we covered before, with the -- do we conclude that there is, you know, a very specific effort by the kuds forces to ingratiate themselves to what looks like diplomatic outreach to south and central america but in fact can be utilized as a staging platform for other kinds of activities, some of them, you know, supportive of their efforts to utilize drug gangs or other things to raise money to bring back to hezbollah and some of the other proxies. some of them to be a staging ground for activities within -- you know, the united states. we had testimony about iranian-trained hezbollah who were working with the drug gangs along the mexican borders. and they were teaching tunneling technology that has been

developed on, you know -- a utilization against israel to smuggle in weapons and other kinds of things. what's the extent to which we are comfortable that we've identified the scope of quds force activities in south and central america and what is the principle thing we can do to combat against that influence? and i'll ask the panel to -- anybody who thinks they're most positioned to answer it to jump in. and then anybody who has some observations. >> this is something that i spoke to at length in a previous appearance before the subcommittee. and i was honored to do that. one of the things we talked about then, in light of testimony from the south commander and others about the tremendous and recent expansion of the iranian diplomatic presence, and ways that can't be explained by normal diplomatic

activity. and given what we do know about iran's traditional use of diplomatic cover for quds force and other terroristic activity, is to find ways to pressure our allies in the western hemisphere to constrict that presence. and there are lots of ways to do that. you can constrict people from traveling around the country, much as we do in new york. >> we know there's involvement in places like venezuela. but are we finding the same level of involvement in countries that are traditionally more cooperative with the united states? >> i don't remember the list offhand. i have them in that previous testimony that i referred this committee to from just a few weeks ago where i list them out. and, again, this commander of south com has put out the numbers and the name of the countries, as well. so there is reason for concern there. my point is there are things that can be done diplomatically to constrict their ability to leverage this diplomatic tool that only states have to their advantage. now, it's not exactly fair to say only states. there is at least one example we know in venezuela where hezbollah had two individuals that have since been designated

as hezbollah by the treasury department who were active venezuelan diplomats who were doing things in that capacity on behalf of hezbollah. so groups have the capability to penetrate into governments that may not be as cooperative as we would like in counterterrorism, maybe even a little supportive of terrorism to provide that kind of cover. >> do you see that as an effort that is separate and apart from their interest in trying to obtain and iran's interest in trying to obtain a nuclear capacity, and would our taking a more proactive step and encouraging our allies and others to crack down on that have some kind of an ancillary impact on iran's ability to obtain nuclear weapons? >> it's largely parallel. but it's not -- it's not irrelevant. i mean, for example, i was at treasury when we started coming up with the sanctions program on iran and very proud of the way it's been working. but one of the areas where iran has been seeking to evade sanctions is by leveraging financial institutions in south america, several of which we have is hit publicly.

so there are areas where these two -- excuse me, where these two different issues intersect. >> well, thank you, dr. levitt. if i had anymore time, i would yield to my good friend, mr. long, but i do not. >> yields back. my friend from michigan, mr. clarke, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. it's apparent from this testimony today that both iran and hezbollah pose a grave threat, a threat to this country and also a threat to our ally, israel. and i believe that we need all reasonable options available in order to protect americans and protect our ally, israel, from an attack. my concern, though, is that as we strive to protect our people and our interests, that we don't further profiling and stereotyping against law-abiding american muslims. specifically, there's been a belief that many american

muslims are not fully cooperating with law enforcement. and perhaps mr. silber, you may have had some experience with m role with the new york city police. if you would have any thoughts that you could share with us on the relationship between new york city muslims and new york city police, as well as any of the other members here that could testify regarding the role of american muslims in working with local or federal law enforcement. >> yes. one of the unique things about new york city is the vast scope of its diversity in terms of the populations we have in new york city from around the world. we do have a large and vibrant, very multicultural muslim community, or really communities in new york city. and there have been a variety of different conduits through which the police department works with these different communities. some elements run through

