tv U.S. Senate CSPAN April 15, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
we need a department of defense. that's why we were attacked on 9/11. we spend entirely too much money to support a military. look, unless we spend compared rest of the world. we are the military. we've got to downsize to save money. let's start taking care of people. one thing wrong with barack obama brack, and i'm a barack obama supporter, but barack obama is a democrat. he's partisan. anybody that's partisan needs to think about becoming independent. and let's get away from partisan politics. that's one of our biggest problems. that's all i have to say, susan. thank you very much. host: thanks for the call. you're look at some video from the president last night. he traveled to chicago, hometown, for two fundraising events for his re-election bid.
and back to e-mails. one question regarding the military industrialized nation. why did we privatize and pay private contractors more than our enlisted? and also this from jim riley in pearl river, new york. to the 2011 time almanac, there are at least 40 companies which the department of defense contractors are each independently receiving in excess of $1 billion per year in defense department payments. that benchmark is $1 billion, not any lower amount. these contractors include federal express. when are these payments going to be looked at for cost reduction purposes in a meaningful matter? next call from houston, kathy is a democrat. caller: good morning, susan. there is a news black out on what's going on in the military. halliburton, k.b.r. not one contract got out of the white house. in fact, the owner made $4 billion in six months alone, on slaughtered soldiers. iraq war might have been a lie,
but it didn't stop the neocons. they used homeland security as contracts for the good old boys. and let's see, war is great if you don't have to look at it or pay for it. china is helping with our demise. and while my sons are there fighting for so-called freedom we're fighting for corrupt dictators and karzai getting a million dollars from iran, and want our sons to die for him? he needs to be splattered in a crater. thank you, america. host: from the "baltimore sun" and the campaign trail. the doctrine across the u.s. can expect to pay. from new york this says the next time america is called on to act as global policemen, the world should expect a bill from uncle sam, donald trump says. asking about defense spending priorities. next a call from st. petersburg, florida. jim a republican. caller: hi. i've got a lot of points to make, so please don't cut me off. let's just take a look at the facts instead of just, you know, relying on hearsay.
the u.s. spends about as much and for quite a number of years more than the rest of the world combined. ok? the u.s. has over 750 military facilities in other people's countries. the military is making us less safe not more safe. the u.s. has been at war every year for the last 70 years. there's no other country that even comes close to this. let's take a look at the budget. the budget will be abou about $3.7 trillion. the federal budget. you have the amount of taxes they're going to collect that's going to be between $1.6 trillion and $1.9 trillion. so what you're going to have is a deficit just this year of $1.05 troll $2 trillion.
now, if you take a close look at the budget, they've got the military spending hidden in quite a number of different places so when they tell you it's about $700 billion, it's really $985 billion. so, as you can see, we're spending money that we don't have on just corporate welfare, because that's what it is. are lobbying the government to spend money on military by creating fear. that's all i have to say. host: thanks for your call. st. petersburg, florida, on the republican line. this tweet, $550 billion plus $110 billion for the wars, just like president bush. now, that's change. we can all believe him. -- we can all believe in.
related to the europeans on defense security, and also in the "financial times," "hooray, the yanks are going hom" phillip stevens makes the caseco the u.s.s european security umbrella, europeans will continue to inhabit a post modern utopia. and here's what he writes. "under the circumstances many would say the intelligence force for europe is to plead with knowns stay in europe. the harsh troupe is europe needs shock treatment." of course, that we just saw. he's arguing for yanks to go home and europe to bare more of its security costs. this is a call from john, an independent.
good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i'm a bit -- i've been in the service twice, the army first call defense department, different jobs i had. but anyway, i'm a bit of a historian buff. i think eisenhower once said we're of the military industrial complex. it took me a while to understand that, but i can see now what he meant. as far as the military goes, i would maintain that. what's more important, i think, is the intelligence. i know the military has intelligence and so does the c.i.a. and the n.s.a. you want to stop, prevent wars, you get good intelligence, and you could do that. spend the money there, not high-tech intelligence. i'm talking about human
intelligence, on the ground intelligence. that's where you might prevent war or something like we return now to capitol hill for the house joint hearing on border security and the environment looking at the end for some of some environmental lobbies for the border agents. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> we are talking about high level of individuals. we are talking about the person in charge of the national park that should know what those definitions of exigent circumstances are and should not have activities on the border patrol comes to an end and gets upset because they decide to leave that did and they make a circle route instead of the three-point why the term he insisted they make in his particular park. we are talking with the national park director who didn't know the definition. we are talking about the director of the utah -- the u.s. fish and wildlife service who is the one who sent the letter to border patrol and did not put the definition and threatened them with closure if they didn't
buy his definition of the mou. the mou isn't working because people on the field don't understand it. people here in washington aren't getting it. the mou may actually be working for the department of interior, but it's not helping national security, and that's the key issue to do with. now we want to go for a few minutes with of the project done in the organ pipe national pond and delete the monument, that's 95% wilderness with the 35-mile section of the border the was there. once again the result of the negotiations with what was the result of the negotiation with border patrol over this aho project? >> at this point in time, chairman, the project includes four towers that are situated on the cactus and operating now and actually have been very successful in the operation supporting the border patrol security mission and our folks as well.
>> what does homeland security have to do to get that permission? >> in my understanding they met with the folks on the ground, the superintendent and his staff to find the appropriate location for the towers. >> what did they have to pay for that? i'm running out of time here. i'm sorry. eight millions of dollars in mitigation fees for those towers. were those towers and eventually moved from where the border patrol wanted them? it should be a yes or no answer. >> my understanding is some or moved, some were not. >> so what we are -- >> if i may finish, mr. chairman. in the end, the border patrol did agree, and we all can to the conclusion on where those towers could be situated and still allow them to succeed in the border security mission. >> it was moved over 3 miles, and we had coverage with blackout in areas of haiti alien into this country because they were moved and still, border patrol had to pay millions of
dollars to the department of interior to get that. when you demand money of border patrol for these mitigation fees, does the mitigation have to be specifically directed to the entity in which is being mitigated or can you use that anywhere? >> the purpose of the litigation funds in this situation, any activity -- >> answer the question. does it have to be to the area the mitigation ochers or can you use it anywhere? >> funding has to be used in relation to the mitigation for that purpose, said the activity that took place -- >> then tell me why in 2000 - january you and border patrol once again entered into an agreement dealing with the fencing in the rio grande valley sector, you got 50 million of dollars from that part of interior, and 22 of the money went to buy more land in texas for impact of onslaughts who supposedly were impacted because of the conduction noise when defense was being built. now do you know when the last
time the onslaught was found in the work we etd to rio grande refuge before the fence was constructed in 2,009? >> i do not know that. >> it wasn't in this century. so if there is no existing ocelot how come you have to have a ocelot and pat went from noise and lighting that couldn't have reached them? >> the fish and wildlife services and a report of the interior mission is to conserve resources including the wild life habitat. >> i only have 30 seconds. give me a specific answer to the question. if there is no ocelots why did you build a resource with this type of money that has nothing to do with the project? >> it does have to do with the project. the mitigation funding for the fence and the $50 million that you address, the secretary chertoff and kempthorne agreed the expenditure of the funding was appropriate for those mitigation measures. there are no ocelots down there.
>> the wildlife habitat and those locations down there, the purpose of that is to maintain habitat for the ocelots. whether or not we have seen one recently is still -- >> recently come in the last 20 years haven't seen one yet he put all the money from this extortion down there for that particular project. leader in going to ask about $5 million that was supposed to do for the job required prevention but half went to mexico instead. we got a lot more questions about how you're using this medication and where the monies are going. i've been out of times i'm going to have to yield to the ranking member mr. tierney. >> well, again, i want to thank you for being here. i get it. i get with the issues i assume by this time all of you get it as well. and i don't want to keep beating a dead horse, but i guess the point is i think there have been some situations people fought that there has been affected to some degree by the memorandum of agreement by the laws that exist
or whatever, but you believe there's a way to work it out with the memorandum of agreement and by working together cooperatively on that. i was taken aback by mr. chaffetz's remark people are dying, people are dying. can you give me any interest of a person that has died as a result of the wildlife regulation environmental regulation? >> no. >> can you? >> nope. >> mr. jensen, can you? >> i'm not aware. >> i'm assuming it would be the heightened urgency to resolve this in some fashion, right? >> i think it's disturbing to all of us if there is a notion that there is some inability of the border patrol to get to an area to protect the national security we would all be hopping up and down but i'm going to give you an opportunity and i'm not hearing that from you whether might be an isolated incident something being delayed you're telling me as far as you know that particular anecdote hasn't been one that has resulted in danger or death or
that nature and that we probably need a process to expedite resolution on these issues, is that something that you're all charged with? does that sound reasonable? >> the framework exists to solve these problems in an expeditious way. now we can all recognize that within any relationship you're going to have different expectations, but the mou is designed to set those expectations uniformly. >> what is the bigger problem is the remoteness of these areas, the ruggedness of the terrain, is that a bigger problem than working out differences over a conflict of national security and some of these environmental or wildlife regulations, or is it about the same or is it not -- >> there's various challenges agents have while bordering the terrain, desperate to the issue among them, the free market out there authority and how they exercise it. there are concerns about private land as well within the immediate border. so that is the role of the patrol agent, to sort through those things. that is the will of the
leadership to give the plans to make that work and be effective as they possibly can within those remarks. there are limits on all of the authorities and the activities of the federal agencies and we are not excluded from that. >> there was one report that was mentioned earlier about a request to put out some technology or review for that good for months before the was implemented. is that a particular situation any of you have been made aware of? >> i know of the issue in preparation for the hearing. >> can you tell me about it? >> as i understand it, briefing there was a mobile scope truck we wanted to move from one area to the other. eventually that got sorted through and we moved it. >> was there a four month delay? >> as understand, yes. >> and what consequences were likely to have occurred because of the delay? >> i'm not aware of specific things. so, in the context of the operation people wanted to move
the equipment and capability from one location to the other. so under the terms we need to sort through, under the terms of the mou those are the conversations we are supposed to have. >> you would agree that it is extraordinary for the time to resolve such an issue? >> i don't know the specifics in that regard, but it seems reasonable that for months is something we ought to be thinking about. >> it seems to me it's extraordinary in something we all ought to be thinking about on that. >> agreed. >> i trust that is being worked on, that kind of delay -- >> in this case, as i understand it, the piece of equipment after that time period did get moved. >> much more quickly? >> right. >> congressman? >> i may not be able to speak to the specific circumstances of that sample but we have reference to the gao report numerous times today, and if i could, i'd like to read two sentences from the report. >> what page are you on? >> this is on the summary page right on the front, the highlights. >> okay. >> we've heard this now numerous times from various members.
patrol agents in charge for 14 of the 17 stations have reported unable to obtain a permit to access certain areas in a timely manner because of how long it takes for the land managers to conduct required environmental historical property assessments. it's in the gao report. you need to read all the way through. and i hope that our witnesses on the second panel -- >> did with the rest would be if you had. >> fever sentence is despite the access restrictions, and this is what counts, 22 of the 26 agents in charge reported the overall security status of the jurisdiction is not affected by land national laws. >> so we have to work on the other four. >> yeah. >> the mou helps with that and we are working to address this. >> thank you for clarifying. i yield back. >> representative chaffetz. >> i yield to the gentleman from utah. >> you have the report there that you just read? >> i have the cover page. >> the cover page doesn't deal
with it. on top of that it tells how 14 to 26 -- i went through eight pages of documented evidence where the delays were causing problems. that the 22 out of the 26, go to page 32 in the report and find out what it says. that the agents in charge in those particular areas told us their ability to make an operation controls area responsibility has been unaffected by laws. in other words, no portion of the stations to distinction had had their borders security status downgraded as a result of land management laws. that is not the same thing. and yet, if you will go through that report with page after page, example after example it is an experience in which there have been delays for border patrol, and it is directly because of the land managers on the ground there from your department and/or department. ms. thorsen, is there ever, ever an opportunity when you do this mou debate, mou work out where the border patrol does not have to ask your department for
something? is there ever -- where you actually have to go and ask them or does the border patrol ways have to come to you and you get to make a decision on whether it is allowed or not. >> the purpose of the mou come and particularly the exigent circumstances situation comedy make that decision. >> who do you have to go to for permission? >> the permission lies in the mou. in their judgment, the border patrol agents judgment to execute a duration exigent circumstance or emergency pursuit when they feel the need. >> then go back to the report and read what happens because that request has to be approved by the land manager. and if the land manager doesn't then all hell is there to pay. this mou does not work because it is an unfair mou which means border patrol has to come to you and big for permission. and time after time after time you are not granting that permission and you're not doing it in a timely fashion.
and when you do it, then you're ask for a mitigated amount of money which congress has no control. we do not know how much money you're getting from border patrol. we don't know where you're spending it and the one time we try to get an appropriations act you actually gave a list of what you're getting and where you're spending it was removed in a conference committee report. there are so many problems that are down there it makes one's head spin especially with the rhetoric we are getting here today. i would yield back to the chair might. >> i reclaim my time. mr. vitiello, according to the gao declassify about 129 miles or 15% were classified as the border classified as, quote unquote, control. and the remaining 85% were classified as managed. can you explain the difference from your understanding of the two? >> it has to do with the revision of the national strategy in 2004. we defined what we believe was operational control for the context of building resources along the border. so specific to the plans made in the sectors in the station level
planning was operational control meant that we have the ability to detect and identify classified responding resulted the intrusions of the media border. the tactical definition designed for the local people to understand what they believe the of devotee -- resources for. so manage, the difference between managing controls the amount of time from the resolution from the incursion. so the control at the immediate border would happen in real time at the immediate border and management would be some portion less than that or it would take longer to get to that. >> you talk about over the course of your career you've gone from just a few thousand agents to roughly 20,000 agents? >> we are currently just over 20,000. >> just over 20,000. yet i look at the snap and i look at the tucson region compared to the state of either or el paso, why is it that 51%
of the problem seems to be in the tucson region? why is that? >> we believe it is our success in other areas. we have managed -- when i came up the -- >> i'm trying to figure out when you have little to no success in tucson. >> we are having great success in tucson. >> how can you say that? >> i've watched us build -- >> you are the head of this agency and you -- >> sir, i was in tucson in the year 2001 we were catching -- >> for having great success? >> -- over 600,000 of those people were coming through the tucson sector. lester alone we were up 51%, this year we are at 44%. now is that a wild success? >> you just said it was great success. >> we've done a lot of work this year, last year, the year before and since 2000 when it was completely out of control. we are maintaining what -- gains we have made in tucson and are proceeding to give that a ring of resources like they've never seen before. cbp has over 6,000 employees in
the state of arizona. week, alone, have in the tucson sector alone nearly 4,000 we are moving towards a member of over 4,000. there's more technology out there than there has ever been. we spoke about the aho towers. >> my time is expired. i think -- mr. kildee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. vitiello, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that in carrying out various responsibilities that you consult with the tribes. how was the working out? is that running as you would want it to run? >> sure. so we have within the publicly and liaison apparatus we have people who are designed to do liaison work. the leadership also pays attention to the relationships that exist for the indian nations that are not the immediate border. >> i'm very happy to hear that,
and i sometimes -- agencies tend to forget that. we know the article 1 section eight of the constitution says that congress should have the power of commerce with foreign nations and several states and indian tribes. so is the constitutional basis for that come and with any group when called upon to work with the tribes and an oversupply in michigan we have 12 tribes in michigan and works well and you find it's working well in your area also. your area is very broad. >> similarly, relationships are in need of constant maintenance, so things that eb and flow and leadership belfield takes those responsibilities seriously. >> i commend you for that. >> thank you.
