path and what that will mean for the economy. it will address both of those. it will not reassure a lot of people who are most focused on jobs. it let the the thing that they want to talk about. but it is something that an increasing number of americans are worried about. it is something that our partners and investors around the world are worried about. >> was there something that struck you today that made news? >> i had not heard him talk about who should be on this commission before, from congress. >> i was interested in the way he was describing the tactics, the timing of when the commission idea was most likely to be adopted, early next year. that is when they will be considering a long-term extension of the debt. that means that the obama administration will have a much greater say in what is good to be done. you will be talking about the state of the union address and

the budget release the comes in january or february. he will be engaged and involved. >> thank you so much for being with us. have a good day. >> the u.s. senate continues its work on health care this afternoon. it is live right now on c-span 2. this is tom harkin, democrat. they are alternating debate time in one-hour blocks. this will go on in 11:30 p.m. tonight. they will vote on majority leader harry reid's amendment. right now, barring an agreement

with republicans, the final vote on passing the bill could happen on christmas eve. earlier today, senate republicans held a press conference on the health care bill. you'll hear from mitch mcconnell, tom kyle, and another. >> we are about 10 hours away from one of the most important things we have had in decades. that will be the first vote on this now 2700 page monstrosity that seeks to restructure one

sixth of our economy one of the reasons -- of our economy. one of the reasons and needed to be read yesterday was to figure out what was in it and find what special deals have been cut. we also know, as a result of a retort from the director -- as a result of a report from the director of the cbo that came up today, there is more reason we should not try to jam through legislation this rapidly. it is called the director's blogged. it came out today. it had a correction regarding the long-term effects. let me just quote the first sentence. "related to the long-term budgetary effects," what they're

saying is, if you look at the second 10 years, they could be off as much as $0.50 trillion. this is a cbo correction, 24 hours after the first cbo estimate. that is an important new development today. we are learning more about the sweetheart deals that have been made. i am going to ask my colleagues to comment on that. the taxpayers of kentucky are not excited about having to underwrite the special deals that were apparently made in nebraska, vt., and maybe massachusetts. i will remind the taxpayers of my state that they are subsidizing these other three states because their senators have extracted a price for passing this bill. this is just another good reason

why a bill like this should not be done on a narrowly partisan basis. when you decide to do something and you have 60 votes, you are open for business and creates the kind of silly proposition that we have seen on full display. it empowers every single one of those 60 to extract some special deal for them at the expense of everybody else in the country. after all, this is supposed to be all of our but health-care. with that, let me call on senator kyl. >> i was born in the state of nebraska. a lot of nebraska's have moved to-state of arizona. they're great people. they're very principled people. when they told ben nelson that they did not like this bill, they hoped that he would work to correct the flaws in the bill. instead, what we find after

reading the new amendment is that he simply exempted the state of nebraska from some of the obligations in the bill. so leaders said that all of the other states will have to pay $26 billion over the next 10 years to cover the cost of th adding a new medicaid patient. my governor had sent a similar letter and so did others. instead of trying to correct the problem, which is adding all of these medicaid patients to the legislation and then having an obligation for the federal government and the states to pick up the cost, senator nelson just said, i will exempt mises from having to pay it, so the rest of us will -- i will exempt my state from having to pay it, so the rest of us will have to pay it. i said, wait a minute, senator nelson. that is not what we want you to

do. we did not want special treatment. if it is not good for us, it is not good for our friends in iowa or missouri or south dakota or any other either. you should have fixed the bill, not just get a special sweetheart bill for nebraska. that is not what we want. i do not know this for sure. i have not talked to our friends in nebraska. but i am sure that that is what they will say in the next several weeks. if you look at the dow jones news wire yesterday, there are more sweetheart deals. apparently, there are other references to insurance companies who meet certain qualifications and it just happens that the three that qualified are blue cross, blue shield of nebraska and michigan and mutual of omaha. in other words, that satisfies the special interests in the state and against what the vast majority of nebraska and are

telling him what to do, which was to not support this legislation. >> i think you have a half nelson, a three quarter nelson, a double nelson, and more. one is exempting many floridians. the three quarter notes and is that senator nelson has excluded the position on hospital construction in his state by changing the date that left 80 other investors throughout the country hanging out to dry in terms of billions of dollars of investment that will never come to fruition. but he protected the ones in his state. he also has written a permanent, into infinity, funding for the federal taxpayer, all of us were not in nebraska, for any impasse

of medicaid that this bill would bring forward. how can that be the america that we're from? that we are going to take one group and treat you different than everybody else? we have 90,000 oklahomans on medicare advantage. we have thousands on medicaid. this will be a big cost for the state of oklahoma why is it that nebraska is more nebraska than oklahoma or nebraska or kentucky? it is not. we are dividing up the country on the basis of parochial preferences rather than doing the right thing for the country. i think it is also interesting to note that, in this bill is $190 million for a hospital. who did they buy for $100 million? what state is that? is that connecticut?

is that nebraska? what other state? who has bought a deal that gets $100 million of that nobody else gets? this is going to sour in the stomach of the american people. this process is not legislation. this process is corruption. and it is corruption that is obvious to the average american in this country. it is a shame that that is the only way that we can come to a consensus in this country, to buy votes. >> the only other issue i would mention that we did not touch on is the abortion language. senator nelson also indicated that he had been trying to ensure that tax money was not

used for elective abortions. then he had done that. it is clear now that, in the last 24 hours, that is not the opinion of congressman snowpacked and not the opinion of the catholic bishops. -- congressman supak and not the opinion of the catholic bishops. people have to show up and vote. they have to take responsibility for their votes. we will have to those which will give people full ownership of this now 2700-page monstrosity. in monstrosity to that, it is pretty clear from the statement that congressman supak but yesterday is that they still have an issue with funding

elective abortions with tax dollars. this is not over. >> [unintelligible] >> $26 billion is the amount of money for 10 years that the other states will have to pay for covering the other people in this legislation. part of that goes to cover people in nebraska. >> the leader talked about the cbo numbers. if you read the fed notes, number one, this does not include the [unintelligible] that is a quarter of $1 trillion. we will vote on that in january. we're going to steal that from our grandchildren. given the history, it is unlikely that these savings will be materialized if they do not do the cuts they said they would

