willeto, george b. which willy, clarence bahi willy. vincent jazza, cliffton yazzie, eddie melvin yazzie, edison kee yazzie, francis yazzie, frank h. yazzie, harding yazzie, joe shorty yazzie, john yazzie, justin d. yazzie, lemuel yazzie,raphyial yazzie, robert yazzie, william yazzie, leon yellowhair, stanley yellowhair, howard yellowman, george yoe,

henry za. listed but not confirmed, parry allen, edward begay. jim j begay. instead brown, jimmy clark, king fouler, harvey gray, teddy jose. jesse kempa. . tom singer. jerome sorrow. howard scos inch e, joe read whitman, sam w. yazzie. n.a. brown. rubin curly, alfred dwooly, edwin freeman, billy goldman, roger hawthorne, h. jake,

william keen, johnson nazwood. joe price, wilson h. price. peter tracy, woody bsocsie. don bahey. charlie begay. guy chaucie. livingston, martin martinez. with those i submit those names on a wonderful treasure from the four corners to our america and what they gave this country is so valuable and look back on their life and what they gave us is immeasurable. i would like to do is honor them on today, the anniversary of peril harbor and i hope we look fondly on their attributes and

what they gave to this great country and we are all great because of them. i want to take the liberty and acknowledge one other person, it's her birthday today, my mom, she turned 78. happy birthday, mom. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> on this the 70th anniversary on the attack of pearl harbor i would like to recognize individuals native american code talkers. john rorito was assigned to the 4th marine division and saw action when his division landed in part of the marshall islands, then a japanese stronghold. the fourth division took saipan. he took part in the invasion of iwo jima and recovered after refusing to be sent home because he wanted to be part of the invasion of japan. back home, he settled in denver

where he served as a letter carrier for the u.s. postal service and is buried in colorado. he was awarded the silver congressional medal of honor in 2002. his widow rose and children attended the ceremony in window rock, arizona. i thank him for fighting a brutal enemy in the pacific. the code talkers are a special class of brave warriors who deserve our continued recognition. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? >> i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is

in a few moments, comments from former gov. mitt romney followed by former house speaker newt gingrich. after that, a hearing on terrorist threats to communities. >> and dollar an hour for this. no health care. no environmental controls. no retirement. he did not care bought anything but making money. >> ross perot spoke out about trade issues. he made too intense for the presidency. the first time thing over 19 million votes. he has had a lasting influence

on american politics. he is our final candidates. in two previous other video and to see the programs, from the tomb -- go to c- span.org/thecontenders. >> a date which will live in infamy. >> american history to be books attack on american military forces at pearl harbor including the 70 anniversary. there is a live call-in program with world war ii historians. throughout the day, first-person accounts from servicemen and civilians. this week service about pro

horrible, a tour of the visitors center, and archival footage of the attack. it is sunday on the american history tv. correct mitt romney told the republican jewish coalition that elected, his first foreign trip would be to israel. his portion included other presidential candidates is a little more than half an hour. correct mitt romney. [applause] >> thank you. hi. thank you. thank you. how are you? good. that you to those bring you together. i am grateful to the republican jewish coalition for hosting this forum.

thank you chairman flaum and matt brooks for your leadership. and, of course, i join you in honoring the service of ambassador sam fox. ambassador fox has contributed in extraordinary ways to our economy, to our communities, to our nation, and to israel. thank you. we appreciate your leadership. today, we gather as republicans, americans, and friends of israel. for us, the last three years have held a lot of change, but haven't offered much hope. [laughter] [applause] it helps to have a president who has had a job. our debt is too high and opportunities are too few. almost a trillion dollars in failed stimulus and trillions

more in deficits have left millions of americans out of work. the unemployment rate has been over 8% for 34 months. this is the slowest recovery since hoover. over the last four years, the median american income has fallen by 10%, even as the costs of food and fuel and healthcare have risen. americans are suffering. the poor have a safety net and never seen things so bad. internationally, we have witnessed a weakening of our military and a decline in our standing in the world. president obama's troop withdrawals in iraq and afghanistan were based upon electoral expediency, not military requirement. dictators.

and when the opportunity arose to defend freedom, he's either been late to the game or failed to show up at all. president obama rushed to apologize for america, but he has hesitated to speak up for democracy and freedom. he has visited egypt, saudi arabia, turkey, and iraq. he even offered to meet with mahmoud ahmadinejad. yet in three years, he has not found it in his interest to visit israel, our ally, our friend, the sole middle east nation that fully shares our values, the nation in president truman's words, that is an "embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization." no, over the past three years, president obama has instead chastened israel. in his inaugural address to the united nations, the president chastised israel, but said little about the thousands of

hamas rockets raining into its skies. he's publicly proposed that israel adopt indefensible borders. he's insulted its prime minister. and he's been timid and weak in the face of the existential threat of a nuclear iran. these actions have emboldened palestinian hard-liners who now are poised to form a unity government with terrorist hamas and feel they can bypass israel at the bargaining table. president obama has immeasurably set back the prospect of peace in the middle east. as president, my policies will be very different. i will travel to israel on my first foreign trip. [applause] i will reaffirm as a vital

national interest israel's existence as a jewish state. i want the world to know that the bonds between israel and the united states are unshakable. i want every country in the region that harbors aggressive designs against israel to understand that their ambition is futile and that pursuing it will cost them dearly. i would not meet with ahmadinejad. he should be excluded from diplomatic society. he should be indicted for the crime of incitement to genocide under article iii of the genocide convention.

iran's ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons on my watch. a nuclear-armed iran is not only a threat to israel, it is a threat to the entire world. our friends must never fear that we will not stand by them in an hour of need. our enemies should never doubt our resolve. today, you will hear from several of my fellow republicans. like me, each will acknowledge president obama's failings toward israel. it is a long list. we have a lot of material. like me, each will assure you of our friendship and commitment to israel. we are not distinguished from one another by our opposition to president obama or even by our support for israel.

what distinguishes us is our experience, our perspective, and our judgment. i spent 25 years in business. i've signed the front and the back of a paycheck. backi've helped businesses, like the sports authority and staples, to grow from start-ups to international enterprises. i've served as governor of a state and the steward of the olympics. my perspective is informed by those experiences and by the defining constants in my life, my 42-year marriage to my wife, ann, the life we've built with our five sons, and the faith

that sustains us. my family, my faith, and our freedom these are enduring truths in my life. my commitments are firm, and they do not falter. when i was young, i had the opportunity to live abroad. i recognized that the greatest advantage my parents had given me was being born in america. i am passionate about the principles that have made this nation the land of opportunity and a shining city on a hill. i believe in america. i believe it is the greatest nation in the history of the earth. i believe that the next century must be an american century.

our highest priority must be to maintain a people, an economy, and a military so strong that no nation would ever risk challenging it. my faith in america stems both from my faith in the american people, and from the principles that have made our people strong. we are a people from all parts of the world and all walks of life, but we are strengthened by our nation's unique founding principles. it is not accident or luck that made america the greatest nation in the world it is the power of our values and beliefs. we weathered a great depression. we emerged victorious from two world wars. we faced down an evil empire. today, as we face new challenges and threats, i have every conviction that the american people, edified by

american principles, will rise to the occasion again, securing our safety, our prosperity, and our peace. one of these principles is a merit-based society. achieve success and rewards through hard work, education, risk taking, and even a little luck. the founders considered this principle to be one endowed by our creator, and called it the "pursuit of happiness." our course in life. society gathers and creates a citizenry that pioneers, that invents, that builds and

creates. . and as these people exert the effort and take the risks inherent in invention and creation, they employ and lift the rest of us, creating prosperity for us all. undaunted make us better off. american prosperity is fully dependent upon our opportunity society. i don't think president obama understands that. i don't think he understands why our economy is the most successful in the world. i don't think he understands america. he seeks to replace our merit- based society with an

entitlement society. in an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk. that which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. and the only people to enjoy truly disproportionate rewards are the people who do the redistributingthe government. entitlement societies are praised in academic circles, far removed from the reality of a competitive world. [applause] opportunity is replaced by the certainty that everyone in an entitlement society will enjoy nearly the same rewards. but there is another certainty, they will be poor.

in an entitlement society, the invigorating pursuit of happiness is replaced by the deadening reality that there is no prospect of a better tomorrow. risk-taking disappears, innovation withers, and small business is replaced by large, government enterprises. 4and the result is a nation that stagnates, that declines, that cannot defend itself. i am convinced that this is where president obama's "fundamental change" is leading america. and it informs aspects of his foreign policy. internationally, president obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. appeasement betrays a lack of faith in america, in american strength, and in america's fox future.

like others among the washington elite, he believes that america's role as the leader of the world is a thing of the past, that this will be a post- american century, perhaps an asian century. american strength, he imagines, will eventually or possibly be eclipsed. and so, president obama seeks to appease those he believes will balance us or challenge our leadership. this appeasement by this administration has taken many forms. it includes offers to engage with the world's most despicable dictators. it consists of concessions to russia to remove our missile defense sites from poland and to exclude tactical nuclear weapons from the new, remarkably one-sided, new start treaty. president obama even looks the other way as china employs unfair trade tactics that endanger our economy and kill jobs.

this president appears more generous to our enemies than he is to our friends. such is the natural tendency of someone who is unsure of america's strength or of america's rightful place in the world. the course of appeasement and accommodation has long been the path chosen by the weak and the timid. and history shows it is a path that nation's choose at their own peril. the president promised that he would fundamentally change america. he is doing just that. at home, he is changing us from an opportunity nation to an entitlement nation. he is building a government so large that feeding it consumes a greater and greater share of the people's production. and it is a government so intrusive that it can command free people and free enterprises according to its

bureaucratic will. abroad, he is weakening america, shrinking our military, shrinking our commitments to our friends, accommodating our foes, and appeasing the competing forces that are vying for global leadership. this election is not only a referendum on president obama's failures on employment, on income growth, on housing, on recovery, or on a nuclear- intent iran, on an emboldened china and on friends like israel being put at greater risk. this election will decide what kind of america we will be. it is defining. will we remain an opportunity nation or become an entitlement nation? will we remain the leader of the free world, or become a follower in a more dangerous

world? will america be transformed by barack obama, or will america be restored with the founding principles that have made this the greatest nation history has ever known? many think that because of his staggering failures, president obama will be easily defeated. but an incumbent is rarely turned out of the white house, and his resort to class warfare and demagoguery are powerful political weapons. in less than a year, americans will be asked to make a choice about the kind of country they want to live in and the kind of future they will bequeath to their children. it will be a choice between entitlement and merit, between appeasement and resolve. our party must offer a candidate who can make the case for freedom, opportunity and strength.

our nominee must offer americans more than just a chance to vote against president obama, our nominee must give americans an opportunity to vote for a different path and a better future. a path dictated not by government, but determined by a free people. a path marked by the virtues of merit, not by the slow decline of entitlement. a path that achieves prosperity through opportunity, and peace through strength. this is what americans deserve. this is what the moment demands. and this is what i will deliver, with your help. join me. join me, and i will lead our party and our nation through these difficult times to a brighter future. america has been a shining city on a hill. that light is dimming. but together, we will reignite the spirit of american

greatness. we have wandered and drifted. i will lead us to a better place. join me, and together we will reclaim and rebuild the america we love. i believe in america. our fight starts today. join me. thank you. god bless you. and god bless the united states of america. thank you so much. [applause] thank you. let me turn to some questions

they you may have on this or other matters of benchrest. this is quite a gathering. there's hardly a line there. >> it is great to be popular. >> my friend and i are mostly conservatives. our concern has always been that the governmental class is made up of republicans and democrats. whether it is banning a stupid lightbulb which the republicans did or running amok like the people next door are doing now, we are looking for a leader who will change the regulatory governmental insane environment we live men caused by both parties. how would you do that? >> the answer is leadership. you all have been involved in various enterprises. one of the things that is most remarkable is the impact of a

leader. i have seen -- we have all watched what happened when ronald reagan came into office. isn't it amazing that one person was not a technocrat or a legislature. he was a leader by his capacity to lead and bring people together and to inspire people on both sides of the aisle to do what was in the best interest of their nation, not politicians. he got congress and the evil empire to change. leadership. i am not a perfect guy. i have made mistakes. one thing i have learned is leadership. my mother and father were leadership. my dad was a leader. i aspire to have that. some remember him. he was a remarkable man. i was lucky enough to be the the four kids.s of

my brothers and sisters took me around. i watched my father lead and run for political office three times. i witnessed seeing a leader. then i became one myself. i led four enterprises. the test of a leader is not what job they get. they can be given to you. if they can be earned her a boat of popularity. when you get it, what do you do with it? i turned around one enterprise in trouble. i built a starts up from the crowd to an acclaimed firm. i went to the olympus and turned it to the most successful winter olympics. we or able to balance the budget. -- we were able to balance the budget every year i was in office. i can go on.

my list of fun things in massachusetts was great spirit weaver number one in the nation. -- was great. we were number one and in nationale. our kids are doing well. the best hope you have that i will be able to change washington is that i have had the experience of leadership and i am not a creature of washington. i am a creature of the private sector. i am a business guy. i do not want this as a next step in my little career. i do not have a political career. i care about america. i am convinced the path we are on is toward degrees and i reland.

we will not only suffer now if we do not turn it around, but the world will suffer. one at the leaders said america will be criticized if you are president. do not forget this. what we fear most is a week america. american strength is the best allied peace has ever known. i will keep america strong. thank you. >> in new jersey. i want to thank you. i do not think there is another republican leader who has spent more time trying to help the new jersey republican party than you. >> thank you. >> you on a piece of chris christie. >> he is helping me, too. >> in new jersey, our governor is constantly fighting the democratic majority in assembly,

getting anything done is difficult. what can you do in the first six months of your presidency to help our economy and bypassed specific things -- and bypass congress you want to argue. >> there are a budget thing a president does were they do not need congress. those things i will do immediately, on day one. i'm going to put a halt on all regulations that were installed during the obama years. all of them. these agencies are filled with people who do not like you very much. they do not like the private sector and private venture -- enterprise. we will evaluate which ones are hurting jobs. people fill the job of government is to hold down free enterprise.

i believe the job is to try to encourage our economy and make us more competitive. i will also directed the secretary of energy to provide licenses to the drilling companies that want to start getting more oil and gas. i will issue an executive order that says no longer do you have to use unions on federal government projects. make it competitive. the list goes on and on. that is a sample of the kinds of things a president can do. i will reduce the number of federal employees. that is something i can do directly. it something that needs legislative helps i am content of linking the pay of government workers with the pay that exist in private sector. then we have to go to work on

some things that are tougher. i will grant a waiver from obamacare to all 50 states. you can see all the president that a president gets to do if he cares about principles. if you give us a republican house and senate and president, we will get america right again so that it remains strong. thank you. >> pennsylvania. in 1981, we had a problem with their ron. -- with iran. the hostages were released. is there anything you can do that on january 20, 2013 we will not have a problem with them building a nuclear weapon? they will understand it is

unacceptable. >> i do not know how far along we will be. i do not know where they will be or what happened before that. i was at the conference in tel aviv. it was for five years ago. i laid out the seven steps to dissuade them. none of them have been pursued. we keep talking about crippling sanctions. we do not do it. one of the greatest policies was when he decided to give russia their number one foreign policy, which they fought for for 10 years, which was removal of their missile defense, he gave them that.

he did not get the commitment to back crippling sanctions. that should not stop. we should treat the leaders like the pariah of a are as long as they are pursuing nuclear weaponry. that includes indicting ockham it in a job -- ahmadinijad. regime changes what will be necessary. we should make it very clear it that we are developing and have developed military options. nothing concentrates the mind than seeing this. it is unacceptable. we keep using that word. they are in during an air drawn with a nuclear weapon. it means e.g. nuclear.