>> okay, representative pearce? >> how many miles of roads are on the border of the corondo forest? >> i would have to get back to you on the specific models of the roads. >> you wouldn't happen to know that would you, mr. vitiello? >> i do not. >> you don't do patrols out there? >> corondo as part of the area of the tucson sector covers, yes. >> anybody in the audience that might know that? >> we will have to get back to you. >> mr. vitiello, you just stated in the response to a question
the framework exists to solve the problem with respect to getting into areas with limited access by the federal law we taught the wilderness and such areas. but i hear that correctly? >> that's correct. >> and then did i hear you correctly that in cases of danger and death he would have a heightened sense of emergency? >> yes. >> can you explain why 68% of oregon people are advised not to go there, american is in the sense -- american citizen. that people going there they might not come out alive? wouldn't that be danger or death? wouldn't move to the top of the list of your heightened sense? >> zone by zone, area bye ury we are concerned with our responsibilities in the area by the immediate border and so the
oregon pipe is a challenge because of its status and because of the activity that's there. but we are making -- we have made plans, we are making investments to with that situation in hand. >> it's been that way -- wendi first start putting that off limits to people? >> i don't know that specifically, but i'm going to guess it is around the 2000 timeframe when it was -- >> so ten or so years. ms. thorsen, we are talking about how easy it is to work with wells and it doesn't affect us in the least. that is sort of the testimony. can you explain the reasoning buy not allowing survey ends in the order -- oregon piatt and it's to be placed outside of the wilderness in a place that couldn't see as much of the border as well, wouldn't that be in effect or is that just sort
of coming into the close but not qualified category? >> under the provisions of the wilderness act, one of the challenges we have had is the placement of permanent structures which would be a tower. in the negotiations and discussions we've had with border patrol in the park, they move the towers and locations within the boundary of the wilderness but that are not designated, that john governor and is not a dedicated specifically wilderness. so they are generally in the same facility. they just are not sitting on what is designated as wilderness. >> and so, in this case are you trying to tell me that the alternate site had as good of visibility as the site that was in the wilderness? because we have exactly the opposite testimony. and if that's the case, if you choose a case with less surveillance capacity, then i still along with my colleagues don't understand how you consider with a straight face to see that it doesn't affect
everything is okay, the free market since. i yield back mr. chairman. >> if i may respond, congressman? >> that's up to the chairman. >> if i may respond, mr. chairman, to the congressman's point. in working with of the border patrol, the border patrol -- and i'm going to speak some for mr. vitiello here, there is tower doesn't give them the totality of what they want to see. what they will do is implement additional measures to fill that gap. for instance, in the new approach, sdi net has gone away, the integrated tower, integrated fixed our approach they will supplement those areas with multiple surveillance units or rps sites or other types of technology to fill the gaps so they will not go uncovered between technology and
resources. >> i will pash your assurances on to the constituents. - along the border who are scared every day who know the family, was killed and whose family itself dirt. i will give them your reassurances. thank you. >> are there any other questions people have another round? roel, did you have a question you want to ask? >> i would yield my time to mr. chaffetz. >> thank you. mr. vitiello, i want to clarify, are you aware of anybody that has been killed along the border region that we are talking about? i mean, i talked about specifically about the problems that we are having in arizona, and mr. tierney's questions about the people are dying. are they not dollying? >> there have been deaths along the border, and there have been -- directly impact the border, yes. >> the gentleman yield? >> yes. as we understand my question is
was there people dying in direct correlation to the lack of enforcement of the environmental or one of these other laws we are discussing today and people are dying so let's be genuine about -- >> this specific issue doesn't cause death i'm aware of. >> so you're not aware of anybody dhaka in this coming north to go through the area for the oregon pipe mashaal -- pure not aware of anybody that has dhaka doing that? >> there are deaths along the border for people who dehydrate or did -- >> and coming north, correct? i don't know how you define immediate border but the legal definition is 100 miles. so you're telling me you're not aware of anybody -- >> that has died of a lack of our ability to move vehicles on protected land, no, i'm not aware of that. >> we will go through this in greater detail. anyway, let's go to mr. jensen. you're written testimony states
the forest service has dedicated 13 officers to the borders zone of the corondo forest. in a ten of them are accompanied by canine units. what is the forest service commitment to the border zone across the southwest border. of those officers armed and what capacity do they have to stop illegal activity and defend themselves against criminals with high-power weapons? >> i will stand to be corrected but there is on the range of perhaps 50 agents in the southwest border region of the forest service. >> or the arm? >> to my understanding, yes they are. >> are they able to apprehend somebody if they are? how often does that happen? >> i have to get back to you on the specifics of how often that happens, but they are in constant contact, and undertake joint operations with the border patrol and apprehension activities, so i would imagine it would be fairly received duty. estimate your written testimony states that the forest service and border patrol, quote, rely
on each other's strength to work towards the common goals and interest of the public and national forest to basically protect the endangered and sensitive species. according to the corondo national forest website this includes the mexican gray wolf, the cactus, the pygmy owl, the desert pupfish and the pineapple cactus. are we to believe the forest service and border patrol are balancing the national security with pima pineapple cactus and the pupfish? >> it's not the sort of trade-off. we look at the existing laws on the books to protect those threatened endangered species -- >> but mr. bishop pointed out, why is it deferred to -- in the balance of the mou, why is it that you're given deference that they can't do what they think is best to secure the united states of america and secure their officers? that's the problem. that's why we are here today. >> as ms. thorsen testified it is our experience in the forest
service the border patrol has authority to pursue suspects in all cases and circumstances around the border. >> in all circumstances? that is your understanding in the mou -- >> they haven't had any trouble the forest land in this regard. >> they have full and unfettered access to use a motorized vehicles -- >> that's different than for and unfettered access, which you just said. >> allow me to clarify them. in the case that is outlined within the mou, the border patrol has the ability to pursue suspects be it on foot, horseback or vehicle when the terrain and circumstances dictate. and it's their decision and control when they do that. >> i have -- mr. chair, and to the ranking member, everybody here, i have a serious problem where we are prioritizing desert pupfish of national security. i just personally believe we
really ought to be protecting the united states of america and protecting those officers that are putting their lives on the line every single day. we have to -- when we have delayed the way we have i just find it unconscionable. >> would the gentleman yield? thank you. i'd think the deily issue we all have an issue with, but i want to try to nail something down here as the three of you. when we have laws, the environmental wall, the wilderness law and things of this nature, they are in effect coming of memorandum of agreement as to how he would strike a balance when there's a competing interest. and i write on that? >> correct. >> one would be a national security issue. when somebody from the border patrol thought it was an exigent circumstance or emergency they get into an area, correct? >> correct. when they think the national security is at risk or there's any urgency or exigent such patients the border patrol agent and no one else who uses their professional judgment to determine whether they gwen by mechanized vehicles or any other
way. is that correct? >> correct. >> mr. jensen? >> correct. >> so they are not putting the pupfish against something else, the judgment is the national security require we go in there by whatever means necessary that when they make that decision it overrides the interior and over its the forestry and forbidding all; am i correct? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. alladi jeal back. >> i would say to my friend from massachusetts, exigent circumstance hasn't been clearly defined. it hasn't been clearly delineated. number two, routinely the border patrol is not able to do what it is able to do in other areas in terms of locating the towers, operating with vehicles. i wasn't going to do this but i think i'm going to do this. if you have a sensitive part, telling you this is the most graphic thing i've ever seen if you are a young child, don't watch this. i'm going to show you slides happening right near the borders. this is on the mexican side of the border and this is what i am concerned about what we are putting our men and women down
there saying protect us but we are not going to give you all the resources because we are worried about the fish. so you go on horseback, just walk. cohen, let's show the first slide. you're going to do this swiftly. don't look if you are sensitive to any sort of graphic image. >> the point of clarification? >> this is the kind of thing we're sending our agent to deal with on a daily basis. >> point of clarification. is there a contention our border patrol people and interior people and others are responsible for the mexican side of the border? where these are from? >> let's keep going. they are dealing with a threat coming from the united states of america dealing with this by the hundreds -- you can turn them off, please, turn them off. they are dealing with this by the hundreds of thousands. on the in good conscience cannot be a protest in the united states congress and not give every tool and resources to the border patrol to secure the border. i don't give a crap about the pupfish. i do care about america and i do care about those border patrol
agents. when you tell them they have to go on horseback when they would much rather be in a vehicle that is fundamentally wrong. i yield back. >> do you want another minute? in fairness -- >> no, look i think we made the .100 times the border patrol people and what better vehicle they think they need to be in at the appropriate time and i think we can leave it there. >> i appreciate that. the answers you gave, make sure they are enforced in some way. you can be happy the pupfish has a 52-acre buffer zone that's been paid for by border security. so, we wish that -- appreciate witnesses for your testimony. members of both committees, if they have additional questions for the witnesses, are asked to submit those and we would ask you to respond to them in writing. we are now ready for the next panel of witnesses. if you need some time to reconfigure the table here --
[inaudible conversations] >> for the next panel of witnesses, we are also going to have to -- they will need to be sworn in, but i would like especially while mr. pearce is here to welcome a retired border patrol officer and a founding member of the national association of the former border patrol officers. we will invite gene boyd was a retired border patrol officer and founder of the national association of former border patrol officers. mr. wood will be introduced by a work colleague mr. pearce. if you would like to take a few minutes to do it, do it justice. >> chairman bishop, members of the subcommittee, thanks for allowing me to be here with you today. i would like to take this opportunity to introduce my friend and constituent, gene
wood. he spent 40 years and served as the sector chief in mcallen texas and santiago california. i look forward to his testimony and to the testimony of the other witnesses but thanks again and welcome from mexico. >> thank you peery i also want to well recognize jim chelton whose land stewardship practices have won him awards. his family ranches 55 miles southwest of tucson and includes 4 miles of border as well as ms. ms. anu of resources and environment for the general accounting office as i understand you are the author of the gao report we have been referencing throughout this case. mr. chaffetz? >> the custom of the oversight reform committee to swear in all witnesses would you please raise your right hand.
>> do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record reflect the answered in the affirmative. >> thank you, mr. chair. we thank you all for being here and as mentioned to the earlier panel -- i just said that -- as mentioned to the earlier panel, all of your written testimony will appear in the hearing record. you have five minutes to summarize it. the light is in front of you and i hope to give you a countdown when the yellow light comes it means to have a minute left and the red light we will ask you to finish her testimony. i will also tell you that we are going to have another series about sometime soon. but i would like to do is get as far along as we can so we don't have to hold you. i hope none of you have afternoon plans lights going out because it isn't going to happen but i appreciate you being here. so if we could, mr. wood we will go left and right again if he would like to be the first to give your testimony we would appreciate hearing from you. >> thank you very much, german
chief -- chairman chaffetz -- >> if that could move any closer to you so we can hear you a little bit better. it's hard to hear you. >> is that better? >> very much. thank you. >> my name is gene wood as a former member of the border patrol and founder of the national association of former border patrol officers it is a real honor for me to talk today on the merits of the proposed legislation. i do not represent the border patrol in today's proceedings. instead, my testimony will rely largely on personal knowledge and the expertise of hundreds of former agents who are members of our organization. there are many years of collective experience i believe will enhance my ability to present to you informative
accurate information and conclusions. the border patrol has established 1924 and for nearly 87 years the supervisors and their agents have successfully developed techniques and strategies to prevent the legal entry of aliens into our country. one of the most effective techniques is deterrence. it's proven to be desirable strategy because it doesn't involve the dangers involved in fiscal a rest. it doesn't involve cost always incurred in the detention and removal of aliens. today i would like to address part of my testimony to the enforcement efforts in the tucson sector of the border patrol. i chose in that sector because i
served there before i was the chief as the deputy chief. it's one of the largest sectors on the southern border and it has 260 miles of common border with mexico. additionally the senator area of responsibility contains large areas with various restrictive land designations. since 2004, the leadership of that sector has changed frequently with subsequent success assignments as some of the most distinguished and experienced chiefs in the border patrol with the support of congress the agency work force has increased and we have even experimented with the assignment of the national guard troops, technology has been proved --
improved. i believe, just gentlemen as the border patrol officers that the difficult border patrol to gain control are not the result of poor management board lack of resources. it's simply an issue of denied access. unfortunately the country's willingness to accept these on wise restrictions has been aggravated in recent years by the unrelenting pressure of drug cartels and the international criminal enterprises. that brings us to one of the most difficult questions facing present border patrol supervisors and agents. how do we protect our national security is successfully in these highly restricted areas? the time proven an effective
techniques gained through experience are severely limited or time is completely eliminated because of the staff and impose restrictions. expensive technologies cannot be efficiently implemented and manpower assets become more difficult to utilize. for these reasons, the leadership of the national association of the four border patrol officers enthusiastically endorses the decisive remedies proposed by congressman bishop. this includes the 100-mile limit and the waiver of all of the restrictions listed in that proposed legislation. we believe that if enacted it will have a high probability of success, and it is an absolute necessary first step to achieve our goal, a national goal of operational control.
we also believe this proposed legislation will help convince the american public that the converse is now seriously seeking remedies to improve national security and public safety of our citizens. there's another reason it makes perfect sense to do this. my time is up? >> you do have your written report as well and i think we are going on the floor so we have more time. mr. taylor if you would like to go you have five minutes. >> thank you. german bishop, chairman she -- chairman chaffetz, the deferral of the border officers to address this distinguished assembly. i'm here to speak for the passage of mr. bishop's
legislation, h.r. 1505, national security and federal and protection act. this bill is printed in its simplicity. why? because the primary purpose of border securities to ensure national security and promote public safety for all americans including border patrol agents on the border. each of you represent constituent towns and communities that have been adversely affected by the illegal immigration and drug smuggling. no community in the united states is safe from these transnational criminals and criminal organizations. as long as the external borders, the united states remain open to them they will continue to come. the love of violence these groups are capable of and routinely employ is comprehensible to any civilized person. border patrol agents and air as honest and a significant amount of time -- arizona spent time because much of the land above the arizona border is public land. these agents report that the
department of homeland security and bureau of customs and border protection or intentionally misrepresenting the situation along the southern border especially concerning the relative safety of the border area and the number of aliens detected to get away. therefore i am here today to tell you what rank-and-file border patrol officers are unwilling to tell you even if some peanut and placed under oath for fear of reprisal from their employer. the agents in the field are saying that in the arizona urban border area has become more dangerous place to work. and that the federal public land surrounding has devolved into a lawless. armed with smugglers from mexico. additionally, agents do not have access on all public land patrolled in the border. the concept is simple. if you cannot access the border you cannot control the border there for you cannot secure the border. limited access areas including
wilderness and refugee presume greater likelihood the agents will encounter the criminals who will not hesitate to fight your and that the probability that if anyone is seriously injured they will surely die before that injured person can be safely transported or evacuated because of access issues. there's also the fact they are reluctant to petrol these areas effectively because they may find themselves the subject of a dispute between their agency and the agency controlling the land they seek to patrol. to the agent on the ground, the very idea that it planned for some obscure animal is more important than their life is an unsettling reality that further discouraged them in their efforts to secure the border. you need to protect our border patrol agents. and existing but powerful concern is the conceived lack of interest on the part of the department of homeland security to aggressively pursue criminals that kill or attempt to kill or to kill border patrol agents. to sweep these issues under the
carpet is reprehensible. here i have a copy of the arizona hunting and trapping regulation showing, and i quote, from the homeland security issues along the international border may affect the quality of a person's home. the delineated area goes from the california border to the mexico border and includes all land south of interstate highway eight and ten and number as far as arizona city. that line passing to the west of tucson. we have reports of agents following tracks of an all-terrain vehicle across the border illegally in arizona. they followed the trail crossed public land north into maricopa county, which is phoenix, and apprehended a load of marijuana on in altering vehicle driven by a 15-year-old illegal alien with a rifle. the department of interior employees have the barrier 70 to 80 miles north of the mexican border on the table top wilderness. to prevent smuggling vehicles from rising further north.
like to go on for an hour's with individual examples of why this legislation is necessary, however, my five minutes is nearly up. we urge you to support mr. bishop's bill, h.r. 1505 to protect federal land and our border patrol agents by signing on as a co-sponsor as soon as possible to give the border patrol agent on the ground the unencumbered access to federal public land within 100 miles of the border they must have to secure the border and provide them the reassurance that the united states congress is behind them in that effort. >> thank you very much. mr. chilton. once again if he could pull but closer to your mouth so we can hear. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am a rancher and ranchers shoot straight and it was really upsetting to sit here and listening to the bureaucratic doubletalk by the forest service
fish and wildlife, the blm and border patrol. i live on the border. 4 miles of my ranch is the international border. the border is not signed or marked and consists of a five strand barbed wire fence similar to the one that one sees along highways. there is no wall, and you would never know what was the international border by viewing it. but the cartel's know. we strongly believe that the border patrol must control the border at the border, not ten, 20 or 100 miles inside america. we have heard, and it was a few years ago, that the border patrol found several backpacks near the ranch which contained passports.
we wonder whether the owners of the backpacks or tourists or terrorists. we must protect the national security above all else. national security must not be trumped by environmental laws or federal land managers. it would seem impossible to win world war ii if the military had been forced to comply with current laws such as the national environmental policy act, the endangered species act, the clean water act and other acts enacted by congress after world war ii. the construction of thousands of military bases and airfields and port facilities inside the united states during the war would have been delayed for years. wouldn't it make sense to control the border at the border? by completing the border fence?
there is no border friends from nogales to about 50, 60 miles. and wouldn't it make sense to have functioning 21st century communications near the border, installing cameras and sensors and using drones and he'll look doctors and satellites -- helicopters and satellites and other technologies developed by the military? the border patrol needs to be able to construct roads, helicopter pads and forward operating base is at very close or next to the border and be free of impediments caused by environmental laws and federal land managers. land managers must not be allowed to interfere with the access of the central use of
land to protect the citizens. recently environmental litigation diversions resulted in 50 million border patrol funds being transferred to the u.s. fish and wildlife service for the alleged environmental damage. the real environmental damage is being caused by drug and people traffickers whose impact is an enormously more harmful to the border in the border patrol. we are told that the border patrol, by the border patrol that approximately 20% of the undocumented border crossers have criminal records. criminals engaged in human and drug transportation and find it convenient to use wild life refugees and wilderness areas as easy corridors to hide and travel. my fellow rancher, rob krentz
was murdered with the calories came back to mexico through the san bernadino national refuge. we impose the designation of any and all new wilderness areas, wild land or refugees within 100 miles of the southern border. such designations are virtual gift to mexican cartels. it is outrageous that hundreds of mexican cartels scouts with the best binoculars, night vision and encrypted satellite films have been found on tops of mountains near the range, and near our house. and dozens of miles inside the border. as a consequence, the foreign cartels scouts know where the border patrol is located all times and can then carefully
guided ak-47 the unpacking drugging and people smugglers' through the mountains and valleys without being spotted by the border patrol. we have been burglarized twice. ranchers in the border area cannot leave their house is on target for a few hours since their homes are likely to be broken into if someone isn't there. we live with weapons year our bed. our doors have weapons next to them. we have weapons in our vehicles and attach weapons and our saddles. the border patrol must control the border at the border so that citizens civil rights, property rights and human rights are protected. rangers along the border cannot have peace of mind until the border is in fact secure. >> i appreciate that.
just so you know, there is a vote going on right now and what we have told members to quickly and come back so we are not walking out of this. there will be people coming back again. ms. mittal? >> members of the committee i'm pleased to be here today to participate in your joint hearing on environmental laws and border patrol operation. ..
