suggested that it was bipartisanship that ended the cold war. and -- but your examples that you you've given with the social security, for example, people don't know that had we not been working together and had ronald reagan not been there to provide the leadership, social security would have been bankrupt by now. easily. but i saw these major events from inside the white house, watched him, one note, i was there probably at the low point of the white house. that day was the day that 240 marines were blown to hell in beirut and i remember my brother's best friend was the first name on that list of people who were killed. . and ronald reagan felt it was his mistake and when his advisers suggested to him we have to prove we are tough and send in a whole marine division to make sure we kick those guys'

butts to prove they can't do this and get away with it, he was wise enough not to go for vengeance but to use his head and do the right policy that would not put us in jeopardy and put us in a quagmire and he said no, we're going to get our butts out of there. had he not done that and send in 20,000 american troops, we would have been on the defensive. instead, he found elements around the world who were fighting communist dictatorships and called it the reagan doctrine and let the enemies of our enemies do the fighting. that succeeded in afghanistan and elsewhere. it drained the budget of the soviet union and it collapsed. and one last story i would like to tell and that is so many people who have tried to belittle president reagan than tried to make him look, well, he

is just an actor and reading scripts and you guys are script writers. i never wrote a speech for anybody until he taught me how to write a speech. we have a saying in the white house, this guy wasn't president, he is good enough to be the president's speech writer. and that's number one. but ronald reagan was not just reading lines and not just reading scripts. with his vision of the world that we had to capture, more importantly, he was making very tough policy statements that would not have been made by other presidents. and the best example is the berlin wall speech. and as we noted at the 100 birthday, there is a chunk of the berlin wall and the soviet union has fallen apart and the churches are filled with people in russia today and back in those days, christians and other people who believed in god were being repressed with all the

other freedoms. but ronald reagan was going to go to berlin and the speech writers knew that the senior staff would do everything they could not to permit ronald reagan to say what he needed to say, which is tear down the wall. and so, we had to plan on it and actually we got the speech to ronald reagan that described the great details that it went through, but it was an avenue that once we used it once would be closed up to us. and when he saw it, he said, this is what i want to say. this wasn't the five speech writers against the advisers, it was the speech writers and the president. and george schultz came in and he was with us the other day and during that time he was yelling that he was trying to re-ignite the cold war by yelling tear down the wall. all of these people are happy

with ronald reagan. and this particular case and many others, they were telling reagan not to do these things, especially, don't say tear down the wall. i can't tell you how far it went. colin powell gave him a speech and said all your advisers and your speech writers want this speech and it was the safe speech except tear down the wall, that page had been left out. and reagan said no, i'll use the one i've got, thank you. what happens is this, reagan gets up and he is courageous and being told not to do this. this would be -- create new cold war animosities on the other side. he knew this was a message to their leadership and to the people behind the iron curtain that we were serious about our advocacy of democracy and freedom and peace. he knew that and knew if he

didn't say it, it would demoralize all of those people and change history for the worst if he didn't say it. and he got up there and made that strong statement. the next day, of course, we were all watching to find out exactly was what was going to be the reaction and i don't know how but someone from the national security council had a copy of a transcript of gorbachev's conversation with the senior staff. now, i have no idea how we happened to get that in our possession but gorbachev was saying, this guy reagan once he gets his teeth in it, he's like a dog and never let go and we have to bring down that wall and maintain our dignity. and then all those other guys we are talking about said, everything they could to do for him not to say it, they had written the speech and for it

all along. the one great thing about ronald reagan, he had on his desk and it was, there is no limit to what you can achieve. reagan wasn't looking for credit but looking to do great things for america. and i will tell you, he inspired all of us -- and do i have time for one more reagan story? and i'll leave it at this, because everyone knows ronald reagan the politician and go through the speeches and the bills and things, but i think the day i remember the most about ronald reagan was in north carolina 1976, reagan was running and i was the assistant press secretary. and he had probably five -- 5,000, 10,000 people in this parking lot for a rally and this lady comes up to me and says, you are with governor reagan?

yes, i am. she said i have seven grandchildren here and they can't get through the crowd and i wonder if maybe after the speech that we could bring them over here and governor reagan could shake hands with them. i said let me clear it. i went behind the podium and it was mike deaver and there was a lady here who has children and can't get through the crowd and would like to shake hands with governor reagan. reagan hears it and says of course we are going to say hello. and he says, d dana, we don't want this to be a press event and i'll spend a couple of minutes with those children. sure enough, the reporters head to the buses and the kids are brought back there behind the podium. and there's reagan he is talking to them. about seven, eight years old and reagan, this is the sense of this man, and he says, you know,

i know you can't see me, but maybe you would like to touch my face so you can get a sense about who i am and what i look like. and of course they did. imagine this. there's ronald reagan, a candidate for president with seven of these little kids, beautiful little kids, touching his face. there is not a politician in the world that would not give millions of dollars to have a picture of that. they would be on the cover of all the magazines and reagan knew that. he didn't want any of those kids to think he was exploiting blind children. you know, it's like us today, we have to have a sense and feel about this man, who he really was. and i hope the reagan library and the young america's foundation will help future generations get a good feel. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for his thoughtful contribution

and his last two stories remind me of the fact that ronald reagan was in charge, whether it was ensuring that he penned, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall or whether he jumped forward and said, i'm going to meet those young people. and the famous "saturday night live" episode and he wasn't in charge and was scripted by everyone else, but himself. and what they did on the skit was, he came out and he met with some young children and he shook hands with them and said, how are you doing, and proceeded to this guy who was a long way from being in charge. and the moment he left, he went back and said, ok, fellows, let's get back to work and he was working. and we know that ronald reagan was in charge as he dealt with foreign policy and domestic policy and i'm happy that we are joined by my colleague who came

to the congress during the last two years of the reagan administration. he came here in 1986, and i know was inspired by president reagan and he is a very, very thoughtful member of the ways and means committee and i recognize mr. herger. mr. herger: i thank my good friend from california, mr. dreier, particularly, i want to thank my good friend for leading us in this incredibly special, special time to remember an individual who, as we've heard from the speakers before me, individuals like mr. dreier, who actually spent a lot of time with president reagan, the sharing with us the incredible person and inspiration that our 40th president who we're

celebrating this week, his 100th anniversary of his birthday is to each of us. and i, as the gentleman mentioned, i did have the privilege of serving for his last two years, in 1987 -- last two years as president. 1987 and 1988. but i think about what president reagan meant to me. and when i think about what he meant to me, i know as i listen to these speakers before me what he meant to so many of us and our nation and the world today. my friend, mr. dreier, mentioned in his early remarks what the country was like in 1980 when he ran for president. we think what it's like today.

we have over 9% unemployment. we have very low inflation. but in 1980 when president reagan was running, we had not 9% unemployment, but 12% unemployment. we had something that we haven't had since the early days of president reagan's administration, and that was inflation. inflation that was running 13%. and as a small businessman then, i remember what it was like. you did not know what the price your products out, because you didn't know what you were going to be buying them for and it was an unbelievable challenging time and we had a prime interest rate that was 21.5%.

we had home mortgages that were hitting 16%. now those of us who can remember back at that time, talk about challenging times, those were challenging times. and to have someone who was the type of inspiration that ronald reagan was, who literally what exemplified everything he believed in. we heard so much from our speakers before me, but to ronald reagan, it was morning in america. he believed -- he not only had confidence in himself, he had even more confidence in our nation. he had confidence in those of us who were small business people who were americans, as was mentioned. my grandparents were immigrants from switzerland and you were an

american. he had not only confidence in this, but he could emulate this to all of those around us. and it was interesting because back about 10 years ago when a republican conference of fellow republicans in congress, someone asked a question, who among us -- and there was 150 of us or so, who among us were inspired by ronald reagan? and over half of us raised our hands. three-quarters of us that ronald reagan inspired us to leave our positions as a small businessman, a family rancher, dairy person, to run for office. and so we see it today. we see those who ran this last time, very similar time. but god bless ronald reagan.

god bless all that he inspired us with. and mr. dreier, i want to thank you for leading us -- this is one of the greatest times of my life to be able to participate along with you and mr. lungren and mr. rohrabacher and others in remembering someone who i believe is one of the very greatest americans ever to live, ronald reagan. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i thank my friend very much for his thoughtful remarks and i want to assure him, it didn't begin or end this evening, but we are in fact in an entire year's celebration. tomorrow evening, our colleague who represents the ronald reagan library is going to be talking about him as well. now to close out this evening, we are pleased to have the newest member who has become a veteran, one of the great champions of the conservative

friends, mr. mcclintock. . mr. mcclintock: thank you. i want to talk about what kind of times brought ronald reagan here to washington. i mean, we're told today that we face the worst economy since the great depression, a lot of us remember an even worse time when we did have double-digit unemployment and double -- double-digit inflation and mile-long lines around gas stations and interest rates that exceeded 20%. and by the way, when we hear that our world's growing more dangerous by the day, i remember when an american embassy could be seized with impunity when an aggressive and expanding soviet union daily challenged american interests around the world when communism went unchallenged in the western hemisphere, when the american military had been so badly weakened it couldn't even launch a successful rescue mission. perhaps we don't remember those days as vividly because they

didn't last very long. at that dark hour in our nation's history, the american people turned to ronald reagan who diagnosed our country's problems very accurately. in this crisis, he said, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. he said the soviet union is indeed an evil empire and it was time, he said, that america stopped apologizing for its interests and started asserting them. at the time the american left warned that his policies would lead the nation to starvation and the world to con flig ration. instead we enjoyed a period of american prosperity and world influence that was best described with the words, morning again in america. he reduced the tax and regulatory burdens that were crushing america's economy. he reduced government spending as a percentage of g.d.p. he restored america's military strength, reasserted american interests around the world. he stopped apologizing for

america's greatness and started celebrating it. it was recalled earlier in his farewell address, reagan attributed his success not to being a great communicator but to the fact that he was communicating great ideas, the self-evident truths of the american founding. he did one other thing. he restored those self-evident truths as the foundation of our domestic and foreign policy. and as a result our nation prospered and the world enjoyed a rebirth of freedom. unfortunately reagan's successors gradually abandoned his policies and americans gradually let loose of those self-evident truths that inspired and animated those policies but now as our nation endures prolonged economic distress at home and increasing strife abroad, americans are beginning to realize that our nation hasn't been struck down by some mysterious act of god. what's happened to our country's because of specific acts of government. . and as reagan knew, acts of

government are fully within our power to change. reagan charted the road back, our nation followed him down that road and we discovered that, yes, it does indeed lead to a shining city on a hill. as we remember ronald reagan, all that he was and all that he stood for, let's also remember what he did and where he led us. it isn't too late to return to those policies and get back on that road. mr. speaker, i want my children to know what morning again in america actually feels like. i want them to know the optimism that america's best days are yet ahead and to know the pride and confidence of american exceptionalism. on this sent tel tenial of ronald reagan's birth -- centennial of ronald reagan's birth, let's follow his example and get our nation back on the road to freedom. let those looking back on our generation say that just when it began to appear that our nation had forgotten ronald reagan and squandered its wealth and abandoned its destiny, this generation of

americans rediscovered, restored and revived the memory of ronald reagan and the promise of the american founding and from that moment in time america began her next great era of expansion, prosperity and influence. i yield back. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution and his dedication to the reagan cause. as we think about where we are today, i said at the library the other night, that i was privileged to be part of the reagan revolution, having been elected with president reagan in 1980. but thanks to the 198 -- 87 newly elected members who have joined us, what a privilege it is to be part of the reagan revolution, because i think that it does continue. if we look at just on foreign policy again, the fact that ronald reagan had a very famous speech that he delivered in the early 1980's at westminster, talked about the need to develop the infrastructure, foster the infrastructure of democracy around the world, and he established the national endowment for democracy which

has made great strides in expanding the rule of law, political pluralism, the development of self-determination and democratic institutions around the world, and this is a war of ideas that continues to this very day. it is a war of ideas that consists of that struggle. it's peace and prosperity through freedom and democracy versus oppression and poverty bred of violence and hatred. and i believe that we can in fact win this war of ideas if we do get back to the core principles of ronald reagan and as i said, mr. speaker, the museum is reopened and i want to encourage all of our colleagues to take the opportunity to visit this amazing, amazing facility which i know will bring back memories for every single american who was alive during the reagan years. and it clearly will be a model

for future generations. and, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and with that i yield back the without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonka, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee from the minority leader. mr. tonko: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise this evening to address the house for the next hour and ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tonko: this evening, mr. speaker, we will be joined by a number of colleagues in the house to discuss the clean air act and its impact on jobs, on public health and our national security. it is interesting to note that we've had an outstanding

