muslim, advocating for islam versus the west and tt polarity can go away. >> what rle have foreign imams played, in fact, are playing today, and spreading, you know, this radical form of islam? >> i can't tell you how important that is in that what they're doing, and the former cia director jim woolsey talked about the fact the saudis have spread over $90 billion in spreading their theology -- >> including america? >> including the united states. that's why i mentioned those mosques. there are mosques in cincinnati and l.a. and new york, all across the country that have been part of saudi investments and their ideology abroad. and in order to counter that we need atrategy to help counter those institutions building

those ideas. >> dr. jasser, and all of our witnesses today, thank you so much for being here and, dr. jasser, i applaud you being a bold voice on this subject. thank you. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you for yielding. i recognize the gentleman from texas, a former member of this committee, mr. green, good to have you back. >> thank you. it's an honor to be back. mr. chairman, ranking member thompson, i came by today because i love america. i love what america stands for. i love the pledge of allegiance. it means something to me. liberty and justice for all. i love the declaration of independen, all persons created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. i love the constitution, a copy of which i hold in my hand. we the people is what it says. and then it goes on to say with

this very first amendment, the very first amendment, congress shall make no law representing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. by the way, this clause recognizes religion first. it is the first of the first, the first. and i want you to know not only do i love america, i love the american people. i love them regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, ethnicity, or sexuality. i love the american people. and because i love the american people i want to say in clear and concise terms i have no problem with discussing terrorist organizations that are rooted in religion, which is why i want to discuss the k.k.k.

the k.k.k. requires that its members profess a belief in jesus christ. the k.k.k. says that the christian faith is the white man's religion. the k.k.k. says that jews are people of the anti-christ. the k.k.k. wants to preserve the true gospel, the gospel of the white man's religion. by the way, i'm the son of a christian preacher. i have some credenals when it comes to christianity. i was born into christianity, baptized into christianity. no one can say that i'm less a christian than anybody else. and i'm noore a christian than

anybody else. we've had 100 years of terrorism perpetrated by the k.k.k. on jews and african-americans and some others in this country. a hundred years which brings me toy point. mr. chairman, i love you and i love all of my friends here today. i do not assign any malice or forethought to anybody. i don't believe anythingas any degree of malevolence associated with it but i must tell you it is not few of for things to be right. they must also look right. it may be right but it doesn't look right when we take on islam and allow this to take place and we don't tell the truth about the abuses associated with the kkk and christianity. christianity, according to the kkk, is the reason why they do what they do.

why not include the kkk in this discussion today? why not have a broader topic that does not focus on one religion? it doesn't look right, mr. jasser when we focus on one religi to the exclusion of others. that's the point being made. you are an intellectual. you understand what i'm saying. it's not about what you are defending and the points you are making. nor yours, mr. bledsoe. nor yours, mr. bihi. it's about the fundamental fairness associated with freedom of religion in this country and we don't single out one religion and gi the appearance by in so doing that there is something dastardly associated with being a part of this religion. regardless of all the disclaimers that are going to be made that is still a perception some people will have.

i want you to know when i board an airplane i am looked upon with an eye of suspicion. for some reason, people tend to think that i am muslim. for some reason a person told me i needed to go back home to my foreign country. that i don't belong in this country. for some reason people think that people who are muslim, many, how many is many? i still have five -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you. may i just say this, mr. chairman? >> surely. >> let's not only let things be right. let's make them look right and let's broaden this and not single out the american muslim. >> now i recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to yield 30 seconds or so mr. bledsoe to respond if he'd like to to mr. green's comments. >> again, i think he is making a

point, but, i mean, today we're not talking at this hearing about kkk. we'retalking about extremist islam, radicalization of american citizens. i hope that you ghaet you can be back in this hearing room. that's my hope. >> would the gentleman mr. duncan yield ten seconds? >> no. >> mr. chairman, it is in protocol to ask for yield. >> no, it's up to -- >> a "newsweek" article october 22nd, 2010, said this. the left is wrongl defending islamism and extremist and at times violent ideology which it confuses with the common person's islam, which, i add, is a religion. while the right is often wrongly attacking the muslim faith, which it confuses with islamism. thank you guys for pointing that out this morning.

i want to thank mr. bledsoe and mr. bihi for sharing your stories of your sons as a father of sons myself my heart goes out to you. i'm not aware of anyone on this si of the political spectrum attacking islam nor anyone wishing to limit anyone's first amendment rights but i believe we are raing awareness of islamism, political ideology, and how that is being used in this country. i am regularly astonished and outraged, outraged by this administration's continued failure to single out who our enemy is. mr. bledsoe said in his testimony that there is a big elephant in the room but our society continues not to see it and you say that this wrong is caused by political correctness and even political fear. i've got a slide on the board and i know it's going to be hard to read but if you'll look at the 9/11 commission and the number of times enemy jihad muslim brotherhood, al qae, hezbollah, hamas are mentioned. then if you look at the fbi

counterterrorism lexicon and the national intelligence strategy you see zeros beside the fact that they don't mention enemy jihad, muslim brotherhood, a qaeda. it's an astonishing contrast. but what i came here today to comment on and delve into is a completely different line of thought. it is this. an issue that is of particular concern to me and my constituents and that is the threat of shaharya law to the united states constitution. the center for strategic and dgetary assessments produced a report in ' on the global war on terrorism. authored by the current under secretary of the navy. he reports the center piece of al qaeda strategy for the long war is exploding muslim sense of religious obligation by declaring a defensive jihad against the west and apostate regimes. the organization of islamic conference representing 57 member states declares on its website that it has a considerable weight within these institutions where it makes

others listen to the voice of islamic uma and presents the voice of moderate islam, tolerant, open, bearing the message of piece and solidarity betwn men but according to the kir owe declaration on human rights it clearly states islamic sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles in this declaration. as the united states constitution is the law of this land, any attempt to subvert it amounts to sedition. i took an oath to uphold the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic, and it is my desire to see multiple hearings, mr. chairman, not only here in this committee but also in house armed services committee, intelligence committee, foreign affairs committee, judiciary committee examining the role that islamic doctrine plays in the radicalization process assessing the degree to which jihadist organizations such as muslim brotherhood and its front organizations influence our american muslim communities. so i want to ask this to dr.

jasser. do you feel that u.s. government has done andequate job learning about islam and how islamic doctrines affect the behavior and community norms of muslims residing in america and how does islamic doctrine and sharia law shape the responsiveness of local u.s. muslim communities to law enforcement efforts that target islamic jihad? >> thank you congressman duncan. it's a wonderful qution and as we talked about there are various forms of islam. around the world. sharia means very different things to different muslims. in my home it is a private thing. do i want it in the government? absoluly not. that is the doctrine of the enemy. they want to create an islamic state. there is no concept that that could be a great alive the united states. there are two different lenses through which we see the world. we're ales with other democracies which are secular but one based in sharia would be impossible.

this is why i provided a list of scholars in my testimony that are based for the assembly, these scholars are still based in islamic law from the 13th, 14th century from people -- they have not created a new school of thought. what happens is intellectual lam or authoritative islam still has not absorbed the ideas of a western society based under god rather than under islam. and our forefathers went through this whole discussion of not asking the word christian in our founding document. the islamic community has not gone through that discussion and that evolution and we're avoiding it. we need to address it. we need to address the fact that the government we seek -- we don't only accept the laws of this land as the minority but even if we were a majority we'd want the same laws. that hypocrisy is the part of the world many muslims live in. they absorb the laws of the land as a minority but they have a doctrine they believe in that they follow within the organization based on islamic law which alls duality that

i think affects their identification with the society. and not all mosques, i know many mosques that don't teach that. they're looking for th right books. i mean, if you go and i would tell all of you to go to the islamic book services -- >> the time of the gentleman is expired. >> -- you won't find too much reform work in that. >> thank you. >> yield to the gentleman from w jersey, also a former mechl t member of the committee. >> thank you. i yield ten seconds. >> i will be very brief. i thank god that we did not have a hearing on christianity and how it is radicalizing young american boys. we could have. dw we did not. that's my point. i yield back. >> thank you. it's good to see you both. we've been here since 9:30. i was thiing a little longer than that. we were here since the beginning of this committee. and it wasn't my idea to leave but they put me in something

else. >> we miss you, bill. >> yeah, sure. >> sometimes >> islam is a beautiful religion, mr. chairman. but this hearing was not on islam. it was on the muslim community. there is a big difference. so if you're admonishing people they don't know what they're talking about, there is the title of this hearing. correct, mr. chairman? well, itsays it. that's what we're talking about. but the extremes many times are in the eyes of the beholder. when we don't understand people we're all t, all of us, bound t m mischaracterize and stereotype. i don't believe anything i've heard and i was in the hearing

quite sometime today and part of it i wasn't, i was in another meeting. i don't think i heard anything from any of the panelists and thank you for being here, trying to bring to -- lead to a conclusion that we should start stereo typing more or we should start profiling. because you always have to find a response or an answer to what you are trying to attack. we want to protect this country. we love this country. democrats don't love it any more than republicans and vice versa. so i must say to you, mr. bledsoe, when you say the other side, i don't know what the hell you're talking about. we are all in this together. believe me, sir. my heart goes out to you and mr. bihi but we're all in this together. let's get it straight from the beginning. i can -- am convinced that this hearing would result in good

because when reasonable people will conclude that the greatest majority of muslims like every other community in this country are patriots, are patriots to america, right, dr. jasser? >>es, sir. >> you agree with me, don't you? >> yes, sir. >> every sitdown that i've had, we've discussed this with the fbi. about my own district, i come from paterson with one "t", new jersey. the second largest muslim community in the country. i grew up in the neighborhood, arabic neighborhood. eight more arab food than italian food. that doesn't make me know more about the community but you'll have to take my word for it now and i'll stand corrected if you come up with something else.

that every time i've sat down with the fbi about my own district i was told many times that there are -- is no hidden agenda and that you need not fear that recruiting and the very recruiting that we're talking about today in this hearing. now does that mean that every district in the country, does that mean chairman king's district has the same kind of view? i don't know. i mean, some pretty bad people came out of some mosques and someretty bad people came out of catholic churches, etcetera, etcetera. but we can't -- we've got to do everything we can to avoid a wide brush because it gets us nowher and we can't defend our own children and our own neighborhoods if we have bad information. why should we be surprised? we know our enemies are probing

this system every day. they come in many forms, many shapes, right now as we speak in this hearing. the enemy is probing our systems. no question about it so we need to be strong. the graph you showed a few moments ago is very hurtful to the very community you are investigating. very hurtful. and it's very hurtful to the administration because i don't think one ministration wants to protect us any less than another administration. that is olish. it doesn't bring us to any resolve, mr. chairman. >> and even after five minutes of that, i still love you. recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania. also another former u.s. attorney mr. moreno. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chair for this desperately needed hearing. i want to thank your courage and your leadership for bringing this to the forefront and i hope

that we have more of these hearings and for my colleagues on the other side, i want to tell my good friend that i will be with you shoulder to shoulder in the hearings with -- for the ku klux klan and any other racist group that defiles this country. >> ten-second yield. >> no, sir, no, sir. >> you would address me but not allow me to just respond ten seconds? >> no. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time. >> i would -- the gentleman from pennsylvania contro the time. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time. >> out of respect, i will be there with you but the issue today is terrorism. >> the klan is a terrorist orgazation that has been over a hundred years. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania -- >> you have not suffered enough. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time. mr. moreno, your time. >> thank you, sir. this hearing today is not about religion with all due respect.

it's about terrorists. it's about people who kill men, women, and children in the name of religion, which is blasphemy in and of itself. so as far as the witnesses are concerned, i want to thank you for being here. i want to thank you for your courage to stand up as americans in america before america in the world and tell the truth. as a united states attorney, i prosecuted a home grown terrorist and is in prison now for 30 years. and it was the right thing to do. now, the questions that were asked today were well thought out and professionally asked. and you excellently answered them. but as a freshman congressman i

think sometimes we failed to ask this question of you and, doctor, i'd like to present this to you and the other gentleman can respond if we have time. what do you expect from us, from congress? what should we be doing to promote the fact that this is not about a religion because i have many friends that are muslims and love this country as much as any one of us do. what do you expect from us? >> thank you, congressman. i hope and i pray every night as i do this work that you develop the political will to deal with this problem. that we separate all the theatrics and all the concern with vitriol and all that and get to how to solve the problem in that our enemy is using a language that some people will articulate as offensive and as a muslim i'm telling you it is not

offensive. i want to dweel that. because we use the language. we use words like "jihad" and things like that at home but i don't want my children to take the predomint thoughts of those that are right now predominating the web. cyber jihad, the reformist mindset is very hard to find on the web and that's because we haven't had the resources so we need the political will. we need the maturity as a nation to be able to discuss religion, sometimes say things that might not be right but not get offended and realize that we respect religious practice and the first amendment is freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. but yet somehow we've got so polarized that we can't do that. i hope, because what's going to happen at this -- and the charts have showed it, we have seen exponential increases in attacks and our law enforcement is going to continue chasing their tail thking community outreach works and we're not draining the pool of the ideology because we can'confront it. it is surrendered.