>> testimony today summarizes the key finding of these reports. the reports were prepared collaborative by staff and gao security and justice team and gao's natural resources and environment team. accompanying me is the director leading golf course ao's work on border secure issue. first, border patrol must comply with management laws like the wilderness act when conducting operations on federal lands. under these laws, border patrol like other federal agencies, must obtain permission from the land agencies before agents can undertake activities such as maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment. to help implement the laws, the land agencies developed several interagency agreements. we heard today about the 2006mou
leading to numerous instances of enhanced cooperation and better access for border patrol on some federal lands. however, we also found instances where despite these agreements, land management laws had impacted border patrol's access to federal lands. for example, 14 of the 26 stations as was earlier mentioned responsible for patrolling federal lands along the southwest border told us they sometimes faced delays because the length of time it takes land managers to complete nepa requirements before a permit can be issued. we found the delays could have been reduced if border patrol had used its own resources to perform required nepa environmental assessments and other delays could have been reduced if the agencies conducted impact statements for the region as allowed under the act. we recommended that the agencies take these steps to avoid such delays in the future.
in addition, five stations told us that because of the esa and the presence of endangered species, they had to change the timing or location of their ground and air patrols. however, they also told us that these changes had not affected their ability to detect or apprehend illegal aliens on federal lands. second, we found that while land management laws caused delays and restrictions, they had not impacted the operational control status for 22 of the 26 border patrol stations along the southwest border. instead, we found that 18of these stations reported that the remoteness and rugged terrain affected their level of operational control on federal lands more than access delays or restrictions caused by the land management laws. according to these stations, the key to obtaining operational control on federal lands on the southwest border is to have a sufficient number of agents,
have access to additional technology, and have additional tactical infrastructure. they did not identify changing the environmental laws as a key requirement. four stations along the southwest border did tell us that their ability to achieve or maintain operational control for federal lands under their jurisdiction had been affected by land management laws, however, only two of the stations requested additional resources to facilitate increased or timelier access to regain operational control. in both of these cases, their requests were denied by senior border patrol officials because of other higher agency priorities. finally, seven years ago, we were very critical of the lack of information sharing and communication that existed between the border patrol and the land agencies. in 2010, however, we found the agencies had made significant progress in some areas as a
result of the implementation of various interagency agreements, but we also found that they could still take additional steps to ensure that coordination of threat information occurs in a timely manner and that agencies have compatible radio communications. the agencies are currently taking action to implement our recommendation. mr. chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. i'd be happy to respond to any questions you have. >> thank you, i appreciate you all of you for giving your statements. they are there for the record. if there's additional statements written, we may ask you to respond to those at the same time in a timely fashion. i have a couple questions. as i understand as you're talking here, very nice, very balanced report you did here, but you did find a correlation between environmental laws and delays to get permission in permits from some land managers? >> what we found is that the
implementation of the environmental laws had resulted in delays and restrictions. >> this is a question that -- never ask questions if i don't know what the answer is, but i ask it of one of the other panelists. i'll give it your question as well. all the issues you went through, did you ever find a chance when the request was made that it was border patrol always asking the interior or asking for permission? it was never the other way around. >> you asked that question earlier, and one of the things that we noticed was that border patrol has a lot of flexibility under these acts to absolutely undertake a number of these environmental assessments themselves, and they have not been doing that. >> and as long as they are allowed to do that. i appreciate that very, very much. thank you. let me ask a couple other questions for the other witnesses. mr. wood, mr. chilton, mr. taylor. in your opinion from your
experience on the ground, and i wish the other panelists would listen to your testimony as well. our environmental laws such such as the endangered species compatible? is there a problem you've seen with those? any of you. mr. chilton, just go down the row with that. >> the answer is is no. national security should not be trumped by environmental laws or rules and regulations of a different departments like interior, forest service, and fish and wildlife. there is a refuge in arizona called the san padro national conservation area. it starts at the international border where the san padro river
enters the united states. there's a wall that comes each way and stops, and there's a 1500 foot gap. the refuge is two -- or two miles wide and the conservation area is 50 miles long. the border patrol has no access into that area expect at the border and that's limited access. it's a path for druggers, illegals, and perhaps terrorists to walk 50 miles into the united states and how does the border patrol try to patrol it? they patrol the perimeter so if you have 50 miles one way, 50 miles the other way, and two miles on the end, that's 102
more miles of fence that the border patrol has to patrol, and they are not allowed into it. the roads, since it's become a national conservation area, have deteriorated so you can't drive and the refuge or the conservation district manager doesn't let anyone grade the roads and have access in there. >> thank you. i appreciate that. let me change the question for you. former border patrol agents -- do you see anything fundamentally strange that the border patrol has unlimited access on private property, but not limited access on public property to do their jobs. mr. wood? >> thank you for the question. it has not gone unnoticed to us that the memorandum of understanding that we've discussed earlier. it's nine pages of single spaced
typing. it's complicated to read, but the point i'm making here is in contrast to that mou, the federal statute now effects border patrol unrestricted entry within a distance of 25 miles from any external boundary and do have access to private lands, but not dwellings for the purpose of patrolling the border, to prophet illegal entry of aliens into the united states. that statement is contained in only four sentences in paragraph 83 paragraph 287 of the act. >> thank you. my time expired here, although just one thing. i read a footnote in there that i thought was interesting. in the desert act, it was
specific specifically in there the language said it would not be allowed to interfere with the concept of national security. i found that a unique concept there. maybe when we have some other time, i'll come back to have you respond to that one. >> thank you. the border patrol agent that was here represented that he thought what was happening in the tucson region was great success. how would you react to that, mr. chilton? >> the border patrol still is not at the border. the border patrol is doing what they can. i respect what they are trying to do, but the border is not secure. they can't get down to the border. they try to patrol 5, 10, 15 miles inside the border, and allow us to live in a no-man's
land. there has been some diminishment in traffic across, but when i talked to the border patrol people, they say that traffic is moving further west into the indian nation and into the oregon pipe area, and we don't see the people moving across our ranch. at one time there's 30,000 people coming through a year. we don't see those people anymore because there are scouts on top of the mountains who are guiding the cartels and the people smugglers through our ranch and other ranches and the border patrol is known -- they
know where the border patrol is at all times, and the border patrol doesn't see them, and they move through the country all i way through the -- all the way through the county on to phoenix. >> how dangerous is it there? >> well, when we ride horse back, i pack two guns a rifle and a pistol. if i see people coming along with an ak-47 and a bunch of people with backpacks with drugs in them, i go the other way, fast. if i have to, i'll fall off my horse and go to shooting. it's dangerous. it's dainches, and we -- dangerous, and we should not have to live under those conditions. the border should be patrolled at the border. >> mr. taylor, what -- talk to me a little bit about the mori real you see there and how do the agents deal with the
differences between what they can do in other areas and what they can do in wilderness type designation areas? >> well, we found out that not only the wilderness designations, but the public land that adjoins the wilderness, and i'm talking specifically about the pajita wilderness, one of the first reactions i had as a supervisor at that time, we had federal troops supporting the border patrol. we had a compact lurk team from the marine corp. base working in junction with us, and a fire fight ensued. this was back in 1989, i believe, between the marines and the packers, and the land managers was not concerned about the fact that we had a fire fight. they were concerned about the fire that ensued in the
wilderness area, and so we had to quit going in there. >> how big a space and area was that? >> that particular area in that -- there's a protected area within the protected area, and that's where they were. the reasons the ma rears -- marines were there because that's where the smugglers chose to come through the border, and that internal inside the wilderness is relatively small at 150 acres. >> this definition between controlled and managed, did you feel like there was a unified vision in understanding of those two definitions and what was truly controlled and what wasn't controlled? >> we used the border patrol's definition of operational control so that when we were talking to their patrol agents in charge, we used definitions that their agency had developed and that they should have been
fully understanding of, so that is why we use the definition of operational control that was defined by the border patrol. >> very good. my time expired. i yield back. >> mr. kildee, do you have questioning for the witnesses? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first of all, i thank the witnesses for your testimony. i'd like to ask ms. mittal, did the report find any laws need to be repealed or dramatically altered in order for the border patrol to effectively perform its mission? >> during our audit, what we found is that it was the implementation of the environmental laws that was causing the delays and restrictions at the border patrol agents had identified. nobody recommended that there was a particular law or a particular provision of the law that needed to be changed. what we noted was that the mou
that was implemented by the three agencies was not effective in implementing the environmental laws. >> so congress in its position should have perhaps more hearings on how we can better have the enforcement of these laws then? >> in our review of the four laws that were repeatedly cited by border patrol, what we found was the environmental laws provide a lot of flexibility as well as a lot of options, and that the border patrol has not exercised all of the flexibilities and all of the actions that are provided to it under these environmental laws, so it's very easy to go back and blame the land management agencies when you have not yet taken the actions that the laws
provide you as the action agency, so i think the reason we did not make any suggestions or recommendations about changing the environmental laws was because there are flexibilities and options available to border patrol that it has not yet exhausted in trying to comply with the environmental laws. >> based on your interviews, how significant are a problem of public planned access issues to the border patrol sector chiefs that you interviewed? what is their feeling? >> there were 17 border patrol agents in charge out of the 26 we surveyed that told us we had experienced access delays. however, in each -- not in every case did that cause a problem in their ability to fulfill their function. for example, there were five that had to change their patrols
as a result of een dangered -- endangered species, but all the agents told us that had not impacted their ability to apprehend and detect illegal aliens on federal lands. there was a mixed bag. in some places, the delays caused an impact on their operations, and other places it had not. >> thank you very much. i know congress wants to and all of us at this table want to make sure we have the proper balance in writing our laws and all your testimony today has been helpful, and i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i have so more questions. another round. mr. taylor, we talked about whether border patrol can go under the emergency circumstances. can you just tell me what's the difference between patrolling and going in for exjint or emergency circumstances?
>> patrolling is something that is done routinely, daily. it involves two things, detouring people from crossing the border and protecting them once they have. those are the two basic principles of patrolling the border. if you do not have access to the border, you can't patrol it, so you have to back off. the further you have to back up, the more territory you're feeding to the enemy. >> well so then can you explain the obstacles the border patrol faces if blocked from building new roads or maintaining existing roads, and, you know, is it just good enough 20 have a single -- to have a single road running through it? >> no. let me qualify my background. i've been a field agent in burledder follow for 15 years. i worked the arizona area. when you have a situation where you cannot get in there and pull
somebody else that gets in trouble, you're best off not to send them in there. what happens is the area doesn't get patrolled at all. >> i see. thank you. mr. wood, can you repeat the hatchet repeater mou, what it is, and why it's a concern? >> yes, sir, thank you. the big hatchet is the name of a mountain peak in -- located in southern new mexico. it is the sole source for communication. historically there was a repeater up there the the land managers found out about it, and border patrol was required to take it down. since then, it's been put back up, but with the restrictions that make it very, very difficult to manage.
as an example, the border patrol will be required to take that down if that area is designated wilderness. the copy of that is they will not be able to take it down except through certain months of the year because of the season for some endangered species up there. it's the highest peak in the area. it's going to be subject to damage by lightening and other natural effects. if that repeater goes down from lightening, and it's during the period where border patrol cannot access it for those limitations, then that entire area will be without communication and the border
patrol agents assigned within there are going to be in drastic danger. i as a former chief would probably pull the agents out of there if that happens. it's just not worthwhile to take that kind of chances against one of our agents. >> huh, thank you. mr. taylor, agent terry was murdered on national forestland. how should that tragedy influence this discussion? >> i mentioned earlier, mr. chairman, that those areas that border wilderness, and in this particular case, it borders the coronado national forest to the south. the bandits involved in that apparently came up to the coronado, stayed in the islands, and at the intersection of the
mountains and the adasosa mountains is where it happened. apparently the agents tried to follow the people who did the shooting back into mexico, went through the wild which the agents have no access -- as a matter of fact, there's not a fence there in many places. it's been on the ground so long, that the vegetation covered it. >> is this the map we were talking about? is this the area? >> yes, yes, sir. >> can you explain that map? >> if you look in the lower right hand corner, that's where the border patrol station is. the next arrow to the left is coming up through the wilderness more or less on the east side and the arrow on the left is the main corridor where they come from the west. where you see that box is what i call the kill zone. this is where the bandits, now, there's two groups of bandits.
people who are trying to protect their drugs and aliens, and the other side is trying to rip them off from those people, and both groups apparently are armed. once they get past the kill zone, look at the arrow in the upper right hand corner, that's where the border patrol check point is. the arrows to the left follow the highlands and take the aliens and these drug smugglers beyond the border patrol check point, and the purpose of the box in there is to show that almost all of that kill zone is located on public land, and it is in the coronado national forest and pretty much in the northwest quadrant is where agent terry was killed and in o four day period within the last ten days we found three bodies. we don't have a ruling yet on what caused the deaths.
also in the upper left hand corner in december 2009 is where agent russo was shot, we believe it was the same group of bandits shooting both agents. if i can expand that just slightly, if you think about nogalis as a horseshoe, it's covered by the west and east by public land, and it's all mountains. the reasons the alien smugglers use that because when they have the high ground, they have the tactical advantage. they can see the border patrol coming, and the border patrol has to go to them, and the only way they can do that is on foot. horses won't work in that area because in some of those places to traverse them, you have to go on your hands and knees it's that steep. i hope that answers your question. >> thank you, more details than i have.
mr.kildee, did you have further questions? >> no. >> senator chaffetz? >> [inaudible] >> we'll let you go here after a few more questions actually. in a letter to dhs regarding the wildlife refuge, the fish and wildlife service asked the patrol to cut signs near the refuge. can you explain to us what sign cutting is and why it's an important tool, and what's the implications if the border patrol cannot do this or use this tool? >> yes, sir. as i alluded to earlier in my testimony, sign cutting 1 -- is one of the most preferred and effective techniques that the border patrol developed over the years. sign cutting effectively
requires that a road be parallel to the border if that's the area that you want to protect. they call it a drag road because they are frequently smoothed over by one method or another so that evidence of illegal entry is easily vived by the -- identified by the agents that are working that area. one of the critical things of that you have to have access. you can't effectively do sign cutting or drag roads away from the border. you've lost the frontal then where these entries occur, and they spread out over large, large distances so if we're not able to use that technique, we're losing a very, very valuable tool that we developed over years, and i can tell the
committee, the border patrol agents now and previously were some of the best sign cutters in the country. i always have to mention that it's an old technique, but it's been very effective for our agency. >> thank you. mr. chilton, i'll give you the last chance to comment on a question i had. 2007, this subcommittee received a letter from one of your good friends. from the krentz family. the purpose of the letter was a new designation and stated the border patrol should not be excluded nor should national security in the united states be sacrificed in order to create a wilderness area. we are in fear for our lives and that of our families and friends. i think you mentioned what happened to rob krentz.
we know what happened there. this is a sad situation and should have never been the place. i realize mrs.krentz was hit by another accident. extend our appreciation to the family and our concern and one the reasons we push forward with these con cements is because of the family and what they suffered down there. if you can do that, i'd be appreciative. >> i will. she helped me prepare my testimony, and she's really, really angry that wilderness areas are still being proposed. she's angry that her husband's killer has not been found, and she believes that national security demands securing the border at the border, and i will be very happy to call her this
afternoon and talk with her. thank you, mr. bishop. >> thank you. i appreciate that. mr. tearny, you -- tierney, you can ask questions. thank you, i just want to ask a couple questions. i had to step out, and i apologize for that. i want to reiterate what i understand your reports to be. from what i understand it is there's no direct correlation between the environmental laws and the wilderness laws that can't be resolved by the department's working together and overcoming any conflict between national security and the intended protection of those laws; is that correct? >> what we found is that the mou was designed to take care of those conflicts and make sure that the agencies work well together. in some areas, the mou is doing
a good job. in other areas, it's not as effective. >> now, did your study look into the areas not effected as to what was the cause of the lack of total effectiveness? >> what we heard was the land management agencies do not have the resources to always expedite border patrol's requests, but the border patrol does have flexibilities under the existing laws to undertake a number of the environmental assessments itself. it can conduct environmental impact statements for the region, can establish category exclusions for its activities, and none of that has been done yet. >> okay. so we need to focus in on making sure they use all their resources properly at that area. we need to look at increasing the resources where they are lacking, and i suspect that we probably need to do some better training, is that a fair thing to say to make sure that mou is operative and implemented in the manner it should be?