turkey nuclear. it means a world that is not safe for europe or america. that is not something we can allow to occur. thank you. >> i will make this very quick. we have had a president to has gone the world apologizing for the united states. i hope you will go all around the world apologizing for obama. >> when they are laughing and applauding, you sit down. >> you have been a tremendous lifelong republican. some of us appreciate that. eric holder has said false

information to the congress regarding gunrunning to mexico. he ignored a new black panther voter suppression. seen r i'm not seein investigations on solyndra going on. hillary clinton has ignored our brothers and sisters in egypt. thishas the chutzpah o audience will understand. she will say your women are not being properly tendered to by the government. would you consider nominating ahead of the election somebody like a rudy guiliani to take on eric holder? consider nominating someone to

be secretary of state to take on hillary clinton and allow the american people to see the kind of nominee is that you would have to go after the nominees that are very important? >> the answer is yes. i cannot give you any names. i was in new york this week. people remarked what a remarkable city new york has become because of rudy guiliani. every time we draw you toward weakness and accommodation, uc a person of strength that stands for principles. you see the positive outcome. we see its then new york city.

a five fortunate to be president, i will be a president that focuses every aspect of foreign policy upon whether or not makes america stronger. it means linking arms with their allies. if you disagree, i do it in private. united we are strong, thank you so much. it is great to be with thee. >> they also heard from newt gingrich for about 40 minutes. >> first of all, it is good to

be back with a lot of friends. we are delighted to be here. my daughter and her husband are here. three have so many friends in this audience. -- we have so many friends in here. he said we needed fundamental change. how many of you would agree that we are far enough off the track that we need fundamental change? [applause] how many of you would agree that even if we win the election that the forces that brought this to the mess we are in will fight every day to stop us from the changes over the course of the next four years? i happen to think both of those are true. i think this election is the most important collection since

1860. that is the primary reason i am running. i think we will be a definitive choice. i believe if president obama is elected, eight years will make the country dramatically more difficult and have dramatically different problems. it is a difficult deciding point. are we in favor of radicalism? are we in favor of earning a paycheck are giving away food stamps tax do we want to borrow 20 more dollars tax do we believe in class warfare? this applies to foreign policy. this administration gave this.

this administration should be reprimanded for insulting performance the other day. this administration should stop next week's meeting with those who would censored the world on behalf of islam. there are huge gaps. the changes are so big that i did not ask anyone before me. if you say you are for me, you will go hall and say i hope he fixes it. i do not believe that is possible to get the scale of change we need. our system does not work that way. i ask people to be with the for the next eight years to stand shoulder to shoulder to insist on fundamental change to remind the congress of what we need to do, to remind the governors and state legislatures.

if you undertake change, we are going to make mistakes. if we can build feedback mechanism so you can tell when we are making mistakes when the situation has changed, we are going to be dramatically better off. then we can execute it. if we implement the 10th amendment and we shrink the bureaucracy in washington, we have to grow citizenship back home. we are talking about a fairly profound series of changes. in order to get to foreign policy, i want to start with three fundamental questions. we have to get the economy growing again. if you look at newt.org, we have the beginnings of a contract which will finance -- finalize.

you will see that we have adopted the reagan playbook. he cut taxes and developed american energy. he praised those who develop jobs. it is the opposite of obama. you'll find that exciting. we abolish the capital gains tax. they can focus on job creation. we have a 12.7% corporate rate which will a break $700 billion for profits to come home. they will pay taxes because it themheaper to pay them instead of hiring lawyers to avoid them. we have 100 term expensing. we want a conscious strategy.

this is the key to our ability to compete with china and india. we also did change unemployment compensation see the sign up for a training program. we are using the time to rebuild our human capital. we're not paying people for doing nothing. we have a proposal to create an alternative 15% flat tax on the hong kong tradition. or you can give up all the deductions and pay a simple tax. it has worked very well for a generation and a half. we hope to repeal obamacare on day one. we want to repeal the dodd/frank.

our goal is repeal a campaign that is sent to be a victory so that we have a big enough majority. the american people have voted on an agenda and a way that enables us to execute these ideas rapidly. i am for a very dramatic american energy program. our goal is to become the world's reserve supplier of energy. i think it is very important for us to understand that this is both in national security and economic strategy. it is the opposite of obama. if we do the right thing, if we rebuild it, if we use science and technology and dramatically improve our education, we do not

have to worry about china. china cannot compete with us. it is unrealistic to think we can be stupid and as the chinese to be dumber. we have to be smart. this is a program with a very high tempo. i also want to apply this to the federal government. you need a government which is much more agile and faster and that belongs to the world that works. if we will remain the leading country. this is the background. we need a dramatically rethought strategy for the middle east. i want to save you things that are a little bit politically incorrect. this is sort of the basic of what i want to do.

we did a movie and joe and john paul the second -- on pope john paul the second. we were told that the decisive moment was the nine days that he came back in 1979 and the way that he aroused the fervor of the polish people. they thought the soviets. there are fighting a dictatorship which cut in prison unit. they put up signs that said for poland to remain poland, 2 + two must always equal 4. i was intrigued. it was very profound. it to plus two equals four is a fact, you now have a factual basis. poland was a fact. i got involved. he writes that there are times a man can be killed for sang to plus two equals four.

we have a solidarity sign. or well wrote about london. it this is the centralized planning. it will lead to a dictatorship. orwell has the state torture were -- torture says it's because this. lincoln said if a man cannot agree that two plus two equals four, you will never win the argument. fact have no basis. i want to say a few things that actually correct. it took a part of the state

department as an implementation system that cripples the capacity of the united states to do things in places like iraq and afghanistan. i stand by that today. it is fine to go in and take out saddam, you should be able to do it in three weeks. you then want to hire the regular army and get out. you do not want to try to redesign it. it is a long proposition that we will fail. in december, i gave interviews. i said thanks to him, we have gone off the cliff. we have changed our mission without our resources. we were trying to undertake something we cannot achieve. i am very worried about our entire relationship.

it is based on a pack of lies. it is based on a pack of self perception. it is an act of this honesty. they have to take up the word is lomb. it is an outrageous denial of tructh. he said how proud he was that we were helping with the project. why in a peace process with israel need to have a missile defense from gaza? can he imagine that our next neighbor were firing missiles at

us? this is why it was so utterly outrageous. how about same gift of violence and come to the table? it is always israel's fault and no matter how bad the other side is, that has to stop here. we are in the long struggle with radical islamists. we have not yet had the long telegram. we have not yet had the three

speeches of 1947. we have not had the airlift. if not developed a thin natural one. we obtain the soviet empire for 45 years. it is a very difficult national dialogue. we need this conversation. we have mortal enemies who are determined to kill us. we allow them to sit up and morally indefensible one-sided conversation. the fact that secretary clinton would talk about discrimination against women in israel and then meet with [inaudible] [applause]

the fact that the state department will hold a meeting on behalf of censoring its is not going to say that this is terrific. there were excited about the meaning. pteron hold a conference on terrorism. the secretary general sent a special envoy and a message of gratitude. our allies we were disarmed by a state department incapable of this.

if he will accept it, i will ask john bolton to be secretary of state. but i will only point him if he will agree that his first job is to complete a thorough transformation of the state department and the replacement of the current foreign service culture with a new, aggressive

culture dedicated to the proposition that defending freedom and defending america is the first business of the state department, not appeasing our opponents. [applause] and i will ask the congress to liberate the intelligence community so we can once again go back to effective covert operations and effective intelligence gathering and not be forced to rely on pseudo allies such as the pakistanis who have clearly been conspiring to hide bin laden for eight years. [applause] let me be very clear. i understand the constitution. i have been speaker of the house. presidents can only get so much done unless they have working majorities in the house and senate. i need your help to get the nomination.

but beyond that, i need your help to make sure that we have a big majority in the senate. bill nelson has to go -- ben nelson has to go. we want to pick up enough senate seats and a few more house seats so we have an effective governing majority on that first day. i will ask the new congress to stay in session january 3 to pass the repeal of obamacare and bring it out during the inaugural so it can finish signing it. [applause] let me say one last thing. i say this with some trepidation because after all, of year-old in june and july that i disappeared, and must be a great shock to have me showing back up again. people talk about it electability. if i do become your nominee, in

tampa, i will in the acceptance speech challenge the president to 73 our debates, -- 7 3-hour debate with no moderator. i will can see that he can use a teleprompter. -- i will can see -- concede that he can use a teleprompter. i am a pretty good strategist. there are three reasons he will accept. the first is, he announced in february 2007 in springfield. he is a graduate of columbia, editor of the harvard law review, the greatest orator of the debt -- of the democratic party. how does he look in the mirror and say he is afraid to debate

some guy who talked at westminster college? the third reason is practical. i am a student of history. unlike the president, i have studied american history. when abraham lincoln announces in 1858 -- he has been out of office for 10 years. he was announcing against the most famous center in the united states and the presumed next president. he said to douglas, we have 105 days left. why don't we debate every day? douglas said, "i don't think so." wherever douglas went, lincoln would show up one day later. douglas began to figure out the news coverage was always lincoln's rebuttal. then he said, i will debate you. there are nine congressional districts.

it was widely covered back then and present in virtually every newspaper in the country. lincoln had the debates reprinted as a book the next year, which was a major step for the presidency. i would argue that it is the finest collection of discussion about the nature of freedom that you will see in american politics. let's remember how lincoln got douglas to decide. if the president has not accepted by the time we get to tampa, in my acceptance speech, i will announce that the white house, as of that moment, is my scheduler. [applause] wherever the president goes, i will show up for hours later -- four hours later.

in the age of instant television news, i doubt if they can take the pressure for more than two or three weeks. but if they would rather have me chase him all the way to election day and have a country watch a man afraid to defend his own record, i think that will work equally well. so either way. i think we have a couple of microphones. let me take questions for a minute or two. >> i am the republican district leader for the oldest republican crut reject republican club in america -- the oldest republican club in america. it is cited in the east village in manhattan. we have to events of great interest to this audience. we were the neighborhood that reclaimed israel to live in 1848, and abraham lincoln

became president by his speech at cooper union, a nation divided cannot stand. my question is, we have lost our manufacturing base in this country. thousands of companies have moved overseas, particularly in new york state, which was once called the empire state, but some of us call it the empty state now. under the leadership of and cox, are republican state chairman, we are trying to bring back business to our state. how would you as president bring back the many, many businesses that have gone overseas? how would you do that? >> what you described earlier is

a key step. you have 100% expense and, so manufacturing firms can write off all their investment in one year. the 12.5% corporate tax rate, zero capital gains. in addition, you have a retrained work force because of a new model of unemployment compensation combined with training. i would replace the internal protection agency with an internal solutions agency -- environmental solutions a disease. you create a 21st century food and drug administration whose job is to go from the laboratories to the patient as rapidly as possible, and designed a new model of occupational safety and health which starts with performance and says if you don't have any problems, no one is going to visit you. that means you automatically eliminate most of the bureaucratic baloney. a still will -- one still mills

said problem is not with china, it is with the government. >> i am a dentist from columbia, maryland. many of the people here live -- it can be extremely frustrating to know that your vote will not make an ounce of difference as there is not enough republican support to encourage good candidates to run. if you were chosen as the candidate, what will you do to help elect republicans in local races in the blue parts of our nation? >> that is a very good question. first of all, remember that my background, having been born in pennsylvania, was that we arrived at fort benning, ga., when i was a junior in high school. a first campaign was the nixon campaign, and there were no republicans in georgia. today when we totally dominate the state, we have taken a stake

that was totally blew and it ceased to be blue. i have some knowledge of how you do this. for this particular campaign, i have two major breakthroughs for all of us to think about. the first is, i will be preaching inclusion, not outreach. out reaches when five white guys hold a meeting and call you. inclusion is when you are in the meeting. whether you are latino americans, native american, whatever your background, we want to design a new model system where everybody is in the same room. california republicans cannot figure out that there are 600,000 koreans in los angeles. they were thrilled at a republican candidate for president was actually willing to talk to them. inclusion is half of this.

the second half a simple, the underlying court symbol of the campaign next year. on one side, you have the best food stamp president in american history. more people have been put on food stamps by barack obama's policies than by any president. on the other side you have a candidate who wants to create jobs. we brought unemployment down to four 0.2% created 11 million jobs in the four years i was speaker. there is not a precinct in america or if you walk up to every door and say, do you want your children to have food stamps or a paycheck? it is a minute to believe that people like to be dependent. i intend to go into every neighborhood. i hope the naacp give me a chance to address their convention. i was in new york this week. this will be a 50 state

campaign, and we will cpac folks in every state in the united states. >> as you know, many people in this room have confirmed -- had our worst fears confirmed last month when the iaea came out with the report about how close iran is to a nuclear bomb. what would you do about that, and also we have over four thousand syrian dissidents who have been killed over the last eight months. what would deduces -- to support the dissidents who want to overthrow assad which tracks i believe the only rational long-term policy is regime replacement. we need to go back to having covert capability. i would focus very intensely on that.

40% of the gasoline they use has to be imported. they only have one very large refinery. i would be focused on how to covertly sabotage it every day. i would follow the reagan playbook. i would fund every dissident group in the country. i would do everything i could to under the regime and keep it off balance. all these studies -- it is amazing to me how little people study history. iaea says we are about this close or not this close. we are totally wrong in the 1940's about the soviet nuclear weapon. why would you think that we can relax? we know they have a program. you have to assume they are

going to make a breakthrough. it is better to stop them early than to stop them late. [applause] on syria, the policy of the nine states should be to replace the assad regime. we should do everything we can call verbally to help the dissident rebel and help them defeat the assad government. it is a dictatorship of very small minority in a country that is largely sunni. it would be a significant blow to iran to lose syria and to lose assad. it is worth the risk. to break up the iranian relationship. >> i am a student at rutgers university in new jersey. i would like to ask about people who have concerns about your

elect ability, they tend to focus not on your congressional record but were on the accusations of past ethics violations. how would you answer that in the scheme of its electability? >> i think nancy pelosi has done a lot to answer it in the last few days. the democrats filed 84 charges against me. 83 were dismissed. the only one that arrive was the fact that my lawyers had written a letter inaccurately and i signed it. the democrats refuse to compromise on that. she was one of the three democrats in the process of refusing to compromise. if she was in the middle of it, how non-partisan and unjust do you think the process was? on every charge, the people said -- for example, did i inappropriately teach a course using tax-deductible money? the irs backed off, apologize, and said they were wrong.

those got no coverage or were on page 63. the democrats decided in the fall of 1995 that it could not defeat our program, but they could defeat me. they ran 121,000 negative ads attacking me and filed 84 ethics charges. if we had been clever, i would have immediately filed a counter charge against them for violating the ethics process. the attrition effect on the members of that many ads and charges has grabbed lily -- has gradually worn down people. i was ultimately so battered by the process that i lost the ability to lead. it is of public record. you can go to my campaign saw in you will see all those. then you make a decision. i have found it is not much of an issue and people are prepared to can see that my record of

achievement is vastly greater than whatever scarring the democrats managed to do. [applause] >> i am an entrepreneur from houston, texas. yesterday's, president obama gave one of those two plus two equals 563 speeches. he argued about fundamental fairness in the united states, without talking about the obstacle to fundamental fairness, witches the teachers' union. what would you do project which is the teachers' union. what would you do to narrow the education gap between wealthy and poor kids who are trapped in a system that is failing us as a country? >> sometime in the near future i am going to give a speech on inequality from a couple of angles. i believe in levelling up, giving everyone a chance to be

more successful. he believes in leveling down. i believe in wealth creation. he believes in wealth redistribution. i believe the primary problem with the very poor is they are trapped in government institutions that destroyed their future. the fundamental -- this is why i want to have the debates next year. the difference will be so vivid and clear to most americans. i want to take one minute to talk about a recent example of this. i believe it is really important for children to learn to work. how many of you earned some money before you were 15? i was with a fairly wealthy young lady today's ago who could clearly be living on her trust. her grandfather paid her to run

errands she said she was five when this started. why am i saying this? the other day i said -- and this goes all the way back to an article that was written 20 years ago. if you look at the price of new york city school janitors who are paid more -- the entry level gender is paid twice as much as the entry-level teacher because of the unions. my model would be to have a janitor and an assistant janitor who are full brunt of the know what they are doing, then to take the rest of the money and higher lots of kids part-time. they could be a clerk in the front office. they could work in the library. you could hire them part-time to help in the kitchen. there are lots of things you could do. these are in the very poorest neighborhoods for kids are in public housing, surrounded by people who have no experience in working.

it is exactly what happened to moynihan, when he used common sense 30 years ago, and the left went crazy. if the problem is that we need to help people learn the culture of work and learn the culture of saving and learned the idea of value over time, you just made this country dramatically more conservative. jack kemp and i used to argue for equity in public housing. people in public housing who do not suffer from severe mental or physical problem should have a responsibility to help take care of their apartment. if they take care of it well enough over time, they could have sweat equity. they could actually acquire ownership. barney frank got up and said, do you realize if you allow poor

people in new york city to actually on their apartments, the department could be sold for several million dollars, and they would not be poor anymore. [laughter] i am for an america where there are no more poor because they all had a chance to rise. thank you all very much. [applause] >> hear what the candidates are saying from the campaign trail that the newly designed campaign -- c-span website for campaign 2012. >> this is a time for america to get serious about our challenges. the big one that i started with is our budget and our spending. if investment is not landing in your marketplace, then it is landing somewhere else. capital is a coward, you have

to argue. it is not landing in your marketplace, it is landing somewhere else. >> it is very interesting concept, the idea of having a consumption based tax as opposed to an income based tax. to go through that debate right now and have a two-year debate on the care tax, we need to do something now. >> read the latest from political reporters and candidates, all at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> in a few moments, a hearing on terrorist threats to u.s. military communities. in three hours, we will reach air our coverage of mitt romney at a forum of the gop jewish coalition. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span3. we will hear from attorney

general eric holder on operation fast and furious. that is that 9:30 a.m. eastern. at 2:30, a hearing on the domestic and global water supply before the senate energy and natural resources subcommittee on water. witnesses from the departments of state and interior and water management experts from around the country. >> part of the point of the book is to change the way we think about change and to make us much more aware that i think we are instinctively, with the potential suddenness of disintegration or collapse. to make us realize that what happens in the soviet union, what happens to the financial system, what is currently happening to the european union is the kind of thing that can happen to any complex system. it can suddenly malfunction. >> this weekend, economist and

historian neil ferguson, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, and sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific. craig shirley looks at the japanese attack on pearl harbor and the subsequent reaction by the american government, military, and public. saturday 1:00 p.m., and again at 9:00. journalist and former judge catherine crier on why partisan politics are hurting the country. saturday at 3:30 p.m. and sunday night at 11:00 picnic watch it book tv every weekend on c- span2. >> the house and senate homeland security committee is held their first joint meeting wednesday to examine the terrorist threat to u.s. military committees. they heard from defense to permit officials and the father of a soldier who was killed at a recruitment center in little rock, arkansas. this is three hours.

