tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 8, 2011 1:00am-6:00am EST
on. hillary clinton has ignored our brothers and sisters in egypt. she has the chutzpah this audience will understand. she will say your women are not being properly tendered to by the government. would you consider nominating ahead of the election somebody like a rudy guiliani to take on eric holder? consider nominating someone to be secretary of state to take on hillary clinton and allow the american people to see the kind of nominee is that you would have to go after the nominees that are very important? >> the answer is yes. i cannot give you any names. i was in new york this week.
people remarked what a remarkable city new york has become because of rudy guiliani. every time we draw you toward weakness and accommodation, uc a person of strength that stands for principles. you see the positive outcome. we see its then new york city. a five fortunate to be president, i will be a president that focuses every aspect of foreign policy upon whether or not makes america stronger. it means linking arms with their allies.
if you disagree, i do it in private. united we are strong, thank you so much. it is great to be with thee. >> they also heard from newt gingrich for about 40 minutes. >> first of all, it is good to be back with a lot of friends. we are delighted to be here. my daughter and her husband are here. three have so many friends in this audience. -- we have so many friends in here. he said we needed fundamental change. how many of you would agree that we are far enough off the track that we need fundamental
change? [applause] how many of you would agree that even if we win the election that the forces that brought this to the mess we are in will fight every day to stop us from the changes over the course of the next four years? i happen to think both of those are true. i think this election is the most important collection since 1860. that is the primary reason i am running. i think we will be a definitive choice. i believe if president obama is elected, eight years will make the country dramatically more difficult and have dramatically different problems. it is a difficult deciding point. are we in favor of radicalism? are we in favor of earning a
paycheck are giving away food stamps tax do we want to borrow 20 more dollars tax do we believe in class warfare? this applies to foreign policy. this administration gave this. this administration should be reprimanded for insulting performance the other day. this administration should stop next week's meeting with those who would censored the world on behalf of islam. there are huge gaps. the changes are so big that i did not ask anyone before me. if you say you are for me, you will go hall and say i hope he
fixes it. i do not believe that is possible to get the scale of change we need. our system does not work that way. i ask people to be with the for the next eight years to stand shoulder to shoulder to insist on fundamental change to remind the congress of what we need to do, to remind the governors and state legislatures. if you undertake change, we are going to make mistakes. if we can build feedback mechanism so you can tell when we are making mistakes when the situation has changed, we are going to be dramatically better off. then we can execute it. if we implement the 10th amendment and we shrink the bureaucracy in washington, we have to grow citizenship back home. we are talking about a fairly
profound series of changes. in order to get to foreign policy, i want to start with three fundamental questions. we have to get the economy growing again. if you look at newt.org, we have the beginnings of a contract which will finance -- finalize. you will see that we have adopted the reagan playbook. he cut taxes and developed american energy. he praised those who develop jobs. it is the opposite of obama. you'll find that exciting. we abolish the capital gains tax. they can focus on job creation. we have a 12.7% corporate rate which will a break $700 billion
for profits to come home. they will pay taxes because it is cheaper to pay them instead of hiring lawyers to avoid them. we have 100 term expensing. we want a conscious strategy. this is the key to our ability to compete with china and india. we also did change unemployment compensation see the sign up for a training program. we are using the time to rebuild our human capital. we're not paying people for doing nothing. we have a proposal to create an alternative 15% flat tax on the hong kong tradition.
or you can give up all the deductions and pay a simple tax. it has worked very well for a generation and a half. we hope to repeal obamacare on day one. we want to repeal the dodd/frank. our goal is repeal a campaign that is sent to be a victory so that we have a big enough majority. the american people have voted on an agenda and a way that enables us to execute these ideas rapidly. i am for a very dramatic american energy program. our goal is to become the world's reserve supplier of energy. i think it is very important
for us to understand that this is both in national security and economic strategy. it is the opposite of obama. if we do the right thing, if we rebuild it, if we use science and technology and dramatically improve our education, we do not have to worry about china. china cannot compete with us. it is unrealistic to think we can be stupid and as the chinese to be dumber. we have to be smart. this is a program with a very high tempo. i also want to apply this to the federal government. you need a government which is much more agile and faster and that belongs to the world that works. if we will remain the leading
country. this is the background. we need a dramatically rethought strategy for the middle east. i want to save you things that are a little bit politically incorrect. this is sort of the basic of what i want to do. we did a movie and joe and john paul the second -- on pope john paul the second. we were told that the decisive moment was the nine days that he came back in 1979 and the way that he aroused the fervor of the polish people. they thought the soviets. there are fighting a dictatorship which cut in prison
unit. they put up signs that said for poland to remain poland, 2 + two must always equal 4. i was intrigued. it was very profound. it to plus two equals four is a fact, you now have a factual basis. poland was a fact. i got involved. he writes that there are times a man can be killed for sang to plus two equals four. we have a solidarity sign. or well wrote about london. it this is the centralized planning. it will lead to a dictatorship. orwell has the state torture were -- torture says it's because this. lincoln said if a man cannot
agree that two plus two equals four, you will never win the argument. fact have no basis. i want to say a few things that actually correct. it took a part of the state department as an implementation system that cripples the capacity of the united states to do things in places like iraq and afghanistan. i stand by that today. it is fine to go in and take out saddam, you should be able to do it in three weeks. you then want to hire the regular army and get out.
you do not want to try to redesign it. it is a long proposition that we will fail. in december, i gave interviews. i said thanks to him, we have gone off the cliff. we have changed our mission without our resources. we were trying to undertake something we cannot achieve. i am very worried about our entire relationship. it is based on a pack of lies. it is based on a pack of self perception.
it is an act of this honesty. they have to take up the word is lomb. it is an outrageous denial of truth. he said how proud he was that we were helping with the project. why in a peace process with israel need to have a missile defense from gaza? can he imagine that our next neighbor were firing missiles at us? this is why it was so utterly outrageous. how about same gift of violence and come to the table? it is always israel's fault and no matter how bad the other side is, that has to stop here.
we are in the long struggle with radical islamists. we have not yet had the long telegram. we have not yet had the three speeches of 1947. we have not had the airlift. if not developed a thin natural one. we obtain the soviet empire for 45 years. it is a very difficult national dialogue. we need this conversation. we have mortal enemies who are determined to kill us.
we allow them to sit up and morally indefensible one-sided conversation. the fact that secretary clinton would talk about discrimination against women in israel and then meet with [inaudible] [applause] the fact that the state department will hold a meeting on behalf of censoring its is not going to say that this is terrific. there were excited about the meaning. pteron hold a conference on terrorism. the secretary general sent a
i will only appoint him if he will agree that his first job is to complete and thorough transformation of the state department. added to the proposition that it is the first business of the state department. i will ask the congress to liberate the intelligence community so we can go back to effective covert operations and to effective intelligence gathering and are relying on
pseudo allies who have clearly been conspiring to hide been logged in for years. let me be clear. i need your help to get the nomination. beyond that, i need your help to make sure we have a big majority in the senate. ben nelson has to go. let's go down the list. we want to pick up enough senate seat so we have an effective governing majority. i will ask the congress to say in session and to pass the repeal of obamacare. before i am sworn in.
must be a great shock to have me showing back up again. people talk about electability. if i do between -- economic the -- nominee, i will challenge the president to 73 our debates with a timekeeper with no moderator. i will can see that he can use a teleprompter. -- i will can see -- concede that he can use a teleprompter.
i am a pretty good strategist. there are three reasons he will accept. the first is, he announced in february 2007 in springfield. he is a graduate of columbia, editor of the harvard law review, the greatest orator of the debt -- of the democratic party. how does he look in the mirror and say he is afraid to debate some guy who talked at westminster college? the third reason is practical. i am a student of history. unlike the president, i have studied american history. when abraham lincoln announces in 1858 -- he has been out of
office for 10 years. he was announcing against the most famous center in the united states and the presumed next president. he said to douglas, we have 105 days left. why don't we debate every day? douglas said, "i don't think so." wherever douglas went, lincoln would show up one day later. douglas began to figure out the news coverage was always lincoln's rebuttal. then he said, i will debate you. there are nine congressional districts. it was widely covered back then and present in virtually every newspaper in the country. lincoln had the debates reprinted as a book the next year, which was a major step for the presidency. i would argue that it is the finest collection of discussion about the nature of freedom that you will see in american politics. let's remember how lincoln got douglas to decide.
if the president has not accepted by the time we get to tampa, in my acceptance speech, i will announce that the white house, as of that moment, is my scheduler. [applause] wherever the president goes, i will show up for hours later -- four hours later. in the age of instant television news, i doubt if they can take the pressure for more than two or three weeks. but if they would rather have me chase him all the way to election day and have a country watch a man afraid to defend his own record, i think that will work equally well. so either way. i think we have a couple of microphones. let me take questions for a
minute or two. >> i am the republican district leader for the oldest republican crut reject republican club in america -- the oldest republican club in america. it is cited in the east village in manhattan. we have to events of great interest to this audience. we were the neighborhood that reclaimed israel to live in 1848, and abraham lincoln became president by his speech at cooper union, a nation divided cannot stand. my question is, we have lost our manufacturing base in this country. thousands of companies have
moved overseas, particularly in new york state, which was once called the empire state, but some of us call it the empty state now. under the leadership of and cox, are republican state chairman, we are trying to bring back business to our state. how would you as president bring back the many, many businesses that have gone overseas? how would you do that? >> what you described earlier is a key step. you have 100% expense and, so manufacturing firms can write off all their investment in one year. the 12.5% corporate tax rate, zero capital gains. in addition, you have a retrained work force because of a new model of unemployment compensation combined with training.
