-- sba official. just created fictitious information in the application. so it was basically loan fraud. there were -- there was bribery of another bank official to open a bank account and allow them to basically create false identities and create a bust-out scheme with the bank -- with a checking account. >> and what were the -- who was that person? what was he? >> lebanese. >> the bank officer? >> oh, i'm sorry, i don't know the demographic of the bank officer. >> thank you. and i yield back. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to this very distinguished panel for your presence here today, and frankly, for each of you, for the continuing work you do and dealing with the issue of the concern that we all share about the expansion of the influence of iranian-inspired revolutionary forces throughout. some of you have already

participated in a series of hearings that we've held in our. and in particular interest to that was the expansion into south and central america and the involvement. i apologize to the extent that i may be going over some areas that have been covered previously. unfortunately, we are -- at another committee i had to participate in. but i want to expand a little bit on some of the ground that do we conclude that there is, you know, a very specific effort by the qods forces to ingratiate themselves into 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 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 qods force activities in central and south america, and in your estimation is the principle thing we can do to combat against that influence? and i'll ask the panel to --

positioned to answer it to jump in. and anybody nab 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 in 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 qods 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 e doing things in that capacity on behalf of hezbollah. so groups also do have the capability sometimes to penetrate into governments that may not be as cooperative as we'd like on counter tirm, 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 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 any extra time, i would yield it to my good friend, mr. long, but i do not. >> the gentleman 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 engage in 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 new york city muslims and their 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 .diaspora populations we very 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 officials reaching out and traveling and meeting with members of the community. and then, frankly, nypd, which is as diverse 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 metastasizing. >> 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 conclude that there must

be a nontraditional profile, and you did mention 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 which he ran and i served as an expert witness in the actual prosecution. so correct me if i get anything 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 is a nontraditional profile of hezbollah. it's just that law enforcement is aware, and in my testimony i cite fbi, which is stated this publicly that, we do know that he hezbollah is interested and has been for years in seeking outs people who may not fit what they believe, hezbollah believes, we would see american law enforcement, as a traditional profile, meaning someone from lebanon, someone from certain types, places

independence lebanon, balbec in the east or some of the towns and villages that mr. sill ber cited and others in the south and, of course, not everybody from these places is hezbollah but there might be certain types of things that they assume, this is their assumption that 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. th 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've seen with sunnis recruiting are 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 qods 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 lever ands criminal associations. here, in europe, for operational purposes, in part to get around the extras strict tours 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 what was brought out today at the hearing anduestevning fr 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 ulagainst 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, te ands .

we take you live now to a cato institute forum on next week's supreme court arguments challenging the health care law signed by president obama two years ago today. during three days of hearings, the court will consider the constitutionality of requiring people to purchase coverage by 2014 or face a penalty. the court will also rule on the question of whether the law sov. 26 states are behind the case tlf hlth and human services. up next, again, the cato institute holding a preview of the case. this is live coverage here on c-span three. c-span3.

>> again, we're waiting for the cato institute to begin sits forum on next week's supreme court arguments challenging the health care law signed by president obama two years ago today. and more discussion on that also right now on c-span2. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell speaking about the anniversary. we'll wait just a few minutes. this forum will be getting under way, two panels. it should last till about 2:15 eastern.

. . again, we're lye at the cato institute where a forum is about to get under way on next week's supreme court oral arguments in cases challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. the high court will hear oral

arguments next week in a series of cases on the constitutionality of the law and will provide same-day audio monday through wednesday. you can hear the oral arguments each day as they're released about 1:00 p.m. eastern. our coverage will be here on c-span3, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. now to the forum. >> -- the director of the cato center for constitutional studies, which is your host for today's event. i want to give a special welcome to you because of course we're here in the brand-new f.a. hayek auditorium, and this is the inaugural event for this auditorium, so we're especially proud to be hosting it for you. as you may have noticed, we are not yet finished with everything. the furniture has not yet arrived for the podium, and we've got some other touching up to do, but that goes with

construction. and we're very fortunate to be as far along as we are. today the topic is, of course, the subject of next week, namely is the patient protection and affordable care act constitution n constitutional. monday the supreme court begins six hours of oral argument running over three days on that question. this will be a preview, both pro and con, of those oral arguments. our first panel will look at the question whether congress can order individuals to buy health insurance, the individual mandate. our second panel right after lunch we'll ask whether congress can use its taxing power to compel states to expand their medicaid coverage. without doubt, florida, the