>> i have less than a minute left. >> i like to say that i think -- i'd like for congress to get here out of this, call a terrorist what it is. say what it is. i mean, many times i'm hearing people say, everything but what it is. and the gentleman said next to you, the other side, i'm speaking of that we're not spoke about the other side, shouldn't help us talking about the side that was, that they didn't understand what this meeting is all about. >> and 20 seconds. >> i think that this level -- this is about saving families and young people who are supposed to be -- and the security of this nation. i think we should forget about our political affiliations and conditions and just take an opportunity and take advantage of muslim families, american muslim families coming forward,

demonstrating to be heard on what's happening in their community. i think it's a great challenge. i thank the committee. i thank congressman king. this is very important and should continue to open the doors. nobody hates me. i don't see -- i see my own community hurting me and i want youo allow me to deal with that. i want to deal with that. i don't want somebody else i don't know -- >> the time of the gentleman is expired. let me thank all the witnesses. of course sheriff baca who had to leave, we thank him tremendously for his testimony. he has been before this committee a number of times we also thank dr. jasser, mr. bledsoe, mr. bihi for your testimony and on a personal note thank the ranking member. despite some of the consternation this meeting went a lot easier than it could have and i thank the ranking member for making a number of procedural agreements prior to the committee to eliminate and avoid unnecessary problems we

could have had and i thank him for that. members of the committee, you may ha some additional questions we will ask you. the witnesses will respond to those in writing. the record wl be held open for tedays. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> after the hearing on homegrown terrorism, and some of the witnesses spoke with reporters. this is 25 minutes.

>> thank you for being here. ithis plus an extremely productive, worthwhile hearing. it was the appropriate hearing to hold. it is an issue that has to be addressed. today the committee members were really service today. they provided the testimony that was needed and what mostly affects the community.

a lot to thank you for your testimony in service. -- i want to thank you for your testimony and service. in many ways, those that are victimized by the radicalization of the muslim community are the americans themselves, especially due from the lack of support they received should be deleted. is there anything you want to add?

we learned of the effects of radicalization. frankly, we should have had these hearings before. this is necessary to get it out on the table. we are hearing what they go through. they are going through moderation. i think the chairman did a good job of allowing them a platform so they could be heard. hopefully they can go on and received other testimony. they as standing for what they really believe in. >> i want to thank the chairman

for his courage in the hearing. it is a critical bill that was needed. the american people will hear exactly what we need to promote the welfare of the country. individualist testified today. americans trusted that before the public until the staff the truth. i commend them for what they did. >> i would hope now that this hearing is over that you would look back and reflect upon the hysteria that occurred over the past few weeks.

i think the madness leading up to this this nobody much good. with that, i will ask some of the one to step forward. thank you. >> thank you. what i gained from this is that this is the beginning of a conversation. as somebody that loves the state, i do this from an aspect that i think there is a thing per-islamic or protest muslim -- an approach as muslim been helping us get at out -- or pro- muslim that is helping us get it.

it needs modernization and reform. it needs the political will to deal with that. it these the dedication and understanding and thoughtful communication. there are those of us that want to deal with this but am not have the resources or the platform. >> i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity on this platform. i do not understand why we had so much fear. it is a real threat to america. it came into my house.

we need to talk about it. if i could have to save one other child, my son -- what by sun went through, we are worthwhile today. thank you. >> today is my happiest day. we are and powering them. today i came to the chambers. faber intimidated. i think this will empower

muslims. they come out easily and remove the pressure. they have the right to speak up. thank you. >> a lot of people mentioned your plans. >> it is named as a co- conspirator. the fbi director has ordered them not to deal. i hope that local law enforcement to go realize this. and hope the media would realize -- the night the columbus -- they were named as a

co-conspirator. they have said that it will empower people to realize they are not well served by care. we can reflect what they have done. it is a way to get it out to the american people. hopefully, we will have consequences in our community. >> there are a lot of

politicians with the opposition to this. they were already brainwashed. and not issue a bit, aren't you just addressing these systems -- the symptoms rather than the problem? >> i think he can address this more than i can. we tried to make the hearing today. you have an obligation to work with in its.

>> as i said, i the beer giving much much credit to one organization. one of the main issues is understanding the root cause. the radicalization has been focused on it. we still call the violent extremism. we need to block the country back to the identity issue. we have not addressed how to create an ideology and create a process for that. if you look,.

>> he said the overcame political correctness. what about your party leaders? will they embrace it? >> we have received nothing but support from the leadership. and now is elected committee chairman, i made clear that this is a priority. it is the first in a series of radicalization hearings. we have to be careful how we prepare for these hearings. >> people have specific questions. what has actually been produced from that? >> you have 20 young men

missing. no one stepped forward. our ship of al-shabab was victimized again. it shows how sophisticated the problem was. but these are not just incidental cases. i would rely on his testimony. why did it take into now that our they able to get around this. i think it served a great

purpose. we had evidence of two specific cases which the us evidence to the problem we see. when you have people crying out saying they do not get the support they need the vast majority are subject to intimidation. our purpose today blessed to give a platform to those freedom loving muslims. not only will they be heard, they will say a look.

>> is there anyone you would nominate? [inaudible] >> some organizations would be ideal. this is really something to be determined within the american muslim community. they lost hundreds of people. we have a lot of work to do. let me at something antidote will. we spent months preparing for

this hearing. the three brought together we thought crystalize what we learned. i think it was successful. >> is this not a side on the public forum- - >> he was named as a co- conspirator. there is more than sufficient evidence. it is not me saying this.

the director considered open- minded. >> it was more than an opportunity. they had an opportunity to get a. it is based on major mainstream papers. my friend mr. ellison is not only a member of congress, he is closer. he was able to articulate that. >> do you worry it may have a

subliminal negative impact. >> these hearings -- the question is, it to these hearings have a subliminal negative impact? >> there is no reason for this subliminal or otherwise. if there is anything, it is a baseless claim of organization. i think this is the best way to address these positions. there is an elephant in the room

known wants to talk about. >>. can we allow them to respond? >> it is interesting. it appears to be monolithic. i think this is what you learn today. there is the american islamic conference, pluralism. there is the islamic supreme council of america. there are other crews that are not part of the brotherhood type movement that organizations that have similar ideologies that are looking for reform and organization.

it might be more rash. >> all those families are crying for their children. we have not seen one single organization. they said let's take you to the fbi. we have not seen an islamic organization take such care.

we are doing a great job to earn. nobody is mystery to me. >> [inaudible] >> i would say yes to that answer.

i must say again that i have been members who are muslim. many were shipped and steadied is long. -- worshiped and studied islam. thank you. >> we need to step down. they are exhausted. they are going through justice department records. i want to thank you. they are given two hours off.

they will probably be on radicalization of the prison system. we are aware of the emphasis changes. >> what you say to people that call you the mccarthy of the 21st century? >> i would say look at today's hearing. i challenge anyone -- we went out of our way with the committee. i urged him unlimited time.

all of us realize there is no monolithic community. they are finding some of this diversity. they are trying to make this. it is held up as the person who is speaking. they are not intellectually prepared. it is something almost along those lines. how will you keep it from not going into theology? are they going to start seeing

congress investigating? >> that is a great question. i know there are problems was separating the state. i would not be the person to do that. i know it'll be the intellectuals to separate it. you need a new school of thought. if you look at their legalisms i do notvernment -- know why they cannot allow them 8 platform to do that.

they are involved inappropriately. it would be wrong. they have platforms to do that. they are identifying with british ideas. >> an update on federal spending and the budget. we are doing by the house appropriations committee. then congress on the federal budget on foreign aid. "washington journal" each

morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. it is the minister by the agency. >> potential contenders have been making stops in primary states. michelle bachman at a fund- raiser for the state committee at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern/pacific. >> later, house republicans and democrats talk about rising gas prices. it provides a home mortgage refinancing.

here is part of the debate. mr. bachus: i ask unanimous consent that all members have legislative five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 830 and inserltstreered -- insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bachus: mr. chairman -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend for a moment. pursuant to house resolution 150 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 830. the new chair appoints the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. bass, to reside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 830. the clerk: a bill to rescind the unobligated funding and terminate the program. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for the first time. the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: mr. chairman, just this week the american people received some very sobering news. the budget deficit for the month of february alone is $223 billion. that is $ billion -- $8 billion every day. that is money that we are having to borrow from countries around the world.

it wasn't long ago that our budget deficit for the entire year was only $220 billion. but thanks to a washington spending binge, that has occurred over the last four years, now our monthly budget deficit is larger than our annual deficit used to be. in fact, february's budget deficit was the largest monthly budget deficit in the history of the united states. larger in real dollars than we were fighting for our existence during world war ii. higher than in the civil war. and that has happened even though government receipts posted an increase this february

from last february. our national debt in the last four years has doubled. now, think of that. in the first 220 years of our existence we incurred a national debt which in the last four years we have doubled. by the end of this administration, unless we take action today, action the american people asked us to take last november, we will have tripled the deficit. in seven years or a little less than seven years we will have tripled our deficit. that's why we are here on the floor today. because the american people have sent us a message. they have said, don't spend us

into financial oblivion. we have to balance our own budgets at home. we expect the same from those that we send to washington to represent us. the bill that we are debating today is an example of two things, too many government programs, spending programs, and too many ineffective government programs. it is a poster child for both. it's also an example of a broken promise. in 2008 during our financial meltdown, which has led to a recession and record unemployment, we promised the american people that those steps that were taken, that that money

that was loaned would be paid back to the national treasury. . and i'm happy to say that today most of the money that was loaned to what some have called a wall street bailout, what the american people certainly call a bailout, but that it has been paid back with interest but it's not found its way into the national treasury. it's not been paid back despite promises to the american people on this very floor of this house a little less than three years ago. instead that money has been diverted into all sorts and that's the tarp bailout money, it's been used for other social programs. just what many warned on the floor of this house would happen. it's turned into a slush fund

and one of the programs that it has funded is a well-intentioned program in which $8 billion, that's $-- that's eight thousand million dollars has been designated for the f.h.a. refinance program. now, the f.h.a. program today, the reserves are low and that's a program that is not in the greatest of shape. it's like most government programs. $8 billion for a program to allow homeowners who are under watt orn their mortgages -- under water on their mortgages to get a reduction in their

mortgage. now, not all can take advantage of this program. there are what the american people have come to know as winners and losers, it seems that some benefit but 99% of americans don't benefit. and that's what's happened here. the administration said, we literally have hundreds of thousands of people that will line up for this program but because lenders and borrowers are getting together and working out or some homeowners are deciding that they can't afford their mortgage and they're selling their houses, 42 american families have been assisted by this program. now, this is a program that authorizes $8 billion and $50

million is actually been set aside and dispersed. in fact, the budget that the president has submitted has a $auto million subtraction there for a program that's helped 42 families. $50 million, 42 families. but think about this, how many americans are under water, how many american families have a home where they owe more than the home is worth? 12 million, somewhere above 11 million. let's say 12 million. that means that even if this program could have helped 100,000 that it would help one out of 120 american families, one out of 120 and, yes, some government employee sitting behind a desk would say, you're

eligible, you can apply, you win. but what about -- and at the most all the programs we're going to consider this week and next week, which if we act will save the american taxpayers billions and billions and billions of dollars, all of them will benefit only an estimated 500,000 families and as the inspector general has said about 50% to 60% of those families, even if it goes to families, as we found out yesterday in a hearing, a lot of it is going to nonprofit groups and las vegas alone, more went to -- los angeles alone, more went to a nonprofit group than went to the county government. but we're only helping one out of 22 families. what about those other 21 families?