i would replace the internal protection agency with an internal solutions agency -- environmental solutions a disease. you create a 21st century food and drug administration whose job is to go from the laboratories to the patient as rapidly as possible, and designed a new model of occupational safety and health which starts with performance and says if you don't have any problems, no one is going to visit you. that means you automatically eliminate most of the bureaucratic baloney. a still will -- one still mills said problem is not with china, it is with the government. >> i am a dentist from columbia, maryland. many of the people here live -- it can be extremely frustrating to know that your vote will not make an ounce of difference as there is not enough republican support to encourage good candidates to run. if you were chosen as the candidate, what will you do to
help elect republicans in local races in the blue parts of our nation? >> that is a very good question. first of all, remember that my background, having been born in pennsylvania, was that we arrived at fort benning, ga., when i was a junior in high school. a first campaign was the nixon campaign, and there were no republicans in georgia. today when we totally dominate the state, we have taken a stake that was totally blew and it ceased to be blue. i have some knowledge of how you do this. for this particular campaign, i have two major breakthroughs for all of us to think about. the first is, i will be preaching inclusion, not outreach. out reaches when five white guys hold a meeting and call you. inclusion is when you are in the meeting. whether you are latino americans, native american, whatever your background, we want to design a new model
system where everybody is in the same room. california republicans cannot figure out that there are 600,000 koreans in los angeles. they were thrilled at a republican candidate for president was actually willing to talk to them. inclusion is half of this. the second half a simple, the underlying court symbol of the campaign next year. on one side, you have the best food stamp president in american history. more people have been put on food stamps by barack obama's policies than by any president. on the other side you have a candidate who wants to create jobs. we brought unemployment down to four 0.2% created 11 million jobs in the four years i was speaker. there is not a precinct in
america or if you walk up to every door and say, do you want your children to have food stamps or a paycheck? it is a minute to believe that people like to be dependent. i intend to go into every neighborhood. i hope the naacp give me a chance to address their convention. i was in new york this week. this will be a 50 state campaign, and we will cpac folks in every state in the united states. >> as you know, many people in this room have confirmed -- had our worst fears confirmed last month when the iaea came out with the report about how close iran is to a nuclear bomb. what would you do about that,
and also we have over four thousand syrian dissidents who have been killed over the last eight months. what would deduces -- to support the dissidents who want to overthrow assad which tracks i believe the only rational long- term policy is regime replacement. we need to go back to having covert capability. i would focus very intensely on that. 40% of the gasoline they use has to be imported. they only have one very large refinery. i would be focused on how to covertly sabotage it every day. i would follow the reagan playbook. i would fund every dissident group in the country. i would do everything i could to under the regime and keep it off balance. all these studies -- it is amazing to me how little people study history.
iaea says we are about this close or not this close. we are totally wrong in the 1940's about the soviet nuclear weapon. why would you think that we can relax? we know they have a program. you have to assume they are going to make a breakthrough. it is better to stop them early than to stop them late. [applause]
on syria, the policy of the nine states should be to replace the assad regime. we should do everything we can call verbally to help the dissident rebel and help them defeat the assad government. it is a dictatorship of very small minority in a country that is largely sunni. it would be a significant blow to iran to lose syria and to lose assad. it is worth the risk. to break up the iranian relationship. >> i am a student at rutgers university in new jersey. i would like to ask about people who have concerns about your elect ability, they tend to focus not on your congressional record but were on the accusations of past ethics violations. how would you answer that in the scheme of its electability? >> i think nancy pelosi has done a lot to answer it in the last few days. the democrats filed 84 charges against me. 83 were dismissed. the only one that arrive was the fact that my lawyers had written a letter inaccurately and i
signed it. the democrats refuse to compromise on that. she was one of the three democrats in the process of refusing to compromise. if she was in the middle of it, how non-partisan and unjust do you think the process was? on every charge, the people said -- for example, did i inappropriately teach a course using tax-deductible money? the irs backed off, apologize, and said they were wrong. those got no coverage or were on page 63. the democrats decided in the fall of 1995 that it could not defeat our program, but they could defeat me. they ran 121,000 negative ads attacking me and filed 84 ethics charges.
if we had been clever, i would have immediately filed a counter charge against them for violating the ethics process. the attrition effect on the members of that many ads and charges has grabbed lily -- has gradually worn down people. i was ultimately so battered by the process that i lost the ability to lead. it is of public record. you can go to my campaign saw in you will see all those. then you make a decision. i have found it is not much of an issue and people are prepared to can see that my record of achievement is vastly greater than whatever scarring the democrats managed to do. [applause] >> i am an entrepreneur from houston, texas. yesterday's, president obama
gave one of those two plus two equals 563 speeches. he argued about fundamental fairness in the united states, without talking about the obstacle to fundamental fairness, witches the teachers' union. what would you do project which is the teachers' union. what would you do to narrow the education gap between wealthy and poor kids who are trapped in a system that is failing us as a country? >> sometime in the near future i am going to give a speech on inequality from a couple of angles. i believe in levelling up, giving everyone a chance to be more successful. he believes in leveling down. i believe in wealth creation. he believes in wealth redistribution. i believe the primary problem with the very poor is they are trapped in government institutions that destroyed their future. the fundamental -- this is why i want to have the debates next year. the difference will be so vivid
and clear to most americans. i want to take one minute to talk about a recent example of this. i believe it is really important for children to learn to work. how many of you earned some money before you were 15? i was with a fairly wealthy young lady today's ago who could clearly be living on her trust. her grandfather paid her to run errands she said she was five when this started. why am i saying this? the other day i said -- and this goes all the way back to an article that was written 20 years ago. if you look at the price of new york city school janitors who are paid more -- the entry level gender is paid twice as much as the entry-level teacher because of the unions.
my model would be to have a janitor and an assistant janitor who are full brunt of the know what they are doing, then to take the rest of the money and higher lots of kids part-time. they could be a clerk in the front office. they could work in the library. you could hire them part-time to help in the kitchen. there are lots of things you could do. these are in the very poorest neighborhoods for kids are in public housing, surrounded by people who have no experience in working. it is exactly what happened to moynihan, when he used common sense 30 years ago, and the left went crazy. if the problem is that we need to help people learn the culture of work and learn the culture of saving and learned the idea of value over time, you just made this country dramatically more conservative. jack kemp and i used to argue
for equity in public housing. people in public housing who do not suffer from severe mental or physical problem should have a responsibility to help take care of their apartment. if they take care of it well enough over time, they could have sweat equity. they could actually acquire ownership. barney frank got up and said, do you realize if you allow poor people in new york city to actually on their apartments, the department could be sold for several million dollars, and they would not be poor anymore. [laughter] i am for an america where there are no more poor because they all had a chance to rise. thank you all very much. [applause]
>> hear what the candidates are saying from the campaign trail that the newly designed campaign -- c-span website for campaign 2012. >> this is a time for america to get serious about our challenges. the big one that i started with is our budget and our spending. if investment is not landing in your marketplace, then it is landing somewhere else. capital is a coward, you have to argue. it is not landing in your marketplace, it is landing somewhere else. >> it is very interesting concept, the idea of having a consumption based tax as opposed to an income based tax. to go through that debate right now and have a two-year debate on the care tax, we need to do something now. >> read the latest from political reporters and candidates, all at c- span.org/campaign2012.
>> in a few moments, a hearing on terrorist threats to u.s. including comments from rick perry. rick santorum and michele bachman. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow. the house judiciary committee will hear from eric holder about operation "fast and furious." its past weapons to smuggler said they could be traced to mexican drug cartels. that is a 9:30 a.m. eastern. then a hearing on the supply. witnesses from around the world.
>> why could the congress as a model matter of the power fund cameras? >> they could have the provision to fund them. they demand it be used into the core power. that is the difference. it is difficult to know where to draw it. >> tuesday said committee met to discuss televising the supreme court. you can learn more about this far special web page. it has videos of members of congress talking about cameras
in the court. >> rick perry told the republican jewish coalition that he believes the obama administration has undermined u.s. relations with israel. his comments are a little more than 40 minutes. thank you cheryl. it is an honor to be with you today and to share my thoughts on faith, foreign policy and the free state of israel. it is great to see so many friends with the republican jewish coalition. including two vital supporters, dr. jeffrey feingold and kirk blalock. as we gather today, i am struck by the coincidence that two of
the american citizens being unlawfully detained abroad today are jewish, alan gross in cuba, and warren weinstein by al qaida in pakistan. in both cases their offense was spreading political and economic freedom to better the lives of less advantaged people around the globe. their selfless commitment to this work is a testament to the great value america's jewish community has brought to our
nation, and our government should be working aggressively to achieve their speedy release. the repressive castro regime should not be rewarded with increased tourism while mr. gross languishes in prison, and pakistani authorities should clearly understand the significance of rescuing mr. weinstein from terrorist elements within their borders if they value the foreign aid they seem to take for granted. we have an administration in washington today whose foreign policy is an incoherent mess. they embolden our adversaries while isolating our allies. there is no greater example of president obama's failed foreign policy than how he has
undermined our historic friendship with israel. israel is the oldest democracy and our strongest ally in the middle east. our relationship is founded on three basic principles, prosperity, security and freedom. with a robust economy, israel is a strong trading partner, importing our goods and supplying us with both high-tech innovations and specialized natural resources.
i am proud a texas company, noble energy, is supplying a large percentage of the natural gas israel depends upon today. israel's security is critical to america's security. we must not forget it was israel that took out the nuclear capabilities of iraq in 1981 and syria in 2007. in both instances, their actions made the free world safer. and israel shares a commitment to our core principles of personal freedom.
and yet president obama has systematically undermined america's relationship with israel, specifically on the question of a negotiated settlement with the palestinian people. i want to be clear i support the goal of a palestinian state, but it should be the palestinians who meet certain pre-conditions. and those pre-conditions must include statehood that is directly negotiated between israeli and the palestinian leaders, second, a palestinian recognition of israel's right to exist as a jewish state, and third, palestinian leaders must renounce the terrorist activities of hamas. instead, the administration has
insisted on previously unheard- of preconditions for israel, such as an immediate stop to all settlement activity. president obama has suggested the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations. and he has instituted the practice of "indirect talks", subverting the oslo accords. yet his administration seemed blindsided when this fall the palestinians declared a new state with east jerusalem free of any jewish settlements as its capital, based on the 1967 borders, established through the united nations without israel's involvement. but in effect all the palestinians were doing was taking president obama up on the concessions he had already made.
