methodically, and strategically in a way that protect our core security interests and thus right by those in uniform. the history of past drawdowns is not encouraging. we almost never get it right. no matter how many times we say never again to particular kinds of military operations, america's adversaries will always have a vote as will our future presidents. it's the history of the past century teaches us anything, it is that cutting defense too deeply, too quickly will only lead to higher cost in blood and treasure later. since i entered government 45 years ago, i have shifted my views and change my mind on a good many things as circumstances and logic dictated. i have yet to see evidence that would dissuade me from this fundamental belief. america does have a special position and set of

responsibilities on this planet. this status providing enormous benefits for allies, partners, and others abroad to be sure. in the final analysis, the greatest beneficiaries of american leadership in the world are the american people in terms of our security, our prosperity, and our freedom. in closing, while my presentation today is so boring and dire in some points, i still remain fundamentally optimistic about the future of this country. even though the united states faces enormous obstacles, most of them self-inflicted, we also have the power and the means to overcome them just as america has done in the past. think about the early years of the cold war in the late 1940's. an era in which politics was every bit as ugly and confrontational as this country has seen before or since. president harry truman was a

loyal democrat and a tough partisan. in his 1948 acceptance speech at the democratic convention, he referred to republicans as the common enemy who wanted to stick a knife in the back of the board. republicans called for truman's impeachment on a regular basis. it was said, the purpose of the opposition was to oppose. in the end, in that earlier, hyper partisan environment, it was members of the opposition, republicans like vandenburg and senator richard nixon who helped truman pass the marshall plan that saved western europe from soviet domination. republican support was also critical for the passage of aid to greece and turkey that took the plan of containment into

action. and there is nato, which has sustained american security for the past several decades. looking ahead, it is unrealistic to expect partisanship to disappear or dissipate. when push comes to shove, when the feature of our country is at stake, ideological zeal and short-term political calculations on the part of democrats and republicans should yield to patriotism and long- term national interests. whether the united states sustain our global economic and military pre-eminence will depend not on the action of other countries, but on what we choose to do. the compromises we fourth, the sacrifices we accept, and the courage and unity we demonstrate. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much, secretary gates. i hope you can hear us. we heard all of your statement. it was loud and clear. you and admiral mullen have made two powerful statements that i hope will be heard throughout our country, petite kildee by policymakers and the elected officials. i will turn to my colleague pete dominici and we will rotate to the panel. >> first of all, let me thank you, senator nunn for asking me to be your cochair. i never thought that we would be this far, this quick in getting the issue is formulated and out to the public. i believe today is an exemplary won in getting the true facts as to how bad off -- one in getting

the true facts as to how bad off the honest -- united states is because of the lack of leadership and the leaders of our legislative bodies do not quite get it. secretary gates said we would wait for the adults to come back from campaigning. let us hope that those adults are from both parties. let's hope they are willing to give an compromise in the best interests of this great country. i had a chance to talk to you, admiral mullen, before this event and seek your affirmation for coming here today. i cannot say it any other way other than it was absolutely imperative that it was yes and that you came here today. between you and the secretary we have heard the best evidence in

my opinion on the need for adequately providing for our defense on the one hand. and on the other hand, for not enforcing the sequester, which is a pawn on defense. both of you have had an opportunity to review the sequester and what its effects on the defense department and our people and personnel will be. is that a fair assessment that you are aware of the sequestered? both of you are nodding yes it. the sequester is an across the board cut order of defense and domestic programs from a given point. it is already a lot. people should know that. it became a law by default. is that not correct, admiral

mullen? when the super committee did not get its work done, the that the position was that we will get savings by a sequester. this document was written and this document called sequester was passed by the senate and the president as part of that package that came from the super committee. i would like you to answer with as much -- adding to it as you can and want. do you think we should render the sequester valueless? do you think it should be pulled. do you think the leaders of this country should take it out now so that it will not be effective? what will the effect be if this requester is committed to be carried out? will you answer that question please? let's start with the admiral.

>> with respect to the damage of the sequestered specifically -- and i do not know if it is widely known -- but it is widely reported that the president has the authority and would intend to exempt military personnel from sequestration. obviously, what that does is put the full burden of the amounts on the remainder of the defense budget. going back to my time when i was the head of the navy, roughly 50%-65% of my budget went to people, active, retired,

benefits and et c. -- and etc. the full burden of sequestration would be put on the defense budget, which makes its implementation that much more extreme. that is why i talk about how to enforce. it is difficult to find money that will be under contract already. you cannot undo that. you get through the operations and maintenance funds and you start pulling the training money, the logistics money, the maintenance money. it is money you can get your hands on in the near term. the intensity of moving to what i would call -- despite the

pentagon's strong desire to not go there and moved to a hollow force -- is that much more significant. thirdly, i would speak to sequestration as part of the act itself. i do not think most people know this. it was described by bob gates' successor, secretary panetta and, as a neutron bomb. it would be something that would be unthinkable in any shape or form so that a solution or a compromise would get generate it. with respect to answer your question about whether it should be pulled or not, i think about that in terms of motivation. i think we need to take steps to solve this problem now. sequestration and execution would be incredibly damaging to defense and our national

security interests. that said, if it isn't that hanging over their heads and you would be much wiser in terms of reading this and i, what is hanging over their heads in getting them to a point where they would make this decision? i do not know the answer to that. >> secretary gates, i hope you are following this from your locale. the question is to you if you want to take a crack at it. >> sure. sequestration reminds me of the scene in "blazing saddles"where the share of's holds a gun to his old -- his own head -- share of -- sheriff pulled a gun to his own head and tells the crowd not to make him shoot.