>> mr. long is the father of william andrew long who was killed outside an arkansas military recruiting center in 2009. mr. long has a distinguished record of service to his country that includes 17 years of unlisted service in the united states marine corps and 10 years as an officer. mr. long spent his childhood in afghanistan and has visited a replica is st. -- roughly 50 countries. between him and his wife janice, his family has been connected with the u.s. armed forces since 1918. " like to acknowledge the

presence of mr. melvin bledsoe who is seated directly behind mr. long. mr. bledsoe testified before our house committee in march of this year. he is the father of carlos bledsoe, who has been convicted of murdering mr. longbows the sun. mr. bledsoe presence here and support of mr. long is a testament of how to parents in pain can stand together in the fight against violent extremism. thank you for a testimony back in march. now i am privileged to recognize mr. long for his opening statement. >> chairman king, chairman lieberman, ranking member thompson, distinguished members of congress, since my son's death, my view on things as change. i have lain awake through my wife's nightmares when she relives being 50 feet away when

andy anquan and were shot. my wife served in the navy with -- and was honorably discharged. i family has served in various military branches since world war one. we have one son who served in iraq and one son who was infantry who is buried in the ground. my faith in government has diminished. perpetrator speak freely using very words deemed offensive to justify their actions. clarity is absent. little rock is a drive by. court who is just workplace violence. three days after any guide, it was reported on the internet by major garrett in a statement on the little rock shooting. it only went to arkansas news outlets if they asked for one. according to garrett, the white house did not think there was much interest in the story otherwise.

it starkly contrasting with the statement on the killing and wounding of american soldiers in america's heartland. the white house issued a letter of condolence. we received a personal phone call from the president. his statement is conspicuously absent from the white house website. 14 minnesota men arrested for planning to go to somalia and two men in seattle planning an attack in a recruiting center, all resulted in federal indictments for terrorism. he has all the rights of american citizen. people within the federal government like to trumpet its success in thwarting a tax. former homeland security

secretary tom ridge said we just got lucky when it new york and christmas day bombings failed. luck is not an effective counterterrorism strategy. the latest board could episode was planned by a soldier who had previously been the subject -- the latest quarter could episode. he was painted as a peaceful muslim poster boy with principles. it is telling that his discharge is on hold because he was facing child pornography charges and was a wall from fort campbell, ky. once again, federal terrorism charges. in an attack which resulted in the first death and wounding of american soldiers on u.s. soil since 9/11, action by the department of justice is absent. little rock is nothing more than a drive-by shooting. jihad in america has been

downplayed by the federal government, causing irreparable pain to the families involved, as well as flat out lied to the american people. i am convinced the government's decision is to deny little rock as a terrorist attack by not being open, transparent, and despite promises to do so, two holders have been abandoned on the battlefield in the advancement of a political agenda. november 5, 2009, an attack took place at fort hood. still no federal indictments. my take is, you plant or fail in a terrorist attack, you will be charged. you kill in this country on the banner of jihad, we are told it is not terrorism and federal judicial response neither confirms nor denies it. we firmly believe if the white house had shown the same attitude concerning little rock as was shown in the killing of the doctor, a clear message could have been sent.

it mean the truth about islamic extremists and masked alarm bells that were going off. major nidal hasan was able to openly plays -- openly praised barack shootings in front of army officers, and then commit his own jihad. the last planned attack at fort hood was stopped because an ordinary citizen recognized the signs. if our government and press had done their jobs in honestly reporting on little rock, for good may have been avoided. it is a blatant disregard of the facts. it endangers those of muslim heritage who do not adhere to the extreme believes demonstrated by a political and militant form of jihad. i grew up in afghanistan and lived there for than a decade. i travel to more than 60 countries, many of them primarily of muslim culture. i will not condemn the religious

rights of over 1.5 million people. rational people do not deny these events were the results of men who practice what we are told is a particularly warped interpretation of their religions. the confusion being shown by our leaders is undermining the security and frederick of our nation. the message being sent to the military community denies these heinous acts as terrorism. carlist bledsoe was unquestionably a radicalized extremist group of family kept silent for over two years. we will not keep silent again. we are speaking not out of hate, but because our country needs to hear the truth. this administration needs to heed the words of first corinthians 14:8. if in fact a truck makes an unclear sound, who will prepare for battle -- if a trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will prepare for battle?

thank you. >> thank you for your courage for being here today, and thanks to your wife you have told us is the rock of the family. mr. long, one of the issues that struck us when mr. bledsoe testified back in march is why the federal government, why the justice department did not treat this as a terrorist prosecution. some of the things we have wasrd, the fact that the fbi aware of mr. bledsoe, that had been monitoring, and for whatever reason the monitoring was pulled back, or something was allowed to happen. rather than go through it and am -- an embarrassing prosecution, it was referred to the state. i find it very unusual in a case where you have someone who is actually trained overseas, sent back here, carrying out a political, jihad is murder, is

not treated as a terrorist, but people bidding on a plane going to somalia are arrested as terrorist. can you tell us what you have learned as to why this was not prosecuted by the federal government as a terrorist offensive to our >> rational people could not tell you why. we looked at what happened to my son and after clearing the army on a purple heart the first time. the second time, they said we don't have enough information. i sat down and went through the internet. loman has 38,300 entries on the internet along. this is what i submitted to the secretary of the army. it was not to make it a determinant thing. it was to get the army to go through the regulation that was mentioned in here, paragraph 2- 8. it specifically says in the

case of international terrorism, the secretary of the army has the authority to do that, but it has to have an investigation done and submitted by a major intelligence summary officer. to this point, we still have no answer on whether that is done. what we get now is it is just a criminal act. he flew to yemen on 9/11, 2007. of 365 days a year, why would he pick that day? he is arrested on november 14, 2008. in his possession he has bomb making materials. he has al-awlaki tapes. he has a fake somali passport. why would he have a fake somali passport? he was going to somalia. when i met with the fbi in september 2009, i asked in this

question. the said they could not say. i said it is rhetorical. i have been to somalia. the average guy cannot read, but if you show him a piece of paper with a bunch of rubber stamps on it, he will let you go through, because he does not know if it is his warlord or the next warlord who took care of it. he was his -- he was on his way there. within hours of going into a jail house, an fbi agent from asheville is interviewing him on -- in yemen. the los angeles times reported that the federal government new and this guy was dangerously radicalized before he ever came back to the united states. the fbi agent goes back and tells him, if you ever get out of this godforsaken place, i will hound you until you die. he is deported. i did not know if the state department had anything to do with that, but it was also reported that under urging from

the embassy, he was deported out of their rather than have a trial there. as of the hearings we had in here before that mr. bledsoe testified at, the state department was involved in getting this guy here. so now we are importing these people back in. he gets back here, he is interrogated again in asheville. he stays in memphis for a couple or three months. moves to little rock, within a month of moving to little rock, he gains over 1000 rounds of bullets, 8.38 pistol, and a rifle. he decides to go on his yacht. when he bought the 22 caliber rifle and no one stopped him, he said it is on. this was his plan that he worked up, according to his letters, while he was in the political prison in yemen with his fellow brother al qaeda people.

the fbi, in a brief to the national guard in little rock, called him an al qaeda at year- end. the army last august -- and al adherent. paren they identify the little rock shooting as terrorism. they come back with a letter saying it is just a criminal event. you cannot have it both ways. these are my sons dog tags. he wore these when he took four rounds of ammo from about 3 feet. on its there is the warrior eat those good the last line of it is, i will never leave a fallen comrade. well, the army left him.

>> the senator from connecticut, mr. lieberman. >> thanks, mr. chairman. thanks for having the courage to come before the committee to speak out in public. thanks for your eloquence. your statement was extremely powerful. it brings to mind the very important role that family of people who were killed on 9/11 have had in influencing in shaping our government's reaction to 9/11. thankfully, this group of survivors that you are in is smaller, but i hope you will think about being in contact with survivors of people who were lost at fort hood, and

making yourself available, because your testimony is very powerful, and it is real, and it is what any of us sitting here would feel if we were the father or mother of the young man who was killed, again, simply because he was wearing the uniform of the united states army. i appreciate your testimony. it is very moving that mr. bledsoe is here and that you have established some kind of relationship after this tragedy. i am sure he feels a kind of pain that is a different kind of pain, because of what his son has done. i want to say incidentally that hud did not know about this problem about the wording of the purple heart. i think to echo what was said,

we ought to get together -- i know there is an administrative process over there. i got worried when i heard this described by the first panel of witnesses that the language, as it exists now in law and executive orders and regulations regarding the awarding of purple hearts has got folks in the defense department in a box that nobody in congress want them to be in. your son should obviously be awarded the purple heart posthumously. it is probably a little bit too quick, but i am wondering, there is a conference committee this afternoon on the big board of defense ordered braced -- authorization bills that have passed. i am sure everyone would support this. i will see if we can draft some language that might be included in that conference report which hopefully will be passed by the end of this calendar year. if not, we will do it

separately, as quickly as we can. we argued a lot about how to handle detainees in the senate and house in this bill i am talking about. one thing that was mentioned over and over again is that there is now a u.s. supreme court ruling that says that an american citizen such as mr. bledsoe who is found to be an enemy combatants can be treated that way. in other words, having committed at -- having committed an act of terrorism, being subjected to military incarceration and a military tribunal. coming off of what you have experienced, i just want to ask you -- i know you have spoken from your heart of the disappointment and anger about some of the things that the government has not done.

have you received any support, and how sufficient has that support bent from the u.s. government and other sources after the killing of your son? >> i believe that if it was left up to the u.s. attorney's in arkansas and the senior agent in charge of the fbi, this thing would have been in federal court. the army, i have to say, in dealing with the casualty affairs officer, he happens to have become a very good friend of mine. we talk to each other on a weekly basis. he has got me pull then to the survivor outreach thing. i have talked to several other families. arkansas has lost 119 people that are connected with the war on terror. there are a lot of good things

that have come out of this, as a part of this, but mostly on a local scale. >> to the extent that it is possible, and i know you have a life of your own that your living, but the occasions you can come forward and speak up, you can change the policy of this government, i believe. i thank you for being here today. >> thank you. >> and now recognize the gentleman from mississippi, the ranking member, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, mr. long, thank you for your service and thank you for coming to this joint hearing today. like my colleagues before me, we are deeply saddened by your tragic loss. i also want to say to chairman lieberman, i am one of the

conferees on this dod authorization ever, and if there is a possibility that we can craft some language that would provide the relief for this family in this situation, i would love to do it. >> thank you, mr. thompson. let's work together today. >> i look forward to it. the broader public policy issue is, i think, also in the conversation, too. i look forward to working with you on that. again, let me offer my personal condolences and sympathies to the tragic loss. i look forward to doing whatever we can as a committee to correct any past issues that we have

identified because of this situation going forward. i yield back. >> i would just point out that the chairman is a conferee also and he fully supports the recommendation for a purple heart. i recognize the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you mr. long, for being here. mr. bledsoe, thank you for being here as well. it combined efforts in being here and representing your son's is very noble. i just don't get it. military office, 24 years, and why your son has not received a purple heart. this is what it says in wikipedia. after the rest, moment acknowledge the shooting of mr. long.

he had rivals, two handguns, and military books in his car. he said he had been sent by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and that the attack was justified, according to the islamic laws and islamic religion. those who reject he recently returned after 60 months in yemen and was the first of two gunfight attacks in 2009. mohammad was charged with capital murder, attempted capital murder, and 10 counts of unlawful discharge of a weapon. he reportedly faced 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act. i don't understand why the army has not gone ahead and offer your son a purple heart, at the very least. >> they are looking at it as a state crime. it is gang-related. you have to turn around -- it is

a state law dealing with dang at suppression. that you are targeting someone inside a house in a drive-by shooting type of thing. the thing that i don't understand is that in mahomet's on handwriting to the fbi, to the prosecutor, on may 30, midnight, he started jihad by shooting up a jewish rabbis house in west little rock. he then drove to memphis, where he parked outside another jewish rabbi of the house, but because the neighbors were too loud, he moved on. he then drove up to florence, ky, which was his first recruiting center that he was planning on hitting, but it was closed. so in frustration, he decided to come back to little rock, and on the way he stopped by national and threw a molotov cocktail that he had made in little rock

at another rabbi's house in the west end of nashville. failed to explode. the maya understanding, they have that molotov cocktail in evidence. when he came back to little rock, he drove by, saw the opportunity of quinn and mine son andrew coming out, and came back and did his attacks. his bda is 20%. but where is the fed on the other 80%? material support for terrorist, and that he provided his own body on 9/11, 2007, to al qaeda. he specifically tell the fbi that he went places in yemen. if you go back to the army

doctrine published in 2007, terrorism in the 21st century, they specifically identify a front for radical the hottest and terrorists. this guy was there. there is nothing there. it is the same that john walker lind went 2 for his training. attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, title 18, paragraph 32 b. where are these guys? where are they in here doing this stuff? >> i can tell you, sir, i will not leave your son behind. i will take this as a personal challenge to mee.

i am very disappointed in the secretary of the army for not recognizing your son. >> i now recognize the gentle lady from texas for five minutes. >> mr. long, i mentioned earlier about remorse and sympathy to your family, and i thank you for not remaining silent. the presence of mr. bledsoe acknowledges the pain that he experiences as well. i think that we clarified for the record, and i think you were present in the room, that those who are representing the united states military are remorseful of this enormous loss of life. combined with that, i think the virtues of our constitution and the first of men and make us a great country and make us able to answer the concerns that you have expressed.