do in medicare. but they also stated that that is highly unlikely as well. the third point is that, if they do make these cuts, it is highly unlikely that care will decline for medicare. there are caveat so that to this congress and the congress before have said that they will do. >> [unintelligible] >> i think it is. >> that is a pretty serious charge. senator mcconnell, you year marked bills for several million dollars. senators on both sides of the aisle. >> there are plenty of

differences in this. lemme tell you the first one. senator mcconnell has -- let me tell you the first one. senator mcconnell has never voted on a bill that [unintelligible] it is good to change health care in this country. it is clear to change the quality of care in this country. and we are buying votes to move this country from a patient- centered health care system to a government-centered health care system. you do not do things like this unless you have the majority or the middle of the country behind you. so we see this process unfolding because you do not have the majority or the milk in the country behind you. we have to use a mechanism of buying votes by making -- first of all, there will be constitutional challenges in

this bill like you will not believe. i cannot wait to see the attorney general with the states that are getting the cuts with specific benefits in this bill and there will now have the constitutional basis to challenge it. >> senator lieberman said, i think the public plan is wrong for america. i cannot support it as long as it is in there. that was a matter of principle for him. they took it out. he, therefore, said he would cast his vote for it. senator nelson also has matters of importance him as well. as long as it does not have the stupak abortion language in it,

i cannot hava vote on it. they got his vote not as a matter of principle, but the medicaid expansion should be taken out of the bill? just that nebraskans be exempt from it. it is not that the burdens on the insurance companies across the country would be very difficult for them to satisfy, but that a couple of companies in nebraska would be exempt from them. that is not a matter of principle. that is a matter of trying to do something just for your state and the head with the rest of the people in the united states of america. >> senator mccain said today that you can block this bill if

the votes to not come together for the democrats. >> we are going to do that. you have substantial differences between the house version of the bill and the senate version of the bill. i think the american people can be assured that this will not become law before christmas. that is good. secondly, there is more time for the public to weigh in, evaluate, and learn more, as we have learned within the first 24 hours from the congressional office itself -- the congressional budget office itself above its estimate. this is not over by any stretch. thank you, everyone.

>> the senate continues work on the health care bill. here's how you can follow the debate. watch it commercial free on c- span 2. listen to the highlights on c- span radio and review the debates on our hub at c- span.org. there are readings from leadership and other key senators and the latest from reporters and editors of the cq roll-call group. there's also a c-span radio iphone app. >> now we have a house hearing on counter-terrorism efforts and first amendment rights. we will hear about the

challenges involved. this is an hour and 10 minutes. subcommittee will come to order. the subcommittee is meeting today to explore whether there are risk factors or preincident indicators are terrorist activity identified by symbol jones or law enforcement organizations to enable that preserves, let me repeat that, preserving individuals' right to privacy and civil liberties. today's hearing is entitled "violent extremism: how are people moved from constitutionally protected thought to acts of terrorism?" . ahmed abdullah minni was a member of the west potomac high

school wrestling team. his coach described him as "one of the last people" he would expect to turn to terrorism. ramy zamzam a dental student was "tolerant and engaging." these two men along with three workout buddies from the local gold's gym in fairfax county were recently arrested in pakistan, allegedly attempting to engage in jihad against u.s. soldiers in afghanistan. their disappearance didn't raise suspicion until one of the boy's families found a farewell video soon after and their loved ones frantically contacted the fbi for help in locating them. and to almost all who knew him, najibullah zazi liked to joke with customers, not as it is alleged, plotting an attack on the new york city transit system with al qaeda. people didn't know what to make

of major nidal hasan but surely no one anticipated that he would carry out the worst domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11. in each of these cases appearances proved far different from reality. today this subcommittee seeks to gain understanding of how people who seem like anyone else, those who are capable of interacting socially with friends and colleagues and in many cases are athletes and scholars could be recruited or self-recruited to train to be terrorists. my eyes were opened four years ago when a terrorist cell in my district, torrance, california, excellent police authorities enabled to in connect the dots on attacks to attack local synagogues and a military base. the folk planning to do that are now in jail. this isn't new subject matter for our subcommittee either. since early 2007, we have held a

series of careful hearings to understand how someone with radical views which are protected by our constitution, let me say that again, radical views which are protected by our constitution, becomes willing to engage in violent behavior, and in some cases to seek to inflict maximum harm on the maximum number of innocent civilians. our earlier efforts misunderstood by some civil liberties groups. creating a commission to examine and report on what causes an individual like major hasan to attack. it passed the house by 404-6 in october 2007. only then did the aclu, a witness at today's hearings, which participated in our meetings object to it, and many disagreed that such a commission should examine terrorist recruitment on the internet yet

press reports suggest at least one of the five alexandria men, just arrested in pakistan, posted online comments praising youtube videos of attacks on a u.s. army convoy hit by a roadside bomb in kabul. that is when the alleged recruiter contacted him. youtube videos may have inspired them to travel to pakistan. it also appears, as i said, that the taliban recruited coded messages and facebook to communicate with them. in his written statement, mr. mccloud ball of the aclu, very. helpful to this subcommittee, "honor our values and keep us safe." of course, we must protect these freedoms but we also must prevent recruit frers cherry picking kids from our communities and sending them to become jihadists overseas. i hope our witnesses can help us separate the inspleecttual process of committing to a

political agenda from the operation's process of moving from non-violence to violence, which i'm sure everyone on this hearing panel agrees is not protected. we need to be able to intervene at the right point to stop individuals in our schools, neighborhoods, religious centers and jails who are persuaded by extreme violent messaging, whether through the internet, fred or mentors to commit violent acts. before it is too late. so what are the triggers? the number of americans who are either being recruited or are self-recruiting to carry out terrorist attacks here or abroad is growing. so what are the triggers? recently numbers of young somali american was recruited in minneapolis to join a terror network in somalia. their families were stunned. two carried out suicide bombings. so what are the triggers? and then there's david hedley, the american citizen who has now