the threat posed by iran makes our friendship with israel all the more critical. as the international atomic energy agency report last month confirmed, iran is marching unimpeded toward nuclear weapons. we also know iran has chemical and biological weapons programs, and that they are accelerating their ballistic missile capabilities so that they can deliver these weapons. the islamic republic has made no mystery of their intent to use these weapons against israel, and eventually the united states. as this threat gathers, our president has pursued a failed policy of outreach to tehran.
this administration was silent during the green revolution in 2009. and they have avoided tougher sanctions that would cripple iran's economy. i have repeatedly called for the sanction of iran's central bank. recently, the u.s. senate vote unanimously to sanction iran's central bank. so now president obama is isolated even from his own party on the iranian question. and here is why. democrats know what we know, current sanctions may have caused "significant discussion" in tehran as vice president biden recently said, but they have not actually stopped progress towards a nuclear weapon. this increasingly leaves us with only two options, a military strike or a nuclear iran.
many seem to think that israel can step in and dispense with the iranian treat with through targeted strikes as they did in iraq and syria, taking the pressure off the united states. but iran is a much greater challenge, and israel would face terrible reprisals from tehran and its terrorist proxies. so the military option is not one that israel would take eagerly or lightly, but only after long deliberation and in the face of overwhelming evidence that iran is on the verge of an operational nuclear weapon.
what israel's military needs from the united states is our ongoing security support through hardware and guaranteed supply chains. but israel also needs our vocal, unerring moral support in the face of what will be inevitable international condemnation if she is forced to strike. here's what israel does not need. israel does not need our president demanding gratitude for being the best friend israel has ever had while his secretary of defense rails that israel has to "get back to the damn table" with the palestinians, and his secretary of state questions the viability of israel's democracy, even as his ambassador to belgium blames anti-semitism among muslims on israel's failure to accommodate the palestinians all of which happened in the last week alone. this torrent of hostility
towards israel does not seem to have been coordinated, but rather is the natural expression of this administration's attitude towards israel. i want you to know american- israeli policy is not a box to be checked as part of my campaign. it is both a deeply personal issue for me, and is also a cornerstone of my larger global strategy. i feel a special connection to israel, dating back nearly 20 years when i first visited the holy land.
i have been to the western wall, that most sacred of symbols where jewish pilgrims gather to pray today, and that has withstood the assaults on the jewish people since the times of the early romans. i walked in the footsteps of the heroes of massada, a fortress of defiance symbolizing their loyalty to freedom more than life itself. i took a group of texas business leaders on a tour of sderot in gaza. a wanted them to see what everyday life was like.
i wanted our taxes business men and women to walk into a children have to be covered by protective shield so that they can cost side. shelter, a clarifying moment for each one of us as we recognized the constant threat of attack even the children of israel live under. and i had the distinct pleasure of sharing a meal with a former soviet dissident who spent nine years in a gulag, including 400 days in punishment cells - natan sharansky - that great champion of democracy who now calls israel home and is a living link to the atrocities of brutal regimes.
when you visit israel, you gain an understanding of a nation that has survived for more than 60 years despite living in a constant state of siege, but something else becomes evident about the jewish people in israel and around the world, a resolve to live free, and a willingness to go to any length to preserve your history, your heritage and your faith that is unsurpassed by any people on earth. today six million jews live in israel, the largest population of jews in the world. whether you are old enough to remember the 1940s or not, you know the significance of that number. when we speak of the unspeakable, it is often said, "never again." in making this vow, we honor those who suffered the most
inhumane treatment, those, like us, who were made in the image of god. and in making this vow, we recognize that peace and freedom are fragile enterprises that can only be preserved with determined vigilance. it is in the spirit of those words "never again" that we must do everything in our power to make the world safe for freedom and democracy. we must have faith we are in the right, and we must fight with the might of a super-power. that is why i utterly reject president obama's political strategy to hold our military budget hostage unless congress gives in to his proposed tax and spending increases.
we have already sacrificed too many of our defense capabilities to misguided austerity that will not balance our budget, and will weaken our ability to defend ourselves and our allies. we must demand action in congress to block these cuts that threaten to "hollow out" our forces and prevent president obama from using the capabilities our war fighters need as political pawns in a budgetary fight. the men and women of our military are the greatest ambassadors for freedom the world has ever known. in the last two decades they have repelled the forces of oppression from places like kuwait, bosnia, iraq and afghanistan. in fact, no country has done more to liberate millions of oppressed people, many of them muslim, since the end of the cold war.
our freedom agenda applies to all, regardless of faith, because i believe every human being was created to live free, and worship freely. and because there are numerous countries that oppress freedom, that deny basic human rights, i am adamant that any discussion of foreign aid should start at zero. but let me be clear. israel is our strategic ally. america long ago ended traditional foreign aid to israel. strategic defense aid to israel
will increase under a perry administration. [applause] and any of those other countries we decide where those dollars are going to be going to have an agenda that advances the american interest. our nation was founded on the principle of religious liberty. like israel, many of america's earliest ancestors saw this safe-haven, a safe haven from religious persecution. they came to the new world to leave behind the injustices of
the old, to live in freedom. for many, to live out their faith. america is rooted in that judeo- christian set of of values. our lot comes from the ancient law of the torah. they come as principals handed down from our ancestors. they fought and bled and died to defend them. it is more than that. it says, jeremiah wrote, the law of return on our part -- law written on our heart. faith and freedom is the foundation of our nation. my favorite founding father was a champion of religious freedom, james madison. he wrote in the first amendment, the civil rights are none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship. nor shall be full and equal
rights be in any manner infringed. my faith will guide me as your president. what i mean by that is not just faith in god. it is also face in the ability of our people to accomplish the impossible, the miraculous that they have done before and will again. as i travel across the country and i see the fight we are in, people without a job, uncertain return for help, -- where to turn for help, i have turned my thoughts to jeremiah. i think of his return to israel. finding the city walls laid to
waste, the people dismayed, dead, given up hope. he gathers the people together, he told them what he would do. then said i unto them, you see the distress that we are in, how jerusalem lies in ruins and hell its gates have been burned by fire. come, -- and how it's gates had been burned by fire. come, let us build the wall together so that we may no longer be in disgrace. he did not do this work by himself. he did it seriously because he understood the desperate need. when their enemies came, he urged the people on, to keep building with a brick in one hand and a sword in the other,
until the city could stand tall again. bring america back again with faith. faith in the almighty, faith in our friends and our allies, and faith in each other to not give up hope. we must keep the law written on our hearts. we must put our minds at things above. we must set ourselves to the work that must be done. so come, let us rebuild this great country together again. god bless you. [applause] thank you. thank you. cheryl? cheryl instant did me a was to
attempt to answer any of your questions. -- instructed me i was to attempt to answer any of your questions. i will do my best. >> jeff from national tennessee. i want to ask you about health care. replace obamacare with what? what was the prices that came up the force that to happen? it was driven by the insurance companies. i am watching my career disappear as a result of obamacare. what are you going to do if you are able to repeal obamacare? you have not had a great record in texas with insuring people. i want to know what your plan is. thank you. >> i want to disagree with you with one thing. we have a great record in the state of texas of taking care of our people. [applause]
you will find some of the greatest health care in the nation, whether it is the university of texas or myriad of other places where capable health care is practiced. one of the reasons is the senator and the work she did buy passing the most sweeping tort reform. [applause] if you are a physician or if you are involved in a hospital, you are protected against frivolous lawsuits. we have seen more than 20,000 positions licensed to practice medicine in texas since 2004. i would give direct credit to all of that. those positions know they can come into texas. let me get into your specific question of how do we deal with
this issue of health care? there are a number of medicare -- it is one side of it. i think paul ryan and some of his colleagues have come up with good ideas and concepts of have to deal with the medicare issue. i am not going to go deeply into that. please, if you will take a look at what congressman ryan and tom coburn and his colleagues have laid out, how to make medicare more available, more affordable, with a lot of different options, so that individuals are more in control. to truly allow for that patient- doctor relationship. i have been asking multiple administration's -- i have been the governor of texas for 11 years. this is not a new gig for me. we have been asking for health and human services to give us
some waivers so that we can better run health care in the state of texas. i will assure you, practically every governor and the legislature knows how to deliver health care, had to give better options than a one-size- fits-all medicaid program. as the president of the united states, i would allow the states to put their programs -- if there are states that say, we do not want to do that, we want you all to do that, we will leave them that option. i will suggest the vast majority thehe states, because of cost -- there will be better health care, more options, more people injured if we have that kind of thing detached from -- where people insured if we have that kind of thing detached from
washington, d.c. i am a big believer in options. there are folks who are 25 years old. they do not want to pay an insurance premium. the idea is that government mandated insurance, i am against that. when i talk about freedom, i believe it. i believe in the 10th amendment, the state being able to make those decisions. if you want to live in a state that has high premiums, high taxes, high regulation, you can go to california. [laughter] people will vote with their feet. they will go to the places -- whether they are businessmen, private citizens, that was the beauty of what our founding fathers were talking about when they greeted the federal government.
they give those powers to the federal government. they said, one of the things i laid out about 10 days ago that has gotten an amazing response across the country, i was talking about overhauling washington, d.c. as i have read in the newspaper and found out that 7.7 trillion dollars has gone from washington to wall street financiers and we did not know about it. that drives me up the wall. it infuriates me that washington and wall street have become so corrupt and interactive together -- i called for an overhaul of washington, d.c. the first part of that is a part-time congress. let them go home and work a job like the rest of the legislature. live under the laws that they have. they have regular jobs back
home. we meet for 140 days every other year. we of the 13th largest economy in the world, we are able to get our work done. it works. the idea we have to have all these people in washington, d.c. spending all this money is not right. [applause] excuse me. i got rid of some of their. -- right off subject there but it was spot on. yes, sir. >> from the liberty and freedom foundation based in texas. obama said that free-market sps and individualism does not work. how can a country that is built in the but the say that about --
that is built in the liberty say that about our past? can you give him an example about have texas -- how texas works. you have created jobs where he has failed. >> it is not just taxes, it is iowa, new hampshire, live free or die. it is all across this great country. government is the problem. [applause] it is the problem whether it is in the states or washington, d.c. in particular. i am not a psychologist. i do not know how to get inside thepresident's head and ask question of, why do you think that? what we utah? where were you raised that that was -- what were you taught? where were you raised that that was penetrated into your psyche?