i think you have heard these solution expressed. you heard -- heard a senator and house member, another senator from arkansas, and a member from texas who experienced and more with those at fort hood, going in a fast pace to resolve this. i think because our country is new -- not very new at dealing with this issue of terrorism, our statutory laws may not have grappled with the change. 81, as your son was and the other fallen soldier in europe -- 81 in the action of their duty, andy and quentin are

clearly defined, as far as i am concerned, as fallen heroes. fort hood had the same crisis and the same situation. i cannot ask you why soldiers were unarmed. i will not ask that question to do. the question i raise is that policy and domestic territory, on the land of the united states. some americans are wondering, why did this happen? why weren't they aren't? -- why work by armed -- why were they not armed? maybe in consideration of what we face, we have to look at those questions. the one thing i will hold is that from hearing from us today, that your words have indicated that your faith in government is diminished, at least somewhat. if i might say tempered, you may see a glimmer of hope and also a

response to the activism of your family. i hope that will be something that you will come away from with today. i do want to ask this question, because out of your pain can come inside. you heard the open discussion, beginning to look at the behavior of an individual. in this instance, the perpetrator that you were dealing with, there were actions over and over again, and the behavior was not passed from one person to the next, because there was no policy at that time. what other tools do you think we need when we began to look at this domestic terrorism, recognizing the particular actor and associated with a particular style, but recognizing that this does not condemn muslim soldiers and muslim americans. what tools do we need, mr. long? >> first of all, mr. bledsoe and i both lost our sons that day,

and i am very thankful for him being here. i hear this discussion about behavioral tools. i am a father. my kids come home and they do certain things, i know they have done something, but they are not going to tell me what they are doing. it takes me awhile to figure out what they are doing. sun su came out 2000 years ago and said basically, in arkansas term, if you know what the bad guy is doing, and you know you are doing, you are going to win all your wars. if you don't know what the bad guy is doing and you know if you are doing, you will win half of them. but if you don't know what they are doing and you don't know what you are doing, you are going to lose everything. to me, the banishment of certain terms and certain words -- that

is the words that mohammad used. that is not the words that i would use. in islamic law, carried out in reliance of the traveler, it describes jihad as a war against non muslims. you understand those terminologies, you can get inside their decision cycle and break that cycle. it has to be both, but it has to be clear and concise. you have to say the truth, worked the truth. >> we are doing that here, and as my colleague said, we will not leave your son and the other soldier, and the soldiers at fort hood, we will not leave them behind in not being honored by the united states of america. i think you have a chorus of support here today. by the end of this hearing, we will have a resolution to honor

all of those who fell in this type of action. mr. chairman, i thank you. i think we have learned a lot and we are ready to move forward as quickly as possible. >> recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> i thank you for your testimony, mr. long. you are eloquent and spot on. i simply want to thank you for your service and shining a light on this problem. jihad is not clearly understood, and even the tools of jihad or not. there is a term for deceiving and fooling the enemy, a useful tool in jihad.

one we should know a little more about. again, i thank you for your testimony. god bless you and your family. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i now recognize the gentle lady from california, ms. richardson, 45 matt birk x first of all, i would like to request unanimous consent to enter into a final statement for the record. >> mr. long, of like to say that you can count on me and standing with my colleagues who have already spoken today in my efforts, as i would blend with them in proper rest -- recognition for your service. i want to commit to you that i am going to forward your testimony went it is available to both the president and his administration with a personal

note of what i personally heard you say here today. you should not have to say it time and time again, but i appreciate your willingness to continue to talk to us and to make sure that we are better informed and we don't make the same mistakes in the future. finally, i want to thank you for your relationship with mr. long and for bringing him here today. it is these experiences that we as members of congress must know so that we can do better and this administration can also do better. thank you for being here. >> i am sitting in for mr. king for just a moment and i just happen to have my five minutes at this point in time. mr. long, it is interesting we can do certain subjects from different perspectives. when i was privileged to serve my state as the attorney general, i threatened to take

the perspective of the victims when i look at the criminal- justice system, because i thought it was a perspective that had not been appreciated for a long period of time. it was an it does not mean it was the only perspective, but it was an appropriate perspective. you said that we suffered from a lack of clarity in our efforts. do you find anything wrong with the expression used of "radical " or "violent islamic extremism" with your experience in that part of the world? does it mean to -- mislead us? does it help us? is it part of the lack of clarity? i believe it is part of the lack

of clarity, and let me put it this way. in the 10 years i grew up there -- i graduated there. i was there during the cuban missile crisis. my dad built the canals that we were fighting over in helmand province. my grandfather in lot is from afghanistan. my nieces are his offspring. i have a love for those people over there and i was glad that we decided to do something about this terror that was going on. however, islam is many things. it is a religion and the first amendment gives a freedom with respect to the government is willing to interfere with that. it is also political, social, economic, and military. when we can sort out what is

what, i think we can have a better discussion. but if you lump it all under the protections of religion, you will never get to that. we gave a certain portion of my sons insurance to dr. michael yusef down in atlanta, and he sent messages into north africa and correa and they were -- and in north korea, and at they did not have this attitude of we need to bomb them all. but we need to be honest. man-made disaster, genetic military action, that is a war. in arkansas, they would laugh you out the store when you came out with words like that. >> you are someone who has served this country. in addition to your son having given the last full measure.

as someone in the military under the circumstances that we are talking about, would you consider it something that you should bring to the attention of your superiors if you saw a fellow officer put on his car that he was a soldier of allah? >> in 1995, i had a troop over in okinawa. he had a tattoo. it is now a practice in the marine corps when you recruit people, or to get selected for an officer program, they take pictures of the tattoos to make sure they are not gang-related. if you have those, you are not getting promoted and you are not getting into the service. it is a statutory oath that you take "i do solemnly swear to support the constitution of the united states." its should not be a policy issue.

you all took that oath. i still go by that of. my son took that oath. when it is wrong, you need to do something about it, otherwise, you are dela or -- derelict in your duties. to formulate a policy, that tells me something is broken. >> i thank you very much for your testimony. i think is wonderful that we are attempting to learn from the lessons and that we are trying to say that common sense is not so, any more, where you have to tell people that those signs are the red flags. it seems to me to be self evident that those are red flags, unless there is a pressure being created in your environment where you are afraid to raise the red lot -- the red flags.

that goes further than defining what the red flags are. that goes to the atmosphere created. i do not know if you overturn the atmosphere by just saying those are red flags. it is good that we are saying they are read 5, but it seems to me, it is the manner in which -- those are red flags, but it seems to me, it is the manner in which you put it into context and bring an alert when an alert ought to be done. thank you. i return right time to the chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your service. thank you for bringing clarity to the room in a more complete way today. my wife and i had the opportunity to be more proud of our sun than ever before because of " -- because of recruiters like your son who recruited our son. into the army, and he spent part

of his mls training in the -- mos training at fort hood as well. whoave the pride of the sua son served willingly is one thing. to have the distinct honor of having a son who served to the last ounce of blood is even greater. thank you for being here. >> thank you, sir. >> if i am not crossing a line, i would like to ask if you would be willing to elaborate on -- and i appreciate the fact that mrs. long is not here, and chose not to be here at this hearing. but if you would be willing to elaborate on what she heard, what she saw, what her reaction

was, what the last time was that she saw your son alive, i would appreciate that. >> it was about 10:15 a.m. and she had driven my son down to the recruiting station. he did not have a car. at the time, we were running with one car, so he was not going to get it. she drove him down there and he was sitting outside the parking lot. he had gone in, and they have not kept him very long. he was kind of a show to get others to come in, look what i did, and you can too. he stepped out of the recruiting office -- and my wife was about ready to get out of the car to go talk to him when another soldier came out with him. he said, don't, he's got a friend -- i said, don't, he's got a friend with him. let them talk. she started reading in the car and at the time she heard a three separate gun fire bursts.

she got out of the car and looked over and she could see one soldier on the ground and another one trying to get back into the recruiting center and a black truck driving off. about that time, sergeant kennedy came out and grabbed hold of her because he knew she was in the parking lot, and they escorted her back through past my son. sergeant first class? was out there doing cpr on my son. -- sgt first-class dobbs was out there doing cpr on my son. the some of the others were trying to take care of the other soldier. i got a call on my phone and she said, andy has been shot. her biggest regret is that she did not get over to him. but she also knows there were people who were competent and who could provide the first-aid. that is her biggest regret.

i had to almost bridey's out of her fingers to bring them appear to assure you that -- pride these out of her fingers to bring them up here to show you these today. it took us two years, three years to get them back. going through this, all she could see was my son's legs popping up as they were performing cpr on him. the next time we saw him, he was in the emergency room, declared dead. they allowed her to go in there. it was still messi. she saw all the wounds. and the next time i saw him, they had cleaned him up. we were not able to touch him. he was evidence. and then it was two years of trying to figure out what was going on, who shot john. will the federal people step in? we were told by the attorney-

general of office that they would do that. we have since met with them again. but our first reaction on november 5, 2009, i was out in the garage working on a project and it came up in the news, for good. i ran into the house because i knew that she watched the news. i said, you have got to turn the tv off. it has happened again. and her first thing was, i told you it would happen. they are not listening. and then our thing was to get ahold of my daughter so that she would not see the news. every time this happens is a traumatic event. their loss down there is not lost on us. there are 13 more parents that are going through this. >> mr. long, thank you.

that is clarity. that is graphic. and that is the impetus and the reminder to us. thank you for your willingness to share that. i yield back. >> mr. long, i want to thank you for all -- on behalf of myself and all the members of the committee for your testimony. it was a privilege to have you here today. we will do all we can on two levels, one, to make sure that what happened to your son happens to no one else. and also, to make sure that he gets the recognition he deserves, which will be the army purple heart. the part. >> mr. chairman? may i echoed your remarks? chairman lieberman has indicated on the record that there might be a conference on the dod.

i am so delighted that mr. long chose to be created -- courageous on behalf of his son, but he also mentioned what happened at fort hood. is it your intent that the circumstances at fort hood could cover that circumstance as well? >> to my gentle lady from texas, it happens that by coincidence, the first meeting of house and senate conferees on the part of defense authorization bill is convening this afternoon here on the house side. and he is a conferee, which i did not know. and mr. lundgren is, too. i think our aim would be to amend the language in a manner that would not just relate to private long and the other soldier wounded there, but

certainly, the folks at fort hood. we want to change the statute so that it can be clear in these kinds of circumstances it will be clear that the action is to award the pergo part. >> i might want to engage with the chairman on -- the purple heart. >> i might want to engage with the chairman on the overall circumstances that we find ourselves in. but i thank you for that clarification, and our sympathy for all who have fallen in battle. i yield back. >> thank you for your testimony and for doing all that you can to insure that what happened here does not happen to others. everything will be done at the defense authorization conference to try to bring some measure of justice to your son, and to others who have also been killed

or wounded in such a tragic way. with that, thank you for your testimony. i want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. if there are any additional questions from the committee, we will ask you to respond to those in writing. the record will be held open for 10 days. do you have any closing? i'm sorry. >> not at all. this has been a very productive hearing in the spirit and content. i have learned a lot. we are carrying out our responsibility to oversee the protection of people here at home from terrorist attack. in this case particularly, members of the armed services and their families. i never have understood this particular action that we have

the ability to carry out on the purple hearts. it emerges from this testimony. i think this has been a very thoughtful and informative and productive hearing. i look forward to working with you and our ranking members on other occasions. but thank you. >> i look forward on the purpleheart matter, since there is unanimity of agreement that we can do what we need to do to try to make it happen. >> again, i want to thank senator lieberman, especially for his willingness to hold this joint hearing. this is very serious. allow me a little bit of levity to say, i do not know how many of you in ramat realize the significance of having prominence -- in the room realized the significance of

having prominent senators walk over here for this. senator lieberman has been involved in this struggle for so many years. i want to thank him for the work he has done as the chairman of the homeland security committee. he is a great friend and a great american. i am proud to be able to work with him. with that, the hearing record will be open for 10 days. and pursuant to the motion -- to the motion that we hold today, with that, the committee stands in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> this hearing on to terrorist threats to u.s. military committee -- communities earlier. this is about two hours. >> good morning. the committee hearing will come to order. the committee is here to look at threat posed to the community by homegrown terrorists.

the chair wishes to remind our guests that any use of science or verbal outbursts will not be allowed in the house of representatives. -- and the use of signs or verbal outbursts will not be allowed in the house representatives. i now recognize myself for opening statement. today, the common security and government all affairs committee is holding a joint meeting on the homeland terrorist threats. let me start by thanking chairman lieberman and ranking member collins for their leadership in the senate in addressing the threats posed by islamic radicalization, which they began examining five years

ago. i appreciate, chairman lieberman and ranking member collins working with our house committee on today's hearing, which is the first-ever joint house-senate homeland security hearing. i also want to thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing today to discuss this growing security issue, including the assistant secretary of defense, paul stockton, and retired marine corps veteran and the father of army private william long, who was killed in a terrorist attack at a recruiting station in little rock. with us also is mr. bledsoe, the father of the young man who murdered private long. this is the fourth hearing in a series the house committee has held this year on the serious threat of violent islamic radicalization within the united states. our previous investigation of radicalization with the islamic

committee generally carried out inside the united states has focused on al qaeda and -- as in somalia. this -- and al-shabab in somalia. i believe it is particularly appropriate that we do this on pearl harbor day when so many troops were killed in a surprise attack 60 years ago, 70 years ago. we have an obligation to act in response to an alarming new developments concerning a growing threat of radicalization both within the military as well as against the military personnel and their families residing in the u.s. our troops volunteered to go into harm's way overseas to protect all of us. they should not be in harm's way here at home, and yet they are.

this threat against the military is persistent and enduring. more than five plots have been disrupted involving u.s. military insiders in the past decade. and 11 cases involve veterans or those who attempted to join law enforcement or the intelligence agencies. the total number of radicalize troops is probably more than we realize or knowledge. since the 9/11 attacks, at least 33 public cases have been prosecuted or probed in which homegrown terrorists living and operating in the u.s., and sometimes in the military itself, pose a great threat, plotting to carry out attacks aimed at american armed forces in the homeland or deployed to overseas war zones. 23 of these military targets plots, or 70% of the total, have unfolded since mid 2009 as part

of a broader search of homegrown islamic terrorism. at the 16 extra plots by jihadist inside the u.s. have been disrupted or investigated. at least nine other external plots were thwarted involving u.s. persons in the homeland who planned trips overseas to kill gis in afghanistan, iraq and elsewhere. a growing number of terrorist threats are directed at military families and personnel. of particular concern is the safety of relatives, whose loved ones are deployed in counter- terrorism operations. i would also note that within the last two weeks, in new york city, we saw jose pimentel arrested, and among his goals was to attack returning veterans from afghanistan. as recent history illustrates, the only successful attacks since september 11 have been against the military.

at fort hood, where 13 were murdered in an active shooter attack by army major new dolle hasanni -- nidal hassan and had a recruiting center in arkansas where private long was shot by carlos bledsoe, whose father is also here with us today. the fort hood attack was not an anomaly. it was a part of al qaeda's two- decade success of its effort in terrorism. military bases -- military targets in the u.s. have become the targets of this activity. heroes should not be struck down in the place they should feel the safest.

this is a political sickening against and one we cannot afford to neglect. -- this is of political significance and one we cannot afford to neglect. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these matters. it is my privilege to recognize a very good friend, but more importantly, the chairman of the senate homeland security committee, the general -- senator lieberman. >> thank you very much. welcome, everyone, to this historic joint meeting of the house and senate. my thanks to you for proposing this hearing, and to ranking members for supporting this idea. there is no subject that should unite us more across both ends of the u.s. capitol, and across

partisan and ideological lines than the threat that islamist extremists opposed to our homeland -- posed to our homeland and our people. i think this is a demonstration of exactly the kind of unity. i hope it is not the last occasion on which our two committees come together for this purpose. today, we focus on the threat of violent islamist extremism to u.s. military members at home. the men and women who have sworn to defend our country, our security, our freedom, expect and shourd realized a respite from wartime conditions when they are home. but the record shows that the u.s. military has become a direct target of a violent islamist extremism here in the united states. that means america's troops and, perhaps, their families are

potentially vulnerable at work and at rest in a military setting, or a civilian one, on a base or off eight days, at a recruiting station, or even at a military -- on a base or off a base, as a recruiting station, or even at a military hospital. some facts that are probably surprising to most americans, the first one is this -- the only americans who have lost their lives in our homeland to terrorists since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks have been killed at u.s. military facilities. private william long, who was killed at a little rock recruiting station on june 4,