been indicted for alleged roled in the mumbai attacks as well as plotting attacks on a danish newspaper. this case is doubly important to examine because he was an american recruited to attack abroad. so what are the triggers? in these cases, terrorist organizations not only successfully recruited americans, but then provided the requisite training to enable those americans to carry out attacks. we don't have too many chances more, too many more chances to get this right. there is a growing list of people suspected of being recruited and ready to carry out terror attacks in our country and abroad. if we fail to find the right way to protect both security and liberty, the next attack, i fear, could lead to a shredding of our constitution. something none of us wants. i want to welcome all the witnesses in addition to michael

mccloud ball, we will hear from doctors stephen wine of the university of chicago, my friend jim of the american institute and jim kragen rand. all of the members of this subcommittee who took oaths to protect and defend the constitution and to provide for the common defense, look forward to your expert analysis and suggestions for tackling this growing threat. terrorists only have to be right once. we have to try our best to be right 100% of the time. i now yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> i thank the young madam chair and thank you for this very timely and important hearing. i think the witnesses, i thank the witnesss for being here today. home grown terrorism is happening right now and right here in the united states. and as we sit here today, someone or some group of peoples in the process are being radicalized to extremist ideology. most will want themselves to

radical thoughts and speech that are undeniably protected by our constitution but there are those on the path towards violent acts of terrorism, and their life's work is to try to kill us. unfortunately, finding and stopping these individuals is like finding a needle in a haystack. we see cases highlight the fact that the united states is not immune to home grown terrorism, and the murders in hood by nidal nassen last month remind us not only domestic radicalization but how vulnerable we are to attack. 13 people, incident people, brutally murder and many other injured by the land of a u.s. citizen, a doctor and a member of the united states military. the threat is real, and we are still at rick in this nation.

case after case demonstrates major hasan said his allegiance was to the koran and not the constitution. tried to get his bosses to prosecute some of his patients as war criminals, regularly described the war on terrorism as a war against islam. used a presentation at an environmental health class to argue that muslims were being targeted by the u.s. anti-terror campaign and was very vocal about the war. very up front about being a muslim first and an american second. daniel patrick boyd, a u.s. citizen and six others arrested in july charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. according to the fbi, boyd trained and in terrorist training camps in pakistan and afghanistan. and then mr. zazi, probably one of the biggest threats we've discovered recently in terms of a cell in the united states working on behalf of al qaeda, born in afghanistan, u.s. legal

permit resident living in colorado, charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. david hedley, a u.s. citizen who attended terrorist training camps in pakistan was living in chicago and planned attacks abroad. we've learned that he was not only planning future attacks but has now been charged with leping to plan the 2008 attacks in mumbai, india. and just over the past few days we're learning about five young men in virginia just outside where we sit here today who it appears that these young men were radicalized just miles from where we are here. we are seeing more individuals who are self-radicalized over the internet rather than being recruited by al qaeda.

they develop extremist thought and then turn to terrorism. one in my state was illegally in this country and was arrested for plotting a conspicuous act of violence. he is one of the several recent cases of lone wolf plots. we need to give officials the tools they need to find these terrorist plots. we must not forget that we are still under attack and that the threat is very real. waiting until terrorist acts occur and innocent men and women

and children are murdered is not an acceptable answer. we must deal to detect and intercept terrorists early. . murdered is not an acceptable answer. we must be able to intercept terrorists early. in doing so we need to answer fundamental questions. how can we identify who is on the path to terrorism? without infringing on the rights of those exercising the constitutional freedoms? are there trends and patterns? are there risk factors that make an individual more or less susceptible to going down this path? and i look forward to hearing the answers to some of these questions. and madam chairman, i hope this will be just the first in a series of hearings on this topic, and that in the future we will be able to hear what the government is doing to help understand and combat the spread of radicalization and terrorist ideology. there are outreach programs at the nctc, at dhs and through

many of the jttfs. i request that in subsequent hearings we hear from those and others about what is being done and what should be done to stop this problem. and finally i believe it is important to note that the government alone cannot solve this problem. this not only is a national security problem it is a community problem. we must work together with government, religious leaders, educators and community groups to reduce this threat, and i would ask the witnesses to discuss not only what can and cannot be done by the government, but what really can be done outside of the government? and with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you. let me just point out to the ranking member that we have held a series of hearings on this subject, really, for the last four year, and made a series on legislation i mentioned, we held a hearing a few weeks ago on the threats. i know that you were detained in texas on official business and

not able to tend attend that, but we will continue to focus on this in the hopes of getting it right. i now yield five minutes for opening remarks to the chairman of the full committee, mr. thompson of mississippi. >> thank you, madam chair, for holding this hearing. more than eight years after 9/11 attacks, it is not particularly surprising that we face the growing, ever-changing threat from violent extremists. the department of homeland security stood up in the wake of those attacks as evolved over the course of these past years yet even amidst changing there are con stands. on one hand we are challenged by the constant and continued threat posed by terrorists both transnational and domestic. we're challenged by groups of those willing to penetrate inconceivable acts of violence. on the other hand, we're

supported by the constant efforts of our dedicated law enforcement intelligence and homeland security professionals who helped defend against that threat. there are other constants in that we, too, have a duty we must remain vigilant. we must's vigilant to ensure that those who bear the brunt of detecting, identifying, disrupting and dismantling efforts by terrorists to strike at us, our citizens, our homeland and our allies have adequate resources and tools to do so. we must be vigilant that we do not slip back into a september 10, 2001 mentality regarding the sharing of information. no matter how we say it, knowing what we know connecting the dots, getting the right information to the right people at the right time, we're talking about the same thing. and an environment in which information is shared is an environment in which better decisions can be made, and

ultimately one in which people are safer. finally, we must also be vigilant thant we are doing everything we can to break the link between these groups and individuals they are grooming for violence. we both law enforcement and our communities must keep a watchful eye open for people like von brohm, smoty, but we smuft also be vigilant that those efforts resources and tools are applied consistently in ways that respect the privacy and civil liberties of american citizens, and do not sacrifice our nation's values. but i'm very glad that we have witnesses here before us this morning. i hope your insights will help us maintain both our vigilance and our ideals. welcome to you all and i thank you for being here.

