would do that. the other thing i think is particularly troubling about his proposal, not to mention some of the things that he put out in his speech last week that give me a good amount of heartburn in terms of the direction he's headed, is how he proposes to pay for that. it was indicated yesterday that 90% of the cost of this stimulus bill would be paid for by allowing or preventing people to take deductions, the two-top income tax rates in this country and the people who are in those income tax brackets to be able to claim deductions on their tax returns. well, that impacts millions of americans and millions of job creators, millions of small businesses, not to mention a lot of charities. many of the people who contribute to charities today don't do it simply because of the tax consequence, but i do believe they do, the amount they contribute to a charity is affected by tax, the tax code.

and certainly reducing the amount that they can deduct is going to make it more difficult for many of our charitable organizations around this country who rely upon the generosity of people, in many cases high-income people in this country. that being said, raising taxes, in my view, is not the way to pay for a new stimulus, a stimulus 2.0, an approach that has been tried and failed, and something that we should be not moving toward but moving away from and moving in a different direction. so, madam president, again, i am -- we have no greater priority in america today than getting this economy growing, creating jobs, getting people back to work. that helps bring in more revenue into the federal government. helps deal with our issue of the deficit and the debt. there are really two issues we can deal with that. we can reduce spending and we can grow the economy. we've got to do both. and certainly those are not unrelated. we reduce spending -- i think

that's essential to growing the economy. but we also have to put policies in place that will grow the economy and create jobs, raising taxes is not the way to do that. and so the president's proposal to pay for his new surplus bill which raises taxes -- his new stimulus bill is a wrongheaded approach. it has not worked in the past. we need to try a new direction. republicans are willing, ready and able to work with this president on passing trade agreements that have been languishing around here literally for four to five years, on reducing the overreaching regulations which are creating economic uncertainty for our small businesses across this country, and on tax reform that would lower rates and broaden the tax base in this country. and i think bring in an incredible explosion of economic growth and jobs. those are the types of things that we ought to be looking at, long-term policies that will affect in a positive way the environment, the atmosphere in this country for our job

creators. not doing another washington-directed spending program that has already demonstrate thad it doesn't work. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, the world has witnessed considerable upheaval in the middle east this year as citizens from all walks of life have turned out by the millions to say that they have had enough with repressive regimes, stagnant political systems and economies that have really disadvantaged many young

people and poor people. in fact, we should probably look back to the summer of 2009 when thousands upon thousands of ordinary iranians bravely took to the streets to peacefully protest the country's likely stolen election. these iranian citizens were met with brutal violence, death, detention and unspeakable torture. while iran's ruling dictatorship was able to temporarily repress the public aspirations of its own people, the seeds for wider public discontent were taking root through much of the region. first in tunisia. we saw peaceful protests lead to the ousting of a corrupt long-time strongman, president ben ali. next egypt's president mubarak, forced to resign after sustained peaceful protests in cairo and then in egypt. and then, of course, moammar qadhafi. his reign of despotic rule is

finally coming to an end. other calls for reform for political and economic reform from bahrain to yemen remain in flux. as we saw this weekend with the violent and trouble protest in cairo, ousting a repressive regime is one step in a long road toward building effective and democratic long-term institutions. the united states through president obama, secretary of state hillary clinton, stand ready to support these peaceful transitions, but most of the hard work has to come from within, from the people who made the historic change in the first place. mr. president, amid so much upheaval and change and potential hope, it is critically important that we also keep our attention on what's happening in another very important country in the middle east, syria. since march, millions of protesters have peacefully taken to the streets of towns and villages across syria, demanding an end to the brutal

dictatorship of the assad family. the syrian people have suffered 40 years of economic hardship, political repression and corruption under the assad family. first, under former president afez al-assad and now under his son bashara al-assad. let me give you an example of life under the assad regime. almost 30 years ago, then-president hafez al-assad ruthlessly leaf ild a town to put down a rebellion by his own people. between 10,000 and 20,000 fellow syrians were literally buried to death in the rubble. this is how political dissent was dealt with in syria. and what has been his son's strategy for addressing public demand for change? tragically, following in his father's footsteps, mass murder. since the popular uprising began, anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 people have already been

slaughtered by assad security services. government snipers on rooftops have fired on those who dare to go outside in areas where protesters are active. men have been rounded up and detained in nighttime house-to-house raids. tanks and antiaircraft guns have been used against civilians and civilian buildings. a recent example, sadly, one that isn't unique, obviously shows that the current assad regime has no sense of history. last month, government troops backed by tanks, armored vehicles and snipers, entered the heart of hama, the same town that had been flattened by assad's father three decades before. they went there to quash antigovernment protesters. our dedicated u.s. ambassador robert ford had gone to hamma not long before the siege to serve as a witness to the unfolding events. i'd like to show you this photo, mr. president. this photo shows a giant syrian

flag held by the crowd during a protest against president assad in the city of hamma on july 29. -- hama. the town already under siege for days saw its telephone, water and electricity cut off at 5:00 a.m. as a prelude to the deployment of forces. residents tried to stop the advancing armored columns with barricades, many of them built out of simple things like furniture and rocks and cinder blocks. they didn't stand a chance. dozens were killed and hundreds were wounded. such public resilience and government brutality have continued unabated in syria for months. president assad's tyrannical actions have been condemned around the world. the arab league, not always known for democratic advocacy, has urged syria to -- quote -- "end the spilling of blood and follow the way of reason before it's too late." end of quote. syria's neighbor and a significant trading partner,

turkey, has spoken out. the turkish president said he has lost confidence in the syrian government. the prime minister of turkey has said turkey can no longer defend syria. british prime minister cameron, french president sarkozy, german chancellor america he will jointly issued a statement urging assad to -- quote -- "face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the syrian people and to step aside in the best interests of syria and the unity of its people." end of quote. the united nations human rights office in geneva has issued a sweeping report concluding that the syrian government of assad may have committed crimes against humanitarian through summary execution, torture and harming children. president obama and secretary of state clinton have sharply criticized the syrian government for their crackdown, and most recently the administration announced additional sanctions against the regime, including

squeezing assad's cash lifeline from petroleum exports. the european union has cut its purchase of syrian petroleum. senators gillibrand and lieberman have introduced legislation i am pleased to support. it further tightens sanctions against syria's petroleum exports by penalizing those who buy syrian oil or invest in its energy sector, an approach congress has supported in the past against iran. i urge others to support this legislation and for congress to pass it as quickly as possible. and when the crackdown on syria began, i joined senators lieberman, mccain, cardin and kyl and at least 20 others in a resolution condemning the violence. i understand that senator rand paul has a hold on this resolution and has had for a number of months. i hope that he will consider the bloodshed and carnage in syria as he continues to hold up this official action by the united states senate.

i call on senator rand paul to work with us on his concerns, if he has any, in the wording of this resolution, but to do it in a timely manner so we can move forward and put the senate on record when it comes to these tragic events in syria. there is a lot more the international community can do. russia, china, india, brazil and south africa are still blocking a united nations security council resolution that could impose more sweeping international sanctions on syria. i simply don't understand the fact that they are stopping this effort. that some of these countries have emerged in their own right from decades under repressive regimes only to sit silently as assad slaughters his own people is extremely troubling. russia and china should also pledge not to purchase any syrian oil which is used by assad to pay off his enablers and his security hen muchmen.

-- henchmen. human rights monitors and journalists must be allowed in the country and the international criminal court should start an investigation into the indictment of president assad for war crimes. mr. president, this administration has shown skill in navigating the turbulent calls for change this the middle east. these are demands from everyday people for a better life, for a chance to fully choose one's own government and to see hope and dignity for one's children. the people are syria should know that the rest of the world is watching and supporting their aspirations for freedom. mr. president, saturday night in a suburb of chicago i had a meeting with about 30 syrian americans, and we spoke at great length about the situation in the country of their birth. many of them still have relatives and family, friends in syria, and they are following on youtube and through the international media the

events of the day. they showed me on one of the computers nearby some of the youtube footage which showed the syrian security forces literally shooting a man dead point blank. you could see him lying in the street and could you see the blood flowing from his body. to suggest that these peaceful protesters are anything else is to really misstate the obvious. these people by and large in the streets of syria are asking for the same thing that was asked for across the middle east. they're asking for a chance for reform, for change, for self-rule. i promised my friends and people i represent in illinois who have such strong feelings about syria that i would do my best when it returned to washington this week. this floor statement is just the beginning. just a few moments ago i got off the telephone with phone conversation with ambassador ford in damascus. he's really done an exceptional

job for our country. he's risked his life to let those who are proposing peacefully know that the united states is in their corner. we talked about the situation on the ground and he is a man of great talent and experience in the middle east, and he analyzed all the different forces at work. we know that iran is in fact the major supporter and promoter of assad and his repressive regime. we know as well that these five countries in the united nations, russia, india, china, brazil, and south africa, are stopping united nations action when it comes to syria. i find it hard to imagine how some of these countries in light of their own history could ignore the obvious, the killing of innocent people in the streets of syria cannot be tolerated, shouldn't be condoned, and shouldn't be protected by their veto in the united nations. i'm going to work with president obama and this administration and my friends in congress on