they're making it, they're making their mortgage payment and they're not asking the government for help. it seems that we're in a country where the majority of americans aren't under water. about 1/4 are. but out of all those, we're starting programs to help in this case 42 families, in another case 200,000 families, and we're asking every american family and we're asking their government to start programs when we don't have enough money to finance the programs we have. but more than that i put a photograph up and this is the bottom line on this program. $50 million has been put into a

fund and $8 billion has been authorized for this program. and it's money we don't have. and it's money we won't pay back . it's those children in that photograph, it's our constituents, children and grandchildren that will have to pay that back. our national debt is $12 trillion, $14 trillion. you memorize a number and in a few months it's irrelevant. it's no longer the real number. and robert gates on january 6 in outlining the pentagon's budget said, this country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it

poses to american influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the u.s. government gets its finances in order. well, who will get it in order? it has to be the president and this congress. that's his quote, january 6. the joint chiefs of staff says that our national debt is a national security problem. but the message just doesn't seem to get to this floor. because today people will come to this floor and say, oh, if we get rid of this problem everybody that can't pay their mortgage needs to call their congressman and say you need to pay my mortgage or there needs to be a government program to pay my mortgage. well, let's not kid ourselves. those children, that's who we're obligating. last year we could stand on the floor and say that they each come into this world owing

$35,000. today it's $45,000. today we're going to have to make some hard choices for them, for our children and our grandchildren. and oh, yeah, these programs do some good, although for most homeowners who can't pay their mortgages and they're given a reduction, it doesn't work, the default rate in most of these programs is over 50%. one of the programs we'll consider tomorrow, out of every $1 taxpayer money loaned, 98% is never repaid. never repaid. how can a country continue to function like that? what kind of future do these children have? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. first, for people trying to follow this, the gentleman from alabama has confused several programs in this conversation. most of which aren't up today. we're dealing about one at a time. he talked about money that went to los angeles and went to a group instead of the county. that has zero toad with -- to do with today's program. that has to do, in fact, it doesn't have to do with individual homeowners. it's a program that gives aid to municipalities which we'll be debating later, probably next week, to deal with property that they have been stuck with. so it has nothing to do with today. but the gentleman does make a good point about the deficit. unfortunately he does not put his roach where his rhetoric is. the c.b.o. says that this program is going to cost not $8 billion but if it's fully operational over a two-year period, which is its lifespan, will cost $175 million. now that's money, but you know what it is?

it's much less than the gentleman from alabama has voted during that same period to send to the cotton farmers of brazil. we do have a debate about the deficit here but it's not about whether to reduce it, it's how. the gentleman from alabama, along with maa majority of the republicans voting, defeated an amendment, some democrats, although the majority of us voted for the amendment, to stop sending american tax dollars to subsidize the cotton farmers of brazil. and in the two-year period during which we will be dealing with this program brazilian cotton farmers, $300 million, americans facing foreclosure, $175 million. the gentleman from alabama has a very odd way of saving money on the deficit. and then he says, we have winners and losers. well, among the big winners under the republican budget and with the majority of their votes are farmers who receive more than $250,000 per year in subsidy. whatever happened to free enterprise? whatever happened to standing on

your own? an amendment was offered to limit to a measly $250,000 the subsidy any one entity could get. the gentleman from alabama voted no, that was too harsh. the gentleman from alabama is for unlimited amounts of subsidies to a handful of farmers but we can't spare much less than that over a time period because in the time period of this bill that would have cost $200 million, $100 million a year. and then the gentleman quoted the secretary of defense, i wish he'd pay more attention to the secretary of defense, because he along with many republicans voted to force money on the secretary of defense he didn't want. voted to fund programs the secretary of defense doesn't want. he's trying to get some reprogramming now. the republican appropriations committee wouldn't allow it. by the way, i don't agree with the secretary of defense fully on this either. i disagree with the gentleman from alabama and the secretary of defense because they don't want to spend $175 million in two years trying to deal with foreclosures in american cities. instead they want to send more than twice that amount to afghanistan for their

infrastructure. and you talk about inefficiency. does anyone think that president karzai and his administration are going to spend the $400 million my friend from alabama has voted to send to afghanistan infrastructure projects better than we would spend it here? or $1 billion for the iraqi security forces at a time when american municipalities are having to lay off police officers and firefighters and other essential employees? the gentleman from alabama voted to send $1 billion to the iraqi security forces. does anyone here have a great deal of confidence in how efficiently they'll spend it? let me address a couple of the mistakes the gentleman makes specifically about this program. $50 million is not being spent on 40 people. $50 million hasn't in fact been spent at all. not a penny has been spent. $50 million was reserved out of tarp money to cover losses if they occur. and c.b.o. does say yes, if this program is fully funded, if it gets the participation they expect, the total amount of

losses will be $175 million. not $8 billion. the $8 billion was a resurrection of the tarp and c.b.o. says full scale this will cost $175 million. again, less than the gentleman from alabama wants to send during that period to brazilian cotton farmers. people would vote consistently, as some do, to cut money for afghan infrastructure or iraqi security forces or brazilian cotton farmers or american cotton farmers or other recipients of subsidy who then are opposed to this program, i honor their integrity. i disagree with them in some ways but i honor it but i cannot accept a lecture on fiscal responsibility from someone who votes to lavish money in wasteful ways on afghan cities but begrudges it in american cities, who would send it for iraqi police officers but not american police officers. who would send to cotton farmers and other farmers in america but not for struggling homeowners. now this program has started slowly and by the way there's a great contradiction between

saying it's only helped 40 people and it's going to cost $8 billion. if the pace doesn't increase it won't cost the $full $175. but there are negotiations going on now to allow the people the benefit of the refinancing. the gentleman says it's not going to take care of everybody. of course not. there's not one program that's fit for everybody. there are a serious of -- series of programs for people in different circumstances and this is one for people who could benefit from a lower interest rate and a refinancing but they're under water and can't do it. it induces the financial institutions to do it. it's voluntary. if a financial institution finds this is unreasonable they won't do it. there is an effort going on now to achieve a negotiated settlement involving the services, the financial institutions, many of which are quite culpable and misbehaviored in this process, so these are not victims being shaken down. the attorney general of every state, republican and democrat, and the regulators to try and come up with a solution. and this is the other point that

gets lost in the rhetoric when the gentleman who was so eager to send money to brazilian cotton farmers begrudges a smaller amount going to americans facing foreclosure, foreclosure crisis is not just a crisis of individual families. it's a national economic problem. it's a macroeconomic problem. and to the extent that we do not condition tent -- consent to retard the rate of foreclosure, then we make it hard to get out of the economic bind in which we have found ourselves. which as the gentleman correctly said started from the meltdown of 2008. . we have within getting out of that at too slow a pace. this program has not become fully operational, and it may never be. but it is here to be used as a tool especially if we were every to get the agreement among the attorneys general from both parties, the regulators, and financial institutions. it is a responsible way to deal with this. it will cost less than many of the unnecessary agricultural subsidy programs.

i will say, mr. chairman, i got to go reread. maybe i missed a footnote. i know there is great free market economic text talking about free enterprise and keep the government out of business and let the free market work. apparently there's a footnote that says except agriculture. because overwhelmingly my republican colleagues who preach this to working people, to people in urban areas, to people on the jobs, it doesn't apply to cotton farmers or wheat farmers or grain farmers. billions of dollars -- as the gentleman from alabama said with his vote, how dare you limit some farmer a mere $250,000 in entitlement subsidy because agriculture is anonymity. they don't talk about that. they want to talk about social security for the elderly, but they don't want to talk about entitlements for agriculture. i do believe we need to cut the deficit. i think we can cut back substantially in what we are doing in afghanistan and iraq. we can cut back substantially in

agriculture. we can put limits elsewhere. i will throw in i did not think it was a good idea to reduce the estate tax that the heirs of william gates and warren buffett have to pay. although to their credit they didn't think so, either. they weren't for substantially reducing the estate tax for people who will be inheriting tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. but to support all of that as my colleagues over there have done, and then say we cannot put a program out there that will help americans facing foreclosure, not simply to help them, but to help the cities and to help the whole economy, and there is a great consensus among economists that dealing responsively with foreclosures is a way to deal with it. please don't believe in $8 billion. it's not there, c.b.o. says $175 million, it's considerable. but i will repeat it is less than my friends want to send to brazil. less than they want to send to build infrastructure in kabul

and kandahar. less than they want to spend to police fallujah. if they thought that set of funds would be well used i might feel better. but we know how corrupt it is. it is a double standard. let me say finally, expenditures in the united states have a very, very strict accountability. but exopiniondy tures in iraq, afghanistan, and around the world we know how much more wastefully and corruptly spent they are. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. i claim such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: if i were ranking member frank i would do exactly what he's doing. i wouldn't talk about the fact that there are only 42 people that have been served by this program. i wouldn't talk about the fact that only $50 million has been setaside. i wouldn't talk about the $8

billion that has been authorized . i wouldn't talk about the fact that the american people were told this money would be repaid into the national treasury. no, i would talk about the cotton subsidy. the deal with brazil. that deal sounds pretty bad. it really does. the ranking member agrees. he kept talking about this for the last month about don't shut down this ineffective program to help balance the budget because some of us voted for the cotton deal with brazil. in fact, the majority of this congress, the overwhelming majority did. but let's talk about that deal. who made that deal?

did the gentleman from alabama make that deal? did the gentleman from texas that's going to speak on our side, did he make the deal? did the gentleman from nevada make that deal? did mr. dole, did he make that deal, the gentleman from illinois? no. the obama administration made that deal. the u.s. trade representative, mr. kirk, made that deal. in an agreement with the brazilian government. not the republican colleagues. here's what he told us. he said that $60 billion worth of trade depended on our ability to export into brazil without the tariffs they were going to impose on us. that's 420,000 u.s. jobs that

were threatened. and he told us that if we didn't do that, they would impose, and i'm going to introduce this, this is $820 billion worth of countertear rivers on such products -- countertariffs on such products as pharmaceuticals, autos, textiles, wheat, fruit, nuts, cotton, medical equipment. so we made a deal with them to make them certain payments. to compensate for that. now, i don't know if he misrepresented, i don't know -- i don't think that president obama and his administration and his u.s. trade representative would have misrepresented this, but if that was a bad deal, then the ranking member ought to go over there and complain to the president who he defends because he -- both of them apparently

want to spend money at every turn and every chance they get. now, at this time i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. bachus: prior to that i would like to introduce into the record the announcement by the obama administration and secretary -- ambassador kirk obligating the american people for this amount that the ranking member complains so vociferously about. the chair: that will be covered under general leave of the house. the gentleman from texas. >> i thank the gentleman from alabama. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here in support of the bill to terminate the f.h.a. refinance program. this bill is not about programs that work, it's not about

programs that have continually helped create jobs and help faltering economy and our job growth. this bill is about a failed government program because the f.h.a. refinance program that went into effect in september of 2010 has failed to work properly. by the end of december of last year of 2010, a mere 22 mortgages had been refinanced through the program at a cost of $50 million. that's an average of $2.3 million per mortgage. the conclusion is very, very clear, the program does not work. and it's wasteful. we are in an economic crisis. according to the congressional budget office, the federal government is set to run a

deficit for fiscal year 2011 of $1.5 trillion, and if serious steps are not taken right now, we are set and ready to see in 2012 another trillion dollars added to our deficit. mr. canseco: this river of red inc. is -- red ink is not sustainable. americans are coming to grips with the fact that if nothing is done we'll be the first generation in american history to leave for our children a legacy of insurmountable debt and economic stagnation. and while there are a number of difficult decisions that we must take in the months and years ahead, common sense dictates that we can begin to set our spending under control by cutting programs that simply don't work. no matter how large or how small they are, or no matter how good

they sound, they just don't work. this one does not work. and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often think that we are just one government program away from solving our problems. but when you think that way, you end up piling one government program on top of another, wasting the taxpayers' money without even helping our fellow citizens who are struggling in this day and age. the last two years have proven that government programs and government spending do very little in the way of stimulating jobs and economic growth. we in the congress of the united states have a duty to be the stewards of the people's money, the people's tax dollars. the least we can do is tell our constituents that we are doing our job by cutting the stuff that does not work. this does not work.

