of it is shipped overseas, which is with the earlier caller was saying about alaska. how is this benefiting us? third, the gas prices have jumped about $1 per gallon. that is not 2%. from $3 to $4 is 30% and that fluctuates everything out with a huge impact. before ronald reagan, we were citizens. after that we became consumers. i do not know. i have a problem with that and it marginalizes our existence in the united states. host: final thoughts from our guest this morning. guest: consumers vs. citizens is talking about gas prices and their effect on the economy. and in the economy, consumers are the driving force of the domestic product. the second thing is that in terms of who would benefit from a gas production in in the u.s., i think that we have that shipments going overseas, that would increase our net exports and that is my that we would also see at home and there would

be a benefit there as well. the final thing is that when elected the rise in gas prices, you have to look at this over what time frame are we going to be comparing this to? comparing this to 2008, we can say gas prices are lower, but the number we are looking at month-to-month is that a 2.6% rise was at gasoline stations which includes other sales as well. host: our guest has been ylan mui. thank you for calling in. we are up every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we hope you join us tomorrow when our guests include leslie sanchez, jamal simmons, a democratic strategist. the topic is how the parties are sharing in the budget and deficit debate here in washington. we will also talk to kurt

volker, a senior fellow at hopkins and we will talk about the nato alliance with libya and other middle east countries. we will also talk with dennis cauchon from "usa today" about the u.s. census and how many people are actually working in this country and the impact on the economy. that is tomorrow "washington's." journal we will see you back here tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, a house hearing on be muslim brotherhood. and a senate hearing on the safety of killing or near

capacity in the united states. now a house intelligence subcommittee hearing on the muslim brotherhood in egypt. founded in 1928, the group is the oldest and largest islamic political groups. witnesses included an egyptian born islamic scholar and all others of two books on the muslim but of it. -- and an egyptian born islamic scholar and author of two books on the muslim brotherhood. >> the first order of business is to welcome my ranking member michael thompson and members of the subcommittee and members of the full committee to join us today. mike thompson is a good friend.

we are committed to working in a bipartisan fashion on the subcommittee whenever possible. we met recently to discuss the way ahead for the subcommittee. as a result, we have a robust bipartisan plan. today we are having an open hearing on the muslim brotherhood. open hearings are rare for the house intelligence committee. we feel this important issue should be discussed with the american people. as governments are shaken in the spring, intelligence agencies are studying what kind of government should follow in a new deal political landscape across the middle east. east. central to this discussion is the muslim brotherhood. founded in egypt in 1928, the muslim brotherhood was dedicated to implementing traditional islamic sharia law in opposition

to british imperial rule. an interesting debate has arisen regarding the role of the muslim brotherhood and what they might play in future governments. some assert that the muslim brotherhood has not renounced violence as a political means and any inclusion of the brotherhood would fundamentally undermine democratic movements and governments. due to confusion about the niche are and the degree of the threat from the muslim brotherhood, this topic deserves further exploration. the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the activities of the muslim brotherhood hope in the middle east and in the united states in an effort to clarify what this group aims to do and how it or sues those aims. i seek to encourage discourse about the muslim brotherhood to help assist analysts across the world who are struggling to understand what comes next in the middle east. additionally, this hearing will address how our government is and should be dealing with the muslim brotherhood.

much of the confusion surrounding the muslim brotherhood stands from its abandonment of violence. when the group declared that it would no longer use violence to achieve its goals, many in america and throughout the world ceased to view it as a threat of any kind. the group's apparent embrace of democracy is further convince him that it is a harmless organization that shares the freedom bent freedom loving values of much of the western world. however that depth of the brotherhood's commitment to violence is unclear. it may renounce violence as a means to gain power in egypt but don't forget it is the parent organization of the palestinian hamas which pledges its commitment to violence against israel and its founding charter. in addition the muslim brotherhood's most influential theologian, use of owl kara dolly has sanctioned attacks on american forces in iraq, endorsed palestine suicide

bombings and recently proclaimed to wish to kill the jewish before he you guys. .. and on long island. we must also look at the extremist ideology they espouse and whether it leads to the radicalization and ultimately acts of terrorism.

my own view is some of the superficial. their abandonment of violence is arguably for tactical reasons and i suspect still opposed to the general pluralism and the protection of minority rights. for example, non-muslims and women are not afforded the same rights as muslim men under the way of thinking. we need to examine closely with their it is setting up a worldwide islamic regime still in place. the reported leader of the muslim brotherhood in egypt from 1996 until 2002 wrote that jihad or not always limited to the specific region of the islamic country since the muslim homeland is one and is now divided this is also a very important nature because the muslim brotherhood appears to be active in the u.s. although not in the traditional sense. there are no card bearing members of the croupier. there's no buildings on the case street that safe muslim

brotherhood and the lobby directory. instead the group spends residential to a large number of affiliated organizations throughout the country. this allows the muslim world read to muddy the waters when it comes to foreign funding and influence and hide behind groups that have plausible deniability of their involvement with when necessary. we know this because of the department of justice produced clear evidence in the 2008 holy land foundation trial. the largest ever some financial trial in american history which shows the muslim brotherhood is in america and outlined to the operates here. our witnesses today will be able to shed some light on the evidence produced in this trial and explain how the muslim brotherhood operates behind the scenes. the federal government doesn't have a comprehensive or consistent strategy for dealing with the muslim brevard and its affiliated groups in america nor does it have a strategy for dealing with the brotherhood in egypt or the greater middle

east. a lack of understanding about the group is led to a classic case of government disorientation. we heard the spectrum of the views on the approaches to the interaction with the brotherhood from various government officials. this inconsistency makes me feel like our government is playing checkers while the muslim brotherhood is playing chess. so i'd like to hear from the witnesses their views on what the government policy should be with regard to the brotherhood. we will clarify by hearing some of the preeminent expert on the group including a local muslim leader, scholar who wrote a book entitled the new muslim brotherhood in the west, two experts on the least affairs who returned from checks to egypt just days ago and i think him for being here i know that's tiring. and a professor who specializes in political science and international fares. we have a very balanced panel of witnesses sitting before ross two of whom were invited by the ranking member so that we can

have a full discussion that addresses all sides of the issue. one of the intelligence committees will ever given access to intelligence community personnel who provide us with classified information on matters of national security and as such i intend to follow on this hearing in the near future with a closed classified hearing on the muslim brotherhood to allow subcommittee members to hear from the executive branch with the government knows about this group and what it's doing to address this threat. my hope is that this hearing will provide congress with a better understanding of the muslim brotherhood sweet and ask the government officials and from questions about their policies and strategies towards muslim brotherhood and i'd like to invite my friend the ranking member to make an opening statement. senator correct we are friends and a trade relationship working

together on these issues and others and this is truly out of the ordinary to have an open hearing as the chair stated this committee and the entire time i've been on the intelligence committee this is the first subcommittee open hearing that i've participated in and i think the first one that we've had so i appreciate the chair effort to gather information and gather an understanding of some of the most for any issues we face today is a thing to for that, madam share. and welcome to all of the witnesses and thank you for taking the time to inform the subcommittee about your research and experience with a muslim brotherhood to have individuals to influence the events and countries important to the u.s. countries such as egypt. the muslim brotherhood is involved to some degree in

reshaping the egyptian government. for that reason this hearing could be productive it provides a fact based examination of the brotherhood activities objectives and potential to affect u.s. foreign will policy. however, just as important there are limits to what this hearing can or should accomplished. first and foremost, this hearing must not become a witch hunt, about the vast majority of egyptians and citizens who protested peacefully at the square. nor is this about the millions of the law abiding muslim americans who contribute to our american society. intelligence oversight has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional activities of americans who practice religion, attract others to the religion, participate in the political process or influence u.s. policy which by the way in washington

and state legislatures and in city halls across the country we call lobbying this shouldn't prove guilt by association. every organization has bad apples so we shouldn't judge an organization by only if you dismembers. my understanding is that since the muslim brotherhood has a large written record anyone can select statements to make the case for or against the organization. our experts can help us analyze the was statements and provide their assessment of the brotherhood's true intentions. third, today's hearing is not about terrorism. as a member of the intelligence committee, i certainly take very seriously our duty to protect our nation and counterterrorism. but let's be clear that the egyptian muslim brotherhood is not a state department designated for foreign terrorist organizations and according to the written testimony.

fourth this hearing is not an investigation into criminal what devotee. no one here speaks for the u.s. law enforcement or is a law enforcement officer. we may need to follow-up as the chair said with a closed hearing to find out if there are any muslim brotherhood related violations of u.s. law. today's open hearing is not that far. and finally i strongly believe that this hearing must not become yet another recruitment tool for extremists. experts in the field note that even in a free society individuals would be driven to violence if they feel victimized michael was nothing is said today that can be interpreted as targeting or victimizing anyone. i know that he also expressed the desire to have a serious discussion that doesn't offend any law-abiding citizen of our great country. i'm eager to work together to reach that goal by keeping this

session with infirm parameters connected to the intelligence oversight and again i appreciate the working relationships and your willingness to try to find out the important information that we know and i yield back. >> thank you. we will now turn to the witness' testimony. our first witness is the executive director of the washington institute for near east policy. as an expert on arab and islamic politics as well as u.s. middle east policy he's one of the foremost voice is on the mat on to the topics to the game in guest appearances on major news programs and regular contributions to major newspapers. moreover, he frequently travels to the middle east including a trip to egypt from which he returned earlier this week. thank you for being here and please, proceed with your five minute testimony. thank you madam chairman. it is a privilege to be allowed

to present testimony to this subcommittee. i have a formal presentation for the record to make some brief comments at this time. as you just know divided return from a fact-finding mission to egypt several days ago which included intensive discussions with a range of factors including members of the muslim brotherhood with your permission i will lead the discussion of muslim brotherhood inside the united states to my colleagues and focus on the situation in egypt first to procure a comment the muslim brotherhood madam chair doesn't occupy by itself the islamist space in egypt. the actual issue of islamist challenge to egyptian politics is even bigger than just the brotherhood itself. there are different movies to be a commitment from party some elements all along the spectrum in the egyptian politics today. the range on the most radical for the killers of sadat who

were released from prison in recent weeks and form their own political party. they include extremist sell fees' who never before recent events pleaded political role but are now actively engaged in politics. these are the people that have been burning the shrines and instead getting sicker and violence against the costs. as the muslim brotherhood and its own political party and there are some further liberal than the muslim brotherhood within the overall islamist free market. it's impossible at this early point to know how much these divisions matter and whether indeed the brotherhood is trying to create the appearance of political division to make themselves look more moderate and to some egyptians the depue of the brotherhood is that they are not as extreme as to say the killers of sinnott and when they would be reaping some of the - benefits of this perception when egyptian elections are held later this year.

madam chairman i believe the concern of the brotherhood potential emergence as a major player and even power broker in egypt is warranted. as i noted in a previous congressional testimony, the brotherhood is not as some people suggest it is it is not in the egyptian version of the marchant times. it isn't merely a social or humanitarian organization committed to improving the welfare of the egyptian people. it's a profound political organization that seeks to reorder egyptian and brought muslim society and a certain political direction. tactically believe the organization looks like a battle opportunities it is offered. has renounced its most ambitious goals and the violent means to achieve them in my view only as a result of the regime compulsion. not a free choice by the leaders of the organization themselves. should the brotherhood achieve political power it will almost certainly use the power to transform egypt into a very

different place. the best case he analogy would be turkey under its current leadership with a secular state gradually being islamist. a more realistic situation would seek deeper and more systematic islamist society including the potential for a frightening growth secretarianism between muslims and copps. and even deepening the enter muslim conflict between the saudis and the more peaceful brand of islam. it would be a mistake in my view for the united states to operate under the assumption that the brotherhood's the ascension to power is inevitable and such an assumption is dangerous and could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. if we look at the election results in 2005 and the recent referendum in egypt a majority of egyptian voters do not support the muslim brotherhood and there's reason to believe if given the right amount of

support, organizational backing and time, the non-islamist more liberal forces of egypt may triumph for the muslim brotherhood. still, it is important for washington to be vigilant about the brotherhood based on the words of islamist leaders and the experience of islamists in and another government and other countries and the implications of the brother of electoral success will be felt in numerous ways. from the social mores to the education policies and the regional policy would have particular impact on the peace with israel. in the recent weeks brotherhood leaders have been downplaying the previous statements calling for either abrogation of the treaty or a national referendum to determine whether egypt should continue to adhere to the treaty. now they say little more and this is an issue that the new space parliament should address. most likely that is because of

the e egyptian military position on this issue. in today's each of the this moment before the elections. however, in an islamist egypt, the future frigidity of egypt and israeli peace is likely to make the experience of the last couple of decades look positively warm and cozy this would have the practical effect of the policy towards, dhaka and egypt policing of sinai and sale of natural gas to israel, the continued operation of the qualified industrial zones between egypt and israel, and of course in all of these ways and more a more islamist egypt would have serious ramifications for a bilateral relationship. it's important for the united states to study lei balance between the one hand being alleged dangers of the brothers and its allies pose to the critical interest on the one

hand and between avoiding giving the brotherhood a political gift in the form of certain lightning rod statements or actions that could motivate voters who are otherwise opposed to the brother had message to come out and support the movement. privately we should be working with the supreme military council so that technical decisions are made and training and electoral process that doesn't inadvertently assist the brother of its political prospects. moreover, we should share with them information on the foreign funding especially the gulf funding of islamist groups, parties and movements with an audit insulating egypts space experiment from the various interests from outside parties that might be committed to a greater is solmization of egyptian society were generally i believe it is most important to be clear to the egyptians about the type of egypt with him

we can have a firm partnership. an open tolerant respectful democratic egypt, and egypt in which copps and muslims play an equal role in the shaping of the society. that's the egypt we can work within the egyptian voters should know that that is the tide of egypt that we want to be able to see at the end of their electoral process. thank you adam chair. he's an academic and security experts and currently a visiting fellow with the rand corporation who specializes in a solmization and political violence in europe and north america. he's the author of two books, the latest of which as i mentioned is called the muslim brotherhood in the west. i might also add he was supposed to be in europe today but changed his plans soon to be here and we appreciate every much. thank you for doing that and

think your testimony and please go ahead with your testimony. >> thank you. and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me today. as we serve the development of the next month in egypt i think it is important to also take a broad perspective as you mention in your opening statement and analyze the global reach of the muslim brotherhood and putting here in america i would like to advise my testimony in three parts. first, i want to examine how the brotherhood operates here in the west. second, i want to discuss the goals and third, i want to provide it was a recommendation during power. today groups in more than 80 countries place their origins to the brotherhood and the adopted the various forms and tactics according to the environment which they operate to. this includes the west were most of the groupings created in the 1960's and 70's the brotherhood activists have evolved into some of the most visible muslim organizations in europe and north america. let me be clear it's incorrect to use the term muslim