community fairs that specialize in dealing with community leaders. other elements focus on the police commissioner and other elected feshls reaching out and traveling and meeting with members of the community. and then, frankly, nypd, which is as eye dye verse as the city that it protects, has a number of officers, for all different types of diverse backgrounds, including muslim, who frankly are working on the counterterrorism threat, and frankly work for me. so i would say that it's been multifaceted in new york city. and as i stated earlier, working with the community, having good relationships really is sort of our best set of eyes and ears to detect something early, as it may be met affidavit sizing. >> thank you, mr. silber. and with that, mr. chair, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. and now last, but certainly not least, the interloper. the gentleman from texas, former member of the committee, mr.

green. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i greatly appreciate your allowing me to be a part of this august body. i do want to thank all of the witnesses for your appearing today and for the intelligence that you've accorded us. i am greatly benefitting from what you've shared. i do want to focus momentarily with dr. levitt. dr. levitt, you talked about the traditional profile, which leads me to believe there must be a nonpro traditional profile. and you gave at least one example. before i go to my question, would you go back through the example of utilizing certain persons to drive cars, please? i want to make sure i clearly understood the example that you were sharing. >> sure, with pleasure. and mr. swecker could jump in, because this is the charlotte case in which i was a

professional witness in prosecution. so correct me if i am wrong here. the individuals running the cigarette smuggling scam were purchasing bulk cigarettes in the carolinas and driving across state lines to michigan, and not paying the tax. this made it a federal crime. they were speeding as they were driving up to michigan. and were getting speeding tickets. and assumed that not -- not the reason they were getting these tickets is not that they were speeding, but assumed it was because they were being profiled as muslim-americans. and so they decided to have caucasian blonde women drive the cars and the vans. and they too were told to speed. and they too got tickets. and they couldn't understand how it was that now american law enforcement was profiling caucasian blonde women. the criminal element of speeding didn't occur to them that -- they assumed it must have been some type of profiling.

i don't think there a nontraditional profile of hezbollah. it's just that law enforcement is aware, and in my testimony i cite fbi, which is stated publicly, that we do know that hezbollah is interested and has been for years in seeking out people who may not fit what they believe, hezbollah believes, we would see american law enforcement as a traditional profile. meaning someone from certain types of places in lebanon, bahl beck, in the east, where some of the towns and villages which were cited and others in the south. and, of course, not everybody from this these places is hezbollah. but there might be certain types of things that they assume -- this is their assumption, we would be looking at. and they're looking for other people. so the fbi has noted that there are hezbollah operatives that are not lebanese. that are iraqi. that are iranian. or otherwise. and that that's something we

should be aware of. >> is it possible that they would metamorphose into selecting persons who are of american ancestry? >> we haven't seen that as much as we have seen with sunnis recruiting -- people have converted to sunni islam. there is a small number of that type of thing. my bigger concern as i get to my testimony, is their ability to leverage criminal networks of the types that mr. braun has discussed. these are nonmuslim, and they're not hezbollah. they're not quds force. but by virtue of working together, they're able to do things on behalf of the group, knowingly or otherwise, and we know that hezbollah leverages criminal associations. here in europe for operational purposes, in part to get around the extra structures that have been put in place post 9/11. >> when we talk about these networks, are they likely to be persons who are from the country

that we're in? >> not the criminal -- the criminal networks? >> yes. >> not necessarily. in the charlotte case, almost all of the individuals were from lebanon, with the exception of some of the people they married, et cetera. some real and many more sham marriages. a huge fraud component. >> so dr. levitt, are you getting close to saying that we shouldn't worry about persons who are born in this country becoming a part of any of these criminal activities? >> no, not at all. anybody from any place is liable to get involved in criminal activity. that's what makes these relationships so powerful for a group like hezbollah. >> is there a reason for us to make sure that our vision is broad, and that we don't exclude persons simply because they happen to be from a given place? >> exactly. >> dr. -- mr. swecker, would you say a word on this, please? >> no, i think we have to have 360-degree vision on this and not get locked into a certain

