tv U.S. Senate CSPAN January 21, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
>> the last question, [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, president. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: as ever more european families have the background of economic crush spend more than 10% of their monthly incomes for the energy bills, i would like to ask you what are the concrete steps that the european commission has in order to reduce energy poverty? let me ask you if you have any view the increase of the percentage of the european fund for region or development that can be used by the member states to increase the energy efficiency of their dwellings starting with the future
financial perspective? thank you. >> internal energy have set high standards of protection with regard to the provision of the minimum service of building complex handling and so on and so forth. and i could quote many other areas where we are proposing measures directly addresses concerns of consumers. regarding lower energy bills, in fact, we think that in the medium term at least, the energy markets competition can achieve more than the current situation where there are, in fact, many of these functions and positions of dominance in the market. regarding funding for projects of energy security, as i said earlier we certainly intend to propose it in the next financial perspectives. part has to come from markets
solutions but part tops come indeed from investment and the ut commission preparing some proposals for the next financial perspectives. >> thank you very much all the colleagues for the discussion on innovation and energy, very important topic as we know very well. and thanks to you, mr. president, who has been in commission second time today in a hard discussion with the commission. thank you to all of you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> a couple of live events to tell you about today on the c-span networks.
>> and live right here on c-span2 president obama will make remarks say general electric plant in schenectady new york. he'll be joined by the company's ceo who was just named to be the chair of the president's new council on jobs and competitiveness. we'll have the president's remarks starting at 1:05 pm eastern here on c-span2. ?>ñ
>> tuesday, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span's live coverage begins at 8:00 pm eastern with our preview program followed by the president's speech at 9:00. then the republican response and your phone calls live on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. you can also watch the president's address on c-span2 followed by reaction from members of congress from statuary hall. >> january is national stalking awareness month and attorney general eric holder notes the occasion with remarks at the justice department. other speakers include an illinois teen who was a victim of stalking. the justice department's office on violence against women and the national center for victims
of crime are the cohosts of this event. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome. my name is susan carvin and i'm the director of the office of violence on woman. thanks for joining us in the great hall to help us commemorate national stalking awareness month at the department of justice. i'm pleased to introduce to introduce you an attorney with the environment and natural services division who will sing the national anthem. please rise. ♪ o say can you see
♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪ at the twilight's last gleaming ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ through the perilous fight ♪ ore oh, the rampants we watched ♪ ♪ were so gallantly streaming ♪ and the rockets red glare ♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ gave proof through the night
that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ o say does that star spangled banner sway ♪ ♪ for the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave >> thank you, please be seated. and thank you, that is an exquisite voice. thank you so much for coming today and for sharing your talent with us. once again, i want to thank all of you for being here today, particularly, given the weather that we've had. that they say that you should
always make your guests feel welcome so i guess this is washington's way of making people from chicago with our lousy weather feel welcomed here and i'm very pleased they were able to come in yesterday to join us. but i am very honored that we have a number of special guests with us here today. who have traveled from illinois just outside of chicago. we have hannah perryman and her mother perryman, detective is their and karen from the illinois police department. karen is a social worker with the police department here to share their story and we're going to look forward from hearing from you in a few moments. we also have two other guests who i'll be introducing to you later. but first we have two guests and two very special leaders from the department of justice. in my time as director of the office on violence against women, i have been so thrilled with and so grateful for the leadership and the commitment from our leaders here at the department of justice. it is my privilege to introduce to you our first speaker,
attorney general eric holder. he has dedicated his career to public service in many different venues including on the court. and he inspire us us to work hard. please welcome attorney general eric holder. [applause] >> good morning. oh, come on, folks. good morning! >> good morning. there we go. there we go. thank you, sue for that very kind introduction and for your leadership of the office on violence against women. this is a very special occasion and i'm glad to see that everybody is here in spite of the weather. the holder children are at home. they think it's a great day. school is cancelled today but, sue, you and your team are doing, i think, really extraordinary work to improve
public safety and to provide much-needed support to our neighbors in need and in crisis. and i am really grateful to you and am proud for you and all the great work that you do. this morning i'm really honored to join with colleagues from across the justice department in welcoming our very distinguished guests. i want to thank you all for being here. by recognizing national stalking awareness month, we're helping to raise awareness about the signs and the consequences of this devastating crime. and it is a crime. and we are signaling our ongoing commitment to protecting potential victims. now, in the course of the year, nearly 3.5 million people over the age of 18 are stalked in the united states. that is 3.5 million people over the age of 18. stalking affects all communities. regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
but females are nearly three times more likely to be victims of this crime. stalking is defined as a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. now, as we have learned more about this crime, we've seen that it can lead not just to fear but also to violence. today we know that most stalking victims nearly 3 in 4 know their offenders in some capacity. and 30% are stalked by a current or former intimate partner. but as we are reminded today, many are not. we are privileged today to be joined by hannah perryman, a high school junior from stream wood, illinois, who experienced stalking firsthand. as a young student, hannah was stalked by a young girl in her neighborhood who was attended in her school. for hannah it was a terrifying experience. a time when she feared for her safety.
and ultimately feared for her life. now, when hannah was 15, she found the courage and the great courage to come forward and to share her heartbreaking story with the world. she also made a commitment to action. in addition to speaking out, hannah successful lobbied to change the law in her own home state and to help ensure greater protection for stalking victims. i want to thank hannah. i want to thank her mother, deb, and two tireless caring public servants who are present here today. detective daryl is their and advocate karen nelson who kept hannah safe at a difficult time and who both shared her commitment in a safer and more just society. i thank you all and congratulate you all for the courage and the great work you have done. they are here to help shed light on a serious and significant problem. and on the effects of stalking crimes. and by providing a model for how
a potential tragedy can be turned into opportunity, our guests also inspire our efforts in meeting the goals and responsibilities that we all share. now, there are many pathways to ending stalking. one begins by focusing on children like hannah. if we're going to succeed as we must in breaking the vicious cycle of violence that is strained too many communities and have shattered too many lives, then we have to understand and work to overcome what our young people are up against. now, today the majority of children in this country, more than 60% of them, have been exposed to violence, to crime or to abuse. more than 60% of all the children in this nation. this is unconscionable and it is unacceptable. experiencing and witnessing violence can have devastating consequences especially for our
kids. it's often associated with long-term physical, psychological, and emotional harm. and children exposed to violence are at a higher risk of engaging in criminal behavior later in life. now, i'm proud that for today's justice department, for this justice department, reversing current trends and reducing children's exposure to violence is a top priority. not only are we listening to the voices of our young people, we are working with a broad range of partners to examine, to understand, and to communicate how violent crime impacts them, their families, their schools, and their neighborhoods. now, as part of this work, late last year, we launched our new defending childhood initiative. this cross-agency effort is focused on preventing violence and helping children overcome its potentially devastating consequences and effects. to date eight communities have been selected as demonstration
sites for testing strategies and for compiling research. and we are optimistic that this initiative will lead to critical enhancements in our work to protect the most vulnerable and precious among us. our children. but our commitment to public safety extends to all people of all ages and in all of our communities. and that commitment is at the core of today's efforts. across the department and across the federal government to prevent and to raise awareness about stalking crimes. now, as many of you know, just this month president obama proclaimed january as national stalking awareness month. and this administration is in the process of developing a comprehensive strategy to improve our efforts to prevent violence against women, to empower victims and to hold perpetrators accountable and bring them to justice. now, in this work, i know that i can count on your unwavering
commitment and your passion to make meaningful change. i'm grateful to you all. i'm grateful to you all as well and i look forward to all that we will accomplish together. thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank the attorney general for not only his thoughtful remarks but his extraordinary leadership at the department of justice. he's exquisite. and also thank you for your support of this event and always for your support of our office, at the office of violence against women. our next speaker is another deeply committed public servant. pirelli is an associate attorney general. he has been a phenomenal support not only to me but to the mission of our office. he's a brilliant visionary who constantly challenges us to think big and to find new and
more meaningful ways for government to work with communities in an effort to strengthen our services and to meet the needs of victims. please welcome associate attorney general tom pier elegy. >> thank you for your kind introduction and your leadership for all of our efforts to end violence against women. i'm honored to stand here with the attorney general and with our panel, with sue to highlight all that we can do to stop the crime of stalking. i want to know one thing that the attorney general talked about, which is, i think, an innovation that really comes from the core of him as a leader. he has dedicated so much of his career to protecting children, that defending the childhood initiative that he talked a little while ago is something he started more than a decade ago and we have renewed again under
his leadership but a core element of that is not simply all of the policies that one could implement in the government but really listening to and engaging with our young people and enlisting them as partners -- as partners in this effort and in this fight. a little over a year ago, we did a teen dating violence symposium where we brought young people in from a number of communities across the country and it was an extraordinary experience to have the attorney general and the secretary of the department of education sit down and really engage with young people and brainstorm -- brainstorm as equals about solutions in communities across the country. we're honored to have hannah and her mother here today to continue that work and help us all think about what more we can do. the attorney general has set an extraordinary standard of leadership for this department and for this administration in a fight to end violence against women. and that comes from the president himself.
i'm glad to see lynn rosenthal is here who is the first-ever white house advisor dedicated to issues of ending violence against women, domestic violence, stalking and other crimes. that is a commitment that comes from the president on down. last year, we spent much of the year commemorating the 15th anniversary of the violence against women act and held events all across the country to raise awareness about domestic violence, sexual assault, teen dating violence, stalking. we talked about it as a call to action and an attempt to energize partners to help us to the ultimate goal of ending the violence. at the department we are trying to practice what we preach. the attorney general talked about some of the things that we are doing but our u.s. attorney's offices are also aggressively pursuing interstate stalking cases, often getting referrals from our local law enforcement partners who are such valuable allies. we're training our attorneys on the ever-evolving dynamics of stalking and particular cyberstalking and a variety of uses of new technology that can
be used to terrorize. and our office of violence against women funds the stalking resource center which provides technical assistance, training and resource material to organizations throughout the united states to help build capacity to effectively respond to stalking. in our effort to end the violence, 2011, is a critical year. as we plan for the reauthorization of the violence against women act. we have the opportunity to shine the spotlight on violence that is often hidden and ignored and we have the chance to integrated all that you in the field have learned into new policy for the future. now, we talk a lot about raising awareness and no is that probably more important than in the area of stocking -- stalking. unlike many other crimes which occur at a specific moment in time and everyone -- when they see it happen knows it's a crime. stalking occurs over time usually a series of events.
whether it's sending flowers or text message is not at least threatening but because stalking builds over time with a partner with act after act it's terrifying to the victim. 46% of stalking victims fear not knowing what will happen next. that's a pretty hard way to live your life. 29% fear that the stalking will never stop. and for the victim, the harm comes from not just being terrorized but from being ignored by the courts who are in a position to help but don't understand fully the partner that makes up the stalking behavior. you'll hear an example of this from hannah as she shares her courageous story with us. but today not enough victims get the resources and help that they need. they're not aware that it's available and only 40% of stalking victims actually report their crime. the fear that stalking instills not harms the victims but the community at large. 1 in 8 employed stalking victims
lose time at work due to the victimization. 1 in 7 end of moving as a result of that victimization. so putting an end to stalking is more than about simply ending a criminal activity. when a person feels safer and is protected, that person is healthier. they're a better parent, a better child. they're more productive at work, at school because they can thrive and they're not afraid. this is about making our communities and our neighborhoods feel like places where people can build a home, a business and a life free from fear. now, because our victims need support, because stalking can occur anywhere, the victims' house, a workplace, a gym, a social gathering and because stalking impacts us all, it's critical that we enlist as many people as possible in a fight to end stalking. we at the justice department through advocacy and through speaking all across the country are committed to helping communities, employers, our law enforcement partners and others better recognize stalking behavior, understand that it is a crime. and then to provide them the
tools that they need to help us deal with that crime. i want to thank all of you in the audience and the panel who work in this field and who support an endless advocacy led to the violence women's act in the first place and who daily take on the scourge of stalking and other forms of other violence. i applaud you for the work that you have done and continue to look forward to a successful 2011 for our joint efforts to end the violence. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, tom. i'm honored to be with you here today with this event to highlight national stalking awareness month. we're so grateful to have the leadership of the department, the associated attorney general and the attorney general and, unfortunately, as you can see, he's had to leave given our late start here this morning but i want to thank him again for making time to be with us and to be with this incredible panel. these folks here at the department of justice lend their
voices to raise awareness about a crime that is so often misunderstood in our society, indeed, all too often invisible. stalking is intended to instill fear in victims. it does all that and more. it is a dangerous and often deadly crime and it's often an intersection between stalking and even more violent crimes. research shows that those who stock their partners are four times more likely to physically assault their partners than nonstalkers. and six times likely to sexually assault their partners. the stalking and murder of female victims is alarming. tragically 54% of homicide victims reported stalking to law enforcement before they were killed. for professionals who work on these cases and some of whom are here in this room this morning, you understand how important it is to take the crime of stalking seriously. for my own experience as a judge in new hampshire, i witnessed
the chilling effect that stalking can have on its victims. i had cases involving high school youth like hannah although in this case being stalked by a teacher. a young woman whose rapist was being released from jail being stalked by this person from prison. an elderly woman going through a divorce, being stalked by her soon to be ex and everything in between. our domestic violence fatality review committee demonstrated that many cases where a victim was stalked prior to her death. interestingly, it was a judge who first recognized the connection between stalking and other behaviors and was the first to propose legislation in california back in 1993. thousands of victims all over the country are now receiving services including protection orders through our 21 discretionary and formula grant programs. as we continue to do a better job of identifying cases and training professionals about
stalking, i hope we will also get better at designing more specific victim-centered remedies for those in need. and more importantly, begin to do a better job of documenting and preventing stalking cases in the first instance. many of our grantees are seeking assistance from the stalking resource center, our technical assistance prior at the national center for victims of crime. and we're fortunate to have rebecca dreke here this morning and you'll hear from here in a few months and you'll hear from the perrymans hannah and her mother deb who sought ms. dreke's help when they were in their time of need. and also from two professionals, law enforcement officer and a social worker, both from the illinois police department who worked so hard to keep hannah and her family safe. their story documents the power of an effective response to stalking. when hannah reached out, others took her seriously and worked to help her regain her sense of
safety, indeed, her sense of self. because when you're stalked, your sense of safety and your well-being are compromised. your life is thrown into an unpredictable reality. a maze of unsettling events wondering what's around the corner or outside your window or even being subjected to threats on your life. i'm humbled by hannah's courage to stand up and to speak out and to help shine a light on this insidious crime. it's my hope that your story here will go a long way toward educating the public and all of us as professionals as well and engaging in the public in continued work to end this crime. it's now my privilege to be able to introduce to you rebecca dreke. ms. dreke is the senior program associate with the stalking resource center at the national center for victims of crime. ms. dreke is responsible for training law enforcement, prosecutors, victim advocates,
and other professionals including judges about all aspects of stalking including the use of technology to stalk, stalking on campuses and the relationship between stalking and sexual assault. prior to joining the national center for victims of crime, ms. dreke worked as a social worker, a victim advocate, and a public school teacher. she received her master's in social work from the university of texas at austin and her bachelor's in women's studies in minnesota. [applause] >> it's really an honor to be here as a representative from the stalking research center at the national resource center for victims of crime. i want to thank the attorney general and the associate attorney general for having us here and thank you for behalf of all stalking victims and survivors because your presence here today and your willingness to host this event shows everyone that stalking victims
do matter to the department of justice and that this issue is going to be taken seriously. i'd also really like to thank you, director, for your leadership at obw and to -- ovw. and our grant monitor kevin sweeney for supporting our efforts in ending stocking in communities across this country. as director carbon mentioned, the stalking resource center provides training and technical assistance to criminal justice professionals, victim advocates, community members, members of the arm services, all across this country and actually we've gone international as well in the past couple of years. and we train individuals and professionals how to recognize stalking because as has been mentioned, sometimes this crime is misunderstood and the dynamics of stalking are hard to understand. but so we work with these professionals on how to recognize the crime, how to better investigate prosecute, how to keep victims safer and also most importantly how to
hold some of these offenders accountable. and over the past decade, since the stalking resource center has been around, we have seen great progress in how communities respond to this crime. we have seen more and more efforts of community coordinated responses that include criminal justice professionals, social service workers, families, victims, all coming together, probation, parole, state leaders all coming together to respond to this crime. and has been mentioned, this january president obama signed the first ever presidential proclamation designating january as stalking awareness month so we've had some tremendous successes for a crime that really is relatively new. it wasn't as judge carbon mentioned, it wasn't until the early '90s that the first stalking law was ever signed in california. and about the end of the '90s all 50 states, the district of columbia, the territories had stalking laws. so however, as we all know, there's a great deal of work
that's left to be done. stalking is still a misunderstood crime. and you've heard a little bit about the prevalence rates over 3.4 million people stalked in a one-year period in this country. and given that, given that these prevalence rates are still high it's amazing everywhere i go in communities across this country, how much misinformation is out there about stalking. stalking is not taken seriously. it's seen as a joke. it's seen as something that's not as big of a deal. if the victim just ignored it, it would go away. and it would end. but this is not true. stalking is an insidious crime. it often leaves the victim frustrated and there's ever more ways that perpetrators are engaging with their victim in trying to harass them especially through the use of technology to stalk that we're going to hear about later. it's also been mentioned that stalking is a crime that's closely connected to other
interpersonal crimes like sexual assault, intimate partner violence and dating violence but also homicide. i think it's important for all of us to remember that the first stalking awareness month that was commemorated in 2004 was in honor of peggy klinke who was a woman for years who was stalked by a man across county lines, across state lines and then eventually murdered by that stalker. so it was her family, peggy klinke's family that reached out to us at the national center for victims of crime and asked and really demanded that we all raise more awareness about this crime and bring a greater understanding and have a response and be able to assist these victims of this crime. so we're all fortunate today to be able to learn more about this and hear some firsthand experiences from hannah, who is -- i can't tell you what an honor it is for me to be able to be up here with her. we at the stalking resource center, we work with so many professionals but we don't often get the chance to interact
enough, i think, with victims and survivors and especially to hear how their cases turned out. so i'm going to actually transition back over here and, hannah, you're holding the microphone. >> i think we're all good, okay. hannah perryman is a victim of stalking. when she was younger she was assaulted by her perpetrator and then tormented by that offender. this offender stalked her for years. being a constant nuisance and a constant presence in her life and in her family's life. interfering, engaging in these behaviors that were a constant -- i think it's fair to say nuisance and threat to your family. and i'm sure you're all wondering what some of these behaviors were. what does this crime really look like? and here's what's really difficult about the crime of
stalking. is that a lot of times stalking is comprised of noncriminal acts. it can be comprised of things that almost any average teenage youth would do. things like riding by someone's house, maybe texting them, sending messages through social networking sites, sending messages to the families to the victim through third parties. sending those messages, giving gifts, riding a bike by somebody's house, that in and of itself is not a crime. but when you put all of those different behaviors together in a course of conduct or a pattern of behavior directed at somebody that's a specific person that's meant to cause them harm or cause them to feel fear, that's when you begin to have that crime of stalking. so, hannah, i want everybody hear to be able to hear from you in your words a little bit more about your story and what happened. would you be willing to share a
little bit with us? >> i think it's on. okay. well, it's kind of hard to talk abouts you know? -- you know, it's pretty terrifying. it's just terrifying you don't know what's going to happen next you don't know what's ever going to happen to you. you're afraid to be in your own home. you're afraid to go outside. you're afraid someone is going to hurt you even when, you know, you're not looking. you know, so you always constantly have to be on the lookout. you're always looking over your shoulder. you're always just making sure that you're safe. even your family, you know. my little sisters, i would have to be outside with them. if they were outside, i'd be with them because i didn't know what the person was going to do. that's kind of just -- you know. >> we'll do this back and forth. i think i speak for all of us,
hannah, that we all think that you are so brave and so courageous to be able to be here today and share your story with us. i'm wondering if you can tell us sort of what some of that was like for you compared to sort of what your friends might have been dealing with? this is something that not a lot of youth experience -- or we think they don't experience rather. >> yeah. when the first story came out, you were stalked? like what is that? what is that? they don't really know what happened. you know, i'd kind of explain it to him and it was kind of hard. i don't think they really, you know, thought of me any differently. but they just couldn't believe that i was afraid every day, every night, every moment of my life. it's been happening to me since i've been in fifth grade so it's pretty normally to me. that's so scary, i feel so bad for you. and it's just like, why? it's normal to me, you know?