40-year record on behalf of the improvements that have come via the clean air act. and now there are forces amongst us that would like to repeal important pollution control standards that are part that have clean air act. and roll backward the very progress that we have enjoyed. the impact that it has made and they're being joined now, these forces, by big polluters. people who would choose to have us go backward and undo the tremendous standards that have brought about an enhanced quality of life. since 1970 the clean air act has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and decreased air pollution by some 60%. and at the same time, having grown our economy by some 200%. so it is very important to note that this has been a high order

of progress associated with the clean air act which came by the way with bipartisan vision that thought we could improve our situation here in america. and those visionaries were absolutely correct. we now are at risk of endangering our children's health simply by attacking the health standards that the clean air act promotes. we're also at risk of promoting ideas that will denounce innovation, innovation that has moved forward in breaking our glutinous dependency on oil, often times imported from unfriendly nations to the united states. and we're also -- and where also we'll roll back the progress that has come with creating our own sense of innovation as we have responded to these cleanup measures here in the states. this is an important juncture, after a 40-year record, 40

years of success, we're now faced with the forces of big polluters hooking up with our colleagues in the majority in this house, looking to roll back progress and denounce policies that have impacted us favorably. we're joined this evening by a number of colleagues, we're joined by representative quigley from the district i believe in illinois -- by the fifth district i believe in illinois. he has thoughts he wants to share with us. we'll be hearing from a number of colleagues, from virginia and from washington state, as the hour continues to roll. but, representative quigley, thank you for joining us this evening on this very important topic and on this very important effort to ward back any efforts made to undo the law and weaken it and put our health standards at risk. mr. quigley: i want to thank you so much for having me. i want to thank my colleague from new york for his efforts and everyone who is here tonight toward this end. and this issue is critical, not

just to our health, our nation's health, but also to our country's national security and our economy. because i rise today to protect the integrity of all things of science. because it is science, these facts and figures, that have led hundreds of scientists to confirm that global warming is real. it's science that led the supreme court to rule that the e.p.a. does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. and it's this science that led the congress to pass the clean air act, the act which designated the e.p.a. as a body charge with overseaing, -- overseeing, adapting and implementing these regulations. in the coming months the e.p.a. will begin regulating greenhouse gases from certain emitters for the first time. these regulations have become hugely controversial and sadly political. these rules seek to combat man-made climate change, man-made climate change that is

melting our polar ice caps, that is raising the levels of our oceans and that is modifying our seasonal temperatures. man-made climate change that is altering the duration of our growing season, that is flooding parts of the world and causing multiyear droughts on others. man-made climate change that is allowing particulate matters to infiltrate our children's lungs, making them suffer from life-long asthma and making us die earlier. some would argue these rules and new regulations are burdensome, that they kill jobs, they impair economic recovery, they're not pragmatic. that is nonsensical. let's take e.p.a.'s proposed rule regarding toxic emission from industrial boilers. a seemingly innocuous rule, right? wrong. this rule called for the cleanup of units that burn fuel onsite to provide electricity and heat.

this action, this rule, would cut mercury, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and acid gases by requiring facilities to install equipment to clean up these toxic emetions -- emissions. the so-called job-killing rule saved from 2,000 to 5,000 lives each year. the crackdown on greenhouse gases is based on sound science. the results of hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies that say that global warming is real and that man contributes to it. and if you're keeping score at home, there are zero peer-reviewed scientific studies that say that global warming is not real and that man does not contribute to it. but more than that, they need to crack down on greenhouse gas eemissions, they need to give the e.p.a. the tools to do its duty as mandated by congress and deemed their responsibility by the supreme court. this issue certainly is lethal, it kill it's people. and my friend -- kills people. and my friends who oppose this

fight against global warming, you can't work if you're dead. december 31, 2010, marked the 40th anniversary of the clean air act. the clean air act has saved the lives of over 160,000 people, as conservatively estimated by the e.p.a. this issue then is a public health issue. chicago is my hometown. it is in the midst of a public health crisis. we are the morbidity and mortality capital of the united states for asthma. having two children who face this ailment, it strikes near and dear to home. we're dealing with skyrocketing rates of death due to asthma. but we're not the only city with this problem. a report released by the american lung association reported nearly 60% of americans live in areas where air pollution has reached unhealthy levels that can and does make people sick. yet we're standing here on the

house floor arguing against job-privileging measures, measures that will keep us alive and able to work, measures that will create jobs in clean and green industrial areas. as al gore said in 2005, it is now clear that we face a deepening global climate crisis that requires to act only quickly and wisely. attacks on the clean air act and the e.p.a.'s ability to regulate green houths gases are a huge -- greenhouse gases are a huge piece of the larger climate crisis, a crisis that has a hefty corks our health and our lives -- cost, our health and our lives. mr. tonko: thank you for your perspective on this important discussion. when you talk about the statistics, when we talk about an attack on public health standards, which this is, it's done to enhance the opportunities for lobbyists, for special interests, for deep pockets of the oil industry, whereas they want to avoid that sense of accountability and

where they want to build their profit column at the expense of the health outcomes that we have generated to the good over the last who years. . in 2010, some 60,000 lives-plus were saved by this law that was produced 40 years ago and when it comes to children, some 18 million cases in the last 20 years of children, respiratory illnesses, were prevented. right there, the proof is in the pudding, this is an attack on our public health and it is important to state it for the record so that when these forces of negativity come into play, they are checked for wanting to roll us backwards. i thank you for joining us, representative quigley. we are joined by representative

connolly and good to hear from you. it's important that everyone share their perspective, what damage can be calculated here after 40 years of progress and whether it is an attack on our health care standards and on job creation. because as we all know, innovation to respond to the efforts of this law, the purpose, produces jobs and technical response that is unique and provides for america to dig deep into solutions. mr. connolly: my friend from new york is absolutely right and thank you for handling this special order tonight on the preservation of the clean air act. i can't think of a more reckless idea than repeal of all or parts of the clean air act. it would transform the quality of life for all americans.

and our colleague from illinois, his comments about having children who live in chicago with asthma, resonates with me. i have a close relative here in the nation's capital. i represent the suburbs of washington, d.c. and we have significant health effects from our air pollution. we are a nonattainment region, as measured by the environmental protection agency. and cleaning up our air quality is critical to thousands of people and thousands of children whose health depends on the advocacy of the clean air act and making sure it's fully implemented. i wanted to share with my friend from new york and my colleagues tonight some of the costs of repealing the clean air act. and i think americans need to focus on that. it's not cost-free to repeal

this all-important environmental piece of legislation. thanks to the clean air act, americans will see gas consumption of cars reduced by an average of 30%, saving the average car owner over $2,000. that would be lost. repealing the clean air act amendment would increase opec amendments by 72 million barrels every year by 2020. repealing, will force americans to spend $9.9 billion each year to libya and venezuela and other opec countries, not all of which have americans' best interest at heart. repealing the clean air act would forego savings of americans of 7877 billion gallons of fuel, representing 240 billion in benefits including over $182 billion in fuel savings.

in addition undermining national security, repealing the clean air act would cost thousands of premature deaths which my colleagues were referring to. the proposed e.p.a. boiler max standard would save lives each year. those laves would not be saved if the repeal of the clean air act happens. a report reported that 60% of all americans live in areas where air pollution have reached unhealthy levels that can and do make people sick including right here in the nation's capital. 171,632 children and 544,013 adults have asthma in my home state of virginia alone, according to the american lung association. repealing e.p.a.'s authority to limit mercury, carbon monoxide would increase those numbers significantly and would

aggravate already existing respiratory conditions. we cannot afford to repeal the clean air act when it would empower public health, undermine national security, countermanned all of our goals of energy independent. i thank my colleague from new york for leading us tonight and highlighting the risks involved, the very series and real risks involved in this reckless action that's proposed. mr. tonko: thank you, representative connolly and we will talk about the merits of the clean air act and the good it has produced. but when we talk about some of this innovation, how we can drive our energy independence, our self-sufficiency, it could well beyond the public health efforts that can be secured simply by that kind of work as reduce the amount of emissions, but it turns into an issue of

national security. we are sending money to foreign sources for oil importation and is actually feeding the treasuries of unfriendly nations to the u.s. and perhaps having those dollars used to train the troops that are fighting our troops in our efforts for peace in the middle east. so it is a never-ending cycle of madness that needs to be prevented. and the clean air act to spur jobs and create an innovation economy are very important aspects. they are outcomes of sound, progressive legislation that achieves wonderful results and allows us to address public health, standards in a way that helps out. mr. connolly: as my colleague recalls, not only sound, progressive legislation but legislation that had broad bipartisan support and signed into law by a republican president.

mr. tonko: and produced great benefits. and you and i serve on a wonderful group of legislateors like-minded in producing a green energy that reaches a sustainable environmental outcome that coalition is driving that agenda here in the house and one of our co-chairs is with us, the gentleman from washington state, first district, representative jay inslee, a member of the energy and commerce committee and ranker on a subcommittee that will have a very important hearing. representative inslee, thanks for joining us this evening. mr. inslee: tomorrow, we will have the first hearing in congress on the dirty air act. and the dirty air act is the act that intends to gut uncle sasm's ability for us to breathe clean air. and this dirty air act is

clearly bad for children with asthma. this dirty air act is bad for senior men with respiratory problems. this dirty air act is bad for senior american women with heart problems. this dirty air act is bad for american workers who are going to lose the jobs that will be created in the innovative new industries that we are going to build so we can produce electricity and power for our cars in a clean way. this dirty air act is one of the worst pieces of legislation i have seen in my time in the u.s. congress and i'll tell you why. it breaks states with some of the values with at least two great work done by republican presidents and it is a tragedy that my colleagues across the aisleville fallen for the siren sound of the polluters, because it's the polluters who want to pass the dirty air act or the

inhaler enhancement act of 2011. we spent an hour talking about the optimism of president reagan that was manifested and appreciated by democrats and republicans alike. and those of us who stand against this dirty air act believe we have optimism that we create electricity in clean ways. we can do it in solar energy created by americans, do it with electric cars by americans, gm volt. plug-in the electric hybrid car. we can do it with wind. we can do it with perhaps advanced forms of nuclear power. that sense of optimism has now been shoved overboard because the polluters have come up to washington, d.c. with their lobbyist friends and convinced our friends and colleagues to

throw aside 40 years of republican success because this thing was started by richard nixon. it was a republican who recognized our's built to innovate in a way that would grow jobs and reduce air pollution. i want to leave you with one statistic. richard nixon was right in this regard, wrong on other things, but right on this. he said because the polluting industries resisted the clean air act when it started 40 years ago, but what he believed is that we could innovate our way to produce new technologies to create energy. and that's why we have reduced air pollution because of the clean air act by 60% since 1970 and our economy has grown by 200%, 200% growth at a time when the polluters said this is going to wreck the u.s. economy. that's the same thing we can do