that america is not a strong, powerful, independent, free- thinking, free-market, and cabalistic driven? -- capitalistic driven? people give up their lives every day to come to this country because they understand what america is all about. that is what we cannot lose. we cannot lose -- i will never go into another country anywhere and apologize for america. never. [applause] we have freed too many people. we have given too much blood on foreign soil to allow people to live free. are we perfect? no. do we allow, because we were busy doing our job or whatever, to let washington get a of control and let washington, d.c. do deals and get into bed with
wall street and our next generation is paying for it? yes. that is our responsibility for not watching close enough. it is not going to change unless we put an outsider in. i am telling you, they do not want me up here. this city is not ready for me. [applause] the idea that we have a president that would say that our country has lost its soul, that is what that says to me, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible. [applause] >> i am from north carolina. i invite you to talk about our universities. it seems like we are paying for
our own defamation through student loans funded by the government. we send our 18-year-old who love our country to school. four months later they pop out, they despise america, they hate capitalism. we are helping to fund this. do you have any ideas on how we can stop this 95% liberal, social, marxist -- using of government funds to help maintain that system? >> um. [laughter] here is what we have done in the state of texas. we have started asking -- in 2007 i set out a set of reforms that asked questions to our universities, the administration, about how many hours are your purposes working?
what type of money are they bringing in? a cost-benefit analysis of the universities. it caused a great push back. universities do not like to be asked. they do not want to be treated like anything other than -- send us more money and leave us alone. i say that with great respect. we have some fabulous universities in the state of texas. they are all costing too much money and we are not getting a good return on our investment. we are not getting the utilization. i have called for a $10,000 bachelor's degree. the first time the university guys heard that, there had exploded. they would greatly offended. -- their heads exploded. they were greatly offended.
you can do that today. you do not have to spend $100,000 to send your child to a university and let them spend that period of time there. the issue of what they are learning while they are there, i will put that burden on the governors and the regents who are the managers of those universities. i do not know how every state's universe the structure is, in texas, the government -- the governor makes appointments with the board of regents. hopefully, there is not too much of that being taught in texas universities. i am sure there is a bit of it. the free thought of what goes on, i respect that greatly. my daughter came out of texas a&m and she is still a
republican conservative. [applause] one more. i have one more question. >> i am it happens to the -- conservative at rutgers university. >> how is it going at rutgers? >> i'm in middle eastern studies major. i am proud to fight. i have seen the violence occurring in mexico. according to the u.s. department, 60% of the budget comes from buying marijuana. would you allow states to experiment different methods of regulating marijuana? >> no. let me tell you why. i'm not going to walk away with a straight no. i do believe we can win the war
on drugs. we have to fight it first. when the president went to el paso and said that the border was safer than it has ever been, that tells me the administration is not serious about securing the border. i know, i had to deal with this for 11 years. i have had to deal with this issue. we spend taxpayer dollars on securing that border. i know had to shut the border down. it takes a substantial commitment by the federal government. the state cannot do it by themselves. securing the border can be done with an increase of boots on the ground, aviation, i can assure you with grown aircraft -- with dron aircraft we can know everything going along the border. that is what needs to happen, a president committed to securing
the border. i called for a new monroe doctrine. i said it is time for america to implement a monroe doctrine like we did in the 1820's, as we dealt with cuba in the 1960's. the of iranian embassy in venezuela is the largest and iranian embassy in the world. he know what is going on there. -- you know what is going on there. we want to be a coalition in the western hemisphere. the panama canal opened back up in 2014. we must, as a country, think about our security and its western hemisphere. it starts with securing the border with mexico and the united states, i will promise you this one thing. 12 months after being sworn in, that border will be shut down
and secure. god bless you. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the republican jewish coalition forum also heard from rick santorum who said as president he would prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. this is a little more than a half hour. [applause] >> is an honor to be here today. let me thank you for those remarks. i learned a lot from the health-
care industry. we are here today, i want to thank you, thank you for having this forum. i look forward to giving some brief remarks and then opening it up to your questions. i want to thank them for the great work they do in reaching out to the jewish community with the principles of the republican party. we have seen a dramatic transformation in this country with jews now understanding the valleys of the republican party -- values of the republican party. we have seen dramatic growth. a lot of that is to the credit of the republican jewish coalition. i look forward to working with them as president of the united states to continue that effort. today is december 7, a date that will live in infamy.
it was the day the united states was blindsided, because for a long time a lot of people did everything they could to avoid war. it was at the price of almost losing the entire world to darkness. it reminds us that america is vulnerable. it reminds us also that people here in washington, people around the country, of good will can have different persian -- approaches to solving problems, see things differently, we need to learn from history. history taught us that on june 14, 1940, when france fell, with some churchill -- winston churchill went on the radio and pleaded for america. we did nothing. we debate it. in the summer of 1941, after all of europe have gone dark and the
pacific was going dark, we had a debate on the floor of the house of the positives to determine whether we would abolish -- house of representatives to determine whether we would abolish the draft. people wanted to avoid war. wanted to turn their eye to a gathering storm. we came within one vote of abolishing the draft. it would have made it even harder for us to arm up. i know people in this country are tired of war. we are all tired of war. our pearl harbor already happened. it happened 10 years ago on september 11. we need to understand that this war is unlike the war we fought during world war ii. it is the long war. why do we call it the long war? we call it the long war because this is a war that has been
fought in the past, it was long, 1000 years long. along with people who had radical ideas that they wanted to spread throughout the world. western civilization one that long war, that doesn't year war. -- thousand year war. if not for one word that war would be olver. -- over. that word is oil. it has given capabilities equal to our own. there are some who are the most radical and the most touching -- threatening, and yet we see a blind eye towards those radicals. the last campaign, president obama referred to the revolutionary republic --
revolutionary government of iran as a little country in the middle east. it is not a little country, it is a serious threat to the future of our country. the entire region, we see evidence of the president post of policies of ignoring the threat -- the president's policies of ignoring the threat of islam. we see them going to cairo and inviting the islamic world to the table. encouraging the palestinians to offer a state could revolution -- a statehood revolution, hoping that would be the case. we see the arab spring, that should have started in the summer of 2009 with the revolution in iran. this president, faced with a chemical regime that has been at war with us since 1979, who has attacked the united states multiple times and has been
attacking our men and women in afghanistan and iraq with the most feared weapons, ied's, insurgence trained in iran, funded in iran, and yet we have done nothing about that. and yet, we had the opportunity in the summer of 2009 when a real revolution started, to do something. in 2004 i introduced a bill. we worked gather, the republican jewish coalition worked together, because we saw the threat that iran was. even in the midst of the wars, we understood that the real existential threat to the state of israel, a real threat to the security of this country was iran. we worked together on a piece of legislation in 2004. i introduced it, i got no co-
sponsoring. it put sanctions on iran. we knew better. they said there was no pro- democracy movement, it had been eliminated. we said no, we are going to find and nurture that movement. we know there are decent people in iran who want to over to of this regime. even though there were no co- sponsors, it became more apparent, organizations did their work, we ended up with 60 co-sponsors. i took the bill to the floor of the house. it was opposed by joe biden. i always have the suggestion, if you are trying to figure out what your world view is, find out what joe biden thinks and then take the opposite opinion. [applause] you will be right 100% of the
time. joe biden, and ultimately, unfortunately, president bush opposed me. opposed the bill on the floor of the united states and that. we failed by three votes. within four months, very near the exact bill passed unanimously. we had in place sanctions on their nuclear program, funding that is going to go to this movement. the past administration and this administration did not spend the resources to develop those relationships and hell or those in the street. when 2009 came around, -- and in power -- empower those in the streets. when 2009 came around, we took no stand. they fell. interestingly enough, a year
later, when a group of radicals, including a muslim brotherhood took to the streets in egypt against our allies, against our friends, who have not attacked us, declared war against us, who was not a radical theocrat, in that case we quickly jumped on board with the radical muslim brotherhood in the streets. we threw a cold, but nevertheless, friend under the bus. we continue that pattern. we continue that pattern. in libya and here in syria. we established diplomatic relationships with assad and have the embassy there, in spite of all of the crisis to remove him. we have sat on the sideline and done nothing other than say, we
would like to see him leave. it is like filling out your bracket for the ncaa. it is not going to work unless you have a policy. this president, for every thug and hooligan, for every radical islamist, he has had nothing but appeasement. we saw that during the lead up to world war ii, appeasement. we saw that if we can open up the negotiating, this will work. ladies and gentlemen, learn from history, not just the history of world war ii, the thousand year history before that. we need a president who can talk truthful to the american public about what is at stake. what is at stake is clear as we look at the situation in iran. iran is on the present this of
developing a nuclear -- is on the precipice of developing a nuclear weapon. we need someone who has the courage of their convictions, the experience, and the will to stand up and do what is right. to confront this radical theocracy that if they develop a nuclear weapon would change, not just the middle east, it would change the world. there is no greater purveyors of terror in the world than iran. there is no greater threat to the existence of israel and iran. we must stand up. say, not only that they should not get a nuclear weapon, the president says that, it is another one of those picks, it does not matter unless you have the power and the will to do something about it. [applause]
i laid of a plan of what i would do if i was president of the united states. it is that with a record of working with you and working with the armed services committee, i visited some of those sites. i helped fund joint programs to help protect israel from those missiles. that is not enough. we have to stop them. we have to make it very clear to iran that the united states -- the united states, as did not say israel, it is in our security interest. the united states will stop the run from getting a nuclear weapon, period. [applause] before i tell you how we will do that, i will tell you why it is important. iran is different as a nuclear power than any of the power that exists. iran is not a country where
mutual assured destruction will work. mutual assured destruction works if you are a country that is atheistic, as the soviet union was, and believes once liked is extinguished in this world, it is over. it is different if you are an islamist republic who believes that the principal virtue of the republic of iran is martyrdom. this is what they hope for. it will deliver them to their 72 virgin. bernard lewis said that mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent to iran. it is an inducement to iran. ladies and gentlemen, we cannot sit and hope to contain iran. [applause]
what we need to do very quickly is to use those funds to help the people and the streets of iran and their homes, locked away, because they are afraid, because the united states was not there for them, we need to help them. we need to provide them funds. we need to provide all sorts of support from telecommunications and other was to those who would like to see -- it means verbal support for a new regime in iran. we need to have sanctions, yes, like the sanctions that passed in the united states senate where we do things to cripple iran and their ability to conduct business. we need to shut off the oil supply. the chinese will continue to buy it will buy. if you of the only customer, you repay a lot less.