paradigm. i mean, we -- i think it's very logical, and this group acted logically in having angela salemis for one person, a white american female, driving the cigarette loads up to detroit. once they realized they were getting stopped all of the time -- they were speeding, but they thought it was because they were being profiled. they did get noticed when they were buying the cigarettes. and so they began to send other people who weren't nearly as noticeable to go buy the cigarettes. so the short answer to your question is, yes, we have to have full vision, we can't get locked into one paradigm. but i don't think we are. i think that there is a -- very much a realization that we can't just -- a terrorist doesn't wear a dark mustache and a dark hat and look a certain way. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> and mr. green, your time is expired. i want to thank all of the

witnesses for their testimony, members for their questions. i think it's interesting to note that there's not one word of testimony nor certainly no question from either side which disputed the fact that there are hundreds of hezbollah operatives in this country, and they are capable of being turned operational. and that it's really a question of when and where and when that decision is made. so i want to make the record clear here that everything we heard prior to the hearing from law enforcement and from experts and was brought up today at the hearing and even brought out in questioning from both sides, that i believe that it has been proved that hezbollah is a threat to this country, a growing threat, and it has gone from terrorist financing to being capable of fully operational terrorist activities against the country. so i want to thank the witnesses. i also want to just mention to the witnesses -- members of the

committee may have some additional questions and we would ask you to respond to them in writing if they are brought forward. and the record would be held open for ten days. and without objection, the committee stands adjourned. coming up here on c-span three, a discussion on hiv aids with comments from the directors from the centers for disease control and prevention, 4:30 live on c-span 3. the house and senate are pretty much done for the week. the house today passed a bill

that would repeal the independent payment advisory board, and place caps on some medical malpractice awards. meanwhile, in the senate, they voted to advance a bill known as the stock act that deals with capitol fund raising, that deals with insider trading on capitol hill. they also agreed to send that bill to president obama for his signature. live coverage of the house on c-span when they return. senate on c-span 2. next week, the supreme court will hear oral argument about the health care law. we will provide same-day audio from the court monday through wednesday, and you can hear those arguments each day as they're released, which we expect to be about 1:00 p.m. eastern. we'll have them here on c-span 3. on c-span radio and c-span.org. in march of 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives to households nationwide. and today our content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books and american

history is available on tv, radio and online. >> when we put that force together to go to desert storm, i viewed every one of those youngsters as somebody that i had a personal responsibility for. i know that general schwartz cough felt the same way. we knew they were going into a very dangerous conflict, perhaps, and we wanted to give them every benefit that would allow them to come home safely. i am as distressed -- more distressed than any member of this committee could ever be that there are veterans who are suffering illnesses that may have an a result of their service in the gulf. i do not know if those illnesses are a result of the service in the gulf or not. but i think we have to keep that as an operating hypothesis until we find out otherwise. we have to get to the bottom of this to find out what the source of their illnesses were. >> c-span. created by america's cable companies as a public service. the head of the center for

disease control and prevention coming up at 4:30 eastern, talking about hiv/aids. we'll have that live. earlier today, house speaker john boehner said he's confident the republican budget blueprint will have enough support in the house when it comes up for votes next week. the republican blueprint was unveiled midweek by the budget committee, and they passed it last night. this briefing is 15 minutes. >> morning, everyone. >> morning. >> you know, gas prices are rising and americans are frustrated with the gap between the president's words and his actions. the president now says he supports the republican all of the above energy strategy for our country. but for three years, his administration has made every effort to block, delay and restrict new energy production in our country. he claims that he wants to address rising gas prices, but

his policies are actually making matters worse for families and small businesses. and the only recent action the president has taken on energy involved lobbying senators, personally and successfully, to prevent construction of the key stone pipeline. yet today he is out in oklahoma, trying to take credit for a part of the pipeline that doesn't even require his approval. now, this is what i'm calling the obama energy gap. up here in canada, and in north dakota, we've got all this oil. and the president is down here in oklahoma taking credit for a part of the pipeline that's going to go through the normal process. it's already gotten its approvals. and this idea that the president is going to expedite this will have no impact on the construction of this pipeline. now let me explain something.