now using innovative talents to make electric cars and ship them to china and make solar panels here with jobs in america so we can ship those to china. and i'll just part with one statement. you know, there ought not to be any debate about the health care impacts about this either. congress has received a letter signed by 2,505 american scientists calling on congress to resist and defeat the republicans' dirty air act because it says, quote, science-based law -- it is a science-based law that has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease since it was passed without diminishing economic growth. those are from american scientists who understand american innovation, who understand american asthma, who understand the american ability

to keep moving forward. and heaven help us who would support the dirty air act to repeal clean air protections for america. mr. tonko: you talk about the jobs' effect and obviously, there are those who would suggest that this kills job when we have data from 2007 that shows the air pollution control equipment industry was generating some $18.3 billion with $3 billion of that exporting. this spurs innovation. it puts into work working orders, the science and tech community that creates sustainable-type jobs that make an impact on our quality of life and our public health standards. and those forces that join together as lobbyists and deep-pocket sources and oil

voices join with our partners on the other side of the aisle to kill this legislation. mr. inslee: i have a story about why i have seen this firsthand. i went to the coolest event i have ever gone to as a public official a few weeks ago in washington at the woodenville cross church and i got to participate in the dedication of the very first electric car-charging station at a church in america and it was great. it was like, let there be light. but more importantly, there were jobs, because every time we put in one of these charging stations, there were five american jobs created because of these investments. and what happens is, if the republicans get their way, they will repeal the clean air act in this regard, carbon, methane and ozone, dangerous gases, instead of the investment going to

create new energy industries, those investments are going to go to china and china is going to make the electric cars and the solar power and advanced systems and finding a way to burn coal cleanly. we don't want to give that competitive advantage up. this is the pedal to the metal, this clean air act, which drives the investment which has made america the leading producer of scrubbing equipment in the world today to clean up the stacks today. this is what makes us competitive. so i think this is a job killer to pass the dirty air act and got to get in this race with china. mr. tonko: what taps into the pioneer spirit of america, the ingenuity and genius that has guided us and nurtured simply by our open system of government and capitalist style of opportunity. we have been able to go forward with so many advances, and in this case, we address

health-threatening, i-threatening situations because of toxic poisonning that produces jobs at a very sustainable quality and that are really tapping into the power of this country. and why anyone would want to disrupt that progress, there is no other hire priority than jobs, jobs, jobs in our society today. and at the same time if we can create stronger public health standards and address women and seniors and children of all types and working middle-aged couples around this country, everyone is protected in health by the clean air act. and 40 years of documented success that ought to guide us and tell us this is a move in the wrong direction and we are so happy that so many people are offering their thoughts here this evening in this special order. this one hour's worth of information exchange. and we are joined by a great representative from new jersey, who is a very thoughtful

scientist of types, from new jersey's 12th congressional district, representative rush holt. thanks for joining us this evening. mr. holt: i want to add a comment to mr. inslee's point and repeat that pollution is costly. it's costly in lives and it's costly in dollars. and one of the best instruments that has existed in the world over the past 40 years is the clean air act. the clean air act has decreased lead emissions by 95%. the e.p.a. using the clean air act. the e.p.a., the environment protection agency, has reduced emissions from diesel engines by almost 90%. and that is saving lives. and saving dollars.

by phasing our ozone-depleting chemicals and working through international agreements, the e.p.a. is cutting nonmel noema skin cancer by -- nonmelanoma skin cancer by hundreds of millions and, you know, reducing smog and soot, reduces premature deaths. this is successful legislation. my colleague, mr. inslee, calls this, what do we call it? you were calling it the dirty air -- the dirty air act. mr. inslee: it's simply fair to call it the dirty air act because that's what you get if this legislation passed. you get dirty air act. if you pass a dirty air act, you get dirty air. i think it's a fair assessment of what it does. mr. holt: undoing the clean air act makes the air less clean. the clean air act has been

successful in reducing the emission of pollutants, chemicals into the atmosphere that kill people. the clean air act has been successful. and what do we have before us? well tomorrow, as you say, there will be a hearing on legislation, not yet in final form, let's hope that it never finds its way into final form, but the legislation that would gut the clean air act. it would prevent the clean air act from keeping up with the times. it would prevent the clean air act from continuing to protect americans and by removing the chemicals from the atmosphere that help -- that are dangerous. this is really a matter of public health, but it's also a matter of economics.

you know, the cost of clean air safeguards has been exaggerated over the years. remember some, i think my colleagues are old enough to remember, i certainly am, when the clean air act was passed. and at the time they said, oh, this is going to be -- it's going to be terrible. it's going to ruin industry. you know, claims about the cost of sulfur dioxide standers -- standards were exaggerated by factors of, i don't know, five or 10. you know, we've seen from the market price of the sulfur dioxide allowances that the actual market is much less than the estimated cost of complying with the sulfur dioxide regulations. so again and again these have been exaggerated and by

implementing the clean air act we have saved lives and by association, by extension, saved dollars. furthermore if the clean air act is allowed to continue to look after the air that you and i breathe it will lead to further efficiency and all of the burgeoning industries that you, my colleague from new york, and you, my colleague from washington, have talked about. this is going to be very good for the united states, to be able to sell these environmentally attractive technologies to the rest of the world, rather than to buy them. so for all sorts of reasons, and when we simply cannot

afford the proposal that's coming from the majority on the other side of the aisle, that would increase our dependence on foreign oil, that would leave the air less breathable, that would aggravate asthma and heart disease, and would end up undoing the clean air act. what congress should be doing is making it possible for the clean air act to continue to protect americans' health and lives. not undoing it. mr. inslee: would the chairman yield for a moment? mr. holt: i'd be happy to. mr. inslee: mr. holt made a very important point that we need to discuss. he made a strong statement that this dirty air act that the republicans have introduced would gut the clean air act. that's a strong statement and it is entirely accurate. mr. holt: if i may explain, the clean air act is based on

science. mr. inslee: yes. mr. holt: and the clean air act, as the years have gone by, has used the best science to find the best ways to remove the worst pollutants from our air. and this is a very unscientific approach that they're saying, they're saying, because of politics we are not going to listen to science. because of politics we're going to say the clean air act stops here. mr. inslee: not only does it -- what i want to make clear to the public is that when we say gut we mean gut the clean air act. because the republican dirty air act doesn't just reduce protections by 10% to children with asthma, it doesn't reduce it by 50%, it entirely

eliminates the ability of the environmental protection agency to provide kids with asthma any protection whatsoever for these listed emissions from polluting industries. mr. holt: absolutely. mr. tonko: i think that our goal, gentlemen, should be to strengthen the standards. when we think of the reduced amount of impacts on children, for instance, those 18 million cases that were prevented of diseases for children, those are important steps. that ought to drive us. but you know, representative holt, you talked about the cost of the program and the associated benefits. well, right now the average has been for every dollar of investment there is a $13 benefit. that's a tremendous powerful outcome. why would we not want to continue that sort of benefit that befalls the american public and produces jobs at the same time? this has been, this whole

session of congress that preceded this 112th and now this congress this session of congress to date, is all about jobs. and why would we walk away from the jobs potential and the public health improvements for the sake of politics? and by the way, those benefits are projected by the year 2020 to rise to $30 trillion which is a -- $20 trillion, which is a 30-1 ratio. for every dollar invested, $30 of benefits will be produced. this is an awesome track record and one that really again speaks to the well-being, the general health of the american public and produces jobs. by the way, the american manufacturing teams that work on air pollution reduction technology are the king pins in that global market. they are producing and exporting -- now, everywhere we go we're looking for american

industry to be bolstered, for manufacturing to come back. we in this house have adopted the monday that, make it in america -- mantra, make it in america, make it in america again. here we are, we're achieving and exporting, exporting, which is the goal here, so that we can bulk up the american economy and getting good results from it. mr. holt: if the gentleman would yield on that very point. the rest of the world is not backing down, the rest of the world is not moving toward dirtier atmosphere, toward more atmospheric emissions. they understand that this is deadly and costly and as i said a few moments ago wouldn't it be better if we americans were selling the technologies to the rest of the world? many of these technologies were developed here in the united states. many of the opportunities for more energy efficiency and less atmospheric emissions can be

developed here in the united states. wouldn't it be better if we developed them here and sold them to the rest of the world instead of someday having to buy them? mr. tonko: there's a point that comes to mind, representative holt, when you talk about building it here and developing the technology and having that think tank-quality in this country, that also has to be nurtured by the next generation of workers. we have to pull from the students in the classrooms today, their experience or their awareness of science, technology, engineering and math. we must enable them to explore those areas as a career path. what sort of message are we offering out there, what is the message that resonates from this sort of approach? if i'm a youngster in a classroom i'm thinking, science and technology has no value in our society. we're able to clean up but we don't want to clean up. we're able to produce jobs through air pollution reduction technology that requires some

sort of research and development concept, we don't care about that. we're sending message to young people that these careers don't matter and, oh, by the way, your health doesn't matter because all of those young people saved from asthma or saved from some sort of respiratory ailment just don't matter. that is a terrible statement to offer our young people. i would think. and, representative inslee, you have something to say. mr. inslee: i would urge you to put your comment into -- mr. holt: i would urge you to put your comment into conditional. we're not to let it happen. it would be so unwise to say, we're not going to follow the science. it would be so unwise to say to the young people, we're going to turn away from this innovative challenge. it would be so unwise to say to families with asthma, we're not going to make the atmosphere better. it's not going to happen. but we are here to say, we

won't let it happen. mr. tonko: this falling on the heels of the president saying right from the podium, right in the state of the union, it's time to celebrate the science bowl as much as we celebrate the super bowl. here he is trying to draw the innovation economy into the classroom, to give students a sense of vision, partake in a creative venture out there that will make the world better and now we're rolling back technology. what a terrible message to leave our youngsters. representative inslee. mr. inslee: maybe thinking president obama gave his state of the union, who talked about celebrating the winner of the science bowl, about using the chinese advances in clean energy as our sputnik moment. so that we would be called to have a new apollo energy project. and we know, we know we can do and clean -- in clean energy what our ancestors did in space. which is to lead the world in clean energy. we know this can be the american destiny. and the reason we know that is

because our vision, our vision is one based on optimism and confidence. our vision is that we know we can invent new forms of energy so that we don't cause additional asthma problems in our children. now, this is a difference between us and the republicans who want to pass this dirty air act. we realize two things about our children. number one, when polluters pollute and expose them to dangerous levels of ozone and increases in asthma attacks and respiratory problems in senior citizens, those kippeds don't have anywhere to run and -- kids don't have anywhere to run and hide. an oil company can go around in places of the world. a kid is stuck where he lives and there's nowhere to hide from dirty air. and that's why i'm not very happy about this effort to put more of our kids in the way of dirty air, number one. . number two, we realize this

is real when it comes to new technology. when we passed a bill and looking at my battery plants, some of my colleagues thought this wasn't going to happen. we have laid off auto workers making lithium batteries for sale around the world to power electric cars. we know there are jobs to make that happen. we know in seattle, washington, we have the leaders in the discovery of location for wind power. we know those jobs can be made to happen. moses lake, washington, we have one of the largest manufacturer of solar panels to be shipped around the world and those jobs can be made to happen. at the boeing company, we are making airplanes that don't put out co-2 emissions. we know those jobs can happen.

we want our republican colleagues to join us in our sense of optimism. because the rule that the e.p.a. has proposed is really pretty modest. we are having a full-throated discussion about this, but the rule is pretty modest. let me tell you, it simply requires known efficiency standards at very, very large power plants. over 100,000 tons of emissions a year. a lot of small businesses are being told they will shut down restaurants and small businesses, that is bunk. this rule is proposing to deal with large emitters like large coal plants. this is a modest first step to try to rein dangerous gases like ozone and toxins like that. it is a reasonable first step.