both sides of the aisle to let the people of syria know that what's happening there has not been ignored by the united states congress. i hope that senator rand paul of kentucky will at least lift his hold on bipartisan legislation which we have pending here which will express that sentiment in the strongest of terms. the people of syria deserve that message, to know that the people of the united states through their elected representatives in the senate understand their plight, stand behind them, and will work to bring justice to their country. mr. president, i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: iding officer: the

senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the morning business be, with senators be permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the following nomination, calendar 128, the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any related statements be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume ledge slave session. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of senate resolution 256 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: without objection the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 256 designating the week of october 2 through october 8, 2011, as national nurse managed health care clinic week. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate proceeds to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any related statements printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today, resolutions 262, 263, 264, and 265. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preafterles be agreed to pork-barrel the motion to reconsiders be considered en bloc with no intervening action

and printed in the record as if read. i ask for the first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report bills. the clerk: s. 1549, to provide tax relief for american workers and businesses and for other purposes. h.r. 2832, an act to extend the system of preferences and for other purposes. h.r. 2887 to provide an extension of air surface transportation programs and for other purposes. mr. durbin: i ask for a second reading en bloc and object to my own request en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will have a second reading on the next legislative day. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, september 14 and following the prayer and the pledge the journal of

proceedings be approved, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the leaders reserved for use, following any leader remarks, the senate be in morning business with senate permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled by between the leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half and following morning business, the senate resume consideration on the motion to proceed to h.j. res. 66, a joint resolution regarding burma sanctions and the legislative vehicle for fema funds post-cloture. and all time county postcloture on the motion to proceed on house joint resolution 66. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we expect consideration during wednesday's session and the f.a.a. and highway extensions which were received from the house. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled and if there is no further business i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

senate stands adjourned until

>> and acted into law and widely supported so up service believe the future restraint would truly take effect. >> more from this event tonight at 8 p.m. on c-span. here's a look at our primetime schedule on c-span2.

>> now a discussion on the new report from institutes of medicine that examined the reactions of eight common childhood vaccines. this is 40 minutes. >> we are now with dr. ellen wright clayton of the institute of medicine which falls under the national academy of science and national academy.

she is a chairman in the area of vaccine. doctor clinton has come to talk to us about a new study on aids vaccines, common childhood vaccines. before we get to the details and a list of vaccines, viewers will be interested, let me to embark on this study? >> hrsa, asked us to a study. the national vaccine conversation program was put in place in the 1980s. the congress mandated they do two studies of vaccine safety. then there was a fairly long hiatus of a comprehensive review but then a few years ago they asked us to do a comprehensive review of the adverse effects caused by eight different vaccines. we were asked to assess the scientific evidence to answer the question about what adverse affects these eight vaccines

could cause, and eight vaccines that we looked at where the measles mumps rubella, influenza, all of them but h1n1, all the tetanus containing vaccines except the old ttp which we don't use anymore. hepatitis a, hepatitis b, hpv which i gather was the topic of some discussion last night, so those were the ones we looked at. we did a comprehensive review of the scientific literature is that same whether these vaccines could cause adverse effects. >> host: we will continue to list these vaccines. in a nutshell, if you could do it in that show what did you find about these eight vaccines? >> guest: what we found, we looked at more than 1000

scientific articles, and we looked at a total of 158 different potential adverse effects that could be caused by these vaccines. to a lot of work. what we found were that there were a number of adverse effects that we concluded were likely to because, could because by vaccine. these included a lot of cases of acute allergic reactions, cases of invasive chickenpox disease in children to get the chickenpox vaccine, particularly if they have problems with their immune systems, and very rarely the measles mom's rubella vaccine can cause a case of chronic brain inflammation in addition we found for which there was some evidence but not a lot, hpv and again the acute allergic reaction temporary joint pain and the measles, moms, rubella vaccine.

both in women and in children. and then a particular case of influenza vaccine causing a very rare syndrome which were was seen only in canada which went away when they changed the flu vaccine. i think the thing that people be most interested in, there were five cases where we thought the evidence was really quite strong, that the vaccine does not cause a particular adverse effect. and, of course, number one on that list was that we thought the evidence was quite strong that the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine does not cause autism. we also found it does not cause type one by country and diabetes we found that the flu vaccine does not, the vaccine does not cause wheezing. which i think is pretty important. and does not cause problems. so the others we had, it was not

enough evidence really to sway is one way or the other. but strong evidence of adverse effects that vaccines can cause, some strong evidence in our view of things that vaccines don't cause. and then a lot of uncertainty in the middle. i would say that the take-home message and a really good take-home message from this study is that despite our looking at all this literature really quite intensively, that it is actually remarkable how side effects of these vaccine can cause. the majority that we did find our ones that are relatively easily treatable. so that's the take-home. >> host: let's go right to calls for dr. ellen wright clayton on the vaccines. galveston, texas, our first caller is john. >> caller: hello.

dr. clayton, my question is have you been able to find any evidence in the literature about adverse reactions? i ilitary, and deploying in '03n two weeks i started having neurologic symptoms that ultimately three years later i was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at the age of 50, which is kind of old for a diagnosis. and i looked into the literature. -all these articles about individual vaccines, but i am curious whether the immediate stimulation from multiple vaccinations might have stimulated an autoimmune reaction. >> guest: thank you for that question. and it's an enormous question, and one that we frankly don't currently have the scientific database really to address.

because it's really hard because most people get vaccines in a bunch as opposed to one at a time, although some people are increasingly doing the. and we just don't have the database that is large enough to ask the question, to answer the question that you asked me. i would say also that the particular things that we would actually as to address our ones that vaccinations are given to children, increasingly adults get a lot of vaccinations, particularly the tetanus containing vaccines in the flu vaccine, but i imagine that a number of the vaccines that you got any military our ones that were not on our list of vaccines to study. and so frankly i just don't, i don't know what the date is about the kinds of vaccines that you got. >> host: again, the multiple vaccine question be applied to children? >> guest: absolutely it can be applied to children. and i think the question we have

is that we just don't have the kind of dated that is going to allow us to answer that question. now i do have to make this comment. which is that everybody gets exposed to thousands of antigens or things that can cause a response. every single day. and i would say that particularly young children are particularly prone to be exposed given they do things like the things off the floor and other things a little children do. so i think and, indeed, there's some evidence now that actually being to clean may actually set you up for some kind of adverse reaction. so i think we have to look at the multiple antigen question first in the larger context of the fact that we get exposed to lots and lots and lots of antigens every day. so i just want to frame it that way, but the honest answer to your question is that we simply don't have the ability to answer the question about multiple

vaccines versus one at a time at this moment. >> host: virginia, the republican line here. >> caller: different john. the accumulation of data being captured by the general public is that the public does not trust the federal government. i can tell you that my personal opinion is that i don't believe, and i have two statements of please don't cut me off yet, i believe that if there were side effects in vaccines that i would not be told because i think the federal government looks at the bigger picture, like you just aired a minute ago, and is willing to sacrifice the few for the good of the many. also, last night in the debate what came up was the hp vaccination that rick perry mandated for the state of texas, i believe. could you please tell us, is

that transfix vaccine still being given to little girls in texas, and do you know why, do you know if it was, if it was pulled from the market? drama let's take the first question first, if you could. collar doesn't seem to trust the government. >> guest: i know that many people who feel that way. first of all want to tell you something about institute of medicine that help will be of some help to you. the national academies were established in the civil war to provide independent advice to the government. and so if you look at, the institute of medicine is part of the national academy, we are independent of the government, and if you look at the makeup of the people who are on the committee that i had the privilege of directing, we went to a very elaborate conflict of interest process. what i can tell you is that we

did find some things that vaccines caused, and we were very clear about saying that. and that, you know, so we really tried very hard to do that. but we are independent of the federal government. i'm just putting that out there or you to think about. the issues about what vaccines are given and whatnot are given, are made by people other than myself and our committee, and so those are sort of beyond me. but i've also taken every single intervention we do in medicine has potential side effects. and i will also remind you, if you don't mind, that some of the diseases that we prevent with vaccines now our ones that were catastrophic. i remember when polio was still around, and my parents remember when fdr was president. and i can tell you, and i

remember being kept inside when i was a little girl because my mother was afraid i would get polio. and then when the oral polio vaccine came out, people lined up around the block to get that vaccine. they were so thrilled to get it. and basically polio has almost been eliminated from the face of the earth. i think that is amazing. again with regard to meals and things, another one that we could potentially eliminate from the face of the earth. i remember that when i was little my mother would take me to make sure that i got measles early because, you know, young children seem to do better than older children, or adults with that particular disease. now we have children who don't need to get that disease, and yet we still have outbreaks, children still die from measles disease. so, i think that we have to look, although our committee was directly focused on the issue of risk, i think we also have to

look at the rather dramatic effect of actually these immunizations, and reducing some of the things used to terrify us. now with regard to what's going on in texas with hpv, know that vaccine has not been withdrawn from the market. we did look at that vaccine. as i mentioned, we thought that there is some evidence that transfix vaccine can cause a huge allergic reaction. more data will come. we look at all the data that was going to be available, and there are a lot of symptoms that are designed to look and see what adverse effects that can cause. we can say things about the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine with more certainty that weekend about hpv because it has been around for a long time. hpd is new. we will learn more. our conclusions are going to change. that's what science does and it's a good thing.