even before sequestration when mike and i were working together, my guide is was that if we had to deal with budget cuts and we had to find more resources, we would never resort to across the board cuts. i refer to it as managerial p owerlessness. sequestration does all that on steroids. the realities are you are talking about fighter pilots who will have less time in the cockpit, less time flying, soldiers who have less time to train and you were bolides to train with. these are the realities. ships that have to stay in port because we cannot afford to run them. that is what i was referring to in my remarks when i said sequestration will increase the risk to the lives of our men and

women in uniform. the things they do to be prepared they will have to stop doing. as might have suggested, i do not know the right solution for getting out of the sequestration mess, whether it is pulling it or trying to buy some time or whatever. what we do know is that the consequences for our military will be dire. i think the administration has outlined what the other costs will be outside of the defense department in terms of air traffic control, in terms of the national parks, in terms of everything the national government does. they will be hit with the same kind of mine less lack of prioritization that everything takes a hit. the important and the unimportant.

is a catastrophic way to deal with the deficit issue. in some way, -- someway needs to be found to do what mike suggested. how do you sustain the leverage on congress and the president to come to the kind of agreements necessary to get our fiscal house in order without threatening to shoot ourselves in the head? >> thank you, bob. bill, let me call on you. >> first of all, let me say that i am delighted to hear admiral mullen's testimony as well as secretary gates. i have one question, which i hope you might be able to answer period of the approximately $670 billion defense budget, -- which i hope you might be able to answer.

of the approximately 6 1/7 -- six and $70 billion defense budget, what are the appropriate cuts -- $670 billion budget for defense, what are the approach because? -- what are the appropriate cuts? >> if it executes as i recall, sequestration will be $50 billion per year. if you pull the costs of afghanistan, of the wars overseas out, which people do and don't at their convenience, dependg on how they want to talk about this problem, but

that is operation's costs. -- operation costs. i think we far under estimate how quickly we could get their despite not wanted to get to a hollow force. there are some things in defense that would put us there as well, how we do things inside and how we execute. everybody fights for the money. it would principally be executed there. as quickly as the department could get to not issuing contracts -- we talked earlier about many programs that are over costs. that is something that needs to be contained. a lot of smart people have been trying to figure this out in the last can our 20 years and we

haven't quite gotten there yet. you would see programs that he would agree our desire to keep. those costs would automatically go up because those contracts with gets spread out over future years. when you are trying to save money, you could have a serious impact quickly on those kinds of things as well. lastly, i talked about the colts -- about the cost of people. with these kind of cuts, you have to go with the money is. half of the money is with our people. it does not mean we should not take reductions. there is an opportunity to do that. we need to be careful about our people and their families, into which we have invested so much over the course of these two wars. on the right-hand side of this, the force is in tact and can represent us globally as we have

been asked to in peace and war and also to be prevented -- preventative in that regard and prepared to go and win should be circumstances warrant. >> what do you think, mr. secretary, an appropriate reduction, given all the things you and admiral mullen have talked about -- avoiding sequestration. what would be appropriate? to have an idea of what that would be the first year and in five years? i agree with you. it would be a disaster to have sequestration occurred in the defense department. it boils down to a lack of management and a willingness -- on willingness to make decisions if we have sequestration across the board. do you have any idea in your

mind as to what would be the maximum amount you would reduce in the first year and a five your approximation? 5-year approximation? >> i talked to the president before we left office. we were already looking at a $900 billion cut in defense over a team here -- 10 year period. i have not heard anything like that on the domestic side. to plug that number out of the air is math, not strength -- not strategy. i instituted an approach that said, before you make any specific decisions on the next at thet, let's look

strategy so that the president and the congress can make choices about what they do not want to do in the future. where do you want to cut the budget. that strategy was completed under mike mullen and secretary and a in the fall. that 490 billion is based on looking at strategic things rather than doing that $480 billion is based on looking at strategic things -- $490 billion is based on looking at strategic things. the question for the president and the congress is, what do you want to stop doing? it is not just a math problem. >> thank you, secretary gates. bill, let me turn to you. we have 10 minutes, enough time

for everybody to ask a question. i will like to go back to the question of the congress is self. everyone of us has served in the congress. everyone of us can tell you come as members whom we respect their ina, their integrity, their patriotism, their willingness to work across party lines. there are people trying to do that today. this is such an obvious issue. what does a member say to you when you have this conversation with them about these choices, how could they possibly give you a rational excuse for what they have done? [laughter] >> most of the time, what i'd get when i -- what i got when i was still in office and forced

nearly half -- i have not had to testify. my information is a little old. when i was trying to cut or that several dozen programs in 2009, everybody agreed for the -- agreed on the purpose of acquisition and reform. everybody agrees we need to do these cuts in a rational way. who body agrees on the need for prioritization. what everybody agrees on the need for prior position. but when it comes down to voting, day vote based on health regionalism. under a veto threat from the present, we were able to prevail in terms of tapping that president. every secretary of defense since dick cheney has cut. russian is, how do you get the members of congress to forgo