i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. first you just heard a fantasy that $50 million has been spent for 42 homes. that's not even remotely close to being true. $50 million has been setaside in the reserve for defaults if and when they come. not a penny of it has been given to anybody. it's simply sitting in that account in case in the 42 homes have nothing to do with that. yes, the gentleman from alabama said didn't talk about it, i did talk about it. i corrected the misuse of the $50 million from last week. he didn't misuse it today. and i mentioned it started slow and may not get beyond where it is now. i mentioned that it is in reserve to use it more. so, yes, we only got 42. i talked about that. the $8 billion is a fantasy. at best it will cost $175 million. the fascinating, planation by

the gentleman from alabama as to why he and the majority of the republicans voted to send $150 million per year last year, this year, the next couple years to brazil. obama made him do it. listen carefully. the explanation for this expenditure to go to brazil that the poor gentleman from alabama had to vote for is, barack obama made him do it. the president is a very convenient place for them to hide. in fact, if he was asking me if i'm critical of the president in that, yes? i am critical of the president being times. i agree with him overall, but i do not agree with him that we should send a balance for iraq security forces. i don't agree we should send $400 million for infrastructure. the gentleman seems to think it's a major debating point because the president takes a position i disagree. perhaps his view is you always agree with the president of your party. secondly, there was an alternate to sending $150 million to

brazil. we could have sent $150 million less to americans. the finding was that we were putting brazilian cotton farmers at $150 million disadvantage per year because of the subsidy we gave to americans. we could have come in with legislation that would have reduced the american -- in fact i underestimated the waste of money that the gentleman from alabama is indulges because barack obama made him do it and he was powerless to resist because it's $300 million a year. we had two options. we could eep the level of subsidy for american cotton farmers and match that to the brazilians, or we could reduce it by $150 million in america and reduce it to brazil. over a four-year period this would be in effect that's over $1 billion, a considerable amount of money. so, yes, it is true the president sometimes makes unwise recommendations in my judgment. but the argument the gentleman from alabama needs to be absolved from responsibility for his vote and the majority of republicans, majority of us on our side repudiate the

president's position in this case, but the gentleman from alabama's claim, don't blame me, obama made me do it is no more credible than his invocation of fantasy figures. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: may i inquire of the speaker, the chair, how much time each side has remaining? the chair: the gentleman from alabama has 11 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. bachus: i continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. thank the ranking member. i rise in opposition to h.r. 830, the f.h.a. refinance program termination act, and also the other bill that will be coming to the floor on the same subject. i want to emphasize one thing that the ranking member has

raised and that is that these are voluntary programs. these are all voluntary programs that are trying to keep american families in their homes, these programs require the banks to agree that this is a good deal. . and it's deserving of these homeowners. these programs require that the homeowner also agree, obviously. and that in many cases that servicer agree. now, because you're requiring a voluntary agreement and an agreement that has been crafted in such a way that all parties are balanced in their interests, it's been difficult to generate the number of families to be helped so far. i do want to also emphasize this program started in november. this program started in november. we've had about four months to get families onboard to be helped by these programs. for much of that four months we have had abject resistance from

the servicers. they have been the obstruction in making these programs work. but i am happy to say that in the last 10 days we have had three major servicers, ally, gmac and wells fargo, that have finally come forward and said, we're going to work within this program and we're going to try to help families stay in their homes, not because -- not out of charity but because they realize that we need to put a floor under this housing market in order to help sustain the weak economic recovery that we have going forward. what exacerbates the situation is also the way the banks have handled this up to now. in my district and it's happened all across the country, we've had situations where banks and servicers have employed robo signers to the point where many of these foreclosure documents have been signed without full knowledge by the individuals charged with that responsibility

. we've seen many courts in this country look at the foreclosure process used by these banks and have ruled them to be illegal and that in fact the banks did not own the homes that they were trying to foreclose on. and this has happened thousands of times across the country. it's not been a smooth process. we've also had a very, very difficult situation for our men and women in uniform. despite the fact that there's been a law in this country since world war i that we will not foreclose on service members' homes while they are in combat, while they're in afghanistan or iraq, we've had banks do hundreds and hundreds of foreclosures on our men and women in uniform. there are needs for these programs and yet we're conveniently forgetting those facts. lastly this bill, with all due respect, has been poorly drafted in a meaningful way.

this bill, if adopted, would prohibit all voluntary agreements between parties to stop these foreclosures. and i understand what the targets of my republican colleagues are, but the bill is drafted so broadly it would prevent the banks and the f.h.a. and the homeowner and the servicer to come to a voluntary agreement. private enterprise has been something that my colleagues used to encourage and here we have voluntary agreements that will be prohibited by this bill. and i do not think that is the intent of the gentleman, however that is the actual impact of his legislation and i have an amendment more specifically to deal with that at a later time. but we have to slow down the foreclosure process to put a floor under this economy, we have to help the families that can be helped and this f.h.a.

refinance program termination act would prevent that from happening. i thank the ranking member for the time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding and, mr. chairman, h.r. 830 is commonsense legislation that stops inefficient and ineffective government spending. this program at its outset of this $8 billion program, its failure was inevitable. that inevitable failure is now undeniable. it doesn't work for the homeowner, it doesn't work for the tax paying american families and it certainly doesn't work for future generations who are trying to claw their way out of the debt that we are burdening them with each and every day. so let's go back and let's talk about the homeowners.

we've got 12 million mortgages in america that are currently under water and yet this program , this program which was actually rolled out in march, started about six months ago, has 245 applications. 245. how many have actually made it over the hurdles and have gotten some help and refinanced? 44. 44 refinances. we've got $8.12 billion that has been obligated, we have $50 million that has been dispersed. now, a quick back of the envelope calculation, that's $1.1 million per mortgage refinanced thus far. if we look at it even further, were these million-dollar mortgages? actually the average mortgage was about $300,000. so we spent the american taxpayers, in terms of their dollars, we spent $1.1 million

in order to refinance a $300,000 loan. the administration said, we're going to have $1.-- 1.5 million homeowners get into this program. and yet we've taken almost a year, we have 44 that have actually gone through. if you were to get through this program, if you were one of the lucky ones, one of the 44, clearly it's not going to help you in so as you're going to destroy your credit for the next several years. the average credit score of the 44 that are in the program was 711. that credit score is going to go down. is their monthly payment going to go down? in many instances no. because they're going to have to come up with closing costs. they're going to have to pay private mortgage insurance if they haven't been paying it already. and so there are other requirements that are simply a burden on the actual homeowners. it's time that we tell the

american public the truth. it's time that we in this body recognize when a government program is not working. we need to get rid of this program. $8.12 billion obligated. $50 million dispersed. for 245 applicants and 44 mortgages actually redone. the program certainly doesn't work for the american taxpayer. when we're looking at debts and deficits in washington, many of us sent here to washington to try to get the out-of-control government spending back in line and i would say that certainly $ 1.1 million per mortgage is not a good use of the taxpayer dollars. when we look at future generations, we look at the amount of money that we're spending right now, $.48 trillion in the deficit spending -- $1.48 trillion in the deficit

spending. the president's budget comes down to talking about $1.6 trillion for the next year. we cannot continue to spend money that we don't have. our debt at $14 trillion. when we actually took a look at the treasury report that came out just a couple of days ago, talking about tarp, because this program is basically on tarp funds, they recognized that the mortgage modification programs were never intended to be recovered. this to me, i think, is an enormous problem. this is a program that doesn't work for the homeowner, it doesn't work for the american public and it certainly is not going to work for future generations. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: the gentleman simply repeated an absolute fantasy. this is not a $50 million spenditure for 40 loans. the $50 million has not been given to anybody, not a penny of it. it has been put in a reserve

account. $50 million has been set aside in a reserve account. it was dispersed from the tarp to a reserve account. the c.b.o. has estimated that if this goes forward it will be $12,000 per loan. last week the gentleman was claiming that if you participate in this program you'd have a tax liability. he learned that that was wrong. he's perpetuating error. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. ranking member. i'm proud to represent much of the san joaquin valley. our valley is a great place to live and work but unfortunately we've been hit very hard by the economic downturn. the valley has been ground zero for the foreclosure crisis. over the past few years thousands of families in our county and throughout the valley have lost their homes. i've hosted foreclosure assistance workshops, i've met with hardworking people who were

misled by lenders who were struggling to stay on top of their mortgages, i've seen grown men cry because they couldn't keep a roof over their children. i've talked to veterans who served their country only to return home to a notice of default. and i've met seniors on the brink of homelessness. the administration's foreclosure prevention initiatives have fallen short in the valley. simply put, the administration's programs haven't effectively served the people you understand water on their mortgage and the -- under water on their mortgage and the administration hasn't been tough enough on the big banks. i call on president obama and this cabinet to develop more effective efforts to stem the tide of foreclosures. but despite these shortcummings, the bill -- shortcomings, the bill the house republicans are offering today is absolutely the wrong approach. it's throwing the baby out with the bath water. instead of canceling foreclosure relief programs at their beginning stages like they're

proposing, we should be strengthening them so they're more effective. mortgage counselors from my district advise and plead to improve our efforts to get tough on big banks and provide meaningful relief to families. stabilizing the housing market is critical to economic recovery and creating jobs. for these reasons i oppose h.r. 830 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: yes, mr. chair, i yield the gentleman from illinois 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 30 seconds. >> i thank the chair. running a business, i have to tell you, obligated funds are one thing, dispersed funds are quite another. if i can, from the monthly 508 report delivered to the congress from tarp and from the department of the treasury, and i have and would like to submit for the record, under obligated,

all the way down here, when it's talking about the f.h.a. refinance, it's $8.12 billion. mr. dold: in an entirely different column, under dispersed, it's $50 million. from the paper here, from the department of the treasury, obligated and dispersed are different things, we have $50 million that has been dispersed. i yield back. mr. frank: i yield myself 15 seconds to further illuminate. it's been dispersed in a letter of credit, none of which has been drawn down. it sits there as a reserve in case of losses. i now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the ranking member for yielding and i rise in opposition to h.r. 830 and this bill is one of four separate antiforeclosure programs aimed at helping troubled homeowners stay in their homes that the new house republican majority are planning

to end. now what is very troubling is they don't have any idea of what to put in its place. now, we know that we have 12 million mortgages that are under water, that need help. and they're in all of our states. but they're not coming forward with any ideas of how to help the economy or to help the people. now, this particular program is just getting started. it's the f.h.a. short refinance program. and it's one of the foreclosure prevention programs that would not only help the individual homeowners but also help to stabilize the overall u.s. housing market which is 25% of our economy. so it not only helps an individual, it helps the locality, it helps our country, it helps our economic strength. the result of ending this program would be hundreds of thousands of additional foreclosures and steeper price declines in our housing. it's outrageous.