>> yes. training was something brought up by every patrol agent in charge and every border patrol agent we talkinged to. they want to see more regular face to face training provided by land management agencies to understand the environment that they are working in. >> okay, better training, better use of resources that exist, better resources where they are lacking. what else do you recommend to the attention of this congress? >> i believe holding the agencies accountable to be sure they can demonstrate to you that they have exhausted all of the available flexibilities that they have available to their disposal and yet they are running into problems in doing their job, and if congress can hold them accountable, i did not hear new information provided this morning by the agencies that testified that they have exhausted the authority that congress provided them, so i think holding them accountable is essential. >> okay. the congress did its job in
writing the laws, but not all it should be doing in terms of oversight right now. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. >> other questions? >> fine. i want to thank the panel very much. i appreciate the hard washing that you -- work and the gao put into the report. it's enlightening, and i read the footnotes. >> you did, sir. i'm impressed. >> mr. chilton, i appreciate you being here for giving us the perspective of someone who lives on the border facing the situations on a daily basis. mr. taylor and mr. wood, thank you for being here representing the view of a border patrol eat who is no longer worried about his status as a border patrol agent. thank you for your testimony very, very much. i appreciate it. it was especially valuable to all of us there. if there's no further business,
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up at 4 eastern this afternoon, going to georgetown university law center for a discussion on clinton versus star, called collision in the capitol, historic gathering of individuals who played a key role in the clinton star battles nearly destroying the clinton
presidency. speaking is a cocounsel for monica louwinsky and others. live coverage of that starts at 4 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. also joining us later today online for a book tv live event futuring president obama's sister, author maya soetoro-ng presenting ladder to the moon. that beginning live on booktv.org.
>> now a house intelligence subcommittee holds a hearing on the muslim brotherhood in egypt and the group's influence in the west. it's the oldest and largest islamic political group. including in the panel is an i gings scholar. this is just under two hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, and welcome. the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the subcommittee on terrorism, human
intelligence analysis, and counterintelligence will come to order. the first order of business is to welcome my ranking member, mike tompson and the other members of the subcommittee and full committee who joined us today. mike thompson is a great friend, and we are committed to working in a bipartisan fashion on this subcommittee whenever possible. we met recently to discuss the way ahead for the subcommittee, and as a result, we have a robust bipartisan plan for oversight of the areas of this subcommittee's broad jurisdiction. today, we're having an open hearing on the muslim brotherhood. open hearings are rare for the house intelligence committee and subcommittees, but chairman rogers and i feel this important issue should be discussed with the american people. as governments are shaken in the arab spring, intelligence agencies across the world are studying what kind of
governments would follow in a new deal political landscape across the middle east. central to this discussion is the muslim brotherhood. founded in egypt in 1928, the muslim brotherhood was dedicated to implementing traditional islamic law in opposition to european rule. an interesting debate rose regarding the role of the miss line up brotherhood and what they might play in future governments. some assert they have not renounced violence as a political means, and any inclusion of the brotherhood fundamentally undermines democratic movements in government. do to the degree of threat from the brotherhood, this topic requires further exploration. we are going to explore the muslim brotherhood in the middle east and in the united states in an effort to clarify what this group aims to do and how it pursues those aims. i think to encourage a discourse
about the muslim brotherhood is analysts across the world struggling to understand what comes next in the middle east. additionally, this hearing will address how our government is and should be dealing with the muslim brotherhood. much of the confusion surrounding the muslim brotherhood stems from the abandonment of violence. when they declared they would not use violence to achieve the goals, many in america and the world cease to view it as a threat of any kind. it convinced some it is a harmless organization sharing the freedom and values of the western world. however, the depths of the commitment to nonviolence is unclear. it may renounce violence as a means to gain power in egypt, but don't forget it is a parent organization of the palestinian hammas pledging its commitment
to violence against israel and founding charter. in addition. -- in addition, the muslim brotherhood's theologian sanctioned attacks in iraq, endorsed suicide bombings, and proclaimed to kill a jew before he dies. it is this man they brought to tahir square for the first friday sermon after mubarak was ousted in february. we to look beyond tactics whether they are violent or nonviolent and explore the root issue, their core beliefs and ideology. the 9/11 commission report states, and i quote -- "that our strategy must match our means to two ends, dismantling the al-qaeda network, and prevailing in the longer term over the ideology that gives rise to islamist terrorism."
that's why i believe that when we talk about the threat to brotherhood possesses, we must not merely look at whether they are vint or nonviolent. we must also look at the extremist ideology they have and whether it leads to radicalization and ultimately acts of terrorism. my view is that some of the changing in the muslim brotherhood are merely superficial. their abandonment is for tactical reasons and still opposed to minority rights. for example, nonmuslims and women are not afforded the same rights as muslim men under the muslim brotherhood's way of thinking. we need to examine closely whether this us lamic regime is still in place. to stop them, -- the reported leader from 1996 until 2002 wrote that jihad is not limited to the specific
regions of the country since the homeland is one is not divided. this is also a very important issue because the muslim brotherhood apierres to be active in the u.s., but not in the traditional sense. there are no card carries groups here, no buildings on k street. instead the group spreads influence through a large number of affiliated organizations throughout the country. this allows the muslim brotherhood to muddy the waters when it comes to foreign funding and influence and hide behind groups with plausible deniability of involvement with the muslim brotherhood when necessary. we know this because the department of justice produced clear evidence in the 2008 holy land foundation trial. the largest terrorism financial trial in american history that showed the muslim brotherhood is in america and outlined how they operate here. the witnesses can shed light on the evidence produced in the
trial and explain how the muslim brotherhood operates behind the scenes. the federal government does not have a comprehensive or consistent strategy for dealing with the muslim muslim brotherhood nor have a strategy for dealing with the brother heed in the greater middle east. this lack of understanding led to disorientation. reheard the full spectrum of views on and approaches to various officials. this makes me feel like the government plays checkers and the muslim brotherhood plays chess. i want to hear from the witnesses their views on what the government's policy should be with regard to the brotherhood. we will clarify the aims of the muslim brotherhood by hearing from some of the preimminent experts of the group including a muslim leader, a scholar writing a book called the new luz mim brotherhood in the west, two who
returns from trips to egypt days ago, and i thank you for being here. that's tiring, and a professor who specifickizes in political science and international affairs. we have a very balanced panel of witnesses sitting before us, two of whom invited by the ranking member so that we can have a wholesome discussion addressing all sides of the issue. one of the privileges of the intelligence committee is that we have regular access to intelligence community personnel who provide us with classified information on matters of national security, and as such, i intend to follow up on this hearing in the near future with a closed classified hearing on the muslim brotherhood to allow subcommittee members to hear from the executive branch what the government knows about the group and what it's doing to address the threat. my hope is that this hearing provide congress with a better understanding of the muslim brotherhood so that we can ask government officials more informed questions about their policies and strategies towards
the muslim brotherhood, and i'd now like to introduce the ranking member to make an opening statement. >> well, thank you, madam chair, and you are correct, we are friends. we enjoy a great relationship working together on these issues and others, and this is truly out of the ordinary to have an open hearing as the chair stated. they are rare in this committee, and the entire time i've been on the intelligence committee, this is the first subcommittee open hearing that i've participated in. i think the first one that we have had, so i appreciate the chair's effort to gather information and gather an understanding of some of the most thorny issues that we face today, so thank you for that, madam chair, and welcome to all of the witnesses, and thank you for taking the time to inform our subcommittee about your research and your experience with the muslim brotherhood.
intelligence oversight committees have an important and legitimate need to understand key organizations and individuals who influence events and countries that are important to the u.s., countries such as egypt. the muslim brotherhood is involved to some degree in reshaping the egyptian government. for that reason, this hearing can be productive if it provides a fact-based examination of the brotherhood's activities, octoberivitys, and potential to effect u.s. foreign policy. however, just as important, there are limits to what this hearing can or should accomplish. first and foremost, this hearing must not become a witch hunt. this hearing is not about the vast majority of egyptian citizens who protested peacefully at tahir square, nor is this hearing about law abiding muslim-americans who
contribute to the society. this has nothing to do with the constitutional activities of americans who practice religion, attract others to their religion, participate in the political process, or influence u.s. policy which, by the way, in washington and in state legislatures and in city halls across our country, we call lobbying. second, this hearing should not promote guilt by association. every organization has bad apples, so we should not judge an organization by only a few of its members. my understanding is that since the muslim brotherhood has a large written record, anyone can select statements to make a case for or against that organization. our experts can help us animal the statements and -- analyze the statements and give us the muslim brotherhood's true intentions. third, today's hearing is not about terrorism. as a member of the intelligence
committee, i take very seriously our duty to protect the nation and to counter terrorism. let's be clear. the egyptian muslim brotherhood is not a state department terrorist organization and it renounces violence years ago. fourth, this hearing is not an investigation into criminal activity. no one here speaks for u.s. law enforcement or is a law enforcement officer. while we may need to follow up as the chair said with a closed hearing to find out if there are any muslim brotherhood related violations of u.s. law, today's open hearing is not that forum. finally, i strongly believe that this hearing must not become yet another recruitment tool for extremists. experts in the field note that even in a free society, individuals can be driven to violence if they feel victimized. my hope is that nothing is said
today to be interpreted as targeting or victimizing anyone. madam chair, i know that you expressed the desire to have a serious discussion that does not offend any law-abiding citizen of our great country. i'm eager to work together to reach that goal by keeping this session within firm parameters connected to the intelligence oversights. again, i appreciate our working relationship. i appreciate your willingness to try and find out the important information that we know, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. thompson. we'll now turn to the witness testimony. our first witness is the doctor, the executive director of the washington institute for policy. as an expert on arab and islamic politics as well as middle east policy, he was one the foremost voices on these topics through frequent guest appearances on news programs and regular contributions to major newspapers.
moreover, he frequently travels to the middle east including a trip to egypt returning from earlier this week. thank you for being here, and please proceed with your five minute testimony. >> thank you, madam chairman, it's a privilege to present testimony to this subcommittee. i have a formal prosecution for the record now and i'll make some brief comments at this time. as you just noted, i did just return from a fact-finding mission in egypt several days ago including intensive discussions with a range of actors including members of the muslim brotherhood. with your permission, i'll leave the conversation in the united states to my colleague and focus on the situation in egypt. first, a comment. the muslim brotherhood, madam chairman, does not occupy by itself the islamist space in egypt. the actual issue of islamist challenge to egyptian politics
is bigger than just the brotherhood itself. there are at least six different movements, parties, elements all along the spectrum in egyptian politics today. they range on the most radical from the killers of sadaf who were released from prison in recent weeks and formed their own political party. it includes extremists who never before recent vice events played a active role, but now are engaged in politics. these are the people burning shrines. there's the muslim brotherhood in its new political party, and some further liberal than the muslim brotherhood with the overall muslim framework. it's impossible to know how much the divisions matter and whether indeed the brotherhood is trying to create the appearance of political division to make themselves look more moderate, and, ,in fact, so some e
diswriptions the appeal of the -- egyptians, the appeal is not as extreme. we may be reaping some of the negative benefits of this perception when elections are held later this year. madam chairman, i believe deep concern about the brotherhood's e jeer gens -- emergence is warranted. as i noted in a previous congressional testimony, the brotherhood is not as some people suggested, not an egyptian version of the march of dimes. it is not merely a social organization committed to improving the welfare of the egyptian people. it is a profoundly political organization that seeks to reorder egyptian and broader muslim society in a certain political direction. tactically, i believe the opposition exploits whatever opportunities offered. they renounced most ambitious
goals and violent means to achieve them as a result of regime compulsion, not a free choice by the leaders of the organization themselves. should they achieve political power, it will use that tower to transform egypt into a very different place. the best case analogy would be turkey under its current leadership with a secular state that is gradually islamized. another situation sees deeper and more systematic situations of the society including the potential for a frightening growth of terrorism between muslims and deeper muslim conflict between the peaceful brand of islam. however, while extreme weariness is warranted, it's a mistake in my view for the united states to operate under the assumption that the brotherhood asession to power is inevitable. in fact, such an assumption is
dangerous. indeed, looking at the election results in 2005, a majority of egyptian voters do not support the muslim brotherhood, and there is reason to believe that if given the right amount of support, organizational backing, and time, the nonus -- nonus lawn -- islamist can win. based in the experience of islamists and other arab countries, the implications of election success would be felt in numerous ways from socially to education policy to egypt's regional policy impacts peace with israel. in recent weeks muslim brotherhood have been down
playing previous statements calling for ab bring gages of the treaty. now they say little more than this is an issue that the new democratic parliament should address. most likely, that's because of the egyptian military's firm position on this issue making the treaty out of bounds for discussion in today's egypt in this moment before elections, however, in a islamized egypt, the future of egypt-israel peace is likely to make the experience of the last couple of decades look warm and cozy. this has the effect in policy towards gaza, in policing of sinai, natural gas to israel, the zones between i gent and israel, and, of course, in all of these ways and more, a more islamist egypt has serious
ramifications for a bilateral relationship. i believe it is important for the united states to strike a wise balance between on the one hand being alive to the dangerous that the brotherhood and allies pose to karat call interest -- critical interests on the one hand and between avoiding giving them a political gift on certain reactions to motivate voters otherwise opposed to the brotherhood's message to come out and support the message. . .t technical decisions are made and training and electoral process that doesn't inadvertently assist the brother of its political prospects. moreover, we should share with them information on the foreign funding especially the gulf funding of islamist groups, parties and movements with an audit insulating egypts space
experiment from the various interests from outside parties that might be committed to a greater is solmization of egyptian society were generally i believe it is most important to be clear to the egyptians about the type of egypt with him we can have a firm partnership. >> an open, tolerant respectful democratice egypt. and egypt in which cops ands pla muslims play an equal role in te the shaping of this society. that's the egypt we can work t with, and egyptian the votersshh should know that is the tide of egypt that we want to be able to see at the end of their electoral process. thank you adam chair. he's an academic and security experts and currently a visiting fellow with the rand corporation who specializes in a solmization and political violence in europe and north america. he's the author of two books,
the latest of which as i mentioned is called the muslim brotherhood in the west. i might also add he was supposed to be in europe today but changed his plans soon to be here and we appreciate every much. thank you for doing that and think your testimony and please go ahead with your testimony. >> thank you. and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me today. as we serve the development of the next month in egypt i think it is important to also take a broad perspective as you mention in your opening statement and analyze the global reach of the muslim brotherhood and putting here in america i would like to advise my testimony in three parts. first, i want to examine how the brotherhood operates here in the west. second, i want to discuss the goals and third, i want to provide it was a recommendation during power. today groups in more than 80 countries place their origins to the brotherhood and the adopted
the various forms and tactics according to the environment which they operate to. this includes the west were most of the groupings created in the 1960's and 70's the brotherhood activists have evolved into some of the most visible muslim organizations in europe and north america. let me be clear it's incorrect to use the term muslim brotherhood in america if with this expression we need the organization in the united states are controlled by the brotherhood in cairo of a monolithic hierarchical entity. yet it's fair to say that in the united states and in most western countries that our organizations that also independently operated have historical financial, personal organizational and ideological ties to the muslim brotherhood. today things to the combination of ideological flexibility and unrelenting activism, large funding and the organization of competing islamist movements for their organizations have gained
significant influence. even if the membership remains small they've shown an enormous ability to monopolize the discourse and its position themselves at the forefront of the competition to be the main interlocutors of the western governments and the media. to my second point the goal of the organization from the brotherhood and the middle east also the procedure the introduction of the sure villa in the west the western brothers of deeply pragmatic, and aware of what they can and cannot do. therefore they are elsewhere. foremost among them is serving as lummis identity of the muslims. a second goal is to be designated as the representatives of the muslim community. the brothers understand the relationship of the western elites could provide them with a financial and political capital that would allow them to significantly expand their influence inside the muslim community summit and the clever political calculation, they seek
to be recognized by the western elites as representatives of the muslim community. so as to eventually obtain the same recommendation within the community itself. analysts are deeply divided and there is assumed the organization. they're simply a socially conservative force that accept democracy to cooperate with them on various issues including terrorism and radicalization. d.c. a much more sinister agenda. and they argue that in the resources of most westerners the western brothers art in modern bass worse engaged in a sort of still subversion and weakening the society from within. intelligence agencies in europe tended to share the pessimistic view within the united states has elsewhere this know, this is not within the government. this dynamic is exemplified by the fbi relationship with terror here in the united states. the most visible and controversial among the u.s.