parochial interests for what is in the best interests of the country as a whole. we ran into this with every specific program we wanted to do. health care costs are completely out of control. we will spend probably $60 billion on the defense department health care. nobody wants to touch the health care that goes to at the force. but what mike and i propose, what the president proposed, was a small increase in the health care premium and fees for military health care insurance between the ages of 45 and 60. the congress will not go along

with that. it is absolutely necessary. why has not been an increase in that training for 15 years. they say, we had a deal. the government will always provide free medical care. that deal with all of the table when congress vote to impose a fee in the mid-1990's in the first place. never the with-no one promised that time that that insurance fee would increase. $520 per year is 1/6 of what most employees' pay. everybody, in principle, agrees that something has to be done, but congress will not go along with it. fitial who get these people to rise above their parochialisms this and be willing to put their

he read the one that put their reelection at risks to do the right thing for the country. >> powerful answer. >> can i make a brief comment? >> sure. >> may i respond to that? i think we finally got a budget through. it really is modest. it does speak to the power of the veterans service or the hesitations with respect to that and the votes that are tied to that. this was four or five years ago. we did a small dinner with a brand new congressman from all over the country. this was in the winter. there were -- they were five or six months into their first term. i said, so what strikes you.

? their response was the power of the gavel, how that translates to is the power of the leaders. about gays in his statement talked about the chairman and the position of the chairman before. there willie nelson, despite the partisanship, to broker deals. that was a requirement. that is what they did. the data over -- this goes back to that comment that the one congressman made to me five or six years ago, the power of the gavel. the message i give alleged get from them is that traditionally, i want to solve these problems.

you speak to the leadership piece of this, and their ability to move from the desire to execution is not appear to be there based on the solutions that have not been generated so far. ok. tim runyan john data. i will give you the last question. >> thank you, senator for the right representation on the panel. thank you for your superb service to our country. i was not for say enough to see you work abroad. thank you for your valuable time today. i would like to continue on the theme of the politics of this and how do we try to get he cut his ride in which to solve this problem. bob, you gave an eloquent litany

of reasons as to why congress does not work very well. he talked about redistricting and the problems there. he thought some of the decline of discretion a caller -- congressional power, you talked about the media. one of the things you did not mention or i did not hear is the amount of money in campaigns today. oftentimes, the effect of fund raising is that members of congress are doing committee work and getting rewards for doing good things. as mike said, they want to do good things. they intend to do good things. we that our forces pulling away from them. i would like to ask you both as masters of how this system works, how do we put his cousin narrative together today? maybe it is a combination of nation building at home how do

we get our members on both parties to show the kind of leadership or cause of reasons to make these decisions that will result in fiscal this possibility so that we can reject the best projects in this half-hour of ron and we can take care of the cuts come at a flooded the nuclear inoculation or a threat of our embassies. >> by, you want to go first? >> it is a tough question. in terms of the money, it was a chance to get light of that. i do not know what the solution to that piece of it is. the history of democracy dealing with problems on the doorstep or

on the horizon is not encouraging in this respect. most democracies seemed to have to have a crisis to know that they are real democracies. we need to do what is the right thing for the country. minibus with our view of the crisis is here, not on the doorstep. not on the horizon. in some ways it is to have sex. he reasoned that i referred to the pilots not being able to fly as often, soldiers not having as many bucks.

who getting down to specifics because of what sequestration will mean in the daily lives of americans can and what he did -- the government delivers is one aspect that is important. having bipartisan leadership had his important as well. with all due respect to the members of the panel, and frankly, my can myself as well case what is really important is having people lie in government today. people are talking about these compromises if they do not reach an agreement and if this thing is not solved. it is all well and good for the rest of us to talk. sydney and -- a was an article in the wall street journal on the crisis we are facing.

though still in government still have these possibility. they are the ones who will be taking the risk for taking bold stands that have to speak out on these issues. >> thank you, bob. sex life, we will give you a shot at that question. his will line us up for this health. we are going to run out of satellite time. >> thanks for coming in. i appreciate your leadership. >> i like to take a few seconds to say thanks to my old boss, who was a great leader and a great friend in a tough time. the way i would summarize it -- a great friend in a tough period -- tough. that is why i was in the

military forever. the military put me in leadership positions and i was challenged by that. getting to a point where the leaders will reach across bounders, recognizing the severity and the criticality of the crisis how exciting is here is what about said -- what bob said. we are not the only once. we do not have direct responsibility now. why is for real -- for those who are in that position. to force the that the solutions somehow that makes it better for america. who that is tied to leadership from everybody, >> homeland security chairman hills of lieberman joins us

tomorrow. he tells about -- joseph lieberman joins us tomorrow. senator lieberman is retiring at the end of this year. join us for his interview tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next week, mexican president talked about u.s.-mexico relations and his country's standing in the world. mr. calderon's term ends in december. our live coverage of the mexican president begins monday morning at 9 eastern on c-span 2. month >> i a tribute to my wanting to get more and filed with politics is watching information on c-span. i love the information. i love the current defense.