brotherhood in america if with this expression we need the organization in the united states are controlled by the brotherhood in cairo of a monolithic hierarchical entity. yet it's fair to say that in the united states and in most western countries that our organizations that also independently operated have historical financial, personal organizational and ideological ties to the muslim brotherhood. today things to the combination of ideological flexibility and unrelenting activism, large funding and the organization of competing islamist movements for their organizations have gained significant influence. even if the membership remains small they've shown an enormous ability to monopolize the discourse and its position themselves at the forefront of the competition to be the main interlocutors of the western governments and the media. to my second point the goal of the organization from the

brotherhood and the middle east also the procedure the introduction of the sure villa in the west the western brothers of deeply pragmatic, and aware of what they can and cannot do. therefore they are elsewhere. foremost among them is serving as lummis identity of the muslims. a second goal is to be designated as the representatives of the muslim community. the brothers understand the relationship of the western elites could provide them with a financial and political capital that would allow them to significantly expand their influence inside the muslim community summit and the clever political calculation, they seek to be recognized by the western elites as representatives of the muslim community. so as to eventually obtain the same recommendation within the community itself. analysts are deeply divided and there is assumed the organization. they're simply a socially conservative force that accept

democracy to cooperate with them on various issues including terrorism and radicalization. d.c. a much more sinister agenda. and they argue that in the resources of most westerners the western brothers art in modern bass worse engaged in a sort of still subversion and weakening the society from within. intelligence agencies in europe tended to share the pessimistic view within the united states has elsewhere this know, this is not within the government. this dynamic is exemplified by the fbi relationship with terror here in the united states. the most visible and controversial among the u.s. based organization that traces the origins to brotherhood. some top fbi officials have publicly stated the goal is to, quote, further the agenda for radical islamist terrorist groups by providing political support in the court. others have publicly thanked them for a, come commitment to maintaining a dialogue leading

to the frank and honest exchange of ideas and difficult. this contradiction hardly limited to the fbi is the result of the combination of factors. but it's a. there's an understanding of the fbi that will care and some of its affiliates might not be the ideal partners the peerless seeking in region of the muslim community. they are a necessary one. the relationship wouldn't be more complex. the hearings chaired by the congressman king highlighted the story of the community leader was also ostracized by care for reaching out to the fbi to stop improvement but at the same time it's operated for the fbi and some terrorism cases by northern virginia residents who travel in 2009. about health policymakers deal with western brothers many pessimists for policies that would expose the brothers from

engagement. one of this decision highlights traveling aspects of the brothers agenda but need to be addressed such a position as a realistic and counterproductive. although the representative this are overblown both organizations to represent a cross-section of the community, talking only to the muslim leaders whose position is square with the government and pretending more confrontational voices do not exist isn't a constructive policy, and the brotherhood organization act of some of the law is one they provide financial support the group designated as has happened in the past the should be prosecuted. but since most of devotees are within the law they should be engaged. equally problematic is the approach with the brothers as a reliable partner. amol evidence shows that the aim of the brothers to the respond publicly. taking official action that would unnecessarily in power a handful of appointed leaders whose aims are at best seem

naive. there is i would argue its third more nuanced way. first, government should reach out a broad range of muslim organizations because the disability shouldn't be mace become a stake in diprete second engagement needs to be made on a firm understanding of the history, modus operandi and most important games of the brothers. finally, it is paramount to understand the difference between engagement and empowerment. establishing a permanent dialogue and even occasional limited funds of partnerships with most western brotherhood organization can produce some positive outcomes particularly in the security field but interesting them with powers is a counterproductive policy. crafted a coherent policy is not easy in particular because u.s.-based pratt of the organization's have been evolving in different ways and shouldn't be seen as a monolithic organization. but not on ideological pragmatic approach is needed to confront the largely unknown and figures

extremely important reality. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. >> over next witness is dr. mann's for coming in the egyptian born islamic scholar and critic whose granted political asylum in the united states in 2002. because author 24 books and approximately 500 articles in arabic on the topics including what the sum and saudi arabia reform of the egyptian education and women's rights in the muslim world dr. mann's or is also the president of the international chronic center. fever being here to share in your point of view and i to please, proceed with your statement. let's begin. islam is a region of peace and tolerance and justice and

[inaudible] would muslims when the established the entire relate all its values and they are doing the invented social sharia contradict islam. after that, the west, mize and defeated muslims and to find a way they have to choose one of two ways. one way is to restore the past, so they want to restore the power for the set up empire, and this is what they've established

in 1745. the other choice left by egypt by the government known as mohammed fer egypt and muslims according to the western civilization, so there are two different ways modernization and it's destroyed that and 8018. the state's need egypt to survive, so the second would reestablish collapse it when the

current state established until he gets his name in 1932. it's a stubbles to egypt in three organizations to teach wahhabi is some under the name because he just hated and becomes it becomes wahhabi and [inaudible] and appointed him as the head of muslim brotherhood in 1928.

that means the organization created needs egypt to survive and this gives us -- it is the difference between muslim brothers, it is an organization that has its political agenda and they are considered a make up for the middle east and the people who concentrate about the mess and looking after to take over peacefully. ..

the muslim brother -- when bart came he posted so much and he executed us to some original piece and again we are -- when mubarak stepped down, used to

tune used for church. not that there appear becomes not opposed to themselves and filling the space that the future feature to have many meters, more than not you know,

when the egyptian majority will be a big problem. looking at what happened to sell it be will be uphill after all they have gone not only the middle east the american interest. going to america here, to know the difference between muslims. they have their own political agenda. and they will establish -- he

belonged to the series that dividing the war into two camps. he is working for the same agenda, which gallant to dividing the work into two camps. the camp of the muslim and they can't of recognition. so i am talking about their own innermost agenda. and they believe that the sino will become before it you today to see angels and they will attack the other camps so the need some people in the enemy camp to make the muslim

community here in the u.s., so they control most of the so-called schools to brainwash people, the muslim community here just like them. this is a big problem. i'm not talking about -- i have evidence now. i look at. this is the official translation made by the soldiers. official of the koran. not only in the main entrance tatian, but all of the in the foothills, 4 million copies of

this transition in the united states, i give you when something -- >> if you can make it very quick guess we have to go vote unfortunately. >> you know, as a muslim we say five prayers every day. and we have to guide us and jesus prays a christian and the rules that means anyone who believes in this translation and three times a day they are bringing brainwashed to look at

his fellow american has the enemy abroad and according to the sharia has to kill him. what about what should be done? and how do i suggest the american agent be in all of the ideas to make america and defend america to win muslim majority to defeat al qaeda. the >> for everybody to wreck together. >> thank you. >> thank you. when porsche have to go vote, so i hope you can be patient because they want to hear testimony and ask questions. we have for both come at one now which is almost over.

[inaudible conversations] >> okay, we are ready. we'll mo onto.are brown and then if you have any else, dr. trained to look to that later. i want to be sure we get everyone in because we won't have us again, but we've got enough time that we should be fine for the rest of this hearing hopefully. let's move on to dr. brown,.professional at george washington university and the author of numerous books on

your politics. he teaches courses on middle eastern politics as well as more general courses on comparison politics and international relationships. dr. brown, we appreciate your being here today. please go ahead. >> thank you very much madam chairman and members of the set many. thank you for inviting me to testify today on the muslim brotherhood. as an academic, i'm in part gratified to have the subject of my scholarly work deemed a critical national importance. i've been conducting research in the muslim brotherhood movement in various countries in the arab world for the past seven years and i'm happy to share my impressions with the committee. but if much of the night damage may go to admit it, the topic of my research is a bit less critical than meets the eye. mo brotherhood movements i think are far more political and diplomatic challenge than the security threat for the united states. more specifically, let me make three points today. first the brotherhood is not a violent oranization apples place it operates. the brotherhood is telling the

truth when it describes itself as peaceful movement. but it is truthful as well an exception in his mix at. in most countries the movement commission is very clear. a fix on the peaceful political change and rejt science as a way of securing both in the rejection of violence is not a mere adjustment but deep strategic adjustment. however, the movement also regard violence as legitimate in cases of foreign occupation and brotherhood movements have therefore verbally executed violence against american targets in iran. in the israeli case from the various brotherhood have shared in what i have to describe as the deplorable, even reprehensible failure to distinguish between military and civilian targets. ancit specifically the content of t muslim brotherhood movement on the egyptian israeli peace treaty has evolved but the brotherhood still is clearly verbally supportive of hamas. in the irq case to mothers a

strange ending the position of brotherhood movements against united dates because the iraqi political party list associated with the muslim brotherhood, iraq islamic party actually participated in sponsored efforts of reconstruction after two dozen priests of the brotherhood is certainly a monolithic organization. perhaps the best evidence of the strategic rejection of violence and domestic politics with the brotherhood's activity over the past generation in a chip. in mubarak's familyhistory pression became so intense the brotherhood began to withdraw partially from the political scene in the league in the movement in little unprepared for the revolution when it occurred at the movement never embraced violee do not leave me to my second point. we shouldn't overestimate the current brotherhood and let me let me restrict vements to egypt, which is the critical case in the 19 of the past of the various brotherhood movements. some see the brotherhood in egypt both intertionally and domestically people harbor dark suspicions. this unification movement posted the links.

taking advantage of any opportunity fortune secret alliances, tricking people missing payment to seize power and voting family begins. her reasons for concern about the brotherhood rice, but there's a reason for panic. one often hears that the brotherhood is poised to do well in electio because it is the best organized political force in the country. there is some trutho the statement, but we have to remember electionsor the brotherhood performed best, parliamentary elections in 2005 for once in which the vast majority of egyptians simply stayed home. when the brotherhood pulled out all of his supporters to vote in election where most people didn't vote, it did not even try to win the majority work at a have done so. in a mo democratic system, where people are more politically engaged, there's evy reason to brotherhood candidates to win seats, but most seasoned observers of each of considerate brother jordi unlikely, even if the movie

thought i the movements to try different ones for yesterday that they will contest about a third. the brotherhood has been challenged by the current political mosphere as much as any other political actor in the country. you have to figure when inscrutable military rulers have in mind. it has to maintain unity within its own ranks in a very new and challenging environment and has to find a short political footing that shifts daily. how should we react? icemaker point. we have no reapolicy towards the brotherhood. we wreck if only to brotherhood movement depending where they operate them with their local characteristics are. our policy toward islamist in kuwait is different from that in jordan, which is in turn different fromalestinian case. let me stick out when i seem to be in opposition here. i do not think we need a poly towards the brotherhood. the u.s. does need a policy towards where the brotherhood operates but we do not need a policy towards december 3rd any more thanowards green

parties, feminist movements. our differences with the brotherhood are often a product of different his own perceptions, prevent some priorities and they are bst treated the level of relations between states and societies, not at the level of picking winners and losers in other countries domestic political scene. the policy question that's often post in washingt in this regard is whether the u.s. should engage the muslim brotherhood. i've always been puzzled by formulating a question that way. discussions between diplomats on the one hand and leaders of various organizations on the other by means of gathering information enemies of the period the policy question is therefore not whether or not engage the brotherhood. of course our diplomats to develop informative contacts with all political actors but that their job. such contacts are made to make sure the policy is better

informed. in egypt and in several other states including jordan and morocco at an plea is not to the united states to decide who is included or excluded in which democratic structures might emerge. elections in the countries arranged in accordance with the law in place in the united states is unable to determine rules of entering into electoral politics. no political in the country pricing for disqualification of brotherhood is the political actor. the real impeachment question is whether various domestic local forces can teach each other in a peaceful and stable way that makes these countries reliable partners of the foren security affairs. the best they could contribute to investigation has been making clear we are going to work with any legitimate leadership as we expect other countries to work with our leaders and the policies emerged from her in the constitutional process he and institutions. have often been asked in several different arab countries, what is the american position on the brotherhood cleric cyrus had trouble answering the question

because i'm not authorized to speak for the u.s. of america and i'm not sure i could even if i were authorized because the u.s. is a fairly diverse place. the answer is personal, not on behalf of my country, but in many ways with the american policy challenges, rest of the brotherhood will represent a headache for us. it does not represent cancer. we can live with that. thank you. >> thank you. by next week is just the assistant professor of public policy at harvard university, a political scientist and middle east specialist. as the church focuses on develop and in countries that aren't free. he made the trip from boston to be here fowhich we are grateful. thank you very much and please go ahead. >> thank you very much, chairman myrick, ranking member thompson come and establishment of the

committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today. as the chairman mention i'm public professor at harvard and have been studying the brotherhood for several years. ever my doctoral dissertation about the movement and consulted on the topic and currently finishing a book about the subject. i've interviewed many muslim brotherhood leaders and members in the middle east and outside the middle east and said the movements history and read widely in writing davis keith entries and ideologues. i want to use my five minutes to speak about the muslim brotherhood and post ibaraki chip. but before beginning, i do want to say chairman myrick i've watched two of your videos on the moose on brotherhood and i have two reactions to that. the first is i think you are concerned with the muslim brotherhood will implement sharia law or further the cause here in the united states gives far too much credit to the brotherhood and not enough to our american culture and institutions, which i think is prudent durability in the face of all kinds of great challenges

if communism was backed by a world superpower could make no de in ur armor, i hardly think the muslim brotherhood, which is an organization of popularity in the muslim world which is no great power behind it can. as a scholar, but also somebody who's lived in the middle east and the west, i know well what the islamists and what they have to offer and i think i can play it nothing on us. most muslim americans know this, too. that's why they voted with their feet and came here. i must tell you, chairman myrick am extremely gratified by the distinction you make in your videos between the muslim brotherhood, which is a political movement and muslims who are followers of the world's second-largest anchor hammoc faith. i'm thinking of the narrator in your video to distinguish between islamism, political ideology and the religion of which i am an imperfect but sincere follower.

this is extremely welcomto me and many of my fellow american muslims who worry about being tired as columns in this country. this is important because there are people who want you to believe there is no distinction between islamism and islam. they are called islamists. i am very grateful to you for not doing their work for them and they only encourage you to continue making distinctions as loudly as possible to those who might wish to paint all american muslims have secret islamists will know they have no support on the chairman of the subcommittee of the house unintelligence. i am happy to talk about any points in response to questions, but for the remainder of the time you want to focus on the brothers in egypt and the role in the coming period. silicone is scholarly research to answer five brief questions to you in my fellow americans may have about this movement. what the muslim brothers?