2009, and whose father we will be honored to hear testifying today, was the first killed only because he was wearing the uniform of the united states army. 13 more americans were murdered on a member fifth, 2009 during the fort hood attacked by nidal hassan. in addition, two soldiers were killed in kuwait by a fellow american service members. the second fact, and this will perhaps surprise people, too. since 2001, law enforcement has thwarted and prosecuted more than 30 plots against military targets within the united states. according to the congressional research service, that represents more than half of the 54 homegrown jihadist plots

and attacks that have occurred between 9/11 and today. the stark reality is that american service members and their families are increasingly in the terrorist scope, and not just overseas in the traditional war setting. the premise of this joint hearing is not theoretical. it is based on fact. today, we want to ask our defense partner -- defense department witnesses what our country is doing to protect our military personnel and facilities here at home, and in a broader sense, what the future of military homeland security should look like. our government's counterterrorism capabilities are critical in uncovering plots against military installations and personnel so they can be prevented. that means that the fbi, which

is house primary -- which has primary counter terrorism responsibility and capability needs to work more closely together than they ever have before. law enforcement agencies in communities across the country and other government agencies also should continue to reach out to muslim americans so that they can help our government meet this threat to our country from a small, but deadly number of people who are radicalizing to violent islamist extremism. finally, i want to say not for the first time, but i will keep saying it, that are more government house to recognize at some point with the enemy is, and call it by its exact name. the enemy is not a vague catchall of violent extremism.

but a specific islamic of violent extremism, of exploitation and corruption, i would say, of the religion of islam but it is adherence to that violent islamist extremism who attacked us on 9/11 and have plotted to attack, and have attacked, those more than 30 military installations here at 2001.since 9/11, 2 and that is not hear your rhetoric. it one of the conclusions that i take away from the last decade is violent islamist extremism, notwithstanding the extraordinary advances that our military advances and law enforcement personnel have made against it, will continue to

threaten us for years to come both iran the world and here at home. and -- both around the world and here at home. and its targets will continue to be military service personnel both around the world and here at home. we have weakened our enemies, but they are not vanquished. and protecting americans in general, and our service members in particular, will require a continuing preventive, defensive, and where necessary offensive action by all of the assets of the u.s. government. that is particularly true of the american military facilities, and the patriotic americans who served in and from them. >> thank you. are recognized my good friend, the ranking minority member of the house homeland security committee, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, chairman

kaine, for holding this hearing. i also want to welcome our colleagues from the senate who have joined in this hearing today. the steps the military has taken to ensure its safety of its bases and recruiting stations, in the last two years, two attacks on military installations within the united states have been successful. one attack occurred at fort hood, texas, where 13 people were killed. in the fort hood incident that defendants are still awaiting a military court martial. the second occurred at a recruiting station in little rock, arkansas. one person was killed and one person was wounded. in the little rock case, the defendant pled guilty to a mortar -- to murder in state court. i imagine my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will use

these two attacks to paint a picture about violent extremists threats facing this nation. and once again, the picture they draw is not likely to be accurate, honest or subtle. in the past, have expressed my concerns about the nature and the directions of these hearings. my concerns are amplified today. focusing on the followers of religion as the only credible threat to a nation's security is nearly blocking -- narrowly iblocking threats. we're likely to harm unit cohesion and undermine morale within our military. a congressional hearing that identifies one religion as a likely threat within the military is not only inaccurate,

but unwise. as a matter of practicality, i am certain that on the battlefield, our soldier praise is probably less important than how well he or she shoots. -- who our soldier praise to is probably less important than how well he or she shoots. in the bombing of pearl harbor, that single event, an unprovoked attack on an american military installation in american territory propelled this country into world war ii. december 7 is a day that will live in infamy. and they risk their lives to defend this nation. the same can be said of today's veterans. the men and women returning from afghanistan and iraq have placed their lives on the line, and

each one volunteer to go. as we think about the significance of this day in history and a possible meeting of this hearing, we must begin by thinking about what these two groups of soldiers fought for. each of them answered the call to arms because they believe in america. each believes america is a beacon of hope and freedom in a troubled world. they will be willing to defend -- to shed their blood to defend and protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution. as we think about our debts to veterans of past wars, let's not forget our most basic obligation to those that currently serve. we owe them a clearer understanding of of their mission and a clear definition of the enemy. their mission is not to defeat an ideology. and while some of our colleagues have difficulty grasping this,

and allow the military people understand it. in the days after the ford road shooting, then secretary gates refused -- fort hood shooting, then secretary gates refused to lay this tragedy at the feet of one man or one religion he appointed a board of for review of what happened, why happen, and what can be done to prevent the same thing from happening in the future. the review board did not sweep this incident under the rug. they did not seek easy explanations and some planters. they identified deficiencies in dod programs, emergency response procedures and a threat identification. and once they identified the problems, they began to solve them. today, dod has completed 43 of the review board's recommendations. 15 additional recommendations should be completed by march, 2012.

however, the military's ability to move forward and complete the remaining recommendations depends entirely on us. since september 11, congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for mca, veterans cost and veterans care associated with the wars in iraq and afghanistan. budget cuts may affect the rest of these recommendations. today, i hope we can come up with a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to give the funding needed to prevent another tragedy like fort hood. if we can, then something good will have come out of this hearing. with that, i yield back. >> i would just note for the record that in the investigative report that the majority is releasing today, we point out that 6024 service members have

declared islam as their faith and have served in overseas deployment since 9/11, and some have been killed in battle and four are buried right here in arlington. there was no effort on anyone's part to denigrate the contributions of the islamic community. we are talking about a very small and lethal community. with that, i yield to senator collins. >> thank you. let me first point out that this unusual house-senate hearing demonstrate our joint concern for the safety of our military personnel and their families, who are increasingly the target of terrorist plots. regardless of our analysis of the cause or what the remedy

should be, i am certain that each and every member of both the senate and the house committee is committed to doing everything we can do to ensure the safety of our military personnel and their families. in that regard, i would also like to recognize the family members here today whose lives have been forever changed by terrorism. our military service members have been on the front lines in the war against terrorism for 10 years. in iraq, afghanistan, and wherever they are called upon, america's military men and women put their lives on the line for us. we are profoundly grateful to them and we must work to ensure that their lives are not in jeopardy due to insider threats.

tragically, in recent years we have seen several attacks from both inside and outside the gates of our military bases. as we have seen with the attacks at fort hood and at the little rock recruiting center, our military is, in fact, at a target for islamic extremists in our own country. in a recent report of the congressional research service, they note that 23 of the plot targeting the military have unfolded in just the last 18 months. how do we identify and stop the next homegrown attack on our military? in my judgment, this effort must be addressed through a comprehensive counter terrorism

strategy that carefully differentiates between peaceful practicing muslims and violent islamic extremists. as chairman lieberman and i highlighted in our investigation into the fort would attack, the administration -- fort hood attack, the administration unfortunately has been unwilling to name a violent islamist extremism as the ideology driving the homegrown terrorist threat that we face. for example, in response to our committees continued interest in the fort hood massacre, the department of defense responded a few weeks ago that it is dealing with the threat of violent islamist extremism in the context of the broader threat of workplace violence. this approach, i would note, stands in stark contrast to past dod policies that specifically

addressed white supremacist activities after the racially motivated murders of two african-americans by two army soldiers in the 1990's. among the recommendations in the senate for a good report, we urge that there be training for service members. and yet, a combined house- senate committee staff review has confirmed that the only department-wide instruction to date is interim guidance distributed to commanders of potential indicators of violent behavior. that is woefully inadequate. i do understand the dod is moving to develop a long-term policy solution, and that the army is currently implementing an updated threat awareness

reporting program with associated training. we simply must arm our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines with the knowledge to differentiate between the vast majority of muslim soldiers and military members who are a peaceful of the major religion and those who pose a threat. identifying factors that lead to violent radicalization -- understanding behavior's that can be indicators of such radicalization, and engaging to stop the radicalization process are all vital components of a comprehensive tarleton -- counterterrorism strategy. it is frustrating that even the senate's repeated calls for an

official to coordinate activities against violent is a extremism against the government have gone unheeded. this committee, both the senate and the house, have been examining the process of radicalization for more than five years. whether radicalization occurs in prisons, or via the internet, the threat that such radicalization poses to our military members must be acknowledged and address. today's hearing should serve as a call to accelerate action to protect those who would put their lives on the line for our freedom. our service men and women deserve no less. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, senator collins. other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. the topic we are examining is of a sensitive nature and depending on the questions asked, they in danger security or compromise sensitive law enforcement information. i have consulted with mr. lieberman and we are in agreement that should it be necessary, the hearing will recess after the second panel has concluded and reconvene in closed session. therefore collide recommended that the hearing moved to closed session at the appropriate time. and without objection, so ordered. i would also ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement from congressman ellison. he has not provided it to us yet, but he said he would. i ask that it be included. without objection, so ordered. i would now like to welcome our

witnesses today. your testimony will be submitted for the record and i would ask you to summarize your statement at this time. we have a distinguished panel of witnesses today. we have a sick -- assistant secretary of defense, paul stockton. in his role, he is responsible for the supervision of homeland defense activities, defense of port authorities, and western hemisphere security affairs for the department of defense. from 1986 through 1989, -- and senator lieberman, this goes along with the interest of bipartisanship -- he served to senator -- senator moynihan, the only senator i know who has been recommended for sainthood by republicans and democrats. prior to that, he was a senior

research scholar at the stanford university center for international security and cooperation. i have the privilege of meeting with secretary stockton and i look forward to his testimony today. he is accompanied by mr. james stovell, who is a supervisor with the united states army for counterintelligence opera, -- operations. finally, we have lieutenant colonel reed sawyer, the director and one of the founders of the combating terrorism center at west point. he has served in a variety of special operations assignments, including in afghanistan, iraq, south africa. he is a member of the fire department of new york terrorism taskforce. he has edited two books on the challenges involved with international terrorism and we

look forward to his testimony today. now i am pleased to recognize secretary stockton for his testimony. secretary stockton. >> chairman, thank you for the opportunity today to testify on such an important issue. and thank you so much for your focus on these topics and your leadership, and for your contributions to national security as a whole. let me begin with my bottom line of front. -- up front. the threat that we are discussing today is serious and enduring. the department of defense has taken important steps in order to meet this challenge, but we do not intend to rest on our accomplishments. with your help, and with the strong support of my department's leadership and i

pledge to continue strengthening be prepared this of our domestic military communities against the homegrown threat of terrorism as it continues to revolve. in the past several years, we have seen increased numbers of american citizens or residents inspired by al qaeda's ideology. and the department of defense has become their target of choice. my statement for the record summarizes actions we have under way to counter the threat. our initiatives are directly targeted to fix the shortcomings revealed by the tragic shootings at fort hood. and in regard, i want to thank both -- the members of both committees for the support and the work that you have done in order to identify the shortfalls that previously existed and make recommendations on the improvements that we ought to pursue in the department of defense. in addition, we are looking

forward to the threat evolving in the future. we want to make sure that we anticipate how the threat is likely to revolve so we can be prepared to counter it for years to come. i would like to highlight some specific actions we have under way in three areas. first, information sharing. second, identifying and reporting on possible violent extremists. and finally, improving our incident response capabilities. four months ago, secretary panetta and the attorney general implemented a groundbreaking agreement to strengthen information sharing and cooperation between the fbi and the department of defense. chairman lieberman, i take very seriously the importance that you and others have attached to continuing to strengthen the fbi-dog relationship, and i will also discuss ways we are working together with state and local law enforcement to be

better prepared in the future to meet the challenges that we face. we have also launched the e- guardian system to share suspicious activity between state and local law enforcement, a joint task forces, and the department of defense, including installation commanders around the nation. together with other information sharing initiatives now under way, we have greatly strengthen our ability to connect the dots and prevent future attacks against our military committees. we have also made progress in the second rung, and that is, providing commanders and other supervisory personnel with the guidance they need to identify potential violent extremists in our ranks and ensure that necessary follow-up and intervention actions occur. in 2010, then secretary defense gates provided interim guidance

on how personnel should identify and report potential insider threat. we have a series of studies underway right now to refine and build on that guidance and anticipate future homegrown threats. in march of next year, the defense science board will issue a study that recommends additional training tools to better enable our military supervisors to recognize when and how they should intervene in order to thwart potential insider threat. two longer-term studies that we have under way are also died in deep into the behavioral processes that lead to radicalization. again, we can refine our programs and our training efforts to ensure that we can successfully intervene and prevent future terrorist attacks from occurring against our

military communities. finally, knowing that perfect prevention will always be our goal, but it is unobtainable, we have been strengthening our ability to respond to the attacks that do occur. we have launched a shooter training program for military police and other personnel. we have greatly enabled our communications systems that will enable us to warn military families, improved support efforts and made other life saving improvements. distinguished members of both committees, thank you again for your leadership and for your focus on securing the homeland against the threats we will be discussing today. i look forward together to working with you in that effort and to your questions and recommendations. thank you. >> thank you very much secretary

stockton. i now recognize colonel sawyer. >> distinguished members of both committees, as the director of the center of west point, it is my distinct honor to be here before you today to discuss a critically important topic. the center of west point is committed to studying the underpinnings of the terrorist threat. as such, we have a 14-month study of the specific jihadist threat. there were two critical point. peirce, the rapid rise of al qaeda reveals a growing landscape that only grows more opaque each year. and the military as the preferred target is a trend that is greater than many realize and with the importance of today's

hearing. let me turn to my first point. since 9/11, the u.s. has witnessed the radicalization of 170 of its residents and the targeting of citizens for violent action. this amounts to one attack for every three months for a 12 month timeframe with the overwhelming majority occurring since 2007. concurrently, we have witnessed an increasing number of groups overseas a line or affiliated with al qaeda, which increases the number of entry points for individuals radicalized in the united states. the conclusions to our few successes are that the distance between failure and success is far shorter than realized. really need to look to the madrid attacks or the devastating attacks in london to see the damage possible from a home grown sell. in a the northcott -- in other

words, it may also provide a false sense of security. in the 2010 plot to my provides a stark reminder of what might have been. perhaps the most disturbing trend noticed by many here today is the intense focus on the military targets. the military present a qualitatively different target when attacked at home than one engaged in combat abroad. a cursory look at the data reveals that nearly 21% of domestically radicalized plots target our military forces at home. but this is not reflect the totality of interest in starting military forces by al qaeda inspired individuals. a second category of homegrown terrorists are those that are radicalized year and equally committed to the travel overseas to participate in the global jihadists.

when these numbers are included, the number increases to nearly 50% of all plots in the united states that are directly seen as targeting the u.s. military. what is difficult to assess is whether the second group would have focused on military targets at home if they were not abroad. this population is of significant interest. if we expand that to include all military targets for whatever reason, and percentage jumps to 56% of post 9/11 plots. there is little direct contact between these cells and the radicalizing agents, and the barriers to targeting u.s. soldiers are less than when targeting civilians. this is both the function and the nature of al qaeda's narrative that trains war criminals and creates an imperative for striking the

military in a pre-emptive matter. -- pre-emptive manner. this is a group that is made up of lone wolf's, whether by strategic choice or lack of access. it creates difficulty in identifying and preventing these individuals. the second group is the one that radicalizes once inside the military. they are not only dangerous because of their access, which is crucial, but it is the combination of access and matt -- and knowledge of their organization that makes them more dangerous than they otherwise would have been. the number of insider cases is specifically significant because they propose a disproportionate impact on we think about the effect this has across our military and our raises al qaeda's narrative. these attackers -- attackers' produce significant psychological affects.

terrorism is about the psychology of fear. the threat is significant. the potential physical violence from the cell is only one dimension. radicalization of are u.s. citizens tears at the fabric of society in the way that those in yemen or pakistan do not. interdiction and prevention efforts must be coupled with programs to counter violent extremism to ultimately foster inhospitable conditions for extremists in the united states and to decrease the threat to the military forces. thank you for holding this hearing and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, colonel sawyer. also, thank you for your prepared statement. i read it last night. it was a tree on terrorism. thank you. secretary stockton, in your

prepared testimony, and also in an article you wrote entitled "10 years after 9/11, challenges for the decade to come" you said that al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is actively recruiting u.s. military personnel to conduct loan at -- alone after attacks on u.s. military targets. how successful has al qaeda been at recruiting members of the american military? >> the primary threat to security at home comes from al qaeda, itswe take seriously theg efforts by other cockade components to -- other al qaeda components to inspire others to attack u.s. military facilities. it is an issue we take very seriously.