i love hot topics and things that come up. i love watching it and pulling it up on my mobile device. >> she watches c-span on cox communications. c-span, created in 1979 and brought to you as a public service. now a look at kate finds and domestic extremism. following the violent attack that killed six people palm in a sikh temple in wisconsin holds a hearing. this portion of the hearing is just under one hour. >> if i can ask me with this is to please stand for the customary oath. raise your right hand. you testified the you will give

the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the jews. >> yes sir. let the record showed the witness's answer in the a -- theve period - witnesss and certification in the -- witnesses answer in the affirmative. james jacobs wrote the book, hate crimes, criminal law, an identity politics. he is a 2013 guggenheim fellow. he received his b.a. from john hopkins and his law degree from the university of chicago. i want to thank senator graham and his staff for working with us on this hearing.

senator graham ask that we of like professor jacobs as a witness and we are honored you will join us today. i will introduce the other witnesses. we hope senator herb kohl can be in the room in just a moment. he is the chief executive officer of d.t. analytics. he serves as a part-time instructor on domestic terrorism. previously, mr. johnson was an analyst in the homeland security office where he led a team of analysts responsible for analyzing domestic extremists activity. he was the lead expert on violent and government groups at the bureau of tobacco and alcohol and firearms. i am going to hold off until senator herb kohl arrives.

thank you for being here. let me start with mr. johnson. if you would like to testify and mr. jacobs. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman and members of the committee. thank you for giving me this opportunity for inviting me here to talk about the threat from violent extremists. the rising threat of domestic terrorism in the united states should not diminish our focus on the rest from al qaeda and their affiliates. culmination's law enforcement resources need to be flexible to combat fierce -- combat terrorism, including non-islamic extremists. terrorism motivated by extremism is often overlooked in the media and the government. we are seeing an uptick in non-

the bulk of filing activity and less violent activity comes from extremists. muslim extremists in the united states either a line with al qaeda or other perverse interpretations of violent he high had carried out five attacks on u.s. soil. 13 attempts for from a single violent act as fort hood. there are muslim extremists fighting in the u.s. since 9/11. there is domestic, extremist, 9- 9/11 related violence.

extremist jumped over all other forms of violence in the u.s. some argue that right-wing extremists in the u.s. are more prevalent than homegrown muslim extremists because they represent a multiple movements such as white supremacist, the men's six previous and -- - since it took us in a presidential election, domestic extremists have attacked 27 law- enforcement officers, killing 16. over one dozen mosques have been attacked. in 2009, an abortion doctor was murdered while attending church.

6 women's health care clinics for attacked with explosive incendiary devices in the past ability years. since 2010, that have been multiple plots to kill it think minorities by militia extremists and white supremacists in our country. in 2010, we had an airplane crash into an irs office, injuring 13 people and killing a government employee. the following year, three incendiary bombs were mailed to officials in washington, d.c. in 2011, a fact that a bomb was place along a parade route when to kill participants in a civil rights march. a rights the less a white supremacist who killed 16 people at a sikh?

in wisconsin. and four active duty soldiers were hoarding weapons in an alleged plot to overthrow the government. they were charged in the death of an associate worried might tip of law enforcement officials. there was an incident of left wing terrorism. extremist who shot a guard at the family research council office here in washington, d.c. these are only the latest manifestations of violence in the homeland. 8 members of extremist militia plotting to kill police officers had an arsenal of weapons at their disposal that was larger than all 230 muslim fighters and attackers charged in the u.s. since 9/11 combined. the federal government must do more to combat domestic terrorism in the u.s. our failure to act now will

embolden the enemy and bring more attack. there is a shortage of analysts' to monitor extremist activity in the u.s. the fbi is the only federal agency that has the votes it possible full-time resources to direct -- the dhs and has few resources to demand the best to direct analysis on -- few resources to direct analysis. jurisdiction no infighting remains among departments and agencies, as well as communication gaps among levels of government. more can be done. many law enforcement officers et al. was have retired or have moved on to other assignments. this leaves a massive void in

all of its experience. some civil rights and civil liberties organizations fail to recognize the role of extremist ideology in motivating extremists to carry out acts of violence. they have severely curtailed monitoring actions. monitoring a person's behavior becomes more clear in coupling with extremist police. the needs to be a balanced approach to intelligence analysis and threat assessment. at homeland security, the most prevalent her go is the group of half -- hurdle is the g-6 review process. it-the - it negatively impacts

selectivity in political neutrality. the intent of the process is to screen products for objectionable words, phrases, or topics that are politically sensitive to certain groups of people. it is important that the u.s., and it takes a lead to develop strategies and tools in law enforcement. to conclude, i thank you for allowing me to testify about this most important issue facing our nation free for many years, we have worried about the threat from al qaeda and homegrown extremists. it is time it is also time to combat non- islamic extremism. there are our current limitations and best practices in my written testimony. i hope that some of my points will inspire ways to mitigate this threat and prevent future acts of violence, and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. johnson. our next guest is the son of one tragically shot and killed

on august 5, 2012, in oak creek, wisconsin, and there is a longtime member of the judiciary committee to introduce him. senator. >> thank you for holding this important hearing, chairman durbin. while not a member of the subcommittee, i thank you for allowing me to speak here today. i would like to introduce harpreet singh. he is a freshman at the milwaukee area technical college. he lost his mother in the tragic shooting at the temple in wisconsin last month. other members of that community lost their lives on that tragic day, and several others were critically wounded, including a law-enforcement officer responded to the scene. i know i speak to the committee when i say house are we are for