>> i thank the chairman for his remarks and would note other members of the subcommittee are reminded under committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the record. i am now, it is now really my privilege to welcome our witnesses this morning. we will start with dr. jim zogby who is the president and founder of the american arab institute and who appears today because i called him and urged him to fit this hearing into his very busy plans for the month. aai serves as a political and policy research arm of the arab-american community since 1992 dr. zogby has written a weekly column called "washington watch" currently published in 14 arab and asian countries. authored a number of books including "what ethnic americans really think "and what "arab this: values beliefs and

concerns." in 2001 he was appointsed to the exec tick committee of the democratic national committee and in 2006 named co-chair of the dnc's resolutions committee. he has advised me personally and numbers of us here for years on the muslim community and i think it's very important as we review this subject again that we understand the fact that most members of the muslim community are law-abiding citizens and really want to help us get this right. dr. mccloud ball is the acting director of the aclu at the washington legislative office. his office works with congressional offices on a non-partisan basis to ensure american civil liberties be protected. he held roles in the political community including serving on presidential campaigns. his works is an attorney afforded him the opportunity to argue significant cases on privacy and federal regulatory

authority, and before this hearing, before his testimony here, he wrote the subcommittee a very thoughtful letter, which i have reread in preparation for this hearing on how to understand this problem and hopefully thousand get right and he has reviewed some draft legislation on approvement we are considering, and i very much appreciate your cooperation with us. dr. wine is a professor of psychiatry and responses to could as it trophies as the university of illinois at chicago currently serves at the principal investigator of the national institute of mental health sponsored study on add lessant refugees from siberia in the united states, authored several articles and book including "testimony in catastrophe," he was awarded a career scientist award from the nimh on scientist based with refugee families. finally dr. craigin, a professor

at the university of maryland, focusing on terrorist related issues. served three months on general petraeus' staff in iraq in 2008 and her iran publications include "the terrorist, dynamic terrorist threat" sharing the dragon's teeth" and exchange of new technologies. without objection the witnesses full statements will be inverted -- inserted in the record. and i welcome first dr. zogby. welcome, dr. zogby. >> thank you, madam chairman and members of the committee. the issue before us is indeed a critical one. it concerns our national security to be sure, but it also represents a grave challenge to our national character. i come at this exploration from several vantage points, some as you mentioned, an american arab

leader, having worked with those and other arab communities as well. at a ph.d. in islamic studies and also someone who did postdoctoral work on the impact of religion in societies under stress, as a pollster with my brother john spog buy intensively polled communities of interest both here in the united states and europe and across the middle east and as a participant leader in ethnic coalitions in this country that has brought me into close contact with new and not so new americans watching them move from exile politics into the american mainstream. let me begin with a simple observation. despite real concerns that we all share about recent cases involving the arrests of some young men seeking association with dangerous international terrorist activity and the arrests of others who appear to be on the verge of carrying out such activity, we are not europe. our situation here is

fundamentally different than that face by countries on the continent for several reasons. first and foremost is that america is different in concept and reality. i've heard and talked to third generation kurds in germany or al geeians or pakistanis in england who will continue to remain on the margins of their society. they're turks, they're arabs, or they are pakis. they do not become british or german or french. on the other hand, becoming american is a very different process. it's brought countless numbers of immigrant groupings into the mainstream. it is not through possession of a single ethnic community or a single ethnic group has the right to define american with generations diverse communities and religious people of different religious background from every corner of the globe have become american, and the important thing is that not only do they become american, but america becomes changed as well.

because of this rich experience, recent immigrants from arab and muslim countries come to this country in effect with the table set for them. and they find it to be a fertile ground for the ever-broadening definition of being american. another important difference between our situation and europe is that people here do not stay on the imaginal. in fact, because of the extraordinary social and economic mobility available to immigrants, they in fact move into enterprise, the yemeni community in calf i first met 30 years ago picking grapes in the valley are today business owners throughout the country and their children are in colleges and in fact becoming quite successful. it is true we have a problem. but i think we need to put the problem into context. the arrests of these young men that we have seen is certainly one that we must consider, and we must consider not only the

impact on our country but also the impact on the communities affected. let me say the following -- we're engaged in the conflict internationally. no question about it. and it has repair cushion repercussions here at home. those who sought to exploit it, cast it as an irreversible clash of civilization. just as there are some religious and political leaders and maybe a figure in the muslim world who sought to taint america way broad brush of irredeemable evil, there are counterparts here in this country who tried to do the same with islam. all of this exacerbates tension and creates problem on all sides. despite this, the vast majority of american muslims and arab-americans rejected this fermenting clash. they have worked with the political process available to them, they have fought discrimination, they've combatted hate crimes and they've voiced differences in

the u.s. as citizens not as aliens. nevertheless it is a fact that some alienated young men from these communities have become susceptible to anti-social radicalization. this is not new. we've seen it before. in the past four decades that i've been involved in politics, we've witnessed recruitment into white supremacist and christian the fact is that the lower of certain ideology and romanticized much is no -- romanticized machismo does provide for some of these men and dangerous killer to the feeling of power -- powerlessness experience. we're seeing it began with a different group of people. i have reviewed dozens of these cases. there are multiple differences, and we have to see what they are because they cannot all be

painted as one simple phenomenon, but the power of alienation that leads to violent action as a cure seems to run through the mall, and this is what we must address. i believe we must address it with a scalpel and not with a sledgehammer, because if we take a swipe at all whole community, we increase the alienation, and we change the character of who we are, making it more difficult to deal with the problem. let me come to a close by saying we have to understand what we're doing right -- not only what is wrong, but what is being done right. recruitment will remain. we have to find a way to make deane -- young man less susceptible to recruitment. i think if we look at what is done right, we have a leading moslem american organizations actively responding to efforts to deal with the problem. i can cite the work of the public affairs committee reaching out to law enforcement, working with the community,