>> host: here is a short snippet from the debate last night from senator kerry. >> if i had to do over again i would have done it differently. i would've gone to the legislature, worked with them, but what was driving he was obviously making a difference about young people's lives. cervical cancer is a horrible way to die. and i happen to think that what we were trying to do was to clearly send the message that we are going to give mumps and dads the opportunity to make that decision with parental opt out. parental rights are very important in the state of texas. we do it on a long list of vaccines that are made. but on that particular issue i will tell you that i made a mistake by not going to the legislature first. let me address ron paul just a minute by saying, i will use an executive order to get rid of as much as obamnicare as i can on

day one. >> host: dr. clayton, anything you want to add? >> guest: i would say that governor perry made a political air when he decided to mandate that vaccine, and there were issues raised in a conflict interest on his part. on the other hand, he's right. the purpose of the hpv vaccine is to prevent cancer. i mean, that's a pretty strong issue. but again these issues get worked out in our political, in our political context. and so, so there's some things he says that i agree with. i mean, these are things got to work with our legislatures about and with our parents about. >> host: back to the phone. independent caller, thanks for waiting. go ahead. >> caller: doctor, thank you for being there. my question is how do you established the immune status of a child before you give the vaccine? >> guest: thank you for the great question. at the moment the way we do it

is we look at them clinically. and certainly by the time we get the live virus vaccine, which is in mr, those are relatively the child about one year old, and so by then we got to be able to see other signs of immunodeficiency. i think the good news and one that you might want to be aware of is that a year or two ago, again another branch of the federal government, made a recommendation that we are to be doing newborn screening of all children for serious forms of immunodeficiency. if that were the, and the reason to get by the way is not to prevent adverse effects of vaccine but rather because we know that if we find those kids early, we can treat them and save their lives. that's a pretty compelling reason to do that. i think an ancillary benefit or a side benefit of doing this newborn screening would be to identify those children for whom

giving the carousel of vaccine or or the mmr vaccine would be a bad idea. so i think that our communal, i think there's hope in the future that we may be able prospectively for other reasons to identify the children, who are perfectly at risk of having these adverse affects. but i would say that clinically many of these children are already symptomatic by the time it comes time to give those vaccines. so not all, many but not all. but these are things that ought to be thought of. but wonderful question, and there's some states that are already doing it. not very many. others are considering it. but this might be a way forward. >> host: wisconsin, dan on the line for the democrats. good morning. >> caller: my name is dan and i'm calling, i have an autistic 14 year-old boy.

and he had three and one vaccine when he was younger, and he was developing fine when he was 18 months. started to problems right after the vaccination, he started going downhill. that is a common story with a lot of parents that i talk to and got together with. and i'd like to know what the evidence is that this is not happening because of vaccine. and the other question is, at that time, what was in that vaccine and did it have any mercury in it? that's my questions so i will get off and let you enter. thank you. >> guest: thank you for that question. let me summarize what the evidence was that led us to our conclusion. and then give you some caveats around it. we look at all the studies that have been conducted to date. and what things i would urge you

to do is that this report is available for free, to be downloaded as a pdf. at the institute of medicine website. it is www.i owe him.edu vaccine adverse effects. you can download it for free. and the great news is that there is, the best index i've ever seen. but you can go right to the particular page that address what the evidence is for each particular adverse effect that we looked at. so you can go, and you can read it online if you want but you can download it if you want, it's about how that particular part is about five pages long. you can look at it. let me summarize it briefly. we looked at five well conducted epidemiologic studies that were conducted in very large numbers of children. and what we found is that the risk of autism was essentially,

was not different between the children who got vaccine and the children who didn't. at least in the case of the mmr. so that's what the data show. very large study, and all of them pointed the same direction. so that's what our data is. now, i want to be clear here. epidemiologic data can never prove a negative. so what that means is it can never say that a particular vaccine can never cause a particular adverse events. what it can say and what it does say in this particular case is if it does happen, it doesn't happen very often. we are seeing lots and lots of parents who have concerns about immunization and autism, and looking at these very well conducted studies, we simply didn't see that evidence. so i just want to be clear about what our evidence was, and the limit of what we particularly

can say about that particular vaccine and that particular, and autism. so i just, i want to be clear there. we actually address autism in regard to a number of other vaccines as well. you can look at those again in the study. all the other ones that we looked at we felt like we didn't have enough evidence one way or the other. so, but i really urge you to look at what, you know, about what the data, what the data shows. honestly, the other thing that i would actually urge you to look at is that in chapter three, we had a discussion, a few page discussion of brain development. and i think the issue that we talk about in there is that there are a number of things we know that do cause autism. and some of them are genetic. some of them are exposures early in pregnancy.

and so, you know, and we know that brain development is extremely complicated. and so i think the challenge before us is to find out what the particular things are that can cause autism, so that we can address it. now, so let me say one thing about mmr. it is never contained mercury. that is because you can't have a live vaccine with mercury in it because it would kill the vaccine. so, you know, other, you know, other vaccines did have mercury in them in small amounts, and earlier committee, look specifically at the issue of mercury. we were tasked with doing that so we didn't. but that earlier committee also found a lack of connection between mercury in vaccines and autism.

that's a complicated answer to your question, but the fact of the matter is, it's a complicated complicated issue. but that's what our data was. and everything that we need to sort of rethink how we are approaching the issue of what causes autism. because the evidence that vaccines do it is really, it just isn't their. >> host: next call. we have about 15 minutes left by the way. at the florida. john, independent. >> caller: i have a question, whenever a person has a reaction from a vaccine or medications whereby they have joint pains, does that necessarily caused by the body making antibodies against the joint tissue, like the synovial lining or something like that? are what is the exact mechanism going on? >> guest: gosh, that's a wonderful question. and we actually address that at various parts in the report.

so, let me say this. first of all, it can be also in chapter three, there is an exhaustive discussion of the various mechanisms by which vaccines or anything else can cause the kind of side effect that you are talking about. and certainly it can be antibodies production. it can be direct invasion, particularly for, in real life when you get, when you get rubella or german measles as we used to call it. that's well known to be associated with joint pain. and sometimes that virus in a natural state actually gets in the joints. so it can be direct invasion of the joint. it could be antibody production. they can be a variety of other things, and so, and so as we look at, as we looked at some of those cases, we asked the

question, you know, do we have evidence of antibody production? do we have evidence of immune complex? do we have evidence of direct invasion? by the vaccine virus. so there are a number of ways by which that can happen. again, the report, again has a really kind of nice discussion about that particularly in the context of our discussions about whether the measles, -- measles, mumps and rubella faxing can do that. so i would urge you to look at that, but it's a wonderful question. thank you very much. >> host: again, the website is www.iom.edu for the institute of medicine at the national academies. our guest is dr. ellen wright clayton, educated at duke, medical degrees from stanford and from harvard, and a law degree from yale. and is currently chairman of the

vaccine research, and that's a subject you. here is a put a question, dr. clayton. how many vaccines are made in the u.s.a.? how many are made in china where there is no oversight? person as by saint i don't sector. any thoughts? >> guest: you know, i don't know the answer. i mean, yeah, i don't know the answer. i guess that's a question for the food and drug administration because they are the ones who are responsible for ensuring that our drug supply is safe. so sorry. >> host: melanie, republican. good morning. spent i want to ask a question concerning siblings. if a child shows autoimmune deficiency, wouldn't necessarily mean i have heard that the second sibling possibly could have a worse condition.

is there any research on that? >> guest: well, thank you, and i, and i know a little bit, so please take this, you know, in context. there are a number of inherited forms of immunodeficiency. some of them have a one in four risk of recurrence, which means that if you have an affected sibling, and the other silly has a one in four chance of having the same disorder. some of them are prominent, primarily in boys. and in that case of risk recurrence is one into. i think it's very likely that if you diagnose one child with one of these serious forms of immunodeficiency, that you would look at the other ones, too, to make sure that they don't have it as well. the idea is that the second one would have or as i not, that's probably not realistic. but the risk of recurrence particularly for the inherited

forms is really pretty clear. but i would think that immunologists would be the person who does immune things would be the person who would be caring for a child with immunodeficiency and they would be very alert to whether there are similar symptoms in a subsequent child, and would almost surely be looking for the same disorder. >> host: caller from colby, kansas. richard, democrat. >> caller: good morning. i have a question about. [inaudible] which i developed two years ago, and slowly recovering from. when i was in the united states army, we were on the search egypt reserve -- strategic reserve, and we have possibilities of deployment to the middle east and to the orient, to other areas, as well as standing by for riot patrol in the united states. so we just got a series of

vaccines of all different kinds, to cover diseases that might be prevalent in these various areas. and then later i had a series of influenza vaccines during the concerns about all the various strains are coming into this country. and shortly before developing this, i had shingles vaccination. i just, i wonder how much research has been done between vaccines and what findings you might have about possible connections. >> guest: thank you for that great question. the answer is a lot of research. one of the challenges, there are many challenges with regard to that. not the least of which is that it is feasible so it tends to