it's been happening forever. it's kind of weird people are like it's crazy and you know. i don't feel any different. >> would you become frustrated when you tried to speak out about this? >> yeah, yeah. it was difficult because i felt like i wasn't getting any help even though there was tons of people trying to help me, you know, i just -- somehow she just kept being out there and kept going by the house for hours at night when i was asleep and i would wake up and she would be out there. it was frustrating that she was there even though there's people trying to make sure that she wasn't. >> absolutely. so i'm wondering if we can hear a little bit from your mom, too, because i know your mom has been a good support through all of this. can you tell us a little bit what this experience has been like for your family? >> it was -- it was a very difficult thing. first of all, it's one of those
things that you think will never happen to you. i felt like i was living a cliche almost like this shouldn't be happening and we're supposed to be a normal family and, you know, these things aren't supposed to happen. and so once you get over that and you go, okay, wait a second, i got to take responsibility for what's going on and figure out how to help my child and protect our family. it was -- it was opened my eyes. and so you then try to seek out things. when it first started happening, my husband and i actually had a conversation because the first assault occurred and then this person would, you know, ride their bike for maybe at first 15, 20 minutes a couple times a day in front of our house. and actually it was my husband who said, you know, do you think that bothers the girls or should we do something about this? and we just had this conversation and then decided that if they didn't bring it up, we were just going to let it go. because again, you know, what am i going to do? call detective syre this kid is
riding their bike in front of our house. two weeks later at the most, she -- hannah said it really bothers me. and can we do something. so i did contact detective syre and i felt right away that he, you know, took it seriously but he just explained to me she's not breaking the law. there's really nothing i can do. if it continues, then, you know, we'll go talk to her and see what we can do and hopefully it will stop and we just -- i think all of us were kind of think it will just stop. it's just the normal kid thing and maybe it's not even aimed at us. and then it did continue. and it just continued to escalate. we were talking last night about essentially from -- this occurred in december of 2004 was when the first thing happened. so all of 2005, all of 2006, all of 2007 up through october of 2008 this person just continued
to be in front of our life. and basically in front of our house on the sidewalk. at times the longest time was six hours. pacing and riding the bike. there would be swearing. making animal noises. we think -- so that -- i'm not this person but our idea was that they would know -- we would know that she was there. to make sure to get our attention. middle of the night, hannah would come in and wake us up and sure enough she was out outside of our house. it just continued like that, death threats through -- like they would go to our -- our two younger children would be playing with other kids in the neighborhood and things would get said back like so-and-so says they want to try and kill hannah or so-and-so says they are going to try to kill hannah. and then they would come home and tell us that. so until the real -- the first
thing really happened there was nothing we could do. it was all, you know, third person and -- we knew it wasn't normal behavior but there was no law to really help us and i think it was frustrating to all of us. you know, i mean, i never felt alone. i never felt like, you know, detective syre or ms. nelson or the state's attorney adrian lund wanted to do something but there was nothing we could do until something happened and so we always were waiting all those years for something to happen. and something that could help us. and i know that seems so sick to really think about it, but we knew -- we hoped it would stop or something would happen or we could actually get it stopped. >> what really strikes me about that is in all the training and the work that we do at the stalking resource center, your experiences, hannah, are all too common for a lot of people who experience stalking. but sometimes there is an event like an assault that occurs or
there could be dating violence or intimate partner violence or sometimes a sexual assault and then that perpetrator continues to terrorize the person by engaging in these sorts of behaviors the following the threats and to continue, to further the perpetration of the crime to keep the victim fearful. sometimes it also happens that before anything worse even happens, there will be these stalking behaviors. what's unfortunate is that oftentimes there are a lot of people like all of us who want to do something, who want the help but sometimes feel like that we can't do that because something worse needs to happen. >> detectives here, i mean, wondering if you could talk about how you became involved with hannah and her family and her case? >> sure. i initially got the initial assault case back in january of 2005. and dealt with the arrest of the
offender in this case for the assault of hannah. as well as the court for that offender afterwards. now, that case was screened out as both were juveniles. and we didn't know the extent of what this offender's ideations were. you know, obviously until later. but then, you know, after that initial assault, i just made myself available and hopefully conveyed that i was available at any time because i could see the distress in the family. this is a good family and they weren't -- they were trying to do the right thing. they were -- they were very hopeful that this behavior was just going to stop. i think as we all were, and initially i think we were looking for that to happen.
but i knew that, you know, what they were conveying to me was real. that the fear was real. so i wanted to make myself as available as i needed to be. >> and did you know much about stalking prior to this case? >> no. you know, you can -- you can take the word and you can -- and surmise what you think it means. but, no. had no idea what the -- what it really was. but this is like a classic case as i see it. as i learn more. >> and we have had at the stalking resource center that's actually very common as well that although all 50 states, the district -- all the territories have stalking laws, a lot of people well intentioned, very hard-working people in the criminal justice system and social services still don't really know what to do with this crime or how we exactly address it. and so they find themselves having to educate themselves but then educate their colleagues.
sometimes their superiors. and did you find that that was your experience as well? that you had to do some sort of self-education. >> oh, absolutely. absolutely. absolutely had to do that but at the same time the laws in illinois were what the laws in illinois were at the time. and that it was unfortunate but until the offender escalated their behavior and became vocally or physically -- thank god that didn't happen but vocally or physically threatening, there wasn't a lot that could be done. criminally. >> i want to just point something out. there was actually -- i remember saying to my husband, do you think that this is stalking? and my husband goes no, no way. that isn't -- we live in streamwood, that doesn't happen. i'm pretty tenacious and i started doing research about stalking and that's when i found
the stalking resource center so i emailed the stalking center and said this is what's going on 'cause i wanted somebody to tell me that it was stalking 'cause i couldn't believe it. but i was pretty sure so then i told my husband, see it is stalking and, you know, there's the -- you know, they gave us all the resources and how to document things and -- and i felt more comfortable bringing in the detective syre could this be stalking? so the theme of national stalking awareness month i think is really good as far as, you know, naming it, you know -- knowing it and naming it. that for us, i think, was one of the toughest things was, you know, you just don't want to believe this is happening to you so the resource center was very helpful to initiate that at least for me. and how to kind of deal with it. so i just wanted to bring that up. >> for both who might not to know, is know, name it and stop it. we want to talk about the resources for folks who are interested in reading a little
bit more about that. ms. nelson, you were the social worker that became involved with the perrymans. it's absolutely critical that there are victim advocates, social service professionals who work with victims and their families. can you tell us a little bit about your involvement? >> sure. i became involved, obviously, detective syre sort of brought me in and caught me up to speed on what was going on and i think initially just meeting the family and trying to be -- to provide support to them and ways to sort of deal with and handle the fear and the confusion. you know, the laws in illinois at the time were very specific to stalking and the criterion in the statute. so explaining that, of course, and not being able to really provide that sort of support through the criminal justice system was a little frustrating for me being a victim advocate. so i think once it had gotten to the point where, you know, we needed to truly get a court
order to keep the offender away from the residence and from hannah -- once we did that, i feel that maybe was a bit of a turning point for them. >> absolutely. and tell us a little bit about what was the most frustrating for you working on this case? >> i think probably the most frustrating was just not being able to -- you know, the social worker wanting to sort of have the answer and help. and be there for them and the level of -- and the sort of intense fixation, obsession of this offender, the unusual circumstances in which everything came about, and not being able to get them what they needed and to help them through the process that perhaps i thought should have maybe been done. >> absolutely. you all have actually mentioned this kuwait about illinois stalking law at the time. and just to sort of let folks know here, hannah, you had a major role in actually changing
that law. can you tell us about that? >> i just told my story to the legislators. i emailed them first and then, you know, had to tell my story and had to go to springfield and everything and, you know, just be there and so that the legislators can see, you know, i was really in trouble and i needed this help and stuff like that. i just kind of -- it just happened. the law was changed. >> she feels humble with this and you had a major role working with the legislators and the folks at the attorney general office to change the laws in the illinois and that's a pretty big deal and i don't think you should have take any more civics classes. >> next year. [laughter] >> deb, what was that like going through that? >> i know we make light of it. but seriously, we told our story
to the representative and the senator via email. their legislative aides rich and leonard, you know, pretty much got on it right away and they asked us follow-up questions and honestly, it was hard for us to really describe what the hole in the legislation was. it was hard for us to verbalize so we recommended that the legislators -- yeah, our legislators get ahold of the -- you know, detective syre and then also cook county, the state's attorney's office because they understood how the hole was and how it had to be fixed. so really when we say it was really that easy. it really was for us. it wasn't easy to tell the story. it was not easy to tell the story. it was not easy especially to go to springfield and testify before the house and senate. to get the bill onto the floor. that was not easy. but it was such a small part of what happened, you know --
jeanie renn from the cook county state's office wrote this bill. it fixed what had to be fixed and it addressed more victims and we went down and testified and i think in six months it was passed and it was passed unanimously. so i think, you know, as sad as it is, i think we were the right story to clearly show people where this hole was and they plugged it perfectly. and hopefully now more people will not have to endure what we did. >> i think that's really amazing and you should be very proud. >> you know, one of the things that has come up and that we always stress in our training is the importance of what we call a coordinated community response. there's no one agency in the criminal justice system, in social services, and community members, no one agency can do everything to keep a victim safe and to hold the offender accountable. so you all work together.
tell us a little bit about how you saw the importance and the good that can come from the system when everyone is working together? >> if i may, from my perspective, having the law enforcement aspect of the criminal justice system, support system like myself to really be able to sort of make a coordinated response to provide all of the support and services they need in order to make it through what really was a terrifying and trying time for them. and without that, all the pieces and all the players there, i feel like it might not have gone in the direction it might have went in. >> i'll second that. if i could just add that having dealt with this as long as we had, initially, it was just me with the family, things began to really move when i added karen
to the mix. i should have added her soon so i would recommend that in the future. [laughter] >> but they really -- they really -- you know, it sped up the process and it helped the process. and, you know, she's obviously a better person to talk to about some things than i am. and the social workers are awesome working with the police. so that was great. as a police officer also trying to talk to the state's attorney as well and as much as you can, press the issue. you should do that and then -- i mean, as far as families go, for police to work with, you know, this is -- this is the ultimate. i mean, great family. great mom, obviously, but dad, kids, everybody. so that just makes it easier as well. >> thank you. hannah, did you want to add something? i think your mom wants to you add something.
[laughter] >> i just -- i don't want to -- the only thing that i would add to that is that they -- it was really -- it was a terrifying thing. it lasted six years. but i never felt -- i never -- i don't want to speak to you is the thing. i never felt like they weren't doing enough. they made themselves so available. i mean, i had their cell phones. i know that detective syre responded to some of the things when he wasn't on duty. i get to the point where i would call him instead of 911. >> and i didn't mind. >> i know. you know, there were -- the thing i would have done better that i should have done better was i should have called every time. 'cause there were hundreds of more things that i should have called and documented but you kind of feel -- i kind of felt like i was bothering them. even though they never make me feel like that, i didn't want to take resources away to, you know, call 911 and say, i have a kid riding their bike in front of my house. i have a kid, you know,
pacing -- you just feel silly, you know, doing that. but now in retrospect i really wish i would have done more of that. and that was the only other thing i was going to add. >> hannah, in one of the stories in the local newspaper that i read about you when they talked to you about your case, you said, i'm just sick of this. i'm sick of this. and so i want to ask you what your advice would be to other young people who might be experiencing this? >> tough question. >> i threw you a curve ball. but i heard you were good at those. >> yeah. just don't do anything to them. that's definitely one of them 'cause if you do something to them, then you're going to jail and they're just laughing at you, ha, get you in jail and i'm not in jail. just play it cool and, you know,
be calm, you know, talk to people especially. get your feelings out, definitely. >> thank you. thank you very much. you know, i want you to be able to turn it over to one of our fabulous partners at the stalking resource center, a organization who we work with quite a bit, the safety net project at the national network on domestic violence. we're fortunate today to have cindy, the founder and director here of the safety net project and she will talk about what we mentioned about the use of technology in stalking cases. thanks for being here, cindy. >> thank you, rebecca. it is truly been a fabulous partnership working with the stalking resource center since 2004, we've done about 8 or 9 national conferences together and we're, in fact, hosting one in just a couple of weeks in gulfport, mississippi. next week. very shortly. we'll all be together in mississippi training together.
the safety net project at the national network to end domestic violence -- it basically looks at the intersection of summary judgment and violence against women. we address everything from high tech stalking which we are doing trainings, in fact, this week all over the state, all over the country. our team of full-time staff are training. we trained about 45,000 professionals, law enforcement, victim advocates and our goal is to help everybody sort of know it, name it and stop it. we want people to understand when technology is misused as part of stalking, domestic violation, sexual assault or dating abuse, that it is still a crime and, in fact, there's digital evidence involved when technology is misused that isn't there when the stalking is happening only in person. because it's harder to have that digital trail. just a bit about some different ways that technology is misused. it's misused pretty much in every way you can imagine. stalkers, they stalk us where we live our lives and so if we're living our lives in part on
facebook, that's where the stalkers go. i frequently get asked by reporters did cell phones cause dating violence and i try not to laugh because, no. we had dating violence when i was in high school with no cell phones. and facebook did not start stalking, you know, just -- i know that's a news flash for all of you but stalking has occurred from millennium. and what we're finding is that stalkers go wherever we are. they follow the victim and that's where they perpetrate harassment, threats, anything to cause fear, causes us to be afraid. what we're seeing in terms of prevalence, it's a difficult to document, the first stats we had looking at stalking and technology was from data that was collected in 2006 and came out and the stalking study just a couple of years ago. and so it's four years old and we know that technology has changed drastically. the other piece about that data if you can only report to a surveyor that stalking was
misused that if you know was misused which spyware which many victims can put on the computer they can monitor with every website that's visited you have to know it's there to tell a researcher who calls you that, yes, spyware was used. ironically in 2006, almost a projected 300,000 victims were stalked with spyware. >> and we're going to break away from this recorded program and take you live now to president obama, in the general electric plant in schenectady, new york. he's joined at this event by the ceo who the chair the white house on jobs -- [applause] >> that was headed by former federal reserve chair paul volcker. live coverage on c-span2. >> congratulations. nice to have you here. [applause] >> i know you're here and it's great to have you here. nice to see you again. i know we've got a number of
members from the congressional delegation. i particularly want to thank paul, who's been a great representative. thanks. [applause] >> and welcome to all the other guests here today. a welcome to the birth place of ge more than 100 years ago. [applause] >> i'd like to think this is where capitalism and where innovation really was born with thomas edison in schenectady. this business was one of the few businesses in the world mr. president that had positive earnings every year during the crisis. we did it because we're big exporter. we're a high tech company and that's very much the story. we're the number one wind -- right here in this facility. we have 4,000 employees to work on power, wind and renewable energy. and we're very good with the capital region with 7,000 employees. we innovate with the --
[applause] >> really. [applause] .. it really is an honor to welcome you here today and introduce president obama. i had the honor to work with the president and austin goolsby on the advisory board of the line through the economic crisis. i'm not honor to lead later council competitiveness and jobs. it's a great honor.
[applause] and i know that despite the fact that 60% of ge's revenues are up to the united states, i personally in this company shared responsibility and accountability to make sure this is the most competitive and protect this country in the world. the president obama, were happy to have you here today. thank you. welcome. [cheers and applause] >> it is good to be in new york! [cheers and applause] let me just begin. if i'm not mistaken, governor cuomo, who is going to be an outstanding governor -- [applause] he tried to give me a jet pack. i had to refuse it.
i have secret service confiscated. [laughter] but i will say both the jets and the bears i think her slight underdogs, so were going to be rooting for the underdogs on sunday. in addition to governor cuomo, i just want to acknowledge lieutenant governor, rob duffy, is here. [applause] two great friends of mine in great champions for new york in the united states and that, chuck schumer and kirsten gillibrand are here. [cheers and applause] members of the congressional delegation from it this way, paul bosco. chris gibson. [applause] and richard hanna are all here. attorney general, eric snyderman is here.
[applause] the outstanding mayor of the schenectady who flew up with me because we had an event to the white house for mayors and he was on marine one and air force one and he looks like he was having a pretty good time, grand strand is here. [applause] and from albany, mayor jerry jennings is here. [applause] thank you. najaf, thank you for the outstanding introduction and thank you, ge. it is great to be here. i just had a chance to see some of the high-tech steam turbines and all kinds of fancy stuff that's been made here, been manufactured here at this point. and it is unbelievably impressive and is part of a proud tradition.
it gives ge has been producing turbines and generators here and schenectady for more than a century. not a lot has changed since those early days. we've seen technologies transforms the way we work in the ways we communicate with each other. we sing our economy transformed by rising competition from around the globe. and over the years, in the wake of these shifts, upstate new york has seen more than their fair share of hard times. but what is never changed, we see it right here at this plant, we see a rapier as ge, is that america is still home to the most creative and most innovative businesses in the world. we've got the most productive workers in the world. america is home to inventors and dreamers and builders and creators. [applause]
all of you represent people who each and every day are pioneering the technologies and discoveries that not only improve our lives, but they drive our economy. across the country, there are entrepreneurs opening business, the researchers testing new medical treatments, their engineers pushing the limits of design and the programs poring over lines of hope. and there are workers like you i'm assembly-line, all across the country, eager to create some of the best products the world has ever seen. there are students training to take new jobs by their side. in this community, ge is building one of the world's most sophisticated manufacturing facilities to produce state-of-the-art batteries. [applause]
last year, you open the headquarters of your renewable energy operations and you created 650 jobs on this campus. [applause] so our challenge, especially as we continue to fight our way back from the worst recession in our lifetimes, is to harness the spirit, to harness this potential, the potential that all of you represent. our challenge is to do everything we can to make it easier for folks to bring products to market and to start and expand their businesses and to grow and hire new workers. i want plantlike is all across america. you guys are a model of what is possible. and that is why his part of the tax cut compromise that i signed at the end of the year, we
provide incentives for businesses to make new capital investment. in fact, ge is investing $30 million in advanced manufacturing a display and, taking advantage of some of these tax breaks. we also extend a program that ge says its customers have used to invest $6 billion in clean energy production across this country, driving demand for the country's wind turbines. when i saw one of those big wind turbines on the weekend. so we know we can compete, not just in the industries of the past, but also in the industries of the future. but in an ever shrinking world, our success in the software will be determined not only by what we build in schenectady, but also what we can tell in shanghai. for america to compete around the world, we need to export markets around the world.