what do they want? by the violence, committed to the nsa about to egypt? i may summarize this in the interest of time. what the muslim brothers? the religious and political movement that operates on a poor independent country. others have mentioned their history and the chairman interstate into that as well. and i'll skip the early history history and just tell you that in the current. for the last basically 35 years, with it the nod to participate in the egyptian political life is basically a cross between a religious fraternity and political party. the few candidates in every parliamentary election since 1984 except one in 2005 they want 20% if the legislature. they're probably going to be illegal as soon. been outlawed in 1954 and in addition to running the elections they provide social services the extent to which the phenomenon exaggerated. what do they want quiet for

another they want a more virtuous society and the legislation to make it happen. they believe government's role is to uphold the state and combat knives. so they got in the parliament, lift a ban and they've tried to in the past to be in novels and provocative programs but they don't restrict themselves to the moral thumb like most egyptins they want economic development or infrastructure but they believe the way to get these things is through implementation of the teachings of islam. this is why their slogan is islam islam is the solution. whatever the problem i come islam is the solution. they been criticized by egyptians for not articulating how islam can offer solutions to such problems as illiterate he come into brutality or water scarce be. internationally it is important to note one of the movement goals is achieving this community. this is something they paid a lot of lip service to. if you talk to some, they may

tell you they would love to reestablish, but if you rea what they read about the caliphate, they have in mind a kind of european union style federation tt muslim states who joined voluntarily. it's not a kind of grand conquests enterpre. their critics of the west generally an united states in particular, both for our hegemony in the world, but also for our cultural values, which i think they find it odd as traditional ones. the muslim brothers are as kely to criticize america for things like our acceptance of homosexuality or sex outside of marriage for invasion into iraq and israel. are they a violent and committed to democracy? you've mentioned this before. it is to muslim brotherhood to send a violent history in the 1940s. they had a secret apparatus that in 1948 assassinated egyptian prime minister but today's news and brothers will play the violence is in their path and they are committed today in the

words of actually their former leader to seeking a peaceful alternation of power through the ballot box andramework of a constitutional parliamentary republic. others will come back and tell you all squashy's number two man was once a member of the muslim brotherhood. there's clearly a materially fair. it's important to note that zawahiri is viewed as having sold out in the brothers for their part to distinguish themselves from al qaeda whom they view as to start it nihilists. if you look at the muslim brotherhood's english-language website, vivisection called muslim brotherhood versus al qaeda which has articles about distinction between these groups and criticism of planetary so. i would point you brought up stuff on the general brotherhood in early 2001 september 14, 2001, he signed in arabic

statement condemning the attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon. father so some are on land because the statement is the founder of hamas. they've come through in record as being opposed to the great crime against our country. i will echo what professor brown says that because they do not share what terrorism is bigger likely to view hamas and hezbollah as acts of violence or legitimate to ask those resistance. i would only say your fit their view is acally not a fringe view in egyptian or arab society. it's not eveheld solely by islamists and this is something we'll have to deal with in the middle east but i don't think it will prevents from defending our friends are entries. i've written a whole book about muslim brotherhood and a only echo what my colleague said,

which is if we look at their performance in 2005, they capture 20%, but the only god between 2.5 and 3 million egyptianto go and vote for them. out of 32 million eligible egyptian voters in upcoming parliamentary elections in september we expect much higher turnout than we have no way of knowing if these peoplhad previously stay home would vote for islamists are not. so what if any of this leave us? i think it leaves us where we began. the hearing as a religious group and political party in a poor country. it is a particularly friendly to american power or culture or come but neither is in a position to threat neither of those things. it has a vision for each of whom i consider retrograde, but claims to achieve the patient through the electoral process in so far behavior is earnest out. they've lost a lot of elections. whether the egyptian people will

be reset to to the president's agenda is an open question, but with a lot of evidence egyptians have a wide range of political preference in affiliations and muslim brothers cannot claim to represent immaturity. we should be concerned with teaching the strength or threats of us in brotherhood and would help to ensure that each of sledging democratic institutions are healthy, durable and in front of her to any group that uld subvert them. thank you very much. >> thank you, dr. masoud. i've always been very clear in making that distinction when i talk about that. i spent a lot of my time working with under husbands who try to do the same thing in so i appreciate you mentioning that. i wanted t recognize the ranking member of the ll committee, mr. roethlisberger for joining us. thank you. which like to say anything?

[inaudible] >> well, we'll go to questions and i'll start bad game th has been discussed throughout the testimony. over the past several months, we've en mixed messages from the brotherhood and at one point they said they wand to scrap the egypt and israel peace treaty when they earned major global headlines, they said they uld oppose the treaty and they also say they publicly support hamas. they said they want democracy and rights yet a recent associated press article dated the solve is the muslim brotherhood were discussing the possibility of coordination in the upcoming elections. these are the same fallacies they rejected queries for women and minorities. in fact the same article says the fallacies in the chapter attacking christian and liquor stores, trying to impose their version of islamic law in

provincial towns and a quote that. further, the brotherhood recely removed laws from the english-language website where it had explicitly stated it mission of establishing the islamic fatality. at same time, there goes establishing under islamic law permits posted on the arabic website. are we seeing the brotherhood of the west what they want to hear what reached another message to the people in egyptian history. do you think our government is taking it forward rather than looking at actions? how does this impact or intelligence analysis? her committee needs to know that. >> thank you, madam chairman. as is one of most important questions about the muslim brotherhood. the brotherhood absolutely tries to be opportunistic and offer a different face to a different

audiences. their sample evidence he needs identified a number of examples of this year the brotherhood has had his approach to politics for quite some time. when working with the mubarak regime was in its interest in the regime is your moment reached understandings that the brotrhood to operate social welfare organizations and places the government could not close reach. the brotherhood took advantage of the opportunity to extend political reach into those areas. what was clear after the tahrir square protests began, these are the pro-settler youth who triggered it and put his finger to the wind and recognize this was an opportunity and it jumped right in and was an important player in bringing the protest to actual success. the brotherhood is extremely

opportunistic, quite willing to engage in partnerships whether we fallaci fallacies or others to advance his political and social agendas. i thk your point about the brotherhood's views on the peace treaty with israel is that they said in the testimony and absolute case in point. the brotherhood has lowered the level of tension on this issue because knows that the military has been quite clear in setting acceptable yardsticks for deception indeed, becuse it esn't want to trigger alarm bells in places like washington. my own experience over time this i believe that certain parts of our intelligence community have had a fascination with the moves in brotherhood and lke-minded groups, believing they represent quote authentic muslim political organizations in their countes and that non-islamist political

movement be they liberal or leftist or otherwise are not authentic, that they are somehow overly western in orientation and don'trepresent real arabs, muslims and the egyptians at the case may be. .. this design year to find real

arabs ad muslims and to engage with. i think we should recognize what the political >> we cannot have a policy that says we will have an egypt without the muslim brotherhoodl. this is a mistake. we have to be clear about what -- >> doctor i wanted to ask you about all holy land foundation trial. in that trial the federal prosecutors introduced hard evidence that the head organized presence in america a plan and structure to accomplish their goals. it is spelled out in the 1991 document called the explanatory memorandum which was introduced which stated that the brotherhood a goal was, and i quote, a kind of grand jihadists and eliminating and destroying western civilization from within and sabotaging the hands of the

the leaders so that it's eliminated and got a's religion is made victorious over all other religions, and of quote. the memo also listed 29 organizations working in the united states in the broader goals. several of the organizations are still in existence today. why should e have any expectation that this all came to an end when many of the same players are still active politically. if logic dictates the brotherhood goals and plans in america wouldn't have just disappeared so what is the nature of the muslim brotherhood in america today? does our government fully understand who these people and groups are and based on this document which states they want to eliminate and destroy from within, hat are some legitimate concerns we should have a presence and a plan in america? >> yeah, the document to mention doherty absolutely shocking and i think the memoranda that he mentioned, more some of the

wiretaps ofthe fbi and evidence and the philadelphia meetings really show some dark features of the brotherhood in the u.s. and me of the groups that come from the sort of middle. one that you received the group's operating still today, some of them as you said mentioned in that memordum have just gotten better and presenting a more moderate facade to the government in general. the realities still for the same ideology but just getting better not talking a good game. the counter argument to that is the organizations to change. people change perspectives, the demographic change in some degree in the organizations meaning that a new generation of american foreign leaders ave slowly taken the helm of this organization and there might be some change. we don't really know the answer

to that. i think you might have different answers for different organizations. as i said in my testimony we shouldn't see this brother had u.s. monolithic. it makes sense to see some of the organizations mentioned as that line of thinking mentioned in a memorandum. some mothers have evolved the understanding of talking about a civilization of chehab or acted upon the civilization doesn't make a lot of sense. it doesn't make them necessarily what we would consider we talk about moderate muslims as much as the term is not liked by most people in the muslim community. we might not consider themas such. they changed their views and their ways. how much does the government know, going to the second question about this development. as an outsider, an academic, i cannot claim to have full knowledge of what the u.s.

government thinks and how they assess and engage in the organizations. my soce educate guess having talked with a lot of people within the u.s. government is that no unified assessment, there is no unified engagement policy. it's very much to the change region the vegetables inthe same agency you have amazing cases of controversy within same offices of semen departments, so the nature of each organization are not to engage. so it is quite problematic. i think to some degree that has to do with the nature of the organization that being mostly politicabut opating under the veneer of the religious organizations an understandable reluctance of the u.. government to investigate them or to look inside them because the separation of churcand state is inappropriate for the agents of the government to look into the organizations unless

they have hard evidence and legal one activities are taking place inside them. that creates a situation where i'm not sure that there is a widespread knowledge within the u.s. government about the nature of the organization and consequently how to do with it, how to engage them. it seems to be sort of oversimplified and the kind of black and white assessment. they are committing a crime like they are funding hamas than we investigated them. if they are not committing a crime, they are good and we should engage with them. there's probably some gray area, something in between which we might not be carrying out the activities, nevertheless there might not be the partnrs the government is looking for, but with the exception, a lot of exceptions i think is lost in some quarters of the u.s. government. for the most part they have to

stay out of a lot of the dynami that it did with the muslim community and is not the u.s. government ought to get into this dynamic and between the brotherhood of the malaysian and other muslim organizations in the u.s.. i think what the u.s. government can do is avoid coming and we g back to my point, engage the power giving legitimacy to these organizations, treating them as the representative of the muslim community when they are not -- by doing that he can if given the incentive to the organization's with other organizations. 64. i have another question that i will go to mr. thompson. >> thank you, madame chair. i'd like to begin with professor brown. professor, in your written testimony you state that there is a precious little evidence that the international organization of the muslim brotherhood seeks to establish a

global islamic caliphate. you also state that suspions of brotherhood movement statementsre based on a poor understanding of how rall and ideological movements operate. could youtell us briefly, elaborate on those points but also tell us the resources and the sources that you used to reach those conclusions and then specifically why do you believe the brotherhood means what it says? >> certainly i will address both of those questions. i do research on the brotherhood by meeting -- reading the documents and websites and reading their platforms and looking at the stements and then interviewing their leaders, interviewing some of the foot soldiers and interviewing people who left the organization sometimes split with the

organization interviewing critics of the organization and interviewing scholars in the various countries that follow the organization. in terms of the caliphate there certainly are some foundational documents and texts for the brotherhood which to stress and a lot of this has to do with the brotherhood founded in the late 1920's. was right after the collapse of the ottoman empire and the end of the caliphate. that wasn't necessarily universally recognized but the last possible clement, so there was an issue then about muslim unity how can this possibly publicly expressed and the were all kind of ideas for coming forward. the broader goal was a matter that will spell out, and when you look at the brotherhood tautological writing now the issue issimply reseeded in great importance. they never repudiated as far as i know. most ideological movements rarely say we used to be these ex but now we think that's wrong

to just stop talking about something so that is something about how the tautological movements evil, but it is simply becoming something that is of secondary importance. >> the second statement to us about how was it that we know what we know about the brotherhood i think we can take their statements n one sense that we have to read them extremely carefully. let me explain what i mean. first in the first place the alternative is sometimes to say okay when e brotherhood says something we don't like that serious and that doesn't mean they are lobbying. that isn't a very good or scholarly methodology. another is to say i know what they really think and if they say something contrary to that that only proves how devious they are. what i we have to realize about these movements is they are broad and they have all kinds of

ideological tendencies within them and the way that they organize themselves to keep on the same page and the way that they talto each other is often platform statements of right. what i look for when i'm reading the brotherhood of a lot of statements are two things. number one, is this an authoritative position of the movement, bause people in the movement or to have their positions and they will tell you this is my personal position. so, i looked to see is this coming from somebody in an authoritative position, or they presenting it as a personal opinion or of the movement so that you have to look at that? the second thing is how specific is it? and that is where you really get into the issue. sometimes it will be fairly vague and they are vag for all kind of reasons. sometimes they might be trying to please an interlocutor although i've met plenty of people in the muslim brotherhood who don't mind defending me and seemed to go out of their we doing so. so i'm not sure that is all

that's going on there. often it's because the movement itself doesn't know and they get. tendencies in the movement itself city treat indigent and of the tape or of the differences with the general statements. i will give you just one very quick example on implementation of sure weet in egypt if you ask doherty for the application of sharia law there's no way they can remain a member of the brotherhood and say no. that is a useful question and answers a wide was a follow-up with the question and it tends to get very specific. which institutions we think egypt are authorized to speak in the name of the sharia. what do you think of, what is the brotherhood position on the jurors' rooms of the constitutional court on the constitution we have to press them on the details and then ou get much more revealing answers but when we see something authoritatively with some detail i think as they say that is a movement in the sense talking to itself and make up its own mind

speaking authoritatively. >> professor mansour if the leadership provides a stronger force in egyptian policy-making what aspect is the greatest threat to the current u.s. foreign policy and how worried should the u.s. be? >> i think what i've been trying to say all along is that the brotherhood is n really in a position to was a slip to threaten american interests because after all it is a political party and a country that is very poor and in depending on the united states. of course the issue we would be the most concerned about is the issue of the peace between egypt and israel and it's true the muslim brotherhood politicians have come out and made noises about wanting to resize the peace treaty as the chairman mentioned in her opening remarks. the thing the chairman did not mention however is that lots of

other prominent egyptian politicians are saying very similar things. so this is not really an islamist position. he's well known to people fall in the egyptian seen and as a liberal egyptian who ran against mubarak in 2005 and was jailed by that regime the question last month actually came out and said that he would like to subject camp david to the popular referendum so there is the broad swath of the egyptian socty to require the organization and i don't think that they would go for the lotte and what is also forces us to keep in mind is that regardless of what the muslim brotherhood says or what he says ortiz of the people that get elected, their ability to actually make chae on this particular issue, the issue of the piece of israel is limited because i think one of our

colleagues mentioned early on, and i agree wholeheartedly the egyptian military will keep this as a very strong red line. there is no way that they would count in the democratically elected leaders coming near the piece of israel or threatening that in any way. so i really do not believe that the downside of muslim brotherhood and sentenced for the electoral process have anything to do with america's core national interest. they have much more to do with what egypt will look like and how egypt will be run and that is another set of qestions. >> one final question. mr. satloff, dr. satloff, you mentioned in your testimony that you recently visited egypt and that you said specifically you had an opportunity to eak to members of the cahal muslim brotherhood, and i'm interested to know how frequently were in contact with brotherhood members and how your most recent trip to the one you spoke about in your

testimony, how your contact with brotherhood members this trip compares to the past coext say five or ten years ago and do you see any change on the evolution? >> thank you, congressman. rst, a brief comment. i do company with dr. masoud on the last question. >> i want to focus on his question. i appreciate that the we are limited to the amount of time we have. >> i've been following the brotherhood the last 30 years wrote a doctoral dissertation on litics and jordan dealing with muslim brotherhood on hamas 1988 and fall when egypt for 23 years i see the muslim brotherhood in egypt is doing that muslim parties do when they are poised to assert themselves which is that before elections they are moderating the words and after

an election they often make terrible mistakes and he because they're so committed to their ideologies. when the muslim brotherhood party of jordan first achieved some political power and named ministers of education and other higher polical office is come ideologies trump to everythng else. in the countries that have huge of the pervvijze problems computer educational problems, the muslim brotherhood of jordan was to ban falters from attending the girls sporting events. the was the most important issue on the agenda for the minister of education. and in egypt, we can hear now very intelligent -- >> can you tell me how your contacts with brotherod members egypt various today? th fifer ten years ago when you had contact. >> the point is today as they are placed for political gain, the most recent conversations

all sound much more cony event blight dinham conversations five for ten years ago and the experience and similar countries in the same similar moments in countries around the middle east is this is the moment when brotherhood petitions found the nicest the sweetest the latest because they are poised for political gain trying to reach the broadest political sport and the experience from other countries is that if indeed they achieve political game, and ideology does begin to trump acticality, the pragmatism of appealing the voting public. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i applaud and thank the chairwoman for the statement

it's important but today we are holding important to the to a hearing about a topic in a public forum of the chance of learning things enlightened about real threats is may be nonexistent because we will be talking about the effects today i would imagine life year we would do little to add our voices to the aeady buzzing chatter of the public opinio. when we decide to target the scrutiny by the committee and do it in a public forum in which little can be done about the exaggerated threats i believe the risk is becoming a little more than talking heads and to entertain and inform more than to enlighten. the form where the facts are limited we risk anyone who practices that. and intolerance can thrive.