it's short-sighted, it's mean and it's wrong. now, in this program it would allow the borrowers to reduce the principal owed on their homes up to 10% so that their payments are lower, so that they can save money that they can't afford and in return the banks would get an f.h.a.-insured loan that is subject to all of f.h.a.'s strict standards. so to get this loan you're going to have to jump through hops -- hoops to be able to qualify and it is voluntary. just last week several major banks in america voluntarily walked forward to help out. citi bank, wells fargo, bank of america, to name a few. so the program is just getting started and the $50 million line of credit is like a line of credit you draw down on. hopefully we won't even have to tap into it. hopefully our economy improves, people are employed and they're able to pay their mortgages. and the standards are very, very

strict. the owners must be current on their payments, it must be their primary residence, they have to have full documentation to qualify. so it is a strict program and i want to come back to an issue that is very important to me, is this affects lives. this affects people. now, in congressman frank's home state there are over 222,000 residents whose mortgages are under water that could qualify possibly if they can meet the criteria. it's part of a total package to help our economy move forward and the opposition, the republican majority, has no ideas of their own. it's just to come in and cut a good program that is just getting started. now they mentioned the 44 people that have been helped, they say that's not important. i'd say it's very important to the 44 people that have been helped and there may be 12 million possibly that could be helped under this program. the chair: the gentleman from

alabama. mr. bachus: i inquire of the time on each side? the chair: the gentleman from alabama has 6 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman has 7 1:4 minutes remaining. mr. bachus: i continue to reserve my time. mr. frank: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i say 10 years ago the debate here in congress was what to do with the surplus. in fact, we paid off $400 billion of the debt and alan greenspan worried that we were going to pay off the national debt too quickly and it might be unsettling to the economy. mr. chairman, if there is one problem that got solved in the last decade it is that problem,

the problem of paying off the national debt too quickly. my party can claim none of the credit for that. it was a republican president and a republican congress. i must admit, i don't like what they did of paying off the national debt too quickly. they gave tax cuts to america's top .1%. americans making more than $2 million, $340,000. and we saw just a couple months ago that was one thing that was absolutely nonnegotiable to them. they would give up everything to let those americans have to pay any more in taxes. when -- when there was a proposal to expand medicare to take care of prescription drugs, something i supported generally, republicans in congress passed a bill that was not paid for as other programs like that had been paid for and was a giveaway to the insurance industry and to the prescription drug industry. mr. miller: so when they're giving tax cuts to the richest

americans, the rich of the rich, when they're giving away taxpayer money to the insurance industry and the prescription drug industry, the drug industry, they don't worry about deficits at all. it's only when democrats take the presidency and particularly in the last two years. when we have been dealing since the worst recession since the great depression and have been trying to pull the country out of a nosedive that they've become worried about the deficit, and criticize americans, everything that we have done to try to save the country from the disaster that we -- that we inherited. and it is only the programs that help working and middle-class families that seem to give them a problem like this one. now, we have been on the case of subprime lending and its effects for a long time. i introduced legislation in 2004 to rein in subprime lending. not a bit of help from republicans. mr. watt and i introduced that bill. it was miller watt two years --

miller-watt two years later it became miller-watt-frank. the gentleman from alabama said in committee the other day to deal with -- that wouldn't cost taxpayers. i introduced that in 2007. it was one way to teal with the problem is let bankruptcy judges modify mortgages in bankruptcy the same the way they modify all kinds of secured debt. no support from republicans at all. and the opposition of republicans killed that. i had introduced -- i urged the federal agencies that set rules for the banks to require they treat people better than they've been treating them. no help from republicans at all. and even -- even mountain last -- well, just yesterday, the federal agencies in charge of -- the banks' conduct and states' attorney generals had been pushing the banks to impose fines for violating the law in how they handle

foreclosures. and several republicans sent a letter yesterday to the secretary -- secretary of the treasury protesting that federal agencies were being too mean to the banks. now, i thought most politicians learned during the keating five that your office does not give you the right to give your political buddies, your contributors, a get-out-of-jail free cards but that's what they appear to do when it's the banking industry that's complaining about it. it's not true that this problem of foreclosure is just affecting a handful of americans. can i have one minute? mr. frank: one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. miller: we are in a cycle of foreclosures leading to reduced value of homes -- reduced values of homes. with people under water they seem their life savings disappear. more foreclosures and on and on. we have got to put a bottom on the housing market. we know this can work. this program is very similar to a program in the new deal that did work, the homeowners loan

corporation turned a profit, a slight profit but a profit and saved the middle class, saved the housing industry. we need to do something. republicans have offered nothing. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. at this time i yield one minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and 15 seconds. mr. heck: i rise in support of the this -- this bill. 390,192 families in nevada are under water. let me say that again. 390,192 families in nevada are under water.

we must help individuals who are trying to do the right thing. this program gives some of those nevadans who are current on their mortgage but under water the ability to refinance their loan. some will say this program is a failure because too few mortgages have been refinanced through it. they'll say not enough money has been distributed. i say a failed p.r. job should not be the reason a good program dies. and the f.h.a. refinance program can be a good program, but it needs more attention and perhaps reform so homeowners know it's an option. vote no on h.r. 830 and give homeowners a chance to take advantage of this program, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: at this time, mr. chair, i recognize the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. yoder: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 830.

this bill would repeal a well-intentioned but bankrupt policy. mr. chairman, the republican people are tired of bailout after bailout. with $14 trillion and borrowing $5 billion a day, yet unemployment is 9%. the american people are sending us an unmistakable message, the idea of borrowing and bailing out and spending isn't working. we're borrowing more money in washington with this program that we don't have, tell the americans borrow more money at home for housing they can't afford. mr. chairman, this is madness. when will the stop and when will the politicians in washington understand that we're not going to be able to borrow and spend our way to prosperity? the american people are tired of this. they want washington leaders to step up, reduce spending and eliminate programs that aren't working. mr. chairman, i ask today we pass this legislation and restore fiscal sanity to washington.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: how much time is remaining on both sides, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 2 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from alabama has about four -- has 4 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from alabama has the right to close. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. chair -- mr. frank: i yield -- i have one remaining speaker so i'll defer until you have your last speaker. mr. bachus: you just have one remaining speaker? mr. frank: yes. mr. bachus: at this time i recognize the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert, for 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and, mr. chairman, president ronald reagan famously said with tong and cheek, no doubt, that the closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a federal government program. and i rise today in support of h.r. 830, legislation authored

by my friend from illinois, mr. dold. at the risk of disproving the late president's ax yum, let me say that h.r. 830 will demonstrate that congress does have the good sense, the fortitude and the wherewithal to bring an end to a federal program, especially one that's not working. the program in question is the f.h.a. refinancing program which was authorized under the broadest provisions in the tarp legislation back in 2008. in 2010 the program was conceived in haste, enacted with no vote in congress and was designed to augment another failed program, the making home affordable program, which has done more harm than good. under the f.h.a. refinancing program, the f.h.a. is directed to use tarp funds to refinance mortgages that are current but underwater.

its record has been a real problem with the f.h.a. commissioner stating during our meeting last month, as of february 11, 44 loans have been endorsed, end quote. where else but in washington would it be a good idea to obligate $8 billion in taxpayer funds and disspers $50 billion of those dollars? -- disburse $50 billion of those dollars? we don't know how many will be in default, how many -- what it will cost, but that money has been disbursed from the u.s. treasury. mr. chairman, this bill ends another failed program. taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for failure, so i would urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. -- the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the author of the bill, the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, was telling people that if they join this program they

would have a tax liability. he was wrong. it wasn't his fault. he was told that was the case. he dutifully read what he was told. he found out it was wrong. it would be $50 billion disbursed. no, $50 billion has not been spent on any individual. it has been set aside if necessary in the future to pay for defaults. so this is a fantasy. it's true, the program has not had a major impact. and if it does not prove itself out it never will. it cannot be loudly expensive and nonexistent. it is there if we get an agreement involving all of the attorneys general of both parties, involving the regulators and the financial institutions, this would be one of the tools that will accommodate people. c.b.o. does think there could be a loss. their prediction is -- their best guess, and they are the best objective element that we have, you could get an amount

of $12,000 or so per loan lost here. not $1 million. $12,000. it is part of a -- part of projects that will help reduce foreclosures and help the economy deal with this crisis. people that don't like it, they'll send money to brazil, they'll send money to afghan cities, they'll send money to iraqi security, they'll send money to farmers for $250,000, but $12,000 per homeowner is just too much for them. it's not just for homeowners. it's part of getting out of our economic crisis. so i hope this is defeated. i appreciate what the gentleman from nevada said. yes, it can be improved. the fact that only 44 people have been involved so far means they are proceeding appropriately cautiously. this is a program with great promise. it may not turn out, but if a promise doesn't turn out then it doesn't cost anything. and if it does turn out to be a workable part of an overall solution, it will be money much

better spent than many of the billions my colleagues on the other side are prepared to subsidize some of their favored sacred cows as opposed to doing something to help the whole economy. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: mr. chair, i'd -- will approach the floor to use my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman may proceed. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, members of this body , what are we talking about when we're talking about cutting government spending? we're talking about these children. these children cannot afford a future where its federal government spends $8 billion

more every day than it takes in. now the chairman has criticized our military spending. i could have a picture of my children or grandchildren up and i could have a picture of one of my little granddaughters whose son served in the u.s. marines. their unit served in afghanistan and in iraq. so i make no apology for supporting our troops. now if the president decides to call them home, my son would support that. now, the chairman -- the ranking member frank says, well, this sits, this program that's helped 44 families whose average mortgage was $330,000, that's more than the cost of a home in my district, but here is the --

president obama's report to us that $50 million has been dispersed but the alarming figure is $8.12 billion that's obligated. now, the gentlelady from new york said that the banks, citibank, bank of america, they're all lining up to use this program. i would be too. this transfers obligations from lenders to the taxpayer, as long as these mortgages were making money the banks profited. but all of a sudden when they're under water and a borrower may be can't make the -- maybe can't make the payment, hey, if i was a bank identify say, yeah, let the government, let the taxpayers pay, reduce this mortgage. that ought to be between the bank and the homeowner. 42 families, you say all of these programs we're going to debate this week and next week would cost billions of dollars, they're going to help a half a

million families. there are 12 million families that are under water. let's talk about something very important. if we don't get our financial house in order, i quote the words of admiral mike mullen on august 25, before cnn, and i'll close with this. the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. and that threat comes from this body and the administration. it's time to cut spending

let me again thank each of the four witnesses for being here today for giving us their valuable time, their input and their varying views, but all thatis essential as we move forward. our first witness today, dr. zudi joster is founder of the american islamic forum for

democracy. he founded aifd in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in the united states as an effort to provide an american muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the uned states constitution. as a member of congress, i remember you when you were here. he is a respected physician and former lieutenant of the united states navy and worked in the attending physicians office here in the united states capitol. for better or worse, he kept us healthy. some of our constituents may not be too happy about that. you did a great job keeping us healthy. i appreciate you being here today. the gentleman is recognized. doctor, if you put on the microphone there, please. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman king, ranking member thompson, distinguished members of the committee seeking mortestimony on way feel is the most important threat to american security in the 21st century. as chairman king said, i come to

you as a devout muslim and somebody very concerned about our country. not only its polarizatiobut its paralysis dealing with this problem. we form an organization to address this, but have not been able to move one step forward significantly because of that paralysis. one camp on the polarization refuses to believe any muslim could be radicalized, yet we've seen a significant increase in the number of radicalized muslims that may not be from within our communities that we know, but are muslims notheless. on the other side of the polarity that are seek nothing solutions. the majority in the middle is moderate america looking for a solution. i think these arings or an opportunity for muslims to address that solution. let me be clear and state up front that the u.s. has a significant problem with muslim

radicalition. i'm muslim and i realize it's my problem and i need to fix it. that's what i'm trying to do. it's unfortunate that you have some of the best work on radicalization is being done by nonmuslims like nypd record on radicalization. most muslim groups condemn that report when we should have been doing that report. let me state clearly it is a problem that we can only solve. christians, jews, nonmuslims cannot solve muslim radicalization. yes, there may be other types of violent extremism, but that cannot be solved by nonmuslims. so we can close our eyes and pretend it doesn't exist. we can call everybody a bigot or islamaphobe, but you're not going to solve the problem and the problem is increasing exponentially. i hope we can get behind this blind concept of violent extremism. radicalization is a continuum. cooperation is a continuum.