happen more in the winter rather than in the summer. it has a lot of known causes. there are a number of different infections that can cause it. so that's a challenge but the other thing about it is the influenza vaccine changes every year. it's unique every year, because the actual virus changes every year. if you look again in our study we actually summarize all the literature that's been looked at with regard, particularly to influenza vaccine in shingles. there is a lot of it. and the majority of it suggests there's no connection, but again it's really kind of hard to say. we are really clear that the 1976 the vaccine cause, but since that time the evidence has really been pretty, you know, has been pretty lacking. so, but again, and we actually didn't also look at the 2010

vaccine. the h1n1 vaccine. and that's the most vaccine, steady vaccine i think in american history. i don't know that they but i know they studied it to death. again, i would urge you to look at the study because we summarize all of that. and again, because you're in the military you probably got a lot of vaccine that we were not looking at. and effect are not given to children. so i can't answer your question completely. people are very concerned about vaccinations and gds and people are starting that very seriously. i can tell you that at least in the case of influenza that evidence trended to show that there is no connection between flu vaccine and guillain-barre. they didn't even rise to the level we did say that trended any particular direction. but i would urge you to look at what we found. to but -- it's an important

question and it's hard to parse out because so many things cause it. >> host: when might you be asked to do another review of the studies that are out there? another way of saying it is, what do you want to know five or 10 or 20 years down the road? >> guest: so, well, first of all ideas will be be asked to do it when her son asks us to. and actually this was the first conference of you that have been done since the early 1990s. i hope it doesn't go that long. we were not asked to say what we actually wanted, but i would say that what we would really like to see is more, more evidence of the mechanisms by which is adverse effects occur. so that when people have these adverse effects, that it's possible to do more of a workup to see whether the vaccine is involved, or rather something else is involved. that would be enormously helpful. i think another thing that would be enormously helpful, and i'm

going to be controversial about this, but if we had more access to clinical records so that we could do even more complete epidemiologic studies about whether vaccines can cause adverse effects, we would have more data on which to base our analyses. we have some really great surveillance studies going on now, but particularly with, you, with the expansion of electronic health records we could could get even more that would tell us more about this. so we want to think. we want more complete ascertainment of weather, who is having these adverse effects. and then, and the relationship to vaccines. and then we would love to know more about the mechanisms by which they happen so that we can do the work of that we need to see if the vaccines really responsible for them. that's what we would love to see. there's been some progress made in that area already, that the great thing about science, that

we can do the signs even better than we can really learn more about that and can offer people more definitive answers, which is what we would love to do it. >> host: time for a couple more calls before we wrap up with dr. ellen wright clayton. wyoming, republican. >> caller: thank you. i would like to know, i read a story in reader's digest, probably 20 years ago about a doctor who had studied a young man that had autism. and he said that he had come he was a friend of the mother of the boy, and he had found out that the boy had severe, severe allergies. are there any studies that have gone along with that? >> guest: thank you for that question. i suspect that you actually read that article about 10 years ago, or maybe 15.

there was a doctor named whitfield in the u.k. who proposed the notion that he was recovering measles, vaccine virus from the gastrointestinal tract of people with autism, and was proposing a link there. his papers have all been retracted by the journals that publish them. he has had his license to practice withdrawn, in the united kingdom. and so i, so i think that the scientific validity of that work has been called a very seriously question. there have been a lot of people, believe me, people are looking very, very hard to find out what's causing autism. this is a terrible thing. we would love to know the cause so that we could prevent it, but that particular set of studies, which i'm pretty confident is what you are referring to, has

been completely discredited. >> host: bloomington, north carolina, melissa, independent. >> caller: we stated early on in this segment that one of the possible side effects of the mmr vaccine is brain inflammation, even chronic blame -- bring information. my question is could to bring information, especially chronic be what causes autism, or other neurological disorders and not necessarily the vaccine itself? >> guest: thank you for the question. the answer to that is that effect is very, very, very rare. and it occurs only in people who have serious immune disorders. and it was detected by actually the vaccine virus someplace it wasn't supposed to be. again, you can read that in the study. but i guess the message that i would ask people, i mean, it's a wonderful question and i understand the question. what we are seeing from mmr

simply cannot account for the amount of autism that we are seeing in the united states. so, i think it's a wonderful question and a reasonable hypothesis. the fact of the matter is it just doesn't account for what we are seeing. so, that's my conclusion do that. but creative. >> host: let's hear from hickory north carolina. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i've been researching vaccines for 15 years since my only child was brain damaged by vaccines. and i really encourage people to do their own homework. for one thing no vaccine is are been tested to see if it causes cancer, including the vaccine given for the hpv virus. so if i was you i would definitely go to the website and order the book history which is written in 1889 by edgar

cruickshank. it's been republished and check things out for your self. because they will never admit that death and distrust as being caused by vaccines in people. drama thank you. where the final minute or so with dr. ellen wright clayton. wrap this up. wrap this all up for us if you could in terms of the study. what it means and repeat that message you had before. >> guest: well, the take away message, first of all, let me say we did the best possible job that we could looking at the scientific evidence about whether vaccines cause adverse effects. and we found some. and so i have to reject the idea that we are hiding our findings because we didn't. we are independent of the federal government and we told the story truthfully as we could. but the take-home message is this.

that although vaccines can cause adverse effects, that by and large in effect because are actually relatively, or relatively easily treated, except in some children who have serious immune disorders. this is an issue that we're going to have to confront, and i suggested some ways that we might want to look at it. but i think this is really good news for parents, and i want to remind you, the diseases that these vaccines prevent are bad. you don't want to have them and you don't want your children to have been. >> host: dr. ellen wright clayton, chairman of the institute of medicine, also pediatrics and law professor at the end of the university. thanks a lot for your time. >> guest: my pleasure. >> host: here's a look of the studies studies by the way. again, it is www.iom.edu. you can do a word search under vaccine and it will pop up right there for you. you can see a report that was released on august 25.

>> tomorrow morning's "washington journal" house intelligence committee ranking member dutch ruppersberger looks at the continuing dangers of al qaeda.

>> in an election marred by moral scandal and political corruption, james blaine lost in

1884 but he changed political history. is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, the contenders, live from the blaine house in augusta, maine, friday at 8 p.m. eastern. learn more about the series and upcoming programs at c-span.org/the contenders. curr,

>> the american-arab anti-discrimination committee hosted a policy conference on the impact of 9/11 on coalition building and grassroots organizing of arab and muslim groups in the u.s. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. why don't we go ahead and get started. my name is suhail khan and i will be serving as a moderator today for the panel discussion that is entitled coalition building, organizing and mobilizing post-9/11 era. we have an action packed, fun filled discussion, especially since it is after lunch. a lot of folks are starting to get a little drowsy. tried to keep the discussion

very lively. it is a very important subject, and not to make light of some of the challenges that we face in the country looking backward and also going forward as to where we hope to go, both individuals, as americans, but really as a national community in this country. so we have three very special panelists that are here to join us to discuss coalition building in the post-9/11 era. and first off we are joined with margaret huang who is executive director of the rights working group. and into her left we are joined by suehaila amen was the first vice president and communications and public relations chair of the lebanese american heritage club out of dearborn, michigan. finally, to the far left we have khaled beydoun who is also an attorney and an advocate. what i thought we would do is have each of them speak for a few minutes, share their

thoughts about where we have come in this arena of coalition building since 9/11, since the 9/11 tragedy, some of the challenges that we face in the community, some of the successes that we've been able to achieve, both on the grassroots and the national level. and then look at kind of where we are now, 10 years later, and this is where we are again as a community, as a country, some of the challenges that we continue to face, some of the new challenges that might be arising as we look forward. and then what are some of the opportunities and positive opportunities out there that might be ways that we can continue to make success, and really do a better job of telling our story. and what i thought i would do before turn it over to margaret is just set the stage a little bit. looking back from perhaps all of it from a personal express on my part. i came here like a lot of

staffers in washington, d.c., very idealistic out of law school, almost 16 years ago to serve my hometown congressman from northern california, and like a lot of you in the audience, a lot of folks watching, my first brush with politics with schoolhouse rock, five and six-year old on saturday and sunday mornings watching tv where you saw the little rolled up bill, you know, singing about how he wants to become a law. and usually the american process of constituents going to their elected officials with a grievance, petitioning their elected officials asking for a law to be passed, to stop something or to make something happen, or to put a stop sign on a street corner or a signal light, or whatever it might be, that democratic process with all its bumps and hurdles, you know, stops and goings-on. i was very interested by that so when i got older, went to college and studied political

science and subsequently the law, i thought to myself, you know, why not go to where those laws are made? just like in that afterschool schoolhouse rock cartoon, you know, capitol hill and be a part of the system of our american democracy where laws are made and where we hope we make laws that would benefit our country and our fellow americans. several years later i had the opportunity to serve in the white house under president bush, and on that tuesday morning, ironically when i was preparing a memo for the president for his first meeting with major arab and muslim leaders that afternoon, with the alarms went off and we were told that a jetliner was headed towards the white house, at a jetliner had crashed into the world trade center. it wasn't clear whether this was an accident or this was deliberate, soon enough the secret service and other law enforcement officers realized that this was a deliberate attack on our country, and that not only had we lost several, at