mr. tonko: people have asked, what are these emissions that may be harmful to us or to our children. when you start talking, representative inslee about mercury poisonning and start talking about carbon emissions, when there is talk about arsenic and lead poisonning, people have heard about it and know people have been impacted by. of course people want to protect their children, they are our precious commod itity. and a track record of 40 years of success, public health standards, it is very difficult to imagine that someone wants to take that backwards. i think of the innovation that i saw when i served as the leader of the new york state research and development agency, i saw

what r&d, research and development can mean in the new shelf opportunities that come our way that are science and tech associated. people said when you went to the catalytic converter for automobiles, it was going to kill the auto industry, it didn't happen. people understood that the catalytic converter can clean us of that pollution, emission. all sorts of things would happen when we were addressing the emissions in smoke stacks, people found ways to make it happen. the industry, many times, many are out there that are poort of this concern and have come forward and said, this is a reasonable approach. many have said that. they want predictability and want some sort of plan and will engage their operation into that plan and its outcome. but there are many groups like

constellation energy, natural grid, and one of my home based, new york state power authority, all of whom have said this is a reasonable approach, that they are willing to be those partners out there to make the world, the environment, the air that we breathe, a better quality. so the proof is in the pudding here. there is an outstanding 40-year track record. there are children who breathe freely and lives have been saved. 160,000 of that if that matters alone. people need to look at the facts here and not be so connected of those deep pockets, special interests, friends from the oil industry who want to partner with colleagues in the house and say we are going to undo this and kill jobs, health threatening, toxic poisonning that could take place and we

will stop. >> mr. inslee: i hope we will be successful and hope we will because there are multiple reasons for this. this is an issue about who is going to make a decision about the air we breathe and our children breathe. is it going to be scientists who base their decision on science and health or is it going to be lobbyists for polluting industries. now we say we it should be the scientists. we say we should fall on science. when we go to doctors and we get advice based on science. when we want health advice, we don't go to polluting industries. we let a health decision be made by scientists. and the dirty air act that my republican colleagues want to pass, they want to take it away from physicians, scientists and

health practitioners and give it to the people up here who lobby. we are going to fight the dirty air act on behalf of the health of our kids and fight it on behalf of our senior citizens and fight the dirty air act so we can grow millions of clean energy jobs right here in this country and not ship them off to china. mr. tonko: special interests are now able to open the corporate checkbook and just write sizeable checks where the sky is the limit according to the supreme court decision and that can bring about special interest flavor into campaigns that are waged and candidates that are produced into the house. and when we look at special interests like that, we then begin to see what the real agenda is and it is counterproductive, it is kicking back progress that has been achieved for 40 years,

celebrations of life that were allowed to breathe freely because of this legislation. and the introduction of innovation and technology. so, these deep-rooted power plays are perhaps going to be more prevalent as we go forward in time. and i think that it's setting a dangerous precedent. i think what we have here is an opportunity to say yes to sound public health standards, yes to job creation, yes to innovation. i know that from the work that's being done even in the auto industry, g.e. is putting together an advanced battery manufacturing facility that will be available for heavy fleets. those are working on alternative fuels, renewables, to cut the kind of pollution that has been allowed to continue because of our dependency on oil imported from unfriendly nations to the

u.s. 60% of that demand is met simply by those oil imports. there is an awful lot of progressive perspectives that is associated with what the cleep air act has achieved and we have to go forward with this one. mr. inslee: i would note in closing if we are successful in asking republicans to stand with us against the dirty air act, we will celebrate a republican achievement of 40 years ago that we will have preserved the clean air act and the next electric car should be called the nixon in honor of our past president. mr. tonko: thank you. the efforts made here tonight were to inform people as to the impact that could be felt if we roll back progress of the clean air act, one that has had this 40-year record of achievement, one that has given a big boost

to innovation in our economy. our president, this president, president obama, has indicated that this is the sort of sustainable restructuring of our economy that can drive us forward if we invest in the intellect of this great american society, if we encourage education and higher education to be pronounced in the lives of individuals, if we can pull from them their interest in science, technology, engineering and math. we can then have this hopeful opportunity of job creation that comes simply through ideas, ideas that are produced in that education experience that we can provide for our young people. and by public policy that drives initiatives, that drives a series of goals, to, in this case, clean the air quality, that has enabled us to go

forward with the soundness in the manufacturing sector that has retrofitted, modernized, retooled those industries in the manufacturing realm to respond in a way that is much more sensitive to public health standards. this is the sort of progress we can achieve in this country simply by moving forward with souppedness of policy. so i thank all of our colleagues this evening who have joined us in the efforts to speak to the soundness of clean air, what it means not only in public health standards, but certainly in the efforts to create jobs and to sustain the economy in a way that will continue to strive to build on the progress that we have achieved over these last four decades and continue to explore new areas of job creation that will provide the soundness in our economy that will be the strength of this country in many, many decades and generations to come.

with that, mr. speaker, -- yes, will the gentleman yield? mr. faleomavaega: i was listening to the importance of the clean air act and i want to commend the gentleman for raising these issues not only with our colleagues, but the importance of why we have to make sure that this part of the element of our current laws are being sustained and upheld. i think the question also is raised here in terms of this is not a new issue but an issue that has been ongoing in years and years versus development and conservation. i think the challenge for us as legislateors is to see if we can find a sense of balance. currently, we have to import well over $700 billion worth of oil from foreign countries. i don't think our republican

friends think that we are anti-development. i think we are for development and doing it in such a way that the scientists are there and such a way that it provides safety and at the same time, provides the kind of resources that are really meaningful to meet the needs of the american people. and i commend the gentleman for raising this issue and hope that in the coming weeks and months we will continue the dialogue and debate on this very important matter. mr. tonko: we thank you for joining us this evening, but during the course of this hour, we have talked about innovation that we see happening in our very own districts. i have a global center on renewables that is conducted through g.e. and we have talked about their advanced battery manufacturing facility and the nano science that is being promoted in the 21st congressional district of new york. we witness the semi-conductor work that is being done and work

in the biotech communities that is important for providing work in the workplace of the future. this is what policy like this can initiate. within the realm of your district, the region you represent, within that whole context, there are those stories of susan innovation and that, i think is the outcome here we want to preserve and not only preserve but enhance so that we can continue to grow those jobs and provide a better quality of life. mr. faleomavaega: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i hope in the weeks and months we will continue this issue and hopefully our friends on the other side will understand our concerns. again, it's the challenge of establishing a balance between development and the environment and conservation and the american people are looking for

answers to those issues and those problems. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. tonko: built on 40 years of success then, we want to defend people of all ages from the most young to the most senior in our society. they have experienced and lived the benefits of soundness of policy that came to be the clean air act, a bipartisan effort that was initiated by a republican president. and it defies logic to move forward here with a plan that would take us backward. so we have to thwart that effort and call it for what it is, check it at the door and say it is a life-threatening, toxic poisonning situation that would reduce jobs and reduce our economy and really take us backward. this is about, i think, this house ought to be about moving us forward, creating jobs, enhancing the public health standards and embracing the quality of innovation in our

society that really builds the magic in our economy that addition deep into the pioneer spirit that is uniquely american and make it america by saying no to those agents that want to roll back progress and defeat us with their dirty air act. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. and i thank you for the opportunity for all of us to express our concerns by those who are advancing a dirty air act. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i wanted to address an important issue that has come to light recently. it has to do with the wonderful group of volunteers that serve in the united states peace corps. the peace corps was the idea of

john f. kennedy. he went to the university of michigan way back in 1960 and he started encouraging those college students to get involved. he wanted to do it in the name of peace. when he became president, president kennedy signed an executive order establishing a now important peace corps. by 1966 there were own 15,000 young americans, all volunteers that were working in the peace corps throughout the world. since those early days of the peace corps, 200,000 americans, mostly young people, of 0 -- 60% female have volunteered for their two-year service in the peace corps and working in

third world countries from everything from health to farming to small business, just helping other people throughout the world in a way that not only benefits them personally but benefits the recipients in these foreign countries. they are, really, in my opinion, along with the united states military, the greatest ambassadors we have from our country to show that we are concerned about the welfare of other nations. and they help build a better life for not only the people they come in contact with but their generations and the children that they have as well. i think they are really volunteer angels that the work that a peace corps volunteer does is hard work. it's important but very difficult. they're in a place far from home. sometimes very remote and primitive areas, and yet they're on a daily basis are

working to improve the lives of these individuals. like i said, i think it's one of the best things we do in this country as ambassadors are those young people in the peace corps. it's tough work. it's hard work. i wouldn't do it. it's so difficult. and you know, there are people in our country, a lot of them mainly young people who choose that as a calling to help other people in other countries. i've got four kids and they're all kind of wanting to save the world, too. they've been to mexico and lived in orphanages in trinidad, they've been to honduras, africa, zambia. all with that mentality of helping other people. but the peace corps volunteers are people like that who spend at least two years in service to their country, and sometimes when they are in those foreign countries they stick out. they are noticeable by the people who live in that country. and because of that, occasionally, sometimes, more often than it should be, they

attract crimes that occur against them. and that is the issue, mr. speaker, i want to address tonight. over the last 10 years, 1,000 americans, mainly women, have been sexually assaulted, raped or assaulted in some other way in a foreign country, representing the united states in the peace corps. between 2000 and 2009, peace corps themselves say there were over 221 rapes and attempted rapes, almost 150 major sexual attacks and other 700 other sexual assaults, sexual assault is anything from groping to fondling to conduct that is offensive to that peace corps volunteer. once again, 1,000 crimes against american peace corps volunteers.

recently the peace corps announced there is an average of 22 rapes a year against american peace corps volunteers. this is not acceptable, mr. speaker. we're talking about real people , their real stories and the real victims. i want to mention a few of those tonight in the limited time that i have. the first of those is a person that i've gotten to know personally. wonderful person, jess mocheck. she joined the peace corps in 2004 and her first day as a peace corps volunteer in bangladesh a group of men started to sexually grope her as she was walking to the home she was supposed to live in. but no one really did anything. she told the peace corps staff over and over again she felt unsafe in bangladesh in the situation she was in but nobody did anything. months later, she came in contact with some men who

kidnapped her, they beat her, and they sexually assaulted her. but they weren't through. they abandoned her and threw her in an abandoned alley somewhere in bangladesh. according to jess, the peace corps did everything they could to cover this up because they seemed to be more worried about the officials in bangladesh and what they thought might happen to their relationship with the united states than they did about caring for this victim of crime. jess said the peace corps blamed her for the conduct of others. they blamed her for fweeg a sexual assault victim. mr. speaker, a rape victim is never to blame for the crime that is committed against her. it is the offender that is always to blame. and we need to understand that these precious people who go overseas and represent us when

a crime is committed against them, we take their side and we don't assume they did anything wrong because they didn't. they were just a victim of crime, and the criminal is the one that should be held accountable for that conduct. rape is never the fault of the victim. it's always the fault of the perpetuator. but jess got no satisfaction from the peace corps, according to her. and when she got home, she was told to tell other people that she was coming back to the united states for medical reasons to have her wisdom teeth pulled out. this was had her case and a few others were brought to light recently by abc news and 20/20 bringing had her story and others. there are more. and i will try to cover as many as i can in the time that i have. lowell jackson was sent to romania, peace corps volunteer. she was constantly harassed, both physically and verbally. she couldn't walk to her house where she was staying without

verbal assault and things being thrown at her. she was spit on, she was punched, and rocks were thrown at her and her life was threatened several times. this took place on a weekly basis. they told her that a young american with blond hair would stand out and she was going to continue to be a victim. she was fondled over 10 times when she tried to ride public transportation so she quit riding public transportation in romania and she started walking to help these folks in romania. she said that the peace corps knew that these crimes were happening against her but she says they didn't take it seriously. and no legal recourse was offered. she was exposed to by young men who exposed themselves and she was told, well, don't be around those people. no one did anything and no one cared. when she was followed home by some men, she did talk to the police and they gave her some