[applause] that's where the customers are. it is simple. [applause] as i was walking through the plant, you guys that put us some handy sign, so i knew what i was looking at. [laughter] i noticed they all said this is going to kuwait. this is going to india. this is going to saudi arabia. that's what the customers are. i want to sell them products made here in america. that's why he met with chinese leaders this week and just joined me at the state dinner. during these meetings we start a deal to open chinese markets to our products. they're still here and that's fine, but we want to sell there. [cheers and applause] we want to open up their market so that we've got a two-way trade, not just a one-way trade. [applause] said the deals we struck are going to mean more than $45 billion in new business for
american companies. $45 billion. that translates into 285,000 new jobs for american workers. [applause] and that's also why i fought hard to negotiate a new trade deal without korea that will support more than 70,000 american jobs. that's why travel to india a few to go and jeff was there with us, where businesses were able to reach agreement to export $10 billion could in service is to india. and that's going to lead to another 50,000 jobs here in the united states. [applause] part of the reason i wanted to come to this plant is because this plant is what that trip was all about. it's part of the deal was struck in india, ge is going to sell it
and turbines, the ones you guys make, to generate power at a plant in summer coat, india. most of you haven't heard of some of coat, but not unique to know about it because you're going to be selling to them. and not do business halfway around the world is going to help support more than 1200 manufacturing jobs and more than 400 engineering jobs right here in this community because of that sale. [applause] so it's a perfect example of why promoting exports is so important. that's why set a goal of doubling american exports within five years. and where and try to do it. we're already up 18% in march is going to keep going because we are going to sell more and more stuff all around the world.
[applause] when a company sells products overseas, it leads to higher on our shores. the deal in india means jobs in schenectady. that's how we create opportunities for people. it's how we go from an economy that was powered by what we that was powered by what we that was powered by what we soon. what was driving our economy was we were spending a lot on credit card. everybody was sparring a lot. chinese were selling a lot to us. folks are selling a lot over the world. we've got to reverse that. we want an economy fueled by what we invented what we build. [applause] were going back to thomas edison's principal. we're going to build stuff and invest us. now nobody understands this better than just immelt. he understands what it takes for america to compete in the global economy. has he mentioned that appreciated during this past two
years and many difficult crisis on our hands. it was a few days after i took off that face on agree but business leaders including jeff to form a new advisory word because at that time the economy was in a freefall and we were facing the press acts of another great depression. with ripple effects all around the world, it wasn't just the united states. the entire world economy with contract team. it was such a dangerous moment, it was essential that we heard voices and ideas from business leaders and experts to work part of the usual washington crowd. and i tasked jeff and the other advisors with one mission. how to steer our nation from deep recession into recovery. help take the economy from one that is shrinking to one that is growing. and over the past two years, i've been very critical for their advice.
especially to commend those who chaired the panel, one of the three eminent economists, head of the federal reserve paul volker because he offered unvarnished advice and wasn't afraid to counter conventional wisdom. he did a great service to this country. in fact, it was six ago today i signed into law a set of financial reforms to protect rivers and prevent super financial crises and put an end to taxpayer bailout and that's an achievement in which paul volker was instrumental. so we're very proud of him for that work. [applause] two years later though, we're in a different place. in part because of the economic land of my recovery board helped shape, the economy is now growing again. over the last year, businesses have added more than a million jobs, the pace of hiring a growth is picking up and that's encouraging news. but at the same time, while businesses are adding jobs in
the millions of people are still out there looking for work. anything here in the schenectady as well as she is doing, ever nosy neighbor, friend or relative who is still out of work. so it's not -- it's a great thing the economy is growing, but it's not growing fast enough yet to make up for the damage that was done by the recession. the past two years were about pulling our economy back from the brink. the next two years, our job now, is putting our economy into overdrive. our job is to do everything we can to ensure that businesses can take root in oaks can find good jobs in america is leading the global competition that will determine our success in the 21st century. so now to help fill this new mission, assembling a new group of business leaders and outside advisers. and i am so proud and pleased
that jeff has agreed to chair this panel, my counsel on jobs and competitors. because we think ge has something to teach businesses all across america. [applause] now if you don't mind, i'm going to brag about your boss for a second. jeffrey immelt brings wealth of experience to the table. it's one of the most respected and admired business leaders that the reputation he earned over 10 years at the helm of this company. in the coming days, will be announced in the business leaders, labor leapers, the economists and others who will join with jeff to help drivers into the overdrive mode. another council will be an important asset as we seek to do everything we can to spur hiring and compete with anyone on the planet. that means spurring innovation and growth energies that clean
energy manufacturing, the kind of stuff being done right here in this plan. it is ensuring our economy is held back a crumbling roads and broken down into structure. it means educating and training are people. you know, just had a chance to meet one of the guys that the plan to have been trained at hunt valley, which i had an opportunity to visit a wild back. and that's an example of the kind of partnership we've got to duplicate all across the country. schenectady offers that kind of example. hudson valley community now it created a program so students can any paycheck and have their tuition covered while training for jobs at this plant. but helping folks find good work. it's helping ge fill positions in making the region more competitive. so ultimately, within this global competition comes down to living up to the problems in
places like this. here in schenectady you are heirs to a great tradition of innovation and enterprise. the pioneering work of the defendant made the entire modern age possible. the tungsten filibusters to lead our homes, the x-rays that date those disease. now the advanced batteries and hold so much hope for the future. in these businesses, we see what america is all about. we see what has been our past allowed us to not only whether rough storms, but reach brighter days. and it's got to remind us that we've got those same strengths. this is america. we still have the spirit of innovation and that sense of optimism, the belief that if we work hard and give it our all, but anything is possible in this country. the future belongs to us. and you in this plant, you are
you saw him with jeffrey immelt, the general lack of chairman and ceo appointed by president obama to the advisory board. "the wall street journal" this morning reporting or describing it this way as the white hope of a prominent chief executive atop the panel, the latest gesture by the white house toward strengthening ties to business. so, there you go, jeffrey immelt with the president in schenectady, new york. ?>ñ
iranian americans in then ameran audience audience and some of you have been friends of mine for many years. nice to see so many familiar faces whose tireless efforts in defense of the cause of democracy have been an inspiration to all of us. as you know the regime proposed as the greatest threat to peace and security in the region and the world by virtue of its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and export of terrorism of around the world. therefore, we need to explore u.s. policies toward iran and developed policies that are going to be more effective in the future because we have many challenges at the iranian regime presenting to the united states and the world community right now. the nuclear clock is ticking faster than the pace of sanctions. so the united states must do more.
it must do it faster and it must do it better. with that i want to turn the microphone over to senator robert to accepted our invitation to moderate this very important and nonpartisan event today. during his distinguished career in both house and the senate, the senator was on the foreign affairs committee of both chambers. closely following the issues related to iran. he first served 14 years in the house of representatives from the state of new jersey and then was elected to the united states senate in 1996. he joined the leadership in the senate from the outset and headed the democratic senatorial campaign committee. senator torricelli earned his degree from rutgers university and later attended harvard university where he completed a master's, public administration and 1980 and he will moderate this event this morning bob?
[applause] >> thank you for that warm welcome and for this opportunity this morning. there is a great observation of wisdom not from an unusual source. winston churchill who once noted the united states can usually be counted upon to do the right thing after it has exhausted all other options. soon, the international community will meet again with a government of tehran to discuss the nuclear weapons program. all options have been tried. once again there will be an attempt to convince using all forces of reason that comply with international law, common
sense, and its own interest and abandon this folly. i have my own hopes for today's discussion of each speaker will pursue their own interests and observations that they see fit. my first would be that it is time to start debating the reality of the situation. an outlaw regime hell bent on weapons of mass destruction that is a threat not only to the western world but a direct threat to all of its neighbors of all faiths and background. it was perhaps said it best by president bush when he made it clear that nuclear-armed iran is simply on acceptable under any terms. it's one thing for us to say it
and it is another to devise a policy that will achieve at. economic sanctions in the world that firsts for oil and iran that produces billions of dollars is unlikely to be a coercive policy. reason and logic and the force of international law used against a regime that has murdered millions of its own, thousands of its own people, enslaved millions in a dictatorship and violated all forms of international behavior is simply not a realistic policy so for my first hope today would be this. between democrats and republicans, we can debate whether the motion doctrine of the preemptive action was the
right policy in a rock. but it is a policy and of itself that in a world of weapons of mass destruction be retaliation or action after the fact on any form is insufficient with a preemptive action as a necessity. indeed, if you knew that the iranian regime was capable of producing another holocaust having stated their belief that israel should not exist is the right and moral policy to act preemptively to deny those weapons. second, as a nation of many qualities that i love about america, sometimes they our naivete, the willingness to look for hope over facts is a good
american quality. but at some point it runs its course. my second hope for today's discussion is one of the policy with opponents of the regime who shares the iranian identity. does it make sense, does it have benefits that we continue to ostracize, label opponents of the regime as terrorists when the fact say otherwise. do we gain anything from political purposes of making these identities when we know it has no policy benefit and undermines the legitimacy of the opposition. let me pose this question. is it even possible to propose a
terrorist state and be a terrorist yourself, is it possible to be a terrorist if you are on armed and promoted the last decade under the perception of the united states army. it's time to deal with a reality we are not going to convince the iranian team to policy and undermining the credibility of their opponents is only doing service to the very people that would choose to oppose and must for our own security undermine in their nuclear ambitions. let us begin the discussion for the first speaker today it is might very privileged to introduce the 81st attorney general of the united states judge mukasey was a united states district court judge,
presided over the trial of terrorists who have been in prison for their role in 1993 bombing of the world trade center. attorney general michael mukasey. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction and neal livingston for organizing the symposium to executive action for organizing at. and of course a great privilege for the microphone at this time. back in december i pointed out that we are at one of those moments in history when we know that future generations will ask it is needed to advance what is
good and oppose what is evil. if anything in the brief span of a month, the conditions we are here to address have become even more urgent. as before, the regime in tehran is the center of the threat of the terrorism threat against us and to deploy the western civilization as we know it's coming and to do so is possible by obtaining nuclear weapons. if oprah's is its own people, threatens its neighbors. it has made clear that if it gets nuclear weapons it will not hesitate to use them. there are 3500 members of mek to live on the border of iran near iraq is known as camp and even though it is referred to a camp, city would probably be a better description. these people fled iran and set themselves up near the border so that they can live and support efforts to free their country. in 2003 when the united states invaded iraq, the residents of
the camp surrendered their weapons. the weapons they had to defend themselves had accepted written confirmation from the commander of allied forces in iraq, general jeffrey on behalf of the united states that they were protected persons under the fourth geneva convention. from 2003 until 2000 line the united states protected the residence and fulfilled the solemn obligation we have undertaken in 2003. but in january, 2009, as some of you may know the united states turned over responsibility for safety and security to the iraqi security forces. before that transfer took place, general david petraeus said that the united states had been assured by the government of iraq that the residents would be protected and that he was proceeding with a transfer on the assumption that the pledge would be adhered to. obviously the residents have
been a great source of anxiety to iran which would like nothing better than to see them repatriated to iran or at least crippled so that they cannot pose a threat to the regime. iran has brought increasing pressure on the iraqi government within the past month. the situation of the residence of the camp have grown from perilous to guess where it. on january 7th, 2 days after a visit to baghdad by the irony in foreign minister, the residents of the camp were attacked by deflecting a the direction of the iranian quds force stationed in baghdad in cooperation with officials of the iraqi government and many were injured seriously. the iraqi security forces were supposed to be there to protect the residents of the camp had to turn a blind eye or actually assisted the attackers. even though the government of iraq promised the united states it would protect the residents. those iranian forces supported by iraqi forces were placed at
the gates someone under 80 loudspeakers better used to threaten and harass the residents day and night, 24 hours a day and to prevent them from sleeping. the psychological pressure has been ongoing for almost a year. medical care continues to be denied the residence and at least one patient in the last month has died due to lack of medical care. this is history repeating itself. we've seen this before. in june of 2009, nouri al-maliki, the head of the government, headed to iran for personal reasons and the next month in july of 2009 the iraqi security forces attacked residents. to add insult to the united states to injury suffered by the citizens that attack took place during a visit to iraq by defense secretary robert gates to be inside of the spot in the face to the u.s. government and in spite of the solemn assurances given by the american military when the residence
surrendered their weapons in 2003, and our secretary of state which was questioned about then said that the attack was an internal matter for the government of iraq and not a concern of the united states. while we are on the eve of negotiations on the iranian regime while our government and others, the history of the relationship between the united states and the iranian regime since the 1979 revolution can be summed up as a series of attempts by the united states to a diplomats to engage the iranian regime each attempt slightly less successful them the one that preceded it. i don't have to redo the entire year history but an important part of it begins in the 1990's during the clinton administration when the people's mujahideen organization of iran also known as the iranian was designated by secretary of state under u.s. law as a foreign terrorist organization. that designation continues to this day. it continues to be as it was then unjustified.
just as i did not have to review in detail the whole history of the u.s. government attempt to engage the regime or of tirana i don't have to review the entire history of the mek but we are entitled to ask what has it been in recent years. quite simply mek as an organization of both inside iran and outside iran that opposes the current regime, favors government is organized along space, secular, non-nuclear, democratic secular nonnuclear republic and i should add this is not one of the few organizations that fit that description. it is in point of fact the only one. as many of you know mek position has positioned the state department to be removed from the list of the foreign terrorist organizations. it's clear that the regime believes time is short and would like nothing better than to have the residents of the camp driven out before they succeed being removed from a list it should
never have been on in the first place. why is the timing crucial? of the residents were still there when the designation is removed the in the united states and the iraqi government will have no choice but to protect them. the designation gives those in the government to want to curry favor with the regime there only excuse for not protecting their residents. it's important not only that this designation be removed but it be removed quickly before iran and those acting on its behalf can wear down the residence and forced them to leave or in pose even worse on them. it is certainly helpful for the mek to remain a bone in the throat of iran and had a version to the regime because of its potential to undermine the regime, but the mek has been more than just a bone in the throat. it has provided valuable information and intelligence on the iranian program to the united states. it is fair to say that the united states wouldn't have known a great deal of what it
does now about the iranian program without information obtained by the mek including but certainly not limited to the nuclear facilities in iraq. a disclosure of which led to the beginning of the pressure on iran that arises from what is obviously a nuclear weapons program. here it bares mention that the mek has been removed from any list of terrorist organizations in the united kingdom and the european union. if the mek has posed no threat to any u.s. personnel or interest and in fact has been of affirmative assistance to the united states as it has it is not regarded as a terrorist organization in the united kingdom or the e.u., then why does it say on the list, why does it continue to be on a list? of such organizations. it's pretty openly acknowledged that the reason the mek was placed on the list during the clinton administration was to curry favor with iran and to use the designation as a way of
entering the dialogue with the regime. i'm sorry to say that even during the administration i served we kept it on the list of designated organizations of which by the way include the irg sea, the revolutionary guard corps out of the fear that if the mek were removed the iranians would provide them with weapons in iraq including ied, of course they are doing that anyway. these are misguided reasons for continuing to brand as terrorists a group of people who so far as anyone can tell how are interested only in bringing for their country the same benefits of freedom that we have. and also it doesn't work. the regime is now in the position of having the united states does it need is a terrorist organization. a group of iranians or a threat to that regime and the armenians have the great work for them. what is the practical effect of
the wall of an organization being on that list? and organization on the list is subject to having its assets in the united states seized. it's nearly impossible for the aretas asian to raise money in the united states because anyone who contributes to the organization could theoretically be prosecuted for providing material support to a terrorist organization. beyond that and particularly in the united states people are concerned about even appearing in a rally sponsored by something that they know is designated a foreign terrorist organization or given any help at all. people who are not aware of the details of the case including many iranians may feel reluctant to support the organization. and of course the continue designation of the mek has a foreign terrorist organization gives great comfort to the iranian regime by putting on the sideline and organization that is potentially a grave threat to the regime and it also provides an added justification for the regime to execute mek members in iran and in doing so is
executing terrorists. a 63-year-old man whose only crime was to visit his son was executed at the end of 2010 as one guilty of mt against god or terrorists. what is to be done? well, there's an ongoing case in which the challenge to the designation. in july of 2010 the court repealed for the district of columbia circuit issued an opinion essentially sending the matter back to the state department. and the secretary of state asking her to reevaluate whether the mek should remain on the list. the court did something more than that. it expressed a good deal of skepticism about at least the unclassified portion that was relied on by the state department and maintaining a list. without getting into the detail, the secretary of state may choose to base their determinations entirely on classified information that he didn't do that in this case. she said she based her decision
goes on classified information and on and on classified information and revealed that a lot of the non-classified information consisted of unsubstantiated and anonymous rumors as the liability was unknown and couldn't be tested. information the court wasn't impressed with and said so. if that kind of information is the only kind of information a secretary of state has then the decision would have no basis whatsoever. recently the state department has admitted it has no further on classified information to rely on to make its case and it is promised a scheduled meeting to discuss further steps. the secretary has acknowledged this is the first occasion the new administration has had to evaluate the designation. this is an excellent opportunity for her to learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them. as you are aware there is a growing consensus in this country and outside of the need to the list and ever-increasing number of members of congress
are supporting a resolution favoring that result, and there is great consensus outside of the congress as well. that is all well and good but time is not aware friend. as i pointed out, the regime has made clear that it wants residents of the camp driven out before the designation is removed. in a sense, this is about more than the case in the district of columbia and more than mek. this is the posture of the united states with the regime. when ronald reagan took office he was asked what the strategic approach would be to the cold war to dealing with what was then the soviet union. he said aces to st during the debate to a strategic approach would be we win, they lose. at that time there were people who dismissed that as empty rhetoric. even dangerous rhetoric. on the end, that vision wound up prevailing because it was supported by a sound understanding of the country's interest and how those interests are at their strongest when our policy is consistent with our ideals. i take the case has been made
that when they go to the street and put their lives on the line for freedom as they are doing now and as they did after the fraudulent election in 2009, called the response through those in the government to speak for us must be more than to remind the mullahs as we did the world is watching. the world was watching? the world has watched frequently while the war was committed and did nothing. the world was watching when they committed genocide and murdered in world war ii. the world was watching when the revolution was preston's eastern europe. the world was watching genocide rwanda and darfur. the world is watching isn't enough. we owe the people and the freedom that we stand for much more. what is necessary is to make clear in word and deed that we can offer more than condolences when things go wrong to people willing to put their lives on the line for freedom. we must offer support and treatment and we must make it clear in the word and deed to
the iranian regime that we stand with those who stand for freedom and demand regime change. an effective way to do that would be to enter the upcoming negotiations with iran having taken mek of the list of the foreign terrorist organizations which would show that we recognize mek as a group devoted to restoring freedom to iran and that we will not use mek and we will not let anybody else use mek as a bargaining chip. it has been said that it's not a favor to the organizations like mek to advocate for them because they can then be accused by the regime of acting as tools of the united states. there are two answers to that. the first is that whoever opposes the regime is going to be attacked as a tool of the united states regardless whether or not they receive assistance so they might as well get the help. second, we ought to let organizations decide for themselves what is best for them rather than let them decide for them. in the middle of the 19th century, abraham lincoln refers
to the united states as a last best hope of earth. i think that those words were not even true in the 21st century than they were when lincoln first spoken in the middle of the 19th. i think also that it is time we started talking and eating as if we believe them so that when succeeding generations consider the question that i presented at the beginning of these remarks of what we did to advance what is good and to fight what is evil they will find an answer that we and they can live with. thank you very much for the privilege of speaking. [applause] [applause] >> general, thank you for those comments and principled stand. 28 years ago tom ridge came to
washington as a member of the house of representatives. he went on in his career to serve as the governor of pennsylvania which we refer to as the suburbs of new jersey for two terms. and then as the first secretary of homeland security my friend, tom ridge. [applause] >> thank you for the kind introduction and for your very warm reception. i very much appreciate it. i hope it is not lost in all in attendance the significant bipartisan nature of the participants in today's forum. we are looking for things in this town for policy objectives and out comes that we would like to be shared by both sides of the aisle, and i guess it's a
very important and a visible statement that these republicans and these democrats work for republican and democrat administrations feel unanimously that the designation of mek should be lifted and should be lifted now. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i said this before in some of my friends have heard it but i will keep saying it until the designation is lifted, is not our ally and our collective efforts to prevent but tyrannical regime in tehran from becoming a nuclear power as a matter of fact, time is running out. we need to understand that. i would like to read you something that was written and spoken in september of 1995. listen carefully.