it will hurt their economy. we need to do everything we can to stop their nuclear program. that means using covert activities like may have occurred recently in iran. right? [applause] i would like to think the united states was involved in that. recordhe president's with osama bin laden and not being able to keep a secret of anything good he did, i suspect we would already know if we had something to do with that. [applause] secondly, with respect to covert activity, we have to be clear. anyone working on this program will be termed an enemy combat andant -- combatant and taken up as a threat to this country. [applause]
we need to be working with israel break them, publicly, saying to the of bringing government -- we need to be working with israel right now, publicly, saying to the iranian government, you will not have a weapon developed. it will open up your facilities or we will work together to degrade that program. [applause] people have said to me, you talk a lot of national security, i do. i believe there is a good chance that by next election day the national security issues will be of higher priority than the economy. let's not make any mistakes, a national security of that of our economy. the idea that -- our national
security effects our economy. the idea that, all of this going on, iran getting a nuclear weapon and being able to purvey terror with impunity. they know that. that is why they want it so badly, so they can continue to do what we just saw. the president announced that the iranians were trying to kill the saudi ambassador. what was our response? nothing. again, nothing. ladies and gentlemen, we need to stand up, and we need to stand up because it will affect our economy. i have a bold plan to try to get this economy going, to throw at the tax code, reduce rates, supplied the code, cut the corporate tax -- simplify the code, cut the corporate tax, so we can get jobs back in america. we have all sorts of ideas.
unless we are safe and secure, none of that will do much if we are in a state of panic. you understand, it is one of the reasons i came here today. i have spent a little bit of time in iowa lately. i will be back. i was there yesterday. i am leaving tomorrow morning. i came back just to be here, just to affirm you. [applause] to a firm view that what you are standing for, -- to affirm you that what you are standing for, it is critical for you to be here and to find a candidate who has the courage of this conviction. we have had great leaders in the past. a lot have had great ideas. we need people with great ideas.
what we need more are people who have the courage to fight for those ideas. when things get tough, have the conviction to hold fast to make sure those ideas are put in place. ladies and gentlemen, if you look at my history, you will see that we have worked together, against my old administration, and thought and had the courage to fight for the values that we believe are important for the security of our country. i help desk, in spite of a partisan opposition. -- i held fast, in spite of bip opposition. we won the day. that is why i ask your support. i look forward to your question. [applause] over here?
>> excellent talk. i wanted to mention one new ones. you said that iran is a threat to israel. the key issue is that iran is a threat to america. as one of my favorite ayatollahs said, having weapons of mass destruction is for islam to launch war on the west. i wanted to highlight the issue. >> i would agree with that on several levels. we are not going to sit by while our best allies in the region are under attack by anybody. therefore, we will be brought into this at that first level. secondly, as i mentioned before, there is no question that with a nuclear ron -- i know people are concerned about
iran are launching a missile, i am more concerned about iran using that as a shield to prevent terror all over the world -- to purvey terror all over the world. to support hamas. we have seen a ron have the temerity to plan an attack on american -- seen iran have the temerity to plan an attack on american soil. that is why we must up as. -- stop this. [applause] >> my name is peter forman. i love the fact that you mentioned that we should be wary about dependent on oil -- of our dependence oil. what you willing to do to declare war on those will dependencies? are you willing to work on
biofuel? >> thank you for that question. you are right. people talk about energy independence. i believe energy is the key to the economy of this country. the cheaper the energy is, the more available it is, the better our standard of living. this recession we started because of a spike in oil prezices. we need to do exactly the opposite of what this president is doing with respect to energy production. whether it is closing two plants -- down pipelines or not opening up for exploration. we have an alaskan pipeline that is the and to be shut down -- is threatened to be shut down because we do not have the
volume going through. it gets a little cold up there this time of year. we need more production to keep the existing production online. this president is doing everything he can to make us more and more dependent on the people he is appeasing. it is a remarkable abdication of leadership and responsibility. i believe we should eliminate all energy subsidies. let the marketplace work. open up the market. [applause] open up the market, allow us to mine coal. allow us to drill for oil and gas. look at what happened in pennsylvania. we had the second largest natural gas find in the world. we have a plentiful domestic supply of energy. we need to do the same thing with oil. we need to do the same thing with coal. the president is going to put a regulation in place that is going to close 60 coal plant.
we are looking to its 20% clean energy standard. we cannot get to it. we are talking about an explosion of the cost of electricity. we are going to cripple america. energy independence -- how about energy security so we can have enough production so we are not dependent upon but it of places, which causes the price of oil to increase. how i cannot see people very well. i jesse -- i just see figures. i was with dan in iowa. >> i want to thank you for your service. my question is, what would you
do, or what with the country look like, with a santorum administration in the first week? >> the first thing we would do is on national security -- you heard the plan i outlined. i pray, i do pray, that we do not have an explosion in the middle east in iran that proves that they have a nuclear weapons capability by the time january 20, 2013 rolls around. if they have not done that, the plan and put in place is the first thing i will do on day one to make sure we are safe from this threat. that is number 1. number 2, i would repeal obamacare. i think that is the biggest threat. [applause] it is the biggest threat threat to freedom in this country. it will increase dependency in
this country. we need to create stability and certainty and lower regulation and taxes for a business community, repealing obamacare, you cannot wait it -- waive it. you can get rid of it. you guys were card. -- work hard. you give us 50 in the senate, we will use the reconciliation process. it will be a worthless document. [applause] that is the vote to. i will throw in a 03. we have to do something about the economy and the debt. i put a proposal on the table that said we will cut $5 clinton over five years. we will pass a tax plan -- $5 trillion over five years. we will pass a tax plan. going out there and cut
government. one of the places i will start is the state department. [applause] we have a state department that is constantly working against the interest of this country. they need to have a meat ax taken to them. [applause] yes, ma'am. >> one thing is i think you ought to tell the folks what side you have in your kitchen. -- sign you have in your kitchen. >> my wife is somewhere here. i do not know where she is. i cannot introduce her if i do not see her. wherever she is, say hi. we have been to israel. one of the things we did, this was back in the 1990's, we bought one of those tiles that
says pray for the peace of jerusalem. we have that on our kitchen, right above our sink. we pray for that every day. [applause] it is the epicenter of the world. it is where all the major faiths come together. unless we have the assault, -- that solved, world peace is impossible. >> the gulf of mexico, we could call it our soft underbelly. i read a couple weeks ago that the drug cartels might start using submarines. when the prime minister built a fence, terrorism reduced by 96%. we need to secure our borders, get rid of those tunnels. hezbollah has a presence in mexico. what your plans for our border? >> thank you very much.
i was asked the question, what is the threat we have not talked about? we talked about immigration. i have been clear about that. i have been committed over the course of my career to building that fence, to securing our borders. not just because of the economic impact, but because of the national security impact. i have been working -- when i was working on this support act, one of the things i began to trying tos theiran spread their influence in south america. i have been writing about it. i give a speech during my two cousins campaign. here we are in the middle of a war, -- my 2006 campaign. here we are in the middle of war. i give a speech in pennsylvania, talking about many of the things we talked about here.
including the problems in central and south america. you all know about the presence of the hottest -- of jihadist training camps. this is a threat in our hemisphere. because of the two prior administrations focusing its attention across the atlantic, we have allowed it lot of relationships to go to seed in central and south america. our enemies as well as the jihadistss by taking advantage of that. we need to confront the radicals to create is fear of influence that is a threat to the security of our country. [applause]
>> i am from florida. we thank you for everything you have done for the pro-israel committee. you have been amazing. [applause] there is something going through congress at the moment. from what i understand, the administration is trying to water it down. it is about crude oil and trying to be able to create a situation with oil. what would you do so that the price would not go up? the administration is saying the price would be exorbitant. what would you do to create a level playing field where we could do this for will come agreed sanctions, and get on with the job -- do this for oil, create sanctions, and get on
with the job? >> bottom line is, if we put sanctions on the central bank, on their inability to sell oil to the rest of the world, we know that china will not pay attention to those sanctions. they will continue to buy it will. it will buy it will add a lot less of a price than what they are paying for now. iran will not be paid what the world price is. it will dramatically harm their economy. that is why i support the sanctions. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for coming. i am from bucks county, pennsylvania. >> a little shot of four pennsylvania, good. >> a lot of my friends -- shout
out for pennsylvania, good. >> a lot of my friends are moderate. we are concerned about your stand that you are so pradesh life. -- pro-life. >> what i say to people is if you look at the republican field, all of the field is going to be co-life and for marriage -- pro-life and for marriage. you were choosing between -- not on the issue, you are choosing between something a little different. i would make the argument that we have had candidates who have been pro-life or pro-marriage who are not comfortable about talking about those issues. they are not comfortable about the positions they hold. there are people who would fit
that moniker. i am not one of them. i look at it this way, when you are electing a president, if the city issues are the same, do you want a president who you trust that they believe and say what they believe? where do you want to have a president who says, i believe this, but i am saying it because it is what i need to say to get elected? what you are looking for in a president is somebody with integrity, someone you can trust, someone you know that when they tell you something they mean it and they feel it. i do. i do not back away from that. i am honest with you about this. [applause] i think character matters. i think someone who has the courage of their conviction matters. i am not going to agree on everything. sometimes i do not even agree with myself. what i think people are looking for is authenticity.