bodyguards. she requested a new location, but she was turned down and her transfer was denied. when she returned home, she tried to get counseling but received no counseling for the crimes that were committed against her. and here's what she has to say, she says, i would have liked the peace corps to have never put me there. they knew it was unsafe for me. they should have communicated with the police and the school in their own investigation. i would have liked them to take me more seriously when i reported these crimes. i would have liked to have had counseling when i returned. but once again, mr. speaker, no one did anything. and when she left romania, she told the peace corps not to send anybody else over there but they did and the person who replaced her was also racially abused with the swastikas drawn on her residence because she was a jewish american. the next individual, i'm not going to use her real name because she doesn't want us to know her true identity, but she

grew up on a ranch and now lives in texas and she went to the pseudoin may of 1996 to convince farmers to plant trees and showed them how to do that but mary jo, as i will call her, stuck out in the two years in this location even though it was difficult, she lived in a small village in a string ofvilleages that were about 80 miles south of mazarut. she arranged her ticket back to the united states when she was attacked because she felt unsafe. but here's what happened to her. on an evening in 1999, mary jo and her neighbor left a village shop and were headed down a dirt path to her home. her neighbor's ex-boyfriend followed and after a confrontation struck mary jo with a rock. the blow knocked out six of her teeth, destroyed her eye socket and left a palm-sized crater in her face. the rock had crushed the bones

in her face and blood had started coming down her back into her throat. she ended up alone in a deserted section of the hospital when she was finally found. she says it was dark, i was scared and i didn't know where anyone was. taxis only ran from her village at night and she couldn't really reach the peace corps but some neighbors found someone to drive her 20 miles to a local hospital. she remembered a young woman stitching her up and she remembers being once again left alone. abandoned. she felt abandoned by her own country. the next day she was moving to another hospital in south africa where surgeons installed a metal plate to hold the bones together around her left eye and her chin and cheeks and nose. the peace corps brought her back to her home base but said they didn't help her in her recovery. mary jo and her sister had flown in from the united states , had to sleep in a hotel because the agency wouldn't let them stay in a transient house

and they had difficulty getting back to the united states with her clothes. she even had to beg the staff to take her to the airport. at no time according to her the peace corps asked her what they could do to help her. she said it was terrible. i was so messed up. she's had 10 operations in 2 1/2 years and surgeons put metal plates in her face and she also has false teeth. mary jo, being the remarkable person she is, she wasn't really angry at the peace corps because she was attacked in the village by villagers, she was angry because nobody in the agency seemed to care. once again, no one did anything. it was like i was never in the peace corps, she says. and when she got home, no one contacted her from the peace corps to check on her to see how this victim of crime was doing. the attacker went to jail for three weeks but was later released because mary jo had come back to the united states. mr. speaker, how much time do i have left?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has roughly eight minutes. mr. poe: all right. thank you, mr. speaker. kate puzzi was another angel from america. had gone to help a country that most of us have never heard of or been able to locate on a map. banine where she went in 2007 was a teacher at a local school and formed a girl's club to help empower the young women who were in the school. it's hard to be a girl in that part of the world according to kate's cousin, ms. jacobs. and the girls really started speaking about some of the issues they were facing and they started communicating that to kate. and before long, the girls began to tell kate about another person who worked for the peace corps but wasn't an american, he was a citizen of banine who was paid by the peace corps to help work with the peace corps.

his name was constant bio. and these girls said this person was sexually assaulting these young girls. she had started hearing he had been sleeping with some of the girls, he got some of them pregnant and some of them had been raped. and at the request of several teachers, kate sent an email to the peace corps in banine's capital recommending this person be fired from the peace corps. she said, quote, please believe me, i'm not someone who likes to create problems but this has been weighing on me heavily. this was in an email she sent that was found later and turned over to abc news. this man is not someone i want representing the peace corps to this community. . bio's brother worked in the peace corps' office and she didn't want the rapeist of young girls in this country to know she had reported him.

but he found out about it any way. and so when he found out about it, this is what happened. march 11, 2009, the day after the peace corps' authorities had fired this criminal, bio and two months short of completing her commitment to the peace corps, kate was found dead on her front porch with her throat slit. her family said the peace corps was insensitive until officials learned about the abc news report and got more involved. unfortunately, it was too late. unfortunately, no one did anything or paid attention. before the news reported this murder, this homicide, the family believes that the peace corps did little to show compassion or an interest. kate's father, harry, said this, she was my hero. i thought maybe a representative would come to the house to talk

to us or at least a letter in the mail. but that did not happen, because just a box showed up with my daughter's belongings that came by delivery man. this is disrespectful, mr. speaker, to the life of this life of this wonderful person and to her family. the peace corps has changed some of its procedures. the fifth example is a gail who was a peace corps volunteer in guyana and created ways to help young women to combat against hiv-aids and other diseases and she is teaching life skill courses and wanted to build stronger relationships between the mothers there and their daughters. 2007, a year into her service, she was riding her bike home from work when she was assaulted, dragged in the bushes

and sexually assaulted by a man who had been following her. he choked her so hard she couldn't breathe or even scream. she believes the peace corps needs to help victims cut through the bureaucratic red tape and get the care they need. it was too hard to navigate the problems that i had been going through all by myself. and once again, insensitivity and nothing seamed to happen. just as victims of these peace corps, who are members of the peace corps who are victims have formed a support group and call it the first response action group and we will see more of them hopefully more on the hill. today i met with the direct tire of the peace corps, air and williams who happened to be in the peace corps years ago. i explained to him and talked to him about these issues and other issues that have come to light and he and i discussed this

problem. we are going to have hopefully a foreign affairs committee hearing on the peace corps and the relationship it has with the volunteers throughout the world, how to make them safe and how to take care of them after a crime has been committed against them sm the peace corps director, mr. williams, assures they are going to hire and develop a victim advocate program and help the victims of crime get counseling services. they are going to help them medley, even after they had been discharged from the peace corps. unfortunately, the bureau of labor has issues in dealing with these peace corps volunteers who are no longer in service and still have issues that need to be taken care of and the peace corps is going to work with the department of labor to solve this bureaucratic nonsense. every victim will have access to medical counseling and legal

services and when a crime is committed against an american, the ambassador of that country is going to contact the highest ranking official in that country to let them that know that america wants to take care of the victim and hold the perpetrator accountable. one of the most important things that director williams has agreed to do is set up a victims' advocacy program, an advisory board, made up of different groups like n.g.o.'s and give advice, like how to take care of victims of crime. we aren't going to let this issue die but promote and understand the peace corps. but we want these wonderful people in the peace corps who have, in the past, been harmed and crimes committed against them. we want to rescue them as a nation and take care of them. and the director of the peace corps says we will take care of

those people and take care of peace corps volunteers that are being assaulted. we want to take care of them. and we want to have procedures to make sure the peace corps is listening and takes care of victims of crime as well. mr. speaker, i spent most of my life at the courthouse in houston. i was a prosecutor, criminal court judge for 30 years. i saw many of these victims of crime. and sexual assault, rape, to me, is the worst crime that can be committed against a person. you understand why people steal, but that crime of sexual assault is a crime not of sex, but a crime of power, and also an attempt by the perpetrator to destroy the inner soul of the victim. and we need to understand that. and we need to take these people, these victims, these wonderful volunteers of america and take care of them. we are doing a better job as a

nation taking care of our wounded warriors and they come home with all kinds of injuries and we are taking care of them. we need to understand these volunteers are just as precious and take care of them as well. there can be no peace as long as there is one american peace corps volunteer that has no peace. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. thank you very much, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would remind members of the gallery to avoid voicing any approval or disapproval for comments made in the house. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from america samoa, mr.

faleomavaega for the time remaining between the present and 10:00 p.m., which is roughly 22 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. faleomavaega: i ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i don't come out into the world to give speeches and i realize our nation is confronted with very serious issues in different regions of the world. for example, the current crisis in egypt and the middle east our involvement in afghanistan, pakistan and iraq, problem of nuclear proliferation on the korean peninsula, global economic recession and many other issues that are now before us. this evening, however, mr. speaker, i want to share with my colleagues and the american people, a particular issue that is now brewing in the pacific region. it is the current crisis now happening between the government

of chile and the people of easter island. mr. speaker, easter island is a province of chile, and is known by its native people. 3,800 miles east of tahiti and 2,300 miles from chile, easter island is one of the most isolated pieces of land on the entire planet. as you can see there with the arrow pointing, mr. speaker, it is also the southern eastern point of the triangle from the state of hawaii north and far south of new zealand and other islands in between and the samoan islands. the dutch explorer landed on the island and thus named it easter

island. today, easter island is known throughout the world for its massive stone statues of ancient days. there are huge statues and stand 13 feet in height with an average weight of 13 tons. the largest statue is 72 feet in height and weighs 165 to ns. given its remote location, many people throughout the world consider the island to be uninhabited. however, easter island is home to a population of roughly 5,000 people, but approximately half of those people are the the people of what was known as rap nui. the people of easter island are small in number.

yet they carry a very vibrant culture dating back centuries before the rival of europeans. and living off the land and respect for family and nature and ways of life dating back to the time when the first settled the pacific islands on double-hulled canoes. because they are connected, the people of this island is very similar to that of other peoples, such as the native hawaiians and others. for example, there is a strong connection between the older and younger generation and therefore, a deep sense of respect for elders. this is an example of a young man wearing traditional body painting which is used for celebrations. its practice, which is characteric was passed down to him from generation to

generation. the link between the old and young is further perpetrated through the study of geneology. and the people treasure and study this which goes back centuries before the arrival of europeans. the point i hope to make is that the people of easter island, the culture is still vibrant and this is not a mysterious uninhabited island as has been thought of for all these years. like many other islands in the pacific, easter island has had its sovreignty determined by more powerful outside influences. in 1888, the government of chile signed a disputed treaty with the island of easter island and organized in two columns, one

side written in spanish and the other column, a phonetic translation of the language which was not in written form at the time reads as a treaty of friendship and protection. the fact of the matter is the poor people could not read nor did they understand the spanish language and the so-called treaty of 1888 is highly questionable in terms of its substance. decades after the signing of the treaty in the early 1900's, the government of chile forced the people to live on one square mile on the island, transferring the lands to sheep herding and all such lands deemed as property of the state. the land was anexed by chile without consultations by the people of easter island.

this was considered no man's land. on the contrary, the island was known as the neighbor of europe and as far as the people were concerned, there were people living on the island before, during and even after the arrival of europeans. mr. speaker, chile's current relationship with easter island poses many legal, policy and human rights problems. with the and exation of easter island in 1933, the government of chile adopted laws regarding the lands of the people and the enforcement of these laws continue to reflect the nature of chill's' initial treaty and and exation, disputed and unclear in terms of the rights of these native people to their lands.

the law known as the easter island law is the governing law for the property rights in easter island and provides for the authorization to grant land title for the people and prohibits transfers of real property to people of not of that ancestry. however despite this clearly stated law, the administrative authority has conducted land transfers that contradicts the law itself. this law has disgeneral franchised the people. chile continues to violate this law within a meager square mile of land that the native people have been confined to since the early 1900's. . there are several issues that threaten the livelihood of the people of rapa nui. they have no voice when it

comes to residencey and immigration to their own island. each year an increased number of chilean nationals travel to and remain on easter island. roughly 50,000 tourists visit each year to see the ancient statutes. despite the influx of tourists, easter island is prohibited from having a television and internet signal. the influx of travelers and residents have given way to massive unemployment among the native people, exploitation of natural resources and increased pollution, sustainability of natural resources is further threatened by foreign fishing boats which are allowed to fish around the island. the parliament of rapa nui and klan leader have reached out to the government by peaceful means to resolve the serious issues at hand. however, chile has responded with efforts to create task forces and working tables,

despite these efforts the bottom line is there are many commissions that have not resulted in concrete resolutions and the people who have patiently withstood the treatment for decades are no longer willing to tolerate it. in july and august of last year, the clans among the rapa nui people wrote several letters to the president of the republic of chile voicing their concerns. they call for an end to colonialism so the rapa nui people can return to the people that they once were and the people of rapa nui also wrote to the governor of easter island requesting permission for a peaceful demonstration. in the same time period the clans began to peacefully occupy their lands as a means to call the attention for the need of serious constructive dialogue with the government of chile. mr. speaker, chile somewhat has made an effort to solve these issues diplomatically.