department of health and human is services, is the most important case to come before the supreme court in several decades. it is because it will raise the fundamental question of whether there are any limits on federal. so let's begin. i'm going to turn the panel over to our moderator, ilya shapiro, and i'm going to give just a summary of his bio because you have in your packages the bios for each of us. ilya is a graduate of princeton, the london school of economics and the university of chicago law school, after which he clerked for grady jolly of the fifth circuit. he is the editor of the cato supreme court review and a senior fellow here at the cato institute. and he has been responsible for

orchestrating a wide range of amicus briefs. without me turn it over to ilya, and please welcome him. [ applause ] >> thanks very much, roger, and welcome to you all. i'm just into some short introductions before we get to our main event. you've been waiting patiently for. you know, the -- roger called the legislation we're discussing the patient protection and affordable care act. the official title of this forum is obamacare. but really we all know the accurate title for this law is the libertarian legal scholar full employment act. i've been really busy with all this stuff, and i'm happy that randy barnett is here, because i'm practically making a living on speaking appearances and writing opportunities that he turns down. so, thank you, randy, for being even busier than i am. we'll begin with michael cannon,

who is cato's director of health policy studies. one thing i just learned for the first time about michael in reading his bio is that he was cited by "the washington post" as an influential health care wonk at the libertarian cato institute. so that's -- i'll look to learn even more. i use michael as an excuse. whenever i get some toughspeaki, i say, look, i'm a simple constitutional lawyer. you want to know about the health care stuff, talk to michael. he'll be followed by randy barnett, the professor of legal theory at the georgetown university law center where he teaches constitutional law and contracts. randy famously argued the last big case relevant to our discussions here, gonzalez versus raich in 2004. and he's also been called by "the new york times" the intellectual godfather of the lawsuits against the individual mandate and obamacare more broadly. and last but not least, we have elizabeth wydra, who is the

chief counsel of the constitutional accountability center, which is a think tank law firm, an action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the constitution's text and history. she frequently participates, as do a lot of us in this business, in amicus briefs before the supreme court, and she's actually, unlike many of us, has argued several big cases in the federal courts of appeal. so without further ado, i'll turn it over the michael. and then we'll hear from some lawyers and we'll keep going. >> thank you, ilya, and thank you, roger, for putting this together, and thank you for reading that quote from "the washington post." it sounds like an impressive quote, but they were just quoting me saying that, so it's really less impressive when you know the full story. roger told me that i would have the honor of being the first person to present here in in

cato's hayek auditorium. for everyone who follows me, the view from here is fantastic. let's jump into the individual mandate. last month a gallup poll found 72% of americans think obamacare is unconstitutional. what's really remarkable about that is 56% of democrats and 54% of those who support the law as a whole think the individual mandate is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. in an associated press national constitution center poll found that more than 82% of americans believe the federal government should not have the power to force americans to purchase health insurance. some say voters oppose it because they're confused. of course they are. this law is 2,000 pages long. how can you not be confused? it is generating additional thousands of pages of regulations. the department of health and human services has so far issued 200 pages of guidance on how to

draft a four-page summary of health benefits. when they released, by the way, their sample four-page summary, it was eight pages long. everyone is confused about this law, but none more so than its defenders. nearly every claim they make about the individual mandate is a myth. an individual mandate, for example, does not make health insurance more affordable as they claim. it makes coverage more expensive by forcing consumers to purchase additional coverage they do not want and may find morally offensive. it's increased some people's health insurance premiums by as much as 30%. before it's taken effect, these aspects have increased premiums by more than cost shifting from the uninsured does. the mandate will not eliminate cost shifting from the uninsured, but even if it did it will still increase premiums. the mandate does not reduce cost shifting as it suggests. it increases it. one of obamacare's leading cheerleaders is an economist

named johnathan gruber. he projected when the mandate takes full effect in 2014 it will cause some people's health insurance premiums to double. think about that. think about how much you pay for health insurance right now. think of that amount and now imagine doubling it. that's because the law will force a lot of pay higher premiums to subsidize the sick. but that doesn't reduce the cost of covering the sick. it just shifts that cost to others. as cost shifting always does, that leads to higher costs overall. president obama has said the mandate and the rest of the law will save lives. the problem is he doesn't have any solid evidence to back that up. in fact, while congress was debating obamacare, researchers in oregon were conducting the only study ever to only generate solid evidence on whether it saves lives and the president and congress couldn't be bothered to wait for the results. so far that oregon study has not found that broad based coverage