based organization that traces the origins to brotherhood. some top fbi officials have publicly stated the goal is to, quote, further the agenda for radical islamist terrorist groups by providing political support in the court. others have publicly thanked them for a, come commitment to maintaining a dialogue leading to the frank and honest exchange of ideas and difficult. this contradiction hardly limited to the fbi is the result of the combination of factors. but it's a. there's an understanding of the fbi that will care and some of its affiliates might not be the ideal partners the peerless seeking in region of the muslim community. they are a necessary one. the relationship wouldn't be more complex. the hearings chaired by the congressman king highlighted the story of the community leader was also ostracized by care for reaching out to the fbi to stop improvement but at the same time it's operated for the fbi and
some terrorism cases by northern virginia residents who travel in 2009. about health policymakers deal with western brothers many pessimists for policies that would expose the brothers from engagement. one of this decision highlights traveling aspects of the brothers agenda but need to be addressed such a position as a realistic and counterproductive. although the representative this are overblown both organizations to represent a cross-section of the community, talking only to the muslim leaders whose position is square with the government and pretending more confrontational voices do not exist isn't a constructive policy, and the brotherhood organization act of some of the law is one they provide financial support the group designated as has happened in the past the should be prosecuted. but since most of devotees are within the law they should be
engaged. equally problematic is the approach with the brothers as a reliable partner. amol evidence shows that the aim of the brothers to the respond publicly. taking official action that would unnecessarily in power a handful of appointed leaders whose aims are at best seem naive. there is i would argue its third more nuanced way. first, government should reach out a broad range of muslim organizations because the disability shouldn't be mace become a stake in diprete second engagement needs to be made on a firm understanding of the history, modus operandi and most important games of the brothers. finally, it is paramount to understand the difference between engagement and empowerment. establishing a permanent dialogue and even occasional limited funds of partnerships with most western brotherhood organization can produce some positive outcomes particularly in the security field but interesting them with powers is a counterproductive policy.
crafted a coherent policy is not easy in particular because u.s.-based pratt of the organization's have been evolving in different ways and shouldn't be seen as a monolithic organization. but not on ideological pragmatic approach is needed to confront the largely unknown and figures extremely important reality. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. >> over next witness is dr. mann's for coming in the egyptian born islamic scholar and critic whose granted political asylum in the united states in 2002. because author 24 books and approximately 500 articles in arabic on the topics including what the sum and saudi arabia reform of the egyptian education and women's rights in the muslim world dr. mann's or is also the president of the international chronic center. fever being here to share in your point of view and i to
please, proceed with your statement. let's begin. islam is a region of peace and tolerance and justice and [inaudible] would muslims when the established the entire relate all its values and they are doing the invented social sharia contradict islam. after that, the west, mize and defeated muslims and to find a way they have to choose one of two ways. one way is to restore the past,
so they want to restore the power for the set up empire, and this is what they've established in 1745. the other choice left by egypt by the government known as mohammed fer egypt and muslims according to the western civilization, so there are two different ways modernization and it's destroyed that and 8018.
[inaudible] and appointed him as the head of muslim brotherhood in 1928. that means the organization created needs egypt to survive and this gives us -- it is the difference between muslim brothers, it is an organization that has its political agenda and they are considered a make up for the middle east and the people who concentrate about the mess and looking after to take
they have their own political agenda. and they will establish -- he belonged to the series that dividing the war into two camps. he is working for the same agenda, which gallant to dividing the work into two camps. the camp of the muslim and they can't of recognition. so i am talking about their own innermost agenda. and they believe that the sino will become before it you today
to see angels and they will attack the other camps so the need some people in the enemy camp to make the muslim community here in the u.s., so they control most of the so-called schools to brainwash people, the muslim community here just like them. this is a big problem. i'm not talking about -- i have evidence now. i look at. this is the official translation made by the soldiers.
official of the koran. not only in the main entrance tatian, but all of the in the foothills, 4 million copies of this transition in the united states, i give you when something -- >> if you can make it very quick guess we have to go vote unfortunately. >> you know, as a muslim we say five prayers every day. and we have to guide us and jesus prays a christian and the
rules that means anyone who believes in this translation and three times a day they are bringing brainwashed to look at his fellow american has the enemy abroad and according to the sharia has to kill him. what about what should be done? and how do i suggest the american agent be in all of the ideas to make america and defend america to win muslim majority to defeat al qaeda.
the >> for everybody to wreck together. >> thank you. >> thank you. when porsche have to go vote, so i hope you can be patient because they want to hear testimony and ask questions. we have for both come at one now which is almost over. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> we will come back to this discussion on the muslim brotherhood shortly. we take you now live to the east side of the capital were a number of protesters have gathered on the steps inside the republican 2012 budget plan has passed the threshold of votes needed as the plan put forward by ryan. in a moment we expect democrats to come out and make some comments on the budget and about with ranking member of the house budget committee, maryland congressman chris van hollen. insight about six protesters were arrested in the house gallery by capitol police that after they were standing in the gallery and singing. apparently they were environmental protesters and i came to us via tweet from a "washington post" staff writer who was on the scene. we will stay here and get a look at what's going on outside the capital and we will bring you congressman chris van hollen's comments as soon as he appears.
[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for joining us. i'm very pleased to be here. with members of the budget committee, members of the democratic caucus of the budget committee. we just of course came from a vote in the house on the republican budget. we think the republican budget is the wrong choice for america. the question is not whether or not we should work together to reduce our deficits and debt. the question is how we do that. and we believe the republican plan makes the wrong choice for a couple of reasons. number one, we think it's going to hurt the fragile economic recovery, and put more people out of work at a very fragile time for struggling families throughout the country.
number two, we think it makes the wrong choice as to how we reduce the deficit, because they choose to provide another round of the big tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, for millionaires and others. they choose to keep in place big taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies, which, and i know everyone, knows what the price at the pump is, it's going up and up and up. the profits are going up and yet we continue to provide those companies with these big taxpayer subsidies. we shouldn't be doing that, and at the same time that they are slashing investments in our kids education, ending the medicare guarantee, and meaning thank you seniors you know longer get to stay in the medicare program. you are forced into the private insurance market, forced into the market, and you are forced to eat the rising cost of health care. so there's no more medicare guarantee.
all of a sudden payroll taxes for medicare, when that kicks in, will go now to the insurance industry. and if you're voucher, your support whatever they want to call it, if it's not sufficient to keep up with the costs, you're out of luck. and it's designed not to keep up with the costs of the health care. that's how they save money even as they give tax breaks to millionaires. when it comes to other important efforts like medicaid, which nursing home seniors, seniors in nursing homes, rely on which individuals with disabilities rely on, and poor kids rely on for health care. they slashed that by over $775 million, instead of saying to the folks at the very top let's just go back to the same tax rate that we had during the clinton administration, a time when the economy was roaring and 20 million jobs were created. no, instead of doing that, they
asked working people to bear the burden. and ask no sacrifice of those who have done so well. so we think this is the wrong direction, the wrong approach for america. we will continue to fight this republican plan, and we are confident that with help of the american people we will ultimately defeat it. and with that i want to turn this over to allyson schwartz, a terrific member of congress from the state of pennsylvania. >> thank you, chris. thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the american people. i want to share my an agreement with most americans, which is the republican budget that was just voted on a few minutes ago is wrong for this country. it's wrong for our seniors. it's wrong for our children, and it's wrong for our economic growth. we instead offered an alternative that took seriously the national debt and the
deficit, brings down the deficit, does in a very different way than the republicans. what we do is have a balanced approach that will bring down the national deficit because we simply are borrowing too much it's spending too much on interest. we will do in a way that meet our obligation to the american people. particularly our seniors. the end medicare as you know. we all know it. i spoke yesterday to a group of seniors and future seniors. one woman who said she was 54 years old, and has a disabled son who is on medicaid. she says i'm worried for myself, when i reached 65, i was counting on medicare and not to pay some but cannot medicare, and, of course, i'm deeply concerned about who's going to take care of my disabled child. and all i can say to her is you have to hope this republican budget doesn't make it into law. that's not good enough for the american people. we won't let that happen.
the president says he will not let watch i can't let it happen on his watch but every day across america we have seniors and families are concerned about their children an education. we have businesses large and small that one is to make the investment. so we can economically competitive. for the future of this country, for the financial stability and economic growth we have to turn aside this republican budget, take a more balanced, more reasonable, more responsible approach. and that's what we're trying to do. and with that i'm going to turn it over to another senior member of the budget committee. >> thanks, allison. i think the biggest insult to the american people with republican budget is that it is based on total mythology. day pays an enormous amount of growth on almost a faith-based initiative come or faith-based idea, and that is if you cut taxes for the very wealthiest americans that you have
unlimited growth to the economy. the only person, or the only by vicki goetze you vouch for that was the heritage foundation. no other bona fide economist will tell you that you cut taxes again on the wealthiest americans operation and you're going to unprecedented growth. this is kind of a harry potter budget. they are projecting unemployment at unprecedented historical levels. it doesn't exist. they basically just wave a magic wand and said these are the numbers that will restore the economy of the united states. it is not a reality-based budget. i come from a family of entrepreneurs. my father built a big company. both my brothers have built the company. i built a company, and any of us will tell you, i would have told you, that raising taxes on a small amount on entrepreneurs makes no difference in how they act. what makes the difference is that they see an opportunity to make money. and as my brother who is in the
barbecue restaurant business said, if nobody can afford barbecue, it doesn't matter what my tax rate is. and that's why we are as a country. we have spent so much time making sure that the top 1% have done well that we have totally forgotten than 90% who now have less wealth than the top 1% have. we need to develop a fiscal policy that make sure that we encourage growth in that 90%, not further enrichment of the top 1%. that's the democratic alternative did, and that's why i believe that we must defeat this republican budget because again, it is a hoax on the american people. i would like to introduce betty mccollum from minnesota. >> i'm going to yield. >> we are all about mass transit. i want you on that train. >> thank you. let me thank our rank a member
-- were a counter voice to this attack on middle-class america and i am really proud of the effort we made to inform the general public, make no mistake about it. this republican budget stops medicare. it puts them into medicare. it encourages corporations to export jobs rather than products for the united states of america. it allows for the continuation of tax responsibility that goes weaker and weaker on our millionaires and billionaires. and allows again for oil company handouts to be the theme of the day. these are the wrong choices for america as has been said to me times over. this is a road to ruin. we even swerved so as to get and into medicare as quickly as they could. this sneak attack will not work or i'm proud of the democrats. we had an alternative plan that would grow jobs. this plan will reduce our jobs
by millions. we can't afford that kind of destruction on our economy. i'm proud of the effort that democrats are making. let's not allow them to into medicare and go forward with this republican plan for it a 20 to budget. and to everybody. >> -- thank you, everybody,. >> let me just say that first of all i'm proud to stand with my democratic colleagues and with the ranking member, chris van hollen, who did a wonderful job of arguing the democratic? and say that today was a sad day in the country, frankly. today the republicans made a statement that they were willing to break the social contract in our country. it is completely unacceptable to say that just because this does not impact you if you're 55 years and older, to take the generation and throw them under the bus for everybody that is under 55, this is just unacceptable. if you take medicaid and put medicaid in the form of a block
grant, we have states that are in crisis all across our country. if they had to do with the block grant in the time of a recession when unemployment is the highest, that's when medicaid needs to be most flexible. it's unacceptable that my republican colleagues have made a statement to the american people today that today into the social contract. i just want to say that i want to thank god for the senate because i know that this will be dead on arrival in the senate, as it should be. because i know to the american people this plan would be dead on arrival. thank you very much. >> hi. i betty mccollum from minnesota and i am standing here today because they shared sacrifice in the town i grew up. my hometown of st. paul. there are people got up every day, carried a lunchbox, dangerous jobs, work on remote to make sure i had a good education. to make sure i had a safe school to attend. to make sure that we had road,
that we had the basics in life that help communities be strong and vibrant. the budget the republicans just passed today takes away that underpinning of community, of shared sacrifice, of responsibility to one another in order to have strong communities. right here in washington, d.c., our founding fathers and mothers share a sacrifice to make sure that we had come in this country, and opportunity for everyone to be successful. and in order for people to be successful they had to have an opportunity to get a good quality education, they have to have an opportunity to have their basic health care and needs met, shelter and transportation. all that, all that shared sacrifice is gone in the republican budget. they made a decision is more important to defend resources,
to borrow money, to pay interest to give more tax breaks to 1% of america. so i am very pleased to stand with my colleagues in support of the democratic proposal. and let me conclude with this. i'm going to get on a plane and a couple of hours and i'm going to go back home and see my brother and my sister. i am 56. i'm going to look at my brother and sister and say hey, under the republican plan i don't have to worry, my children don't have to worry about my health clear in the future. sorry, brother. sorry, sister. sorry, niece and nephew. you don't know what the future holds for you and your parents and their health care in their retirement years. so this was wrong, wrong, wrong. and i'm glad to be on the right side of history and standing up for middle-class families. >> well, good afternoon and i'm congresswoman kathy castor. i represent the great state of florida. he also helped me with my favorite sign here.
this beautiful spring day in the nation's capital belies the fact that we have dark days ahead under the republican budget. it is very distressing for the hard-working families that i represent in florida, and all across this great country, that the republican plan destroys medicare. and i think it is an untruth, a falsehood to say that if you're 55 and older you're not going to be affected. because what the republican plan, this is cynical plan does, is it causes medicare to wither on the buying a. if you're a medicare provider and you know that medicare is coming to an end, you don't have any great incentive to stay within the medicare initiative. when you combine it with the very significant ratcheting back of nursing home care, that would happen immediately under the republican budget, seniors today
need to be concerned. all american families need to be concerned that the republican plan is ending medicare. medicare is that promise that was made to hard-working individuals all across this country, that if they worked hard all of their lives they would lift their retirement years in dignity and in security. the republicans say enough about. and tossed out by the wayside, in a very cynical attempt to save the tax breaks for the top 2% in this country. those tax breaks to swallow medicare, and that is what the choice that was on the table for this ryan budget. it provides a very distinct, two very distinct visions of america. one that is optimistic and hopeful, and retains that promise that social compact that has been vital in keeping older americans and their families out of poverty for decades.
and on the other hand the republican vision for america is pessimistic. it is cynical. it says to older americans, you can work hard all of your life, but you neighbors will not be there for you in your older years. and as president obama said the other day, but for the grace of god go i, who can say that later in life you will not have a heart attack, you will not come down with a chronic condition, your body will not wear out? we are going to fight to save medicare. the battle lines have been drawn. the vote has been taken and everyone has gone on record, but i can say that i am very proud that unanimously my democratic colleagues say, we are not going to give up on older americans. we will keep that promise, that is medicare. and thank you, chris van hollen and all of my colleagues for your leadership today. >> thank you, kathy. and my colleagues. we heard from some of the
republicans, members on the floor that medicare was socialism. if you go back to the fight over medicare back in 1965, that's what the republicans argued in order to try to stop medicare from ever being created. now apparently they're looking, using that term as part of ending the medicare guarantee. we would be happy to try to answer any questions you've got. >> what was the strategy behind the budget to make deeper cuts which also opposed as well? who came up with that plan? >> that was a discussion that took place within the democratic caucus. and it wasn't effort to show just how far out the republicans are, the majority of the republicans in their caucus. let me just say, you seem to budgets today from the republican side. both of which would be a radical change in the direction of this country as my colleague indicated earlier, would shatter
the social contract in america. >> if you could put your political hat back on, how bad it though to think the republicans took today? >> well, we encouraged some of our republican colleagues to read the bill because it was pretty clear from some of the comments that they had not read the bill. and let me answer your question by way of making this point. one of their talking points originally was that what they're getting to seniors is the same health care deal, members of congress have that they give to themselves, just not true. not true. what members of congress have and federal employees have is what's called a fair share arrangement. what that means is as the cost of health care in premiums go up, so does the employers share. a government.
some members of congress protect themselves against the costs of rising health care. and yet they are asking seniors to take a raw deal, ideal that doesn't protect seniors from the cost of rising health care. in fact, that's exactly how they make their savings in this bill. and so, i only say that because i would have to ask the american people whether it's a good thing that a member of congress says to seniors, we are going to give you a lousy deal, but keep a good deal for ourselves. >> that has the makings of a pretty effective at, would you say? >> i'm going to live to the american people to judge. but all of us have said this is a wrong turn for america and really does violate the social contract in so many different ways. ending the medicare guarantee being exhibit a.