someone who is willing to stand up and tell what they really believed to the american public. let me assure you, my wife is here, she will make sure that i do that. you will see what i really believe. look, my track record shows i am someone -- i do not condemn people who i disagree with. i respectfully disagree with them. we work together as we can to make this country a better country. [applause] all done? am i? ok, this is my hook. thank you for coming out here. what they wrapped up by saying, thank you again. i mean that from the bottom of my heart. this organization has been terrific. i know, for many of you, it was
not the most popular thing to be, to be a jewish republican. you had the courage of your convictions. use the up for the principles that you think are important to keep -- you stood up for the principles that you think are important to keep this country is safe and strong. if you are looking for a candidate that has the same kind of convictions, who has the courage to go out when it is not popular and hold fast to the issues that you believe in your heart are what is important for the future of our country, then we have a lot in common. i hope i can get your support. thank you and god bless. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this form also heard from represent the michele bachmann who talked about iran pose a
nuclear program -- from rep resentative michele bachmann who talked about the ron's nuclear program. >> thank you for that wonderful welcome. our united states president, harry truman, made the best decision that any president could have been at -- made. he recognized israel's 7 sovereignty. he told the world that the united states of america would have israel's back. i want you to also know, i and the united states of america will once again have israel's back. [applause] i am highly honored to be here this afternoon in the company of so many of my dear friends. i want to thank my good friend
danny rosen for the wonderful introduction he just gave. i have been a longtime advocate for israel and the jewish people. my love for israel and the jewish people the band as danny said, the day after i graduated from high school. i left and i took a plan and i went to work on a kibutz. at that time, we did not have rockets coming into our kibbutz. it opened by eyes, we would wake up in the morning at 4:00, we would get on a flatbed, and we would go out to the fields where we would begin pokiicking weeds. we would come back to the wonderful side of the kibbutz, we would help in the kitchen,
only then could be laid down -- we lay down in the "ghetto" where we made our home. it was a wonderful experience for an 18-year-old. it opened my eyes like nothing else. it was 1974. c-spa [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. secretary stockton, -- new line -- >> you had ample time. you have the review. have we come up with any lessons from that that you think would be instructive for this committee? >> the first lesson learned is that we had an adequate flow of -- and an adequate flow of -- and an adequate -- an inadequate flow of information to the department of defense to the commanders responsible for anti-terrorism measures. the specific failures that helped facilitate the breakdowns in the incident, those are the
ones we helped model in order to fix our new relationship. let me give you a few examples. we now have the opportunity to explain what kind of an information that we need. we have now. -- and institutionalized flow. it it comes to one or two people. it is spread around so there is not a single point of failure. there is not a risk that the institution as a whole will sit on information. if we have a special training program. they are now being invested in -- embedded in the six task forces around the nation. they know what to look for. they can identify a reason why we need that information to flow to us. we have a very careful measures in place to protect civil liberties. -- and to make sure that as a matter of law and policy, the department of defense -- it is respecting privacy and the guarantees under which we all
live. >> your testimony was after that review. they had similar occurrences like would be minimized. -- like fort hood would be minimized. >> yes. >> one of your responsibilities is reviewing some of the training material that is going out in the broader community to address this issue. it i think part of it is some of this training material has been identified as perhaps misleading. can you suggest to the committee a way to address some uniformity standards within the training for this issue?
>> yes. there are too critical parts. -- two critical parts. the first is that we do not want to inhibit our ability to educate. whether it is enter agency intelligence or the military. how do we get our officials to understand the threats and how they can react to them in a proactive manner and understand them at in debt to focus on the -- in depth to focus on the trajectory of our time? to achieve uniformity, we need to instill there is a competency in people in producing the training materials. that they are rigorous and based on sound research and that they are fact based ended a void of personal opinion. -- and devoid of personal opinion or political agenda. if we accomplishing that, the reviews have shown this to be the case.
>> one of the issues that some of as grapple with is whether or not putting into place -- whether we can do that and maintain the unit cohesion. are you confident the items you work don will identified the issues alboin not jeopardize unit cohesion? -- but will not jeopardize unit cohesion on the other democrat>> with the issues we punished is that there are a multitude of -- one of the issues that we push is that there are a multitude of reporting mechanism should they observed one of the
behavioral indicators. they can report it to counter intelligence agency and investigator. they can report it to a commander and squad leader. we put in place a link on the army knowledge network. they report the and information. they are using all of these been used to report. -- venues to report. it is very effective. >> i am yield back project thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman from carolina. call them for what they are. it is violent, violent extremism. they make sure that they are aware of it.
we owe it to our troops to identify the enemy and make sure they are aware of it. this is one of my most important jobs. protect my troops. with that said, secretary stockton,thank you for being here. i just found out you were a n.llow minnesota includ you referred to empower local partners to prevent violent extremism, stating the best defense are well informed and equipped families. could you elaborate what he meant by this? >> my pleasure. the president has issued a new strategy last august empowering local partners to prevent violent extremism in the united states.
families are an important part. muslim families are an import part of feeding the recruitment -- of the effort in order to defeat the recruitment and radicalization american citizens and residents and the efforts of al qaeda it to turn them into attackers against military communities. we view the opportunity to treat families across the nation as partners in the shared endeavor. they are eight -- an important part of the overall strategy the president has issued. >> thank you. i appreciate you elaborating on that. according to the investigation, the army currently does not share counter-terrorism and information. -- given to it by the fbi with its own military intelligence or unit commanders. could you confirm this.
why is this the case? >> i disagree with that statement. we do share the information with our local commanders and security officers in the chain of command. every time you receive an information, it indicates a threat. -- that indicates a threat,we go through great means to make sure all leaders have informations a they can have the appropriate decisions. >> that is good to know. thank you very much. colonel sawyer, the question i have isakson -- the question i have isto what extent is al qaeda planning to infiltrate the members into the military?
if you see an increase in trend in this? >> parts of that question will be addressed in a closed session. you carried a distributed network. the referee -- rapid proliferation of their materials makes it possible for everybody to participate. it increases -- it make it inaccessible for anybody regardless of their ethnicity to participate and belong to this. it decreases the barriers of entry. the continue to paint the military as war criminals. it will induce further people to further target the u.s. military and will increase the insider threat. >> thank you.
secretary stockton, jihadist have discussed bank carried out attacks on some military related targets, such as military funerals, metro stations frequented by military personnel, etc.. what can be done to harden these targets and how can we protect our military troops when they are after most of vulnerable? >> see discussed it and are carrying this out. >> what can be done to harden the stock it? >> i welcome to address that ben closed session. we would keep the classifieds. >> my time is expiring. thank you very much. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentle lady from california. >> thank you. thank you for being before us. my husband is a retired military officer.
on 9/11 he was in germany. he headed up all the law institutions we have and oversaw that in germany. he is a lawyer. he oversaw that in germany. he recalls the day after 9/11 he had to go in and talk to lawyers on the other side furlough all municipalities and explain how and why we had driven tanks all over the town. obviously, we had somewhat overreacted to what had happened over here. he had to explain what we are doing by driving our tanks oliver town in shutting things down. i think we need to plan ahead. so we do not have these types of reactions.
we need to plan ahead and with our local been sodalities and law enforcement when these type of things happen and when the plan against a terrorist attack. i think when we saw a search to figure out what we need to do, and that is very important. we have looked at much of this to try to figure out what we do and how we do it. education is very important. planning is important. education of the troops. i would like to ask consent. -- to put into the record some documents we have here, some of the experiences in particular that we have of some of our muslim soldiers and airmen and how they feel being a in the
military. there are some muslim soldiers. it is a great institution. we talk about how it is looked at differently. -- how they are looked at differently within their units even though still have silver stars, there always looked at with questions. my question is, may i introduce them into the record? >> >> without objection, so ordered. >> what is do we bring? to be considered not having muslims? -- should we consider not having muslims in our military? i live in the middle east. it is important to know the language of the people.
some people say let's not have these people. what would you say to something like that? >> i would begin by referring back to the comment that chairman team made earlier. recognizing the tremendous contributions of muslim americans. we need a muslim americans in the united states military. we need native speakers. we need patriots of all religions joining and maintaining the strength of our armed forces. you raise an important challenge. how do we both deal with the reality that al qaeda and the affiliate's are targeting department of defense facilities as a target of choice and recognize that we need an value of muslim americans in the united states military?
the way forward is to focus on indicators of violent behavior and radicalism where we can watch the behavior and train our personnel to watch the behavior of our soldiers in order to identify and intervene effectively when they say indicators that within our ranks we may have its spirit. -- we may have potential terrorist. >> my father prosecute many of non muslims for killing their wives and kids in the military. >> it to be anybody you is exhibiting behavior to indicate a propensity to become a violent terrorist. it is about al qaeda and its affiliates in the primaries at home. they are the primary threat to american security at home. >> thank you.