we create cable channels that might incite rather than understand. i believe it can be dangerous. we know that at self and a warrant or perceive intorance, bigotry and prejudice against muslims in america are used as a recruiting tool by those who truly want to harm american. we know that our enemies at home any suggested by this of muslims is an opportunity to set the wheels in motion to the nation's and the people harm. i think that it is a practical reason for us to tread carefully when we study and analyze religion. like every member of the committee, like every america i want everyone to to with absolute hundred% attention and dedication. that is the root of all the committee and we cannot compromise it. but an essential part of keeping american speeches using common sense and fairness when we examine information. we are not protecting america. we do not guard against the idea

any active for faithful muslim who priorizes the faith in their life is somehow a danger to arica. i hope we will keep this in mind and understand who american muslims truly are. the ceo of the emergent solutions to mckeithen allen and syria may be some of our homes are muslim. the car that turns out to be the times square on and over to the authors of the threat is muslim. many of our seicemen and women are muslim including who receive a purple heart and was killed i iraq in 2007. he joined the armed forces after september 1h. the majority of them are freedom loving american citizens just like the people in this room. they are american muslims and we should be proud of them. the devotion to the state, muslim, christian, jewish, any faith should be respected and

indeed at mitered in america. i hope we keep this fact and for most of ourind every day and specifically. i would like to thank the panelists who believe because we received -- have any of you received in classified secrets, intelligence information from the cia, fbi or intelligence gathering organizations of the united states of america in preparation for the testimony today? >> that should be important how we get through the intelligence and i believe we had one of the broadest intelligence gathering services in the worl. do any of the panelists today believethat our intelligence services, any one of them has

been so how could wind tore to old or duped by the -- the groups in egypt or here and specifically the muslim brotherhood? >> anyone, like the cia, the fbi? >> i wouldn't know if we had becae i'm not privy to the reports. i've had conversations regularly with people in the community and i naturally usually pressed by the statistically control of the questions they ask their very intelligence interlocutors. >> i just want to make sure that i -- while people have taken 12 and 11 and ten minutes i'm going to take a lot less. >> i don't think i would use the

word duped but as i should in my testimony and my written statement i think that there has been an inconsistency to say the least within each agency i would argue of the jacinta questions community, and that is part of -- >> an inconsistency shouldn't be fearful at this point about the intelligence gathering apparatus of the uned states being somehow put winked were duped or fooled by the muslim brotherhood in egypt orthe united stat. >> to that extent, first let me start by saying i do not see whether the u.s. intelligence knows exactly -- >> this is the intelligence committee and while we are going to try to help them that is kind of our job is to then call them and say we have heard this at

the hearing and you might want to correct these things shown to us in terms of -- >> so, i can't speak to this question of whether our intelligence agencies have been hoodwinked or not but since you are going to go back and speak to the people who do collect our intelligence, you could actually raise a question that i've had and this is because i lack intelligence both in the sense of intelligence gathering and iq. so chairman, you mentioned this 1991 explanatory memorandum and lorenzo mentioned it as well a document written by this muslim brotherhood by which is a document that i read and i got it and read it and it seemed to be a document where this member of the muslim brotherhood in the united states is writing to his people back homend trying to encourage them to make the united states a kind of priority for the proposition political activism all kind of things. and the page in the document

that caused the most controversy is the page that lists all of these organizations that lorenzo would call muslim brotherhood front organizations. and i guess the question -- and it's really just a question, it comes from me being a kind of nit picking academic. if you look at the title of the page it says these are the organizations of us and our friends in america. the second line says in brackets imagine if they all marched together. i thought to myself what an odd thing for a kind of organization like the muslim brotherhood to be singing these are the arms of the muslim brotherhood octopus why would they need to be thinking whimsically and out e match at all these organizations could work together and this is important because it seems to me that list is a kind of desperation. at the end would movements or groups to emerge from the provider. i'm not making a factual statement i am just saying i

interpret documents for a living and on that document i was sort of surprised we jump to say this is a list of malveaux tecum muslim brotherhood organizations because it seemed to the list of muslim organization the brotherhood would like to kind of organizing and coordinate swipe at to find out if there is other information folks like me don't have. >> i have the list hee said they are all working with each other and if indeed there is this power to do that. look, i think one of the people testified that the brotherhood says things to different people and as opportunistic and will say things to one group and then do something differentlyn another day. i've been in congress 19 years. a lot of people get elected and do just that. i assure you. after climbing it happens every year. what would be msnbc if they

didn't catch us in the contraction of what we say and opportunism. we try to of course to a higher measure. and i would simply suggest that back in chicago i'm going to tell you anyone that says to their dad or promotes if i were to go back and say i think it's a great idea that not attend their daughter's soccer game i don't know how long they're going to last in politics. i just want to say if that's what they are presenting, they don't have a chance. >> it didn't work for them in jordan, either. >> and you know, in america there are a lot of religious perspectives put into our political system. as a matter of fact we almost closed on the government over abortion just last week, a strong political point of view and religious a point of view many americans hold and in which their government can do.

so what i just want to make sure we are doing this in the right frame work and that we don't cause america to heighten the tension or there in society but that we do get the correct intelligence of that. thank you for being here. >> with a hearing is not for asking them classified information mr. gutierez commodores this to get their opinion of what is going on in these countries that they know about because they are academics. we are goi to have a closed hearing to talk with the people on the classified information side. >> professor brown and i guess professor satloff, outside a lot of the muslim brotherhood has been focused but of sight of egypt which is the most active for influential chapter of the muslim brotherhood, for it simple, what role does the jordanian brotherhood play in that country and is there an

international muslim brotherhood? out of the arab will just don't know anything about them. in terms of the active political role probably the most prominent is obviously hamas, a offshoot muslim brotherhood that really identifies witit and they are covering half, governing hadaah. second would be in kuwait where they said ministers to the governmt. th are a major political force in jordan with your very much in opposition force. in terms of the international organization, there is some sort of a formal international organization. when i go to countries and look for signs of this activity i don't really see any. it seems to be sort of coordinating and swapping experiences in a region minated organization effectively, the international so that people in other countries kind of will sometimes

look and say it's dominated by the egyptians we don't have any ownership of it on paper and the informal ties among muslim brotherhood movement in various countries can sometimes be fairly strong and they often know each other and aware of each other's actions and doing some writing. but it's very, very loose organization. >> congressman, i would just add to my colague and say the most important innovation is how technology has enabled the internationalization of the brotherhood and it's true that there is no common term of the muslim brotherhood, no secret little room people are pulling things behind windows but if you get to give for example who sits in qatar that can broadcast through a plethora of the networks throughout the arab and muslim societies and spread a certain a theological view that

touches life from larocco to jordan to the gulf to the east asia and into europe doesn't ve a difference of political network being created you do have a very imptant transnational aspect and in jordan and the thick of subterranean syria and at one point the most powerful. >> [inaudible]

-- there it is. okay, got it. is it dr. vidino? okay. you refer in what i tried to describe the western brotherhood. - we really need to be precise in describing organizations in america. so what criteria did you use to develop western brotherhood? i'm trying to develop where in the muslim brotherhood is internationally as it relates to the united states, but when we have titles of what to make sure we fact that up. can you explain how you came to that phrase and what it means to you and why -- how it relates to the united states? >> it's kind of a loose term of course. what i refer to is organizations that topped off as the student organizations created by a handful of activists that came to study mostly american universities in the 50's, 60's and 70's who haexperience in the brotherhood in their own

countries and created these organizations. many of them left and went back to the middle east to their countries. some stayed here and these organizations proved and became some of the most vsible of the american bar from european muslim organizations. with time they have the fault of course credit for some of them is fair to say that the brotherhood origen was significant. for others i think that is not the case. if we talk and i agree with my other colleagues we're talking about an international global muslim brotherhood movement is an organization that is hardly functioning as a commn term, very loose network and it's even looser when it comes to the offshoots here in the west. there are personal ties of course internet and other counication that helps the tiewith their very much independent, so there's kind of

a heritage in the brotherhood thinking but for some of the of moved partially away. the dewey team and again, we are talking about a certain number of organizations, so the -- this doesn't apply to them in the same way. the do retain some and the methodology, the lotus a operandi of the brotherhood but they're very flexible so they understand that what was prescribed eight years ago in egypt and apply ebit for chicago in 2011 doesn't make a lot of sense. so they changed their tactics and their priorititits anein their goals. so it is a very formal network to describas a sort of western brotherhood. if the egyptian brotherhood becomes effective in shaping the foreign policies what issues would be most at odds with the current u.s. policy other countries as israel woud be the

concerns about that policy if they we brought in the foreign policy? >> sinnott about how the western border doherty nations would be involved but just the egyptian? >> yes. >> i think it would unquestionably be the top one d we have seen as the other panelists have said some inconsistencies in the statement coming from the top brotherhood people which might indicate a certain level of being deceitful or on the other hand some people make them out to be so different voices within but arguably we would be the first when it comes to foreign policy. intelligence sharing with be the second issue that comes to mind. therelationship between the egyptian and american

intellence i suspect wouldn't be as it was in the pastunder the brotherhood influence government. that is the second that comes to mind. >> if i could just add some specificity we tend to view the question of egypt as a black-and-white they keep the peace or don't but it's actually far more detailed. yes they will probably keep the peace but the security on the gaza border would be changed, the policy about counterterrorism in the peninsula would be changed. it was on the operation qualifying industrial would be changed, the policy of the sale of natural gas of israel will almost certainly be changed. the policy on the operation of the embassies in the two countries would be changed. l that could be changed while still keeping the peace. then there's other items. we saw just last month for the simple the egyptians permit it to an iranian naval ships that pass through the canal the first

time in 30 years and this is not necessarily directed to the muslim brotherhood preference but the idea that egypt would shift its foreign poly orientation to the more islamist orientation from one that is closer to the united states and its allies and it's definitely welcome to the muslim brotherhood world view the would be promoted in the public like public discourse and i think we would be will to see that in terms ofu.s. egyptian military cooperation and other corporation egypt would have with western nations. >> [inaudible] >> i would like to pick up on what dr. sloff said. the muslim brotherhood would probably want to revise things like the qualified industrial zone or the natural gas to israel etc but it's important to

know if we are going to make policy towards egypt is the focus of the forefront of calling for change on these ings were not the mlim brotherhood. i mean, the fact is these are very unpopular policies there. they would be extremely secular if you go and ask about natural gas to israel it will probably tell you know or the price would be higher. is the point is it's just we need to be very careful. we need to understand that democracy may lead to some divergence to how they perceive their interest and how we proceed our interest but if we label that a function of islam that we don't know what's going on and we will do damage to our own credibility trying to deal with that region. very important. >> thank you. dr. mansour i wanted to give you a chance, we cut you off when we were talking about ideology but i wanted to give you a chance to

finish your statement. >> thank you. first of ll, talking about muslims here, the majority of them are the best muslims [inaudible] in doing the american values. american values are the theme justice and freedom so they are supposed to have a big role in forming the federal muslims in the middle east and other muslim countries. but what happened is some leaders established that influence and becomes a problem. second is talking about muslim

brothers, we have to keywords. the first is [inaudible] data pulled and each tradition and we have another discourse for other discourse so in the field of politics religionists become dangerous because i want to talk with people about islam as peace but the same time jihadis have to do something and so secretly another key word

that is infiltration, as we are talking about this, first of all not muslim as individuals. again, as the muslim score so this infiltrated people through the mosques and education

to look at the world is facing this from within islam by share muslims and a very peaceful and

discuss all of this for the reform and he's promoting islam and also to stop the dangers of fishies -- of sharia. and the only way we have is to a rastus and we have four ways of arrest in egypt, and now it is occupyg n egypt, not only ypt but american interest in the middle east and because all this who are advocating there are maybe individuals but it is why we should be [inaudible]

>> thank you very much. there we go. thank you all for being with us today. we appreciate your time in coming and this is ending the >> on "newsmakers," the chairman of the house armed services committee discusses programs like the joint strike fighter the national security team. "newsmakers," on c-span. >> you are training the people you cannot live without to live without you. >> college rankings, diet books, -- guide books.