[inaudible] >> this is going to depend on what the american people decide about this. what we want is for the american people to look at this bill, they can judge for themselves. but as i said, i think that the american people recognize that medicare is a program that has served the country well. and to deform and dismantle it and say to seniors that you can no longer choose to stay in the medicare program, you have to go into the private insurance market and face those rising costs. and if your doctor is out on the plan, that you can afford with your dwindling little voucher or whatever you want to call it, you are out of luck. and so that's the deal that they have given to the people of america, while they have retained a much better deal for themselves as members of congress. any other questions asked thank
[inaudible conversations] step which is them are some house democrats here on the side of the capital. following passage of the republicans 20 so budget plan. it was passed by a vote of 235-193. it contains $3.5 trillion in spending. you can read that bill and the alternative plans online at c-span.org. back now to a house intelligence subcommittee held a hearing on the muslim brotherhood in egypt and groups influence in the west. the muslim brotherhood was founded in 1928. it's the oldest and largest islamic political group.
>> okay, we are ready. we will move on to dr. brown and if you have anything else, we'll get that later, okay? is that okay? give you the opportunity. >> thank you. spent i want to make sure we ge everybody in because we willever have votes a igain but we've got enough time so we should be fine for the rest of the hearing, engh time hopefully.fine so f let's move on to dr. brown. is a professor of political . brown,.p science george washington univerd the author of numerous books on your politics. he teaches courses on middle eastern politics as well as more general courses on comparison politics and international relationships. dr. brown, we appreciate your being here today. please go ahead. >> thank you very much madam chairman and members of the set many. thank you for inviting me to testify today on the muslim brotherhood. as an academic, i'm in part
gratified to have the subject of my scholarly work deemed a critical national importance. i've been conducting research in the muslim brotherhood movement in various countries in the arab world for the past seven years and i'm happy to share my impressions with the committee. but if much of the night damage may go to admit it, the topic of my research is a bit less critical than meets the eye. most brotherhood movements i think are far more political and diplomatic challenge than the security threat for the united states. more specifically, let me make three points today. first the brotherhood is not a violent organization apples place it operates. the brotherhood is telling the truth when it describes itself as peaceful movement. but it is truthful as well an exception in his mix at. in most countries the movement commission is very clear. a fix on the peaceful political change and reject science as a way of securing both in the rejection of violence is not a mere adjustment but deep strategic adjustment. however, the movement also
regard violence as legitimate in cases of foreign occupation and brotherhood movements have therefore verbally executed violence against american targets in iran. in the israeli case from the various brotherhood have shared in what i have to describe as the deplorable, even reprehensible failure to distinguish between military and civilian targets. ancient specifically the content of the muslim brotherhood movement on the egyptian israeli peace treaty has evolved but the brotherhood still is clearly verbally supportive of hamas. in the iraq case to mothers a strange ending the position of brotherhood movements against united dates because the iraqi political party list associated with the muslim brotherhood, iraq islamic party actually participated in sponsored efforts of reconstruction after two dozen priests of the brotherhood is certainly a monolithic organization. perhaps the best evidence of the strategic rejection of violence and domestic politics with the
brotherhood's activity over the past generation in a chip. in mubarak's family history pression became so intense the brotherhood began to withdraw partially from the political scene in the league in the movement in little unprepared for the revolution when it occurred at the movement never embraced violence do not leave me to my second point. we shouldn't overestimate the current brotherhood and let me let me restrict movements to egypt, which is the critical case in the 19 of the past of the various brotherhood movements. some see the brotherhood in egypt both internationally and domestically people harbor dark suspicions. this unification movement posted the links. taking advantage of any opportunity fortune secret alliances, tricking people missing payment to seize power and voting family begins. her reasons for concern about the brotherhood rice, but there's a reason for panic. one often hears that the brotherhood is poised to do well in elections because it is the best organized political force in the country.
there is some truth to the statement, but we have to remember elections for the brotherhood performed best, parliamentary elections in 2005 for once in which the vast majority of egyptians simply stayed home. when the brotherhood pulled out all of his supporters to vote in election where most people didn't vote, it did not even try to win the majority work at a have done so. in a more democratic system, where people are more politically engaged, there's every reason to brotherhood candidates to win seats, but most seasoned observers of each of considerate brother jordi unlikely, even if the movie thought in the movements to try different ones for yesterday that they will contest about a third. the brotherhood has been challenged by the current political atmosphere as much as any other political actor in the country. you have to figure when inscrutable military rulers have in mind. it has to maintain unity within its own ranks in a very new and challenging environment and has to find a short political footing that shifts daily.
how should we react? icemaker point. we have no real policy towards the brotherhood. we wreck if only to brotherhood movement depending where they operate them with their local characteristics are. our policy toward islamist in kuwait is different from that in jordan, which is in turn different from palestinian case. let me stick out when i seem to be in opposition here. i do not think we need a policy towards the brotherhood. the u.s. does need a policy towards where the brotherhood operates but we do not need a policy towards december 3rd any more than towards green parties, feminist movements. our differences with the brotherhood are often a product of different his own perceptions, prevent some priorities and they are best treated the level of relations between states and societies, not at the level of picking winners and losers in other countries domestic political scene.
the policy question that's often post in washington in this regard is whether the u.s. should engage the muslim brotherhood. i've always been puzzled by formulating a question that way. discussions between diplomats on the one hand and leaders of various organizations on the other by means of gathering information enemies of the period the policy question is therefore not whether or not engage the brotherhood. of course our diplomats to develop informative contacts with all political actors but that their job. such contacts are made to make sure the policy is better informed. in egypt and in several other states including jordan and morocco at an plea is not to the united states to decide who is included or excluded in which democratic structures might emerge. elections in the countries arranged in accordance with the law in place in the united states is unable to determine rules of entering into electoral politics. no political in the country pricing for disqualification of brotherhood is the political
actor. the real impeachment question is whether various domestic local forces can teach each other in a peaceful and stable way that makes these countries reliable partners of the foreign security affairs. the best they could contribute to investigation has been making clear we are going to work with any legitimate leadership as we expect other countries to work with our leaders and the policies emerged from her in the constitutional process he and institutions. have often been asked in several different arab countries, what is the american position on the brotherhood cleric cyrus had trouble answering the question because i'm not authorized to speak for the u.s. of america and i'm not sure i could even if i were authorized because the u.s. is a fairly diverse place. the answer is personal, not on behalf of my country, but in many ways with the american policy challenges, rest of the brotherhood will represent a
headache for us. it does not represent cancer. we can live with that. thank you. >> thank you. by next week is just the assistant professor of public policy at harvard university, a political scientist and middle east specialist. as the church focuses on develop and in countries that aren't free. he made the trip from boston to be here for which we are grateful. thank you very much and please go ahead. >> thank you very much, chairman myrick, ranking member thompson come and establishment of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today. as the chairman mention i'm public professor at harvard and have been studying the brotherhood for several years. ever my doctoral dissertation about the movement and consulted on the topic and currently finishing a book about the subject. i've interviewed many muslim brotherhood leaders and members in the middle east and outside the middle east and said the
movements history and read widely in writing davis keith entries and ideologues. i want to use my five minutes to speak about the muslim brotherhood and post ibaraki chip. but before beginning, i do want to say chairman myrick i've watched two of your videos on the moose on brotherhood and i have two reactions to that. the first is i think you are concerned with the muslim brotherhood will implement sharia law or further the cause here in the united states gives far too much credit to the brotherhood and not enough to our american culture and institutions, which i think is prudent durability in the face of all kinds of great challenges if communism was backed by a world superpower could make no dent in our armor, i hardly think the muslim brotherhood, which is an organization of popularity in the muslim world which is no great power behind it can. as a scholar, but also somebody who's lived in the middle east and the west, i know well what
the islamists and what they have to offer and i think i can play it nothing on us. most muslim americans know this, too. that's why they voted with their feet and came here. i must tell you, chairman myrick am extremely gratified by the distinction you make in your videos between the muslim brotherhood, which is a political movement and muslims who are followers of the world's second-largest anchor hammock faith. i'm thinking of the narrator in your video to distinguish between islamism, political ideology and the religion of which i am an imperfect but sincere follower. this is extremely welcome to me and many of my fellow american muslims who worry about being tired as columns in this country. this is important because there are people who want you to believe there is no distinction between islamism and islam. they are called islamists. i am very grateful to you for not doing their work for them
and they only encourage you to continue making distinctions as loudly as possible to those who might wish to paint all american muslims have secret islamists will know they have no support on the chairman of the subcommittee of the house unintelligence. i am happy to talk about any points in response to questions, but for the remainder of the time you want to focus on the brothers in egypt and the role in the coming period. silicone is scholarly research to answer five brief questions to you in my fellow americans may have about this movement. what the muslim brothers? what do they want? by the violence, committed to the nsa about to egypt? i may summarize this in the interest of time. what the muslim brothers? the religious and political movement that operates on a poor independent country. others have mentioned their history and the chairman interstate into that >> i'll skip to the early history and tell you for the
last 35 years where they've been allowed to participate, they basically acted as a cross between a political party and fraternity, fielded candidates in every election since 1984 except one, and in 2005, they won 20% of the seats in the legislature. they are probably going to be legalized soon. they've been an outlawed movement since 1954, and in addition to running an election, they provide social services to the extent of which is unknown and often exaggerated. what do they want? a more vir choose society, and believe legislation can make that happen. they believe that government's role is to uphold the faith and combat rights. they got into parliament and would love to ban and have tried to ban steamy novels and sexually provocative television programs, but they don't restrict themself the solely to the moral realm. they want better infrastructure,
less mismanagement, but the way to get these things is through implementation of islam. that's why the slogan is islam is the solution. they've been criticized by lots of egyptians but not telling how they offer solutions to problems like illiteracy, mortality, or water scarsty. i think it is spornt to know that one of the movement's goals is achieving muslim unity. this is something they pay a lot of lip service to. they may tell you they would love to establish this and they seem to have in mind a european union style federation that muslim states join voluntarily. it's not a kind of grand conquest enterprise. their critics of the west, united states in particular, also for our cultural values which i think they find at
outside their traditional ones. muslim brothers are likely to criticize america for our acceptance of sex outside of marriage or hom osexuality. are they violent in it is true that the muslim brotherhood had a violent history. in the 1940s they had a secret apparatus and assassinated a prime minister. today they say violence is in their past and seek the peaceful alternation of power through the battle box in a parliamentary republic. now, others come back and tell you that the number two man was once a member of the muslim brotherhood, there's clearly a link there. it's important to note that he is a critic of the brother viewing as fake islamist selling
out and the brothers take great paining to distinguish themselves from al-qaeda. if you look at the muslim brotherhood's english website, there's a section on it called muslim brotherhood versus al-qaeda. there's a lot of distinction between the two on there. i would note that you brought up the muslim general guide of the muslim brotherhood, you know, in early 2000, and on september 14th, 2001, he signed an arabic statement condemning the attacks on the world trade center and pent gouge. somewhat unsatisfied because the statement was signed by the founder of hammas. they are on record as being opposed to the great climb in our country. i'll echo what professor brown said that just because they oppose al-qaeda, doesn't mean they share our definition of
what terrorism is. they view freedom fighters with actual legitimate acts of resist tense. i say here that their view is actually not a fringe view in egyptian or aircraft society. it's not a view held solely by islamists, so we'll have to deal with this in the new middle east, but won't prevent us from protecting our friends and interests. are they poised to dominate the elections? i have a book about the muslim brotherhood in elections, and i'll echo what was said. if we look at their performance in 2005, they captured 20% of the seats, but they only got between 2.5 and 3 million egyptians to go and vote for them out of 32 million eligibility voters. in upcoming elections, we expect it to be a higher turnout and have no way of knowing if the people who previously stayed home vote for the islamists or
not, so where does this leave us? well, i think it leaves us where we began. this movement we have a hearing about i think it leaves us where we began. the hearing as a religious group and political party in a poor country. it is a particularly friendly to american power or culture or come but neither is in a position to threat neither of those things. it has a vision for each of whom i consider retrograde, but claims to achieve the patient through the electoral process in so far behavior is earnest out. they've lost a lot of elections. whether the egyptian people will be reset to to the president's agenda is an open question, but with a lot of evidence egyptians have a wide range of political preference in affiliations and muslim brothers cannot claim to represent immaturity. we should be concerned with teaching the strength or threats of us in brotherhood and would help to ensure that each of sledging democratic institutions
are healthy, durable and in front of her to any group that would subvert them. thank you very much. >> thank youd i spend a lot of my time working with muslims trying to do the same thing, so i appreciate your mentioning that. i wanted to recognize the ranking member of the full committee for joining us. thank you, and would you like to say anything? >> no, i'm fine. did right ahead. >> thanks. well, let's go to questions, and i'll start off by asking of question of you dr. satloff and it's been directed to in part by testimony. we've seen mixed messages from the brotherhood, and at one point they said they wanted to scrap the egypt-israel peace treaty. later when that statement earned
major headlines, they said they would uphold the treaty and reject violence against anyone but say they support hamas. they want democracy, yet a press article states that the muslim brotherhood discussed the possibility of coordination in the upcomes elections. these are the same rejecting equal rights for women and minorities. they said they are attacking christians in liquor stores opposing their own vorring's of islamist laws in provenn issue towns, and i quote that. they removed bylaws from its english website where it explicitly stated their purpose, however, at the same time their goal of establishing this under islamic law is posted on their arabic website. is the west telling us what we
want to here, but preaching another message in the streets? based on our response of the government, do you think the government is taking them at their word rather than their actions? how does this impact our intelligence analysis? our committee needs to know that what we're looking at in the future. >> thank you, madam chairmanment i think this is one of the most important questions one can ask about our understanding of the muse muslim brotherhood. first, i agree. the brotherhood absolutely tries to be opportunity and offer different face to different audiences. there's ample evidences, and you identified just a number of examples of this. the brotherhood had this approach to politics for quite some time. when working with the mubarak regime was in its interests and the regime at certain moments reached understandings with the brotherhood to operate social welfare organizations and places
that the government could not itself reach, the brotherhood took advantage of the opportunity to extend its political region to those areas. when it was clear after the tahir square protests began, and it's important to note they were not at the beginning of the protests, this was the youth that triggered it. it put its finger to the wind recognizing this was an opportunity, jumped in, and it was an important player in bringing the protests to actual success. the brotherhood is extremely opportunistic and willing to engage in partnerships to advance its political and social agendas. i think that your point about the brotherhood's views on the peace treaty with israel as i said is an absolute case in point here. the brotherhood lowered the level of tension on this issue because it knows a, that the military has been quite clear in
setting acceptable yardsticks for discussion, and be b, because they don't want to trigger alarm bells in places like washington. my own experience overtime is that i believe that certain parts of our intelligence community have had a fascination with the muslim brotherhood and like minded groups believing that they represent "authentic muslim political organizations" in their countries, and that nonislammist political movements, liberal, leftists, or otherwise are not authentic, and they are somehow overly western in orientation and don't represent real arabs, muslims, egyptians, and this fascination tended to limit the true
analysis of who they are, what they want, and how they attempt to achieve it. i think that it is extremely important to peel away this fascination from what believe our authentic groups and focus on what and what they really are. i think it's a mistake for us to allow the muslim brotherhood to benefit from this recoiling of years of relationship with regimes and this desire to find real arabs and real muslims to engage with. i think that we should recognize what their political objectives truly are. we can want have a policy which -- we cannot have a policy saying no, we don't deal with an egypt that has a muslim brotherhood. that's a mistake, but we should be quite clear-eyed about who they are, what they want, and what their objectives are to change egypt and other countries
in this part of the world. >> thank you. i wanted to ask you something about the foundation trial. in that trial, federal prosecutors introduced hard evidence that the brotherhood earned organizations in america to plan and accomplish their goals. this was spelled out in the 1991 document called the explanatory memorandum which was introduced stating the brotherhood's goal was a grand jihad and sabotaging its house by the hands and the hands the believers so it is eliminated and god's religion is made victorious over all over religions. it listed 29 organizations working in the united states to further the brotherhood's goals. several of the organizations are still in existence today. why should we have expectations this came to an end when many of the same players are still
active politically? logic dictates the plans in america would not just have disappeared, so what is the nature of the muslim brotherhood in america today? does our government fully understand who the people and groups are? based on this document which states that they want to eliminate and destroy us from within, what are some legitimate concerns we should have about the presence and plans in america? >> yeah. yeah, the document you mentioned are absolutely shocking. i think the men ran dumb you mentioned and even more the wiretaps introduced as evidence in the philadelphia meetings show some dark futures of the brotherhood in the u.s. and the groups coming from it. one point here is to see that the groups operating still today, some of them as you said mentioned the men ran dumb had just dotten bet --
gotten better at presenting a better facade. their realities have the same ideology, but got better at talking a good game. the counterargument is that organizations do change. people change perspectives, there's demographic changes to some degree in the organizations meaning that a new generation of american born leaders have slowly taken the organizations, and there might be some change. we don't really know the answer to. that i think you have different answers for different organizations. as i said in the testimony, we shouldn't see this brotherhood merely as monolithic. it makes sense to see some of the organize -- organizations mentioned and some others evolved in understanding that, you know, talking about a civilization or jihad or acting on a civilization don't make a
lot of sense. that doesn't make them necessarily what we would consider, you know, we talk about terms not likely by most people in the muslim community. we might not consider them as such. they have changed their view as they change their ways. what -- how much of the government know going to your second question about this development? as an outsider, as an academic, i cannot claim to have full knowledge of what the u.s. government thinking, how they assess and engage these organizations. my sort of educated guess having talked and interacted with people in the u.s. government is that there's no unified assessment. there's no unified engagement policy. it's really left very much to each agency or each individual within the same agency. you have amazing cases of --
same departments, so the nature of these organizations are now to engage them. it is quite problematic. i think to some degree that has to do with the nature of these organizations that being multipolitical, but being religious organizations creates an understandable reluctance of the u.s. government to up -- investigate them and with separation of church and state it's inappropriate to look into the organizations unless they have hard evidence that illegal activities are taking place inside them. that creates a situation where i'm not sure that there's a widespread knowledge within the u.s. government about the nature of these organizations, and how to deal with them or engage them. it seems to be sort of oversimplifying a black and white assessment. if they are committing a crime,
then we investigate them. if they are not, they are not committing a crime, they are good, and we should engage in part with them. there's probably some gray area, some thing in between in which they might not be carrying out illegal activities, but not the ideal partners the government is looking for, but with a lot of exceptions, i think that nuance is lost in some portions of the u.s. government. for the most part, u.s. government has to stay out of a lot of the dynamics within the muslim community, and it's not really the u.s. government's job to get into those dynamics and sort of be the -- struggle with the right expression, but between brotherhood organization and other organizations in the u.s.. i think what the u.s. government can do is avoid, engage, but not
empower, given undo legitimacy, treating them as part of the muslim community when they are not. you can give undo advantage to organizations with other muslim organizations. >> thank you. i have another question, but i'll go to mr. thompson. >> thank you, madam chair. i'd like to begin with profession brown, and professor, you state there's precious little evidence that the international organization of the muslim brotherhood seeks to establish a global islamic faith. you also state that suspicions of brotherhood movement statements are ultimately based on a poor understanding of how broad ideological movements operate. could you just tell us briefly? elaborate on both points a bit, but also tell us the research and the sources you use to reach
those conclusions, and then specifically why do you believe the brotherhood means what it says? >> certainly. i can address both of those questions. first, i guess how is it that i do research on the brotherhood? is it primarily by reading their documents, looking at their websites, reading their platforms, looking at their statements, interviewing their leaders, interviewing the foot soldiers, interviewing people who left of the organizations, sometimes split with the organization, interview critics of the organizations and interviewing scholars within the various countries that follow the organization. in terms of the religion, there's fop dational documents and foundational text for the brotherhood that stress a lot of this has to do with the period of which the brotherhood was founded. in the late 1920s, after the collapse the empire.