i wish to address a pivotal issue, how to confront this regime and the fundamentalism and terrorism that it fosters. the issue is key because of the international level, all approaches and policies, the move is religious terrorist dictatorship have proven futile. indeed, in many cases they have taken advantage of by the regime which has been the only party to benefit from them, september, 1995. president-elect, national council of resistance of iran. ..
and if they agreed to meet in december, knowing full well when representatives from the iranian government. and we're not inclined to discuss the nuclear intentions. one does wonder why everybody bothered showing up. because the only thing they agreed to do at that time was they agreed to convene again. in anticipation of the next meeting, which is in the next couple we, the u.n. ambassador has basically said that in regard to the u.n. and e.u. sanctions that have been directed against iran for its noncompliance with u.n.
resolutions with its nuclear program, the ambassador said sticks and carrots prove to be unsuccessful and that iran would not respond to political pressures are sanctions. they won't respond to political pressures. they walked on to sanction. the certainly be willing to meet over the next 16 or 17 years so every legitimate effort is well intentioned it made has proven to be quite unsuccessful. nothing has changed. time is running out. i'd be very interested in hearing the observations of my colleagues colleagues on the panel. in my judgment the western world presently faces no greater threat from iran. and i have any give them some of my colleagues do, but that is certainly my opinion. you know, it's absolutely fascinating to me that when we talk about iran in this
discussion, we don't understand when we talk about every and were about hamas, hezbollah, the militants are supporting in afghanistan and in iraq, al qaeda, the palestinian islamic jihad. so you've got iran and all of these circuits. and the only way is to do list this, give us the same opportunity in a very controlled and repressive society, which is using the mek designation to continue to imprison -- the press, imprison, torture and often murder. that's all we're asking. i asked a very significant political leader a couple years ago in the middle east, given all the challenges associated with the middle east, how would you identify the top three priorities, the top three problems? genu at the individual said?
iran, it ran and iran. as we take a look at the rest of the world trying to do with iran through discussions and negotiations, does anyone think he had stopped for a minute, pause for a second and their accelerated attempt to achieve nuclear weapon capability? does anyone doubt for a moment, given the fact they've ignored with great impunity to u.n. resolution after u.n. resolution? how many resolutions hesitate before the u.n. finally decided they were not being terribly affected and we have not been able to influence policy? it's a real challenge now for the united states, but the rest of the world cup in the multilateral organizations is great one of the great ironies in my judgment is every year, genocide appears before the u.n. fascinating. he comes to the 90s states and is able to express an event in
venomous latecomer rhetorical way, whatever he feels like that same opportunity to express personal feeling is lost to mek and the iranian opposition. what i think is another irony is iran maybe she would love to come to the united states. [applause] the inconsistency in policy is pretty difficult to understand. as for the designation needs to be listed. you know, the 20th century, our enemies are evil, but i think we all agreed they were fairly rational. they cared little for human life, but they care great deal about preservation. they allow for a window of
compromise for negotiation to access. today i don't think any exist with iran because we are fighting an ideology, not one single ideologue. the approach taken by the united states and some of its western allies has evolved during the past 30 years. again, the passage of time has caged in the need to consider in one form or another, different strategies. senator torricelli talked about somehow we ironies, which it's all right to be naïvely optimistic. you move in a direction you're hopeful it will perceive. there's been no change in the outcome he sought to perceive. at the end of the day, shouldn't you say to yourself, we need to change our approach? it hasn't worked. i think one of the best ways to do it and i think would have a profound impact on the negotiations that are scheduled
at the designation was lifted before the other countries met with iranian delegation. i would be a significant change of policy and from a different signal to the regime. it's interesting what happened in tunisia, isn't it? people took to the streets. quite quickly the administration responded in a very positive and supportive way of those voices of democracy, voices of change. interestingly enough unlike iran, the military didn't come to the assistance of ben ali. for whatever reason they stayed on the sideline. the administration applauded, wooed the effort to bring democracy and freedom to tunisia. they were fairly mute out your elections in iran. again, i don't quite understand the inconsistency in policy. as we say time and time again both publicly and privately, resistance and the mek, they are
not looking for money. they're not looking for arms. they just want the freedom to speak. i want to be delisted and take action into their own hands. we need to do that for them because time is running out. in the late 1990s, the curry favors the attorney general mentioned u.s. declared that people associate dean of iran to be a terrorist organization and many outlets followed suit. a goodwill gesture at the time, many people have said they were involved in that decision. based on a strategic goal of entering project to talks. and they say this and i suspect it and then you can all agree on. goodwill gestures have no impact on those people or countries who have no idea what goodwill is all about or unprepared to extend it. you may hand -- you may extend an open hand to try to resolve the challenge. but on the other and if there's fist, it's very unlikely you're
going to be able to reach a peaceful and pass on those issues. time is running out. a policy must be changed. the strategy of peaceful engagement, well-intentioned, has been totally ineffective entire project is. i would say this and i hope everyone listening in this administration with the western world are well, and nuclear in which i've western diplomacy or even more tragically from the failure western well. one would think that more than any other part of the world, the west understands the tragic, unthinkable consequences of appeasement. there're some pretty profound lessons of appeasing repressive regimes that the western world has paid the consequences in both treasure and lives. and so we must reject is inconceivable in an insert any notion that a terrorist supporting nuclear armed and threatening iran could somehow
be restrained to recalled were strategy of deterrence. i believe a nuclear iran would become an even global scourge, more emboldened, more destabilizing and more threatening. having the opportunity once again to share these thoughts with such a distinguished panel in such a distinguished group, i had an occasion to look at the 10-point plan for future iran which was announced again five years ago, 2006 briefly. from our point of view, the ballot box is the only criteria in legitimacy. it will give you a short stint, abbreviated version. when a pluralist system, freedom of parties and assembly. and iran of tomorrow we will respect all individual freedoms.
in a free iran of tomorrow, we support and are committed to the evolution. for the iranian resistance, well-established separation of church and state. any form of discrimination against followers of all religions and denominations will be prohibited. we believe in complete gender equality in political and social rights. we want to set up a modern legal system. it goes on and on recognizing the importance of the rule of law and due process. we are committed to universal declaration of human rights and unless other covenants and conventions. if you took a look in the u.n. charter, you would see the existing iranian regime violates them everyday. the new iran accepts an embrace, promotes and supports. we recognize private property, private investment in the market economy. a foreign policy would be based on peaceful coexistence, international regional peace and
cooperation as well as respect for the united nations charter. and finally, we want the free iran of tomorrow to be devoid of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. [applause] that's the iran the resistance, people associate dean, mek has fought for, believe in. remember, they relinquish their arms. we have to send a message to a maliki and the iraqi governments. the united states proves handed responsibility of protecting these individuals who are protected under the geneva convention to you. how can you tolerate this love beakers? and what about these incursions that have precipitated
challenges instead of camp ostroff? we must heed the admonition. and promised to protect them under the geneva convention. right now one wonders sincerity of that initial promise. i'll conclude ladies and gentlemen with just a couple of additional thoughts. i spent some time with some older iranian women when i was in paris in december. and we sat down and through the interpreter we had conversations with them. and i wish i could take those were going to make the decision and the state department over to be with them or have them come over and listen to them very, very carefully. these older women carry pictures
pitchers of spouses and has been, children and grandchildren some of them were apprehended in , imprisoned, tortured and killed and some were simply apprehended and tortured and knew who knows, perhaps awaiting execution. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is something we embrace in our declaration of independence. it just seems to me that mek is asking us to do in a cd list. the e.u. has let at this designation and said no, the u.k. has looked at the designation and said no comments inappropriate. her court letson said it no comments inappropriate.
listen to the cries of these women in the pleas of these women about their families, representing all families and the thousand thousands that have been murdered because they are part of the democrats resistance. and also listen and learn from the lessons of time. the strategy hasn't worked. within a 97 as a goodwill gesture has not affected a single change in their approach. has not take celebrated, removed or interrupted their intentions to become a nuclear power and certainly had no impact as he take a look around the world, particularly in that region. hamas, hezbollah and other challenges not only to the united states, but the western world around the globe. so we say to all those in the state department involved in making the decision in this administration, it's about time. lessons of history in the pleas of these mothers and wives should be listened to now. the list that mek and let
them -- let them take the voices of freedom to the street and do what they need to do to bring freedom and democracy in the kind of iran that would live in harmony and the peaceful coexistence with its neighbors in the region and the rest of the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, governor, very, very much. from 1997 to 2000, general anthony served as commander-in-chief of the united state central command. he was elected in 2002 as a special envoy of the united states to israel and the palestinian authority. if there is anyone who can speak with a nonpartisan authority
over the reality of the situation in camp ashcroft, and it would be general. general, welcome. [applause] >> thank you. first, limiting the people of this very timely and important conference. you know, i know you'll realize you are seen not only bipartisanship was mentioned. uic and leadership from our congress, administration past and present, from our military and from our intelligence agencies and law enforcement. you have an spectrum here that feels the same way. i think what you're going to hear appear is a continuous set of comments, much like you've
heard already. i need to remove the mek from this list of terry's and indeed to support the opposition groups and understand who they are. i want to begin a little bit they may be giving military perspective. because obviously that is my role in my experience in all this. i was the commander of the u.s. central command before that the deputy commander back in the mid-to-late 90s in the year 2000 as was mentioned. when i first got the u.s. central command, my biggest concern was we were going to have an incident with the iranians islamic revolutionary guard maybe that would trigger, miscalculates and escalate into something very serious. they continuously challenged our ships. they jumped into it. the preacher breached medication was very hostile and i always imagined them were in the middle night i would get a call saying one of the captains of our ship retaliated in what he believed was an attack on his ship, does
deliver branding and bumping of things we couldn't tolerate now and barely could tolerate now. but in light of what we overseeing the uss cole and other things that have occurred since then, that would be not even acceptable. there is a limit at which you would not even be able to accept those ships coming close to you. we went through this for a number of years. we were following what was then called the dual containment policy. the dual containment of iraq and iran. what was confusing a thing for me i clearly understood iraq and the measures we had to take him i didn't quite understand iran. because although we had a stated policy, there weren't any clear containment measures we were involved in. 14 years ago, 1997, i think we began to believe something that has never come to pass, but we've come to it since then. we begin to believe with the election of president have to be that maybe things would change. he resists grant ovulate looking
individual, seemed like there may be an opening or opportunity, even though the ship of payment are hired although not from a became more personal. i remember president clinton trying to get a grasp and understanding if there was real changes in a real opportunity. another of us meant in this town from state department, department of defense and other agencies, looking to see whether judgments were on this and looking to see if there'd be a reciprocation. if you remember back in those days, we took small steps with restrictions on carpets and pistachio nuts. we sent chris ayres and other kinds of social interaction. and unfortunately, there was no reciprocation. i remember sitting in conference this in attending a regional
forum, where we had the minister of defense and the foreign minister from iran president. an acid rhetoric, anti-american, anti-anti-west, the threats that were made, not only to us, but those in the region, that welcomed our friendship, our cooperation in our lives. it was clear there was a surface façade of maybe a warming, a more rational government. the you scratch the surface. it wasn't really true. because you support, believe it or not the islamic revolutionary guard gave to saddam as saddam tried to violate the sanctions on the gas and oil sanctions that we have put on to prevent two ships from getting out and selling it outside the u.n. restrictions. the islamic revolutionary guard were actually hoping, providing protection, escorting an iranian
territorial waters. and the threats across the gold continued. even to this day, his many friends in the region who maintain friendships with the senior leadership out there. i can tell you those occasional trips by president ahmadinejad and those on the surface may appear to be family. as one senior told us on the other side of the god there's always a point of making a final not so veiled rant about support for the u.s. are aligned with the relationships. and what that means in the region. it's clear that this regime in iran has always sought to be hegemon and the region, to be dominant in that region. the m. oif, the threat they've made, the support has this mentioned the other groups in the region that clearly are terrorist groups continues on, unabated, even today. i'm shocked and surprised that we still chase the solution that
there can be a meaningful dialogue with the regime that has been described, even by her current secretary of state as not only religious fanatics, the criminally duties of the revolutionary guard. it has become a corrupt military regime. and the greatest influence has now become the islamic revolutionary guard. it has become an oppressive military regime combing old with religious fanaticism. i can't imagine anything worse. imagine what you made its niche. i want to draw another parallel. remember the soviet union, which happened in hungary and czechoslovakia. why was it different in poland? i can tell you why it was different. because suddenly attention was drawn to the opposition movement and the oppression. everyone from the pope to the western world focused on it and they could not tolerate it any
longer in the soviet union. they could not use the heavy hand of oppression and violence to put it down. and it grew and arguably may have been the greatest contributor to the fall of the soviet empire and not part of the world. and we have an opportunity, just had one with this opposition was in the street so we missed it. we put the mute button on. what is amazing about this opposition and if that was many from incentive and that man should get out and meet and talk about the situation. what has impressed me the most is how great this movie knows. it is not singular. it is not only political. it goes across the entire spectrum of iranian society. women's groups, journalists, ethnic groups, workers groups. it represents every aspect of society that feels the pressure of this regime. lack of freedom of speech, lack of the ability to fulfill their
destiny. lack of a voice in their own political system. lack of fairness in the way they're treated because of their ethnicity. and so we have a broad-based opposition movement, which usually means they would be most successful because the entire society is displeased with the oppression they face. the opportunity was there and still is there to bring light, like happened in poland to this movement. who are they? what is there suffering? pressure from the world begins with putting a blight on the kind of oppression that occurs and the opposition movement, the courageous action to resist it. we've missed that before. and we've got to change our policy and our attitude. what was strange about the dual containment policy is how much we emphasize supporting the opposition in iraq and the iraqi community outside iraq.
and i would offer to you sometimes we did make the best choices they are and they did not have the kind of support in the kind of credibility inside iraq. it's exactly the opposite gear we need community, the diaspora community, those outside their brand, many of you in this audience. you are credible. you are committed to. you are respected. and i'm amazed we have not reached out and not even given a 10th of the support and credibility we gave for those in iraq. dual containment made one thing on one side and work could've counted more were absent. we were fooled. we have the illusion that could be meaningful dialogue. which is the solution and it didn't work. we now find ourselves in the zero to 60 policy mode. it's either dialogue or military action. and i believe there's something in between we need to think
about more clearly. i don't believe this regime is not afraid of international pressures and sanctions, unlike what i think most of the world leaves. i think it begins internally. they fear the opposition more than anything else, more than what we could bring from the international day of. secondly, they fear regional cooperation. and here we have done a lousy job of working with the region to create the security cooperation, the kind of assurances on security that would isolate iran. those trips across the goal for kids those threats on the other side are done deliberately to try to prevent any kind of regional cooperation. i don't know if any leader in the region that doesn't he iran is the biggest threat in the region. they may not be so publicly, but certainly they will pipe publicly. they feel threatened.
they see the weakness sometimes in the western approach. the vacillation between a hard-line and a soft line in chasing dissolution of some kind of beautiful dog dialogue. we have to be careful of several things. one is that the salogue. we have to be careful of several things. one is that the sanctions that ever get implemented and put in place to not hurt the people and do not in any way curtailed the ability of the opposition to communicate, to organize and structure themselves in the right way. i think we need a policy that reaches out to the iranian community outside iran and work with them is the greatest conduit in connection to those inside iran that are trained to fight for freedom and for the right. i think we need to work within the region to create the kind of security cooperation and give the guarantees that we will be by their side should iran threaten them in any way and allows them to isolate this regime is right in the region.
there are many measures that could be taken before we start talking about military action. i domeone who is seen more many, many times and as someone who has suffered in blood and more and from someone who was seen the greatest sufferers than war, civilian populations, i'm telling you that as a last resort and that is something we want to avoid. the last thing we want to do is bring more pain with the iranian people. we can see what happens in iraq and afghanistan come in vietnam and elsewhere when we resort as a measure before we've exhausted all others. so i believe there needs to be a fresh look at our policy. we need to examine that area between the sort of solution of a meaningful dialogue in this continuous saber rattling which gets us nowhere. you have presented an
opportunity. you have offered the opposition. no one is asking for money, military support and guns. they are asking for him to be reached out, you like to be shined on what they're doing, support come the use of the bully pulpit, working within the community, working within the region to make sure we bring about change. lest this regime would fear that they may need to rattling, international sanctions that we can develop. and i think if we take anything away from this conference, it should be the importance of stressing a new approach to policy. examine those middle areas. quit resisting reaching out and grabbing the hand of the opposition, giving them legitimacy credibility and giving them an international and world stage where they can demonstrate pressures that they are put under. i know the panelists will follow
me and those gone before feel strongly about this. we've lived through. we've seen aspects of this. in my case, the military aspect. we have seen the actions that have been taken. we see every day the violence that is perpetrated by this regime, notably with in iran, but outside the region. not only against those in the region, but her own people, our troops, our diplomats. we've got to wake up and realize we can no longer continue to tolerate this and there are measures that can be taken. thank you very much for your support. [applause] >> thank you general, very, very much for your options. like tom ridge and me in 1983
bill richardson came to washington as a new member of the house of representatives where we had a distinguished career. he left us to join the clinton administration where he served as ambassador to united nations and secretary of energy. he later went on to another distinguished career as the governor of new mexico. this is perhaps the person on the panel for which i need to have notes the least. a longtime friend and colleague, bill richardson. [applause] >> thank you, very much. thank you, senator. when i was in the congress of the senator, we used to call him the torch because he was unflagging champion of human
rights, whether it was cuba, sudan, iran, he was always fighting. and i see that site is still very much with him. i'm the only person here who is unemployed. last night i left office two weeks ago, but am so going to have knowledge to three iranian american new mexicans. they're the best in the the lot, so thank you very much for being here. you know, when i accepted the speaking engagement, would've my assistant said you know, bill, they didn't call.com the governor anymore. your views are not going to coincide with many of those here. and i said why is that? they said well, you're just in the korea talking to the north koreans. you talk to saddam hussein. this was when we're trying to get a couple of americans released. you've talked to the cubans and
you've basically said, i noticed that senator porcelli didn't notice my campaign for the candidacy, a very forgettable event. what i was saying is that i just believe that sometimes you've got to talk to your adversaries. now, i'll explain what i mean by that. but president clinton to say, when i was sent out on these missions and i did one with president is to north korea with a republican member of the cabinet, secretary of veterans affairs. we brought back some remains of american soldiers. president clinton used to say, send richardson to talk to these regimes. that people like ken. so that was supposed to be funny. i guess not.