in august of last year, the minister of interior visited rapa nui to announce the creation of working tables to address these issues. the project was given 60 days for its outcome, however, despite this attempt, that very same month a squadron of chilean police arrived on easter island signaling the beginning of a six-month long violent conflict between the local inhabitants and the police forces that the chilean government sent to easter island. on september 7, the troops forcibly evicted the hitoclan from the grounds. the evictions that took place december 7 is well-documented and i must say, mr. speaker, that not a very pleasant experience in reading some of the experiences that some of these young people. for example, the four children, ages 9, 7, 5 and 3, mr. eddie

hito, the father of the children stated that my family were all sleeping at 5:00 in the morning when i heard a loud noise and then 20 armed policemen entered into our room and held both my wife and i at gunpoint. i heard one officer say there were children but his superior radioed back to proceed on with no mercy. in jail they made us register all the children and forced us to sign forms. another testimony, a 9-year-old daughter said when she awoke, the police were aiming their guns at her and her younger brother. they overturned my mattress where i was sleeping with my brother, making me hit my head. police threw me around the bed and pulled me on my arm and threw me outside in their truck. the mother stated, the police didn't even give me a chance to address them -- the children for myself and in that little time i took the two little ones without shoes, we were rushed

and thrown into the police trucks and taken to the jail. only two weeks prior to this the police have come to the children's school to present themselves with help as supposedly protectors and helpers. now my kids are presented with the complete opposite. they see it as police abusing their family. now they don't want to go back to school or even to leave their homes. they don't want to go to school. they are worried. every night they ask me if everything is locked up because they are afraid that the police will break in and hurt them. another testimony from mr. hito with his two children ages 12 and 8 and the mother made this statement. there were at least three policemen holding us at gunpoint. claudio took the baby and still held us at gunpoint. my boy was at the other end of the room. the police were shining a light in his face and hitting his chest with a beating stick.

they hit him until he woke up. he woke up distorted and they ordered him to hurry up. the police physically threw us out while threatening us, i had to change the baby in the police truck. i was using my cell phone for light to change her and they started to yell at me to turn off my phone so i had to use the little light that seeped through the doors and threw the crack in the door. and i saw tons of policemen gathered outside. december 7 of last year, more evictions were conducted. and the picture shows you the man with a wounded forehead, according to suzanne hito she made this statement in terms with her children, the same thing, being physically abused and physically asalted -- assaulted by the police. the natives of rapa nui were completely taken by surprise in terms of the action taken by the police forces of the

chilean government. mr. speaker, this past thursday, last week, senator daniel akaka and i issued a joint letter to the governor of chile expressing our concern of the situation unfolding in rapa nui or easter island. the failure of the ministry of interior to seriously consider the legitimate landownership claims of the people of rapa nui, the claims of criminal prosecution, rapa nui political leaders for their involvement, peaceful demonstration and the ongoing disproportionate use of force by the chilean special forces against the people of rapa nui. mr. speaker, the point is this is the year 2011. and this type of treatment should not be happening. but unfortunately, mr. speaker, it is happening. as i stated before, chile's current relationship with easter island is disputed, unclear, and highly

questionable. however, there is a choice to be made and how to address the many legal policies and human rights issues that have stemmed from this unfortunate relationship. i appeal to the government of chile to begin a dialogue for ways to help the rapa nui people achieve self-determination. economic self sufficiency and preservation of culture. we can learn, for example, how the government of nicaragua treated its indigenous people of the mosquito tribe and learn from government-to-government relationships how our own government is treated, some 600 tribes here in the united states and in the same way that we ought to learn how we can better treat the people of rapa nui. mr. speaker, just a few weeks ago the president of the united states, barack obama, gave a state of the union message in which he mentioned chile twice. first of all, he mentioned the efforts of an american who owned a small company that

helped develop a special machine that helped save the lives of these 33 chileans who were stuck in the mines. this man used his skills to save a group of people whom he never met. in fact, even at the time when these 33 chileans came out of the mine, he took off for the united states, never wanting to be recognized. president obama also mentioned that in an effort to strengthen our ties with latin america, he will visit three countries next month to discuss business relations and trade, one of which is chile. this effort on the part of president obama and chile is geared towards strengthening our nation's relationship with latin america and particularly our bilateral relations with chile. i appeal to president panera to advocate for a more positive approach for partnership dialogue with the indigenous people of easter island or rapa nui. the rapa nui people are in danger of being exterminated from their own lands.

mr. speaker, this seemingly peaceful island which is known throughout the world for its mysterious moi stone statutes is no longer so peaceful. mr. speaker, let me conclude my remarks by making some special appeal or personal appeal to the minister of interior, that the minister of foreign affairs of chile and more especially to the honorable president of chile, his excellencery, sebastian panera. to seriously address the problems affecting the people of easter island or rapa nui. it is my honest belief that the indigenous people of easter island do not wish to do any harp against some 17 million people living in chile. in fact, there are only 2,500 easter islanders who remain on the island, nor is there ever a possibility that the people of easter island will ever pose a threat to the military and

strategic or national security interests of the chilean government or its people. so, mr. speaker, i make this personal appeal to president panera, i ask for a true demonstration of his leadership and capacity to exercise fair judgment and above all, show common decency toward the safety and welfare of probably the most helpless people who currently live on this planet. the people who centuries ago were among the greatest in the world as navigators and voyagers of the pacific region, a people who scientists today can still marvel in their ability to build statutes. cut from stones weighing hundreds of tons. a people who only ask they be treated as any other human being would like to be treated. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. faleomavaega: i yield back

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i move we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.

waiting to be enacted. live coverage of the u.s. house when members return always here on c-span. >> in a few moments, a form on the u.s. response to political unrest in egypt. in an hour and a half, georgetown university hosts a discussion of revolution in the arab world. after that, 80 party town hall meeting with members of congress. >> the conservative political action conference, cpac has been held for over 30 years. c-span will have coverage of gathering later this week search and watch, click and share, in the time. it is washington, your way. >> a former pentagon official today criticized the obama administration's response to

the conflict in egypt, saying that the u.s. is now at a disadvantage. he served during george w. bush's administration and was on the account -- panel that included a representative of the egyptian youth organization. this is a 90 minute discussion hosted by the hudson institute. >> welcome to everyone. and we are going to address the prospects for a liberal democracy in egypt.

inspired by an uprising in tunisia, ordinary egyptians took to the streets in alexandria and tahrir square in cairo two weeks ago. thousands of protesters became tens of thousands. they were largely secular, but were joined by the muslim brotherhood movement, in egypt's most organized and largest opposition force. the protests soon became a revolt. that mubarak and his regime to step down immediately became the demand. melbar a day, the official that seems to favor iran, has been put forward to leave the transitional government. mubarak announced that neither he, nor gamal would stand for election in september.

this was less a reform and more a seen as a signal that he was determined to fill out his term. the u.s. was taken off guard. egypt's government had a peace accord with israel, one of the largest aid recipients in the united states, averaging about $1.3 billion in military aid annually. secretary clinton had recently declared the regime to be stable. u.s. policy has fluctuated over the past few weeks over whether president mubarak should lead the transition or go now. it is beginning to sink in and that elections now may well equal in that -- an islamic fundamentalist regime in the arab world's most popular country. the brotherhood, founded in egypt in 1928, is capable of winning power in any free election. after all, the mosques have been the only place open for a

political organization during all of these years of repression. the current announcement from the obama administration emphasizes the importance of an orderly transition. meanwhile, as if to underscore american interests, iran has called it an islamic awakening. hezbollah has with as well. others have been silent, appealing only to avoid the silence. -- avoid violence. in s statements. i was in saudi arabia last week and witnessed firsthand tha there was little enthusiasm among the royals for a muslim brotherhood government. analysts in the united states have advocated for an immediate end to military aid to egypt.

they have even conceded that it is fundamentalist but will moderate in power. to help us analyze from different perspectis the prospects for liberal democracy in egypt, we have four presenters on our panel today. i'm delighted to introde them. are for speaker is samuel tadros. he is finishing h master's at georgetown university. he's a senior partner in the egyptian union of liberal youth. he previously worked as a consultant at the hudson institute on moderate islamist thinkers in egypt and inter ned at the american enterprise institute and most recently worked with the heritage foundation. our next speaker will be lee

smith, a visiting fellow at hudson institute and a senior editor at "the weekly standard." his critically acclaim 2010 book has just been released in paperback. next will be paul marshall, my colleague and a senior fellow at the center for religious freedom at hudson. his global survey was published in 2008 and his books on religion and journalism "blind spot" was published by oxford university press in 2009. he is the author and editor of 20 other books on religion and politics. we have co-authored "silenced" which will be published by oxford in november. our final speaker today is douglas feith.

he is the author of "the new york times" best selling memoir "war and decisions." as undersecretary of defense for policy from july 2001 until august 2005, douglas feith helped devise the u.s. government strategy for the war on terrorism and contributed to policy making for the afghanistan and iraq campaigns. in the reagan administration, he worked as a middle east specialist and served as deputy assistant deputy of defense. before we began, would like to ask you to turn off your phones. the presenters will give srt talks and then we will turn to question and answers thank you. >> let me begin speaking today

with a very short story from the first day of demonstrations in cairo. a friend of mine close to the first demonstration on tuesday, the day that is now claim to be the start of the egyptian revolution. there he found an old acquaintance of ours. the man calls himself the liberal democratic activist, very well educated, a member of the egyptian opposition. he finds him there screaming with resolve the voice, "what a disgrace. what a disgrace. six towns are worth $1." my friend was bewildered. he got the reply, "this is an insult to egypt's honor." if egypt was a great country, the egyptian pound would be worth $6 and not the reverse. my friend answers, "a weak

currency might be good for exports. actually, it's very hard for the government to maintain overvalued exchange rates." the activist looks at my friend with bewilderment. it is not that the words were not understood. they were spoken in very clear arab. it is that the idea behind those words were completely alien to him. he had not heard about those concepts before. looking at my friend for a minute, he then looks at him and tells him, "behind me, what a disgrace." egypt has turned from what secretary clinton describes as a very stable country into a country of turmoil. people are glued to their tv screens looking at the events with a sense of admiration and rightly so. young men are seen demonstrating

in the streets and bringing down a machine of security that has oppressed them for more than 30 years in a mere four hours. the prevailing attitude has been one of democracy. they're fighting for their democracy and we should stand with them. what those young men underand by the word democracy is however not exactly what those observers might think. commentators on cnn have mentioned that everyone they meet in the streets of cairo seems to be in love with americans and israel. it hasrobably been observed. there were probably interviewing people in the streets of tel aviv and not cairo. the prevailing negative of those young men who support democracy, who want freedom, that has been the prevailing thing. to look at the prospects of what

is happening today in egypt, this egyptian revolution, would turn into a liberal democracy -- one needs to look at the seriousness. to build a liberal democracy, the question is not whether people want this or not. there are other questions involved. whether there are institutions in the country that can build a liberal democracy. whether there is a rule of law in the country or not. whether there is an independent judiciary that is able. i would touch upon a couple of those points. first is the issue of the liberal party is in the country. there are three main parties that are described as liberal and democratic. their sense of the words, however, is quite different from that westerners might have of the word. one of the liberal party is has a vi president who could write an article stating very clearly -- are jews human beings or not?