it was not necessarily universally recognized, but the last to be claim, and so there was an issue then about muslim unity, how can this be politically expressed? there were all kinds of ideas that were coming forward. the brotherhood's goal was never all that well spelled out. when you look at brotherhood ideological writings now, the issue has simply receded in great importance. few movements say we used to believe x, and now it's wrong. they just stop talking about it. it is simply become something that is of secondary importance. the second statement you asked about how is it we know what we know about the brotherhood? well, i think we can take their statements itself in one sense at face value, but we have to read them extremely carefully.
let me explain. first, in the first place, the alternative is to say okay, when the brotherhood says something we don't like, they are serious. when they do say something we like, they are obviously lying. that's not a good methodology. another is to say i know what they really think, and if they say something contrary to that, that proves how deefs they are. den, not a sound methodology. what i think we have to realize about the movements is that they are browed. they have all kinds of ideological tendencies within them, and the way they organize themselves, keep on the same page, and in a sense the way they talk to each other is through platform statements of right. what you -- i should say what i look for when reading statements are two things. number one, is this an authoritative position of the movement?
people in the movement are free to have their positions, and they will sometimes tell you, this is my personal opinion, not a movement position. i look to see if it's someone in an authority position, professional opinion, or speaking from the movement. the second thing is how specific is it? that's where you really get into the issues. sometimes they are vague, and they are vague for all cines -- kinds of reasons. i met plenty of people who don't mind offending me and go out of their way to do so. i'm not sure that's all that's going on there. often it's because the movement itself doesn't know. there's various tendencies within itself. they retreat into generalities and paper over the differences with general statements. i mean, i will give you a quick example on implementation of egypt. if you ask members of the broab hood if they are for
implementation, there's no way they can say no. i follow-up with a question, and it tends to get speck. okay, which institutions within egypt can speak in the name? what do you think of, what is brotherhood's position on the supreme justice court of the issue of article 2 of the egyptian constitution? you have to press them on the details, and then you get much more revealing answers. when they say something author at a timively for the movement with detail, that's movement talking to itself making up its own mind and speaking authoritatively. >> thank you. professor masoud, if they achieve greater representation and a stronger voice in egyptian policymaking, what aspects pose the greatest threat to u.s. foreign policy, and how worried should the u.s. be? >> i think, i think what i've been trying to say all along is
that the brotherhood is not really in a position through legislation to threaten american interests because after all it's a political party in a country that's very poor and dependent on the united states. of course, the issue that we're most concerned about is the issue of the peace between egypt and israel, and it is true that muslim brotherhood politicians have come out and made notices about wanting to revise this peace treaty as the chairman mentioned in her opening remarks. the thing that the chairman did not mention, however, is that lots of other prom innocent egyptian politicians say very similar things, so this is not really an islamist position. manir who is well-known to people following the egyptian scene, a liberal egyptian running against mubarak in 2005 and was jailed by that regime and whose democratic credentials nobody can question last month came out and said he would like
to subject camp david to a popular referendum, so there is a sense among a broad swath of egyptian society that the relationship with the israel requires some revision. i don't think that they would go for any kind of military conflict, and what this also forces us to keep in mind is that regardless of what the muslim brotherhood says or what a minar says or who is elected, their ability to make change on this issue is very limited because, and i think one of the colleagues mentioned early on and i agree with whole heartedly, the egyptian military keeps this as a strong red line. there's no way they would counter any elected leaders coming near the peace of israel or threatening that in any way. i do not believe that the downside to muslim brotherhood asen didn'ts has anything dude
with america's national core interests. they have more to do with what egypt looks like and how it will be run, and that's another set of questions. >> thank you. one final question. mr. satloff, you mentioned in your testimony that you recently visited egypt and said specifically you spoke to members of the muslim brotherhood, and i'm interested to know how frequently you're in contact with brotherhood members and how your most recent trip, the one you spoke about in your testimony, how your contact with brotherhood members on this trip compares to your past contacts say 10 years ago, and do you see change or evolution? >> thank you, congressman. first of all, just a brief comment. i do part company with my colleague dr. masoud on the last question. >> i want to focus on this
question. i appreciate that, but we are limited with the amount of time we have. >> i've been following the muslim brotherhood for 30 years. i wrote a dissertation on it, the first exeak paper on hammsa in 1998 and followed egypt for 23 years. i see that the muslim brotherhood in e just a egypt is doing what political parties do when they are poised to assert themselves which is that before elections, they are moderating their words. we've -- after election, they often make terrible and silly mistakes because they are so committed to their ideology. when another party in jordan achieved political power and named ministers of education and other high political office, ideology trumped everything else. in countries with huge ill lit illiteracy problems, educational
problems, the jar dan's -- jordan's first mission was to prohibit fathers from seeing their daughter's sporting events. in egypt we now hear very intelligent -- >> can you tell me how your contacts with brotherhood members in egypt varies today -- >> right. >> compared to five to ten years ago. >> the point is today as they are poised for political gains, the most recent conversations all sound much more honey and light than conversations five or ten years ago, and the experience in similar countries at similar moments in countries around the middle east is this is the moment when brotherhood politicians sound the nicest, the sweetest, the lightest because they are poised for
political gains and are trying to reach the broadest political support, and the experience from other countries is that if they, indeed achieve political gains, ideology does begin to trump the practicality, the pragmatism of appealing to the voting public. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. mr. thompson. >> thank you very much. i applaud and thank the chairmanwoman for prioritizing openness at the hear. that's important, but today is a hearing about a highly sensitive and timely forum where we can learn or enlighten americans about real threats is virtually nonexistent. because we are talking about real threats today i imagine, i fear we will be little our voices to the buzzing chatter of
public opinion. when we targeted are religious group for scrutiny by our committee in a public forum in which little is determined about real, perceived, or exaggerated threats risks becoming a little more than talking heads. we are subject to words designed to entertain and enflame than enlighten. when we talk about religious groups, we risk talking about everyone who practices that religion. we create a forum of fear, intolerance, and create chatter for cable channels that might insight than understand. i believe it can be dangerous. we know that agents of intolerance or bigotry and prejudice against muslims in america are used as a recruiting tool by those who truliment to harm america. we know our enemies sees upon any bias against muslims as an opportunity to set the wheels in
motion to do our nation and people harm. i think it is a practical reason for us to tread carefully when analyzing religion. like every member of the committee and like every american, i want every threat to our national security treated with absolute 100% attention and dedication. that is our job on the committee, and we cannot compromise it. an essential part of keeping america safe is using common sense and a sense of fairness when we examine information. we are not protecting america if we don't guard against the idea that any fateful muslim prioritizing their fate in their life is somehow a danger to america. i hope to keep this in mind and understand who america muslims truly are, the ceo of biosolutions, president and ceo of ethan allen interiors.
many of our servicemen and women are muslim including ones who received the purple heart. he joined the armed forces after 9/11 because he wanted to demonstrate that not all muslims are fanatics intent on destroying america. the majority of them are freedom loving american citizens just like the people in this room. they are american muslims and we should be proud of them. devotion of your faith, muslim, christian, jewish, any faith, should be republicked and indeed -- respected and indeed admired in america. let's keep this in our minds every day and specificically today. i would like to just suggest that if any of the panelists believe that -- have you received any classified secret
intelligence information from the cia, the fbi, or intelligence gathering organization from the united states in preparation for your testimony today? >> i think that should be important to the intelligence committee how you gathered intelligence because i think we have at least i believe we have one of the broadest intelligence gathering services in the world. do any of the panelists today feel that our intelligence services, any one of them, has been somehow hoodwinked or fooled or duked by the groups in either egypt or here and specifically the muslim brotherhood? any of you feel we've been duked like cia and the fbi?
>> no, i don't think we've been duked, and i wouldn't know if we had. i have conversations with people in the community, and i'm actually usually especially with intelligent community impressed. they are very intelligent. >> i just want -- i just want to make sure that -- because i'm going to -- while people have taken 12 and 11 and 10 minutes, i'm going to take a lot less. >> i think i would use -- i don't think i would use the word duked, but as i showed in the statement i think there's an inconsistency to say the least within each agency i would argue of the u.s. intelligence community. >> i -- >> that is part, of course -- >> but an inconsistency should not bring us to be fearful. >> no, no.
>> do we have a reason to feel fearful at this point about the intelligence gathering apparatus of the united states being duked, fooled, or hoodwinked by the muslim brotherhood whether in egypt or the united states? >> to that extent -- first of all, i don't know exactly what the u.s. intelligence -- nobody knows exactly. >> i'm happy -- this is the intelligence committee, and while -- i'd like -- we're trying to help them. that's our job to call them in and say, hey, we heard this at the hearing. you want to correct these things. >> i can't speak to the question of whether our agencies have been hoodwinked or not, but because you're talking about people who collect intelligence, you can raise a question that i've had because i lack intelligence both in the sense of intelligence gatherings and
iq. chairman, you mentioned this 1991 explanatory memorandum and it was a document written by a muslim brotherhood guy when is a document -- i read it, got it, and read it, and it seemed to be a document where this member of the muslim brotherhood in the united states is writing to his people back home and trying to encourage them to make the united states kind of a priority for profittization and political activation and all things. the page in the document that caused the most controversy is the page that lists all of these organizations that lorenzo calls muslim brotherhood front organizations. i guess the question, and it's really just a question from me being kind of a nitpicking academic, if you look at the title of the page, it says these are the organizations ofous and our friends in america.
second line says, imagine if they all marched together. i thought to myself, what a really odd thing for a kind of organization like the muslim brotherhood to say. if these were arms of the muslim brotherhood octopus, why does the guy think oh, imagine if they could work together? this is important because it seems to me that list is a kind of aspirational list. it may include movements or groups that emerge from the brotherhood. i'm not making a factual statement. just based on interpreting that document, i was surprised that we jump to saying this is a list of muslim brotherhood front organizations. it seems to be a list of muslim organizations they want to organize and coordinate, but so i'd like to find out if there's some other information there that folks like me don't have. >> just so that i don't -- i will ask that question.