it is my ability to do this. those recruitment efforts are ongoing. this is a persistent threat. it is an involvement threat that we need to stay in front of. >> i'm not want to ask for precise numbers. i welcome the opportunity to answer this and close session. >> we will do it at the end of the second panel. during the 1990's when there were white supremacist attacks and right-wing extremist attacks

carried out, at the military made it clear that they carried out the attacks. those ideologies were identified. it appears were identified by name. why does the army now believe it should not identify who the enemy is? >> after the attack, they made a decision based on the department of defense. when we broke the regulation, it

was a cold war focus s&p and not focused regulation. we included indicators of espionage, international terrorism, and extremist activity which was a first for the army. these indicators are focused on behavioral activities. we adopted that approach. we want to make sure we can account for any type of the threats previously and in the future. focusing on the behavioral activity were focused on this. >> we are looking at ignoring the ideology. senator lieberman said it is a

violent is long. it is a tiny minority. they are not rallying toward christianity. they never hesitated and are beinin targeting that. i'm not saying we go back to the cold war. white supremacy was not the cold war. that was a particular ideology that was effectively attacked. by not identifying who the target is. if you're talking about irish catholics, they identify them. there were being too politically correct.

i find that very frustrating. my final question will be we have learned those that inspired this. was that an aberration? most people cannot fly nazi flags and they are in the barracks. it is the organ of the enemy. most of them were named. it asks you to answer specific questions. >> i will answer your question about "inspire" magazine.

in our current one, we request the behavioral indicators that we have identified on extremist activity. this is one of the ones we want them to report. >> is the person out to keep it? >> if it is reported, we will investigate to determine that there is a logical reason for the soldiers to have the magazine. we will deal with the situation. there are sometimes analysts who read the magazine for logical reasons. the cracks classic>> could i spr

policy questions? the primary threat is al qaeda and the affiliate's. everything we are doing in terms of primary focus concentrates on that threat. when you look at the guidance, we provide this overall policy to each of the armed services, expressing our support for a violent organization, associating with terrorists, having a copy of inspire magazine. these are behavioral indicators. we are not at war with islam. >> i want to ask two questions that come off of the report that

the senate committee did. the first builds on what he was just pursuing. to be found that if he had made statements either informally or in the presence of former members of the u.s. army. they were provocative. they showed that he had read, if the violent extremism. none of the personnel who heard those statements reported them or attempted to do anything. there's a question whether they should be in the u.s. army before they do so much great damage. one of the recommendations was

that the pentagon begins to train members of the u.s. and signs of an islamist extremism it protects the thousands of muslims to serve honorably so that people can tell the difference. he had politicized it. in may have been that they just cannot want to create a problem so they turned away from it. i am concerned that the pentagon has not implemented that kind of training program.

it protects the thousands of muslim americans in the military. do you want to take this? >> i would. then i like to turn it over to discuss how the army is applying guidance. we agree it is critical to assure that the personnel can recognize signs of radicalization. the guidance takes us a long way in that regard. many of the behavioral indicators retrospectively look back at the obvious warning signs, the red flag that should have been going off prior to fort hood that we can look forward to. we can continue to refine these training tools. they can effectively intervene

when military personnel gives violent etiology, when they praise an extremist group abroad. and when they attacked american values. i would like to turn it over. >> is there a training program of that kind? >> yes. if i could turn it over to talk about how the army is applying it. then i could have some additional thoughts to share. >> i talked to mr. king. we have since gone out m professionalize the training program. we have adopted a professional training program. we help them present this in an effective way to tailor the briefing whether it be a group

of researchers and scientists. we have ensured that there are a number of professionally done vignettes that cover each of the behavioral indicators. if you look at the table, it may pose a threat to dod. you would see that three of the indicators are referenced bit earlier. it would have been covered. soldiers are trained to report the behavioral indicators. we're confident that we would have received reports on those. >> i appreciate that care >> it

was particularly the personality. they have not taken action based on these hills. >> we have more than 5000 recruiting centers in the u.s.. they were killed on the homeland. he was outside the station. i want to ask about the level of cooperation and what it is. these recruiting centers are on main street. these are areas of jurisdiction

for local and state law enforcement. just give us a quick answer on what we are doing now to secure those recruiting centers of the u.s. military. >> under the memorandum of agreement between dod and the fbi, we have dod personnel and batted in over 60 ones around the nation. we have liaison relationships all of the communications across the nation. this is all facilitated by the guardian system for sharing of suspicious activity information. they can take the enforcement measures necessary to ensure facilities that are embedded and where local law enforcement will always be in the lead.

we need to continue to strengthen that relationship. to ask you some more particular questions. thank you. >> thank you. on the order of questions, it will be those who are here when the gavel came down and then the order of seniority. we will go to the ranking member. >> you had ample time. you have the review. have we come up with any lessons from that that you think

would be instructive for this committee? >> the first lesson learned is that we hadn't been adequate -- we had an adequate flow of information to the department of defense to the commanders responsible for anti-terrorism measures. the specific failures that helped facilitate the breakdowns in the incident, those are the ones we helped model in order to fix our new relationship. we now have the opportunity to explain what kind of an information that we need. we have now. it it comes to wonder to people. -- to one or two people. there is not a risk that the

institution as a whole will sit on information. if we have a special training program. they are now being invested in the six task forces around the nation. they know what to look for. they can identify a reason why we need that information to flow to us. we have a very careful measures in place to protect civil liberties. it is respecting privacy and the guarantees under which we all live. >> your testimony was after that review. they had similar occurrences like would be minimized. >> yes. >> one of your responsibilities

is reviewing some of the training material that is going out in the broader community to address this issue. it i think part of it is some of this training material has been identified as perhaps misleading. can you suggest to the committee a way to address some uniformity standards within the training for this issue? >> yes. there are too critical parts. the purses that we do not want to inhibit our ability to educate -- the first is that we do not want to inhibit our ability to educate. how do we get our officials to understand the threats and how they can react to them in a

proactive manner and understand them at in debt to focus on the trajectory of our time? to achieve uniformity, we need to instill there is a competency in people in producing the training materials. that they are rigorous and based on sound research and that they are fact based ended a void of personal opinion. if we accomplishing that, the reviews have shown this to be the case. >> they are putting into place whether we can do that and maintain the unit cohesion.

are you confident the items you work don will identified the issues alboin not jeopardize unit cohesion? >> with the issues we punished is that there are a multitude of reporting mechanism should they observed one of the behavioral indicators. they can report it to counter intelligence agency and investigator. they can report it to a commander and squad leader. we put in place a link on the army knowledge network. they report the and information.

they are using all of these been used to report. it is very effective. >> >the gentleman from carolina. call them for what they are. it is violent, violent extremism. they make sure that they are aware of it. this is one of my most important jobs.

thank you for being here. you referred to empower local partners to prevent violent extremism, stating the best defense are well informed and equipped families. could you elaborate what he meant by this? >> my pleasure. the president has issued a new strategy last august empowering local partners to prevent violent extremism in the united states. families are an important part. muslim families are an import part of feeding the recruitment and radicalization american citizens and residents and the efforts of al qaeda it to turn them into attackers against military communities.

we view the opportunity to treat families across the nation as partners in the shared endeavor. >> thank you. according to the investigation, the army currently does not share counter-terrorism and information. could you confirm this. why is this the case? >> i disagree with that statement. we do share the information with our local commanders and security officers in the chain of command. every time you receive an information, it indicates a

threat. we go through great means to make sure all leaders have informations a they can have the appropriate decisions. >> that is good to know. thank you very much. to what extent is al qaeda planning to infiltrate the members into the military? if you see an increase in trend in this? >> parts of that question will be addressed in a closed session. you carried a distributed network. it make it inaccessible for anybody regardless of their

ethnicity to participate and belong to this. it decreases the barriers of entry. the continue to paint the military as war criminals. it will induce further people to further target the u.s. military and will increase the insider threat. >> thank you. >> see discussed it and are carrying this out. >> what can be done to harden the stock it stac?

>> i welcome to address that ben closed session. we would keep the classifieds. >> my time is expiring. thank you very much. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentle lady from california. >> thank you. thank you for being before us. my husband is a retired military officer. on 9/11 he was in germany. he is a lawyer. he oversaw that in germany. he recalls the day after 9/11 he had to go in and talk to lawyers on the other side furlough all

municipalities and explain how and why we had driven tanks all over the town. obviously, we had somewhat overreacted to what had happened over here. he had to explain what we are doing by driving our tanks oliver town in shutting things down. i think we need to plan ahead. so we do not have these types of reactions. we need to plan ahead and with our local been sodalities and law enforcement when these type of things happen and when the plan against a terrorist attack. i think when we saw a search to figure out what we need to do, and that is very important.

we have looked at much of this to try to figure out what we do and how we do it. education is very important. education of the troops. i would like to ask consent. there are some muslim soldiers. it is a great institution. we talk about how it is looked at differently. even though still have silver stars, there always looked at

with questions. my question is, may i introduce them into the record? >> without objection, so ordered. >> what is do we bring? to be considered not having muslims ta? i live in the middle east. it is important to know the language of the people. some people say let's not have these people. what would you say to something like that? >> i would begin by referring back to the comment that chairman team made earlier. recognizing the tremendous contributions of muslim americans.

we need a muslim americans in the united states military. we need native speakers. we need patriots of all religions joining and maintaining the strength of our armed forces. you raise an important challenge. how do we both deal with the reality that al qaeda and the affiliate's are targeting department of defense facilities as a target of choice and recognize that we need an value of muslim americans in the united states military? the way forward is to focus on indicators of violent behavior and radicalism where we can watch the behavior and train our personnel to watch the behavior of our soldiers in order to identify and intervene effectively when they say indicators that within our ranks we may have its spirit >> my

father prosecute many of non muslims for killing their wives and kids in the military. >> it to be anybody you is exhibiting behavior to indicate a propensity to become a violent terrorist. this is about i cried debt, at the affiliate's and the primary -- it is about al qaeda and its affiliate's in the primaries at home. >> thank you. you mentioned the intellectual underpinnings of radical islam and the training. the theology of islam is easily

understood. prayer and fasting and charity and the adherence to the natural law. beyond that, there is an overlay of politics. there is a battle within islam. the political aspects of this are problematic. it would serve our interests if we understood more about what is going on within islam. have we talked to those to get a better understanding of the politics and theology?

is there a movement afoot for the intellectual justification to combat this within islam? are retaking advantage of it? is this considered too sensitive to be addressed? >> thank you very much. it the best way to answer that is to point out that there is a significant distinction between the politics and the theologies that are embraced within the tradition and culture. it has perpetrated and developed here. want to make this distinction, which then can start to parse these two pieces of part. i would argue that the entire

intelligence community have had extensive outreach efforts to understand not only from the perspective of what they mean in consulting with academics, but also to understand what it means in the american context. we can see different effects. this comes back to the education question that they address. it inhibits our ability to really address the problem in comprehensive manner. that is what he has done very aggressively. we have educated over 4100 law enforcement officials over about 60,000 hours of education. how is it we can make these people smarter to understand these distinctions? what we do not want to do is to

harm the community and create worse relations. >> it is an excellent question. i would urge all members and staff to become familiar with the new white house strategy. it is focused on the challenges that you discussed and highlights a new way forward. it did meet the challenges that we confront. >> can you identify any leaders in the muslim community better helping you in this regard? >> i would be happy to take that question for the record. >> thank you. i know that.

>> thank you for your courtesies. i initiated with our soldiers a bad yellow ribbon campaign for the troops coming home at the end of december. it is evidence that america loves her military. if they would allow me. i do have questions. i want to quote a comment from secretary gates that says it reflects the strength of our national diversity and is composed of patriots who are first and foremost soldiers, sailors and marines. i would like to change the discussion and talk about americans. american soldiers to happen to be a many different faiths. i indicated that i am here to be

a problem solver. those who lost their lives were my neighbors and friends. i went to the memorial service. it is a memory that i will never forget. it will never be extinguished. to mr. long, i say that we are paying for the enormous tragedy. we should be here to solve problems. i want to quote from you as i hold up a little book that i have done before. we are constant reminders of the value of this book. our soldiers are defending the constitution. we do have a freedom of religion.

it is important to note the comment that he made about primary threats of al qaeda not at war with islam. he stated homegrown terrorism happen to be of a particular faith. they are intensified by their own research, by the internet. we have within our borders the ability and skills and tools that should be utilized to stamp out those who would do us harm. let me quickly notes and paid tribute to he he died in afghanistan a 26 year-old muslim. he was among five soldiers who were killed. his family and the knowledge

that he was picked on the in military but his goal was to die defending against act of terror and a violent interpretation of islam. let's put that on the record. let's pay tribute to those who have died. why did the military who were aware of the violence passed that information on? let me add other questions you can ask them. soft targets are here. we see our soldiers traveling to airports in bus stations. some soldiers will be coming home and going into

neighborhoods and corners across this nation. what have we begun to do to already addressed the potential of soldiers who are walking alone. there is the idea of data bases. is tof the recommendation s do this. >> i would like to answer your first question about the activities of major tucson. what a bore not -- major hussain and why they were not reported. we did not have the right behavioral indicators to the forests. we do not educate our force in this regard. since that time, we have revised regulation. i am confident it would allow

soldiers to report the information that they have discussed about him. i believe the bottom line is that we did not do it properly. it denied the report said. >> we are doing more as it relates to behavioral training. it overcomes the idea of stigmatizing one religion over and other. >> in the table, they have extremist activities. they are focused on the behavior of activity that would encompass those topics. >> any response on the soft targets? there be on the basis. >> local law enforcement and

having our military have this with them so they can be in the lead. the military's family and soldiers are in the united states. i yield back. >> i recognize the former attorney general of california. >> thank you very much. let me say i great support for those who are serving in military today. are we at war with violent islamist extremism? >> no. we are at war with al qaeda. >> is violent islamist extremism at war with us? >> no. .

we are being attacked by al qaeda. >> can al qaeda be an exponent of violent islamist extremism? qaeda is murderers. >> is al qaeda acting out of violent islamist extremism? >> al qaeda is a violent organization dedicated to overthrowing the values that we -- >> yes or no? >> can i hear the question again? as wel make it as clear can. we are not at war with islam. >> i did not ask that. i asked whether we are at war with violent islamist extremism. >> we are at war with al qaeda. >> how does al qaeda define itself acts are the dedicated to violent islamist extremism? >> they would love to convince muslims around the world that the united states is at war

with islam. if that is a prime propaganda tool. i will not aid in that. i do not think it is helpful to frame hour at its erie. >> i never said we were at war with islam. we're trying to do with the radicalization. is it a behavior indicator to put on your car that your soldier of a lot?