the loss of your mother and friends, but we can never know the pain that you have endured. we are outraged and deeply saddened by this assault on your peaceful community. his mother was a dedicated wife, mother, friend, and neighbor, committed to her fate. barzun's, who is with us today, went on to pursue careers in law enforcement. i am sure your mother would be very proud. i also wanted knowledge of the executive who is in the agency today, and i asked that his testimony be submitted for the record. august 5 was a tragic day for all americans, as is any day extremist hate groups target people of faith with harassment and violence. unfortunately, although the justice department tracks crimes against other religious

groups, it does not track crimes against sikhs, so i am urging the justice department to start doing so. not only will in allow law- enforcement to better understand the scope of the problem, it will also encourage sikhs to report when they are victims. these are steps we must take to make sure again we do not have another tragedy like the one in oak creek. we thank you for being here today to share your story with us, and i think you, mr. chairman. >> please proceed. excuse me. you need to turn on the microphone right in front of you. ok? >> my name is harpreet singh. i want to thank the senator, the chairman, the ranking member, and the committee for allowing me to be here today. i am here because my mother was murdered in an act of hate 45

days ago. i am here on behalf of all of the children who lost parents or grandparents during the oak creek incident. months ago, i would never have imagined that i would be here. i would never have known anyone outside oak creek would know my name or my mother's name, paramjit, or my brother kamal's name. my brother is here with me today. as you all know, on sunday, august 5, a white supremacist, fueled by hatred, walked in with a loaded gun. he killed my mother while she prayed. he shot and killed men. all of them are fathers, and all of them had a turban like me. now, you know their names. this was not supposed to be our

american story. this was not my mother's dream. my parents brought us to america in 2004. i was only 10 years old. like many other immigrants, they wanted us to have a better life, a better education, in the land of the free and the land of diversity. it was a tuesday, two days after my mother was killed, my brother and i ate the leftovers of the last meal that she made for us. there was a type of south asian flatbread. she had made these from scratch the last night, the night before she was died. along with the last part of the food was that this was our last meal made by our mother's hands

that we would ever eat in our lifetime. my mother was a brilliant woman. everyone knew she was smart, but she never had a chance to get a formal education. she could not. as a hard-working immigrant, she had to work long hours to feed her family, to get her sons educated, to help us achieve our american dream. this was more important to her than anything else. senator, our mother was our biggest fan, our biggest supporter. she was always there for us. she always had a smile on her face, but now she is gone, because of a man, because she was not of his color or religion. i just had my first day of college, and my mother was not there to send me off. she will not be there on my graduation or my wedding day or

to see her grandchildren. i want to tell the person who took her away from me, you might be full of hate, but my mother was full of love. this was not our american dream. it was not the american dream of the man whose children saw him lying in a pool of blood that morning. they saw him and shook him and told him, "papa, get up." he had a bullet in his head, his turban thrown to the side. it was not the american dream of satwant singh, who was killed while bravely fighting the gunman. it was not the american dream of the two brothers in the sikh community. their family came to america

for the first time for their funeral. and it was not the american dream of the others who were injured in the massacre. one may never fully recover. we ate for our loved ones. we have lost so much, but i want people to know that our heads are held high. my mother was a devout see. like all sikhs, she was born to live in a state of high spirit and optimism. like her, my brother and i work every day to be in a state of high spirit and optimism. we also know that we are not alone. many people send us letters, attended vigils, and gave us

their support. the mayor of oak creek and the police chief, wisconsin's governor, the president, and the first lady. it is their support that gives me the strength to come here today. senators, i came here today to ask the government to give my mother the dignity of being a statistic. the government does not track violence against sikhs. we cannot solve a problem we refuse to recognize. senators, i also ask the government pursue domestic terrorists with the same vigor as terrorists abroad. the man that killed my mother was on the watch list of public interest groups. i believe the government could have tracked him long before he killed my mother. finally, senators, i ask that you stand up for us. as lawmakers and leaders, you

have the power to shape public opinion. your words carry weight. rather than demean people because of who they are, -- while others demean people because of who they are, use your power to say that is wrong. an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. i also want to be part of the solution. that is why i want to be a law enforcement officer like lieutenant murphy, who saved so many lives that day. i want to protect other people from what happened to my mother. i want to combat hate, not just against sikhs, but against all people. senator, i know what happened at oak creek was not an isolated incident. i fear it may happen again if we

do not stand up and do something. i do not want anyone to suffer how we have suffered. i want to build a world where all people can live, work, and worship in america in peace. you see, despite everything, i still believe in an american dream. in my mother's memory, i ask that you stand up for that dream. today and in the days to come. thank you for considering my testimony. >> that testimony was touching. it was such a tribute to your mother, to your family, to your religion, to your community, and, really, to the values of this nation. so many things that you said need to be heard, not just in this hearing room but across the country. i hope that the spirit that you bring will teach all of us to be

more tolerant and to fight forms of discrimination wherever we can, whenever we can. thank you for your courage and your testimony today. professor jacobs from new york university, you are invited to testify. >> thank you, senator. thank you for inviting me and giving me the opportunity to share my views which the subcommittee. i, too, was touched by the presentation and very moved by it. i have been a critic of hate crime laws for the last 20 years. i think it was the whole movement to recriminalize by a crime with this new wave of hate crime laws is a wrong term and