>> nothing was happening to me when i was thinking about going to college in the 1970's. it is a much different process from what it was. >> sunday night on c-span's "q & a." it is available it is c- span.org. >> on wednesday, john mccain reiterated his position that the u.s. should be doing more to help the rebels stopped muammar gaddafi. his remarks came before the world forum in washington, d.c. also, a former libyan ambassador to the u.s. who resigned in opposition to the gaddafi government. the event is hosted by the --

>> please welcome margaret warner and our distinguished panel. [applause] >> good evening to all of you. we added this panel to talk about the issue that is on everyone's mind. we have not had a dedicated panel this session. it is libya, of course. i do not need a drum roll about this issue and why it is important. air strikes are continuing in libya. in doha, there are libyan

rattles -- libyan rebels and they met. at the meeting, they said gaddafi must go. it was the first language than they used two weeks ago. there was a discussion about army and the rebels. the prince of qatar suggested they do that. there is a fund that will channel money to the national council so they can pay salaries. that is the news of the day. we are going to jump right into it. we are going to go to 7:00 p.m. i will save time for questions. of course, you know our

distinguished panelists, senator mccain, republican of arizona, arizonaaujali -- ambassador aujali and martin indyk. senator mccann, how is it going? >> not too well. it is clear that if we had declared a no-fly zone when the rebels had momentum on their side, most likely be conflict would have been over. but that is history. i think it is important to recognize that we appreciate the contributions of all our allies, especially the british and the french and the efforts they are making. it reality is, the united states

is nato. when you say we are handing it over to nato, you are handing it over to people in countries with limited capabilities and limited access. we appreciate what the british and the french are doing, but when you withdraw the most capable assets from the battlefield, you lose a significant capability. are the gun ships that go all the way to the vietnam war. our allies do not have that. i will not extend my answer much longer. but i do believe we can still succeed in defeating gaddafi on the battlefield if we recognize

the provisional government, if we help them with intelligence, if we jam his communications, if we provide or arrange for the provision of weapons to them. in the afghan conflict, we were able to get weapons to the bikers -- the fighters there. we can still achieve success. the worst outcome would be a stalemate. >> you think the united states should get more engaged militarily? >> we have capabilities of our allies do not have. i appreciate the comments of the french foreign minister. i appreciate the effort they are making. they do not have the sustainability. when you look at how much they had invested in weapons systems

and capabilities, it is just a reality. it is too bad. i would love to see our assets back in the fight. by understanding of the resolution was that we would take all means necessary for humanitarian purposes. that did not just say benghazi. as we are speaking, there is no electricity, no water, and there are people dying under the assault of gaddafi's forces. >> let me go to martin indyk. you supported the no-fly zone. do you think u.s. should get more engaged in the protection of civilians? >> first of all, let me say that i am a huge admirer of senator mccain and grateful to him for joining us today on short notice.

i do not think there is anybody who can match what senator mccain has given to our country. [applause] >> it is not comfortable for me to be in a situation disagreeing with him. i usually disagree with everything he says, even though i am a democrat and he is a republican. i have a different point of departure, which is that the united states does have a humanitarian interest in preventing gaddafi from killing his people. that is why i supported this. but in my view, the united states does not have a vital interest -- a vital strategic interest in what happens in libya. that is why even though it took

some time and yes, there was some momentum lost, nevertheless, it was important to wait for the arab league to call for the intervention, for the un security council to provide its imprimatur in a very clear way, and the others who do have a vital interest -- europeans, libyans -- more of a vital interest, should be the ones taking the lead in military operations. while i am sure that we could do more damage if we sent our aircraft in, i think it is very important that it is nato that takes the lead, it is the french and the british, who were gung- ho parties here, who take the lead.

now that the contact group in doha has declared that gaddafi should go now, where it is heading is a situation in which the only way in which the objectives of that contact group are going to be achieved is by boots on the ground. there is not a libyan forces on the ground organized and capable of going in and taking gaddafi out. that is, to me, an issue for the libyan people. it is an issue for those who have a vital interest, but we have a lot of other interests at play in the region. there are at least two hundred syrians who have been killed. are we going to intervene there ameritech -- militarily? what we're doing equals the level of our interest.

>> ambassador ali suleiman aujali, what about the point that senator kerrey raised on this stage yesterday that really it is better for the west to be patient and to let the libyan people make whatever regime change is going to occur, that on balance and over time that is going to be a better result? >> thank you very much. i'm very happy and proud to be here tonight. senator mccain, i am very proud of you. mark, and nice to be with you too. [laughter] but i find myself leaning to my right side, completely. [laughter] i find myself also in a position to say that what senator mccain

has said is really what the libyan people are looking for. it is a matter of human beings. the libyan people have been patient for 42 years. unfortunately, they cannot do it by themselves. in 1975, 1200 libyan politicians were killed in one day. they screamed for the international community to come and help them. the americans came, but unfortunately, changing course in the middle of the race is not always good. at a certain time, the action was not at the right time at the right place. this has given gaddafi time to bring more forces.

the situation in libya now, people under this dictatorship for a long time, they have been trying very hard to change it, but they cannot do it. libya cannot exist under this regime anymore. there are two democratic regimes now on the way in tunisia and egypt. if you want stability around this region, change must take place in libya. for the united states and the interests of europe, yes, we are closer to europe, this is true. but also, we're interested to see people that they make their choice. i came to this country, i talked to the people. they're nice, encouraging, helping people to make a change

in their country. libyans came out. they find themselves in a real battlefield. >> let me jump in here and put another issue on the table, which has to do with farming the rebels -- are in the rebels -- arming the rebels. the united states has made the case that we do not really know who the rebels are. senator mccain, what do you think of that? >> let me make it clear that i do not support american goods on the ground. i do not think it would be productive. -- american boots on the ground. i do not think it would be productive. you're not only have to provide

arms, you have to have training as well. again, in the afghan conflict we showed that there are ways of providing arms, equipment and training to rebels -- >> indirectly. >> going back to the previous question, former president bill clinton said, it is not a fair fight. it was not a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. i learned in the vietnam war that air power alone does not do the job, but this is the ideal terrain and situation for air power to be used. we need people in on the ground to identify targets, whether those are libyans or other nationalities. it is also a vital part of it. finally, could i say, margaret, the whole world is watching, but also, the arab world is watching. if we say that american policy is that gaddafi must go and we

do not implement that policy, and we end up in a stalemate, that sends a message throughout the arab world to these other people like the president of syria and others, a message that i do not think is something we want to transmit. >> martin indyk, on that point. >> our main -- arming and training the rebels is an important thing to do, but it is not necessarily up to the united states to do that. there are others in the coalition who can do that. there were people from nato involved in the training in afghanistan. of course, we are doing the bulk of the training. but that is part of the point. we should have others in libya doing it because we are so involved in other parts of the world, and, by the way, because

we need to reserve our capabilities for potential crises in other parts of the world. we also have to be careful. there is an afghanistan lesson here. we armed the taliban with stingers, and then we had to go and try to get them back so that they would not use them against us. we have to make sure we're finding people we want to support, and not the members of al queda who have already come to libya. we just need to be cautious. i am all in favor of building the capability of the libyan opposition. my question is whether we need to be doing that because, consistent with my view that we

should not be out in the lead here, we should have others do it. >> let's not forget that the reason we failed and afghanistan is that after we help them to drive the russians out, the united states of america abandoned afghanistan. they totally abandoned it and left it to the mercies of the taliban after the fighting. that should be the lesson here in the arab world. second, could i also point out that the best way to make sure that you have al queda on the rise is to have a stalemate and the bitterness and anger that would prevail among young arab men about our failure to help them overthrow this cruel and bitter dictator, who by the way, has the blood of americans on

his hands as a result of the bombing of the pan am flight. >> which gets us to the issue of whether a negotiated settlement should be sought here. of course, the african union came up with a proposal this week. gaddafi said he might except it. it was a road map to settlement. the rebels rejected it because it would imply that gaddafi could remain in power. explain more, ambassador, about why the suggestion of a negotiated settlement such as what they laid out on the table was a nonstarter. >> to get rid of gaddafi, we need two things. political pressure, and arms on the ground.

without this, he will not miss. it is not only the responsibility of nato, it is the responsibility of the international community. if he stays behind, you will see what happens to all of us. what came from the african union, well, the first comment i made was that this is gaddafi's initiative. they did not discuss with gaddafi county is going to leave the country. he said -- how he is going to leave the country. he said it is not for discussion. any initiative will have to take care of this, the gaddafi, his family, they are not part of the

democratic process in libya. they have been telling people for the last 10 years about reform, democracy, a constitution. but what did he say on the 25th of february? he said we have to be honest. we have to find a political solution for gaddafi's exit, but not for more than that. there is no way for gaddafi to stay. the people who die on the battlefield are armed. the people who are slain on the street are a different case.

>> the turks are also trying to get some sort of peacenik irritation started. there--- trying to get some sort of peace negotiations started. there ambassador said that if you could just end the killing, then you could start to negotiate some change. >> a cease-fire for the time being can be a useful way of achieving the end of the violence. the conflict group has made very clear and the president has made very clear that gaddafi should go. that does not mean that if he when there is a cease-fire, that that is the end of the story. i think we need patience here.

just as senator kerry said yesterday, he made the case that basically, over time, gaddafi is weak. he is isolated. he cannot sell his oil. he is on a downward slope towards his demise. it will come sooner or later, and the opposition is growing in strength. with training and arming it will be much better than the ragtag army that it is today. the political process that begins with a cease-fire does not end with a cease-fire. cease-fires can and too, when the circumstances change. i am not at all opposed to the idea of a political deal that stops the killing of the civilians, relieves misrata,

which is another humanitarian crisis already unfolding there, and then we keep the pressure to get rid of gaddafi over time. but i want to emphasize again that it is up to the libyan people. the negotiations have to be with the libyan people and gaddafi's removal has to be achieved by the libyan people. >> senator. >> i feel that a cease-fire would be -- we should hope that it would happen immediately, but i also believe that any precondition would have to be the departure of gaddafi and his family. if that does not happen, then we now know longer have a strategy, but we have a hope. we have a up the pressures from outside and other things would sooner -- we have a hope that pressures from the outside and other things would sooner or later cause gaddafi to collapse.

we harbored that same hope for 11 years in a iraq when, after desert storm, we imposed embargoes and sanctions and whatever, and saddam hussein was able to survive. i would hope that -- one of the reasons why argued forcefully for the reentry of u.s. air power is because i think the likelihood of gaddafi's departure will be to a large degree dictated by events on the ground. if gaddafi feels that his regime is in danger, then obviously he is more likely to try to find a trip to venezuela or the international criminal court, or hopefully to meet stalin and hitler. but with a stalemate on the battlefield, i think would give anyone, particularly someone as

maniacal as gaddafi is, hope and a strong desire to hang onto power, and i just cannot imagine that it would be in the region or american national security interest to see gaddafi -- a third great military power -- fight the united states and nato to a standstill. -- a third rate military power -- fight the united states and nato to a standstill. >> what i am advocating is a hope and what you are advocating is a strategy, but what i do not understand is how your strategy gets rid of gaddafi. how does it play out in your scenario? >> if we had declared a no-fly zone when the rebels were close to tripoli -- but that is over. i think, in the words of mr.

bismarck, the issue will be decided by blood and iron. if the rebels are given sufficient support and help, i am confident that they can prevail. i am also confident that if you have this kind of back and forth stalemate, that that can only encourage gaddafi, because he sees success on the battlefield, or at least a stalemate situation -- and again, i greatly respect martin's service to the country. he is one of the most knowledgeable people that i know. and i think this dialogue is both respectful and necessary to be carried out not only here in this wonderful forum, but every place in the country. i think what is at risk here is

far more than libya. i think what happens in libya will have an enormous affect in the arab world. >> this cease-fire i think should be observed only, only once gaddafi has withdrawn his forces from the cities that are under his control. but before that, from nato, from the opposition, there should be no cease-fire. when the foreign minister of gaddafi is announcing that they are accepting the united nations resolution from the security council, the same time, the forces are attacking benghazi and misrata. the no-fly zone has to be there. nato must exercise their daily

business to get gaddafi's forces, and the opposition must be trained to take care of the issue. >> but are you saying that the rebels might accept a cease-fire that did not actually, as a prerequisite, have gaddafi leave, as long as he was observed to have withdrawn all of his forces? >> if nato keeps a very close , andn gaddafi's movement they're making a lot of progress at this time, then in tripoli, the capital city, maybe they will rise up against gaddafi. you will see what will happen when they can leave their houses. they have been prisoners for more than five weeks. there are snipers on the routes and on the streets.

he knows very well that if the inhabitants of tripoli have a chance to march against him, that is the end of gaddafi. they have not been able to. he will shoot. >> we are all talking about gaddafi leaving and the rebels prevailing, but what do we see actually replacing gaddafi, or is that not really our -- by our, in every country that has ?ntervened -- concerne >> i think libyans have thought about this very carefully and that is why they have formed the national libby in council. the representatives of this council are from every -- national libyan council. the representatives of this

counselor from every city in libya. our problem is not what happens after gaddafi. our problem is how to get rid of gaddafi. there is no civil war in libya. people are trying to change their dictatorship. you will see terrorists taking advantage and north africa will be unstable and will have problems. >> i think we would want to work with the rest of the arab world and with our european friends -- and let's face it. the europeans have a greater interest in libya than the united states does. there is $30 billion in frozen assets that could be used to help this transition, but we would have to be of significant

assistance to them in doing something that they certainly never had a glimmer of hope for during actually their entire existence, and that is a democratic and free society. i think the funds would be there. i think the assistance of the rest of the arab world would be there. and i think that the effort, particularly by our european friends, would be very legitimate. my concern, margaret, about the whole situation, is that there is so much focus -- and it is understandable focus -- about our spending practices and our budget woes, debt and deficit, that we may not do the necessary things to see these countries make a transition period people in this room know better than i do how fragile is in some of

these countries. the one thing they want from us is not for us to tell them what to do. but they want investment and jobs. they want investment so they can create jobs. a young woman who is a civil society activist into media told me, senator mccain, we are not worried about the first election. we are worried about the second election if we do not provide for the jobs and economic growth to satisfy the aspirations of these young people. so, my job is to try to educate my fellow citizens that it is in the united states national security interest to see these transitions made to a democratic and prosperous nation, and that will not be easy and a place like yemen.