let me just talk about three areas that i think we all share, at least i share. and i'm not new to this issue. i've been a governor eight years. and then trying to run a state or not is up to speed as many of my colleagues here. this is a very distinguished panel and made to me now. i want to thank tom ridge for talking about bipartisanship and on the speakers have been great and tony zinni. here's a guy talking about soft power, perhaps one of the solutions. here are the three areas where you think a lease my views coincide with all of you. one, i think it's important that we find ways to better treat the iranian opposition, both in iran and outside of iran. ending u.s. policy, i mean citizens. i think it's important that we embrace this movement for freedom. secondly, with the mek, yeah, i think it makes sense to take
them off the terrorism list. you know, north korea was taken up the list. i don't know if you know this some time ago. and this is something that i'm not going to say. this is bureaucracies. you know, bureaucracies move slow. to those families got to do some kind of gigantic leaps. i'm not making any excuses, but this is something we need to reassess right away. and it seems that this is a nation, an important movement and we should take steps to make it happen. the third is the camp ashraf situation. obviously we've got to find ways to protect those iranians that are there. i think it's inexcusable that we're not doing it. talk about how they leverage with the government of iraq. we do have it. and so we should find ways to make that happen. not the same time, i think it's important to recognize why iran
is important to america's national security. obviously we want a different government there. you know, i was on one of the shows this morning and everybody is talking about china, the two new superpowers, america and china, says america's relationships with nobody else matters anymore. you know, my hope is that with the new government in iran, america and iran can be great players for national security, especially in the persian gulf, but also around the world. it's because of iran's strategic importance, its nuclear ambitions, it portends to stability in iraq, his support for extreme arab factions such as hezbollah and hamas for themselves or obstacles for stability in lebanon, to the palestinian israeli peace process that the major oil and
gas producer. its importance to the flow of oil. its role as a leader in the world of islamic shia population. the state does as reality. that is the case. now, our ultimate desired weight to be had in tehran a government that is stable, that is democratic, access a response will member of the international community, where regrettably, as we all know, the situation is currently different, radically different. so i want to stay to work in assumptions that maybe you still are agreeing with me. obviously, i think in iran there are thousands and thousands of people that reject extreme fundamentalism, violation of human rights. you saw in the presidential election that great movement of democracy after more than 100 years of struggling for democracy, iranians longed for a regime that respects citizens.
here's a country, iran that is three times larger than france. three times. 70 million populations. we know the rich history of the persian empire that stretches back 6000 years, the iranian people we know are proud of their heritage, their contributions to art, science, learning. and despite the preoccupation that many have with the views of some of it leaders, represent leaders, represent leaders, represent, iran has aliment in iran of modern and very strong democracy. and it's got an iranian community like a peer. and i bet you that better ideas from this panel can come from many of you as to how we can make a difference. so, what we need to do is how do we make progress?
we know that the iranians chari deeply thought national pride, that the country be respect to its history, its accomplishments and its geostrategic importance. the second premise, where i still think we're together as there is no excuse for the current government document support for international terrorism, violation of human rights, rejection of international overtures to come to a deal on the nuclear program. the denial of the holocaust much more, the difficulty in obviously trying to negotiate with the current president. so maybe a two year we are all in agreement. the challenges which we do about all this? you know, besides give some good speeches? how can we have things forward? i want to focus on to aliment of american policy. one focuses on the iranian regime and the other focuses on
the iranian people. i think general zinni has been very good ideas on that. at dealing with the current regime, as we know from the cold war, the turns are above all a matter of clarity and credibility. we have to make sure that the iranian government knows that a nuclear iran is unacceptable and we had to be credible when we say that we will do what it takes if iran continues to disregard the will of the international community. and i haven't heard much discussion about sanctions here. it sort of came up a little bit. i'm for sanctions. i think that for the first time my sense with russia and perhaps china, now that we've forged this new friendship, that may be sanctions might start working.
i was energy secretary and i recall and i think it's still the case that iran imports house of the gasoline and half of its food. so i think some of the distinctions that are supported are the international community, our european allies to finally have gotten a bit serious unsanctioned, that we must continue not just pushing them, but finding ways to make them more for this. you know, maybe they're not going to do the trick, but i believe it makes sense to try to find ways to make them work better. the united nations, where he served as ambassador has obviously dominated by china and russia, which has veto power. so it's important that through international mechanisms and through other means, that we continue this effort.
in dealing with hard-line governments around the world, i was just in the korea. i feel that it's very important that we find ways to know as much as we can about our adversaries. and name-calling and refusing to talk to people i think it's you know where. indeed, they usually backfire on you by strengthening your adversaries most obstructionist and hard-line element. i'm not saying you don't call somebody what they deserve, but i think we should from and what john f. kennedy said. we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. i'm not saying we negotiate with ahmadinejad. i'm saying is they find ways of the iranian people by supporting opposition, by finding elements society that need community. i wonder every day as they
operate out dated blackberry, that through technology and the internet and blogs, there's got to be a way to communicate, not just among young people in iran, but across the spectrum that we have not explored, but maybe our government needs to explore. and maybe technology and many of you that are here at communicating more effectively than we have. we have to recognize also that there is national pride involved. i'm under no illusion that a dialogue, government to government, may be going through istanbul today is going to work. but i think not having sanctions and a unified international approach is a bad idea. and the fact that the united
nations and the european community demonstrates two other significant players of the entire international community that the united states has made an honest and genuine effort to engage and find ways to make the situation better. president bush pursued this policy. i think it's the right policy, the sanctions. president obama is doing the same. we rallied support for increased pressures, sanctions and isolation. so i know many of you are saying well, governor come within spitting putting sanctions on iran for a while now. it isn't working. they just accentuate political dispositions for government critics. it's another example of the regimes disregard for their general well-being. the sanctions offer another reason to criticize so-called american arrogance. and i think somebody said here,
don't put sanctions that hurt the iranian people. and i agree. but i think sanctions as a tool that has to be refined and continue. but that has to be combined with new approaches to talk to the iranian people. one is through the mek group. at least give them some credibility, talk to them and find ways for together. hotbot the other obviously is protect the rights of those that obviously is something that i wasn't aware of until this morning. and a third is how do we communicate with the opposition in america and europe, in iran quakes and somehow, this country
this great arsenal of soft power, people to people exchanges, academics, business leaders, the we've got to do better. and so, i guess where i fall is what find a way and a bipartisan way. because i never found that, you know, this president did this, the secretary did that. that doesn't work. look, you've got men and women -- i guess it's only men, but it served here in both administrations and had been patriots in many ways. i just think that this issue is so important that it has to involve the american people. it has to involve you. it has to involve members that are directly affected by this issue. it has to involve talking to your senators and congressmen and finding ways to get the
american people in your state to be part of this dialogue. and so, i thank you for your time. and i'm going to give it the best part of my speech. the end. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, bill very, very much. general james jones. i enjoy just reading his resume. from july 1999 january 2003, general jones is the 32nd commander of the united states marine corps. after a command as commandant comest imposition of supreme allied of europe. not bad when you succeed in a job held with held by dwight d. eisenhower. in january 2009, general jones
was appointed national security adviser for president of the united states, a position he held until last november. general. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i also would like to thank the organizers of this very important conference. and i am just honored as a member of this panel and the people i work with and it buyer for most of my adult life. i also very much appreciate the passion is in this room. i could feel it just walking in. this is a room full of people who care about freedom, who care about their country, their native country, people who suffered and there's nothing
like individual suffering and loss to focus the attention on a very, very important problem. the senators started out decoding winston churchill's quote that some of us in the military are very familiar with. i'd like to start up with another quote by famous american comedian and an 1860s, 1970s, a comedian but the name of mixing vessels was understanding of this audience and saying, he the other cheek gets hit with the other fist. i'm tired of turning the other cheek were iran is concerned. and it is time -- [applause] and i would also say with all this passion for the subject
matter that we're talking about the suffering of people, both here and elsewhere around the world, there is no country in the face of this planet than the last two centuries has reached out and done more to alleviate the suffering of the oppressed and to be a champion for freedom and liberty on the global plane surface. i'm very proud of that. i think it's a unique gift of america to certainly the 20th century and i hope on into the 21st century. and i hope that iran is at the forefront of that affair. let me just say a few things about the past two years in particular. first, when administration change, it's clear that there are startup efforts that have to take place. there are new people that come into positions, people that
don't know each other very well. you have to get organized and you have to get focus. the one thing that doesn't happen is that time doesn't stand still. events don't stop. crazies keep coming. and whether you're organized a ready or not, you have to do with the world as it is in the events as they come toward you. i would suggest that for those who wish to understand the president and the administration, the air three speeches that are particularly big defining in terms of the aspirations of long-term goals of this administration. the first one was the inaugural speech. the second was the cairo speech and the third was the nobel peace prize awards. one of the care with sticks of all three was a balanced
approach that suggests that if their previous speakers have said that you know, we shouldn't hesitate to talk to those who don't agree with. and i think the contents of that speech fully illustrate that. but i also think that it also says that at some point you have to take a stand and you have to make a decision that's to which way it's going to go. now, we're rapidly approaching approaching the 24th month of this administration's policies. and i'd like to share a few things butwere the administration is with regard to iran. but it's bigger than just iran. it is a challenge that we face that is so enormous that i've often thought of the president could do one thing and one thing
only, but could be guaranteed he would do it, what could be quite would say finding the solution to the problem of the middle east and iran inclusive is probably the one thing that would most emphatically change the world as we know it in a positive way. we do not have a policy that is designed to limit the use of nuclear power for peaceful uses. as a matter of fact, successful in washington last year showed that the world is moving in that direction in a very unified way. but how you get there is extremely important. in the use of nuclear power cannot and should not be denied to anyone for one thing. it helps underdeveloped countries bypass, if you will come at the industrial age of energy production and get to
clean energy that affects the climate that affects our environment and so on and so forth. so these things with regard to nuclear power are very interrelated. and i want to be very clear. the president was extremely clear and he chose his words very carefully when the president said that the policy of the united states to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear-capable state, nuclear weapons capable state. and that word prevent was the liberally chosen. it wasn't taken lightly. there were other words it could have been inserted, but he picked a word very carefully. and my knowledge, that still remains our policy. with regard to iran, there are three -- three very dangerous consequences with regard to the path of the design. the first one of course is that it becomes nuclear weapons capable. that has a geometry onto its
own. we tried for years to prevent north korea from becoming nuclear weapons capable. we are as a matter of policy bent on making sure that iran does not achieve the same thing. the second reason and second danger that eventuality would pose if in fact it does happen is the fact that it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the persian gulf. and that is also fairly certain, a fairly certain outcropping of the first eventuality. the third one, no one to national security adviser worries me more the first two is that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism could easily be seen to be the type of country that would export that kind of technology, weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations. and when and if that happens,
ladies and gentlemen, world as we know it today will change because you can put restrictions and you can put sanctions and you can put deterrence on sovereign countries known to have nuclear-capable weapons because nobody wants to be totally annihilated as a result of the first use. when you're a terrorist organizations that have that kind of type elegy, then you have an asymmetric challenge that is very, very difficult to meet and to defeat. so those three dangers are omnipresent international game and should be omnipresent throughout the thinking of the rational part of the world. over the past two years, the united states has tried to anything successfully, try to become a leader in the problem of nuclear proliferation and on
the problem then is presented by iran. and i think that leadership role has been recognized. i will tell you the rapprochement between russia and the united states started very early on in 2009 in iran was one of the central reasons for that rapprochement. it has not changed. and russia has demonstrated on several occasions that is increasingly concerned with developments in iran and actually canceled the sale to its financial judgment of the 300 missiles to iran as a consequence of their displeasure with regard to the direction of the iranian regime. so too is china although
delighted they, but nonetheless persuasively join the sanctions. and as a result of our duties with the europeans, the european union smoothly patent and the u.n. sanctions that were adopted. and thirdly, individual countries who may not have been signers of the sanctions for punishing sanctions on iran as well. the full weight of all of the sanctions probably won't he felt for another six months to a year but this is a methodology that is unprecedented. it is by no means the only thing for the last thing that is going to happen if iran does not change its ways. but the president was clear anything most people agree with the fact that it leaves some measure of space must be left open for the iranians to come to their senses and to do the
things the world expects them to do, which are clear. we have both overt and covert discussions with the iranians. we've offered to meet with several foreign. as secretary of state was rebut publicly by the foreign minister who turned away. added several opportunities to national security advisers do with high-level officials that water to meet and they did not. we've offered to a bilateral discussions within the framework of the p5 plus one, the iaea which have never been enacted on. we meet bilaterally in vienna. again, offers that were rebuffed. ..
to reach the iranian administration and to reason with them. but to show them nevertheless that there is a ongoing strong mood in the international community that their behavior, left unadjusted, will have far-reaching consequences. i know of no time in the past 15 or 20 years when this country, where the arab world and europeans have been as united as they are on this particular issue. everywhere that i've been in every conference i've been to,ti the question about the middle east and theov overarching shadw of iran on top of that process p argues very persuasively that this is one of the defining issues of our time.ssure you ons
of collective security between us and our friends that there have been many discussions and i am sure those discussions are continuing. i've heard many people say of course time is not on our side and that may be true but i would also argue the time is not on the iranian side because the willingness to talk, the willingness to continue to go down this road without any tangible result eventually means that sooner or later the world will conclude and we will conclude as a nation that iran has defined itself and we will have to proceed with what we must do in order to achieve less successful goals that have been articulated. hope is not a strategy and we can't continue to hope that the
iranians will see the wisdom of our position, not only our position but most of the world's position and come to the negotiating table and be willing to negotiate openly and forthrightly for their own benefit, for their own benefit of their people which they are routinely ignoring for their own benefit of the growth of their society. the president's words about u.s. intentions are not widely shared and though it could be said by critics that maybe we should and could have done more the truth is a lot has been done, but we haven't reached the end of the road in terms of what we must do in order to make sure that we achieve our goal for the sake of freedom, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren and for the sake of humanity. this is a problem that has to be addressed. it has to be addressed
successfully and i think this congress serves to underscore not only just the passion that the logic we have to take this on and be successful and i think you very much for inviting me to be here. thank you. [applause] thank you, general, very much. jim has been a fixture in american security policy. he's the former director of central intelligence and served as head of the central intelligence agency from 1993 to 1995. previously he served as undersecretary of the navy from 1977 to 1979. jim woolsey. [applause]
thanks, bob. it was an honor to be asked to be on the panel today, but to tell you the truth since i spent 22 years as a washington lawyer and then some time at the cia in the clinton administration time-honored to be invited in to any company for any reason at all. [laughter] mark twain once said history doesn't repeat itself but sometimes it does rhyme, and there is an interesting partial crime that i want to share with you by describing another regime other than the current regime in iran. the one that took power in january of 1933 in january. the principal figure, adolf hitler had written in the 1920's
of what his objectives were. to rule germany, to kill the jews and conquer europe. he was very explicit and very clear. when he came to power, the majority of the german people didn't back him or vote for him, the plurality did, driven in part by history of germany and ancient and noble people, feeling as if they had been badly treated by particularly the french and british in the aftermath of world war i with the debt that were levied and the rest. hitler began a very substantial military buildup. some of it was hit in, some of it was known but he began immediately as an effort to enhance his ability to deal with his neighbors and the outside
world. in the meantime, two paramilitary organizations, the ss and sa can to be the instrument of the nazi state owning much of the property and dominating much of the government decision making under hitler's cui orders. it can easily be said and often said that hitler was a totalitarian maniac, but maniac misconstrued something because most americans view of a my local personality as someone reading and not rational. hitler was far more a sociopath, someone who is shrewd, calculating, successful, and with horrible objectives. because once objectives are to
conquer europe and destroy the jews does not mean that one cannot be shrewd. i wrote a paper in college but hitler as it went from 1933 to 1939. , not to bismarck, no one. he had the chancellors of years of eating out his hand with a movement to establish talks with treaties, efforts to establish negotiations, and even as he moved into the beginning of the holocaust was wrong it's against the jews in 1938, and the jewish refugees from europe began to climb aboard ships headed for other countries and frequently including in the united states finding themselves turned away.
sometimes out of anti-semitism and sometimes out of a spirit of not wanting to antagonize hitler. only the dominican republic, by the way, has a crystal pure record with respect to that issue. but many were turned away. and then in 1938, also came the opportunity, the allies had been strong of long year after year with a promise of serious negotiations, and so we had munich, as we had chamberlain returned smiling and raising the peace agreement had been reached at munich saying this meant peace for our time to applause, to general approbation that what at the time was called appeasement did not have a
negative connotation right yet. it meant in 1938 pretty much the same thing that engagement means now. talking seriously to your major adversary and hopefully reaching agreement with him. and it was success taking the land by agreement in munich and followed by 1939 in the summer hitler and stalin pact and the joint decision of the nazis and stalinist to conquer europe from different parts of europe, not to run into one another poll in the divided carefully. i mentioned that possible rhyme to point to a few parallels.
the iranian regime today have some of the characteristics that the nazis did in the 1930's. certainly the twin objectives of conquering or at least dominating the whole region of the world and killing the jews, constant among dictators it seems. i also take a vintage of the fact that the persians invented chess and are very good at it. and i see ahmadinejad strategy as essentially moving juan upon on one far side of the chess board slowly down towards the king's row in order to convert to the most lethal peace, the queen here a nuclear weapon.
while neither side of the board and perhaps sidebar conversations or coffee lots of distractions are launched. but the resolute progress of the pond towards the king's row to become the most lethal piece on the board is what the heart of the matter is all about. the other phenomenon that is taking place is of course the iranian nuclear weapons program. if you do not believe that it is a nuclear weapons program, i have a bridge in brooklyn i would be delighted to market to you. the worst and the most irresponsible national intelligence estimate ever several years ago confused its head line with its footnote, its
headline was that iran stopped its nuclear program, nuclear weapons program. the footnote said by the way it is still enriching uranium. the enrichment of uranium is the long pole in a tent and a signing the nuclear weapon or the reprocessing of plutonium. that is what is hard. that's what takes time, not the design of the weapon. keep in mind we drop the relative design on hiroshima the enriched uranium one ever having been tested in the history of the world. we tested in florida wasn't the bomb dropped on hiroshima, it was a different design dropped on nagasaki, but merely three-quarters of a century ago we talked this absolutely innovative within in the wartime without ever having tested if we were so sure that it would work
and one can be reasonably confident that for a relatively primitive we designed highly enriched uranium weapon the iranians others states before them with the same degree of confidence. if you are enriching uranium and you have a right to do that by the way under the nonproliferation treaty as part of the underlying structure of the treaty which is derived from eisenhower's program, if you are stophing uranium as is your at 5% which is what you use as fuel for your nuclear power plant. once you are at 5% you are not 5% of the way or so, you are about 70% of the way to having done the work you need to do in order to be able to enrich to 90% which is what you need for
nuclear weapon. so the claims that iran make in the course of its undertaking are quite parallel to the peaceful assurances that hitler was getting in the 1930's as he took a dive bomber and these are for peaceful purposes, yes of course they were. of course iran's intention is merely to have enriched uranium for its nuclear power plant. it is amazing to me the degree to which sensible people in different parts of the world have fallen prey to that nonsense time and time and time again over the course of the last number of years.