is perhaps more divisive than it is consensus-building for the society, but i hasten to add that i deplore discrimination and bias and, of course, violent crime motivated by bias. however, as we all recognize, all violent crime, no matter what the bias or the motivation, is deplorable and therefore, rightly carries significant punishment. i do not think it is desirable or useful to create a hierarchy of crimes and victims based on racial, religious, gender, and sexual orientation identity of the perpetrator and of the victim. since ultimately it would be dangerous for the society to

begin thinking about crimes in terms of which groups and races and religions are doing the most offending and which are being the most offended against -- the labeling of offenses as hate crimes or bias crimes is subjective and generates an unnecessary and divisive controversy. the early efforts by hate crime proponents to resist including gender-motivated violence as a hate crime was regarded by women as insensitive at best and indicative of blatant bias at worst. the subsequent efforts by many to resist including anti-gay motivation as a bias crime trigger was similarly regarded

as blatantly discriminatory and intolerance. even now as we have heard this afternoon, there continues to be debate about what biases against which groups should warrant specific recognition and extra punishment. determining what is a bias crime is fraught with difficulty, thus frustrating the aims of the federal hate crimes statistics act and also frustrating many prosecutions. some offenders are not caught and therefore, of course, we do not know their motivations, even if it could be said that they had a clear motivation. when they are caught, it is usually difficult to determine an offender's motivations. most offenders, especially of extreme violence, are very confused and disturbed individuals.

even if prosecutors and investigators believe they can determine motivation, it is often very difficult to prove. one need only recall the recent controversy a student's efforts to photograph his roommate's homosexuality, whether he should have been charged in a crime. while all americans can come together in thinking that invading a roommate's privacy is wrong, there was great controversy over whether the perpetrator's punishment should be doubled or tripled because the roommate was gay. the whole fight was so unnecessary since simple invasion of privacy is a crime and is punishable in new jersey by a maximum punishment of five years in prison.

the politics of hate crime laws divide rather than unite us. in the 1980's, when the term hate crime was first invented, its proponents said they meant for the loss to be used to punish murderous plots by members of neo-nazi and similar hard core hate groups bent on terrorizing and destroying whole communities. the reality is that bias crimes are far more likely to be -- prosecutions are far more likely to be directed against the archie bunkers of the world rather than the white supremacists of the world. indeed, most hate crime prosecutions involve young defendants, frequently mixed up teen-agers who commit low-level offenses such as criminal mischief and simple assaults,

typically escalating from spontaneous altercations at a party in a parking lot or at a school event. many cases that are initially called hate crimes upon closer inspection involve serious mental illness rather than some firm ideological commitment or organizational campaign against a particular group. it is worth pondering that the federal hate crime statutes passed in 2009 to bring federal law enforcement resources to bear on hard-core, murderous hate crime groups is this being -- is this week being used to prosecute a break away on a cleric in ohio for religiously degrading thomas mann -- amish men who did not follow his teachings by ordering these men's beards be cut off. failure to provide maximum

punishment adequate to satisfactorily punish criminal offenders is not an american problem. we have the longest sentence maxima in the free world. for the most serious crimes, we have life imprisonment without parole or capital punishment. there is no more that can be added. ironically, some states, in the name of creating a more tolerant society, have made by is motivation an aggravating factor that makes a murderer eligible for capital punishment. another irony is the use of prisons to punish bias crimes. the prisons, as we know, are the number one spawning grounds for hate groups like the aryan brotherhood. hate crime laws are counterproductive. it politicizes crime and spawned charges of hypocrisy and double standards. those who are prosecuted call

themselves victims of political correctness and mortars to the first amendment. the hate crime laws conflict with their proponents' usual criticism of overuse of criminal law and especially, over incarceration. sending more people to prison for longer periods of time is not likely to contribute to a more tolerant society. thank you. >> thank you, professor jacobs. mr. saini, i ask the question of the first panel based on your request that six be added to the category. i think the response was positive, and i promise i will follow-up with him to make sure it is considered on a timely basis. let me ask what impact this massacre has had on your

community in oak creek. >> just the people have been wonderful. everybody has come together now. just for that to happen, this was not a loss. this was a gain. >> you mentioned the president, first lady, the governor, and other leaders who expressed their sympathy for this terrible event. have you noted any other efforts by people of other religions and other backgrounds who had not been part of your seat community before are now more closely associated? >> yes. there are a lot of people --

muslims, christians, hindus, everybody has come and has been there for us. >> what about around the country? ledyard any similar stories from other members of the sikh alex triantafilou -- sikh community? >> yes. same thing. people came from all around the country. from new york, from india, all over the world. they came just agreed with us. -- they came just to grieve with us. >> i am sorry you had to lose so much for this outpouring of support to occur. i hope in your mother's memory it will be a positive thing for you and your family and for your community in years to come. thank you again for your great testimony. such an impact. professor jacobs, we will move to this constitutional or legal debate, however it might be. the supreme court considered your point of view and surprisingly, it was justice rehnquist who wrote the opinion that rejected your point of view. he said we should draw a line between expression, statements, speech, and, as he said, a physical assault is not by any stretch of the imagination

expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. that seems declarative and final in its nature. do you disagree with that conclusion? >> definitely not. >> so, i do not want to put words in your mouth -- your argument is not that those who killed in the name of hate are expressing themselves under some constitutional protection? >> of course not. i have not said anything constitutional at all. my point here is that murder is already punished as severely as it can be punished. it cannot be punished and more. >> let me take the next up -- you have said, next to the testimony of this brave young man who has come to tell you the impact that this heinous act had on his family and his life -- you have questioned before