that point, an unknown number of fellow americans, but there were possibly other losses of human life in our country, and we didn't know the extent of the attack and how many attacks they would be in places like new york, in virginia and washington, d.c.. and so really for me and for so many thousands of muslims around the city and this country, our lives change with the 9/11 tragedy. and it's continue to changed since then, the 10 years after, whether it is arab-americans and muslims living in places like dearborn or toledo or orange county, california, or for lawmakers here in washington, d.c., tackling challenges regarding our national security, immigration. civil liberties and law enforcement. or even for particular communities that are affected, whether they are muslim or arab are perceived to be muslim or arab, like south asians and others. there are ongoing challenges. i'm confident with these challenges that there will be a happy ending, and there really

isn't any as you know the story is ongoing. but while there have been challenges of civil rights violations of government scrutiny, sometimes unfair, sometimes unwarranted, of political rhetoric that unfortunately has spiked, and i want to hopefully talk about that with our panelists, why we are seeing anti-muslim, anti-arab hostility spiked now 10 years later, why do poll after poll reflect that suspicion, fear and hatred towards arab-americans, is now at an all time high, much higher than it was even days after the attacks on 9/11, 10 years ago. and i'm curious as to why the phenomenon has been a critic and i would love to discuss that with the panelists, some of the reasons why that's occurring and perhaps some of the ways we can tackle some of those ongoing challenges. and then really to look to other communities. how can we as arab-americans,

muslim-americans bold country and build coalitions to meet those challenges and to really look to other communities who have, for better or for worse, really seen this movie before whether it was african-american, jewish americans, catholics, italian or irish, japanese americans during world war ii, there in tournament and legalize discrimination. and most recently during the red scare and before the jewish around the country. to look at those, for their experiences and for really their secrets or if not, not so secret that their ways of dealing with these challenges to overcome those challenges. we are as picking up on the last panel that was a question as to whether we are an exceptional question. i for one feel that we are. because there is something called the american dream. it's an ongoing evolving dream. from and many come when. i think we're continuing to try to really reach those goals and to achieve those goals.

but as i said earlier the story doesn't necessarily in but we are at a very important time 10 years after 9/11 so i thought we would have a very good discussion and presentation from the panelists very briefly and then led a discussion amongst ourselves and the audience. and hopefully come away with a positive action plan as to how we might as individuals and as a community move forward and bettering our country for the better. i will start off with market and then go from there. >> good afternoon, everyone. quiet accrue. let's try it again. good afternoon, everyone. >> good afternoon. >> i would like to thank adc for inviting me to join a panel today. it's an honor to be here and to be part of this discussion with all of you. i'm going to speak a little bit about the coalition that i represent, the rights working

group, which, in fact, was formed out of 9/11, and more particularly the backlash against civil liberties and human rights in this country after 9/11. it started as a fairly small inside the beltway initiative. there were a few dozen groups that got together and said we're all dealing with new national security policies, expanded use of existing policies and they are targeting our community. we have to figure out a way to work together. we are to be able to share information an and collaborate n new ways to try to change these policies. and it never other groups worked on a piece of legislation that was introduced in 2004 called the civil liberties restoration act. unfortunately it went nowhere fast. and i think the realization of the groups at the time was that it really can't be an inside the beltway strategy. this is about changing a national conversation. this is about engaging constituencies across the country and the struggle. so rights working group shifted

gears and we started doing outreach to community organizations around the country. today we have more than 320 member organizations from around the country. many of whom are small, grassroots lead, often completely volunteer staffed. but they are all committed to the principles that we laid out from the beginning. pledges to combat things like the violations of human rights caused by the patriot act, what happened with inches, the national security entry exit registration system. and most recently in 2000 we launched a new campaign called racial profiling face the truth. to face the truth campaign was explicitly designed to achieve three policy goals. the first is to actually enact federal legislation that would prohibit all racial profiling by all law enforcement agencies at the state, local, and federal levels. and on the bases using as a definition of racial profiling, proclaim on the basis of race, national origin, ethnicity, and

religion. so it was really fun to change the way a lot of people have conceptualized racial profiling in this country. a second policy go of the campaign was to try to get the department of justice to make a few important fixes to the 2003 guidance on the use of race by federal law enforcement agencies. essentially, that guidance that was adopted by then attorney general ashcroft told federal law enforcement agencies that they could use racial profiling, but it included a number of really important exceptions or loopholes. so for example, federal law enforcement agencies were allowed to use racial profiling in the name of national security. they were also allowed to use racial profiling in the context of border security. and most importantly it was unenforceable and didn't apply to state and local law enforcement which is where many of the problems of racial profiling actually occur. so our second policy goal was to try to get those loopholes fixed and to make the guidance stronger and enforceable.

a third policy goal was to actually target the department of homeland security and to stop the collaboration between local police and federal agencies and immigration enforcement. as many as you probably know, there's been a dramatic increase in the role of local police in enforcing immigration laws. this has been spurred by state law such as the one in arizona, georgia, south carolina, the list goes on. a number of states have adopted legislation that required their police to ask about people's immigration or citizenship status when they come into contact with local police. but this event a longer history than just those recent loss. and effective department of homeland security has a number of programs that either encourage formal official relationship between local police and immigration and customs enforcement, or i.c.e. pick or in fact facilitate that collaboration in ways that have, in fact, lead to racial profiling in many different communities around the country.

but i think the most important goal of our campaign actually didn't have to do with policy changes, which is a good thing because we're not having that much success so far. the most important goal was to actually get all of the targeted communities affected by racial profiling to work together on the campaign. so as you might imagine racial profiling is not a new issue. it's been around for a long time. we have a lot of things to learn from the african-american community, the latino community, and other communities. but these communities were not working together on the legislation or any of these policy goals. so one of the things we did is last year in 2010 we held a series of field hearings around the country. and we asked each community hosted by field hearings to invite people from all of the communities that have been targeted by racial profiling, african-americans, latinos, asians, muslims, arabs, south asians, many other immigrant communities, to come and give

testimony about how they have been affected. some of them had been personally racially profiled. others were in cars or walking with her family members or friends, and witnessed racial profiling. and, in fact, was really quite amazing to hear in the personal testimonies which were documented. but also to see the commonality. and i think for many in the room it was the first time that they realized that people of other communities had shared that very embarrassing, shameful, frustrating, you know, aggravating experience that they had as well. so we put out a report. i brought a copy that you can download from our website as well called faces of racial profiling. ..

internment experience and her family during a world war ii and this report looks at the last ten years. all these people have been working on the problem of racial profiling for the last ten years. what's happened? what experiences have people had that have made this harder or have perhaps given them hope that by working together in different communities we can actually make a difference had been? so next week you can get a copy of this from the website. so in thinking about where we go

next working on issues like racial profiling another post-9/11 civil liberties problems we've to mobilize the communities to demand the change. it's not enough for the professional advocates like those of us in the room and myself included to be leading the charge on this. but in fact we need voices of people who've been affected and it's really their initiative and their effort and enthusiasm and passion that's going to help us persevered for the importance of this issue. second, we have to change the political debate on what's happened the last ten years and the u.s. is against the problem of racial profiling. nobody thinks it's a good idea but now since 9/11 people have started making exceptions. we know it doesn't work and it's a violation of the law but maybe it's okay when i'm getting on an airplane that they're checking the people who look like they

must be terrorists. so that's the kind of response we're getting now. racial profiling is that except certain circumstances you open the door for accepting the racial profiling might work in some circumstances the more at risk. so we have to change the political discourse and i feel it's important to think about who the messengers are and that is again where the importance of the coalition building comes in. it's important people from different communities are supportive of one another in fighting these charges. and so along the lines is my third thought of where we need to go next. we have to support our allies in their struggle when we are asking them to support hours. in the african community concern is about the high rate of incarceration and the impact on young black men in their communities to read our community should be advocating in organizing this. when the latino community is concerned about racial profiling by police and being asked for their papers and their status or should be supporting that in the

efficacy effort and when we come up the cia and the fbi has been spotty in the mosques along with the local police we should be asking our friends in those communities to come out and organize and protest with us. it's really important that we support all of the struggles equally. we can't ask when we haven't made the effort to support others and so i think that is an absolutely essentials part of our work. the last thing i want to say before i wrap up, i hope the number of you might have listened to this story this morning on the mall of america security problems. recently, npr did a big investigation of the way that the mall of america had been monitoring suspicious activity in the mall. are you all familiar with the mall of america, big mall in minneapolis, right? so, the security guards have been participating in a department of homeland security program called suspicious activity reporting and the tikrit parts of things they

think look suspicious. so, for example let somebody is sitting down writing a list, that could be suspicious. if somebody is taking a picture in the mall called fy corporation that could be suspicious, so when the npr reviewed the list of the suspicious activity reports documented by the security guards at the mall of america, more than two-thirds of the people on the list for people of color. african-americans, latinos we start working together on the question of what makes somebody suspicious it's and until that we are not going to succeed

invite her to come into her thoughts. >> thank you. i'd like to thank adc and someone i've grown up with and have known since i was a little girl. i was a very active member of abc for a good ten years. coming to d.c. quite often. just a brief background i'm coming from a completely different perspective than my fellow panelists. i come from the grassroots and those things where coming from a city like the dearborn community organizing you face great challenges and trying to pull together the muslim and arab american community in detroit. post 9/11, things changed dramatically for something that