the answer is no, they should be exterminated. that is the leading liberal party. it calls itself liberal. its ideas areardly what we understand by the idea of liberal. another party stands against any seing of state property. the state property, the state mechanism, the control of the state of the economy, they want to maintain it. how this fits with any understanding of the word is up to the people to decide. the judiciary -- yes, there i a strong independent judiciary in egypt. there's a sen that it has tried to maintain that in the country. the same judiciary voted with over 92% to exclude women judges -- a decision the egyptian government was pushing. are the independents?

yes. do they have the values we understand as the words liberal and democratic? hardly? whether there's a sense of civic, educational culture. whether the egyptian educational system provides any of those ideas that are needed to build a healthy political discourse that allows people to discuss the ideas with alternatives. that is lacking in society. before people get so excited about the idea of the marcy being -- the idea of democracy being built, caution should be there. the institutions that are building these demracies need to be looked at. democracy is not just about people being excited about it. there are other things involved. this is not a marker see that is happening in egypt. what is happening?

in my view, the egyptian army is taking power. the egyptian army, which has always been the egyptian regime, has recently been threatened son.ly by the president's the army never liked him. the reasons are outside of the fact that he did not serve in the army. they are very institutional reasons. dhe attempted to build a party, threaten the army in the sense that suddenly the road to achievement, the road to growth in society was no longer a military uniform, but was a party idea. the other sense in which he was threatening the army was a sense of economics. the egyptian army control is immense. estimates put the size of the egyptian armies control of the

army at 40% of the economy. gamal mubarak knew liberals were creating policies that were threatening the army's control of the economy. looking at will is happening, the army found its golden opportunities. the army was able to put its narrative again to president mubarak. the army's argument was that the policies were hurting the regime. the army needs to be in control again to cool down -- to cool things down. in a sense, this is what is happening in egypt. young men are fighting in the streets, yes, but the real decisions are fought inside the regime, whe the army has been able to step by step exclude its competitors and silence the regime. where does this leave us? unfortunately, it leavess with a very bad prediction.

we have an egyptian history. two incidents before something similar happened. a generation revolted against british occupation. it meant reality a couple of years later and discovered that nothing had changed for them. the results were to say, at least, very problematic. this generation formed the? years after the 1919 revolution. it was the generation that joined fastest organizations in the '30's. the same incident, the same sense of high expectations and very low achievements leadg to great disappointments happened after the narrative of a great viory in 1973.

brazil in egyptian that egypt did not win in 1973 -- never tell an egyptian that egypt did not win in 1973. then there was his discovery that things were not getting better. is reaction led to what we have seen in the growth of the violence, radical list islamist ganizations. what will happen in the future when this sense that nothing has changed egypt? the opposition parties will each get 20 feet from parliament. they will each get better favors from the regime. the regime will give some concessions, yes, but will maintain power. what will happen to those young men in the streets? what will happen when they discover that all they have worked for actually resulted in nothing for them? i think that is a question that

not only egypt, but the world will have to deal with for some time in the future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you vermuch to nina and the rest of hudson for inviting me along. i want to start off by saying that i essentially agree with samuel's interpretation. i think perhaps the most cynical way to read what has happened over the last few weeks and perhaps the most accurate is that is essentially what we have seen is a preemptive military coup. i i think the military did not plan this, but the military saw what was happening on the streets and understood that they could take advantage of what was happening on the streets. as sam explain clearly, the military does not like gamal mubarak.

the military was not happy about this that gamal mubarak might succeed his father. that is not the way the military understands it. this is a free office of the regime. it is not a mubarak dynasty. the miliry has always been central in egypt and stay back for quite a long time, certainly before 1952. that's the way i understood it. what we have seen is a preemptive military coup. the notion that it has ten u. policymakers by surprise is surprising. the fact that the white house and administration has been frustrated is a little bizarre given that everyone has understood that the succession was extremely delicate. no one knew exactly which way it was going to pan out. we have been quite worried abo this for a while.

obviously, this was a concern. g speak about of tdou this. the freedom agenda, the bush administration, among many other things, it anticipated that this was an issue with egypt. authoritarian regimes were a problem and this was one of the upsides of the freedom agenda. to account for these authoritarian regimes in to push for something else. in other words, the notion that egyptas a troublesome place and that the succession is going to be a problem -- this has been known for quite some time. should not have taken the administration by surprise and we should not be blaming the intelligence community for this now. this debate has been on the table for quite some time. one of the things that i want to say, in spite of the fact that i think we can see this as essentially a preempve military coup, there are some victories here for the protesters, as well. we also want to talk about this.

there has been some skepticism over your views of the word " democratic uprising." i think there are some positive things that have happened. namely, i think it is good that gamal mubarak has been taken off the table. this is an upside for egypt and for u.s. policy. it could be an upside for u.s. policy. i think this is something the people have wanted for quite a while. we have wanted the -- we have wanted mubarak to nama successor and now there's a successor, suleiman. although people may not be happy, i believe this is something we have wanted for quite a while. the other victory, of course is that president hosni mubarak has agreed to step down. he needs to be kept to his word.

i do notee the point in trying to force him off the stage right now. i think he needs to be kept to his word and i think what this administration needs to do and what u.s. policymakers need to do is, it will take serious work, but if they're serious, they need to push omar suleiman or whoever succeeds him in elections in september for the same sort of reforms they wanted. sometimes the bush administration was good at getting this from mubarak. this is not easy. it's not easy to shout for someone to get off the stage from the selines. if u.s. policymakers are serious about a democratic egypt, these are e sort of things that will have to be done. sam outlined the liberal trends in egypt are mighty slim. a lot of people have blamed the mubarak regime for crushing liberal trends. there's some truth to that.

however, liberal trends have been rare in egypt since about -- certainly since the constitutional era. way today that its 1952 with the free officers coup. you could also make an argument that the liberal trends were slim even before then. starting in the 1920's, they started to be under attack. most notably, from the muslim brotherhood. i think some of the discussion around the islamist movement in egypt is very strange. the notion that somehow the muslim brotherhood would not come to power in free and fair elections is slightly counterintuitive to say the least. i know that one of the explanations that people give -- the egyptians have seen this happen in tehran and they recognize this is a profound mistake and they do not want to make this a mistake.

we do not exactly know that. the other evidence is -- the palestinians voted for hamas. in lebanon, 30% of the christian community, of all people we hardly expect christians to welcome an islamist regime. nonetheless, it has aligned itself with the leadership and his alliance with hezbollah. again, tre are plenty of reasons peoplept for islamist trends in their different countries. one of the reasons is that many people like islamist party spirit is a slightly counter intuitive notion. the muslim brotherhood is perhaps the pillar of egyptian cultural and intellectual life over the past century. moreover, is the flower of arab political maturity. this began in egypt.

the notion that it is not going to play a central role if not the central role in the future of egyptian politics -- again, that does not make sense to me. this goes back to -- if we look at it -- i would say it is tied to arab political modernity starting in 1978. the founding of the brotherhood is 1928. what we see happening with the napoleon in egypt, muslim avtivists started to wonder if -- why did it happen that egyptians were overrun so easily? the answer was -- differed intellectuals started to pop up. one said that the reason is because islam had become weekend. this is one of the reasons -- this is the reason why the ran us so easily.u

the idea was that is long needed a renovation. what it needed to do was purged itself of various not islamic excesses' and return itself to the practices of the profit. the earliest companions and successors -- they were known as the righteous forbearers. it goes to the one time mufti of egypt and the chief disciple and the founder of muslim brotherhood in 1928. this is a key intellectual trend in egypt. it is the intellectual trend in

egypt at this stage. again, i think this is very important to keep in mind when we talk about whether or not the brotherhood will play a key role. it certainly will. for u.s. policymakers -- we hear differenthings coming out of the white house on how much the administration should push to have the brotherhood included in the national dialogue and how much it should play a role in the opposition. this is interesting. this is an important debate. we certainly have to look at this and say -- what right to american policy makers have to intervene in the decisions of another country? wh right do we have to trample on other people's natural rights? these are certainly important arguments. the other argument is that it is not the role of the american president to ensure the natural rights of another people.

the role of the american president is to protect and preserve american interests. one key american interest in the middle east is to preserve peace in the eastern manage iranian. -- in the eastern mediterranean. this is also for the sake of our ally, egypt. this peace treatyndergirds the pact in the eastern mediterranean. it is very key. i think that we have to confront the fact of that if there is a muslim brotherhood controlled government in egypt, the peace treaty is going to be endangered. the brotherhood has said as much itself. we need deal with that. if we are one to talk oneempowering the brotherhood and ensuring their role in the national dialogue, we have to face the consequences. as sam was talking about before, looking at some of the protesters, even without the

brotherhood, i think we have to face the fact that we are looking perhaps at a very different egypt. egypt is changing. we need to recognize that the people on the streets -- none of them remember the 1963 or 1970 wars. catastrophic wars for egypt and certainly not good for israel either. there was an interview in "the wall street journal" with the syrian president. he said -- this is partly facetious because this is an extremely btal regime. syrians understand that if they take to the streets in the number egyptians do, the security will have no reservations about opening fire on the syrian protesters. something that he said is worth consideration. he said, "we have a little easier -- we have it much easier because we do not have a relationsh with israel." the egyptians to have treaty. whether we like it or not, we

are going to have to deal with the fact that the region is not happy with that peace treaty. egyptians are not happy with that peace treaty. this is certainly something to think about down the road regardless of whether or not -- regardless of how much power the muslim brotherhood gets. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for inviting me on to isanel. in order to avoid undue duplication by the panelists, we have been asked, if possible, to focus on some different aspects from one another. i have been massed particularly to look at the question ofhat

life might be like for egyptians and perhaps others. -- if they muslim brotherhood unsheathes a large measure power in egypt. what would it mn for political and religious dissidents? muslims whose view of the nature of politics and the nature of islam does differ from that of the muslim brotherhood. what would it mean for egypt's coptic christian minority, the largest non muslim minority in the middle east. what might this mean about the status of women and so forth? the awers to these questions or at least suggested talks on these questions depends on two things. what we think is likely to be the strength of the muslim brotherhood? and what is likely to do, if it

has power. this is, of course, -- the strength and the intention of the muslim brotherhood is perhaps the major subject of debate in the u.s. as it looks at egyptian politics. one of three things -- the question of mubarak, the question of the military, and the question of the brotherhood. the u.s. administration seems to be going back and forth like each of these over the last few weeks as it tries to sort out the relative strength. it is significant that we discussed the brotherhood more of them all the other political opposition groups combined -- the brotherhood more than all the her political opposition groups combine. most commentators would probably have difficulty listing several dozen of the egyptian oppositi groups. there's a very good reason for this. the fact that there are several dozen of them -- their very

small and they are very disorganized. at the moment, they're not in any position to exercise much power,ven if it were handed to them. there is this focus on the brotherhood as the major actor, other than mubarak and the military within egypt. what does the brotherhood believe? i will give just one quotation and then qualify it. if you go to the brotherhood's web site, you will find many quotations outlining the goal. i could repeat these at length. many of you probably could as well. just one, "our goal is to establish one islamic state of united islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of god and the strengthening of the islamic presence in the

world arena. the goal is e establishment of a world islamic state." you cld say many of tse quotations as a political platform. you could say, we do not mean these things or they are a long- term goal. amongst the brotherhood statements in the last several weeks, they have said that this is not an islamic uprising. this is a democratic uprising. at the moment, we are the egyptian brotherhood, not the muslim brotherhood. the brotherhood is famously equivocal and contradicry and in what it says about itself. i think, partly because it has -- it is at least tactically quite clever in such matters.