it's not just oil that's up in canada. right now, this year, oklahoma -- north dakota will become the second-largest oil-producing state in our country. there are three 100-tank trains every day that come out of north dakota and have to go all the way to the gulf, because of the lack of this pipeline. and so what's canadian oil, north dakota oil needs to get down to our refineries in the gulf. so the president can take credit for having nothing to do with the bottom half of this pipeline and the fact is, there's only one permit that requires his approval, because it crosses our national boundaries. and that's the keystone decision on the upper half of this. remember, we have 165,000 miles of pipeline in our country that operates successfully every day. the congress earlier this year passed a pipeline safety bill to

increase the safety standards on this 165,000 miles of pipeline. the president should listen to the american people and allow the keystone pipeline to go forward. there's a big gap between what the president promises and what he talks about, and the actions that he's taking. and i think honest, hard-working taxpayers deserve actions that match the words. >> mr. speaker -- >> mr. speaker? last fall you voted on a balanced budget amendment and talked about how important it was to have a balanced budget. so why doesn't your budget come to balance for the last three decades? >> as you can see from the whole budget discussion, what's driving this are baby boomers beginning to retire. 10,000 new baby boomers every day filing for social security, filing for medicare, americans living longer, accessing medicaid services. it's driving a big hole in the

budget. it's why i was so serious about trying to work with the administration. and the president last year. to have a real agreement that would slow this process down and begin to deal with our deficit and our debt. >> mr. speaker -- >> speaker boehner? >> it's understandable why there are difficulties in congress, but there are many things like the jobs will which everyone seemed to -- like the president three weeks ago, the transportation bill used to be an easy thing to do. why are basically simple things so difficult to get done? >> well, i think the jobs bill moved through the house with a broad, bipartisan vote. and i expect the senate will send that bill back and we'll come to an agreement pretty quickly. i think when it comes to things like the highway bill, that used to be very bipartisan. you have to understand, it was

greased to be bipartisan with 6,571 earmarks. you take the earmarks away, and guess what, all of a sudden people are beginning to look at the real policy behind it. and so each of these bills will rise or fall on their own merits. >> speaker boehner -- >> do you expect to have 218 votes -- republican votes in the house to pass the ryan budget plan? >> that's a question for the whip. but i'm confident that we'll -- that we'll have the votes. >> speaker boehner, one of your popular refrains is you don't want to keep kicking the can down the road. the senate passed a bipartisan two-year transportation bill. now your position is to have a three-month extension of this. how is that not kicking the can down the road? >> the problem with the senate bill, it doesn't address the issue of rising gas prices and energy. we believe that if we're going to reauthorize the highway bill, american energy production ought to be a critical part of this. when you look at the budget and

you see the whole in the transportation funding, because there isn't sufficient gas tax receipts coming in to fund our infrastructure needs, opening up federal lands for more oil and gas production would, in fact, help fill that gap so that we can have the money to rebuild our roads and bridges. >> mr. speaker? >> do you have a dispute in your state between the party chairman and the governor whether he should stay out the end of the term or resign now. what do you think he should do? >> i think the state central committee will resolve that question and the sooner it gets resolved the better. >> mr. speaker -- >> stock act today moving forward in the senate. at the same time, the citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington has released a report that -- >> well, that's a real bipartisan operation. >> it shows that 248 members of congress, though, have paid family members either through their campaigns or through their official offices. and family members as close as like their spouse or their siblings or sons. do you think there is a problem