has been in the forefront for many of us on the grassroots level. you have to begin organizing at home in your hometown before you can take it to a national level and have the pleasure of working with people like margaret. so on my and i just want us to touch base on some of the things that i feel the communities were looking at prior to 9/11. i remember working prior to ten years ago 15 years ago our focus was on foreign policy, how we were concerned with the issues that we were facing on a foreign level as opposed to dealing with things domestically. there was more to focus on the middle east come on the palestine and israel issue and the immigration policies and procedures and helping people get political asylum to flee the nation that they were living in and of dealing with their own

suffering. there was a lot of humanitarian aid work being done at that time. our focus in terms of the media was to dispel misconceptions in the film industry and helping the media outlets deal better with our arab and muslim american communities on a completely different level than we are dealing with now post 9/11. there was a great push for civic participation prior to 9/11. since 9/11 happened, and it's i think we all understand it's a tragedy that affected every single person. i don't believe justin this nation but around the world it's something that made us more aware to take a look at who we are and how we are going to be affected by this tragedy. the focus shifted on community organizing to things pertaining to domestic policies where

foreign policies to a back seat for us at this point. we were not as concerned with how we were going to move forward on dealing with issues in the middle east, but now we are more focused on what was going on in the united states, how we were going to be affected by domestic policy but how our civil liberties were going to possibly be affected and infringed upon. what we were going to face in terms of national security. in terms of immigration, what we were more concerned about prior to 9/11 was the focus on how we get our families here, making the policies and procedures easier to bring in from overseas and to make their transition into the united states an easy one whereas now we are facing deportation and detainment and finding that secret evidence is

being used and how are we going to phase our community members from being shipped out without a moment of notice. people being taken in the middle of the night for a crime that was possibly committed 25 years ago as a case that we face. i know that adc michigan worked on several years back with actually my father's first cousin when he was 20-years-old had possession of marijuana charged and should have voluntarily deported himself 25 years ago. but at the time when the new immigrant and didn't understand the laws or voluntarily deporting yourself was or mentor that he should have gotten on the plane and had stayed and had a family, opened businesses, paying his taxes, then just as any other american citizen,

never received a ticket, never was in trouble with the law, went on to become a very good citizen and 5:00 in the morning, the door is broken down and he's taken on the next plane back overseas to a country that he hadn't lived in in over 25 years. so these are issues that we are now facing is how do we protect the people that have been outstanding citizens and have done their job to participate in the system in this nation and protect their civil liberties. we then began to face issues with the war on terror, and our concern toward dealing with media then went from how do we deal with the misconceptions and stereotypes of people in film and the film industry and movies where you always see the arab and his barber on a camel riding through the desert, and now dealing with the fact that we

were being stereotype in every aspect of media, and the new informational films and i mean really everything that was coming across through the television and the internet. so there was a much greater effort that we had to now focus on, and it was something that was depleting not only our resources but all of our energy. for myself, a lot of the people like me in the community worked on a volunteer basis. we don't work as employees of these organizations. we work strictly on a volunteer basis putting in our personal time, effort and at times our own personal funds to forward these initiatives and to encourage our community members to speak out and reach out to other organizations.

our push was greatly on the civic participation and getting people involved, because at this point people realized that will come on in there of and by muslim post 9/11 nobody wants to hear what i have to say. my voice doesn't matter, because people felt that their civil liberties are being infringed upon. and it took us much time and difficulty in reaching out to the grassroots community especially from an immigrant community who doesn't understand there were communities that came before that suffered the same persecutions in this nation. that japanese-americans went through it. they all understand the civil rights movement in the 60's but they don't know what happened to others that came to the country and emigrated and haven't faced the same issues that we are facing today so that took much effort and is still taking that effort to help them to understand. the huge focus on the grassroots level is to build in the coalition building to build

relationships with organizations such as the clu, such as the naacp, and organizations such as abc on a national level. it's important for us to have these connections with these organizations and agencies, and in terms of walking that very fine line of being an ally with government agencies while still maintaining that level of open criticism as well because it's a very fine and when working with the grassroots community that doesn't understand you need to have these relationships in order to further your agenda and to examine the committee dealing with these issues. so hopefully in being here i will be able to address that in the things because it is coming from a completely different angle than what people deal with on a national level. thank you for allowing me here today. [applause] >> thank you.

finally last but not least we are joined by khaled beydoun. >> i have a nice speech prepared, but i thought that given the significance of the weight of the day to day that i would speak more from reflection and more from kind of remembering the event of the past decade and so forth and i threw away that speech so bear with me. there's some unconventional stops and interruptions and obstacles. but earlier today i had this chance to speak to a former law school friend by the name of sergio who attended the school of law with me and we both reflected upon the day and i am sure that many of you can vividly remember the days and events that unfolded on 9/11 and more specifically where you were. him and i spoke of think about

that day, given that there was our second week of small school. it was an interesting existential experience for me given i was moving from the midwest in detroit to los angeles of really having a community, not having friends and being forced to adjust to a completely different context at a very critical time not only in my life but also in the history of the country. reflecting a the time if i can paint the landscape for you the university of california at large is experiencing the post affirmative action landscape where the diversity was virtually nonexistent. the law school class had nine african-americans, a few more or ranking 45450, which is especially interesting given the location of the ucla in los angeles and being the hub if not the capitol of chicano america and spanish-speaking america.

but we were selected on that day and i was one of three arab-americans and perhaps the only conspicuous self identifying arab-american post-9/11. and at the ucla school of law i had a platform of american to voice my frustration or voice my concern, both voice my worry post 9/11, but through the friendship of sergio part -- perez and the association i was invited to be involved in both boards. but organizations gave me a critical platform in the ability really to present my concerns and viewpoints and give a voice to the struggle. during that critical moment in the history of the united states at large there had been the experience in the narrative at that date and those experiences as i look back a decade earlier were very critical and forming the shape and trajectory of my

career which has been very much based on coalition building and not along the lines of the leaders of the separate organizations meaning in framing a strategy but promoting a new brand, in the platform and paradigm for the coalition building, and it's really a gift because coalition building truly takes place and is truly manifested in the community on the community level where every day individuals who, you know, seldom have the opportunity to attend conferences like this and seldom have the opportunity to hear the speeches of organizational leaders tralee execute a kind of coalition building in the true kind of community integration that needs to be had for this country to the united and also for the interest of the interest of civil liberties at large and the interest of arab-americans post

9/11 to truly be entrenched in the meaningful way. so if i can advance, i would like to address three seminal points if you will. first, i want to discuss the arab community and how that diversity really runs itself well to the true coalition building. the second point i want to address is the true coalition building can be had on part of americans have it's really incumbent upon arab-americans and arab-american leadership to refine and redefine what it is to be arab-american from the legal, political and ethnic perspective and finally, i want to address some of our natural allies in promoting the arab-american platform if you will but second, how to broaden the base of allies. so first, diversity, i think if all of us can just look at this wall over here and look at these wonderful portraits that the abc has showcased, these portraits really illustrate the diversity

and the kind of cultural and ethnic and religious mosaic that is the arab world, and i think one benefit and one natural resource that the arab world has is the deep and rich diversity. we have individuals who typically look black and individuals look caucasian and individuals who just manifest a series of different ethnic appearances. we have religious diversity which is unparalleled. and the diversity lends itself really well to building and house avenues towards coalition building with organizations that represent the various a ray of constituents. arab-americans from the continent of africa, sudanese americans for instance to identify both african and arab provided the direct and authentic in-house ambassador that can build bridges with the

african-american community in the united states and i think that organizations such as abc and others that represent arab-americans have leveraged and in power to these individuals to build lasting solutions and organizations. more so i think part of the reason that happens has been successful in many ways for two reasons. first of all one thing that needs to be addressed and i've learned about this issue quite extensively as racism in the community which hasn't been meaningfully addressed and tackled. the second point is there has been somewhat of hyper emphasis on the organizations to determine other regions of the world and other communities and america that have not been given due attention so that needs to be addressed. the issues like abc, a yawn and so forth should pay attention and resources to address what is

going on in the horn of africa, north east africa and larocco and so forth and unless this happens, the ability to encompass and give true voice and membership to other arab-americans will not be had. i have two minutes, going to rush quick and address these other points during the question and answer period. finally we have a piece that addresses in the handbook you guys have that addresses arab-american identity and i think that post my knowledge and arab-americans haven't done the necessary work to relieve refine and solidify what it means to be arab-american. the government is classified the concerns of white even though that conflicts with the political and social experience on the ground. we have been marginalized as being anything in that we to have access to white privilege so a lot of work and energy and research needs to be had to really finalize and refined with

a means to be arab-american three i'm going to stop now but i would be glad to field any questions you may have about these issues. [applause] >> i got a little nervous when you brought up that big a clip board. i thought we would have a little bit of discussion among the panelists and also with the audience because i know there's lots of questions and thoughts of that you'll have. what i thought i would do is just kind of kick off with one issue discussion before i turn it over to some other friends in the audience, and that is we are talking about coalition building and this is something that we have been engaged in on the community level and on a national level as margaret has been and we have had some success with folks as has been described by some of the panelists as natural allies. but going back to what i was saying earlier, if the poll