>> can i say that i agree completely, 100%, with what the senator just said, but precisely because i agree with that, i think we should be very careful about getting sucked into what happens in libya, because libya is not the main game. egypt is the main game. saudi arabia -- what happens in saudi arabia and the gulf is the main game. what happens in syria now is critically important. what is interesting about what is happening in syria is that the big concern -- if gaddafi is not overthrown, it will stop the arab awakening in its track. it will be back to business as usual. but it is not true. gaddafi is not overthrown, and now it is spreading to more and more towns and cities. in syria today, there were

dramatic developments. i do not see that libya has such profound implications on what happens compared with if we do not get it right in egypt. if we do not help produce the very jobs and hope that senator mccain is hotalking about. i worry about our own government and the resources we have available. if we get distracted and committed in a place where we do not have a vital strategic interest, i worry that we lose from the beginning. i worry that we are in a situation like levin on -- lebanon, where we did not have a vital strategic interest, but we committed troops, and then we pulled out. i think it is important that we make a wise choice about where

we invest our resources, which do have limitations. >> i think about the moment when the arab league sided with the no-fly zone. i think there were a variety of reasons for that. one of which is that the arab world knows gaddafi for what he is, a guy who has tried to have assassination plots against other leaders in the arab world, pan am 109, if this guy stays in power, what do you think he is going to do? again, the best way to get al queda back is to have him remain in power, in my view. i do not believe the united

states should take the lead role in libya once gaddafi goes. i think that should be a european responsibility. they have much greater involvement and much greater interest there. look at the immigration problem that already we are getting from tunisia, but at the same time, the united states of america leads, and we would also have to play a key role, in my view, in helping this transition to a free and democratic nation. >> let me go to questions from the audience and see how many we have, because we might combine a couple. we have a lot. why don't the two gentlemen at that table ask your questions, and we will combine them, just so we can finish in the unit allotted time. >> i just want to underline the

old saw that politicians make for strange bedfellows, and say how much i appreciate your participation in this. it is often off the radar the role that gaddafi has played in africa in the last 20 years, the way he was involved in backing charles taylor, the dictator in sierra leone, intervening in the civil wars in west africa, occupying chad. the idea that if he came back to power and had billions to play with that he would lead to uneasy at the ball and a democratic way seems to be silly because he came -- would let tunisia evolves in a democratic way seems to be silly, because he came out against the

democratic change in tunisia. would he not be a danger to the arab spring and an anti- democratic force in the region? >> great question. >> senator mccain, you have made a wonderful and very powerful case. i want to say that a lot of this has been framed in terms of vital strategic american interests. some of us feel that the principle problem is only thinking in vital strategic interest and not in moral choices. ambassador, help us make a moral choice. we do not know, many of us, what is actually happening in tripoli. we do not know if there would truly be a reconciliation if the rebels took over and the family left. can you help us make a moral

choice about what is best for the people here? we need more information. >> who would like to go first? >> i think we need a little bit of humility here. we were in bed with gaddafi for the last 10 years. he was creating a great strategic problem for us in africa. condoleezza rice was the first secretary of state to visit him in tripoli. i am all in favor of making a choice here to prevent him from killing his people, but you know, there are a lot of other moral choices that have to be made here. at this point, the syrian regime has killed as many people as gaddafi has.

what are we doing about that? what are we doing in so many different places in africa? while libya? -- why libya? what is so compelling about libya? it is something we all have to think about. i'm not against it. i think it is a good idea what we did, but the notion that we have to go to tripoli and remove gaddafi is not something that i think is justified by the situation. that is up to the libyan people. we support them, but they are the ones who have to take care of business in tripoli. >> thank you for the comment and the question. you have really raised what is the subject of debate and will be ongoing for as long as i have

been around, and that is, where are our values, our interests, and vice versa? that is the tug-of-war between wilsonian principles and realpolitik. my view is, of course we do not want darfur to happen. we do not want to see what happened in ivory coast or all of these other places. but you immediately have to ask yourself the question, can you benefit the outcome? i do not see how we could benefit the outcome in ivory coast or in syria. i do not see how the united states could intervene and beneficially affect the outcome, although obviously i am reading for the students. in the case of libya though, we saw a clear-cut case of a slaughter about to take place

in benghazi and at the 11th hour, a bank god for the arab league resolution -- thank god for the arab league resolution, we were able to prevent that. but it said all means necessary for humanitarian purposes, and that did not just mean benghazi. we have a responsibility to try to prevent people from being slaughtered, mistreated, the cruelties and tortures that have characterized gaddafi's regime. i think we should act. but i also think that if we do act, we should make sure that we determine the outcome. i say with great respect to this administration, they seem to be more interested in getting in and getting out than devising a strategy to achieve our policy

aims, as stated by the president of the united states, that gaddafi must go. then, leaving us in a position where we might fail, then obviously american power is diminished. one of the things i worry about in the world today is a perception of the decline of america's influence, particularly in that region of the world. >> thank you. i think gaddafi now is the most dangerous person, i believe, on earth. the libyan people are not facing a normal procedure taken by the government to stop demonstrations. they're being struck by airplanes, killed by tanks. how many people were killed in tunisia? 300? how many in egypt? 350?

benghazi, tripoli, 5 allyson. -- 5000. the amount of people killed by gaddafi is 10,000. what is happening in syria, egypt, tunisia, does not compare with libya. there is no comparison at all. the international community has an obligation. gaddafi manage to reach benghazi on the 19th of february without the intervention. secondly, libyan people are not

poor. the have dignity. they will rebuild. but we need your help. we need your support. libya wanted independence in 1951. 59 people graduated from university and the managed to build a country with democratic institutions. now there are libyans who have graduated all over the world and they are united in two things. gaddafi is not there, and democracy is achieved. we have a council responsible, and i am sure they will take care of it. >> other questions? i might take three here.

right at this table and then the table right behind. >> thank you very much for the discussion. i think we all agree that gaddafi has to go. for senator mccain, if you would be kind enough to imagine of course -- a course regarding saudi arabia and bahrain, and regarding syria. if more shia are killed in bahrain, and if the president of syria kills more than his -- more of his people, how would you imagine as handling the situation?

>> and another question right over here. >> just a couple of references here. senator, you referred to the military -- gaddafi's military -- as third rate. second, if there is a message ahrir, it seems to be made in the middle east. why do we not have an american military in eject -- in egypt taking the lead with the active support of the united states?

that is made in the middle east. that is not reaching out, once again, to europe and the united states to fix an arab problem. get to this gentleman right here, and then i will ask this woman back here, and then we will have final responses. just in the interest of time, if you could be as brief as possible. >> i am certainly hoping for shock and ought in libya. we did not get it, but i can understand -- in this case, i am not sure i understand the united states policy. the stalemate is not helpful. but everything we're doing could lead to this result. we do not push him out.

we do not support the opposition to push him out. what are we doing here? this could lead to the very result we are afraid of. with regard to national interests, martin indyk, i can we just wait until we see al queda so that we can have a national interest in libya? this would be another result that would lead to a national security concern in libya. i just need you to make sense of the current policy. we cannot arm the opposition because we do not understand the opposition. can you help us understand your position? >> one final question. >> i just came up from benghazi where i went to the front line.

senator mccain, you may just want to know that the people in the eastern part of libya do thank the international community for the air strikes. we have talked about gaddafi stepping down, but there does not seem to be a clear exit strategy. where is he going to go? no country will step forward to give him a place. he is like a cornered person, and when a person is cornered, somebody who has survived for 42 years will lash out in the most vicious and brutal way. >> i need to cut you off there because the red clock has started. we will let everyone some of. the theme here seems to be, in what circumstances does the u.s. intervene? what makes libya different from the others? >> who are the opposition?

they are the libyan people. students, jobless, professors, some of the army. they are ordinary libyan people challenging the regime. and the regime is using every kind of arms to kill them. i want anyone to tell me if there is a relation between members of the council and any extremist organization. this does not exist in libya. gaddafi claims that what is happening is extremist. they have answered this question hundreds of times. but still the question is there. there is no al queda in libya,

but if this takes too long, we may have problems with al queda. then it will be in the american interest to come and help the libyans. the council members are foreign ministers. they try to help. they came to a dead end. >> senator. >> as i mentioned earlier, each one of these nations is different. we have a tendency sometimes to lump them all together. bahrain is very different from syria which is different from yemen which is different from libya. i think we should do everything we can to moderate any pain or punishment or repression that is inflicted on the shiite majority in bahrain. i think we should expect

progress toward further reforms and democratization. i would like to mention one reality. bahrain does not pose a threat to the united states vital national security interests and you could argue that if there is a violent overthrow of the governing body, the iranians would significantly increase their influence in a vital area of the country. in syria, i continue to be confused by people who say maybe we want to keep the president in power. this is the same country where suicide bombers from all over the arab world would land at the airport in damascus and be taken into iraq and kill americans. that is what the regime in damascus did, among other things. i would love to see a overthrown -- it overthrown, and

i will take my chances on who takes its place. as far as the egyptian military is concerned, under normal circumstances he might make that argument. i think there is very little doubt that right now, at the egyptian military is not going to do anything but try to adjust and accommodate the change going on. it is a little disturbing that they sent one of these loggers to prison just the other day and removed protesters -- bloggers to present as the other day and removed protesters. the question of what the policy is that you do not understand, i do not either. i do not understand how you can say he has to go but not use force to make him go. the reality is, at the american

policy is that he must go, but the mandate from the and security council is simply humanitarian aid and a no-fly zone. you cannot square that circle, but they keep trying. yes, they are grateful for the air strikes. they are also not happy that there are not enough. how you get across a long desert without being attacked and taken out is still something i do not quite understand. it means we're not making maximum use of airpower. our friends and allies i appreciate. they're not using the most precision weapons that the united states of america's air power has. can i just say again in summary, and i am sorry for the long, and, overall, -- long comment,

overall i sound disturbed about libya, and i believe that we can succeed, but overall i am very excited and exuberant about what is happening in the arab world. this is a seismic event of incredible historical proportions. i'm glad i am alive to see it. i believe that we now have an opportunity to provide hope and democracy and freedom to people who have never known it. that is the most exciting legacy of the united states of america, if we assist them in achieving it. [applause] >> i agree with that. >> thank you. >> let me just go to the question of made in the middle

east, because i think it is the heart of the issue. i do not think egypt can be deflected from its task of being the sort of midwife of the transition to democracy in egypt. the french foreign legion, that is what it is for. they have a vital interest. let them come in and help libby and rebels take tripoli. i do not think it is a good idea to divert egyptians from their task, but i do think it is absolutely essential that this remain made in the middle east, and that is the answer to your question about the gap between the objective and the resources put toward it. i will say again for the third time. it is up to the libyan people what happens to gaddafi. it is up to the syrian people what happens to assad.

we can certainly be there to support them, but i do not think we should have said that gaddafi must go. i think we should be saying it is up to the libyans to decide whether gaddafi must go. if they decide he must go, we will support them, and that is what we're doing, supporting. that is the way we reconcile our objective to the resources that we are prepared to put into them. i want to come back on a final note on syria. because they're so preoccupied with libya, where is the talk about freezing syrian assets? where is the talk about taking assad to the human rights council? what are we doing about the heart of the middle east? that is one problem i have with being distracted -- it is a

humanitarian problem in libya that we can take care of, and not get focused on taking care of gaddafi. that is something that libyans will take care of. >> we have to leave it there. john mccain, ali suleiman aujali and martin indyk, thank you all. [applause] >> this week on "red to the white house," possible republican presidential candidate donald trump speaks to the tea party. now available, c-span does the congressional directory, a guide to the congress. inside, district maps and committee assignments, and information on the white house,

supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org. >> two recent studies indicate that drilling for national gas in the u.s. may not be as safe or environmentally conscious as previously thought. the deputy minister for the environmental protection agency testified at a hearing on the subject. state environmental officials also testified. this is about two hours and 15 minutes. subcommittee on water and wildlife. i want to thank senator boxer and >> let me start off by saying the united states has as much natural gas as saudi arabia has oil. according to penn state, the

shale which runs from new york to west virginia may be the second largest natural gas field in the world. we have enormous reserves that can help america meet its energy needs in a way that produces far less pollution than coal, help the united states on its way to energy independence, and improve national security. high-volume horizontal fracturing is now being used to extract natural gas from shale formations in thousands of wells. in pennsylvania, more than 2700 wells were drilled from 2006 to this year. a study estimated that this would creator support more than 100,000 jobs in 2011. the natural-gas industry is booming, but it may be in jeopardy. new york has imposed a moratorium on operations. new jersey is considering a ban

on the practice. pittsburgh has enacted a ban within the city limits. maryland adopted an ordinance making the drilling of natural gas illegal within the town limits. why is this happening? the answer is simple. the industry has failed to meet minimal acceptable performance levels for protecting human health and the environment. that is both an industry failure and a failure of the regulatory process. i am a strong supporter of natural gas production, but my a support only comes when human health and the environment are protected. the record is replete with cases of contamination, from improper cement jobs, cracked drilling casings, and disturbances releasing natural gas and geological formations. in june, 2010, the pennsylvania land trust association

identified 1649 violations incurred by 45 pennsylvania drillers dating to january, 20,0008. 50 cases of improper well casing, four cases of inadequate blowout prevention. last june, a well blew out and shot 35,000 gallons of gas and water 70,000 feet into the air over a 16-hour period. they were unprepared to handle the contaminants that came out of the operation. much of this is returned to the surface. then it is either injected into underground wells or used at

waste water treatment facility plants. the plants cannot handle that type of pollutant. the question is, what is epa doing about this? we understand it is exempt from certain parts of the clean water act, but it is certainly subject to waste treatment. is epa acting on this? that is one of the things i hope this chearing will deal with. it is subject to provisions within the clean water act, and whether we have an adequate regulatory system that protects the public so that we can get the natural gas that is critically important to our country. it is my hope that this hearing will answer these questions. i thank the witnesses that are here today and my two colleagues that are participating in this hearing. we need to get this right.

we need to get the natural gas that is fundamental to the united states in an environmentally safe way. we have allowed state regulations, but in many cases they have been inadequate. we have federal environmental rules, but the question is whether we are adhering to the rules that are currently in existence. what do we do with the waste water? how do we treat it? how do we protect our environment? i hope this hearing will help us in that pursuit. >> i am really glad we are having this hearing, because you hear what a lousy job the states are doing when in fact, they are doing a great job. march 17th, 1949, more than 60 years ago, the first hydraulic fracturing job was performed in a well 12 miles east of duncan in my home state of oklahoma. the practice has now been used on more than 1 million currently

producing wells, 35 wells a year without one -- 35,000 wells a year without one case of groundwater contamination. an alabama state geologist, "there have been no documented cases of drinking water contamination that have resulted from drilling operations to stimulate oil and gas wells in the state of alabama." there have been no verified cases of harm to ground water in the state of alaska as a result of hydraulic fracturing. office of geological survey from the department of internal quality, there is no evidence that hydraulic fracturing has caused harm to the ground water in michigan. we never received a complaint that it has affected the ground water in any way.

the chairman of the commission of texas, the hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 60 years in texas, our commission records do not reflect a single documented service or groundwater contamination case. the same thing is true in south dakota and all of these others. i have all of these other statementslet me show you why te case. let me show you this chart. it is a creek -- it illustrates a cross-section of marcellus shale in southwest pennsylvania. you see the narrow blue line. illustrates the ground water. between the ground water and the

marcellus shale are dozens of layers of solid rock, almost two miles of solid rock. between down here where they marcellus shale. the small box is a picture of the empire state building. the stuff that they hear is not true. for ground water contamination to occur, transfers would have to migrate through 7,000 feet of solid rock. that is the distance from the west front of the capital to the washington monument. that flew with migration cannot happen and it does not happen. -- fluid migration cannot happen and it does not happen. the obama administration wants to regulate fossil fuels out of existence. the energy secretary said

somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe. the price there is about $8 per gallon. krueger in the treasury department who said, quote, the administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels. that's what this is all about. mr. kruger's belief is now a reality. gas at the pump is approaching $4 and we think it's going to be going on up. now if you think these data points are bad, they will grow far worse in the epa cap-and-trade agenda. as part of the agenda, the agency is maneuver to regulate, a practice that has always been regulated bay the state. the system today will confirm that the states don't need the epa. i want to welcome jeff cloud from my state of oklahoma, who's here to testify. it's a corporation commission

i'd say to senator cornyn in oklahoma, not the commission that regulated it in oklahoma. these people have been doing a good job. but the mental thy that we have here in washington, nothing done right unless it's done in washington. so the nation's shale deposit are predominantly located in states that effectively and efficiently regulate oil and gas in states such as pennsylvania, arkansas, oklahoma, texas, louisiana, west virginia, ohio, and north dakota. a virtual boom is transforming america's energy security and due in no small measure to the absence of federal regulation. for this reason, i would only say that i agree with something that was said by the chairman this morning when he was talking about the tremendous reserves. our recoverable reserves in gas, we're talking about natural gas this morning are greater than any country in the world. we could run this country for 90 years on natural gas without

importing any from the middle east. that's why it is important. for those people that say we want to cut down the dependence, kill natural gas, kill it? yeah, you start regulating -- you can't et natural gas from ese deposits without hydraulic fracturing. it's worked. we got to keep that for america. thank you. >> senator boxer. >> thank you, senator cornyn. thank you for chairing this hearing as chairman o the water and wildlife subcommittee. first i found another note. i want to express as chairman, i don't speak for all of the members. i do speak for all of the members on my side of the aisle. we are great that the new budget does not include epa riders. poll today showed 70% of people agree with that. today we are here to examine the environmental impact on drilling. drilling and hydraulic

fracturing have led to expansion in the natural gas. we're glad to see we can in fact extract natural gas. because now it's actually economical. where a few years ago, it was not. the discovery of new resources created the opportunity for cleaner, domestically produced fuel. one the key reasons is the discovery of e sle in the appalachian region of the united states which underlaying portions of virnia, west virginia, ohio, maryland, pennsylvania, and new york. with drilling in this part of the country likely to increase expotentially in coming years, it's critical that we ensure that efforts to extract natural gas do in the threaten the air we breathe and the ater we drink. i want to thank senator casey for taking this issue on in a responsile way. again, i want to thank senator rdin. his state has a lot at stake

here as well. i'm one that believes the committee's oversight efforts is important. because the are question that needs to be answered. if we follow the science, it'll lead us the right way. event series of investigative reports in the "new york times" highlights the potential -- i say potential risks -- of natural gas and inconsistent efforts to regulate the booming industry. for example, the "times" reported that hydraulic fracturing process waste water is contaminated, including toxic metals, sames, carcinogens, and radioactive elements. these are facts. it's not a statement. a large amount of the waste water is disposed in municipal sewage treatment that may or may not be equipped to remove. they can discharge harmful levels into local water waste and solid waste produced may contain an array of toxins.