in addition to parallels and diplomacy and weapons buildup there are some crimes with respect of course to ahmadinejad and the regime's treatment. jews and treatment of dissidents, and treatment of democrats, those who want decent iran comedies and irony in government of all stripes. and certainly now it has come time for us to take a very fresh look at the way we are dealing with iran. it would be, i think excellent if there were factions within this iranian regime that one could work with.
but i greatly fear that that horse long ago left the barn, that it was not the case in 1997 when a bond was made to a new iranian primm and mr. that people have some hope might be a moderate. i don't think it was the case now and it certainly is not the case now. those who depart from ahmadinejad and the revolutionary guard and the beseeches thinking are sought out and killed as quickly as possible and the chance of there being on the inside that we can work within sight of the regime itself is slim to the point of vanishing. of course one should never be afraid of talking to an enemy. but the reason these are
sometimes done secretly including sometimes by heads of intelligence service is that once a bureaucracy gets a hold of talks, they can do some fairly bizarre things with it recall a story about my wonderful co-chair of the committee on the present danger, former secretary of state and secretary george shultz known to many of you here in the room well. his old friend mike mansfield was nominated by president reagan, democratic leader of the senate to be the ambassador of japan. the two marines from world war ii, longtime friends got together one-on-one because the secretary shultz always had a one-on-one meetings with a new ambassador. so we had a one-on-one meeting with mike mansfield and we sat and talked for 20 or 30 minutes
and finally mansfield said george, i really got to go. i know how busy you are in really appreciate it. he said okay, fine, on the way out, he said, see that big blow by the deal and mansfield said yes. i ask all new investors just the kind of pro forma thing point to your country for me and mansfield said sure. turned the globe and pointed to the united states priggish shultz beamed and said you know, you are the first sob and a long time that's gotten that right. [laughter] once a negotiation that's going, just as to a hammer and a lot of things that aren't nails look like nails to a diplomat, and life in one, quite frequently killed of things which aren't really opportunities to settle something look like opportunities to have negotiations and wright
reporting cables. and although one can talk with individuals such as foreign ministers say a mahmoud ahmadinejad regime one should under no circumstances be diluted into soft peddling things that need to be done in order to make that hypothetical negotiations succeed with the chance is sort of close to zero as things get in human endeavors. one thing we should no longer do and in this i join the others on the panel is keep the mek listed as a terrorist organization. [applause] in 22 years of practicing law, i read a lot of legal decisions,
and i recently read the circuit court's decision in the case involving the mek versus the state department, and my experience, and i think that of most lawyers interested in international matters is that courts ordinarily get a great deal of deference to the executive branch with respect to the conduct of foreign policy. this eloquently and well written decision of last july by the d.c. circuit effectively says quite blunt although it doesn't use this particular analogy that with the department of state has done is what the red queen does an alice-in-wonderland when she is asked if first we are going to have a trial and verdict and then the execution.
she says no, no, execution first, then trial. [laughter] so, we need to incorporate that move together with a vigorous effort to work with those who want a decent iran outside the country and inside the country. we need to help tide them together as bill suggested with technology. in nearly 1980's my great friend wrote a marvelous all paid in a wall street journal. the cooperation was solidarity was just beginning in the afl-cio and to some extent the cia, and solidarity. and will setters of debt was about improving communications between the members of
solidarity and the off had had a wonderful title. it was the facts will make you free, fax. the facsimile machine was the social network of the 1980's, and today we need to be careful how we do this, and we need to make sure that it is being done technically right, but there should be no reason that we forebear helping the green movement, the labor unions, the mek, all of those who have a role in a new iran to be built to safely and securely communicate with one another. we can do this and we need to do it now. [applause] secondly, we should realize that irpeopgh it means pain to the
the time is getting short ght us a year or so, but it is not the ultimate victory over the iranian nuclear program, and we need to do what we can to essentially destabilize this horrible regime through sanctions together with enabling the green movement labor unions mek and the rest. i believe we need to take steps far beyond those that would be approved even by a slightly reformed view of the soviet -- sorry, i need that slip from time to time -- the russians and the chinese. we need to basically utilize
these excellent utilization of financial sanctions even more coming in and even more draconian way. i think what we need to do is pull together the elements of the secondary boycott essentially of all companies in the outside world, especially those in europe and asia that deal with iran other than by exporting food, pharmaceuticals, matters, substances and product still would relate to the basic needs of the iranian people, otherwise if you are a german bank or japanese construction company and you are dealing with iran, you should not be able to deal with the united states. [applause] you should not be able to transfer funds from american
banks. you should not be able to do anything. and the same -- [applause] the same would go for subsidiaries of american or others hiding under a foreign registration are in fact trading with the enemy that needs to get squashed and squashed now. i think finally we need to realize that it is not 1933, its 1938 and time is short and the leadership of much of the western world would like to dither. there is a good reason why volume ii of manchester's classic free volume biography of winston churchill, the volume that deals with the years of the
1920's and 1930's has a one word title. that word is alone. churchill was indeed a loan in the 20's and 30's, almost completely. a few friends, but almost completely alone because he alone saw what was coming and what needed to be done. and when britain finally turned to him in may of 1940 nearly a year into the ongoing world war ii, it was very late. we were very fortunate that they finally did and that we, ourselves, were able finally to come into the war and cleanup and absolutely terrible world situation that had killed millions and millions of people in no small measure because of the dithering of the 1930's by
leaders who bear unfortunately some rather strong resemblances to ones we have had in the west in the last few years. [applause] it would be my hope that we would all be able to work on these problems together with a new spirit of urgency and a new spirit of commitment, thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much, bob. it's a pleasure to be here this morning and also with such a distinguished panel, many good friends and colleagues with a might serve over the years, and also before you a group that as one of our colleagues has a passion and a focus and dedication which is remarkable. many of you and your friends and
families have personally suffered at the hands of this regime, and you know firsthand both the horror of what happened and maybe more importantly the specter of poor that could happen if these issues are not dealt with. the things i want to speak about are of great importance to the united states, great importance to the people of iran, and on a personal basis, occupied a lot of my time when i was fortunate to serve as the predicted of the fbi. one of our speakers said and others repeated what you're hearing today is a very non-partisan discussion, and i think that fema resonates very well from what you've heard. i was appointed by two presidents, one a democrat and one republican, and many of my colleagues served in both administrations of republicans and democrats.
so we are talking about issues that i think transcend politics and transcend partisanship. we wanted to do is give you a case study which is a case which is now almost 10-years-old, the towers bombing that has great relevance to many of the subjects that we've discussed here today, and it's not the focus on any particular period of time or particular administration, but to highlight some of the issues and the confusion which is a word you heard several times about the united states foreign policy and decision making with respect to this regime which goes back many, many years and the context of i'm going to talk about this terrorism which we talked about a little bit but not perhaps on a case study basis. the last time i spoke about the case in washington, d.c. in a
trial that was a civil claim brought by the families of the survivors of the 19 u.s. airmen who were killed on june 26th of 1996 in the towers where as you know united states was enforcing the no-fly zone over iraq, and it was an interesting event for me to his fight and i testified years ago as an fbi agent, but this was a particularly interesting trial because we were asked by the state department and the justice department to please not testify and was a little bit of an unusual request all of the material we talked about were public record. it wasn't any confidential information or classified information, but the united states had been and is now a policy of not supporting litigation against foreign sovereign states, even if in that particular case it was a claim for redressing the justice
by the families of the survivors, the survivors of the 19 airmen killed on the towers. it highlights of one of my colleagues talked about as the confusing bureaucracies and sometimes faultless ways that we approach this problem. for many years up to sawtimber of 2001, one of the ways we dealt with terrorism abroad against the united states and its allies was using a war enforcement model, so if there was an attack against the marine barracks in 1983 which by the way resulted in a republican president u.s. forces in the mideast, again, going back to this theme of nonpartisanship, for years and years after that event going to september 11th 2001, the united states had a policy through many different
administrations of responding to attacks against the united states by using a law enforcement model. by sending out investigators doing crime scenes looking for witnesses, etc.. a model which many of us said and continued to say was an effective when the subjects of the investigation were sovereign states or terrorist organizations conducting acts of war against the united states. if you kill an american serviceman or woman overseas, yes, it is a violation of our title xviii u.s. criminal code. but it's more than that. it is an attack against the united states and a knack of war in some respects against the united states. but for many years ago was a model the was used and i suggest one of the reasons why many administrations used that model is a much easier way to deal with an intractable complex
dangerous problems. it was a military solution, it wasn't a diplomatic approach, it was let the police and the courts sort it out, and that is the model followed for many years. so in 1996, when the town were was attacked it was attacked by a group of saudi hezbollah members, and the was discovered fairly shortly after the event because host country, the kingdom of saudi arabia had detained and arrested several of the actors who said yes, we were recruited by the irg sea, we were trained and got our passports at the iranian embassy in damascus and $100,000 cash from the general in the irg sea. this took a long time to get sorted out but although it was evidence of a crime, it was also during substantial proof that
the attack in june of 1996 was an attack by the government of iran against the united states of america. and not very different, the attacks against the u.s. embassy in east africa. the attack against the u.s. s. coal. we sifted through evidence, actually giving people their miranda rights. i got a call during the the kolevar towers investigation the agents were interviewing one of the subjects and the question came up about how we could give them the miranda rights because the local government did not provide an attorney free of charge if you couldn't afford one. as these are the types of applications that were going on in a very purposeful but a very
ineffective way. when kolevar towers occurred among the president of the united states appropriately so from the oval office said that this attack against the united states would not go unpunished and no stone would be left unturned to bring the perpetrators to justice. so our charge was to conduct investigations. our first note was do you want us to conduct a criminal investigation because that may interfere with whatever other policy decisions you may or may not make. the answer was no, conduct the investigation. so we deployed several hundred fbi agents and personnel to saudi arabia who conducted a crime scene investigations, interviews in conjunction with the saudis which is their police force. it became very clear after a short period of time the the perpetrators of the tax were
irgc treen, planned and funded. the attack only resulted tragically and the death of 19 americans, 372 or wounded. the reason for that frattali was the truck was pleased perpendicular to building 131 which was the barracks. had they been placed in a parallel fashion the whole building would have come down and several hundred people would have been killed. it became very apparent during the investigation that we needed to get direct access to the defendant's subjects who had been the defended by the saudis, five of whom were arrested in the immediate environment of the crime a short time afterwards. so we were told by the saudis that such request was unprecedented. american agents had never been allowed to conduct investigations obviously or speak to subjects in that
country and the crime was one for them under sharia being handled in a religious process. so our necessity was to get a senior, the president of the mid united states to make the request that if the fbi agents be allowed to conduct the interviews to this overlong period of time we wrote talking points for the president, the vice president. they would meet with the crown prince or somebody else from saudi arabia and we always got back a response the never made the request. and then became very apparent after a short period of time that the request wasn't being made. other requests are being made, but not the one that was critical for our investigation. this was the period as some of my colleagues have noted where the representative crush wall and the new moderate government appeared to be taking place. the government under which by the wheel of the nuclear
reactors were built. so i recall getting a phone call one morning from the secretary of state that said that the iranians are company because of the agents are fingerprinting them when they come into the united states. i said of course we've been doing that along period of time because as you know, madam secretary, the agents sometimes come with a bustling team, usually the one who is on fixed, but he is the mois agent and that is why we think are protected. he said you have to stop because they are very upset. this is the mood, this was the policy not incorrect perhaps because i agree with my colleagues that the opportunity for the discussion and compromise and diplomacy is very, very important. but we never got there during this period of time. it was in an effective policy. we learned during the course of
the criminal investigation for instance that the white house had sent a diplomatic note unbeknownst to us that was supposed to be delivered to the prime minister which would request his assistance and the fbi conducting its investigation of the towers bombing. nobody told us they were sending the note. we read about it in the newspapers because the middle east ally delivering the note mistakenly gave it to the religious leader, not to the prime minister's office and that caused a big press conference and criticism. so, on and on the investigation went and we reached the point after a very difficult period of time within the administration and the united states, not on the crime seen side or we got the evidence that this attack was committed by the irgc for
the local hezbollah office which is exactly what happened in the marine barracks in 1983. and the permission that we finally received by the saudi government to interview the detainees was the result of loss using channels outside of the government and outside of the administration because we could not get any assistance within the administration with respect to making the request. the reason was simple. they did not want to confront the fact and the reality that the iranian government had murdered 19 americans and blown up the towers. and as investigators we accepted that the foreign policy matter which goes beyond our jurisdiction and. so we would go back repeatedly and say do you want us to stop conducting the investigation the answer would always be no, we want you to conduct a vigorous
investigation, all the evidence and charge a river can be charged and this was the confusion and in anecdotal but historical the example of the confusion of the policy which in many respects continues today through a new administration with regard to the mek listing, with regard to the camp and regard to this lack of clarity and lack of purpose in terms of achieving what are very basic objectives year. after we finally got access to the detainees we interviewed them and they leave out and very good detail in an evidentiary fashion exactly what had happened, and we felt we had at that point prove to indict and number of people under cover extraterritorial terrorism laforme the merger of 19 americans. so we got all this information
together the agni went to see the national security adviser of the united states and when i told them what we had, it was a very interesting and unforgettable reaction. he looked at me and said who knows about this? and all of us here in washington did ask a lot of questions. for me the was the strangest question i got in the nine years i was here. who knows about this? and i said well, you know about it now, i know about it, the attorney-general of the united states and probably a couple of hundred fbi agents. the reaction was one of regret and one of disappointment not because by the way people had been murdered and couldn't be brought to trial because they were members of the irgc but because now the administration had to confront a very difficult issue, one which has been confronted actually much more
forthrightly by the current administration who was as general jones said that the united states will prevent the acquisition of a nuclear weapon by this administration. that is about as firm a commitment as i think i can hear. so anyway, they called the meeting in the white house as a result of this information and the usual people were invited to the meeting. it was in the room in the white house where i think everybody on my left has been on a number of occasions. the attorney general i thought the purpose of the meeting was to discuss what the result would be of disinformation and what would happen. so at the meeting, the national security adviser hand out to documents, and when we got them we were a little bit surprised to read them. they were to press statements. one is the republican on the
hill and the other was for the reporters and i asked the question i come over here to talk about this evidence and we are going to do and they said yes we are going to get to that first we have to talk about how we respond to the issue of whether or not the iranian government was involved in this attack. you can delete the weather from the stress because we have substantial evidence that they were involved in the attack and somebody said to me who was a lawyer that's all here say, which was a very surprising question to hear from the national security adviser and i said actually, the statement and furtherance of a conspiracy by a co-conspirator and that is an exception to the hearsay rule. regardless of that, the reaction wasn't very different from the reaction we've seen politically
over a long period of time. not because the people making those decisions or were not making those decisions are bad people or misguided people. i think all of them have the same goal and intention that all of us do here. how do we reach the of objective of justice and fairness and freedom not just for the iranian people repressed by these regimes but by all of the collateral consequences whether it's u.s. military personnel or other people victimized to dump the world from south america to the far east as a result of irgc's terrorist activities. the irgc was noted here and you probably know better than us it's not just a government agency and it is an economic powerhouse, it's a conglomerate, it's a foreign policy shop, it's a military shot. it meets all the definitions of
the racketeer influence organization and it kills people, mostly its own people. - from my perspective we reach the result that we intended to reach with respect to the towers. we invited 14 people on 46 counts with the murder of those americans and interestingly, we couldn't get an indictment in the administration under which the crime occurred. it was looked at and people said i don't think we have enough evidence etc., etc.. the same evidence was looked at by new prosecutors and they returned an indictment and 90 days. those subjects are fugitives. one of the many and tie-ins with respect to the horror and the killings and the tragedies that
the regime perpetrated over many years, but i think where we are as we sit here today is much closer to i would call it a fail-safe point or critical mass point, and i don't know exactly what to call it beyond that. but i think over the course of many years going back maybe to the early 1980's we have found that a combination of different alternative strategies working together will have the desired result. what is the desired result? the desired result is that those students who were murdered and the families who were imprisoned, friends and relatives of many of you i suspect are allowed to do what free people are allowed to do everywhere through all time. we have sanctions the i think are working better.