i personally have never known a muslim that wouldn't report somebody about to blow something up or commit an act of violence, but that's a final step on a continuum of radicalization. i believe there are small elements, but significant elements of ideology within our community based on the lack of identification and separatism and disenfranchisement of certain muslims from this society that makes them not bond, not trust the government, makes them distrust the fbi and creates a culture of a lack of cooperation. that's what we need your help in solving. america's current paradigm is failing. i'm a physician. i was trained as a physician to patients come in, they've got three or four symptoms, typically they have oning aboe diagnosis. when we look at the problem of radicalization, we have to realize that the panoplea of

excuses will never run out. at the end of the day it's a moral corruption within a rtain segment that is using our religion, hijacking it for a theopolitical movement that is not only domestic but is global. the reason i'm here today and taking the time away from my family and my work to do that, to be here with you, is because we are failing. we are not addressing this. we are so much soaking up the bandwidth of the discussion in this country on this with victimization that we are not addressing the co problem and root cause. yet these halls, this government was based on discussing religious diversity. our foundingfathers, our establishment clause was based on being able to have discussions that were functional on religion, yet once a movement, a threat hijacks religion, we seem to become completely dysfunctional and we get histrionics and can't talk

about that. i want my children to have the gift i got from my parents that felt america, the first minute they stepped off the plane from the oppression of syria and they unrstood they could practice their beautiful faith of islam more freely here than anywhere else in the world. why? because this government is not under one faith. it's under god a it's based on lirty. these are the principles just as prime minister cameron said, we can't continue to play defense. we need a muscular liberalism. our tax money, our resources have been squandered. we continue to play defense. until we have an ideological offense into the muslim communities domestically and globally to teach liberty, teach separation of mosque and state, you are not going to solve this problem. we are not going to solve it. i'm not saying you could solve

theolo. we need to build platforms you can advocate for universal human rights based in the equality of men and women, all faith before law. these are principles that certain pockets of islamic law, islamic legalisms within systems in this country and outside are advocating that are in contradiction with our government and society and end up radicalizing on a continuum, create a culture of lack of cooperation, and until you treat that diagnosis, what i call political islam, spiritual islam will continue to suffer. our faith community will suffer and this country's security will continue to suffer. the current groups that have been speaking on our behalf have been failing. they may be well intended about civil rights, but they are apologetics, dismissals have been completely failing. if you look at nidal hassan, he didn't become radical overnight. if you look at his resume, it's frighteningly similar to mine, but yet something happened in him over years, over years.

you can't just blame alaqi. before he came a radicalizer, he was giving sermons in mosques in denver, san diego and northern virginia. when you talk to certain leaders in the muslim community they say we don't know what happened. he became violent. that's not the way it works. it creeps up over time. there are enablers. the enabling that's been happening in some of our, not all, not even a majority, has been causing a progression of this problem. >> if you could try to complete in 30 seconds? >> yes, sir. ultimately we need solutions. our organization created a muslim liberty project that looks at innoculating muslims.

we have a retreat to begin that process. this is our homeland. we want to set this society to begin a counterjihad, and offense to counter the ideas i think is the best way to use our resources as a nation, and remember that the freedoms we have don't come with a cheap price and we need to give back. and that the solution ultimately to fear of muslims is for americans to see muslims leading the charge against radical islam. >> thank you, dr. jasser. our next witness is melvin bledsoe, father of joaquin. >> thank you very much for allowing me to come he today and to tell the country what happened to my son. this hearing today is extremely

important to begin the discussion about the issues of islamic radicalization in america. my sincere hope that this committee can somehow adjust the issue in a meaningful, productive way. i would like to express my deepest sympathy to the family of private william long and th wounded soldier. i would like to talk about the complicity in private long's murder. islamic radicals who program and train made son carlos to kill. i want to tellmerican people and the world what happened to my son. we sent him off to college at tennessee state university of nashville, tennessee in the fall of 2003. our dream about his future ended up in a nightmare. carlos is my only son. he grew up in memphis,

tennessee. we operated a touring company and he started helping out at the family business at age of 8. he loved to talk to the traveling public and had a lot of fun interacting with the customers. after graduating from high school, carlos wanted to get a degree in business. we thought perhaps he would come back to memphis to run the business and give my wife and i an early retirement. after the fall of 2005, his sophomore year in nashville, carlos came home that christmas for the holiday. we were sitting around the family room and carlos, his sister monica, her husband and i were have a normal conversation about life. at a certain point carlos and his brother-in-law got into a heated conversation about muslim relion. then and later we felt like carlos' personality change when we spoke about islam. we thought maybe he had some muslim friends and was offended by the comment. the next time carlos came home,

we saw another side of him that we didn't see before. during the night he took off all the pictures from the walls of the bedroom where he slept. he even took off the picture of dr. martin luther king jr off the wall. we asked carlos, what is going on with you? he replied he is now a new convert to islam and everything he does from now on will be to honor allah. carlos was growing up with martin king's picture o the wall, but now he is treating that picture as if dr. king was nobody to him. we asked carlos not to take the dr. king picture off the wall. he take it off the wall anyway. this became a big concern to us. we went to nashville to visit him more and learn morebout who was he hanging around with and what was going on with carlos. carlos dropped out of school at the beginning of 2005 semester. he was working at a temporary

job a job and got a doing. he turned the dog loose in the woods because he was told it was a dirty creature. i couldn't understand how he could do that because he grew up with dogs in the house since he was 5 years old. something and someone is getting into his head and changing his waif thinking. it had gotten to the point he had no interest in coming home even for the holidays. all this was part of his brainwashing. changing his thinking a little bit at a time. he had a job in nashville with some muslims who tells him islamic law, his employer, had to let him pray certain times of day regardless o what was going on in his job. as a business owner i told carlos, it would be difficult

for employers to do this for all his employees. at this time, at the next step on his progress of radicalization, carlos was convinced to change his name. he chose the name abdullah hakeem muhammed. at this point his culture was no longer important to him, only islamic culture. some muslim leader had taken advantage of my son. he's not the only one being taken advantage of. this is an ongoing thing in nashville and many other cities in america. in nashville carlos was captured by best describedhunters. he was manipulated and lied to. that's how he made his way to yemen. carlos was hoping to go there for a chance to cross over to saudi arabia and visit mecca. he was taught all the true muslim must do this one time in life. he was taught that he would get to walk on the grounds where prophet muhammed walked and able to travel the area.

they had otherlans for him. they set him up, told him he could teat english in a british school south of yemen. the school turned out to be a front for carlos and he ended up in a training camp run by terrorists. carlos joined with the yemeni extremists facilitated by their american counterpart in nashville. we have since discovered that former m.i. in nashville mosque wrote the recommendation letter for carlos needed for the schooling image. we discovered that school function as an intake front for radicalization training for westerns for jihad. from what i understand, the fbi have been following carlos since and before he left nashville, continued to follow him aftere came back from yemen. carlos was arrested in yemen overextending his visa in october 2008. he was interviewed by the fbi agent in nashville before the

u.s. embassy was alerted about his arrest. the fbi was alarmed about what they learned from carlos. we wish they could have told us, his family, about what they learned. if we knew how serious the extremism had become, we could have put every effort to stop the tragedy in arkansas. my family cried out for help to bring my son back from the american government. we got in touch with the united states bassy, state department, we also asked for help from our u.s. representative and the fbi special agent who had been tracking my son in nashville after our son was finally released and brought home to us. no one said anything to us about what might have happened in yemen or what they may have learned that so alarmed the fbi to interrogate carlos while he was in the custody of yemen

political security organization. carlos experienced in yemen's political jail was the final stage of his radicalization. he was in there with true evil-doers. hardcore al qaeda members who convinced him to get revenge on america. something is wrong with muslim leaders in nashville. what happened to carlos at those mosques is enormous. i have other family members who are muslim. they are peaceful law-abiding people and are not radicalized. i also have several uncles and brothers in the military. our family fought in the united states every war since the civil war. i have nephews who are currently in afghanistan fighting for the democracy and freedom for all americans. it seems to me that americans are sitting around doing nothing about extremists, radical extremists as carlos' story and other stories at these hearings aren't true. this is a big elephant in the

room. our society continues not to see it. this political correctness, you can call it political fear. fear of stepping on special minority population toes even as a segment of that population wants to stamp out america and everything we stand for. i must say that we are losing american babies. our children are in danger. this country must stand up and do something about the problem. yes, my son you are hearing about today. tomorrow it could be your son, your daughter. it might be an american, afrin-american child that they went after in nashville. tomorrow the victim might have blonde hair, blue eyes. one thing for sure, it would happen again. >> if you could just finish up in the next ten seconds, please. >> we must stop these extremist invaders from raping the minds

of american citizens. carlos grew up as a happy-go-lucky kid with a big smilon his face. loved to crack a joke or two. everybody liked him. he loved to play team sports like basketball and football. he loves swimming and dancing, listening to music. today, we have two filies that have beendestroyed. this could have been prevented. i would like to see something change that no other family in this great country of ours has to go through what our family are facing today. god help us. god help us. >> thank you, mr. blede. our next witness ises director of somali education and its social advocacy center in minneapolis, minnesota, the uncle of borhan hassan. i ask you to limit your remarks to five minutes or so. >> thank you.

>> first of all, i want to say thank you to chairman king and members of the committee fo allowing me to speak on behalf of the muslim soma american community today. i also want to thank the somali american community for lping us, the families of the missing children or youth, to stand up against the radicalization of our youth. i want to tell you why i'm here today and how important it is for me. i'm here because of my boren hassan. not only him but 20 and 40 others who are somali americans in the state of minnesota who have been brainwashed, radicalized by members of our community and back home into a berning

burning in a civil war. i want to talk about my nephew. i love my sister, and her family was along about hundreds of thousands who fled from the civil war into the neighboring kenya where in the campus there was no order, but the rape, mass killing and disorder was the day. everybody begged and longed for the day that they should be lped by the international community. fortunately, my sister and her family, she was one of the luckiest ones that made it to the shores of the united states of america. my nephew immediately adopted slang and become a student. he was loved by the community. his mom and i and everybody else, the best thing for us is to put him in sunday school and that was the mosque, the center. we invested in this center with all our money to make it bigger so it could help our youth and

instead of being on the streets, to be influenced into bad behavior. we want our children to succeed. unfortunately on the night election -- historical night of 2004-2008, 2004, my sister kept calling the family and miss her son. we keep calling everybody. we finally end up with other families, we come to the end of that, our kids were lured back into somalia. we went to the mosque and the center and ask for answers. everybody promise that they will meet with us. the other day we were waiting for the imam and the other leaders, all we did was saw up in the somali tv and see them, instead of helping us find our children, condemning us to being used to destroy our own mosque and religion. that was more hurtful than missing our children because now we have to deal with the bigger

community, to destroy our faith and our community. that set the stage on for two years of struggle. and the bottom was the community. whoever wins t community, if they win the community, they are not missing ildren, but liars like me and my family and 20 other single moms who lost th r their -- after two years of demonstrations, educating, fighting with basic and personal money and efforts of sleeping three hours a night, two and a half years, we won the heart and minds of the community. in the middle of the saga, though we never get help, we never got help from our leaders, from our organizations, through our big islamic organizations, but in the middle of our