without the oversight, it poses threats to aquatic life and human health, especially when public drinking water rely on water waste where water is being discharged. concerns have been raised for the chemicals used in the fracture process can contaminate ground water. however, federal, state regulators and concerned citizens haven't had the information to determine if it's causing ground water contamination. some companies have limited access on the chemicals they use in their drilling fluids. the federal government does not require drilling operation tours to fully expose the chemicals. some state such as wyoming require exclosure, some states are taking responsible action here. the industry has also recently launched a voluntary disclosure

effort. that's encouraging too. but we have a long way to go before full disclosure is consistent and industry-wide practice. i believe in disclosure. let the facts come out and we'll make a reasonable decision, i believe. so i've highlighted only a few of the health and environmental issues that have been associated with natural gas drilling. additional issues include air pollution, impacts on water supply, due to the millions of gallons of water that are needed at each natural gas well. so given the array of potential impacts the need for more study, the ate of new york is taking a time out of hydraulic fracturing. choosing to fully study the issues first before allowing widespread drilling. new york and other state is taking action here. the u.s. epa has also been directed by congress, directed by congress to study the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies. i expect the agency we use an independent, comprehensive, and

scientific process to provide congress with unbiased information. there's much that we need to learn to move forward in a way that ensuring safe and responsible drilling that is protective of our air and water. i think the hae to go together. this hearing is an important step in the epa committee -- in the epw committee's oversight on this issue. i certainly look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the other members on the panel. thank you. >> thankyou,. chairman? >> thank you. oil and natural gas are a critical part of he mix. we have oil, gas, coal, to wind. these resources provide an opportunity for our state and nation, it means jobs, economic security, as well as energy security. wyoming right now ranks second in the country in natural gas production. the oil and gas industry supports nearly 20,000 jobs in the state of wyoming. we're talking about a statewith

a population of only about a half a million people. the revenues generated from oil and gas exploration are invested right at home. it helps build schools, roads, water system, it helps sends kids to college in our state through the hathaway scholarship program. senator inhofe gave a compelling litany of success stories across the country. i want to share a left from the "wyoming oil and gas conservation commission." the commission regulates oil and gas, including hydraulic fracturing in wyoming. here are a couple of quotes. wyoming has no documented cases of round water contamination. from 1999 to 2010, over 46,000 stimulation treatments were performed in wyoming. almost 100% of oil and gas wells hire hydraulic fractur stimulation to be commercial. i request a copy of this letter be placed in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it provides details about my

home state's rules for hydrulic fracture being of. in wyoming, we have been producing oil and gas for a long time. the left mentions over 46,000 of these procedures from 1999 to 2010. we take this issue very seriously. i appreciate senator boxer's comment about wyoming doing it right. it is about both our environmental stewardship and about jobs. the state demotrated this when it updated its rules just this last year. the changes include increased transparency requirements for hydraulic fracturing. industry is required to disclose all of the chemicals used before and after fracturing. most of america's gas is produced with fracturing, without it, the resources will be remained locked away and it's

a threat to our energy security, financial security, and our national security. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we will now turn to our colleagues as our first panel will start with senator cornyn. >> thank you, chairman cardin. thanks to chairman boxer, the chairman of the full committee, and senator inhofe, the ranking member and barrasso, it's good to be with you today. as senator inhofe noted, fracting has been around a long time. about 60 years. what's changed the state of play has been the advent of horizontal drilling. if you fly into dallas-fort worth airplane, you will be met with scenes of active drilling going on there thanks to the directional drilling that is capabe from a single platform going out a mile or more into some of these shale formations. i'd glad to have the opportunity to share the perspective of my state on that practice, which

i'd proud to say we help department and which is essential to the development of three ale plays in our state, the barnett around fort fort wo. i want to focus on three points, texas has app bountiful supply of natural gas. it has implications for job creation, economy, and national security. it -- states are effectively relating hydraulic fracturing already. federal regulation bit epa would inevitably lead to cmulative regulation,bureaucratic delays, and reduce the production of the resource. in texas, the oil and gas industry provides more than 1.7 million jobs and accounts for 25% of our state's economy. over 11,000 wells have been completed in the barnett shale which as i said is in the

dallas-fort worth area. one the nation's largest active fields. the barnett shale contributes over 20% of the total texas natural gas production. and in south texas, a vey exciting development there with the eagleford shale. according to a recent study by the university of texas at san antonio, the long-term regional implications of the boom in south texas is staggering. according to the study, under modest assumptions, by 2020, the shale is expected to account for close to 11.6 billion in close state product, $21.6 billion in economic output impact, and support close to 67,000 roughly 68,000 full-time jobs. the haynesville shale in texas was not commercially viable until a few years ago, but it is now thanks to advancing technology. i recently went to a drilling

rig outside of texas that represents the latest improvement on horizontal drilling using more energy efficient engines, leading to shorter drilling times and reducing the impact on surrounding areas. the proliferation of these domestic resources has contributed to texas' ability if not unique nearly unique in this recession to atually add jobs to our economy. yet the job creators and orkers on the particular rig were anxious about what they could expect from washington in terms of additional and dupe liukative regulation. it has been used in tens of thousands of wells already. it has been studied by the environmental protection agency, ground water protection council, interstate oil and gas impact commission, and in each case, hydraulic fracturing has been judged to be environmentally sound. at every step in the drilling process, energy produces are

subject to state regulations already, as well as federal requirements under the occupational health and safety, the environmental response compensation, and liability, and the toxic substances control act. as you can see, the federal government is already actively involved. this week the ground water protection council and the interstate oil and gas unvailed the landmark web base for the disclosure of chemical additives used in the fracting process as illuded to by chairman boxer, this is important information. energy companies now have a single source to pubicly disemployee. they are already aware of what check calls are being used and hydraulic fracturing hadn't been the culprit. wever, i must say that i'm joined here at the table b my good friend senator casey who i know is proposing legislation

that would go beyond public disclosure and give the epa authority over fracturing for the first time in the nation's history. there's no need to destroy the partnership betwe state and federal regulators and put the epa in the driver seat. we've seen them through aggressive regulatory efforts engage in a lot o activity, which frankly is harmful to our economy. and we've seen what happened whenover regulation and misinformation become the common narrative. additional players of red tape create a death by a thousand cuts that run people out of business, and take jobs as well as loca state, and federal tax revue. without hdraulic fracturing, access to gas resources would be substantially restricted. i thank the committee for having the hearing and thank you for having me come testify on a

very, very important topic. >> thank you, senator cornyn. senator casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for hearing, chairman boxer, thank you as well for your testimony and ranking member inhofe, and joined by latenberg and barrasso, i want to thank senator cornyn for his testimony. let me firs ask if i can place my whole statement in the record. thank you, i'll be belief. i'll start with history. in our state, we went through most of the 19th century and roughly about half of the 20th century not geting it right as it relates to te extraction of a natural resource, and in this case, coal and balancing that with environmental regulation to make sure we're protecting public health and the environment. after 1950, we began to get it right in our state. our state passed legislation by the clean streams law in the 1960s, and as time went on, we started to do a much better job

of regulating and making sure we've getting the balance right. today we have to get it right. we have to be able to at the same time crate jobs, and this will be a tremendous increase in jobs in pennsylvania as a result of natural gas extraction, we also have, of course, the availability of a domestically-produced source of energy. that's good news. we need to pursue that. but we have to balance both of those with the kind of protection for public health and afety as well as making sure that ground water and drinking water is protected. i'll speak about my legislation in a moment. but it reached a point in our state where after all of the history and all of that learning and experience that our state constitution was amended in the early 1970s, it's a very simple statement. but it's an important statement for our commonwealth and our

country. art 27 of the pennsylvania constitution says the people shall have a rate to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural scenic, historic, and aesthetic values of the environment. that obligation that we hold the environment as trustees for future generations. and that's the directive from our state's constitution. it's not optional. it's not amaybe, it's not a i hope you can do it. it's a direct and constitutional directive. i live in a state where that directive is very important to the commonwealth and very important, i think, to people across the state. i think we can get this right. i don't think there's any question about it. but unfortunately now even though the process has been around a while, the hydraulic fracturing process, there's still a lot of questions about whether or not it will have some of the environmental impact that

some are concerned about. i don't think it has to in any way slow things down. these questions are being raised in the state where over four or five year period of time we are averaging only 17 wells drilled a month. now we're well above 120 wells a month being drilled. nothing is slowed down here. tremendous growth of the industry and tremendous opportunity with it. as we're doing that, we got to make sure we get it right. let m highlight, i have three bills. one that deals with emergency at well side and job training. i'll skip over those. they will be in the my testimony. just on the hydraulic fracturing. we are trying to amend the safe drinking water act and the definition of quote underground injection, unquote, to include underground injection of fluids or propping agents used for hydraulic fractureing related to

oil and s. we're trying to close the loophole in the law as it stands now. and secondly, it would require public disclosure of the chemical constituents, but not the proprietary information. of course, if you analogize that to the ingredients in something, you'd be making or baking a cake or something like that. we don't have to -- we're not asking this legislation that the proprietary information is made a part of public disclosure. but just the chemicals. the good news here is we're getting a good bit of cooperation and help from the industry. companies are disclosing what we'll have some debates account level and nature of the duskily sure. i think the one that will cause the most conflict is regulation. i'm in favor of a nationa standard. why should we have a set of tough environmental rules that protect drinking water and

ground water in one state, and have a state next door or across the country have a whole other set of rules. so i think we can get this right. i appreciate the opportunity to speak about this. and i'm grateful to be joined by senator cornyn at the table. i think we are both running out the door. >> right. senator casey, let me thank you for contributions that you are taking to this debate. i think your legislation is one that we want to consider very closely. senator cornyn, we thank you very much. our objectives are the same. we know we have a large amount of natural gas. we want to make sure that we can get that safely and use it for our energy security here in america. with that, the two of you are excused, thank you very much. >> the first panel will consistent of robert perciasepe, administrator of the

environmental protection agency. mr. perciasepe, nice to have you back. you may proceed as you wish, your entire statement will be made part of our record. >> i have to remember the push the button. madam chair, mr. chairman, and ranking member inhofe, thank you for inviting me to testify today. i'm pleased to be here to discuss natural gas production and epa's role in ensuring that public health and the environment are protected. let me begin by remarks by saying that natural gas is a very important fuel for our country. it can enhance our domest energy options, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies, and serve as a bridge fuel to the future and to renewable energy sources. if produced responsibly, natural gas has the potential to improve air quality, stabilize ergy prices, and provide greater certainly about the future and energy preserves. as president obama said in a

recent town hall meeting, recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves of natural gas, perhaps a serge re's worth in the shale under our feet. now we have to make sure we are doing it safely without polluting the water supplies. in addition, the president has ordered the epa, department of intier your, and department of energy to work together with industry, environmental community, and states to come up with best practices for the safety. making sure our water supply is safe is what i'd like to talk about today. the clean water and safe water act are the primary that we use to ensure natural gas through a process called ydraulic fracturing or fracting does not impair wate qualit we believe natural gas can be and must be instanted properly. if improperly managed, hydraulic fracturing would potentially result in public health and environmental practices.

at any time of the well and associated operations, such impact to water would include stress on surface water and ground water supplies given the use of fresh water for these operations, potential contamination of drinking water aquifer, and compromise water quality, and these con -- contaminates could include salt. we know epa will not hesitate to protect americans who's health is at risk. we remain committed to working with officials on the production activities. epa will not only use the authority that congresshas given it, but we are also leading on understanding the science behind potential drinking water contamination from fracting. epa launched a study to understand the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and

drinking water. when completed, the peer review research study will help us better understand the conditions that maybe associated with the drinking water resources, as well as factors that lead to human health exposure and risk. while we await the results, we will also use our legal authorities where appropriate. while congress exempted oil and gas from several environmental laws, a number of environmental protections continue to apply. for example, while the energy policy act of 2005 excluded hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas production from permitting under the safe drinking water underground ejection and control program, these activities are still egulated understood the safe drinking water act when diesel fuels are used as fracting fluids. al flow bck and produced water through injection is still regulated under the safe drinking water act. in addition to our authorities under the safe drinkingwater act, epa regulates waste water

from oil and gas under the clean water act. when they are discharged into publicly-owned treatment and surface water. under both of these laws, states play a leading role. for statements with fully delegated programs, states have the responsibility in making sure the laws are followed. epa provides guidelines to the states on how to follow these rules and to make sur they are addressing all of the threats to public health. the issues surrounding natural gas extraction are lengthy and complicated. by helping manage environmental impact, natural gas production can and will proceed in a responsible manner that producting public health and enhances our options. i'll be happy to take any questions at this time, mr. chairman. >> mr. perciasepe, thank you for your testimony. i agree with the points that you make. there are sigificant environmeal laws that ive epa

authority to act in this area. i want to just start by, i think there's general agreement in the committee and congress. we want to be able totap into the natural gas reserves in this nation. we believe that is the energy source that we have. we want to be able to obtain that energy source, and we want to do it in a safe and environmentally sound manner. but as you point out, you have certain responsibilities under environmental laws that you are responsible to enforce. i listen to senator inhofe talk about how the fracting practice works so far under ground. we all understand that. you inject fluids that contain certain chemicals. those fluids then are extracted, when they are extracted, they bring out not only the original fluids, but they bring out a whole host of potential pollutants that coulde very damaging to public health.