with that too here in congress? >> listen, i think all members should be held to the highest ethical standards. and i believe that virtually every member of congress tries to do that. but i think that question has been out there for some time. the rules of the house make it very clear that having relatives on your official payroll is against the rules of the house. i think when it cops to the issue of campaign funds, if there is legitimate work being done, people ought to be paid for it. but i'm not aware of all of these allegations. >> mr. speaker? >> why aren't you sitting down? >> because the seats are taken and my recorder -- >> oh. >> on transportation, you just described what -- what the senate bill lacked, but it was just last week when you told your conference that if they didn't come up with a republican bill, it would be the senate bill or something like it. then you came out here and told us the very same thing. what's changed between seven

days ago and today that you're now going for a three-month exten? our members on how best to address rebuilding our nation's infrastructure, and addressing rising gas prices and the need to have more energy production. >> mr. speaker -- >> a week ago you said it's a senate bill. >> what's your take on the recent ap report analysis that found gas prices do not go down when domestic drilling increases? >> well, i think it doesn't pass the straight face test. and the fact is, the problem is we don't have enough supply. and we've got more demand. and when you've got more demand, guess what, you're going to have higher prices. and there's no question that americans are sick and tired of sending $500 billion of their hard-earned money to countries around the world, most of whom don't like us a whole lot, to pay for our oil that we could -- and gas that we could be developing here in america. this is about an 80% issue in our country. and for 35 years, our country

has not had a national energy policy. republicans have been adamant for years that we ought to have an all of the above national energy strategy. i'm for wind development. i'm for solar. i'm also for nuclear. i'm for more oil and gas development in our country. and the president has continued to block development of oil and gas reserves, big reserves, on federal lands. and he can go out and make all the noise he wants, but the facts are there. >> mr. speaker -- >> do you support mr. tanner's plan to reauthorize the expo export/import and aim to wind down? >> there's a lot of conversation going on about it. i think mr. cantor and his staff are doing good work to try to find a common ground to deal with that issue. >> mr. speaker, can you address the ipad issues on the floor? we're hearing a lot of arguments about what's wrong with the health care law, specifically i -- are you confident that at

least five justices next week will see things the way your party sees things? >> i have no idea what the supreme court is going to do. >> mr. speaker -- >> on defense, on the budget -- >> [ inaudible ] >> defense budget. yet under sequester, it's going to be back to fy-12 levels by fy-18. h., a., how is that a hollowing out, and b., isn't there a danger our creating a dod patch or extenders that every year there will be areas to fill in? >> we should never have had the sequester. and remember, it was the president who insisted that the second tranche of the increase in the debt limit that there not be a debate and there not be any action, and that basically he got to authorize the second $1.2 trillion increase in the

debt limit. so that's where the problem started. i always thought that the super committee had a real chance to do good work, to produce savings so that the sequester wouldn't kick in. i think the sequester is -- our department of our defense will hurt our ability to do what americans believe is our most basic responsibility, and that's to provide security for the american people. i believe that secretary panetta believes the same thing. and for that matter, i think the white house believes that the sequester is totally unacceptable. that's why the house will act this spring to replace that sequester. and hopefully in some time near in the future, congress will really act to deal with our long-term spending problem and our deficit problem.

we can't continue to spend money that we don't have. all right, jonathan, last one. >> you lost two republican votes last night on the ryan plan in the budget committee. do you expect that changes will be made to the budget before it comes to a vote, or do you think that it's just a question of getting to the ryan plan the way it is? >> let me go back a little bit, jonathan. we're over here in the house actually working on a budget. going through the real work that it takes to come to grips with our fiscal problems. the senate's done nothing. there have been no markups over in the senate. there hasn't even been any effort in the senate. three years. three years, and they've failed to move a budget. and so when people get critical about, oh, well, you only passed the budget out of committee by one vote, and, boy, you're going to get 218 votes when you bring it to the floor, we're actually doing the real work that it -- that's required to address our long-term problems.