>> an indicator that you have a copy of inspire magazine? >> that is not my question. >> we have this that enables our personnel. >> you have to follow up and investigated. >> we are training our supervisors to follow up on inappropriate indicators. >> do you agree with the statements of someone representing the department of defense on the weekend after the shooting that it would be a

greater tragedy to lose their program of diversity? >> there is nobody less politically correct then senator moynihan. that it may not be about political correctness. we are talking about the fact that we now have to have behavioral indicators. if he has on his car that he was a soldier of all of it seems to be beyond common sense to think that they're not be able indicators.

would it be important for me to report those as behavioral indicators tax that is not a question of whether or not you're being politically correct. if i am a soldier and as you that question, what do you tell me? >> inflammatory rhetoric. it needs to be reported. our officers are trained to report on that behavior. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you for doing this. >> i want to think the witnesses for being here today.

we appreciate everything you do for the country. that me start with this. as they have mentioned, we have a situation in little rock where two of our recruiters were killed and targeted by someone who had been radicalized. they have been opening about it. that is why they were targeted. under the department of defense, he is not entitled to receive the purple hearts. could you talk to the joint committee here about why the department of defense has said they are not entitled to receive the purple hearts of? >> this has been a decision led

thus far by the department of army. i defer to him. >> thank you.an >> this was tragic. a loss of soldiers is a tragic situation. the award of the purple heart is given by statutes. it is to be awarded to soldiers for wounds received us the reaction of any war. the incident in barack is considered a criminal act and not considered an international terrorist act. the secretary of the army cannot award the purple hearts to the soldiers. >> should information's surface that would change that, the secretary would be allowed to look at it. it is based on that. >> the perpetrator has admitted

that it is a terrorist act. he did that. he was trying to kill americans in uniform. he had been radicalized. he is not hiding it. having trouble understanding why the army does not consider this a terrorist attack. >> the secretary of the army did have the information available. however, it still is not deemed as sufficient to name this a terrorist act. i will take this back to the army leadership. >> thank you. i know the u.s. attorney wanted to try the case but for whatever legal reasons, i am not sure it ended up in state court. it was a criminal matter. certainly the u.s. attorney

tried very hard to characterize it as a attack on u.s. soil. i would very much appreciate hearing back from you on this. i know that senator bozeman and i have a bill to try to clarify this. very mixeding a message about the threats we have here. it is a head scratcher. i would appreciate you getting back to me. >> thank you. >> with the gentleman yield? -- would the gentleman yield? i want to join with you on seeking clarification.

there are too confusing themes when your constituents are falling. the actor was associated with acts of terrorism. i think we can do this in a bipartisan/bicounter manner. this was written by the congress. i would ask that as you take the request back, that the ask for those of us who are from taxes if you had the same pain for many families and find a way not to ignore the department of defense. and find a way to come to recognition.

>> we would get you. thank you. he will yield to me for five seconds. >> thank you. >> we will yield to me for five seconds. one observation. al qaeda is the enemy. this will exclude the pakistani taliban which carried out the times where bombing -- square bombing. >> thank you. very briefly, i agree with you. it includes pakistan. al-shabab in somalia, they are part of this violent extremism movement. they offer in the united states

of america. >> that is where i thought we were. i apologize. >> the administration refuses to understand this and exploits the code words. you use the language identifying jihad 126 39 times, g hyd times. in 2010, you used these terms 0 times. i have said that we have to be able to identify the enemy if you'll ever defeat them. that is important. in cold war, they conducted diplomacy on the basis of complete ignorance of the soviet definition of the expression of a " peaceful coexistence." we may dislike each other but we

will live and let live. they define it as a form of struggle against capitalism where all forms of struggle are permissible accept all out war. i think we have to identify the enemy. we have to be willing to express these true threat and discuss it in terms better realistic. they refuse to identify and discuss violent islamist extremism. they killed 15, wounded 33. were they motivated by islamist extremism? >> i would characterize it as their motivations in terms of major hussan, we cannot discuss

it. he is awaiting prosecution. i would say in new approach -- >> he was in communication with all walking -- all walkie. >> they are focusing on the behavioral indicators of any individual. these things get report a bad as the best way to prevent these things. this is the focus. they believe it is successful. >> i really just want to make this point. i do not have anything further from this other than to encourage you. we identified the enemy of this country. -- theave the claridge

courage to use the terms necessary to defeat the enemy but and for all. we do that by being honest with ourselves in with the american people. >> if you deal to the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you for yielding. i appreciate the comments regarding the purple heart and why they are not receiving it. i do not understand. i think they are casualties of war on terrorism. i also would like to see the statement bac that explains to me the secretary of the army and why he does not consider two and his troopers not victims -- warriors that were killed in combat. thank you. ield back.

>> thank you. the one to thank you both. thank you for bring us forward. thank you for your service. this would require a yes or no answer. is there a threat to military communities limited to only islamic extremist? yes or no? i'll start with you, secretary stockton. >> thank you. it allows me to address a couple of the other questions. >> i am not a ranking member within leadership. i only got five minutes. if you would give a simple yes or no. >> al qaeda, the affiliate's are a primary threat. that is the center of gravity. we recognize other threats.

>> thank you. >> in keeping to your yes are no question, i have to say no. >> is there a threat to military communities only limited to islamic extremism? your answer is no. >> correct. >> the tenants' lawyer? >> i would agree with the previous panel. >> is the threat to u.s. communities limited to an islamic extremist? >> that would be a no. >> no to that as well. >> what other violent extremist groups exist? >> i would prefer to take that for the record and go into some

detail with you. >> i would have to follow mr. stockton's lead on that. >> lieutenant-colonel sawyer? >> we a seen a proliferation of other movements that share the al qaeda islamic faith. it is characterized by their members. that is the reason why my answer is no. >> thank you, a gentleman. it has been said here today that there were in the 1990's white extremist. would you agree that skinheads and white extremists no longer exist and are not a threat to this country or our military bases? secretary stockton? >> they are likely to still be a threat. >> mr. stuteville? >> my answer would be no. >> mr. sawyer?

>> i would refer that question to the record. >> would you say they exist? >> yes. >> thank you. i went through those questions because what we were told as members -- the topic of this hearing was "homegrown terrorism, the threat to military communities inside the united states." it does not say "islamic anywhere in here. budget cut effects in this by our environment we are all facing -- there is included in the sequestration the possibility of cutting the military. how would these cuts affect the work you need to do? >> thank you for that question. to sustain the progress we have under way, but also to accomplish in new starts we have been able to launch in the current fiscal environment would

be put at risk. secretary mendez made it clear that national security would be at risk with sequestration. >> mr. stuteville? >> i second those comments. >> lieutenant-colonel sawyer? >> i would completely concur. >> win dod began to estimate the cde and the violent behavior of trendy throughout the services, how important is it to make sure we do not find stereotyping based on race, religion, or at this is the? what steps will you do to make sure the project ethnicity. what steps will you take to make sure there is no stereotyping and targeting? would you do? >> we have a white house directed review underway to address the challenges.

we are in it for the long haul. we are doing what we need to do to sustain those standards in the future. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> i recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, for five minutes. >> a thank you to the chairman and the panel or being here. i apologize for not hearing some of the question that went home. let me ask lieutenant-colonel sawyer -- to what extent is al qaeda at targeting military committees in the u.s. and is this trend increasing? >> sir, it is a difficult question to answer in terms of whether there is direct targeting from abroad. 56% of direct attacks against the military for the past 10 years since 9/11 have been by passive radicalization.

the fact that i al qaeda is perpetrating their ideologies is they are identifying as the military as a prime target and a legitimate target. it allows these individuals to seek that out and understand why the military is such a target. >> the trend is increasing? >> yes, sir. it has been persistent. it has increased since 2007. >> that would be equal -- there would be an increasing trend as well with other radicalized, islamic terrorist organizations, including al shabaab and others? >> yes, sir. >> we are all, i think safely, we can say -- we are all delighted that osama bin laden

is no longer anything but room temperature, wherever that room might be. we are glad that he is not the focus or the face of radical terrorism at this point. but in the process of locating him, approaching him, and dealing with him, there are some of us who have some concerns or questions about how it was carried out before and after. let me asked you, colonel sawyer -- was it harmful for the special operations forces involved in the first 2011 killing of osama bin laden to be personally identified? >> sir, is a difficult question.

>> secretary stockton? >> i recommend that approach as well. >> did their public identification danger these unit's members or their families? mr. stockton? >> i welcome to take that in a special session, please. >> let me try one other question. should units involved in such sensitive operations be identified in the future? >> again, i welcome the opportunity to discuss that in post session. >> we will be meeting in closed session after this hearing. the secretary will be available. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield my time back. >> i would like to recognize the newest member of the committee and one of the hottest working in california.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for this opportunity. it has been a very interesting hearing. there are so many things i am disturbed about, particularly with the port hood massacre -- fort hood massacre and the failure, in my opinion, of properly taking disciplinary action against major hassan. i do not think it was about political correctness. i think there were so many indicators and policies that, i believe, were probably already in place that were just not adhered to. the fact that the guy was an army psychiatrist, he had been transferred, he had a bad performance evaluation, and yet nothing was done. i am happy we have new policies

in place where some of these indicators will be more recognized, but i still believe there was a failure. there were policies already in place the were not adhered to. that is really the huge part of the tragedy that i am disturbed about. my question is going to be -- at i believe it was said that all threats regardless of religion and theology are what we need to be paying attention to and if we just are focusing on certain particular ideologies and words , we are exposing ourselves to threat. i am concerned about the military families and the military bases. out in california, my district includes the loss angeles air

force base. -- los angeles airport space. in the community abovof san ped, we have housed military families for ever. we have a navy family housing there. we have air force housing. my question is going to be what are we doing and what can you tell me we are doing to protect the family's who live in our communities, the kids going to school in our schools -- are we paying attention -- are we paying attention to the risks and dangers that the families of military have in these identified military housing projects in committees do out these projects throughout this country? >> i would like to say a few words and turn it over to my colleagues. i have regular meetings with sharerrif baca.

we are focused on this challenge. being tight with law enforcement -- between law enforcement and our installation commanders so we can take care of military families as well as personnel, on bass, beyond the perimeter, and in uniform. that is part of our area of focus. >> i refer to our threat awareness and reporting programs throughout the morning. we make that training available to family members as well. the primary focus of the training is for soldiers and civilians, but we have put that turning on line so that any dependent with a common access card can access that training through the training center on line. we make it available for dependents should the situation warrant. there is an auditorium at the installation to allow that. we have systems put in place, including the i watch program --

"eye watch" program. >> thank you. my colleague, mr. richardson, alluded to what congress would be making about budgets. it seems that all the recommendations will be dependent on budget. can you tell me what the sequestration -- what kind of an effect that will have, particularly on base security? >> i would like to take that for the record and give you a detailed response. >> thank you. let me just add -- are we also working with schools who have these kids in their schools? are we working with teachers, counselors who also may be able to identify some of the behavior we are talking about?

maybe we are only targeting the adults who exhibit that kind of behavior. >> community engagement has a special focus on schools. we are taking that part of the overall strategy very seriously. >> thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> i recognize the chairman of the oversight subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. >> fort hood is right outside my district -- just north of my district. i went to the funeral services for the 13 slain soldiers with the combat boots and the rifles and the helmets. you are very familiar and aware of all of this. it was very emotional. at that time, we did not really

know the connection between major hassan and al-awlaqi. we still do not know how much of a connection there was. i do recall asking soldiers who were wounded what did he say when he shot you? bay said, "alluah akbar." at that time i realize there may be something more to that case than just a murder case. since that time, i think senator lieberman came out with an excellent report outlining a lot of this investigation. i worked in the justice department's joint terrorism task force. i understand how this works. when it came to my attention that there was information that

major hassan was communicating with al-awlaqi, perhaps the greatest terrorist threat while he was alive, over the internet , and the idea that that information was not shared with fort hood. i asked a general cohen at the ceremony, "would you not have like to know more about this guy? you may want to take a look at him. keep an eye on him." what i would argue is the greatest attack on american soil since 9/11. i think in the reports that senator lieberman issued, the fbi said that is our boy. that was their response when they saw a major hassan being arrested. my first question is why it was that information not shared

democrat it could have prevented this attack. what are we doing to make sure this never happens again? probably the best person would be, i guess, mr. stockton. >> i will start and invite my colleagues to add more. first problem, the most severe problem, is that personnel in that joint terrorism task force did not understand the duty to share this information when there is what, we call, a department depends nexus. our information director at fort hood needed to know the information that the jttf had, and they needed to understand that they have a duty to share that with us. second, we did not have the kind of personnel or around the nation from the department of defense in the joint terrorism task force to build the habitual relationship, to build the practice of sharing that would

ensure that the base commander was kidding the information needed. finally, we need to ensure it is not happening by one sees and to seize -- onesies and twosies. we get information from the fbi that is widely distributed so everyone is getting what they need in a timely and effective fashion. >> we cannot change what happened in the past, but i sure hope that we fixed that problem. the way this guy -- the way this can was kicked down the road, no one wanted to deal with that. we always talk about political correctness. this is political correctness gone awry. time after time, flags coming up about he is defending bin laden. he is proselytizing. nobody wants to deal with it.

is the military changing its strategy in dealing with people that they perceive to be radicalizing within our military at our bases? >> senator, as i reiterated this morning, our behavioral indicators capture all the key indicators we believe would indicate someone is going down the path to radicalization. to answer your question further about the information sharing within the department, services, and the fbi, i would be glad to share specific examples which you in a closed hearing about how the process works much more effectively. >> perhaps this is more appropriate in the closed hearing, but i would like to know about the connection between al-awlaqi and mr. hassan. i yield back. >> i recognize my colleague from upstate new york.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. fort hood is personal to me. i was with the father of a young man stationed there while he was waiting on word of whether or not his stunt -- his son was still alive. i know you want to get it right. let this be the last case we ever have. i currently represent a base in upstate new york, the niagara falls airport space. i have learned a lot. toronto is not very far from my air force base. homeland security as reported there are more threats of terrorism along the northern border than the southern border. we have a large expanse of land on our border with canada that is virtually unprotected. do you feel better our initial threats to bases along the northern border as opposed to the southern border and are

additional safeguards being taken to protect them? mr. secretary? former colleague of senator moynihan -- we both understand the political correctness issue. >> we are not going to be political correct. base commanders have the solid it -- obligation to not only take the general guidance the department of defense provides, but to take in local circumstances in building anti- terrorist support protection packages. yes, indeed, along the northern border as well as other specific areas where there are challenges for security, base commanders are required to take those special circumstances into account. >> thank you. >> the u.s. military command has the authority to set protection conditions in bases. the responsibility includes the northern and southern borders.

i think they do it very well. >> in addition to that, i would add that there has been significant movement in our northern border initiative between the the dark red of justice and the attorneys' offices to share information and make that available. that is really helping our understanding and cooperation from a variety of agencies needed to figure out this problem. >> i understand this hearing is based on our threat to bases. i want to make sure our focus is not limited to our bases here because we have men and women serving elsewhere. we protect them on the battlefield and also the armed services committee. we also have to protect them from these threats as well. i hope we are taking a holistic approach to this. this is very important to me. my area has been affected by the

first known domestic terrorist after 9/11. we have people who live in our backyard who ever gone over and trained for osama bin laden and you do is going to be an attack on 9/11 before 9/11. we need to be vigilant. those people have been prosecuted. they have been sent to jail. they are now back and have been cooperating witnesses. we want to make sure there is no place else where people are engaging in activity that could be harmful to our bases. this is very important. i understand the lessons from fort hood as well. we all agree this can never happen again in our country. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. >> her husband is one of the lead prosecutors against terrorism in upper new york. i would now like to ask the panel to step down, but ask them to remain to the closed session, which will follow the testimony of our next witness.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> why could the congress as a matter of its appropriations effort fund cameras in the united states supreme court with the mandate that they be installed? >> we could have a provision to fund them, but a mandate for them to be used -- we would have to conduct at a proceeding. that is the difference. it is all about line drawing. it is very difficult to know where to draw the lines. that is why we need to let the court draw their own lines. >> tuesday, a committee discussed televising the supreme court brigid you can find that c-span.org. the confined out more about that

issue on our web page divided -- devoted to cameras in the corporate you'll also find a link to c-span's you to play list with videos of justices and members of congress talking about cameras in the court. >> carrie young writes for the congressional quarterly. the house begins its process of putting together an omnibus spending package today. >> when do you think the house

and senate appropriations committees are going to work things out? >> if could be as early as thursday. it could be as early as tomorrow. this is a formal meeting to move things along. we will see the actual text at they get an agreement early next week. >> that formal meeting -- by the time they get to the point, they will have worked a lot of the issues out. >> it sounds like a lot of work has gone on. they have resolved a lot of the issues, there are just some sticking points left. >> what about some of the unrelated issues? the unfinished tax related measure, the payroll tax issue -- >> it sounds like it will be difficult enough to get it through on its own. they will probably steer clear of adding things onto it. >> this nine-bill package, what is the cost? >> i do not have the numbers in

front of me on that. >> what do you think the -- when you think the house and senate will be ready to lookit the legislation and vote? will it be the end of this week? >> senator reid says he does not want another continuing resolution. funding of the government expires december 16. >> when all is said and done, it sounds like the skids are being greased for a package the would be police supported when it is voted on. >> that is what they would like to see happen. it is over about $900 billion in discretionary. it is a hard thing to put together. some of the democrats put it at 65% that it will get done. it is not a done deal. >> covering the 2012 spending discussions on capitol hill. thank you for that update.