the question is what then happens to that fluid that is removed during the fracting procedures. as i understand it, best practices but many of the gas companies use is to recycle that. that's fine. they recycle it, take out the hard chemicals that they can, the pollutants, and dispose of them properly and reuse the fluids in a way that is constructive to getting more natural gas. in some cases they inject the fluids back into the earth and underground wells. that i also cases have been done at a very sound environmental way. but in some cases, they tick it to the waste water treatment facility plant that is close by. which to me presents significant problems. let me just -- i saw a letter that was sent by epa, the regional administrator,shawn

garb to the pennsylvania environmental agency where the epa said waste water resulting from gas drilling operations contained material that may present a threat to human health and aquatic environment. many of them are not removed and discharges may cause or contribute to impaired drinking water quality from downstream users, or harm aquatic life. well, it seems to me that you have the responsibility to make sure that the waste water treatment facilities are, in fact, complying with the permit. if you believe there's a danger to the health -- public health because of the inability to remove certain pollutants, you need to take action. my question is has epa taken action, why not? >> thank you for that question. there are a number of factors that would be involved with how

we take action when the fluids are used in a publicly owned treatment. that is a general statement. there needs to be care taking that pollutants won't go through the sewage treatment, or they don't disrt the sewage treatment plants operation in the case that you sited in pennsylvania, the regional administrator has been working with the state. we have been issued in the past information collection so that we can understand what was going on to the different sewage treatment plants and in many cases, the sewage treatment plants have stop taking some of the fracting fluids and produce water. we are not process of working with pennsylvania, pennsylvania has responded to that letter, that the regional administrator has sent and we feel like we're making good progress there. >> well, we appreciate that. some of us think this is a etty clear issue. and that there needs to be

pretty definitive action by epa so that we can avoid this public health risk. there are other areas that you could enforcing the environmental laws. oz you know, there's no exemption if diesel is used in the fracting process. yet i'm not aware of any enforcing action taken by epa. am i wrong? have there been enforcement action taken against facting privileges that endanger our environment? >> we have taken enforcement actions through issuing ordered whether we think there's an eminent or substantial endangerment. but in terms of enforcement where there maybe diesel fluids -- fuel being used for fracting, we're in the process of collecting information on that. we have information from congress, as well as their own formation collection we've been doing. that's in the process of doing through enforcement procedures.

let me yield, senator inhofe. i might have some questions here from the colleagues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to the senator casey, i do want to point out that there are other points of view within the pennsylvania regarding the need for federal intervention in the regulation of hydraulic fraction, first of all to submit testimony from the record. the secretary of the pennsylvania's department of environmental protection, senator casey may not realize t, but according to secretary, pennsylvania already required the disclosure of fract fluids. as they pointed out, i'm quoting now, the state's new regulation require operators to disclose the chemical additives on a well by well basis.

the study also concluded that

federal regulations were a serious threat. proposes regulate sake drinking water posed a serious threat to the development of marcellus shale and other unconventional gas sources. i would like to submit testimony from mike price, from the ground water protection council. that is a underground water injection control agency whose mission is to protect the consummation of ground water. they do that for a living. they describe a new frack focus provide a disclosure. participation is voluntary. within the first eight hours of going live, they had 24 oil and

gas companies signed on to use it. nine are already up loading fracturing data. participating companies revealed that the largest companies are clamoring for this opportunity. the states are running successful regulatory programs. we are going to hear from some of them today. i would hope, mr. perciasepe, that you will stick around and listen to some of their testimony. i also understand that president obama has asked the department of energy to look into fracking. the white house council on environmental policy is studying the cumulative impacts. mr. perciasepe, help me understand these various studies and how they fit together. it would be helpful if you would

commit to briefing my staff. on a quarterly basis. that way we can see what this oversight is doing. this is what we are talking about. this is how they have to get the gas out of this type of formation. the only way they can do it is from fracking. in oklahoma, we are talking about 30,000 feet. in kansas, their shale is between 3000 and 4,000 feet. the louisiana has its 3 miles deep. the one size fits all does not work in this case. are they not doing a good job in the states?

>> [inaudible] >> the states that -- there are many states taking issue on this and as i mentioned in my oral testimony or on the front lines of the safe drinking water act where they have authority but let me just go back to the pennsylvania example for just a minute that you started with, senator. when the fluids were and produced water were being brought to the publicly owned treatment works, the responsibility forhe discharge permit of that plant is the state's and the state's discharge permit from those did not contain limits on so that backend for the oversight between the state that i think is important to make sure that we have a level playing field but you are correct, there is no one-size-fits-all here. the geology and all these different and formations around the country are different, at

different depths and there's different players in the supplementary rock levels o we haveto be little get things in that way. our primary role is the oversight of the programs where they are running the programs providing guidance where we can and we see amend indeed determined we may take our own actions. >> my time is expired but i would say that once you start move in from the federal level and i say to my friend senator bozeman, he was in here during my statement i enlisted the state of arkansas that has a lot of these reserves and i just really am concerned over the regulation of we will hear that from some of the people on the next panel. thank you very much. >> senator boxer? >> i hear what my colleague saying about his preference for state regulation. i did cite an example though of

new york just shutting down for the moment. because they are concerned, and i think senator d.c.'s name was mentioned by my colleague which he wasn't here to explain what he meant, but what i heard him say is his state constitution calls for defending the quality and make a right the clean water and clean air so if the state next door doesn't have the same type of law, but happens is it could be impacted i don't have a particular position on where we are going except we need to have the facts. i think that's the point and i want to ask about this. will the epa study look at all potential impact to the drinking water in putting in cut from waste water that is produced during the hydraulic fracturing process in your studies? >> senator, we are charactezing the fluids.

we've gotten information from the companies and are going to be characterizing the produced water because the fluids don't for instance contain video nuclei. these are naturally occurring in the rock formation but they come out with some of the produced water. >> so the answer is yes? >> yes. >> can you assure they will do an independent scientific process to provide an accurate and unbiased assessment which ll help us make sure drilling is done safe and responsibly and protect the public health? >> yes. not only will the study plan b peer reviewed fore we even start to study the the actl results will be here reviewed as well. >> i want to ask a question about diesel fuel here. on january 31st member of representatives in the house and the cousin administrator jackson a letter providing the results of an investigation that found diesel fuel continues to be used in hydraulic fracturing. first of all, to your knowledge, is that true? and as you know the safe water drinking act exemption for the

hydraulic fractions specifically doesn't include the use of diesel fuel so you still have the ability to regulate. that's my understanding. in 03 the epa signed a major drilling service company to eliminate the use of diesel and hydraulic fracturing of the patients. would you provide us an update on what efforts the epa is taking to protect public health from diesel fuel in the use of hydraulic fracturing. >> excuse me. the mou or moa i think it was in the methane production, not in a shale production. and so, that is where there was a concern because many of those four nations are at the more shallow depth. we are in the process of confirming and reviewing the information and we have received from congress. we have grown information requests to the companies and

we're looking that as well. >> as loveless mentioned the gallons of water produced in the process can contain radioactive elements, the growth and carcinogens. these reports indicate waste water is being ent to a municipal waste water treatment plants that may not be equipped to treat this waste which could result in a discharge of harmful toxins to the ocal water waste. what authority does the epa have to address the treatment of waste water from the natural gas drilling operations? >> there's several steps that have to be taken in terms of the use of a publicly owned treatment worked for the disposal of the fluids. first the limits have to be placed on the permit for the treatment plant. whether if the state is -- the agency that is running the npds delusion program in that state they need to put a limit on those plants. if the status of reading the pretreatment program which would

be how he would treat the fluids before they go into the sewage treatment plant there would be required to do that. the epa is looking into guidan on what treatment mght be hidden useful for thoe waste the first step would be obviously making sure we have the right limits on every plan that is going to be receiving the waste and that is part of our oversight for air vehicle. >> are you working with plans to accept the hydraulic to ensure adequate treatment is occurring? are you working with the plant themselves at this time? >> we have a state permitting the authority working with the states like we are doing in pennsylvania. >> okay. i will submit the rest of my question for the record. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and again thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing. it's very important. it's important to my state and really, juneau, just in the nation in general in the sense

that we certainly need the resources that it engenders. now, currently, as it stands again the gas and the leal industry is regulated by the states as far as this type of thin >> the states of the delegated the authority under the clean water act or safe drinking water act they are the ones that have been delegated authority. epa provides oversight of those states and i just went through an example of what that oversight might look like in a particular place. so that is in my written teimony also, senator, the detail of those interactions but it's like almost all of the other pollution laws that we have, in interaction and between the states and the federal government with the federal government oversight and delegation of authority. >> i think it's important as we have new technology, and certainly this is aew techlogy that hadn't been

around very long. and it's a very effective technology that we understand the potential risk and do it in a sound way. i guess my feeling is that the agency is the responsibility of providing good science to help the state's n making heir decisions. but i feel very strongly that it does need to turn in at the state level, and in the past the oil industry has worked fairly well in doing that and there's a good record there. so again, i would be inclined to continue as we are now with the epa providing sound science. and how do you make it such that there is a part?

will you be the ones selecting the people that do the study? >> in the peer review board? i guess what separation there is in that regard. >> we have a science advisory board the epa uses for its peer review, not all that many of its peer review -- >> and the science advisory board is appointed by the epa? >> y, and it's an independent fact the oral advisory committee and it provides advice to the administrator on fallujah science matters and the senate panels of the need the expertise to look at a particular subject, and we use them -- the offering in many ways similar to the way the national academy of science and set up a panel to look at a particular matter of scientists in that field. >> thank you very much for your testimony. >> senator lautenberg? >> thank you mr. chairman.

two things in life are more essentials and the water we drink and the government has few responsibilities that is critical to protecting the country's water supply. in going to use these couple of minutes for my statement. communities are reporting serious contamination of the water supplies from the drilling process that we are now looking at cracking and the environmental protection agency as we discussed here is widely known as powerless to protect these communities because and soon the republican congress advised president cheney's the test period but the epa from setting standards. this so-called halliburton local elaine is he chemicals in the ground in order to reach to get

to the heart to reach natural gas. some states as we've heard have adopted strong laws to reduce the risk to their residents but let's face it, water doesn't recognize the state boundaries and you may live in a state that has strong lobbies but if the next door doesn't come in your water and your families could still be at risk. the risks to humans isn't limited to those who live near e drilling sites and during assume the process could be highly contaminated. then a recent "new york times" investigation revealed the waste water cannon and rivers and streams and en if it's taken to the waste water treatment plant the water often contains radioactive toxic materials that the treatment facilities cannot remove.

we don't want to make any mistakes in our representation here. natural gas has its advantages. and it's critical for the energy needs. natural gas, cheaper and cleaner than coal and important to invest in the energy source for the country but nothing, nothing is more important than the health of our children and risking their health is in on acceptable price under any condition. we simply can't allow their drinking water or our rivers and streams to be contaminated by natural gas drilling. mini cleaner fuels to replace the oil but we can't allow the cure to be worse than the disease. that's why i joined senator casey and others to introduce the bill to close the halliburton loophole and restore the epa ability to regulate cracking it. -- fracking to read the bill also require the chemical kaput companies to disclose the

chemicals they use on the process. 25 years ago, i offered that the right to move law on the toxic chemical releases in the air to make sure people know about potential substances and their communities. parents have a right to know what is in the fracking that could contaminate the water their children drink. and more information on the contaminants which were happy to see epa undertaking would empower the citizens and help the government to make better decisions on the pollutants in the water supply we need the natural gas but also clean water, look for to hearing from the witnesses about w we can work together to ensure natural gas is done as safely as possible. now i want to ask you and mr. perciasepe a question about the air in new jersey is already

by coal-fired power plants to the west of us and now unprecedented numbers of hydraulic fracturing wells in pennsylvania and other nearby states. what can we expect with air pollution coming to new jersey for these activities? >> the air emissions from the gas activities would be regulated under the clean air act and on the size and type of commission that it is. there have been problems with some areas of the country where the emissions from all of the activity going on related to natural gas extraction that it is cated an increase in the emissions of those compounds or

nitrogen oxide so it is certainly something that would have to be carefully looked at as there is authority under the act. >> that's the conclusion you have come to when will we be able to find out what is happening hair and what we can do to prevent it from coming folder new jersey? >> well, the clean air act requires technology to be used and this is a process the epa s looking at as it goes about rking with the state's and the industry directly onthose standards would be used. of the things i mentioned is the president has asked the department of energy and interior who has

responsibilities on public land epa who has all the regulatory oversight responsibilities to find the best practices and one of the things we want to make sure we are looking at is what are the best practices to be used to minimize the impact of the actual practice of gas extraction. the other side of the coin is the bigot and urged the pollution using natural gas so that being in the coming shortly balance that out in the long term merkley plants >> senator udall? >> thank you mr. chairman and for holding this hearing. i would ask unanimous consent to put my opening statement in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> the energy policy act concluded an exemption for hydrauli fracturing from underground injections.

control permits, however there was also an exemption from the exemption as you are well aware for the hydraulic fracturing with diesel fuel. meaning if you in a install the exemption did not apply recently found millions of diesel fuel had been injected into thousand five including hundreds of dolphins of the ones in mexico. what is the epa position on this? do you need a federal permit to inject diesel fuel underground in a hydraulic fracturing operation, and if not, please explain the court rulings that came out in 1997 and the 2005 exemption for an exemption for diesel.

>> hydraulic fracking is subject to the safe drinking water act requirements in -- >> that's under the court ruling, correct? >> what's under almost of the plane reading of blah, blah the 2005 law that you referred to. we have the information we received from the congress and we also are in the process of gathering our own information as we are going through our analysis and so we are looking into this issue of the diesel use and what we call upon soon. >> but my very specific question here in the sense is the legal question do you need a permit to inject diesel fuel? what is the epa position on that specific question? >> or the state has privacy and i have the state of texas railroad commission the ranking

member senator inhofe mntioned earlier has actually issued a letter inside the state of texas saying they can't use diesel fuel without getting a permit so that is -- >> that's the texas situation. some of it is the same law before the whole country. >> what they object to the requirement state in doing what texas is doing then are you requiring a permit? >> that's what we are trying to find out and work with to try to gather the information wherethe fuel depot fluids may be used. we have the information i was given to us and we are also getting information from the companies now. >> so, the answeto that question do you need a permit to inject diesel fuel you're not getting an answer to that. >> yes. the subject to the safe drinking water act. >> but are you requiring if the state isn't requiring a permit or you require a permit cracks >> we have to find ou where

that is our investigation that's going on now, where are these fluids been used? we have to know where it's being used to require the permit. >> let me go on and be clear. it is using diesel fluids for hydraulic fracturing and shale is subject to t safe drinking water act, would be required to get a permit? >> with the gentleman yield for one moment seconded the facts straight on this issue? >> you're taking the chairman's time. >> i will give you an extra minute. [laughter] according our information at around 19 states that are using eisel as a part of their injection process and that between 2005 and 2009 there were 32 million gallons of injection fluids used that contained the sole. i would appreciate if you could verify that for us and i think