after poll demonstrates that we are in effect closing the conversation with the american public, if the polls after line 11, september, 2001, demonstrate that 50 to 60% of most americans, the majority of americans realized that the attacks on the country were in fact by a few and not representatives of a major faith community and that there and our friends and neighbors to happen to the arab or muslim or in fact americans like all of us and those numbers are now down to 30. after all the coalition building and all the work that we've done with all due respect i include myself in that effort where do we need improvement, who are the others we need to reach all to include all fer and i want to get your thoughts on this and that is we need to reach out to groups that have demonstrably the most question about who arabs and muslims are and those

groups tend to be churchgoing catholics, evangelical christians, which together make up more than half the country and if you look at the data for those specific communities those are the groups that have the most questions or in some cases the most suspicion about arabs and muslims. so i want to ask on the local level and the national level what your thoughts are on where we are on the coalition building, what you think about the expanding role in circling orbit of the coalition's we reach all to and what you think might be some of the negatives and positives on that. whoever wants to go first and would love to hear it. >> [inaudible] >> i know on a community level immediately post 9/11 i think i

spoke about 36 churches. people that reached out to us, and in fact always in the mall a month after 9/11 and a lady approached me and asked me, was asking me some questions and asked if i would come and speak at her church, which was about an hour and a half away from dearborn so i said yes. i thought it would be a small church group, there were 160 women who just we sat and had a very open conversation, allowed them to ask all the questions they wanted to and from that point on, they actually had call their friends at other churches and we get started doing that where i just grabbed a bunch of friends for some conversation and it was something as simple as sitting down with him these

various communities and churches talking to them about the arab-american community. and though that is something that i was able to greatly at that point the first few years post 9/11, most recently you have -- i know we have a lot of groups coming in, many tend to flock to america where they facilitate training and they do tours and talks about islam and who muslim americans are and what not to rely think it's something that on the community level you need to be able to reach out and open your hand and be willing to embrace your brother and sister and at the end of the day we are all americans and we are here for the same reason, to better our

lives and both forward and have our families grow up in this great nation so it is important for us on the community level to reach out to these other organizations and on the more conservative and to ensure they are aware that we are here and we want to work together. you know, it's difficult and coalition building to connect with these groups that don't necessarily want to embrace you. some of them are very standoffish, some of them actually say we are not interested. but as just knowing you are making that effort on the community level it's something that's necessary across-the-board even if there is one on muslim living somewhere in the rural town in oregon, you know, reaching out to the local church and trying to build relationships and has a

simple conversation can help greatly on the grassroots level. >> margaret or khaled? >> i was listening to the discussion with the launch panel and the conversations around bullying, and the comments were made that the ltv t community has had a lot more success in moving public opinion and getting their concerns on a broader level and other groups have been able to do, and i always thought one of the reasons for that is because so many people in the united states know someone who is gay or lesbian or bisexual or one of those categories, so when you know someone it changes the dynamic. i once sat in on a focus group session where people were trying to assess what kind of messaging would get more americans in support of immigration reform,

and consistently in all of the focus groups that people who were willing to hear the messages and support of the messages were people who knew the undocumented immigrants and thought that they were good people and don't think they should be facing what they are facing. so knowing somebody personally if you have done is on target and it's going to take that kind of personal outreach and relationship building to make changes. but that is a long time. that is a lifetime of investment. that's not something that changes quickly. so i think the other key is building relationships with groups who may not know enough about the communities and may not share the experience of the communities that can understand and relate to the goals that we had. one of our big target of a campaign against racial profiling is law enforcement officials which is an interesting group to be working

with on the campaign but in fact, just having police chiefs go to capitol hill and talk about how incredibly an effective it is for them to do their jobs when racial profiling is a part of it, that is far more persuasive to the number of communities than me saying the exact same things we have to really think about the messengers in delivering the same comments we would make but who's going to be heard by people who might not be open to our perspective? >> thank you to read anything to add? >> i think it's some work needs to be done before you actually approach an organization is to truly try to understand the narrative and understand what specific platforms those organizations are trying to promote themselves. so for instance, often times the organizations approach the potential allies and build

converging issues, racial profiling for instance, but hypothetically speaking the organization may not know about or may not fully appreciate the experience that let's say latino americans have with racial profiling, and their approach effectively to promote their own strategy and their own interest without fully understanding the experience but also what specific strategy in the agenda of that organization. so that home work needs to be done i think before you approach an organization that you want to partner up with. >> thank you. i want to go ahead and open up to the floor. i know you must have questions. so please, go ahead and let me know who has a question and open up

>> [inaudible] i feel that no one is hearing us like as much work we are doing and you are doing and adc is doing, do we make any dent? what can be done? because people of the media who are conservative and doing talk shows they reach millions of people and now i am avoiding all these talk shows because they make me very emotional and upset, but even the people who call and come all of them ask constantly and put them in a very dangerous situation. so the question was who are the groups to address, i think people who are in the media. >> do we want to address that? >> of the media game is a

ratings gain and the kind of content they are going to deliver is going to be based on the audience and the audience is. i think one encouraging trend we have in the country is that the incorporate becoming the majority minority country meaning people of color in the country will be the majority so in terms of the strategy one things arab-americans need to do like abc is partner up with the latino community which has the most proliferating population in the country and other segments of the country that are growing in number, and by virtue of partnering up with, you know, populations that are rising in the long term, a jew would hope that is going to be reflected in of only the media and the power but that those organizations are natural allies are going to provide platforms to arab-americans to have a single social experience such as themselves. so, if i were strategizing the

trajectory of adc for instance, one of my top priorities is to contact latino organizations and my experience on the west coast, these are organizations that they all want to work with adc and we don't want to work with the arab-american community at large. and the lgbt community also, i think that to identify the marginalized communities in the organization of all sorts, there's that natural overlap of experience and come artery that comes with being marginalized and july to an extent that provides for an ideal avenue to build a strong and lasting coalitions. >> and i would add to that, i've gone on the sean hannity show and other shows you're probably referencing and there is no doubt the language has become a lot more hostile and strident. i think there's a couple factors there that we need to also examine. the news has changed. when i grew up at dinner time

the family got together and we would turn on the news and have three choices, nbc, cbs, 7:00, half an hour you watched the news and the next news was the next day at 7:00 or you would read your paper which you have to wait for the next morning he would get that and go get people on the driveway. one now we don't even know who does that anymore. we have 24 hour cable news, you can get on your blackberry or your windows phone or ipod and get news any time and what is even more interesting for better or worse is now we don't have a shared narrative upnews. now people watch news or read news that reinforces the world view so for some that means al jazeera and for others it means msnbc and for others, fox news, and that narrow kind of spiralling of news i would argue in the one way democrat need information more space. more people are not their blogging and are able to get news out into the stream and on the other hand the good of

letting everybody in it has let everybody in, good and bad. and sometimes the way to reinforce is very negative and hostile to the arabs and muslims, so i think it's important that we reach out to the group's and people from the gay and lesbian community but we also have to go beyond that because the hostility is coming from different segments of society. so that means going on fox news even though you may not be comfortable with that or going on rush limbaugh or glen beckham and you might get hostile calls but if you don't, then you are leaving that segment of the population to have a certain narrative without a reversal of a positive narrative and worse we know that within unfortunately these media outlets there are arabs and muslims who for whatever reason are perfectly willing to sell out the community to say yes all arabs are bad or all muslims are bad and there is a whole cottage industry of antimuslim and anti-arab hate out there and a

segment of that, in the industry is arabs and muslims who are happy to use that platform to sell out their neighbors who had to be on muslim to get some air time to read we have to be out there confronting those people as uncomfortable as it might be. that's why i think the committee the next ten years looking forward we have to kind of again adjust as to who are we talking to, are we talking to just our friends or people that have real questions? are we to convince every buddy? of course not but the majority of americans are fair minded people, and i think that they will respond to a message of fairness of justice but we also have to address questions and concerns including the national security that we in fact are part of the solution of keeping the country safe. my personal thought and experience again some people think i'm wrong. i would love to hear you. >> i want to make a point similar from what you said in the last few years the southern

poverty law center has been tracking groups in the united states and as you commented earlier in the last couple of years the number of hate groups has grown quite dramatically. so the fact that there is increasing hate crimes and bullying and ill treatment of people in the muslim and arab world is not uncommon from what is happening in the latino world and other immigrant communities. so, we are seeing this pattern across the country, and i think one of the most critical things to do is to call that speech out. unfortunately a lot of the hate groups are not recognized as such. there are groups that are very anti-immigrant get invited regularly to speak of the various talk shows about their views and they are not trying to present information that has been collected using the research but for the particular

perspective. i think it's really important that we call out those groups that are engaged in heat groups and not to tell them they can't use that because it would come after me but i think it's important that we call it what it is and that we recognize that it's not only directed at our community but it's directed at many communities and this is another shared problem that we should be working on together. >> living in a city that is the house of of the arab and muslim american community in the nation and the place where every hate monger once to come and visit and spew their hatred it gets to the point that our concern is you don't want to infringe on a person's constitutional rights, yet when you draw the line and where that's enough.