you mentioned the intellectual underpinnings of radical islam and the training. the theology of islam is easily understood. prayer and fasting and charity and the adherence to the natural law. do unto others. beyond that, there is an overlay of politics. there is a battle within islam. the political aspects of this are problematic. it would serve our interests if we understood more about what
is going on within islam. have we talked to those to get a -- imams and mullahs to get a better understanding of the politics and theology? is there a movement afoot for the intellectual justification to combat this within islam? are retaking advantage of it? is this considered too sensitive to be addressed? >> thank you very much. it the best way to answer that is to point out that there is a significant distinction between the politics and the theologies that are embraced within the
tradition and culture. it has perpetrated and developed here. want to make this distinction, -- once we make this distinction between the faith and ideologies which then can start to parse these two pieces of part. i would argue that the entire intelligence community have had extensive outreach efforts to the muslim american community to understand not only from the perspective of what they mean in consulting with academics, but also to understand what it means in the american context. we can see different effects. this comes back to the education question that they address. it inhibits our ability to really address the problem in comprehensive manner. that is what he has done very
aggressively. we have educated over 4100 law enforcement officials over about 60,000 hours of education. how is it we can make these people smarter to understand these distinctions? what we do not want to do is to harm the community and create worse relations. >> mr. secretary? >> it is an excellent question. i would urge all members and staff to become familiar with the new white house strategy. it is focused on the challenges that you discussed and highlights a new way forward. a community based approach. it did meet the challenges that
we confront. >> can you identify any leaders in the muslim community better helping you in this regard? >> i would be happy to take that question for the record. >> thank you. i know that. -- i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i recognize the young lady from texas for five minutes. >> thank you for your courtesies. before i left houston, i initiated with our soldiers a bad yellow ribbon campaign for the troops coming home at the end of december. it is evidence that america loves her military. if they would allow me. i do have questions. i want to quote a comment from secretary gates that says it
reflects the strength of our national diversity and is composed of patriots who are first and foremost soldiers, sailors and marines. -- sworn to uphold our national values. i would like to change the discussion and talk about americans. american soldiers to happen to be a many different faiths. i indicated that i am here to be a problem solver. those who lost their lives were my neighbors and friends. i went to the memorial service. it is a memory that i will never forget. the deepest sympathy and pain that fort hood and those family members and extended france continue to extended for -- extended friends continue to experience, it will never be extinguished.
to mr. long, i say that we are paying for the enormous tragedy. we should be here to solve problems. i want to quote from you as i hold up a little book that i have done before. we are constant reminders of the value of this book. our soldiers are defending the constitution. we do have a freedom of religion. it is important to note the comment that he made about primary threats of al qaeda not at war with islam. he stated homegrown terrorism happen to be of a particular faith. they are intensified by their own research, by the internet. we have within our borders the ability and skills and tools
that should be utilized to stamp out those who would do us harm. let me quickly notes and paid tribute to he he died in afghanistan a 26 year-old muslim. he was among five soldiers who were killed. his family and the knowledge that he was picked on the in military but his goal was to die defending against act of terror and a violent interpretation of islam. let's put that on the record. let's pay tribute to those who have died. my question goes to the major failures of fort hood. why did the military who were aware of the violence passed that information on?
where was the disconnect? let me add other questions you can ask them. i am confirmed about soft targets. soft targets are here. we see our soldiers traveling to airports in bus stations. some soldiers will be coming home and going into neighborhoods and corners across this nation. what have we begun to do to already addressed the potential of soldiers who are walking alone. -- in various places in america? on the idea of databases -- there is the idea of data bases. one of the recommendations is to do this. >> i would like to answer your first question about the activities of major hussain and why they were not reported.
we did not have the right behavioral indicators to the forests. ce.to the for we do not educate our force in this regard. since that time, we have revised regulation. i am confident it would allow soldiers to report the information that they have discussed about him. i believe the bottom line is that we did not do it properly. it denied the report said. -- it did not get reported. >> we are doing more as it relates to behavioral training. it overcomes the idea of stigmatizing one religion over and other. are we focusing in on actions of an individual soldier, internet use, their action toward their families? >> in the table, they have extremist activities.
-- those indicators are extremist activities. they are focused on the behavior of activity that would encompass those topics. >> any response on the soft targets? there be on the basis. -- that are beyond the bases where the soldiers are wearing their uniforms? >> local law enforcement and having our military have this with them so they can be in the lead. the military's family and soldiers are in the united states. i yield back. >> i recognize the former attorney general of california. >> thank you very much. let me say i great support for those who are serving in military today.
secretary stockton, are we at war with violent islamist extremism? >> no. we are at war with al qaeda. >> is violent islamist extremism at war with us? >> no. . we are being attacked by al qaeda. >> can al qaeda be an exponent of violent islamist extremism? >> al qaeda is murderers. >> is al qaeda acting out of violent islamist extremism? >> al qaeda is a violent organization dedicated to overthrowing the values that we -- >> yes or no? >> can i hear the question again? i will make it as clear as we can.
we are not at war with islam. >> i did not ask that. i asked whether we are at war with violent islamist extremism. >> we are at war with al qaeda. >> how does al qaeda define itself acts are the dedicated to violent islamist extremism? >> they would love to convince muslims around the world that the united states is at war with islam. if that is a prime propaganda tool. i will not aid in that. i do not think it is helpful to frame hour at its erie. >> -- the line>> i never said we were at war with islam. we're trying to do with the radicalization.
the radicalization of islamic youth. if we cannot distinguish between violent islamic extremism and as long, all of this stuff about behavioral indicators does not mean anything. is it a behavior indicator to put on your car that your soldier of a lot? -- soldier of allah? >> an indicator that you have a copy of inspire magazine? >> that is not my question. >> we have this that enables our personnel. -- behavioral indicators that enable our personnel, our supervisors to focus on detecting indicators of violent extremism that reflect the lessons learned from fort hood.
>> is it a lesson learned that lah on put "soldier of al your car?" is that violent extremism? >> you have to follow up and investigated. >> we are training our supervisors to follow up on inappropriate indicators. >> do you agree with the statements of someone representing the department of defense on the weekend after the shooting that it would be a greater tragedy to lose their program of diversity? >> there is nobody less politically correct then senator moynihan. i strongly support the department's that focus on it. >> i appreciate it. >> this is not about political correctness. this is about defeating our adversaries. >> i disagree that it may not be about political correctness. we are talking about the fact that we now have to have
behavioral indicators. i agree with that. my question is, if someone gives inflammatory remarks in an open setting -- if he has on his car that he was a soldier of all of it seems to be beyond common sense to think that they're not be able indicators. if i am a member of the military today and i see those two circumstances, would it be important for me to report those as behavioral indicators tax that is not a question of whether or not you're being politically correct. i am asking to answer that specific question. if i am a soldier and as you that question, what do you tell me? >> inflammatory rhetoric. it needs to be reported. our officers are trained to report on that behavior. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you for doing this.
>> i want to think the witnesses for being here today. we appreciate everything you do for the country. that me start with this. it is a sore subject for me. as they have mentioned, we have a situation in little rock where two of our recruiters were killed and targeted by someone who had been radicalized. he has been very open about that. he told everyone who would listen that that is why he did
this. that is why they were targeted. under the department of defense, he is not entitled to receive the purple hearts. could you talk to the joint committee here about why the department of defense has said they are not entitled to receive the purple hearts of? >> this has been a decision led thus far by the department of army. i defer to him. >> thank you. >> this was tragic. a loss of soldiers is a tragic situation. the award of the purple heart is given by statutes. it is to be awarded to soldiers for wounds received us the reaction of any war. the incident in barack is -- in little rock, ark. is considered
a criminal act and not considered an international terrorist act. the secretary of the army cannot award the purple hearts to the soldiers. >> should information's surface that would change that, the secretary would be allowed to look at it. it is based on that. >> the perpetrator has admitted that it is a terrorist act. he did that. intentionally sought out these two recruiters. he was trying to kill americans in uniform. he had been to yemen. he had been radicalized. he is not hiding it. he is bragging about it to anyone who would listen. i'm having trouble understanding why the army does not consider this a terrorist attack. >> the secretary of the army did have the information available. however, it still is not deemed as sufficient to name this a
terrorist act. i will take this back to the army leadership. >> thank you. i know the u.s. attorney wanted to try the case but for whatever legal reasons, i am not sure it ended up in state court. it was a criminal matter. certainly the u.s. attorney tried very hard to characterize it as a attack on u.s. soil. had the prosecution been in federal court. nevertheless, it went into state court. i would very much appreciate hearing back from you on this. i know that senator bozeman and i have a bill to try to clarify this. you're sending a very mixed message about the threats we have here. it is a head scratcher.
i would appreciate you getting back to me. >> thank you. >> would the gentleman yield? i want to join with you on seeking clarification. in the line at of duty and in the line of combat are two confusing things. there are too confusing themes when your constituents are falling. the actor was associated with acts of terrorism. i think we can do this in a bipartisan/bicounter manner. -- bicameral manner, respecting the department of defense. you quoted a statute. this was written by the congress. i would ask that as you take the request back, that the ask for those of us who are from taxes -- are from texas who have
the same -- if you had the same pain for many families and find a way not to ignore the department of defense. and find a way to come to recognition. i yield back to the gentleman >> will the gentleman yield as well? >> his time has expired. >> we would get you. thank you. we'll ask if he will yield to me for five seconds. >> thank you. >> we will yield to me for five seconds. one observation. al qaeda is the enemy. this will exclude the pakistani taliban which carried out the times square bombing.
it is not just al qaeda, it is also other islamic extremist groups throughout the world. >> thank you. very briefly, i agree with you. it includes pakistan. al-shabab in somalia, they are part of this violent extremism movement. they offer in the united states of america. -- they all threaten the united states of america. >> without antagonizing the gentleman from south carolina further -- [laughter] >> that is where i thought we were. i apologize. >> the administration refuses to understand this and exploits the code words. you use the language identifying the enemy 39 times, jihad 126 times. in 2010, you used these terms 0 times. i have said that we have to be
able to identify the enemy if you'll ever defeat them. that is important. in cold war, they conducted diplomacy on the basis of complete ignorance of the soviet definition of the expression of a " peaceful coexistence." we may dislike each other but we will live and let live. they define it as a form of struggle against capitalism where all forms of struggle are permissible accept all out war. i think we have to identify the enemy. we have to be willing to express these true threat and discuss it in terms better realistic. they refuse to identify and discuss violent islamist extremism.
they killed 15, wounded 33. were they motivated by islamist extremism? >> i would characterize it as their motivations in terms of major hussan, we cannot discuss it. he is awaiting prosecution. i would say in new approach -- >> he was in communication with al-awlaqi. that has been proven. >> yes, sir. >> they are focusing on the behavioral indicators of any individual. these things get report a bad as the best way to prevent these things. this is the focus. they believe it is successful.