whether there is any special emotional or psychological impact in a hate crime. the still hold the position that a hate crime victim is no sadder, no worse off than some other victim of a crime? >> i do. many crime victims of different kinds of crimes, felony murders, killings and a park, killings of children -- none of it is pleasant, as you know. the pain is excruciating. is there any need for us to compare one person's pain in a heinous murder to another person's pain and put one on a higher pedestal than in other persons? will that help us as a society? >> it turns out that when we rode our terrorism laws, we felt it did. the federal terrorism statute provides enhanced penalties if they appear to be intended to influence the policy of

government and by influential coercion. physicale beyond the act and said, what is the motivation behind it? we have drawn the line when it comes to terrorism. you oppose enhanced penalties for terrorism? >> i do not. >> so how you make the distinction? >> terrorist acts, when you have a crime that threatens a large number of people, it should be punished to the maximum. i think those statutes are meant to give federal jurisdiction over the crime. we need federal jurisdiction over those crimes. >> i hate to quarrel with a law professor, but it seems to me that what we are talking about is intent in both instances. the intent is terrorist- inspired, he sits there will be a higher penalty. when comes to a hate crime, when it is inspired by the hated

person because of a religion or race or gender or sexual orientation, the enhanced penalty -- the to run in parallel. >> i will not go down that road. i think all homicidal crime is filled with hate of one kind or another. a lot of it is filled with just plain confused and deranged thinking. most of the people we arrest for such crimes -- it looks clearer in the abstract, but when you address them, like the apparent perpetrator in aurora, they are very confused and disturbed individuals. >> i would just say -- i would question whether or not you are consistent in allowing for enhanced penalties for terrorism but not for hate crimes. that seems to be my note. you disagree. mr. johnson -- you heard the testimony.

the man had been called out by at least two organizations as a dangerous individual. apparently that was not enough to warrant an investigation. there was nothing the fbi could point to which would single him out for special investigation or attention. was this an intelligence failure in wisconsin? do you think there could have been things done to prevent this attack that were not done? >> i think the fbi late at where the problem was. aty're really good investigating after the fact, after things happen, but we had a delicate balance between people's constitutional right to assemble and express their speech, however weil, but we -- however vile, but we also have to be board cleaning and look at ideologies that have long histories of -- forward-looking

and the ideologies that have long histories of spawning violence. i'm not talking about doing covert operations and people with extremist police, but i think it is important we have an overt monitoring police system on what is causing people to act of violence may. was this an intelligence failure? i do not think it is. but one thing the department of homeland security and the fbi could have done -- where was the warning the that sikhs and muslims have been victims of shooting attacks? i think there could have been a threat assessment prepared on that very subject sent out to the fifth base communities affected. i believe that may have provided a first line of defense by identifying the problem and providing countermeasures to encourage people to be increasingly vigilant towards the threat. that may have played a possible role in maybe preventing some type of attack. >> i readily agree with your premise. people have tattoos -- simply because people have tattoos or listen to music or gather and say certain things is not

evidence of criminal intent. that was the point made by the fbi. what you also say is worthy of note. when you hear this over and over, it raises the level of prices. -- the level of threat assessment. whether it is anti-semitism against a jewish synagogue, the burning of christian churches in the south, attacks on muslim mosques or sikh temples, each of these warrants special effort. the last question i will ask -- you know today seems to be a reduction in force of the people at homeland security who are working on these issues. mr. mcallister was not altogether clear on the subject -- would you like to say more on that? >> you have outlined in your testimony, when i was the team leader at the department of homeland security, we had analysts under supervision, but also additional analysts supplementing us. we had as many as eight analysts looking at this issue. today, there is one.

that is a fact. >> the last point -- when he said the militia investigated in michigan had a larger arsenal of weapons and all of the terrorists who have been arrested since 9/11 in the united states -- was that your testimony? >> is a daunting statistics. i got this information of a steve emerson's investigative product website, where he has all the court records of every single muslim are extremists arrested in the country since 9/11. that is my sources can pump. -- that is where my sources came from. >> many people in the community did not understand to sikhs -- who they were intel the tragedy occurred. how does the sikh fit into milwaukee before the tragedy, and how would you describe the outpouring corresponds that occurred?

>> sikhs are a different religion, a different race -- they will come up to you and asking for you are. people do not ask who sikhs are. like, i would love to answer. if a person asks me, who am i? what is that on your head? i would love to tell them what it is. people do not do that. they should start doing that. to get the fact that it is right. it is a turban. >> ok. how have you been moving forward since the tragedy with respect to your place of worship and your ability to come and worship without fear? >> on my what?