working with young people to create political alternatives so they can voice their differences with the policies that lead to the aggravation in a way as citizens seeking recourse. law enforcement is also working in these communities and doing so quite effectively, and as the situation in minneapolis are here in northern virginia shows -- the work of the fbi and u.s. attorneys can be productive in this situation. fbi or u.s. attorneys can be productive and helpful in this situation, and finally, we have a president who is creating a different atmosphere and space for discourse with the muslim world. this is very important. the answer is not to change who we are or how we react. but to be more of who we are and to continue to do what we do best. >> thank you, dr. zogby. thank you. mr. mccloud-ball. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. good morning, chairwoman harman. thank you very much, ranking

member mccaul and other members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting the aclu to testify about speech rights while examining violent ex-freedomism. 1964 barry goldwater said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. extremism is nothing more than a chosen set of beliefs and as such protectedeneder the first amendment. an extremist ideology in and of itself must not bring on government censure. violent acts deserves condemnation. this hearing is entitled "violent extremism." violent is inherently harmful. extremism is not. linking an examination of the two implies an extremist viewpoint leads to violence and that violence associated with it is more worthy of examination than non-ideological violence. even though the latter is more frequent and caused more lasting

damage. we will examine the events which may explain while individuals choose violence as a means for political change. we will steadfastly oppose efforts to examine and thus cast official disapproval upon any minority belief system. in time of national crisis we have often failed to live up to our democratic ideals. during the palmer raids, government created 150,000 secret files on those who held radical views or associations or voice anti-government policies. lawyers who complained about this were subject to investigation themselves. the lusk committee in the new york legislature in the '20s produced a report smearing libertarians as agents of international communism. and senator joseph mccarthy's zb committee and the house committee ruined careers of many loyal americans based purely on their associations. in the 1950s and '60s the fbi ran a domestic counterintelligence program that attempted to oppress political

dissent opening over half a million domestic intelligence files and identifying thousands of individuals to be rounded up in the national emergency. instead of focusing on violations of law these official efforts targeted people based upon their beliefs and associations. the security threat then was no less real during the first red scare and during the cold war, yet government abused its power in responding to those threats. there is some cause for similar concern today. a flawed 2007 new york police report claimed terrorists acts are linked to the adoption of certain beliefs and there is a uniformed four step radicalization process from belief to association to terrorism. but the report was based on just five cases, and ignored the fact that millions of people progressed through some or all of these very same steps without ever committing an act of violence. ignoring those flaws the virginia fusion center cited the same report in deg nating the state's universities as nodes of radicalization requiring law

enforcement attention. a 2008 report by the senate homeland security committee also restated the same flawed theories in arguing for national strategies to counter's it influence of the ideology. more recently, however, counterstunned studies have begun to appear. a united kingdom analysis concluded there is no single pathway to extremism. facing racism, identified a key factor making an individual receptive to extreme it ideology. a 2008 national terrorism paper cited america's greater diversity and civil rights protections to explain lower levels of homegrown terrorism here. in senate testimony one terrorism expert blamed moral outrage at abuses of detainees and the perception of a war against islam as the primary cause of violence, not ideology. he recommended against any measure that would tend to alienate the muslim community. and this subcommittee, i would say, is show be admirable sensitivity to the issue just by

holding this hearing. we don't question whether you should examine this but rather how to do so. singling out for examination violent actions committed by adherence to a particular ideology for scrutiny would pre-determine an outcome that would unfairly cast suspicion on all those who share any part of that belief or ideology. it would perpetuate a perception of alienation fueling the violence. instead our best defense lied in a renewed dedication to the protection of associational speech and religious rights. congress should focus the government's anti-terrorism research on actual terrorist acts and those who commit them rather than on an examination of those who have particular beliefs or who express dissent. fear should not drive our cost policies, protecting our first amendment freedomless honor our values and keep us safe. thank you for consideration of our views and i want to pay special thanks to the chairwoman for her constant outreach to our office on these issues. >> thank you very much.

we will now hear testimony from dr. weine. >> ranking member mccaul, chairman thompson, distinguished subcommittee members thanks for the opportunity to temperature before you today. i'm a psychiatrist, as you heard, who works lab rative with refugee and migrant communities to address priority needs in those communities. over the past two years a group of minnesota somalis crossed the line to violent radicalization through their involvement in al sha bobb. they went to somalia, attended camps and conducted operations. the recruits were males between the ages of 17 and 30, they were born in somalia, raised in refugee camps in kenya then came as refugees to the united states as children and were raised in an impoverished divided community. they included high-achieving high school and college students, in all other ways, the

recruits were indistinguishable from the other members of their community. what motivated them? their movement toward radicalization could be explained by multiple push and pull factors. most of the somali community in minnesota are subject to push factors that distinguish them from other american muslims. such as war exposure, forced displacement. living in refugee camps, poverty, ghettoization, secondary migration, inadequate services and family instability. poll factors also played a key role. internet exposure to violence in somalia and to extremist political and ideological views, the somali warrior tradition, the 2006 ethiopian invasion of somalia bp all of these factors were skillfully ma anyone lated by recruiters who are former el sha bobb fighters who reached out to recruits through special

networking and face-to-face contact. the results at least 18 somalis left home in minnesota and flew to somalia without telling their parents. serve hadn't been killed, four in custody and seven are believed to be in somalia. can violent radicalization occur with more somali americans? in my opinion, u.s. somalis remain highly susceptible to violent randiccalization as long as el shabob is active in somalia. recruiters previous success in convincing the best and brightest young men from that community to go their way showed how susceptible these young americaning are. now, the fbi's success in apprehending some recruiters and preventing more from mobilizing is encouraging, but several key concerns remain. others may have been radicalized and recruit but did not mobilize and they're still there. wannabe or lone wolves could emerge. no broader preventive efforts