>> i really just want to make this point. i do not have anything further from this other than to encourage you. we identified the enemy of this country. let's have the courage to use the terms necessary to defeat the enemy but and for all. -- once and for all and to make this country and this world a safe place. we do that by being honest with ourselves in with the american people. >> if you deal to the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you for yielding. i appreciate the comments regarding the purple heart and why they are not receiving it. i do not understand. i think they are casualties of war on terrorism. i also would like to see the
statement bac that explains to me the secretary of the army and why he does not consider two and his troopers not victims -- warriors that were killed in combat. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the one to thank you both. thank you for bring us forward. thank you for your service. this would require a yes or no answer. is there a threat to military communities limited to only islamic extremist? yes or no? i'll start with you, secretary stockton. >> thank you.
it allows me to address a couple of the other questions. >> i am not a ranking member within leadership. i only got five minutes. if you would give a simple yes or no. >> al qaeda, the affiliate's are a primary threat. that is the center of gravity. we recognize other threats. -- we recognize other threats confront the united states as well. >> thank you. >> in keeping to your yes are no question, i have to say no. >> is there a threat to military communities only limited to islamic extremism? your answer is no. >> correct. >> the tenants' lawyer? -- lieutenant-colonel sawyer? >> i would agree with the previous panel. >> is the threat to u.s. communities limited to an islamic extremist?
yes or no? secretary stockton. >> that would be a no. >> no to that as well. lieutenant-colonel sawyer? >> no to that as well. >> what other violent extremist groups exist? secretary stockton? >> i prefer to take that for the record and go into detail. >> thank you. >> i would have to follow his answer on that. >> lieutenant colonel sawyer? >> we have seen a proliferation of other movements. there has been targeted in from the christian right movement within the united states. we recognize other threats confront the united states as well. >> thank you very much. >> i would have to say no. >> the question was is there a threat to military communities only limited to an islamic extremist and your answer is no, correct? lieutenant colonel? >> i would agree with the other
panelists. >> second question -- is the threat to u.s. unity limited to islamic extremist only? secretary stockton? >> my same answer would apply. >> that would be no. >> a lieutenant colonel sawyer? >> noted that as well. >> what other violent extremist groups exist? >> i would prefer to take that for the record and go into some detail with you. >> i would have to follow mr. stockton's lead on that. >> lieutenant-colonel sawyer? >> we a seen a proliferation of other movements that share the al qaeda islamic faith. it is characterized by their members. that is the reason why my answer is no. >> thank you, a gentleman. it has been said here today that there were in the 1990's white extremist. would you agree that skinheads and white extremists no longer exist and are not a threat to this country or our military bases? secretary stockton? >> they are likely to still be a threat. >> mr. stuteville? >> my answer would be no. >> mr. sawyer? >> i would refer that question to the record. >> would you say they exist? >> yes. >> thank you. i went through those questions because what we were told as members -- the topic of this hearing was "homegrown terrorism, the threat to military communities inside the united states." it does not say "islamic" anywhere in here. budget cut effects in this by --
in this dire our environment we are all facing -- there is included in the sequestration the possibility of cutting the military. how would these cuts affect the work you need to do? >> thank you for that question. to sustain the progress we have under way, but also to accomplish in new starts we have been able to launch in the current fiscal environment would be put at risk. secretary mendez made it clear that national security would be at risk with sequestration. i fully support his position. >> mr. stuteville? >> i second those comments. >> lieutenant-colonel sawyer? >> i would completely concur. >> win dod began to estimate the cde and the violent behavior of trendy throughout the services, -- violent behavior real -- behavioral training throughout the services, how
important is it to make sure we do not find stereotyping based on race, religion, or at this is the? what steps will you do to make sure the project ethnicity. what steps will you take to make sure there is no stereotyping and targeting? would you do? >> we have a white house directed review underway to address the challenges. we are in it for the long haul. we are doing what we need to do to sustain those standards in the future. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> i recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, for five minutes. >> a thank you to the chairman and the panel or being here. i apologize for not hearing some of the question that went home. let me ask lieutenant-colonel sawyer -- to what extent is al qaeda targeting military committees in the u.s. and is this trend increasing? -- communities in the u.s. and
is this trend increasing? >> sir, it is a difficult question to answer in terms of whether there is direct targeting from abroad. 56% of direct attacks against the military for the past 10 years since 9/11 have been by passive radicalization. and the bulls within the united states reached out and subscribe to the etiology of al qaeda and its affiliated organizations. the fact that i al qaeda is perpetrating their ideologies is they are identifying as the military as a prime target and a legitimate target. it allows these individuals to seek that out and understand why the military is such a target. >> the trend is increasing? >> yes, sir. it has been persistent. it has increased since 2007. >> that would be equal -- there would be an increasing trend as well with other radicalized, islamic terrorist organizations, including al
shabaab and others? would that be the same concern? >> yes, sir. >> we are all, i think safely, we can say -- we are all delighted that osama bin laden is no longer anything but room temperature, wherever that room might be. we are glad that he is not the focus or the face of radical terrorism at this point. but in the process of locating him, approaching him, and dealing with him, there are some of us who have some concerns or questions about how it was carried out before and after.
let me asked you, colonel sawyer -- let me ask you, colonel sawyer -- -- was it harmful for the special operations forces involved in the first 2011 killing of osama bin laden to be personally identified? -- publicly identified? >> sir, is a difficult question. i would like to direct it in classified session if we may. >> secretary stockton? >> i recommend that approach as well. >> the same thing? >> yes, sir. >> did their public identification danger these unit's members or their families? mr. stockton? >> i welcome to take that in a special session, please. >> let me try one other question. should units involved in such sensitive operations be identified in the future? >> again, i welcome the opportunity to discuss that in
post session. -- in closed session. >> we will be meeting in closed session after this hearing. the secretary will be available. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield my time back. >> i would like to recognize the newest member of the committee and one of the hottest working in california. -- one of the hardest working in california, ms. hahn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for this opportunity. it has been a very interesting hearing. there are so many things i am disturbed about, particularly with the fort hood massacre and the failure, in my opinion, of properly taking disciplinary action against major hassan. i do not think it was about political correctness. i think there were so many indicators and policies that, i
believe, were probably already in place that were just not adhered to. the fact that the guy was an army psychiatrist, he had been transferred, he had a bad performance evaluation, and yet nothing was done. i am happy we have new policies in place where some of these indicators will be more recognized, but i still believe there was a failure. there were policies already in place the were not adhered to. that is really the huge part of the tragedy that i am disturbed about. my question is going to be -- i believe it was said that all threats regardless of religion and theology are what we need to be paying attention to and if we just are focusing on certain particular ideologies and
words, we are exposing ourselves to threat. i am concerned about the military families and the military bases. out in california, my district includes the angeles airport space. -- less angeles airport space. -- los angeles airport space. in the community of san pedro, we have housed military families for ever. we have a army families there. we have a navy family housing there. we have air force housing. my question is going to be what are we doing and what can you tell me we are doing to protect the family's who live in our communities, the kids going to school in our schools -- are we paying attention to the risks and dangers that the families of military have in these
identified military housing projects in committees do out in communities throughout these projects throughout this country? >> i would like to say a few words and turn it over to my colleagues. i have regular meetings with sherrif baca. we are focused on this challenge. between law enforcement and our -- been tight, with law enforcement and our installation commanders so we can take care of military families as well as personnel, on bass, beyond the perimeter, and in uniform. that is part of our area of focus. >> i refer to our threat awareness and reporting programs throughout the morning. we make that training available to family members as well. the primary focus of the training is for soldiers and civilians, but we have put that turning on line so that any --
training online said that any dependent with a common access card can access that training through the training center on line. we make it available for dependents should the situation warrant. there is an auditorium at the installation to allow that. we have systems put in place, including the "eye watch" program. it is a little bit like the "see something say something" program. >> thank you. my colleague, mr. richardson, alluded to what congress would be making about budgets. it seems that all the recommendations will be dependent on budget. can you tell me what the sequestration -- what kind of an effect that will have, particularly on base security? >> i would like to take that for the record and give you a detailed response.
>> thank you. anybody else? thank you. let me just add -- are we also working with schools who have these kids in their schools? are we working with teachers, counselors who also may be able to identify some of the behavior we are talking about? maybe we are only targeting the adults who exhibit that kind of behavior. >> community engagement has a special focus on schools. we are taking that part of the overall strategy very seriously. >> thank you very much. i yield back my time. >> i recognize the chairman of the oversight subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. >> fort hood is right outside my district -- just north of my district.
i went to the funeral services for the 13 slain soldiers with the combat boots and the rifles and the helmets. you are very familiar and aware of all of this. it was very emotional. at that time, we did not really know the connection between major hassan and al-awlaqi. we still do not know how much of a connection there was. i do recall asking soldiers who were wounded what did he say when he shot you? bay said, "alluah akbar." over and over he screamed it. at that time i realize there may be something more to that case than just a murder case. since that time, i think senator lieberman came out with an excellent report outlining a
lot of this investigation. i worked in the justice department's joint terrorism task force. i understand how this works. when it came to my attention that there was information that major hassan was communicating with al-awlaqi, perhaps the greatest terrorist threat while he was alive, over the internet, and the idea that that information was not shared with fort hood. i asked a general cohen at the ceremony, "would you not have like to know more about this guy? you may want to take a look at him. keep an eye on him." what i would argue is the greatest attack on american
soil since 9/11. i think in the reports that senator lieberman issued, the fbi said that is our boy. that was their response when they saw a major hassan being arrested. my first question is why it was that information not shared democrat it could have prevented this attack. -- that could have prevented this attacked? what are we doing to make sure this never happens again? probably the best person would be, i guess, mr. stockton. >> i will start and invite my colleagues to add more. >> the most severe problem is in that task force, they did not understand the duty to share the information when there is a department of defense nexus. department of defense nexus.