i spent a lot of time in europe working for corporations to be a ic within some of those corporations very resolute attempt to make sure that the sanctions are not violated because of the economic and political consequences that they would have for that company and that country. the amazing her like the reddi-wip nist after the 2009 election on the streets of tehran was almost a critical mass to be there was almost exactly where it should have ended. it didn't dissipate those young men and women, those heroes, the martyrs' among them, their families and friends, that hasn't been a race, it hasn't been compromised, it's there and powerful. it will probably be in my opinion, and again i'm not a historian or diplomat, but my opinion is that is where the solution of this will be and the
question is whether the regime will react as the tunisian tire rent reacted or will it react as many other governments have reacted when their regimes were threatened. i don't think we know the answer to that. but the critical mass is going to happen by a combination of the military hard power line in the sand which has been drawn. we think it has been drawn at least it has been said of the sanctions, all of the work is done covertly and overtly through diplomatic channels, military channels, through intelligence, law enforcement, and the object of here is to support the strongest condemnation and the strong guest stress point for what we want to achieve, and that is going to be on the streets and homes and colleges and that huge and a great country and it is going to probably have been i
would predict what in the near term. i don't think that you can keep that kind of force under wraps and restrained with the longevity and sustainability that the regime would certainly like. the sanctions are not going to be perfect. i don't know whether the subsidies away from the gas and food prices or because of the sanctions, and they will certainly impact adversely on the iranian people. there is no perfect solution. there is no one solution to be it's going to be a combination of all of these, but i think we are moving very rapidly to the demarcation and to the critical point. and our goal and our hope is that it ends in a peaceful but successful and sustainable way that this regime is undermined and is defeated but by the means
i think everyone here is talked about. i think if you had to write a scenario or write an ending for this story you would want to write one with a least amount of people killed, harm, injured, because that's the solution as americans and as freedom lovers that we want and we strive for. so your work here in the seminar is very timely. if you have a very powerful elements to this comprehensive and irreversible movement and force which the policy makers will have to respond to. they've already responded to it, but you sustaining this issue and your dedication to this issue will take it to the next few steps, next few critical steps, and how those are executed and balance are obviously critical with respect to the preservation of life, but as importantly, the preservation
of freedom and the stubble until the freedom in an institutional way. i want to thank you and commend you and i think you have heard a great cross section of furious but also of solutions and alternatives and my hope is that all of those together will win the day and get the result that we want. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. finally for the final presentation today, ambassador michel reiss. mitchell was a former director of policy planning in the united states department of state where he worked for secretary powell. he helped develop the united states foreign policy with an emphasis in iraq, north korea, china, iran and the arab-israeli
conflict. ambassador reiss was recently named the 27th president of washington college. congratulations. welcome. [applause] thank you for inviting me to speak today. i am honored to be on the same panel with such outstanding public servants. i just returned this past weekend from a tour across the middle east. starting in the uae, spending three days in afghanistan, on to jordan and finishing with two and a half days in israel. during the trip i met with a number of senior political leaders and military officials. at every meeting that the top of the agenda was iran, the threat it poses to stability in the region, its support for terrorism and what might be done to halt its nuclear weapons
program. these days most of the attention of iran and the region and in the media focuses on its nuclear weapons ambition and rightly so. the iranian regime continues to regard even security council restrictions, and there is the risk that its nuclear program will provoke other countries in the middle east to pursue their own independent nuclear options. in the past few days, senior israeli officials including the head of mossad suggested that iran's progress has been slowed and that it is now two to three years away from building a nuclear weapon. some u.s. officials have a slightly less optimistic assessment about that time line. but there is absolutely no disagreement and no dispute over the fact that iran is keeping open its nuclear weapons option by continuing to develop various technical capabilities that each day bring it closer to being able to produce nuclear weapons
should it decide to do so. my discussions in jordan and israel also focus on kuran's effort to destabilize government friendly to the west through its proxies' particularly hezbollah and hamas. this came as no surprise. we know that hezbollah is the largest recipient of the iranian financial aid, training and within prieta that iran's senior leadership cited hezbollah as a model for other militant groups. the israeli and other sources estimate that hezbollah has now stockpiled over 50,000 rockets in southern lebanon as it has rearmed from the war with israel in the summer of 2006. iran also provides training weapons and money to hamas to support its resistance to israel and its implacable opposition to any israeli-palestinian peace negotiations to reach we all know of the successful efforts last week by hezbollah to
collapse the government in lebanon. over the u.n. investigation into his father's assassination. we have also seen a ratcheting up in the past month of mortar and rocket attacks from the gaza strips on neighboring towns and villages. let me share with you a brief anecdote. last week i was in a town located right next to the gaza strip. the israeli police commissioner showed me his collection of all of the spent rockets that have been fired into the town in the past few years. now typically when this happens the israeli officials condemn hamas for these attacks. but there are other groups that launch these rockets against the israeli civilians like palestinian islamic jihad which is also supported by iran as the governor noted earlier. it turns out the palestinian islamic jihad was upset hamas was getting all the credit for this tax. as we started writing messages to the israelis on each rocket
to make sure that it was attributed to their group and not hamas. surely an interesting way to assert yorubaland the command and claimed market share. in addition to kuran's programming and support for terrorism, a third topic heteros on the trip was the nature of the islamic republic itself. frankly, less attention is paid to this topic these days. it seems international attention crested a few years ago with a grain movement when it seemed possible the democrat forces inside iran might actually topple the regime or at least fundamentally change the relationship between god, the state and the people. we all know what happened. the response to the government of this political challenge was to conduct a massive voter fraud in the june 2009 election. in response to people poured out into the streets in large-scale demonstrations. conservative hard-liners rejected by cracking down on
protesters and regime opponents. supreme leader and president mahmoud ahmadinejad and hard-line conservative allies then moved to consolidate their power even more. by early 2010, the green movement had lost momentum and it appeared the opposition had missed its moment. let me quote from a cia report from last year the describes the regime and the following terms of this moment. strengthen conservative control limit opportunities for reformers to for dissipate in politics or organize opposition. the regime will work to marginalize opposition eletes, disrupt or intimidate efforts to organize dissent and use force to put down unrest. that was last year. what about this year? has anything changed? will the international economic sanctions galvanize the people into opposing the regime?
is the opposition regroup and reorganize? is the green movement an effective force for challenging mahmoud ahmadinejad? the answer i received from u.s. officials across the region last week was no. .. their assessment is an even stricter economic sanctions by themselves will not bring down the government. iran's economy has been heard by the sanctions, soft oil prices and long-standing policies that discourage private sector and foreign investment. but the assessment is that the economy is not in crisis or at least not yet. iran maintains foreign currency reserves to hedge against the moderate falls in world oil prices. tehran has also resorted to doing business with small, nonwestern banks in dealing and
non-u.s. currencies for many financial transactions. further, ahmadinejad has tried to insulate the poorest and loweron classes from the budgetr cuts and a removable state subsidies. so, even if there is rising political disaffection among thr people, the assessment is thatc this will not bring down thisi government. e this government. the students and opposition political class are seen as disorganized and not strong enough to mobilize, take their protest to the streets and challenge the government that has that's a pretty discouraging assessment. but is it accurate? let me offer up an alternative assessment. i must start with uncomfortable fact, the fact that no one, no one in the u.s. government or across the arab world are addicted what we've just seen occur in tunisia. no one. so useful starting point when we look at a rant is that we need a
huge dose of humility and how poor we are predicting popular uprisings. is that famous parlors see analyst yogi berra once said prediction is hard especially about the future. so i think it is entirely possible the official u.s. views on them we may see the resurgence of the opposition movement in the coming years, maybe even sooner. what we witnessed in 2008, 2009 maybe only the first phase of this opposition, not the final phase. none of the key issues from the june 2000 election had been resolved, not the best economic model, not the islamic nature of the regime in the proper role for religious authority and not even the outcome of the election it will. all of these issues continue to fester. it's also worth noting that iran still is an educated and rests with middle-class.
iran has millions of young people. approximately 70% of the population, as you well know, are under the age of 30 are sold. these young people have access to the internet daily. this is not a society that wants to be associated with the regime that stones women to death. so if there is going to be another wave of protests, what might you to trigger? my view is they won't any single event that pumps the opposition into action, but rather the slow accumulation of hardships, indignities, insults and humiliations. this means the listing of subsidies alone will not unleash the ocean. but economic hard times combined with a scarcity, rising inflation and rising unemployment and underemployment may lead initially to sporadic growth. we may start to see these as soon as this summer when university students are out of
school andperas st .. here will be no more parliamentary elections. the point here is that we can't know for sure, but it would be mistaken that the status quo will hold forever. finally, is there anything the united states can do to assist the opposition? let me offer a few ideas. the obama administration should continue to tighten the economic noose around this regime and not the other governments to do the same. yesterday, secretary of state hillary clinton announced the sanctions were having an impact on iran's economic bab or. general jones is just reiterated to that. the administration needs to continue and intensify these efforts. second, the united states need to targeted iranian leaders and policies and not at the iranian nation. what i have in mind is
calibrating official statement that they do not have nationalism or allow ozment in the shot to exploit our statements to exploit its own power. covers to expose at the highest levels of being an example of what i have in mind. more broadly, the obama administration needs to talk up and take a the banner of human rights and democracy and that the very least give greater rhetorical support to the opposition movement. [applause] subsidence support for the opposition would also be welcome. in the past, the obama administration appeared reluctant to support iranian opposition efforts for fear it would complicate their nuclear talks. personally, i disagree with that
decision. having spent a large part of my career negotiations is in pretty bad at various, supporting the opposition would give any american negotiator more leverage, not less leverage at the negotiating table. [applause] whether or not you believe that we have one year, two years, three years or more before iran will be in a position to acquire nuclear weapons, there's still no reason to be shy about doing more to support the iranian opposition. a good first step would be delisting mak. [applause] [applause]
and a third, we need to promote free access to internet and free flow of information and outside iran and especially within iran. an attack in the twitter, face up, myspace and all the other technologies jim woolsey mentioned earlier. we've all seen the impact these technologies can have when they're lined with the forces of freedom. my sense is that many iranians want to be part of the international community. they want to be integrated more closely in the economic dynamism of the region and they want to become full members of the 21st century. we need to do more to help them. thank you. [applause] thank you. ambassador, i want to thank you
again on behalf of the entire panel for bringing us together today and all of you for your patience and members of the panel. i know we have taken more of your time this morning and then was planned for promise, but we are grateful. many of you may be new to washington. you may not have attended similar event in the past. i spent most of my adult life in such forums in this town. i can remember no occasion under which such distinguished people from various pursuits of professional service have come together in one room with such remarkably similar views. i hesitate to add the numbers, but i would suspect that there is assembled on this stage, more than 200 years of experience in
law enforcement, antiterrorist activities, military service and american foreign policy. a distinguished set of couriers. no one on this podium needs me to represent or cared to raise their views. i speak only for myself. but i think several things are unmistakable. we can differ on how we believe american policy. but it appears to me as i listened to every speaker, one thought was common. the discussions in turkey must be more than another meaningless milestone en route to nuclear weapons held by the government in tehran. second, the listing of the mak is a terrorist organization by
the united states government is wrong. [applause] it is wrong as a matter of law. it is contrary to the facts to be heard and it is contrary to american foreign policy. and having a expatriate groups of iranians around the world organized as it is their right and a responsibility to bring to the country of their ancestors buried, a responsible government. i call upon secretary clinton, who i consider a dear friend to do what she knows is right, and the policy and end it now.
[applause] i leave you finally with this prediction of the resistance as the iraniano made deem serious for actions in iranicy of the united gates government, one day, you'll look upon your children and grandchildren with pride and say, when it all the world have looked the other way, when even the united gates government made difficult to stand up against tierney in
tehran, your family was there and stood firm. you'll be proud you're here today. [applause] we promised all of you this would end some time ago. we promised members of our panel could be on with their days by now. so i'll take the liberty of just limiting if i could because i know people in the audience would like to speak with members of the panel. i'm sure they'll each take a few minutes to answer questions privately. the 30 members of the media who want to take advantage just for a couple minutes and you questions, would be glad to hold everybody for that. is there anyone in the media who can identify many sources they would finance questions? anybody clicks if there is not, will break. okay, thank you all okay, thank you all very, very much.
[applause] >> house ways and means committee held its first in a series of meetings. witnesses included national taxpayer advocate, nina olson, procter & gamble, bob mcdonald as well as several text-only analysts. they discuss the current structure of the federal income tax code to fix the u.s. economy
and how simplifying it could create jobs. both president obama and congressional republicans have recently said the tax code should be -- the >> committee will come to order. >> this was chaired by committee congressman, jim camp. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we meet today in our first of the 112 congress to begin what i expect will be a long discussion and one that i hope will be bipartisan and the need to reform our federal income tax is done. as they did on tuesday, it can want to extend my appreciation to ranking member levin for agreeing to allow this hearing to move forward today, even though the committee did not officially organized until two days ago.
25 years ago, a democratic house and a republican senate set to the white house and the president signed a landmark legislation known today as the 1986 at. this is where we started in 1913. this is the entire tax code of the united states of america and all the regulations. this pamphlet. this is where we are today. this is the tax code about the regulation that americans have to deal with today. the lot 86 which marked the successful culmination of years of work to broaden the tax base and lower tax rate and it remains the basis of our system of taxation. but in some sense, if a shell of its former self. in the intervening years, members of congress from both sides of the aisle have loaded the tax code with a dizzying array of credits, reductions, exclusions and exceptions.
the late economist, david bradford, which provided a tongue-in-cheek example to illustrate the concept of tax expenditures and why they are little more than disguise thinning. radford propose to cut the defense budget for weapons procurement and zero, while creating a new weapon supply tax credit that could be claimed by defense contractors through appropriate weapons donated to the pentagon. and under this regime, it would appear to eye that both spending and taxes would be reduced, thus allowing elected officials to claim the government was smaller. in reality, nothing would've changed. it's thinning program still exists. which is the criminally disguised as a tax credit. a cautionary tale seems all too real to those passed tax cut in its mysterious tax the adventures for congressionally blessed industries in the to reduce both big and small. regardless of any individual tax expenditures, the broader picture is not a pretty one. the president's deficit commission, which i served on
along with the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan michelman from california, mr. becerra measured these expenditures in terms of higher tax rates. the report makes clear that taxpayers foot the bill of those expenditures in the form of higher tax rates. the simpson report called for eliminating all tax expenditures and would have moved individual rate to eight, 14 and 23% and drop the corporate rate to just 26%. if the plan uses all the higher revenue from eliminating tactics natures to push down rates, those numbers would've been even lower. as we'll hear from nina olson from the taxpayer advocate, the impact of the changes to the tax code to create, expand and extend these expenditures can be measured in the tens of thousands of additional pages of the code for the thousands of changes in the in the last decade alone. clear the tax code is too complex, too costly, takes too much time to comply with and all
this adds more burdens on our families, employers, making it more difficult to create jobs in this country. i am under no illusion that the task before us will be easy. to really reform the tax code in a way that lowers the tax rate, broadens the base and promotes competitiveness of american employers to eliminate to make some tough choices. i don't think this can be or should be a partisan exercise and i can just happen because one chamber passes a bill. it will require the active participation of all members of the committee and will require us to work with the administration. and yes, we'll even have to talk to the senate now and again. reportedly, we'll talk to the american people. individuals, families come employers large and small who are impacted by the loss of pus in washington. but this is just the first of many. i've asked her what is this too can find the remarks that this first hearing to defining the problems of the current taxes and. i look forward to hearing from
many witnesses as we undertake this enormous challenge to consider various solutions. today our focus should be on making sure we begin to understand the scope of the challenge. with that coming up to my friend and ranking member, mr. levin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we welcome this opportunity. clearly there is a need for tax reform. clearly any tax reform, which was true in 1986 will have to be our partisan. it will have to be bicameral and also at will require leadership from the executive which i'm sure will be forthcoming. in a way, this hearing as a pickup of enough for some years ago, next to me, mr. rangel is
chairing the committee, introduced legislation to try to move ahead with this you of tax reform. i'm not going to be here for a bit because i think kevin brady and i will be going to meet with president hu of china. i hope this hearing will indeed move the ball forward belles lettres not expect any touchdowns. it's a long way from the goal line. i do think we need to keep in mind the basic principles, including the need for our tax is done to help create jobs and help promote economic growth. i else the bank, and this may be somewhat controversial and
difficult, but also we need to make sure that reform is fiscally responsible. another principle that we need to keep in mind is that any tax reform has to benefit the working families of america. also, let's keep in mind that the code is complex. answering it through tax reform will not be easy. mr. chairman, you have referred to the testimony of the national taxpayer advocate who's with us tonight, joining in welcoming all of you. and as we look at the materials last night about your testimony, which i'm glad we received in time to review, i'm page can 10, ms. olson from the list the tax expenditures under the caption
on page nine, the dirty little secret tax breaks generally benefit the masses. and i just urge that everybody goes through the list on page 10 to understand why some have advocated their being there at the birth of their coverage and the need for us on the responsible bipartisan basis to attributes that to mr. chairman, and intelligent forthright discussion as to each and every one of them. so this is the kickoff. the field will not be easy. there may be snow, rain. we're used to that in michigan. but i think we need to pursue this and we democrats look forward to are working together to tackle this issue.
thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you here today we're joined by five witnesses. our personas will be the honorable nina olson, the national tax advocate and we welcome you back to the committee. after her, we will hear from bob mcdonald heard mr. mcdonald is the chief executive officer of procter & gamble and is testifying in his capacity as the chairman of the business roundtable fiscal policy. i should note he will need to leave promptly at 11:00 a.m., but given the schedule of votes are going out today, i don't think that will be an issue. our third witness will be boring hudak of hudak & co. a business that provides tax services to other small businesses. portfolio from.your kevin hassett, fellow director of economic policy studies at the american enterprise institute. last we'll hear from dr. martin sullivan, contributing editor for tax analysts. we welcome all of you and we look forward to hearing your
testimony. before recognizing our first witness, let me note that our time is limited. so i will not be asking questions today. and with concurrence of the ranking member, questions will be limited to three minutes and will be giving martin a nurse to recognize that each of the witness says will have five minutes to give a written statement and they will be made part of the record and you are recognized for five minutes. while clement good morning. >> thank you distinguished members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today about the subject of tax reform. let me begin by saying bluntly that in my view, the tax code today is a mess. since the last major reform 25 years ago, the code has become an ever expanding patchwork with logical connections and has become unreasonably difficult for tax years to understand and comply with. in my 2010 annual report to
congress, identified the complexity of the tax code in the confusion and distress it engenders as the number one most serious problem facing tax payers and the irs. i titled that section the time for tax reform is now because while there has been a lot of talk of tax reform in recent years, experience has shown that it will require a sustained from a bipartisan effort with the support of an engaged public to make tax reform a reality. i start by noting that the tax code is it an today imposes excessive compliance burdens on individual taxpayers and businesses. it is right with complexity and special tax breaks, hoping taxpayers to can afford excessive tax advice incriminate against all those who cannot hear the complexity of skiers understanding and creates a sense of distance between taxpayers and the government, undermining taxpayer morale and leading to lower levels of voluntary compliance.
the complexity of the tax code is also burdensome for the irs, making it more difficult are the agency to meet and probably resulting in more audit and enforcement action in a simpler code would require. now despite the existence of many narrow special interest tax breaks, it is important to recognize that the overwhelming majority of tax breaks by dollar value accrue to large segments of the tax paying public. in short, we are the special interests. if tax rates are to be lowered actually an overall tax liabilities on average are to remain unchanged, virtually every taxpayer will have to give a cherished tax breaks. there simply no free lunch. yet i am convinced that what i call the busy majority of tax payers, one fundamental tax simplification and will support it. lower tax rates will offset the loss of tax breaks. and at the same time, taxpayers
will understand how their taxes are computed and save time and money on return preparation. to assist congress in deciding which tax breaks and iris administer social programs to retain and which to eliminate, i suggest utilizing a zero based budgeting approach. under that methodology, the starting point for discussion with you tax code without exclusions or reductions in income are taxed. a tax break or irs administered social program would be added only if lawmakers, you, decide on balance that the provision are running through the tax code outweigh the tax complexity challenges that doing so creates for taxpayers and the irs. in my view, tax reform will have a better chance to succeed if it proceeds on their revenue may show basis. although there is widespread recognition that we ultimately must take steps to reduce our
current deficit levels, i am concerned that if we attempt to solve those issues to tax reform, we may never achieve structural tax reform. rather were likely to get second debate when we need a common civil analysis of the structure of the tax code. for all these reasons, i believe that fundamental reform must be made a priority. a simpler more transparent tax code will substantially reduce the estimated 6.1 billion hours and $163 billion that taxpayers spent on return preparation. it will increase the likelihood that taxpayers will claim all benefits to which they are entitled. it will reduce the likelihood that sophisticated taxpayers can exclude arcane provision to avoid paying their fair share of tax. it will enable taxpayers to understand how their tax liabilities are computed and prepare their own tax return. improve taxpayer morale and tax
compliance and perhaps even the level of connection that taxpayers feel that the government. and it will enable the irs to a mr. the tax is done more effectively and better meet taxpayer needs. i am confident in the end public support for public support for public support for will be strong and deep. thank you. >> thank you are a match. mr. mcdonald, your written statement is also part of the record and you have five minutes. thank you very much. your microphone. you have to push a button. >> german camp, ranking member levin and distinguished members of the committee, my name is bob mcdonald and i am the chairman president and chief executive officer of procter & gamble company. i am here today in my capacity as chairman of the business roundtable fiscal policy initiative. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of corporate tax reform to competitiveness, u.s. investment in u.s. job growth.
the world has changed dramatically since the basic operating rules of our international tax system were thought to it. the spread of free markets around the world has opened up new opportunities for america's businesses and workers to sell their products to the 95% of the worlds population that live outside the united states. at the same time, american companies and workers face heightened competition from foreign competitors as they seek out these new market. the time in which multinational corporations was synonymous with american corporation has long passed. i was just one example, in 1960, the largest worldwide companies were nearly all american companies. u.s. headquartered companies comprise 17 of the world largest 20 companies. by 1985, there were only 13. and by 2010, just six u.s.