have tried to lessen the susceptibility to recruiters. there is a stark disconnect between counterterrorism and both community policing and service provision in these refugee communities. recent events have shown that young men from muslim refugee and migrant groups from other failed states of violent extremism are also susceptible to radicalization. what steps could help? as a prevent researcher with refugee and migrant communities i know that prevention like terrorism itself is local. families and communities, local police and service providers, they all need to be centrally involved. they're in the best positions to identify who is most at risk. but in order to provide help, they require guidance and support. we should draw upon psychosocial and public health expertise and apply it to preventing home-grown terrorism. i recommend the following steps -- one, conduct research to identify the protective

resources in families and communities that mitigate against violent radicalization. two, develop and implement parenting education initiatives to protect against radicalization and recruitment. three, develop and implement community-level prevention that increases community support for at-risk youth, such as mentoring especially where rue creters are known tore active and, four, strengthen the collaborations between at-risk communities and local police and service providers. now, to take these steps, we need scientifically rigorous conceptually based of how radekization ever occurred. journalistic reports are helpful but not enough to develop prevention. we started to work with fames to gather preventive interventions and spread those around, but, of course, the needs for this type of reventive work can be found

in several communities throughout the u.s. the problem is this -- presently no government entity exists committed to sponsoring this research. we need a multidisciplinary commission or institution that would develop and sponsor investigation into the family and community dimensions of violent radicalization in the u.s. and work with governmental, nongovernmental and community part pers's in conclusion, the recruitment of united states somalis oh examples of home-grown terrorism demonstrate in addition to intelligence gathering and law enforcement we need new approaches in counterterrorism for managing those risks through working with communities and families, if not, recruiters will continue to know better how to find and help potential recruits than we will. >> thank you, doctor. i can't help but observe that you described the motivation behind our bill of two years ago, the one that passed the house of 404-6.

dr. craigin, please summarize your testimony in five minutes. >> i'd like to thank the chair and ranking member and the subcommittee on intelligence information sharing for inviting me to testify on the subject of this inside the united states. and also to take this opportunity to commend the committee for recognizing the importance of this topic. over the past 14 years i've explored what motivates individuals to become terrorists as well as what influences communities to sympathize with sayre rift groups. this research can be found in two rand publications including dissuading terror and social science for counterterrorism and would be happy to speak further about other studies in a classified session. unt fortunately recent events brought this topic to the forefront. as you know last week five young american men were raeted in pakistan allegedly trying to make they're way to training camps along the pakistan/afghanistan border. although we have yet to learn fully about the intentions of these five men they appear to be

one of several reasons examples of u.s. citizens and residents who have been susceptible to recruitment by al qaeda and associated movements. indeed examples exist of americans traveling abroad to fight as well as participating in training camps abroad in anticipation of conducting attacks here at home. what happens in these training camps? another individual arrested on terrorism charges described activities in a camp as follows. how do individuals and up and these training camps? research suggests that no single pathway toward terrorism exists, making it difficult to determine precisely how and why individuals are susceptible to recruitment. having said that, for the remainder of my testimony, i will address two questions. first, how do individuals generally progress to actively participating in terrorism, and second, what can we do about it? to answer the first question, it is useful to explore the

radicalization processes that individuals and clusters of individuals have gone through. the first phase is they are susceptible to messages. these are individual but might include peer group influences or frustration with foreign policy. the first stage can occur on the internet, but the second phase of recruitment usually occurs with contact. that is our research, and others suggest that recruit and works when virtual concept has been strengthened. some include prayer groups or even criminal gangs and prison. the third phase of the process yields a commitment to action on the part of individuals. the final step has been the most difficult to isolate and research. in some instances, a particular group appears to have acted as the trigger. another factor appears to be participation in training camp

abroad. i am often asked what motivates terrorism. is it ideology, politics, and it is all. how can we intervene in this process? in determining how individuals come terrorists, then driving strategies is more problematic. our research suggests we had best intervene before individuals leave for training camp because these tends to harbor there leaning towards violence. violence. yet in many instances individuals have not engaged in illegal acts prior to departure. these circumstances have proven to be the most difficult. i would like to focus on them for the rest of my testimony. first, beyond u.s. borders the u.s. government can work with partner nations to pressure those recruiters who have sewn success at reaching americans opinion well known al qaeda is interested in recruiting new fighters in the united states. this is not a new phenomenon. so as partner nigss work towards

learning recruiters who reached successful individuals with their other countries the u.s. could encourage them to extend programs to focus on western recruits. second, with the united states, the u.s. government should work with local community leaders to develop programs that reduce susceptibility to messages articulated by al qaeda and associated movements. the case of the five arrested in pakistan last week reportedly just brought to the attention of u.s. authorities through muslim community leaders and i cannot imagine how difficult was for the community leaders to call u.s. authorities regardless of outcome. we owe that a great deal of respect and gratitude. nonetheless, more can be done. in singapore, a group of scholars worked with individual arrest and terrorist charges and their families to help reintegrate them back into the community. similar model could be used for u.s. citizens and residents refusing to participate in training camps abroad. which brings me back to the original question how and why individuals become terrorists.

clearly more needs to be done to get a bedder understanding. i urge you not leave it at that. as we move forward we need a better understanding how al qaeda and associated movements retain the loyalty of the recruits. and perhaps more importantly, why individuals choose not to become terrorists. for if we are truly going to develop bearers to al qaeda recruitment in the united states it is equally important we understand motives of those who reject al qaeda's overtures. thank you. >> thank you very much, doctor craigin and thank you to all witnesses. i think this testimony is extremely helpful. we will now proceed to questions, and i yield myself five minutes. to all the witnesses, let me just read a list here. john walker lynn. brooklyn bridge plot, columbia shopping mall bomb plot. load thai, california, sleeper cells. sears tower, fbi bomb plot. adam gadan.