>> thank you so much. >> the republican jurist coalition hosted a forum on wednesday. in a few moments, comments from former massachusetts governor, mitt romney, followed by former house speaker, newt gingrich, in a little more than a half hour. after that, you hear from former governor rick perry and former senator rick santorum on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will lookit the collapse of msglobal with henry cuellar. a commission will question by john karzai, the former head of msglobal. tim huelskamp take your calls about the congressional agenda pretty rest of the year. washington journal is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> health care is the most expensive element. no environmental controls. no pollution-control. now retirement. and you do not care about anything but making money, be a job-sucking sound. >> ross perot spoke out about trade issues during the 1992 presidential debate. the billionaire businessman made two attempts at the presidency. he received more popular votes than any third-party candidate in american history. although he lost, he has had a lasting influence on the presidency. he is the final on our contenders series. to see all the programs from our series, due to c-span.org/the contenders. >> december 7, 1941, a day that

will live in infamy. >> this sunday, for 24 hours, american history tv lifted the japanese attack on pearl harbor, including the 70th anniversary commemorative ceremony overlooking the uss arizona. live call-in programs at noon, 2:00, and for a plot with world war ii historians. throughout the day, first-person accounts from serviceman and civilians. this week's national park service conference at pearl harbor. archival footage of the attack and its aftermath sunday on c- span3's american history tv. >> presidential candidate, mitt romney, told the republican jewish community today that if elected, his first foreign trip would be israel. this portion of a of forum that included other and provincial candidates is a little more than

an hour. >> atmitt romney. -- mitt romney. [applause] >> thank you. mr. chairman? hi. thank you. thank you. mr. chairman,how are you? good. thank you to those that bring you together. i am grateful to the republican jewish coalition for hosting this forum. -- and for having a chance to get to know the candidates a little better. thank you chairman flaum and matt brooks for your leadership. and, of course, i join you in honoring the service of ambassador sam fox. ambassador fox has contributed in extraordinary ways to our economy, to our communities, to our nation, and to israel. thank you. we appreciate your leadership.

today, we gather as republicans, americans, and friends of israel. for us, the last three years have held a lot of change, but haven't offered much hope. [laughter] [applause] it helps to have a president who has had a job. our debt is too high and opportunities are too few. almost a trillion dollars in failed stimulus and trillions more in deficits have left millions of americans out of work. the unemployment rate has been over 8% for 34 months. this is the slowest recovery since hoover. over the last four years, the median american income has fallen by 10%, even as the costs of food and fuel and healthcare have risen.

americans are suffering. the poor have a safety net and never seen things so bad. internationally, we have witnessed a weakening of our military and a decline in our standing in the world. president obama's troop withdrawals in iraq and afghanistan were based upon electoral expediency, not military requirement. he has bound to foreign dictators. and when the opportunity arose to defend freedom, he's either been late to the game or failed to show up at all. he has rushed -- president obama rushed to apologize for america, but he has hesitated to speak up for democracy and freedom. he has visited egypt, saudi arabia, turkey, and iraq. he even offered to meet with mahmoud ahmadinejad.

yet in three years, he has not found it in his interest to visit israel, our ally, our friend, the sole middle east nation that fully shares our values, the nation in president truman's words, that is an "embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization." no, over the past three years, president obama has instead chastened israel. in his inaugural address to the united nations, the president chastised israel, but said little about the thousands of hamas rockets raining into its skies. he's publicly proposed that israel adopt indefensible borders. he's insulted its prime minister. and he's been timid and weak in the face of the existential threat of a nuclear iran. these actions have emboldened palestinian hard-liners who now

are poised to form a unity government with terrorist hamas and feel they can bypass israel at the bargaining table. president obama has immeasurably set back the prospect of peace in the middle east. as president, my policies will be very different. i will travel to israel on my first foreign trip. [applause] i will reaffirm as a vital national interest israel's existence as a jewish state. i want the world to know that the bonds between israel and the united states are unshakable. i want every country in the region that harbors aggressive designs against israel to understand that their ambition

is futile and that pursuing it will cost them dearly. i would not meet with ahmadinejad. he should be excluded from diplomatic society. he should be indicted for the crime of incitement to genocide under article iii of the genocide convention. iran's ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons on my watch. a nuclear-armed iran is not only a threat to israel, it is a threat to the entire world. our friends must never fear that we will not stand by them

in an hour of need. our enemies should never doubt our resolve. today, you will hear from several of my fellow republicans. like me, each will acknowledge president obama's failings toward israel. it is a long list. we have a lot of material. like me, each will assure you of our friendship and commitment to israel. we are not distinguished from one another by our opposition to president obama or even by our support for israel. what distinguishes us is our experience, our perspective, and our judgment. i spent 25 years in business. i've signed the front and the back of a paycheck. [laughter] [applause]

backi've helped businesses, like the sports authority and staples, to grow from start-ups to international enterprises. i've served as governor of a state and the steward of the olympics. my perspective is informed by those experiences and by the defining constants in my life, my 42-year marriage to my wife, ann, the life we've built with our five sons, and the faith that sustains us. my family, my faith, and our freedom these are enduring truths in my life. my commitments are firm, and they do not falter.

when i was young, i had the opportunity to live abroad. i recognized that the greatest advantage my parents had given me was being born in america. i am passionate about the principles that have made this nation the land of opportunity and a shining city on a hill. i believe in america. i believe it is the greatest nation in the history of the earth. i believe that the next century must be an american century. our highest priority must be to maintain a people, an economy, and a military so strong that no nation would ever risk challenging it. my faith in america stems both from my faith in the american people, and from the principles that have made our people strong. we are a people from all parts

of the world and all walks of life, but we are strengthened by our nation's unique founding principles. it is not accident or luck that made america the greatest nation in the world it is the power of our values and beliefs. we weathered a great depression. we emerged victorious from two world wars. we faced down an evil empire. today, as we face new challenges and threats, i have every conviction that the american people, edified by american principles, will rise to the occasion again, securing our safety, our prosperity, and our peace. one of these principles is a merit-based society. achieve success and rewards through hard work, education,

risk taking, and even a little luck. the founders considered this principle to be one endowed by our creator, and called it the "pursuit of happiness." our course in life. society gathers and creates a citizenry that pioneers, that invents, that builds and creates. . and as these people exert the effort and take the risks inherent in invention and creation, they employ and lift the rest of us, creating prosperity for us all. undaunted make us better off.

[applause] american prosperity is fully dependent upon our opportunity society. i don't think president obama understands that. i don't think he understands why our economy is the most successful in the world. i don't think he understands america. [applause] he seeks to replace our merit- based society with an entitlement society. in an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk. that which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. and the only people to enjoy truly disproportionate rewards

are the people who do the redistributingthe government. entitlement societies are praised in academic circles, far removed from the reality of a competitive world. [applause] opportunity is replaced by the certainty that everyone in an entitlement society will enjoy nearly the same rewards. but there is another certainty, they will be poor. in an entitlement society, the invigorating pursuit of happiness is replaced by the deadening reality that there is no prospect of a better tomorrow. risk-taking disappears,

innovation withers, and small business is replaced by large, government enterprises. 4and the result is a nation that stagnates, that declines, that cannot defend itself. i am convinced that this is where president obama's "fundamental change" is leading america. and it informs aspects of his foreign policy. internationally, president obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. appeasement betrays a lack of faith in america, in american strength, and in america's fox future. like others among the washington elite, he believes that america's role as the leader of the world is a thing of the past, that this will be a post-american century, perhaps an asian century. american strength, he imagines, will eventually or possibly be eclipsed. and so, president obama seeks to appease those he believes will balance us or challenge

our leadership. this appeasement by this administration has taken many forms. it includes offers to engage with the world's most despicable dictators. it consists of concessions to russia to remove our missile defense sites from poland and to exclude tactical nuclear weapons from the new, remarkably one-sided, new start treaty. president obama even looks the other way as china employs unfair trade tactics that endanger our economy and kill jobs. this president appears more generous to our enemies than he is to our friends. such is the natural tendency of someone who is unsure of america's strength or of america's rightful place in the world. [applause] the course of appeasement and accommodation has long been the

path chosen by the weak and the timid. and history shows it is a path that nation's choose at their own peril. the president promised that he would fundamentally change america. he is doing just that. at home, he is changing us from an opportunity nation to an entitlement nation. he is building a government so large that feeding it consumes a greater and greater share of the people's production. and it is a government so intrusive that it can command free people and free enterprises according to its bureaucratic will. abroad, he is weakening america, shrinking our military, shrinking our commitments to our friends, accommodating our foes, and appeasing the competing forces that are vying for global leadership.

this election is not only a referendum on president obama's failures on employment, on income growth, on housing, on recovery, or on a nuclear- intent iran, on an emboldened china and on friends like israel being put at greater risk. this election will decide what kind of america we will be. it is defining. -- it is a defining election. will we remain an opportunity nation or become an entitlement nation? will we remain the leader of the free world, or become a follower in a more dangerous world? will america be transformed by barack obama, or will america be restored with the founding principles that have made this the greatest nation history has ever known? many think that because of his staggering failures, president obama will be easily defeated. but an incumbent is rarely turned out of the white house,

and his resort to class warfare and demagoguery are powerful political weapons. in less than a year, americans will be asked to make a choice about the kind of country they want to live in and the kind of future they will bequeath to their children. it will be a choice between entitlement and merit, between appeasement and resolve. our party must offer a candidate who can make the case for freedom, opportunity and strength. our nominee must offer americans more than just a chance to vote against president obama, our nominee must give americans an opportunity to vote for a different path and a better future. a path dictated not by government, but determined by a free people. a path marked by the virtues of merit, not by the slow decline

of entitlement. a path that achieves prosperity through opportunity, and peace through strength. this is what americans deserve. this is what the moment demands. and this is what i will deliver, with your help. join me. join me, and i will lead our party and our nation through these difficult times to a brighter future. america has been a shining city on a hill. that light is dimming. but together, we will reignite the spirit of american greatness. we have wandered and drifted. i will lead us to a better place. join me, and together we will reclaim and rebuild the america we love. i believe in america. our fight starts today. join me. thank you. god bless you.

and god bless the united states of america. thank you so much. [applause] thank you. let me turn to some questions they you may have on this or other matters of benchrest. -- matters of interest. this is quite a gathering. there's hardly a line there. all right, please. >> it is great to be popular. >> my friend and i are mostly conservatives. our concern has always been that the governmental class is made up of republicans and democrats. whether it is banning a stupid

lightbulb which the republicans did or running amok like the people next door are doing now, we are looking for a leader who will change the regulatory governmental insane environment we live men caused by both parties. -- we live in today, caused by both parties. how would you do that? >> the answer is leadership. you all have been involved in various enterprises. one of the things that is most remarkable is the impact of a leader. i have seen -- we all watched what happened when ronald reagan came into office. isn't it amazing that one person by virtue of his capacity to lead was not a technocrat or a legislature. he was a leader by his capacity to lead and bring people together and to inspire people on both sides of the aisle to do what was in the best interest of their nation, not

politicians. he got congress and the evil empire to change. leadership. i am not a perfect guy. i have made mistakes. one thing i have learned is leadership. my mother and father were leadership. my dad was a leader. i aspire to have that. some remember him. he was a remarkable man. [applause] i was lucky enough to be the young this of the four kids. -- youngest of the poor kids. my brothers and sisters took me around. i watched my father lead and run for political office three times. i witnessed seeing a leader. then i became one myself. i led four enterprises. the test of a leader is not what job they get. you can get jobs in lots of different ways. they can be given to you. if they can be earned her a

boat of popularity. -- by a vote of popularity. when you get it, what do you do with it? i turned around one enterprise in trouble. i built a starts up from the crowd to an acclaimed firm. -- from the ground up to an internationally acclaimed firm. i went to the olympus and turned it to the most successful winter olympics. in massachusettswe were able to balance the budget every year i was in office. we eliminated a budget deficit in our first year. i can go on. my list of fun things in massachusetts was was great. we were number one in the nation. when i came into office, there was a a an attempt to remove the graduation exam. i stood up to that requirement. our kids are doing well. the best hope you have that i will be able to change washington is that i have had the experience of leadership and i am not a creature of

washington. i am a creature of the private sector. i am a business guy. i do not want this as a next step in my little career. -- my political career. i do not have a political career. i care about america. i am convinced the path we are on is toward degrees and ireland. -- is the past of greece, italy, and ireland. we will not only suffer now if we do not turn it around, but the world will suffer. i was in great britain. one at the leaders said america will be criticized if you are president. do not forget this. what we fear most is a week america. -- weak america. american strength is the best allied peace has ever known.

-- the best ally peace has ever known. i will keep america strong. thank you. [applause] >> in new jersey. i want to thank you. i do not think there is another republican leader who has spent more time trying to help the new jersey republican party than you. >> thank you. >> you on a piece of chris christie. -- you own a piece of chris christie helping that happen. >> he is helping me, too. >> in new jersey, our governor is constantly fighting the democratic majority in assembly, getting anything done is difficult. what can you do in the first six months of your presidency to help our economy and bypass congress you want to argue. -- bypassed specific things>> there are things a president does where they do not need congress. those things i will do

immediately, on day one. i'm going to put a halt on all regulations that were installed during the obama years. all of them. [applause] these agencies are filled with people who do not like you very much. they do not like the private sector and private enterprise. we will evaluate which ones are hurting jobs. people fill the job of government is to hold down free enterprise. i believe the job is to try to encourage our economy and make us more competitive. that is one. i will also directed the secretary of energy to provide licenses to the drilling companies that want to start getting more oil and gas. i will issue an executive order that says no longer do you have to use unions on federal government projects. make it competitive.

the list goes on and on. that is a sample of the kinds of things a president can do. i will reduce the number of federal employees. that is something i can do directly. it something that needs legislative helps i am content -- i am intent of linking the pay of government workers with the pay that exist in private sector. then we have to go to work on some things that are tougher. i will grant a waiver from obamacare to all 50 states. you can see all the president that a president gets to do if he cares about principles. some things like obamacare, we will have to get it repealed. if you give us a republican house and senate and president, we will get america right again

so that it remains strong. thank you. >> pennsylvania. in 1981, we had a problem with iran. the very moment ronald reagan was being sworn in, the hostage taking came to an end. the hostages were released. is there anything you can do that on january 20, 2013 we will not have a problem with them building a nuclear weapon? they will understand it is unacceptable. >> i do not know how far along we will be. i do not know where they will be or what happened before that. i was at the conference in tel aviv. it was for five years ago. i laid out the seven steps to dissuade them.

-- to persuade -- to dissuade iran from their nuclear haleh. none of them have been pursued. we keep talking about crippling sanctions. we do not do it. one of the greatest policies was -- foreign policy failures of this president was when he decided to give russia their number one foreign policy, which they fought for for 10 years, which was removal of their missile defense, he gave them that. he did not get the commitment to back crippling sanctions. that was an outrage. that should not stop. -- that effort should not stop pre -- should not stop. we should treat the leaders like the pariah of a are as long as they are pursuing nuclear weaponry. that includes indicting

ahmedinijad. we still have a covert opportunities. regime changes what will be necessary. we should make it very clear it that we are developing and have developed military options. nothing concentrates the mind than seeing this. -- like suffering from sanctions and seeing a military option. it is unacceptable. we keep using that word. it is unacceptable for the united states of america to indoor and iran with a nuclear weapon. they are in during an air drawn with a nuclear weapon. it means e.g. nuclear. turkey nuclear. it means a world that is not safe for europe or america. that is not something we can allow to occur. thank you. i get one more? >> i will make this very quick. we have had a president to has gone the world apologizing for the united states. i hope you will go all around the world apologizing for obama.

now to my question. >> when they are laughing and applauding, you sit down. [laughter] >> you have been a tremendous lifelong republican. some of us appreciate that. [applause] eric holder has said false -- has sent colts' -- false information to the congress regarding gunrunning to mexico. he ignored a new black panther voter suppression. so far i'm not seen investigations on solyndra going on. hillary clinton has ignored