also the question of what the brotherhood actually believes or what does it intend -- we should also bear in mind that what the brotherhood might do and what it intends to do are not the same things. this is true for any political goal. if statements about democracy, and we need to understand what that might mean, or statements about religious freedom. these may well be sincerely meant, but if the party acts in such a way, if it believes the laws it passes, if it believes the versions of islamic what it wants to enforce will lead to such freedom and democracy, it is mistaken. even what the brotherhood might sincerely say about itself might not give us o much indication of what might happen. what i would like to do as a means of investigating possible

outcomes of the brotherhood's power is to look at two sources. ones to look at how the chips religiouspt's minorities view the current situation. i will just give you quotations from three church leaders. i do so not because these church leaders -- they are highly adept at reading how egyptian politics might affect them. they are a minority. they are a persecuted minority. they look at the situation with a very careful and jaundiced eye. one of the leading roman catholic figures in egypt says

"though some of the primary opposition leaders in this revolting to be secular reformist, church leaders believe the main engine fueling and organizing the demonstrators is the muslim brotherhood." coptic christians, as well as the armenian greek orthodox and others now fear a fate similar .o that of iraq's christians the head of the largest church group in egypt, the churchf st. mark, usually called the coptic orthodox church, its head said on national television, addressing remarks to mubarak and said to him, "i called the president and i told him we're all with you, all the people are with you."

this expression of support for a leader very definitely on the alps is quite striking. shows fear of alternatives to mubarak. the head of another church in egypt said, "want toe gracious to a man who served egypt for 30 years. he had his mistakes, just as other leaders appear " it is striking that the major spokespeople for religious minorities, while they've been complaining about the situation in egypt for many years, at the moment, they seem to think the present situation, while it could be improved, the changes are more likely to be for the worse than for the better. i take that to be significant. another way of working out what might happen in egypt would be to look at the example from

other countrs. obviously, this is always dangerous. each country is unique. they are very different. i think we can learn something. one thing, which has become a washington sport, is to compare and contrast egypt and iraq. let us compare 2011 to 1979. of course, shiite's got in for a charismatic leaders and sunni 's generally do not. there are other examples. egypt has borders with two territories run by offshoots of the muslim brotherhood. one of these is gaza. hamas is an offshoot of the brotherhood.

following its electoral victory in dawson, amongst other things, hamas killed off a large number of its palestinian authority opponents. or, look further south. the national islamic front. sudan is largely a military dictatorship, but its official sponsoring party is still the national islamic front. its previous name was the muslim otherhood within sudan. it was the first takeover of of a country by islamic group after the iranian revolution in 1983. it already represented in paiament those in the minority party -- they took over the country and declare that sudan would be ruled by sharia. this was in 1983. sudan did all of those things.

we're often told it is only the imaginings of what an islamist regime would do. in the first year in one province alone, a kerrey held 52 public imputations, 12 of them taking an arm-- and a leg from opposite sides of the body. also, the broadcasting of public hangings and crucifixion. and engaged in two wars of genocide against the south and also in darfur. currently, southern sudan has voted to succeed. bashir has said he will change the constitution and impose sharia law. sudan is not egypt. i would not expect those things to happen in egypt. it does give an example next door of a muslim brotherhood

sponsored regime. that should give us pause. if we look for islamist regimes wi a strong front of political islam, apart from gaza and sudan, you might look to taliban rule in pakistan and if yes stand within the tribal areas or portions -- paktan and afghanistan within the tribal areas or portions of nigeria. or they a activities in orl- shabab in the areas it controls within somalia. again, i emphasize there's no guarantee the muslim brotherhood would end up exactly like these. these are the examples. and saudi arabia and iran are

the only other emples we have of regimes which have sought to implement this sort of program that exists on the egyptian muslim brotherhood's website. i often say, what is their definition of insanity? repeating the same action and expecting a different result. i would expect egypt to go in that direction, although in a milder form. the eight territories show seven characteristics. most of them do. first, muslim voices other than those of the islamists have been silenced. secondly, religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted. women are subjugated. the society tends to be less free than it was before, not

that any of these societies were marvelous before hand. the all suffer widespread violence and most of them have engaged in war. finally, the regimes have not moderated while in power. i believe this should give us great caution. we fear about what might happen within egypt and outside of it, if the brotherhood has real power. one of our goals should therefore be as much as we can, which is probably not necessarily that much, to ensure th the future power of the muslim brotherhoods limited. it would help if in our conversations about egypt or anhere else we talked about free and open societies rather than democracies. democracy has many meaning

one of them is you respect rights and freedoms and stuff like that. in many other uses, it just means that one is able to vote for a government. what we are concerned about is societies which are democratic and free, not democratic and totalitarian. we want to stress freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the importance of societal counterweights in the state, the legitimacy of opposition, a constitutional order of separation of powers, and a right to regime. these are the particular things we are looking for and we need to refer to them as shorthand, but i think freeocieties rather than democratic societies would be a better shorthand. to the degree we can, we should push for a real transition to such a society. that means giving time for

societal forces other than the muslim brotherhood to grow, since they were more successfully repssed by mubarak. i also think that organic change has usually been more effective in producing lasting freedom. united states is one exception. st of what we call democracy and free society has come from the gradual spreading of power away from a strong executive to the legislature with a strong judiciary. as much as we can, we should encourage such a model with in egypt and i believe that douglas feith will tell us exactly how to do it thank you very much. [applause] >> good morning.

paul has set me upo disappoint you. what i would like to do is not give a policy prescription so give a few of the kind of considerations that i think either are or should be in the minds of policy kers in the u.s. government. i want to emphasize the importance of balancing conflicting interests. ry often in these kinds of discussions, people will focus on a particular aspect of the problem. what policymakers have to do in the government is a look at the range of problems that confront them. they do not have the luxury of picking a favorite topic and focusing only on that.

and thnational security field, -- in the national security field, it is beneficial to have a strategy, something that reflects careful consideration of long-term interest and something that sets major national goals. the value of having a strategy is that it does give -- it does bring careful thought to a subject and it allows the government to chart a course or a sustained period of time and not be buffeted by the shifting winds day-to-day. what we have seen in egypt fairly clearly is that the obama administration did not have a strategy to deal with middle eastern political instability and a marketing promotion. -- instability and democracy promotion treated basically run

ay from the bush administration's democracy promotion policies known as the freedom agenda. th desire to run away, to distance themselves to anythin associated with president bush, led to the very cold response of the president and his administration to the demonstrators in iran back in june of 2009. i think that became an embarrassment for people even within a the administration. they recognized that even many of their own supporters were unhappy with the psident showing no interest in the pro democratic rhetoric and bravery of the iranian demonstrators. interestingly enough, at the

very beginning of this egyptian political turmoil- once again, the administration indulging a predisposition to reemphasized democracy and announced the words from the secretary of state and the vice president that the egyptian government was stable. then they quickly had to maneuver to try to get on the right side of history and say that they do have some sympathy with the complaints of the demonstrators against the mubarak regime. what we saw was this flipping and flopping and they have done some more flipping and flopping since then. that really reflects that there is no broader conceptual context. there's no strategy that what the administration is doing fits

into. officials interested in developing a strategy would have to start by clarifying some points, i believe, about democracy promotion o the promotion of liberal democratic ideas and u.s. national security policy. i will offer a few thoughts that they might want to consider. one, the u.s. has practical interests in the spread of democratic institutions and the development of democratic institutions. a contrary view, the so-called realist view, which tends to equate the authoritarianism with the stability, is refuted in the streets of cairo now. i think that's one of the important lessons. the view that tends to deprecate

the practical importance of democracy is not a view, according to as much residents with the american people, but it's important for the american people to understand that in their key national security institutions, within the government, the state department and the cia, the so-called realist view is the predominant view. the tends to be a general downplaying of the importance of the practical importance of democracy promotion to the united states. now, promoting democracy has obvious moral and i would say less obvious practical benefits. it can help create a more peaceful and stable world. to illustrate the point, compare your of today to europe at the start of the 20th-century and

you can begin to see the benefits, the practical benefits of successful the markers the promotion. it could also help diminish the ideological appeal of islamism. democracy is not a cure-all for that problem, but it could be important. democracy promotion is not a simple matter of overthrowg authoritarian regimes and quickly organizing elections. i think that all of my colleagues on the panel here have issued very important and intelligence warnings, cautions, about simplistic approaches to democracy promotion. the term "democracy" as paul marshall and others have mentioned, is shorthand for a set of liberal democratic concepts, attitudes, and

institutions. concepts such as individual rights, limited government, and rule of law. attitudes such as compromise, respect for contrary views, and institutions such as multiple power centers, iependent judiciary, property rights. when we talk about promoting democracy, many people think that all we're talking about is rushing to organize elections. i think it is extremely important. it's part of the problem with using this kind of shorthand. it's important to understand that sensible people who are talkg about promoting democracy are talking about promoting these concepts, attitudes, and institutions and not just looking at t one institution that gets first and foremost attention by most people, which is elections.

free and fair elections are an element of democracy. in the absence of t other elements, they are not only insufficient to create democracy, but they can produce anti-democratic results. democracy is not only about process, but also principles. it is not hypocrisy for supporters of docracy to oppose the use of democratic process is to give power to people who reject democratic principles. nazi communists, and islamist s have all in various places and various times used democratic means to pursue power even though they reject liberal democracy in principle. this is one of the great challenges for liberal democracies. they have to understand that not every element of liberal democracy is a good thing to

rush forward with in societies where the use, for example, of quickie elections can produce results that are deeply, philosophically hostile to the principles of liberal democracy. the third point i would make is -- as important as democracy promotion is for u.s. national security policy, it does not always trumped every other policy consideration. officials with broad responsibilities are continually forced to make trade-offs among important interests. wh then means is that serious policy-making in this area requires arguing against the so- called realist view that democracy promotion is essentially irrelevant to

american interests and also fighting against the purests who argue that anything that is -- that seems to be at odds with the media promotion of democracy and the rushing -- with the immediate promotion of democracy and the rushing towards election is a violation of principle. fourth, an intelligent, sustained effort to promote democratic institutions should heed the philosopher edmund's burke's warnings of trying to promote atract ideas on foreign cultures. democracy is not a single thing. samuel tadros did a very good job of explaining from the point of view of an egyptian who cares about liberal democracy and would like to promote it -- is

entirely favorable the sceptical about how fast one can move on this track in a country like egypt. he a understands that democracy will not look the same in every country. americans need to understand th. not every country is ready for all the main liberal democratic institutions right away. some institutions that would be deemed undemocratic in one country may be the key to successful liberal self- government in another. for example, to create and secure democracy germany, after world war ii banned the nazi and communist parties. that kind of sweeping ban of political parties would not fly in the united states, but it was deemed important and beneficial and democratic in germany. for people who do see the practical benefit of democracy

promotion from the united states, it is important that they developed a sophisticated understanding of the complexities here and the fac that democracy is not going to look the same and is notoing to have all the same institutions in every country. that is not an argument for dismissing the moral or the practical benefits to the united states of trying to encourage the development of liberal democratic institutions. u.s. policymakers are now being forced to consider what our key interests are in egypt. the list is fairly obvious to st everybody. i will not spend a whole lot of time on it. we have an ierest in regional peace. we have an interest in the considerations of trade and

prosperity for the region. in counter-terrorism, in countering thepread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the area. that is of course a reference to regional state to state relations. iran, for example. we have an interest in making sure that we do not wind up of the end of this political upheaval with an egyptian government that wants to pursue its own clear weapons program. we have a very stroninterest in political reform in egypt and in the broader arab and muslim worlds. the united states has a large stake in thi our strategic interest is to promote the kind of liberal democraticoncepts and institutions that i just mentioned, but to do so with

caution and common sense and without illusions of the type that samuel tadros warned against about overnight transformations in the attitudes and principles of millions of people. key is being clear-eyed about the muslim brotherhood, which is a philosophical enemy of liberal democratic ideas. i think paul marshall has done a very good job in his brief presentation in warning about the nature of the muslim brotherhood. remarksthat lee smith's should be taken to heart by evybody in the u.s. government foreign policy establishment as they view the muslim otherhood. muslim otherhood. the