kinning, where the community started to sympathize with us, what happened to us, what happened to our engineers, doctors, lawyers, my nephew wanted to go to harvard, and become a lawyer or a doctor, just like you, but with all those things, then big organizations come to our community that we have never seen. care, such a beautiful name. islamic organizations is filled with mosques that mosques are organizations that will hurt us so more than our kids missing hurt, call us tools. the center we built, the people we gave millions, our goal, our lives, our imams we trust. i want to warn you it is only one center out of 40 something centers and that's where all the kids are missing. all of them. this organization comes in, agrees with other leaders too that we are liars, we have a clan, tribal problems. i don't know where that came

from. we have no clan, tribe or language problems. we are one community. we have been hurt by other muslims in our community. we have been denied to stand up. we had todo three demonstrations on the street in the rain, in the snow in minnesota. minnesota it is cold. islamic organization that is claiming in the house of congress they are so powerful that they are helping us, that we are tools to be used by republic, democrat, liberal, by conservative, by nazis, by this. we have been muslims since muhammad. i want to tell you, my community is the most beautiful community in the world i've known. there are 99.9% good american citizens that workday and hard, day and night, 18 hours, 17 hours, seven days, to chase

american dream. they don't have a voice. we have been kidnapped. so our children, we have been kidnapped by ldership that we haveever seen. >> mr. bihi, if you can try to finish in 30, 40 seconds. >> i will finish that. i want to conclude for two and a half years they have not done anything else. the somali community wantso be heard and i thank you, mr. king, congressman king, and other members of the committee for getting me here, for panelists like him, and like me. my community wts to be heard. i would ask you to look and open investigations as to what is happening in my community. we are isolated by islamic organizations and leaders who support them. talk to the common chain, muhammad industry of close to 100,000 members of my community.

i want to tell you, 85% of our vulnerable youth do not have viable employment. they are not engaged in constructive programs. and if we stand and speak up for them, we aabeled and hurt instead of being supported. we need your support, we need a voice to speak up. we have been hurt and we are not going away >> thank you. >> what i want to say last -- >> i ask the audience to refrain from any response, please. >> what i want to say last, it is important mission that the somali community -- al shabab is killing thousands of people in the city of mogadishu and the world must understand it is not the government of somalia, this problem will continue. my last statement is, i never had this opportunity, the challenge is that the community is lacking strong, viable -- >> mr. bihi, your time expired. the next witness is sheriff

baca. your team will not be limited. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sheriff lee baca is a former u.s. marine. he served in law enforcement. he served as a law enforcement officer for 46 years. he was elected as our los angeles county sriff in 1998. sheriff lee baca commands the largest sheriff's department in the united states, leading over 18,000 budgeted, sworn and professional staff, law enforcement officers, and serves over 4 million people. many of the cities, two of which happen to be in my district, compton and carson. his jurisdiction includes 40 cities, nine colleges, 58 superior courts, and a local jail system housing over 20,000 prisoners. sheriff baca is a respected witness. he has been to this committee testifying in both 2009 and 2010 and was invited here by our ranking member mr. thompson.

please join me in welcoming sheriff lee baca. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, thank you. i thank ranking member thompson and your committee for this hearing today. moreover, i would like to thank secretary janet napolitano and the department of homeland security f the support los angeles has received regarding combatting violent extremism. the los angeles county sheriff's department has long been a leader in the development of relationships with the various ethnic, cultural and religious communities that thrive in the los angeles area. we have established strong bonds through continuing outreach and physical presence and important events to every community. therefore i would caution that to comment only onhe extent of radicalization in the muslim american community may be viewed as singling out a particular section of our nation. this makes a false assumption

that any group is prone radicalization than others. according to information provided by the congressional research service, there have been 77 total terro plots by domestic non-muslim perpetrators since 9/11. in comparison, there have been 41 total plots by both domestic and international muslim perpetrators during the same period. reports indicate that muslim americans helped foil seven of the last ten plots, propagated by al qaeda, within the united states. evidence cheerily indicated a general rise in extremism across ideologies, therefore we should look at as an issue that affects all groups regardless of religion. it is counterproductive to build trust when individuals or groups claim that islam supports terrorism. this plays directly into the terrorist propaganda that the west war on terror is actually a war against islam.

it is critical to build muchally respectful relationships with muslim american communities and enavor to work together to protect all americans. for example, new immigrants or citizen citizens -- excuse me, let me start this again. for example, as new immigrants or citizens, the vast majority of muslim committee members within my jurisdiction is fiercely proud of their american identity and display their patriotism on a daily basis. what i made critical outreach to the community after 9/11, i was overwhelmed by the number of muslims who were ready and willing to connect with law enforcement. moreover, after the 2005 transit bombings in london, the muslim american homeland security congress was formed in los angeles county to engage muslim mmunity members in our efforts to counter violent extremism. the homeland security congress is cpromised of leaders from the religious, business,

professional, and academic centers of the muslim american community. moreover, supports the efforts of our muslim community affairs unit, made up of arabic speaking muslim deputy sheriffs and i might add that the los angeles police department has the same effort going. the muslim american homeland security congress provides support to our homeland security efforts, not only in los angeles, but entire southern california. according to the institute for homeland security solutions report, building clues, examining successes and failures and detecting u.s. terrorist plots from 1999 to 2009, 40% of all extremist plots were thwarted as a result of tips from the public and informants. muslim american community leaders in los angeles have not hesitated to put themselves in potentially uncomfortable positions to interact with local

law enforcement. in 2010, the muslim public affairs counsel enthusiastically responded to requests to speak at our annual radicalization and home grown violent extremism conference. speaking to 200 law enforcement personnel, salam and ardena subjected themselves to an intense period of questions and answers from the audience regarding islam radicalization and terrorism. due to their courage and willingness to answer any question presented, the evaluation of their performance was overwhelmingly positive. outreach to the muslim community is also done by law enforcement outreach coordinators group which includes the los angeles police department, the city of los angeles, the california emergency management agency, the fbi, the united states attorney general's ofce, the transportation security administration, and our most supported federal partner, the department of homeland security.

in america, we are obligated to protect all citizens in their respective religions and to effectively detect and find extremists. police leaders must have trust in and understanding of all communities. the muslim community is no less or no more important than others as no one can predict with complete accuracy who and what will pose the next threat against our nation. simply put, police need public participation and to accomplish that, strategies such as public trust policing need to be a priority in our naon. simply our enemies cannot thrive or even survive when a majority of people share common goals and pledge to be an asset for each other in the fight to counter violent extremism. thank you for listening to my brief testimony on a subject that is vitalo all americans. >> thank you, sheriff baca. thank you very much. the chair will recognize himself.

dr. jasser, thank you for your testimony. you listened to the testimony of mr. bledsoe, mr. bihi. i would ask you, do you see these as isolated cases or how -- as a part -- or is it part of a systemic problem in the muslim american community and, and if it is, how uld that be impacted as far a mosques, as far as care, as far as overseas funding? >> chairman king, i can't underscoreow important this question is is that is this simply anecdotes like a crime problem or is there a systemic problem? first thing we need to say is the vast majority of mosques are places that all of our families go worship, patriotic americans like every other cross section of america, and not oly are they not a threat but would report anything they see. having said that, though, we have a problem internally. where is that? it is a minority, but there is an ideology that exists in some mosques, not all, not a majority, but some msques and

it is a significant number. what i'm talking about is not the violent part. we need to change that paradigm, talking about violence. it is about searatism, the idea that the islamic state takes precedence over american law. so if you look, for example, mosques that i've seen a sermon in phoenix where one of the largest mosques, they held up one of care's pictures and the picture said something, like, extremely insulting about american soldiers and what they're doing in iraq, and you can't tell me that that doesn't have an impact upon radicalizing muslims at that mosque. now, is that free speech? absolutely. do their civil rights need to be protected? absolutely. but there should have been a huge protest from people in that mosque that what he did violated and offended us as americans. but there wasn't. there was silence. so i think it is time in this platform that we have here and on should be a platform to awaken the silent muslim majority that exists there, that loves this country to start to

some lf-repair rather than turning a blind eye and pointing fingers to other faiths. funding is also an issue. there is a lot of consolidation of funding within mosques. one thing important for the committee to understand is that our population is extremely diverse. but yet in this country, the groups tha seem to represent us are those that are mobilized based onbeing an islamic lobby, which is part of political islam. most of our families left that political islamic party mentality in the middle east and came here to be part of a political infrastructure that separates church and state. so to say that while how do we engage those muslims, where are they, they're hard to get to because they don't want to be involved in islamic or muslim organizations because they separate mosque and state. so i think it is important that we make that distinction. now, looking at the islamists as a grou again, not all -- violence is a small part of their mentality. but yet as you look at the bigger part, they facilitate the

concept that the islamic state supremist is better, islamic law should be part of government, all of this needs reform. some of the mosques get funding and have a common source of ownership called north american islamic trust, listed as an unindicted co-conspirator, they hold deed to some -- they quote 300 mosques on their website. some say up to 50 pr% mosques. if you look at some of the teachings that the islamic society in north america and a few others endorse, they're associated and i put this in my testimony, some of their imams are associated with the assembly of muslim jurists of america. with some of that funding that came originally from petro dollars in the '70s, comes, i think, an ideology that is pervasive with a fundamentalist islamic strain or islamism as an entity or political islam. very different from islam as a faith, i believe. we still have to go through that

enghtenment process and reform, but you can't disconnect the funding. there have been committees in this house that studied that. the judiciary committee and the senate studied that in 2003. i think that is a whole other issue. i do think along with itomes apologetics, a lack of reform, and a sense of basically trying to eevangelize islam. >> mr. bledsoe, i was moved by your testimony in the leadup to the hearings. this hearing was attacked by everybody from care to kim kardashian to the new yo times as being such a dangerous moment we'll have here today. why did you come to testify? what do you hope your testimony will bring about? what is your opinion of this hearing? >> i think it is very necessary for this hearing to be -- i think that as you can see, a lot of people still are in denial that we even have a problem in

america with radicalization. i came here to speak to the american people. i wanted to say something on the behalf of my son, and my grandson, which is 9 months old, open that he don't get caught up inhat same trp, get captured by that same hunter that my son got caught up in. also, i wanted to say to the american people that i hope that my coming here today, that someone out there in the world, in america, that can hear my story and learn something from the radicalization stages and the process of radicalization, that they can catch some of that, which i did not understand at the time my son was being processed and radicalized. hoping that some other child, some other parent can understand

and save that child. if i can save one other child from going to what my family has gone through or the victim family went through, then i think my trip here to this committee was wthwhile. >> thank you, mr. bledsoe. i'm privileged to recognize the distinguisheranking member from mississippi, mr. thompson. mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. sheriff baca, as a professional law enforcement person, can you share what your training and experience has taught you in working with different communities within los angeles county? >> yes. the concept of public trust, in my opinion, is the core message of my testimony, that policing requires extraordinary ability

to interact with people, particularly in a diverse society where people, whether they're here for long periods of time or immigrants, generally have a mistrust of what we represent on the initial contact. in the building of relationships in our particular subject today is obviously the muslim community, we believe that what's important is that through relationship building, through programs such as our muslim outreach effort, and the idea that every individual could be a victim of a crime, and when it comes to violent extremism or let's just say even violent gangs. the same approach that you use for a violent gang should be used for what we're now talking about in violent extremism concerning terrorism. once you do that, you have ceded the community into a place where

if the informant cannot contact a cop directly, the informant knows someone who can. and so the idea that we must always, as a law enforcement strategy, be the first ones to know is highly unlikely. that is true of any crime or any gang, t it is also very fundamentally an important point to make when it comes to radicalization. obviously the witnesses here had some exposure before the actions were taken. and as a result, the question is how well can you listen. what i didn't hear is when were the police notified or when were authorities notified? what i'm trying to do is close the gap. what i want to know, as soon as possible, is that when you're experiencing these unusual behaviors within mosques or within individuals within your family, the time to notify

authorities is now. and i believe that's part of the reason why these hearings are very, very important. >> thank you very much. dr. jasser, one of the schools of thought among some of these members of the committee is that we ought to profile muslims in america. do you agree with that? >> i don't agree with blind priling, that's unconstitutional. however, smart law enforcement that doesn't waste our resources on investigating people that would not have a high propensity toward radicalization i think is smart also. >> no, no, no. the school of thought is that we ought to profile all muslims in america. >> you can't do that because -- >> that's fine. but that's the school of thought. mr. bihi, what's your position on that?

