. >> mr. clegg said a number of things which caught my attention, and you said that you thought the war on terror justified some measure of profiling. >> well -- >> well, let me come to the question and then you can certainly explain your position. and i wrote notes as quickly as i could. we need to look at organizations with geopolitical and political ties i think is something that you said in the course of that. you've heard testimony here from congressman ellison and others about what is happening to muslim-americans across the board, and many of them are not affiliated with any specific organization. they are affiliated with a faith, and it appears that that has become a premise for surveillance and investigation. i worry, as an amateur student of history, how you could distinguish what you just said from what happened to japanese-americans in world war ii, where 120,000 were rounded up with no suspicion of any danger to the united states and their property taken from them, detained and confined

i know you want to say something, mr. clegg, but when it comes to fighting the war on terror, the fact of the matter is that great britain and france are going through this very similar situation right now where they have groups within the country that are espousing pretty radical ideas and they just expelled someone, i think, from great britain just today or yesterday, an iman who was saying pretty radical things. i don't know when national security starts and individual liberties begin. what's your thought? >> i want to endorse what some of my co-panelists are >> i want to he doors some of have said, that it's very important in the war on terror that we have the cooperation of the overwhelming majority of arab americans and muslim americans. >> one of the great strengths of our country is that even though homegrown terrorism is on the rise, generally speaking, american muslims have assimilated in our society and our culture, thousands serve in the military, and that we're actually the example to the world of how you assimilat

. >> thank you, mr. clegg. david harris, associate dean for research at the university of pittsburgh law school. he's one of the nation's leading scholars on racial profiling. author of the book in 2000, "profiles in injustice, why racial profiling cannot work." and in 2005, "good cops, the case for preventive policing." professor harris appeared at both of the previous senator hearings on racial profiling. so welcome back. >> thank you very much, senator durbin, members of the subcommittee. i'm grateful for the chance to talk to you today. senator durbin's statement opened by recalling for us president bush's promise that racial profiling, quote, is wrong and we will end it in america. sad to say that that promise remains as yet unfulfilled. instead, we have a continuation of profiling as it existed then with a new overlapping second wave of profiling in the wake of september 11th, as other witnesses have described. directed mostly at arab americans and muslims. now we have a third overlapping wave of profilin

and when it comes to the war on terror, mr. clegg, i couldn't agree with you more. the reity of t facis, wdne m tor ant . e'mesiouer at gwemori ths gs in america that are saying some pretty radical things. and i hope we follow the leaders of these groups to find out what they're up to because megrn rrm n ri w ouhtwit ti rio w ouhteg orwit fiti pe who are local to america people who are loyal to americ who belong ta particular faith? i dot kn. buknhi if lnfmeomty in this country fails to find out about the major hasans, we're the first one to be on your case. why didn't you follow this website? he said these things in these et ahyn'e suisele anyo gomy isllt orer ans a air force officer, when do you go to your wing commander and say, this person says sometng that makes me feel uncomfortable and you do so atur p. jdoknhae er owt prm d i ink in the last decade we've made some progress, chief vis anday hg leatthaks f onsobogha mesequfry. e ouoo redefining it but just collecting infmaon to show exactly what happens day in and day out in america so we can act loll i ynto m

more complicated today, as mr. clegg has said, because the war on terror raises legitimate concerns about the safety of our nation and how far will we go to respect our national security, without violating our basic values under the constitution. i thank you all for your testimony. it's been a very positive part of this conversation, which we need to engage in even further. there's a lot of interest in today's hearings. 225 organizations submitted testimony. thank goodness they didn't come here to speak. but we're glad to have their testimony. and we'll put it in the record without objection. that's good. it will include the episcopal church, illinois association chiefs of police, the illinois coalition for immigrant refugee rights. japanese-american citizens league, leadership conference on civil and human rights, muslim advocates, naacp. national council, national immigration forum, rights working group sheikh coalition. south asian-americans and the southern poverty center and these statements will be made part of the

more complicated today, as mr. clegg has said, because the war on terror raises legitimate concerns about the safety of our na aow wweto ret naalur thviinr c eser citn. i k alr im it's been a ver positive part of this nversati, whh we ed tenga ienth e'lo ies y'ar. orzas it sty. k nehednom resp weglo t imy. and we'll put it in the record without objection. that's good. it will include the epcopa ch, nossti ch olithli itfomit ge gh. pa-acati ueadipfee l ang muslim advocates, naacp. national council, national immigration forum, rights working group sheikh coalition. hanri a heov cr thstenil maar tecke f wfodial atts pblmewien u itquon it doesn't happen very often, but if they do i hope you'll respond in a timely way. thoufurtr enth al mtns pace d atinisri anokwao inth of. veun >>inblovti >> [inaudible conversations].. >> unext on book act wo theegu h wain ppoca po nalndn. tawi jon abhite release the tyranny of cliches. he argues many liberals clm to be non ideological warorng thr t l v ral s. el te s isat c w y today. you w

i want to yield a minute of my team to my good clegg from georgia, mr. spot and my colleague from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. >> thank you. one point i did want to mention, a couple of my colleagues brought up a couple of points that i want to clarify. i know he brought up a point about assessing income limits that he talked about, but i want to talk about that according to the united states department of agriculture, just 2.9% of these families, just 2.9% lived in households that exceeded the program's income limits. a very, very small amount, and i think that's for the record and to mr. conaway's point about the charges which are will and good, but a recent study came out from the bread for world study that says that every church in order to reach mr. conaway's conclusion, every church in america would have to contribute $50,000 every year to make up for the proposed cuts in this bill. every single church in this country, $50,000 a year to show the two points there. final point i want to make so everyone understands, the average time that a beneficiar

clegg. they were looking at how long parliament should be debating these issues at a time of economic crisis. >> mrspeaker, no one doubts the commitment and public service of many members of the house of lords, but dedicated to the jewels cannot compensate for flawed institutions, and this bill is about fixing and flawed institution, so let me begin by setting out why our upper chamber is in need of these reforms for three specific reasons, mr. speaker, why i hope members will give it attention. first, we all here believe in democracy. we believe that the people who make policy should be chosen by the people subject to those laws. that principle, mr. speaker, was established in britain after centuries of struggle, and it is a principle that we send our servicemen and women halfway around the world to defend, and yet, right now, we are one of only two countries in the world with the upper parliamentary chamber which is totally not elected and instead selects its members by birthright and patronage. an institution that serves the whole of the united kingdom yet draws more than half of its members fro