when you have people like jones graced their presence upon us and you have other groups where it is your right to say what you feel and you have an opportunity to express your views, but when you are allowing your views to perpetuate that hate and that year you have to allow others who are putting out their hate and that is being picked up not just on their website, but it's now being copied and put on another bloggers page and other persons facebook get people are seeing the dollar tumbled to allow things to happen such as what happened in oslo this is a problem if we do need to open our eyes and take a deep look

into where it then becomes a hate crime and can then hurts other communities because we are facing this problem daily and we give people coming in and protesting and saying this is my right to do so, yet at the same time we are having this problem where they are expressing their view which is increasing the hate in the area and then once they leave and they go back to their community wherever they live the have allowed for that hate to perpetuate and people to then possibly do something against an arab or muslim when i can speak when it's pertaining to the dearborn area community. so that's a constant fear that i know in the grassroots level we have and it's something that's a huge issue that people as you are afraid to then walked out of

your home and walk the streets because so and so just left after doing it a huge protest and now it's got people riled up who may want to do something against you, then what, then that person's rights are not infringe upon because they are not even comfortable walking down the street in their own neighborhood. >> who has the next question? >> do you find of a diversity of the arab-american and muslim community has been somewhat overcome that there are groups that believe didn't even talk to each other have you found that that's changed since 9/11? >> post 9/11 i think there was a more concerted area for these communities within the arab

community to embrace one another and tackle these issues head-on. unfortunately, it took that tragedy to bring the community together in a more concerted effort to battle discrimination that they were facing, people realizing that it didn't matter unless you were visibly muslim like myself, nobody knew if she were a muslim or a few worry christian as arabs vary in their religious beliefs. so, there was that effort and that coalition building and bringing the groups together to combat discrimination. the committees did work together prior to 9/11 i don't think it was as much as they did post

9/11. there were an umbrella organizations and a lot more work done together now that the include one another in almost every activity that's being done and beverages and activity pertaining to just the muslim community you always find that the christian community is active in some capacity. but, you know, as something that has worked in our favor and we have come to realize that we are very much alike as opposed to concentrate on the differences we realize there are similarities and have come together and working on how to advance the community as a whole >> next question or comment, go ahead. [inaudible] [laughter] >> i guess my question is to the panelist and thank you for coming out into adc but i guess

related to seeing what we see since 9/11 and organizations working together what organizations have we seen post my knowledge and and what is the station's sale still been around since then and in what has happened and for that business there's a lot of great things happening and the kind of ups and downs and there is tragedy that happens around the world when the question of the least is we go out and purchased and get together and we all knew in our hearts they felt a sense of urgency that something has to come together and we are going to be out there and have to -- what ever heritage we are from we are going to go out there and do whatever it takes to share

our thoughts and be productive together but i guess my question is do you see what the next sense of urgency for the last decade and god forbid another tragedy or the air of a spring or something where the organizations have come closer together or how were we going to change the perception [inaudible] >> i think what's taking place in the region in the arab world into the air of spurring and the successful revolution is still in place clearly what's going on and syria would provide an ideal opportunity for americans to come together. along the lines of human rights

and kind of retraining the agenda beyond the domestic agenda, it seems to me that we are well beyond the 9/11 era if you will. we have endured the aftermath of 9/11. i feel as if we have experienced the brunt of the kind of civil rights attacked and now we are answering this new phase or chapter she will and i think that the air of spurring is kind of dominating that new chapter to read and i think that organizations like adc and allied organizations -- i never want to complete the fact that typically completed muslims are errors or vice versa acknowledged in this country the majority of americans aren't christian but aside from that the era of spring provides him ideal opportunity to build along the lines of human rights and

promote the rule of law build a strong alliances with human rights organizations beyond the ethnic and racial lines promoting the notion in the body of universal human rights across the board and a team that is an avenue of organizations like adc and arab-american at large to truly explore. >> on the grassroots level, it's vital that people get involved, that if they are subtly acted and trust that they have responsibility. there are civic duties you have to get out and vote, have your voice heard. we tend to see -- i can't speak much for other communities and how they are when it comes to organizing, but our more reactive than proactive when an

issue occurs, from only got we need to take to the streets, we face issues where i know and 06 during the lebanon israel war, at the time they wanted us to, you know, asked for a permit for 30 days in advance you have to receive a bill for all of the expenses you paid for where and coalition building we were lucky enough that an 03 during the iraq war the aclu because we had built a relationship with them had tackled the issue and allowed us to not have to request it 30 days in advance and by then the issue was over with and resolved. but what is important is that people realize that it's not about what's happening right then and there that you need to be proactive and you need to be involved in every aspect of

american life and you can't just wait for something to happen to say my god, we need to run with this and pick up the ball and demonstrate the rally. it's a concern we face on a daily basis we find the younger generation is more active, more proactive, getting involved and aware of the issues we need to deal with and are facing, and it's a very important part of life for us and for them i think we all know and we tend to jump the gun only when issues arise and on the grassroots level that's vital that people make that effort to be more involved with organizations and the community into the political system to move forward. >> i will end quickly i think it is inevitable there's going to

be another tragedy and we've had several tragedies since 9/11, so i don't think we should wait for the next tragedy. i think the message of being productive is exactly right. there's a number of things happening right now where they might not sound like they directly affect the community but they do. there's been a bill introduced in congress that would require indefinite detention that people who fall into certain immigration categories. so for example, they could allow the immigration officials to detain people coming in seeking asylum indefinitely without any recourse to the court to hear their case. it affects every community of immigrants and that's something you could get involved right now and you could envision how is that past it would affect the communities in different ways so we should be looking for things to get involved in come to the communities aware of and educating, bringing in young people and let's not wait for

the next thing to try to mobilize people. let's have it ready by getting involved now. >> i want to echo of a personal perspective because, you know, there's nothing more than the experience i remember again, going back to 9/11 just days after there was a report on fox news that there was a mysterious muslim man in the white house who had ties to al qaeda and i remember seeing that and thinking who could that be? but of course my brother from come from the and the smart alec did he is said i think they are talking about you, i thought it can't be that of course they were. i find out as margaret articulate it one of those now very well known hate groups out there was the one that plan to that story and fox told the story once they put it up there and they took it off the web site but it was an example for me as somebody that had been working in politics up until

that time, ten, 12 years and had been here in d.c. it was kind of an eye opener but i bring that up because when and that attack was made against me and my character and loyalty to the country and subsequently for the last ten years by a few of the group's that margaret articulate it as being out there are very well funded orient organized groups that go after people in public service, politicians with the local level and the national level what's kept me alive politically as it were wasn't only my own personal determination and not let the bad guys win but that i had friends across the political aisle, conservatives, moderates, democrats, republicans who knew me and worked with me and so when those attacks were levied i didn't have to defend myself but they defended me to get congressmen, senators, activists, left, right and everything in between were the ones who said this can't stand, this isn't right.

we know suhail and this isn't something that we are going to count as his front. so from that example i draw upon the topic of coalition building that when the next attack occurs whether it's a tragedy like fort hood or the christmas day, whatever it might be more directed towards the community as we saw this hateful rhetoric can lead to as we saw the and norway they had been going out and demonizing american muslims and arab-americans it takes one person to take the next step and he did that in oslo and killed almost 80 innocent people, so my sense is there's two things. first we don't and mont to curtail speech and it's one thing that makes the country special we have a first amendment both in the practice of the religious faith and also the expression but also the best way to counter the hateful

speech is to have more speech to respond to that fateful speech with the truth and in other words for people to get to know us before the tragedies occur so that we are not senselessly demonize and the majority of americans will say we know that our friends and neighbors have nothing to do with what happened in new york or virginia or pennsylvania, wherever it might be because our friends and neighbors are law abiding citizens who loves the country just as much as we do so that engagement has to be there and has to continue to be there and i would argue has to be beyond our own comfort zone and there may not necessarily feel comfortable with the of sometimes it is rough. i remember speaking to a very controlled group making the case i was the first normally come and i was answering very tough questions about sharia law and all these crazy things people ask about it afterwards a person kidnapped me and said don't take

it so personally this was during the 2008 election cycle. he said i wouldn't vote for a mormon or catholic and he was up front about that. so again i think that is a minority but it's out there. it's just step by step. i don't want people to lose heart. we will just keep plugging away. we have time for one final question before we close. >> go ahead. >> i will told the panel bup. >> go ahead. >> this diversity as the coalition going back to an earlier panel of discussion, have you encountered any state or federal agency cherry picking selectively engaging in only certain segments of the communities to be reached out to and vice versa and have you

received any pushback in trying to bring other questions to the coalition members of the table which the agencies might not draw the connection to. >> who wants to tackle that in 30 seconds or less? >> that was a more complicated question than i thought it was going to be. yes, we have encountered cherry picking, and there are some groups that are being respectable spokespersons on behalf of which of your community where as others are not. i mean, i think the key is again that's where coalition building can be of help. when we host a meeting for our members of our members are invited. we don't cherry pick. so if you want to meet with the right group you meet with the leadership and that makes sure

that not only diverse that they are the table, but we have people from outside washington at that table are members around the country also invited to participate, and we try to make sure we are always bringing those voices to the table in the meetings we are doing here. that's a pretty simplistic answer but -- >> i want to close if we could on that note. i want to thank margaret and suhail and [inaudible] and adc for holding this wonderful conference. thanks, everybody [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

..