>> oh, i -- >> microphone, please. >> 20,000 times against profiling not only muslimists, but any group. >> absolutely. one of the comments that those of us who had serious problems about hearings of this nature is that you run the risk of profiling law abiding citizens in this country, who just happen to be muslim. and i think what we have to do is take as sheriff baca said, those individuals who see illegal or other activities taking place need be taught to report it. one of the ways you do that is to engage the community, the law enforcement community as soon as possible. and i think from a professional law enforcement opinion standpoint, that's where we ought to be. last pnt, dr. jasser, another comment attributed to this

committee school of thought is that the are too many mosques in america. do you agree with that? >> absolutely not. my family has built a number of mosques have been involved in that. i feel it is one of the reans they came to this country is in order to exercise that freedom. >> thank you very much. >> can i add one thing, chairman? chairman king, may i add one thing? >> mr. chairman, regular order -- >> mr. thompson controls the time. >> the point is for my questioning standpoint, i think religious freedom has an absolute place in america. no, no, you've said that there are not too many mosques in america, i'm saying i agree with you. >> as far as law enforcement is concerned -- >> i did not ask the law enforcement question. >> first question you did, sir. >> i did not ask it of you. >> may i say something abou --

>> has the gentleman yielded back his time? >> yes. >> i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. >> i don't recognize those schools of thought. i want to we can sheriff baca here. he's old friend. we worked in law enforcement together and we worked with your department in creating the community orited policing and problem solving program that you've carried through of which i would say this is an extension. that is what you referred to here today. at the same time, i would say to those who criticize us for a singular focus here that i have been on panels that have investigated the continuing presence of naziar criminals in the united states, and whether or not we should continue to investigate and prosecute them. i have served on panels that dealt with the war time

relocation of japanese americans and japanese nationals that was limited to that. i haveeen in hearings in which we have looked at the problem of youth gang violence and we didn't talk about nonyouth gang violence. i've been on the judiciary committee when we held hearings about the unsolved murders of african-americans in the south, four decades after that, and where we made sure that there was financing for the justice department to pursue those cases. and we didn't go beyond that. i've been there when we have examined the ku klux klan, but we didn't go beyond that at that time. and when i was attney general, we did investigate skinhead groups and militias. and we were not criticized or if we were, i didn't think it was asonable criticism to say we didn't look at other gangs at that time. my point is that we are looking at a specific problem and we're trying to deal with it.

and sheriff baca, you indicated you need to have cooperation of law enforcement. what would you say about a poster tt tells people build up a wall, do not cooperate with the fbi? >> i wouldn't advise that to any group of american citizens or any group that is an organization that would like to help solve the problem. obviously we need the help. i think that people that don't trust law enforcement are in a position where they should learn how to trust law enforcement. but the law enforcement community itself has to lead in that relationship. most people tend to step away from law enforcement. >> i appreciate that. but organizations that tell affirmatively say do not cooperate with law enforcement are not exactly helpful in us solving this problem, correct in. >> that's corrt. >> mr. bihi, you mentioned that when you had this problem of looking for your nephew, along with the other 20 lost young

people, you keep telling us that and that's a nice euphemism for the fact that you've found that they have been spirited away to a foreigncountry, and your nephew was killed when he was there, is that not correct? >> thas correct, sir. >> when you brought that to the attention of members of -- leaders of your mosque, did they encourage you to deal with law enforcement? >> no, as a matter of fact, they threatened me, intimidated me and not only me, the whole families. and there are three messages that they have put out, one message was very strong message that if -- i'm talking about the families that has not reported their missing -- their children to the fbi or to t police. one -- first message -- >> mr. bihi, with the microphone closer please. >> yes, sir. thank you. the first message was to the parents that if you, as a single mother, with cultural language

barri barrier, if you go to the fbi or to the police, they don't care about you because you are muslim, they will prest you to guantanamo. very strong message. second message was you have more chances for your son to slip back into the country if you don't become big mouth like bihi or other families if you stay quiet. and some families succeeded. the third was moral and religious. it was after life, if you do that, you'll be responsible for the eradication of all mosques and all islamic society in north america. and you will have eternal fire in hell. >> would you call that intimidation? >> that is the worst form of intimidation. >> you're a target of intimidation? >> what's that, sir?

>> you were a target and your family were a target of intimidation to stop you from cooperating with law enforcement, correct? >> yes, intimidation in its biggest form. if you let me, i would like to say something about what our great sheriff said about community and fbi relations. we report the missing kids to the police within hours when we woke up. several police stations including the police officers at the mieapolis international airport, next morning we set up an appointment and we met all the fbi. i believe our director was there too. i also want to mention another thing about hooking up with the fbi and the islamic community. if we let -- if we don't have organizations and imams and leader that create hurdles and

blocks and threats and intimidations, we could have done by ourselves and we have done that. we in the somali community get the credit, our congressmen should give us the credit, should give me the credit for making all the efforts that director said about the somali community. and if you check the "usa today" about the report and the work we ha done, it was our credit. >> mr. bihi, time has expired. gentle lady from california, miss sanchez, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to ask unanimous consent to put forward 34 different letters for our body of work he from different organizations across the nation who have submitted for testimony. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being before us and in

particular welcome, sheriff baca. you've been before our committee several times. i have the privilege of representing orange county, california, as you know, probably the second or third largest islamic and/or arab population in the nation. so i'm well aware of the work you have done, not only up in l.a. county, but most people don't realize that in the time of a terrorist attack or a national emergency, we actually fold under your leadership in los angeles. so we have worked a lot together. it is a pleasure aays to have you here with us. today my question is to mr. jasser. in your testimony you say too many so-called muslim leadership groups in america, like care, or muslim advocates have specifically told muslims across the nation, for example, not to speak to the fbi or law enforcement unless they're

accompanied by an attorney. now, the right to have an attorney present, when speaking to law enforcement, is a specific prinple of american civil liberties. so as a minority, i would advocate to people, in particular minorities, that they should have their attorney present when being investigated, talk to, spoken to, addressed by the fbi. so by what legal principle do you assert that any minority in america should wave that american principle? >> congresswoman sanchez, i don't disagree with you. i'm talking about this as a father. when i walked up to a police officer or the fbi, i teach my children thathey're your friends, that you can talk to em. if they ask you things, they're not going to be attacking you. >> if theyome to your home at night, like they do in my community, like some come to my community, and knock at 8:00 p.m. at night to ask questions,

if it were you on the other side of the door, not knowing what questions they were going to ask, would you not say, can you come back tomorrow to my office of -- my office, my business office, would you not say let me call my attorney and i'll come meet you down at the fbi office? or wld you say, sure, come on in, i'll answer any question. >> it depends on the circumstances. i don't disagree with you -- >> you n't understand the circumstances when somebody comes to your office late at night like that. you would assert the privilege of an attorney, would you not? >> congresswoman, not all the me, no, i would not. i'm not constantly in fear from the government because i have nothing to hide. i'm not saying you don't have civil rights to protect, that is part of the discussion, but when that discussion thatou just went through dominates the entire discourse about muslims in america, it creates a narrative that this government is against you and it creates a narrativthat it is anti-islam and anti-muslim. we should have our civil rights

protected. the rest of it should be about how much we love this government, how much we should join the military, how much we should -- >> we have those discussions. thank you, doctor. we have those discussions obviously in the minority community. i sit on the armed services committee also. and, you know, i think that's a -- one of the really rock bed ideas of the latino community, for example. t i still would suggest to anybody that if the fbi comes late at night knocking on your door, you tell them you would like to meet them at some other place at some other time with your attorney. sheriff baca, could you talk about some of the initiatives in particular that you have implemented in your department to work better with the community and it is coming from this background, when we have problems, for example, when we ask people, did you do 586-g, to go after immigrants and, you know, knock on doors and look for undocumenteds or when we

have these sort of situations where law enforcement comes, in a certain way it is intimidating. it is always -- it is intimid e intimidating for me when law enforcement stops me and i have to pull over. i'm driving a car and i see the flashing lights in the back, you know, my heart starts to beat. law enforcement is like that -- even for those of us that work with you. what would -- minority communities in particular, i think, have a very big sensitivity to law enforcement. what do you think it happens? what are the initiatives you try so that in fact minority communities and immigrant communities are not afraid and actually move forward and come forward with information? don't you think when we intimidate them or point them out or profile them or have some of these comments come out like that, that it is dangerous to our ability to get communities to help us? >> the first thing i do is i train all deputies when they enter our academy and exit it to

recite the core values of the sheriff's department by heart. this is the bedrock of the american institution, the bill of rights, civil rights and human rights. that is the core values are this, as a leader of los angeles county sheriff department i commit myself to only perform my duty, with respect for the dignity of all people, the integrity to do what is right and fight what is wrong, wisdom to apply common sense and fairness in all i do and encourage to stand against racism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia, and bigotry in all its forms. when you look at the history of bias in america, the reality is that our founders created a brilliant document, the constitution, then the bill of rights, civil rights are real. but human rights are part of the element here when you have an international problem such as terrorism. so people need to clearly know from law enforcement agency where do you stand before you even talk to me? who are you and wt do you represent? no police officer, no sheriff, no anybody with law enforcement

authority will ever step outside of the american legal system in doing their job. we are the most regulated perhaps form of public service that anyone can imagine. so my first outreach to the community is to say, if you don't have an encounter with my depp sys that is within those core values, then i need to know about this. when you go a step further there is programgalore. i have advisory councils of all the faiths and this particular issues that are within faiths where people come to me because they have concerns and fears. whether it is orthodox jews or muslims or whether it is pakistanis or south asians or whether it is middle easterners, the truth is is that america is becoming a society of the world. and because of that, we have to be sensitive, we have to know how to work with the various communities. i have over 11 languages spoken in los angeles. i have puties of all these

religions and all these ethnic groups, and we travel throughout the world, quite frankly, on this counterterrorism issue, of which was quite frankly a predictable issue after the gilmore report came out of congress. and yet los angeles had a terrorism early warning group before 9/11. so when you look at this from the standpoint of why even this hearing is so vital is because americans need to wake up and start learning more about all of the issues that affect their well-being and that police alone can't solve this problem, nor can congress, nor can the administration, witht cooperation local, state wide, nationally, as well as internionally. and we have no national police in america. this is why i reach out to new york and check with them on their issues. i reach out to all the major cities as a member of the major city chiefs association.

i reach out to my own community so there is no gap regarding resources. the real truth is that the american public must step up to the plate and do more. even if it is just educating yourself. now, on the issue of mosques, for example -- >> ten seconds. >> we can go into mosques in los angeles and we do that frequently. >> okay. time of the gentle lady is expired. the gentleman from alaba, mr. rogers, is recognized for five minutes. >> before i ask my questions, i want to point out i've been a member of this committee since it was established's standing committee and even before that when it was a select committee. and at no point have i ever heard a member of this committee on either side of the sle assert that we have too many mosques, too many muslims, or anything of the kind. so i don't know where the ranking member got that school of thought, but it didn't come from this chamber. sheriff baca, thank you for being here again. good to see you. i'm here -- >> if the gentleman would yield for one minute.