>> the level of fear that occurred when the tragedy happened -- has that abated? >> beshear is still around. but we are -- the fear is still around but we are getting over it as much as we can. trying to get over it with people you love. it is the best thing. >> is the level of attendance for services equal to what it was before this tragedy? are some people still worried about attending? >> it has actually gone up. a lot more people showed up this time, after the incident. the attendance has been enormous now. it has gone up. >> that is terrific. thank you bir much. >> thank you to this entire panel ford's testimony. -- before its testimony.

senator bling and paul. >> thank you. a -- blumenthal. >> thank you. i want to join in thanking this panel and the higher panel his testimony i have been following. i apologize for not being here earlier. i had another committee hearing. out like to first of all follow up -- my condolences for your loss. even in a place as geographically distant as connecticut, there has been an outpouring of feeling in sympathy for the victims and their families. i have attended two of the ceremonies and services marking this horrendous incident. i would say that i joined senator kohl in the expressions of satisfaction that there is a strengthening of your community

and of attendance and involvement. that is the case, is it not? >> yes. >> if i may turn to mr. johnson -- you have pat day long career -- had a long career in intelligence. enforcement efforts. you referred earlier to the possibility that there might have been prevented action possible. do you think it is a realistic assessment, intelligence or better, do you think prevention is a realistic and practical likelihood? >> basically raising awareness and increasing vigilance and putting in countermeasures, putting up barriers of defense that could serve as a prevention.

is it an interdiction? will it stop the incident from happening? probably not. but if you have your awareness up, then perhaps you can take countermeasures to prevent the amount of loss. >> and is the issue one of resources -- you mentioned the number of analysts diminishing from 8 to 1. is that the principle barrier? is it a matter of hearing information? what would you analyze as the issue? >> the written testimony, i outlined a number of limitations, one of which is resources. we are also lacking in strategic analysis. that is where we look at emerging national trends and patterns of criminal activity. there were some other things i mentioned in my written testimony that you referred to. it is a multi-layered approach. information sharing has gotten better, but we can still make improvements there as well. >> so it is a multifaceted challenge. >> that is right. i mentioned training as an issue. we have a whole new group of

officers moving through the ranks to need to be trained on these types of subjects and what the different extremists' tactics and activity levels are. >> professor jacobs, i know that you have raised in your testimony and also in your written testimony reservations and qualms about the hate crime definition and prove issues. why does issues any norm -- any different than normal criminal intent elements of proof that have to be presented in a criminal trial? >> is different, defining which biases and so forth -- on the question of purpose, i think it is harder to get into a person's motivations, whether it was

intended or not intended is a fairly thin mental state when you start to get into what is their bias, looking at these various crimes that have been prosecuted. the one in new jersey is a very good example. what was his motivation? he himself may not have known what his motivation was. a lot of motivations. maybe no clear motivation. what he did do was infringe upon the privacy of his roommate. that was clear and could easily be proved. but the prosecution was not able to prove that it was an anti-gay bias. that is often the case. >> that may be true in a variety of criminal cases where the prosecution has the continuing burden of proof and has to present evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that

a motivation existed. i do not understand why that burden does not place sufficient -- a sufficiently high threshold for the proof of a hate crime. >> i do not think it is necessary. we have criminal laws against assault and against murder and against rape and kidnapping. in order to express even more outraged, we have gone through the criminal code and kind of read criminalize crimes that already carry huge punishments, more than we have the resources to actually implement. >> which is true of other crimes as well that may be prosecutable under different laws. >> they are all prosecutable under different laws, senator. >> correct. so why not permit prosecution

of hate crimes when they are in fact motivated by bigotry and bias, that kind of intent, as an expression of community outrage which our criminal law does? >> that is the route we are going down. i think that if it is successful we will see. if it helps to lead to a more tolerant society, that would be good. but it might also be very divisive. juries might begin to seek criminal prosecutions as political trials in which the crime is about making a statement about the perpetrators group as opposed to the victims group. we will start to see the crime problem as one that is divided along all of the fractures of american society. i would not welcome seeing the crime problem in that way.

i think it is unnecessary to do that. >> i think the reservation you have expressed has been articulated at least in my experience in state legislatures, when these issues are rows and those reservations or objections were overcome. because people do feel that the expression of the community paulson tolerance for violence -- community's in tolerance for violence fueled by community -- bigotry and hatred is a proper and appropriate measure to take and hopefully will also have a deterrent effect. if it deters these kinds of crimes, perhaps it would serve a legitimate purpose in criminal law as well. i.n.d. stand, and you articulate and well your concerns -- i understand, and you have articulated well your concerns, but the growing awareness of the severity and frequency of these crimes will

probably and hopefully result in greater and tougher enforcement. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal, senator kohl. more than 400 people were in attendance at this hearing in the overflow room and on this main level. it has shown a lot of interest in this important topic. many from the sikh community and all across the united states. we thank you very much for joining all of us and expressing our sentiments of sorrow for what has taken place in your community. we are not alone in our feelings about this. we've had enormous amount of interest from many groups. 80 written statements for today's hearing. from the chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, the anti- defamation league, the chicago city council, the chicago police department, the council

on american islamic relations, a human-rights campaign, interfaith alliance, the islamic society of north america, the japanese-american citizens league, latina justice, muslim advocates, the national gay and lesbian task force, the oak creek police department, people for the american way, the african-american minister leadership council, the sikh coalition, south asian americans leading together, the southern poverty law center. without objection, i would like to put the statements into the record. hearing no objection, that will be the case. the record will be open for a week to accept additional statements. if there are witnesses or questions, i hope you will answer in a timely fashion. i think the witnesses for attending and colleagues for per dissipating. the hearing stands adjourned. -- for participating.

the hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> our coverage continues with remarks from president obama at a campaign rally in milwaukee. it is exactly one month before early voting begins in wisconsin, a state he won in 2008. see that rally alive today at 6:40 eastern here on c-span. 6:40 eastern here on c-span. right after that,