headquartered companies ranked among the top 20. in this hyper competitive environment, many factors can disadvantage american companies and cause them to lose out in this competition. to the detriment of the u.s. economy and american workers, taxes are a very important factor. american companies seeking to expand markets at home and abroad are working with one of the least competitive tax systems in the world. let me explain why. as the slideshows, the united states has the second highest corporate tax rate among advanced economies. after japan adopts this proposed by percentage point corporate rate reduction this spring, the u.s. will have the highest corporate tax rate in the oecd. 14 percentage points above the average. his next slideshows that does not always the case that the
u.s. tax system is so uncompetitive. in 1986, when the last major tax reforms undertaken, the u.s. went from among the highest corporate tax rate to among the lowest. but since that time, the tax system for the rest of the world have caught up and surpassed us. as this next slideshows, the united states is also one of the few remaining advanced economies that taxes of companies on foreign earnings from active business operations when remitted home. most other oecd countries have adopted territorial tax system largely exempt these active earnings from home country taxation. recently both japan and the united kingdom have switched to territorial tax systems. they have chosen these territorial systems to improve the competitiveness of their businesses and their economies. this tilted playing field created by the u.s. tax system hurts the competitiveness of
american companies and american workers. first, to manage sales around the world directly reduce u.s. exports of goods and services along with investment and jobs in the united states. second, high taxes imposed on american companies that bring foreign earnings back to the united states discourage use of these funds to expand u.s. operations. third, a high u.s. corporate tax rate on domestic profits discourages investment here in america by both u.s.-based and foreign-based companies. henceforth, the highest price paid is paid by the american worker in the form of lower wages and a more slowly growing economy. on behalf of the business roundtable, i look forward to working closely with this committee, the congress and the administration on this incredibly important issue. thank you, chairman camp. >> thank you very much,
mr. mcdonald. mr. hudak come you have five minutes in a written statement will be part of the record. >> good morning, chairman camp, ranking member levin and members of the committee. i am pleased to be here as a small-business owner and is a tax professional assisting small businesses. my business, hudak & co. provides a full range of tax services for small businesses, so i know firsthand the challenges that my clients on our company face and comply with in the tax code. the complexity of the tax code are especially onerous than the complexity of the tax code are especially onerous than the complexity of the tax code are especially onerous than is. they can't perform -- they can't afford staff, h.r. staff, tax professionals on hand and they have not been determined is price. they spend about 1.9 billion hours every year to comply with the tax code. $19 billion in cost and compliant with the tax code is a staggering amount of money. i'm also a member of nfib and is
300,000 members. we recently surveyed our members and two of the top, top priorities for small businesses is the federal tax code and its complexity. one thing to be very sure of from a small-business perspective from the business can't be separated from the owner. most small business is constructed at the tax at the individual company raised for simplification. it's a simplified way of being able to understand their taxes. the best example i can give an understanding small businesses to examples from this year. with two companies that are getting ready to retire. they wanted to use -- they counted on their business to be their retirement plan. they were regular corporations and in order to avoid the double
taxation, they switch to an s. corporation. because of the onerous ten-year capital management provision, they actually lost 50% of all is their earnings that they worked their whole life for. 18 hours a day, some of these business second-generation and was in that kind of money with staggering, preventing them from investing in other businesses, starting a new venture, pursuing a new idea. and for one owner, and meant it to continue working into retirement. so we all struggle with the tax code. to speak to the complexity of the tax code commit irs district sent out a postcard to all small-business owners saying they would no longer going to accept payroll taxes to be permitted using a paper voucher.
there were no longer allowing them to submit that. some of my most sophisticated clients with thin clients for a long period of time say what have we been doing wrong? why did he get this notice? they didn't understand the very nature of the notice. what was even more for me was the fact wille submitted their taxes. for eight, nine years, they've been sending their taxes electronically to get a simple postcard and mail saying we would no longer accept paper vouchers and their panicked. what are we doing wrong? what is going on? they didn't understand the very fact that we were already doing it electronically. and that is a very simple example of the misunderstandings about what's actually going on. my clients, as hard as we try, try to get them to understand the tax code. this leads to terrible compliance problems. the tax is definitely has to be simplified. thank you. >> thank you very much.
dr. hassett, you also have five minutes in a written statement will be part of the record. welcome. >> thank you very much, chairman camp, ranking member transfix, perhaps mr. rangel is the highest ranking. thank you for having their period it's a real honor to talk to about this topic. the first part of my testimony researches carbon intensive rendering the looks of the long-run economic impact of financial crises. they find that one can expect to have slower growth for a good one. after a financial crisis, perhaps as long as a decade. and if we have the typical experience of an economy after a severe financial crisis, will grow 20% lower and the unemployment rate eight years from now will be present. this is unacceptable outcome to everyone, but i noted at the outset this is a medium-term problems in a short-term stimulus is of little use. more fundamental changes must be considered commotions why celebrate this hearing.
the first part of my testimony to the complexity of the tax code and provides a chart of the marginal tax rates under the current system that have all the phaseouts of the different target attack policies and shows that the marginal tax rate as we go up with income goes up and down sort of like a city skyline. progressive figure tax rates increase with income and others favor incomes and i don't think anybody thinks the marginal tax rates should look like a city skyline, but that's what we have. this is really logically indefensible. the reason my fundamental tax reform could have a very large impact. reforms on the fixed rates but also should we form definition of the tax base as well. we can accomplish law. a well-designed reform can produce significant effects. 69 public finance economies of alan krueger and jasper turbine in 1998 found that the median respondents believe the foreign produce one percentage point higher growth over a long
period. my review of the literature with buyback suggested that this consensus that's a fair reading of the broader tax reform literature. now there are many possible reforms that would rather modify the base, but the key point is they can conceivably have effects that are big enough to in the first part of my testimony, and make these points, but i move on to look at specifically the case of the corporate tax. others have brought concerns that the corporate tax in the u.s. makes investment in the uncompetitive relative to other oecd economies. some question the extent to which effect of taxes paid by corporations are equally high as there'll be much discussion of the factors in coming months. the remainder of my testimony look specifically at the question of effective rate. i begin with the statutory analysis of the much awaited just seem. the statutory rate is an imperfect measure of effectiveness because it does not take into account the breadth of the tax base.
discusses countries with higher base interface such as the united states perhaps to be more competitive than they are. effective tax rates resolve this issue by taking into account offset the present value depreciation and other deductions that are the base. or two measures of effective rates that are the industry standard. the tax rate and the effect of marginal rate which effect decisions like should i buy a mood machine for 30 fair. we look past statutory rates and is effective rates. the united states performance in the global economy does not look better than scores affect his rates than top statutory rates. in 2010, the effective average rate which is the rate the markets when you're trying to plant them i was 29% of all the average for oecd economies was 20.5%. this is the second highest effective average rate in the
oecd. the united states compares slightly more favorably to other oecd countries when look at the marginal rate, which is the rate that influences to buy and receive. even with the effective marginal rate, were not doing well. in 2010, the u.s. marginal tax rate was 23.6%, relative to the non-u.s. oecd averages 17.2%. this was the fifth highest in the oecd. any discussion of taxis is incomplete without analysis of trends in corporate tax service of unbiased corporate tax rates in the world one might expect the revenues of corporate capital to be higher in the u.s. and other oecd economies in the but this is not the case. in fact, in the u.s. our revenue is lower than the oecd average. this pattern is consistent with literature that first response that tax revenue to changes in the corporate rate. alex bill and i found significant evidence production of the corporate tax rate in the u.s. would increase corporate tax revenue by looking at the changes in revenue in response to other nations in corporate tax rates. there's a large literature that
find a laughter and the corporate race. i had when of the code and the corporate tax rate, i'm happy with looking at this moment. >> thank you pretty much. thank you dr. hassett. mr. sullivan, you also have 10 minutes and will be part of your written testimony. thank you in the welcome. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. a quarter-century ago president reagan's decide all objectives for a bipartisan overhaul of the tax system could you lower the tax rates, cut the tax rates here does a victory for the public over the special interests. 25 years later, the need for tax reform is greater than other great tax complexity cost businesses billions. families endure hours of anxiety and paperwork and the perception of unfairness, whether it's due to outright cheating by investors hiding funds for two
special interests to lobby their way to lower taxes isn't it 02 americans being there per share. on top of all this, our tax code is dead weight on the shoulders of the american economy. the taxco's long list of subsidies defies any notion of a free market. my focus today will be on the corporation tax, which is in particular need of reform. as we just heard, japan has announced its intention to cut its corporate by five percentage points. this leaves the united states for the dubious distinction of having highest corporate tax rate in the world. and in the corporate tax rate is no longer just a good idea. it's an absolute necessity. at the same time, we must recognize our diet budget problems. we are on the road to fiscal catastrophe. and so far -- and so far, congress has done nothing to remedy the problems. to put the nation finance on a sustainable path come and that is just to get debt to gdp level to stabilize, far, far away from balancing the budget, that will
require annual deficit reduction of $500 billion a year. in these budget pressures, it seems reasonable to assume corporate tax cuts must be accompanied by corporate base broadening. mr. chairman, if fundamentals feature add you as a law as foreign job creation. if an american corporation over the fact tree in indiana, it pays 35% tax rate. at the same corporation opens the same factory ireland it pays a 4.5% tax rate but they have profit. the prophet -- the choice is between after-tax profit of $65 in the united states for 8750 in ireland. the u.s. tax provides a strong incentive for building factories in the tax countries. essential this point to discuss transfer pricing. it should be front and center of any discussion of the corporate
tax reform. transfer pricing is not a detail. data from a variety of sources as inappropriate proper shifting occurring on a large scale. why i particular like to bring to the committee's attention is over the last decade the transfer pricing problem has gone from bad to worse. okay. when you work out the amounts, which he discovered that the transfer pricing is not just a revenue problem, which could be 30, 40, $50 billion a year, but also job creation problem. the effective tax rate for a typical investment in ireland is not just 12.8% here does actually negative. this means that the u.s. treasury department is subsidizing the men in ireland. it is no different than the commerce department directly sending checks to companies. this is corporate welfare and available only to businesses
investing abroad. so there was active of one's views about whether the united states should move to a territorial system, we should all be able to agree the inefficiency of subsidies provided to request a transfer pricing is a drag on the economic growth and job creation and that any tax reform should include strong measures to reduce inappropriate proper shifting. multinationals record on domestic job creation is not good as indicated on the screen. between 1999 in 2008, they reduce the domestic employment or 1.9 million jobs and at the same time increased foreign employment at 2.4 million. conclusion, let me say the essence of a competitive tax system and a level playing field, government should not attempt to up to market, what are some losers. as you can see from this site, or corporate tax code is created winners and losers. the winners are those companies that are able to locate profit
and off shore tax savings. the losers are companies that do not have that opportunity. of course multinational corporations are important to the u.s. economy. they are resurgent in it, export intensive and america want strong multinationals. the multinationals competitiveness and overall competitiveness are not the same things. yes, u.s. multinationals create jobs, the city. domestic companies, so do small businesses and so do for that quarter companies in the united states. >> thank you for a much, dr. sullivan. thank you to our panel and i will go to questions and the the opportunity to question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we want to attempt to fill the absence about ranking member, but i think we agree with this panel the best to replace the corporate tax that we weren't to exclude the credits, deductions,
the exceptions, dr. sullivan referred to. we could have a germanic decrease in the corporate tax rate. but everybody wants to cut the loopholes for the other guy, but not the incentive that she and the corporation enjoys. and you're dealing with the corporate world, do you find any tremendous objection to starting with ground zero in terms of the loopholes that we have in the corporate system so that we can enroll easily, dramatically reduce the statutory rate for corporations? >> justice cuban camp is saying we should think of tax expenditures just like direct expenditures.
i'm ready to go tax expenditures with fine tooth comb and look for abuse and inefficient the period and i think as we say, direct spending night, everything should be on the table. and i think we would, when they start picking through the details, you'll see that most of the tax rates in the code should be trained and be much more efficient. >> so what you're saying is there's no big type. we talk about individual tax rates. it's not about mortgage deductions for charitable contributions of local and state deductions. that's the big mountain that we would have to climb. in the corporate area, what would be our biggest obstacle in your opinion if we started off with no exemptions at all? to enact what have to overcome in order to do that quite >> well, we'd have to eliminate the tax incentives for offshore job creation that is intrinsic
in our international tax rules. >> so you don't think that the corporate leaders would not think that it would be competitive if we reduce the rate and then they can decide where to make the investment. we were but a subsidy for encouraging investment abroad. >> it depends because some corn corporations under current law are not doing -- do not have opportunities are frankly, they don't have a lot of tax breaks available while others do. so the companies that do not have the tax breaks available to them are going to be much more in favor of lowering the rate >> thank you. recognizes mr. herder for 20 minutes. >> i like to thank the chairman or this very important hearing. they're a number of reasons for congress to seriously consider tax rate or. i'd like to focus on the impact on jobs.
mr. hudak come you express concern about the expiring tax provisions and the uncertainty that creates something that has long been a concern of mine as well. as someone from a small business background, i recognize that business owners have to plan for the future when they make investment decisions. tax relief that lasts only one or two years isn't all that helpful when you're planning an investment that will pay off five or 10 years down the road. could you elaborate further on how the uncertainty of temporary tax provisions affect some of the businesses to which you provide services quite >> absolutely. the tax code cause businesses to contact tickly instead of strategically. when provisions are temporary,
when provisions are put in place to incentivize, often times we miss the mark because of their complexity. section 179 for the amt fix that we wait until the very last minute of the year might be the difference between a five for $10,000 tax help, going into the next year. and that could mean the difference between the track, maybe an online market initiative or maybe a new employee. it has direct impacts. the temporary provisions and the last-minute uncertainty that we've been seeing increasingly over the last decade. it's very important to think tactically or think strategically and not tactically i had a situation where firms since we had a complicated provision that allows people who
want a certain kind of track a certain size truck was able to get it a deduction. i tax to other accountants and one truck has a long track. he was hoping to grow into it. he delivered -- he was in a paper products company and not track begins warehouse. use it to pick up his paper products, put it in the track and when the modem if you program that does house on a factor do you think he tactically and strategically and continuously. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. johnson is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, mr. mcdonald, i'd like to have your comment. you know, i think we've got irs people endure near every corporation no and you know we
still keep out of trouble theoretically and turn around and come back at you when you make a mistake, which they are there to prevent. it's a never frankly. i think you probably know that the ir irs commissioner does not file his own taxes in part because he believes the tax code is too complex. he says and i'll quote him, my views as a taxpayer for years. i find it convenient. in the tax code complex, sleazy preparer he said. that means to me that the average american can't fathom this tax code and we need to do something to fix it. but basically i want to thank you for being here and ask you to an extent has our corporate tax system adversely affect did
investment and job creation in america? >> congressman johnson, the issue of the corporate tax rate of the united states, the surgery itself soon to be the highest in the world as well as the worldwide system. disadvantages of corporation and the procter & gamble company, the company and ceo of his international competition. and on average, we pay about two percentage points higher corporate tax than those international competitors. plus these days the higher tax rate if we repatriate money we earn overseas. that is a disincentive for any company to invest in the united states. now in our case, because we are a global company and because we can't export our product, we
make a disposable diaper in pennsylvania and ship it to china and make any money on it. we do have an organization around the world and we do have 150 plants around the world. so for us, there's never really a decision of the company that we invest either here or there. we have to invest everywhere in order to sell to the 4 billion people we reach every single day with our products. >> yacktman does that make you think some of the corporate structure might move overseas to get out from under attack for? >> certainly it could be possible. but we're attempting to do is provide a competitive system for this country so that business stay here and where should the way they have for years. >> thank you. he might thank you. cannot very much. mr. stark is recognized.
[inaudible] >> all right. mr. neel. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing. a couple questions i'd like to address to the panel is because this is competent at work and often times it's reduced to jargon of you know. i a reasonable argument. i begged her to let plants with him in boston. perhaps you can let us in on how many will be added during the super bowl. a closely held secret, but is it possible, mr. mcdonald's, to focus on growth and keep the additional revenue nature of? >> congressman neal, that's a great question. we believe it's best to take a look at getting to consider them first good neighbors cfos have needed the secretary take the last week. and revenue neutrality we asked to take them off the table for
now ambushes degree that what we want to do with this is to do something that's fiscally responsible the way the chairman and i think the ranking member talk about. and i think if we work together, we can develop a competitive tax system for this country and do it in a fiscally responsible way and that's what were sending up to do. >> when mr. rangel kicked out his proposal, if you recall, the critics jumped on it. it was a starting point in the conversation. that's all it was. it was an opportunity to such a blight on the needless complexity of the current code. now let me as an example of how i think we got burned here. a few years back, the former chairman of the committee argued for repatriation and right now american companies are estimated to be sitting on more than a million, $300 billion worth of revenue offshore. but recall that money was repatriated at five and one quarter% and there were no jobs
created. in fact, in one instance, one company laid off, i believe, 6000 people in the next few weeks after the money had been repatriated. this way sure the argument that getting that money for job creation is a good idea, but what assurance would we have that is the money was returned, that in fact domestic job creation would occur? >> and if we start with the premise that we have nine competitive systems, that will lead to economic growth. i will be to business growth and a bully to job creation. as a business roundtable, we've encouraged our members do not look for one-time repatriation, but rather to work on with us that getting a competitive rate going to the territorial system so that we can grow the economy and create jobs in this country.
obviously, for a territorial system, the repatriation takes care of it self and we create jobs here. >> how many people wake up every morning and use a gillette razor? >> not enough. [laughter] >> with that answer, the gentleman's time has expired. >> i believe mr. start at the time today. we allow me to pursue the next three minutes i have along the same line. and that will cause no time to go to the other side. mr. nunes is now recognized. >> i want to thank the panelists for coming. i want to think this time, mr. chairman, to encourage you to go for the fundamental tax reform. i think the last year president obama's commission really undermined the debt commission to use your gun and some of the members served on that really undermines the power of this committee and undermines our
constitutional duties that we have in this committee. so i hope that you will work with chairman levin in a bipartisan manner and that we could move real tax reform legislation through the house this year. i think would be great if we could do it in a bipartisan way. >> mr. t. berry is recognized. >> following along with what mr. neal was talking about. i'm from columbus ohio. i'm sure in cincinnati, we saw a lot of ads regarding trade and regarding taxes and regarding incentives. in fact, the governor's race which was all about jobs, we saw the current governor attacked for a vote or votes in congress that he voted for tax breaks to send jobs, american jobs overseas good and most of that was targeted for american world wide companies who works indian
into different markets. those are obviously procter & gamble has a huge presence over his knees. can you tell me what those tax breaks are to send jobs overseas in your mind? >> congressman tiberi, as i said, we invest everywhere. our investment decisions or not we invest here or there. in fact, our international business is about 60% of our total sales. our u.s. business is about 40% of our total sales, yet we pay 60% of our taxes in the united states. one of the largest taxpayers here in the united states. what's important is as we grow overseas, that creates jobs in the united states. 20% of our jobs in the united states depend upon our international business. 40% of our jobs in ohio depend upon our international business. so even though we may be the largest consumer goods company in