terrorist cell i mentioned earlier. ft. dix six. somali americans disappear from minneapolis. we've just heard about that. bronx terror plot. 14509ing at the arkansas military recruiting station. naji bulla zazi. tariq, nidal hasan and most recently the five in alexandria, virginia. this is a long list. i don't want just to liftie arab-americans or muslim-americans, but this is a long list of u.s. residentses or u.s. citizens in most cases who are somehow experimenting with terror, and while i agree with you, mr. zogby, we need a scalpel not a sledgehammer and i agree that we should focus on actual terrorist acts, and not someone's belief system i truly agree with that, we need to do something here.

we need to intervene. hopefully we will not intervene after the fact, but we will find exactly the right place to intervene to prevent these terror actions. so our second two witnesses, dr. weine and dr. craigin suggested ways to learn more. i'd like to ask our first two witnesses what strategies do you think we, the united states government, this subcommittee, should undertake to intervene at the right moment to prevent acts of terror by people like the list i just read against the united states? >> thank you, chairman harman. i think there are a lot of good ideas expressed by all of the witnesses here today. today. i would reiterate our point that you start with the violence and not the ideology. adding to the list, we could add

any number of ku klux klan whether underground, or any examples of terrorist action within our country. by starting with the ideology and saying you will define and examine those acts, you are predetermining the outcome and your conclusions will cast dispersions on the muslims. >> i agree with the definition of the problem. what's the solution? >> to start with a different universe of actions. you look at what moves different people in different contexts from a nonviolent to a violent situation. that is the best way you are looking at actual historical events and not making assumptions about the future, but also by definition, if you are starting with a different

universe of people, you are not predetermining a focus on the muslim community. >> doctor? >> you asked the question of the hour and it is the critical one. let me make a couple of observations. they are broken up into different groups, but with the exception of two, they will all stop because we were doing things right. cooperation with the muslim community and the outreach and the significant work of law enforcement using the tools that are available to them and working with the communities has been effective in every one of the instances. in the case of nadal that is a horrific act of terror and an awful incident, law enforcement failed and we have to say that. there was a failure to connect the dots and because our hands

were tied because of restrictive ways we approach gun laws and gun information, the fact that he bought a weapon that is not to be used for hunting and sharp shooting, but had records of this man in contact with someone that we have on a terrorist watch list? you have all the information that you gave us of his questionable activities while in the military. yet the dots were never connected and the agencies were not talking to each other. that is a problem that i think we will have to look more closely at. what to do about it? we are doing things right. we are stopping the people and invigorating the cooperation in the communities and changing the tone of the debate in our country that i think is bringing more people forward and ready to cooperate. that's why people have turned in

people and working with law enforcement to stop the problem. >> thank you very much. my time expired. i want to observe that the doctor said we ought to say thank you to the law-abiding member who is do turn in family members or point law enforcement with the problem. i think that's a good suggestion and i would like to say thank you to those community members. we have a full group of members because this hearing is so interesting and i would like to ask unanimous consent can sit with us after the other members. any objection? so ordered. i yield five minutes to mr. mccall. >> behind me is an illustration of homegrown terrorists in 2008. this picture really says it all in why this hearing is so

important and madam chair, thank you for holding this. this is a threat. i was a federal prosecutor and a thought is not a violation of the law. the ideology is not a prosecutable offense. also a experience requires an overt act and that's the first step towards completing that spnchs that does make it a violation of the law. however, it starts with an ideology and begins with a radical idea or belief that eventually does come to fruition. not in every case, but in the cases that we have seen. we have been able to stop a lost these cases fortunately, but some have not. this case is a good illustration of a case that failed.

it was a whole failure of law enforcement as you said. that was absolutely correct. when we had a major in the army, the united states army, the largest military installation of the united states north of my district, having communications foreigning top al questioned recruiters, this was in the hands of the terrorism task force in washington. one of the members from the department of defense. if that information was not shared with the base where the major resided. don't you think general cohen who i talked to at the memorial service, we buried 13 soldiers and i talked to the wounded who said he shot us.

don't you think he would like to have that information? he had a major who was communicating with the top recruiter in yemen? that didn't happen and that information was not shared with the military and ft. hood. i know that is on point because this man radicalized. we don't know if he did on his own or had help from the outside. what can we do and i have so many questions i can bring up, but that case is a classic case of failure. what can we do better it ensure that there no more hasans out there? how many more out there that are a threat to our united states military because we know al qaeda targets the military. they targeted ft. dix. they bring back the playbook again and again like the world

trade center and will probably try to do with the capitol. how can we stop another case from happening again? i will direct that to anybody. anybody who would like to tackle that. >> sure. i can start. i would like to get away from the term. there some examples of that and there was a mentor term involved. during my testimony and one thing to start focusing attention on these mentors. that doesn't have to be in law enforcement, but that is one way to do it. unfortunately, timothy mcveigh was one of them. that's an unfortunate reality that we are facing today.

>> anybody else on the panel? >> yes, i think that prevention is the right word. the question is how you think about prevention. not strictly from a law enforcement point of view, but community policing point of view and from a public health point of view where we try i believe we are not doing that right now. i think counter-terrorism as i see it in the microcosm of america mali community in minneapolis is limited to fbi investigation, and with my respect to the people who do the important work, i think they're still shortcomings. there are good people in those communities who want to support these efforts, but they are not

involved and engaged, and that is what prevention means. that is what i think we need to be doing more of. >> let me say i completely agree with you. i work the joint terrorism task force. i think one thing we need to do a better job of is reaching out to the muslim community and getting involved in the community where we can identify the 1% or less than 1% of potential threats. >> let's dr. zogby respond. to all members, let's try to stick strictly to the five minutes. >> it does not begin with ideology. ideology is the paint on the surface that is already there, and i say -- what he meant was, i am going to kill you. i hate you. i am really angry. when i used to teach religion, i

used to say, the meaning of words is how it is used. if somebody says, jesus christ, that does not mean they aren a devout believer. it usually means they are angry, or they are excited. we cannot allow the abusive language to mask purpose, to take our focus away from the purpose. that is why i believe you judge the action, not the language. in another era -- has said on cnn last night, he may have turned to maoism or some other ideology. assa may have turned to another ideology, but the language of the moment to describe anger and the conflict we are having and the deep alienation i'm feeling is the language of religion. do not let them confusion us with what the real thing that is

going on. that's when we use the sledge hammer. as i watch the media and cnn covering the problem of what happened in pakistan showing muslims on the mall on service day when they were committing themselves to service to our country, praying. that was the backdrop. they said they are dangerous and we have to be careful. judge the action. the susceptibility will be there. we have to deal with the susceptibility and not the language they use. >> thank you. i yield five minutes to the chairman, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, madam chair. excellent panel and i thank all of you for your testimony. one of the things i want to do is try to broaden the discussion. we just saw a broad panel of

where arrests have taken place. it only focused on a very narrow type of arrests for certain kinds of things. one of the things i want us to do as a committee is look at act acts of violence and extremism in its totality and not a very narrow focus. we can understand that the bait here is important, but it's a part of a broader debate we need to take as a committee. can you identify for the committee the broad and violent extremist potential that existed here and what groups may be part of what appears in this country so we can see the bigger picture of the discussion? i will take dr. zogby and we

will go down. >> someone not in law enforcement himself, but in constant contact with law enforcement because that's what we do, they are deeply concerned and it's so secret since the election of our president. with white supremacy movements, there is a lot of chatter and danger and a lot of concern. i think that is an area that is something we have to look at. the susceptibility in an economic downturn and in time of war and especially now with this sense of revenge about government is a problem. i think we have to take a close look and continue to look at it. it's the other language used today. >> thank you. >> i want to say this in the right way. i don't want to name groups and cast dispersion by naming them

in this context, but historically there many groups in our country and many are referenced in my previous answer. there remnants left today or people who believe the same things and act to further the beliefs. >> i guess and i accept that, but if you can talk about the ideology rather than the name of the group, if that would give you a little -- >> let me go about it this way. does timothy mcveigh have more in common with an islamic terrorist or a christian believer? most people would say with islamic terrorists. it's not the belief that is the defining moment. that's the paint that may be present. it may be present in any situation. you start with the propensity

for violence, however that may be caused. you add the background material that gives the person the basis for going forward after he or she has the propensity for violence. i'm reluctant to talk about it in that way. i think it starts with the factors that create the propensity for violence that the other witnesses mentioned in their testimony. >> thank you. i'm concerned about the place where three broad processes interact. one is failed states. people who come from failed states where there violent extremement movement and organizations and three is they now exist in migrant communities in this country that face challenges of daily life. the somalis certainly fit that.

so do several other communities that we have to be concerned about. i think this is very challenging. the other broad thing that concerns me is the issue of movement. migration. secondary migration within the united states. i would like to share this back with you. there presently about 84,000 somalis and 20,000 resettled there. 20,000 came from another state where they were resettled. this represents a short coming in the system. when they moved they don't come with services attached. this is a set up for underserved refugee community. we might think about what other

populations in the u.s. that fit that pattern. >> thank you. >> in my written testimony, if you were to broaden the community with the radicalization process, it would include criminal gains and colts. that's one way of broadening it without ideology or naming specific groups. >> thank you, mr. chairman. five minutes. >> i will start to dr. zogby. my regards to your cousin, charles. we are told the united states is less susceptible to terrorists than european nations. do you believe that is still the case and if the united states is

less susceptible, can you go into why. >> the important thing to understand here is having dealt with and talked to these groupings in europe, actually it was the state department and another program i did with bbc who were interested in seeing the differences in what is going on here and there. the degree of alienation is different there than here. here it exists on the margins and there it is much more widespread. they didn't tell their parents. the pakistani kids here in northern virginia didn't tell their parents. that tells you something right away. the community base of support in europe for this problem of radicalization is very different than here where the problem as i said exists on the margins and

the parents actually turn them in or their pierce will turn them in. the process of becoming american is determinative and the more compelling force and the antidote to this radicalization and a sense of alienization. at the end of the day, what we have to do is more of what we do and do it better instead of less. >> the reason i asked the question, when you saw the recent incidents around the country, i was under the impression that europe is more susceptible and given what happened in the recent weeks and months, i started to question that. >> that's why i suggest if you look at each one and take them apart and see where the patterns are, the ft. hood is different than minneapolis. i would say that one of the things from somali experts and

people in the community said since the withdrawal of ethiopian forces, the lure has gone down and the parents turned them in. the u.s. attorney had the full cooperation of the parents and the parents looked upon it as a relief because the people who were preying on their kids were gone. we were doing it well and it is not the mainstream. it's the margin and we have to make sure it stays on the margin. >> we received a variety of mixed opinions to address the issue of radicalization. some say there should be increased cooperation between law enforcement and muslim clergy and religious teens. we want to deter the teens from going down the path of

radicalization. it causes voices we hope to encourage to be discredited as pop ganda. do you believe the government and officials should actively engage with muslim religious and clergy leaders and how can it be done without discrediting? >> i will start by saying one thing and to agree with dr. zogby in that i don't think we see the susceptibility as we do in europe. one thing that's common between the two of them is a separation of the cells or bunch of guys from their own muslim community. it makes law enforcement and relying on muslim community to interact with law enforcement more problematic. they are not separating from american society, but even separate for example their own muslim community. this makes this engagement even more problematic. i tend to think that engaging like the way our law enforcement

are with leaders is the way to go in this area. if you want to protect civil liberties and you are not wanting interest of law enforcement tactics, the way to go is engage the leaders. like we have done successfully, we have really great examples of how this worked. >> thank you. do you believe that domestic radicalization is a threat in the united states? >> there many threats and that is one among them. we are talking abouty semantic issues. we had 1.3 million violent crimes in the united states reported in 2008. certainly it's a threat. part of that threat is what you

mentioned. some people are motivated through ideology and many people were motivated through something other than ideology. the a discussion on the role of muslims in america and the world. later, a former cia intelligence officer on u.s. strategy against al qaeda and afghanistan. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, remembering the lives of william buckley, jr., and senator kennedy. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> tonight, historian robert merry