i have the list here. we will see if they are working together and if indeed there's the power to do that. couple last comments. look, i think one of the people testified that the brotherhood says things to different people and is opportunistic saying one thing to one group and do something differently the other day. a lot of people in congress do that same thing. [laughter] it happens here every year. what would be msnbc if they didn't catch us in the contradiction of what we say and opportunities. we dlief, of course -- thrive, of course, to a higher measure. i would simply suggest that i just don't -- back in chicago i'll tell you anyone that says to their dad, right, or promotes, if i said, you know, i think it's a great idea that dad not atepid their daughter's
soccer game. i don't know how long they will last in american politics. i mean, serious. i just want to say what -- if that's what they're presenting, they don't have a chance. >> it didn't work in jordan either. >> i just want to say i hope -- you know, in america, there are a lot of religious perspectives put into our political system. as a matter of fact, we almost closed down the government over abortion just last week, a very strong political point of view and religious point of view that many americans hold and wish their government to do, so look, i just want to make sure that we're doing this in the right framework and that we don't, you know, cause america to height ped the tension or their an sighty level unnecessarily here, but we do get the correct intelligence level. thank you very much for being here this afternoon. >> the hearing is not for asking them classified information. you need to get their opinions
of what is going on in these countries that they need about because they are academics. it's totally separate. we'll have a closed hearing to talk about the people on the classified information side. >> yeah, professor brown, and i guess professor satloff, outside of egypt, which of the most active influential chapter of the muslim brotherhood? for example, what role does the jordan muslim brotherhood play in the country, and is there an international muslim brotherhood? >> i studied only the arab world. i just don't know anything about them. in terms of sort of an active political role, probably the most prominent one is hammas. they identify with it and are governing gaza. second would be in kuwait where
they send ministers to the government. they are a major political force in jordan, but very much opposition for us. in terms of the international organization, there's some form of international organizations. it, to me, when i go to various countries and look for signs of this activities # i don't really see any. it seems to be a body that's sort of coordinating, swapping experiences, and it seems to be a very egyptian organization, so that other countries sometimes like and say it's too dominated by the egyptians. we don't have ownership in it, so it's formally there on paper, and the up formal -- informal ties can sometimes be fairly strong. they will often know each other and be aware of each other's actions and doings and writings, but it's a very, very lose
organization. >> congressman, just to add to my colleague is the most important innovation is how technology enabled the international brotherhood. there's no common term of the brotherhood, no secret room, but if you get today, for example, one who sits in qatar, but can broadcast by satellite television networks throughout arab and muslim societies and spread a certain ideological view that touches life from moracco, jordan, the gulf, east asia, and europe, then you have a different type of political effort being created. there is no, as i said commoner, but you do have very important transnational aspects to these individual national movements. it's very powerful in morocco,
the pjd, powerful in jordan, powerful in subtrainian form, and it was the most powerful opposition movement in syria. we'll see as events transpire whether the muslim brotherhood comes to the floor. we'll see this as a very powerful opposition and perhaps governing movement with the countries that are in the headlines today. >> [inaudible] >> there it is. okay. got it. is it doctor? okay. you refer to in what i read to describe the western brotherhood, i think we really need to be precise in describing organizations in america and so what criteria did you use to develop western brotherhood? i'm trying to develop where the muslim brotherhood is
internationally as relation to the united states, but when we have titles, i want facts and data. can you explain how you came to that phrase, what it means to you, and why or what is the relation with the united states? >> it's a lose term, of course. i refer to organizations that started off as student organizations that were creteed by a -- created by a handful of brother activists who came to study in the american or european universities in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. that experience in the brotherhood in their own countries, and created most of these organizations. many of them left, went back to the middle east, back to their countries, some stayed here, and these organizations grew and became some of the most, as i said, visible of the american or european organizations. now, with time, they have evolved of course. it's fair to say that this
brotherhood origin is diluted significantly. for others, that's not the case. if we talk and agree with the other colleagues here, we're talking about an international global movement, it is an organization, but hardly functioning. it's a very loose network, and it's looser when it comes to the offshoot that i don't call -- well, here in the west. there are these personal ties, of course, you know, internet and modern communication helps this ties, but they are very much independent here. there's kind of a heritage in the brotherhood thinking there, but they have moved partially away from it. they do retain, and, again, we're talking about sort of a number of organizations so this does not play to all of them. they obtain the world view and method methodology of the
brotherhood. they are flexible. they understand that applying blindly what was per scribed eight years ago in egypt and applying to chicago in 2011 doesn't make sense. they change their priorities and goals, so it's a very inform mall network described as sort of the western brotherhood. >> okay. if the egyptian brotherhood becomes effective in shaping egyptian foreign policy, what issues would be most at odds with current u.s. policy, other countries such as israel, what would be the concerns about that policy if they were very much involved in the egyptian government and their foreign policy? >> question is not about how the western organizations are involved, but just the egyptian? >> yes. >> well, i think as the other -- >> you can say egyptian or muslim brotherhood in general. >> right. i think the relationship of israel would be the top wop, and
we've seen from the other panelists, some inconsistencies in the statements coming from top brotherhood people that might indicate a certain level of, you know, being deceitful, or on the other hand not being the monolithic group that some people make them out to be. this would be the person when it comes to foreign policies. intelligent sharing would be the second issue that comes to mind. the close relationship between the egyptian intelligence, for example, and american intelligence i suspect would not be as flourishing as it was in the past under the brotherhood influence or dominant government, but that's the second that comes to mind. >> anyone else on the panel have an answer to the question? >> if i can add toe it, we tend to view the question of egyptian-israel piece as a black and white, keep the peace or they don't. it's more detailed that that.
yes, they will keep the peace, but security on the gaza border would be changed, the policy, the policy about counter terrorism in the peninsula would be changed, policy on the operation qualifying industrial zones would be changed, the policy on the sale of natural gas to israel would be changed. the policy of the embassy in the two countries would be changed. all that could be changed while still keeping the peace. there's other items in the last month that the egyptians permitted two iranian naval ships to pass through the suez canal for the first time in 30 years. the idea that egypt would shift its foreign policy orientation to a more islamist oriented orientation from one that is closer to the united states and its alis -- allies is definitely welcomed to the world view and promoted in life and discourse, and we can
see that, we would be ail to see that in military cooperation, cooperation that egypt has with western nations. >> thank you. i just want to pick up on what -- >> push the button there. >> oh, sorry. >> state that for the record again. >> i want to pick up on what he said. he's right, i think, that, you know, the muslim brotherhood would probably want to revice things like the qualified industrial zones or the selling of natural gas to israel, ect., but what's not mentioned which is important to know to make policy towards egypt is that the dpoaks who are at -- folks at the fore front of calling for change on these things was not the muslim brotherhood. the fact is these are very unpopular policies there. you know, people in tahir square who would be secular asking them about selling natural gas to israel, they would say no or the price would be higher. the point is that we just need
to be very careful and understand democracy in egypt could lead to divergence on how they perceive their interests and us ours. if we label that a function of islamism, we don't know what's going on there, and we will do damage to our own credibility in dealing with that region. very important. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. dr. mansur, i wanted to give you a chance because we cut you off with ideology, but i wanted you to have a chance to finish your statement. >> yes, thank you. talking about the muslims here, the majority of them are really preventist muslims, but the question is they live here and enjoy the american values, american values are the theme of the values of justice, of freedom, and of -- they are
opposed to talk about the middle east and other muslim countries, but it will not happen, but what happened is some leaders came here and established that influence here and become a problem. this -- the second is talking about muslim brothers, we have two key words. the first is that they uphold the document and they teach this tradition to their own people
and they have another discourse for other people, a really sweet discourse so you can field the politics, but in the field of religion, it has become very dangerous because when you talk to people about islam as original peace is okay, but at the same time talk to your own people that jihaddists, you have to do something and so and so and so, secretly, there's something very wrong. another keyword that is there is implementation. as we are talking and first of all, not as individuals. i'm against it as muslim's
court. in the implementation of peoples through mosques, through education, through other, and people live this from inside, and because of this, these people are on speech and focusing on, you know, people with islam. by doing this, it would be a big problem because we are talking about the masses, the masses, the people, the millions of people. this is included with the army families, so when you look at
the but from inside and are affected by this discourse that is going to go on inside the name of islam. that -- this is very important to look at the world, i guess because it is facing this from within islam, but in sincere muslims, and very peaceful and discuss all of this or reform them peacefully promoting islam and also to stop dangers that come. this is what you are doing and you are so successful that the
only way you have is to arrest us, and we suffer four waves of arrest in egypt, and now the trend now is the picture in egypt engrave not only in egypt, but america and the middle east, but here also because of all of war advocating, there are maybe individuals, but it is individuals, and that's why we should be alert to what they are doing. >> i appreciate that. thank you very much. oh, there we go. thank you, all, for being with us today. we appreciate your time in coming, and this is ending the hearing. >> thank you, all, very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up, we head live to georgetown university for a discussion on the independent counsel that investigated president clinton during the
white water scandals. it's moderated by john harris, a live discussion at georgetown university at the investigations on the 42nd president of the united states. >> this year they -- today's third prize winner addressed the topic to better help them understand the role of the federal government. ♪ ♪ >> and god said, let there be light, and there was light. ♪
>> led lightbulbs are changing the way we light the world. >> we'll be visiting a local company in wisconsin that is revolutionizing their commercial production and distribution. you will see how the federal government taxes this and money is allowing local and state governments to transition from energy intensive bulbs to more efficient forms of lighting such as leds. >> can you name different lights on the market for consumers? >> incon descent, flurescents. >> hologens, that's about what i
>> which ice cream cone would you like to. >> well, it starts with the core technology of that light-emitting dial. leds were invented by hewlett-packard for calculator display screens, and through the evolution of technology, white leds are what we use today. very efficient way to create light, actually.
>> there's a few big advantages, first of all, they're very efficient. second of all, they contain no mercury, so when you look at hazardous materials, a lot of until right because they're so small a point source, you can get very efficient optical control so if light goes where you actually want it instead of a blob of light, i think the biggest disadvantage right now is the price. t more expensive for the -- it's more expensive than traditional lighting even though over the long run it makes sense. i think a couple of things relative to the federal government right now. first of all, there's some research and development tax credits that are available for our business to be able to invest our money in developing led technology for the fixture
side. i think on the consumption side we're very active with the department of energy. the department of energy has an entire solid state lighting section that's working on promoting that lighting. they've started, for example, a municipal street light consortium where they actually go out and promote solid street lighting to different cities around the country in order to try to achieve that. and i think, lastly, part of we'll call it the stimulus funds that are available today through the department of energy are available to cities for energy efficiency upgrades, and several cities are taking advantage of that money, that block grant money, stimulus money to upgrade to l everything d -- led streetlights. >> a number of manufacturers propose to replace inefficient lightbulbs with a combination of products that will provide consumers choices.
they will be a combination of the compact flores sent lights we see together along with high efficiency incandescent and leds. >> i believe the led market will completely dominate and take over all light sources for residential and commercial applications. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos, and continue the conversation about today's documentary at our facebook and twitter pages. >> that we're all consuming -- >> the presidency of william jefferson clinton and investigations by independent counsel kenneth starr are the topic of conversation underway at the georgetown university law center here in washington d.c. the event is being moderated by politico editor-in-chief, john harris. >> i'm hoping that we'll get a chance to explore those photos in a vigorous way today both with some lively back and forth between our panelists, they have
very different perspectives -- at least did at the time. i'd be surprised if they still don't. but maybe we'll find some surprising convergence and agreement, but i'd like to see some vigorous back and forth between the panelists. we do hope as the afternoon continues to hear from you in the audience with your questions. so anyway, i'd like to introduce several people who i think are not going to need a lot of introduction from this audience. we'll start down at this end. robert fisk, of course, is remembered as the first white water independent counsel. before there was ken starr, there was mr. fisk who came, was appointed in her -- to his job. he actually was not, correct me, you're not independent counsel, you were special counsel, right? >> i think the title was the same, it was independent counsel pursuant to the code of regulations. >> appointed by then-attorney general janet reno to investigate the whitewater
controversy was a controversy about a land deal in arkansas and whether political influence had been used improperly in some of the, in arkansas to the benefit of then-governor clinton or others in the around political establishment. his main credential in coming to the job, he had many, but a key one was that he was the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, one of the most important prosecutorial questions, positions in the country. next is greg craig who has an illustrious resumé as a washington lawyer, a high state department official, former white house counsel. at a critical moment in bill clinton's presidency, he drafted, he and hillary clinton drafted greg craig to leave his job in the state department under madeleine albright and come help shepherd his defense in the monica lewinsky affair and the impeachment that followed. so he had a critical vantage point as one of the lawyers who
represented president clinton in that senate impeachment trial. skip down here to gil davis, he was the attorney for paula corps bin jones who filed the lawsuit in the case that became clinton v. jones, and he argued that case all the way up to the supreme court. clinton v. jones, of course, later morphed with the white we're inquiry in ways that surprised everybody at the time, but they eventually became, in some ways, one and the same case. a very prominent washington attorney became, eventually, the warrior for monica lewinsky. he helped to negotiate her immunity deal with the office of independent counsel that was critical to the case ken starr was building. one of the important prosecutors in ken starr's office was, is down here at the end, saul wiesen berg. he was deputy independent counsel under ken starr, and he was a principle prosecutor in the monica lewinsky investigation, one of the lawyers who questioned president
clinton in his grand jury testimony. we were going to have somebody with a critical perspective to offer, lou moretti, who was the former director of the secret service during the clinton administration who gave some fascinating testimony to, to our author here for ken's book, had a number of interesting revelations. he was going to join us. i think he is under the weather and could not make it. so, anyway, let's have a round of applause for these panelists, and we'll get started. [applause] ken, we're all junkies for the story, but other people, as i said, it's going to seem quite remote. so i think the burden is on us, and i'd say specifically on you as the author of this well-received book now out in paperback edition, right? is so if you've been holding back waiting for the price to come down a little bit, now is the time to go and buy that
book. i assume it's available on amazon.com, you can buy in bulk. [laughter] i say that as an author. we have to get our, we have to get our pitch in be. but the burden is on us to explain to people why this story matters. so i'd ask you to start off with some introductory thoughts just to how did your research, those ten years of research, did it fundamentally change our understanding of what the story, what the showdown -- clinton v. starr -- what it was about? how did that change our understanding, and what do you think is the long-term effect of that sort of monumental 1990s clash, political clash, constitutional clash? how has that changed our politics this lasting ways? >> well, john -- >> i should add my final question, do you agree with "the wall street journal" or do you have a rebuttal, they called your title overwrought. so you should get your response in to that.
[laughter] >> yeah. well, that, that word, i think, was a typo. but, yeah, every once in a while that happens with the "wall street journal". >> that means it was wrought. >> one of the biggest challenges, obviously, in writing a book like this because it deals with very recent and very painful political history was, simply, to get the people to talk. and you can certainly appreciate that, john, having covered this yourself. and since we're among friends i'll tell you the story of my first meeting with president clinton. i had spent five years just trying to get him to give me 15 minutes to pitch this idea that he was going to cooperate. i finally got a call in september of 2004. he was in pittsburgh for a book signing of his own, had just signed a thousand copies of his book when we met on the top of the beautiful william penn hotel. there was, there were just the
two of us and a table of food bigger than this table. and president clinton came in famished after signing all these books and looked around, and he was on some kind of at diet at the time -- atkins diet, and he was saying i can't eat this stuff. and he got a big plate of french fries, and he said, come on, ken, let's just eat some fries. [laughter] so we went over and sat and talked and spent an hour, and he agreed to cooperate, agreed to sit down for some interviews. so i was ecstatic. i went back to my office at due cane, was literally dancing around the desk. i had landed the president of the united states. and two days later my research assistant came in and said, did you hear about president clinton? i said, what? he said, i'm having quadruple bypass surgery. and i said, my god, the french frs!
[laughter] so it was nothing short of a miracle about a week after he was to be released to return to activity to go have our first interview session of three or four. so it was a remarkable project from beginning to end. but you never know when a project like this is going to implode, and all of a sudden you're shut off. i intentionally approached as my first interviewee, ken starr. i had written the biography of archie bald who was fired in the infamous saturday night masker. because that book came out right as the lewinsky episode was explode anything the media, i became a talking head on all this special prosecutor stuff. there weren't a lot of us around to talk about it. and most -- so i was writing op-eds for "the new york times," l.a. times, most of what i wrote would have been viewed as pro-clinton because i did not
believe this was an impeachable offense. i'm a constitutional law professor, i had read the federalist papers and the constitutional convention discussions. i did not think it was impeachable. but i never criticized ken starr personally. i had great respect for him. he's a lawyer's lawyer, former federal judge, former solicitor general of the unite, so i did not view -- of the united states, so i did not view him as a right-wing conspirator out to topple the president. so i figured if ken starr and his prosecutors shut me off, i did not want to write this book because i wanted to write the sort of definitive, neutral historical account that would stand up 100 years from now, and people would say, this person had it right. and you can't do that if you can't talk to one side. so i was hillly ready to scrap -- literally ready to scrap the project if ken did not agree. forchew that itly, he did --
fortunately, he did. he was extremely cooperative in wide-ranging interviews as were his deputies like saul who's here today. but i also spent a lot of time in arkansas interviewing friends of bill clinton and family members. i went fishing on the white river with joe purvis, one of clinton's childhood friends, that's where the white water controversy took place so i could describe the scene. went with one of bill clinton's mother's best friends to see where he had grown up as a teenager and talked to lots of advisers including craig and many clinton advisers who had known the clintons since the earliest political days. but i also went to texas to interview people who had grown up with ken starr, that's where his family was from. and what was so interesting to me is how much these two men had in common which you wouldn't normally think. it was as if they were two flip sides of the same coin.
i, they were born, incidentally, within a month of each other within a couple hundred miles of each other, one in arkansas, one in texas. and i saw the house where ken starr grew up because lots of people thought of him as a fat cat lawyer. ken starr live inside a little house -- lived in a little house that was dragged up and planted in a cow pasture, and that's where his father who was a preacher and a barber made his living. but these were two self-made men who had risen to the very pinnacle of their respective professions at very young ages. and that's why this was so tragic when you see the collision in the train wreck. and i always say -- and one of the reasons i spent nine years woking on this -- working on this, john, you could not have made this story up in your wildest imagination if you had set out to write the craziest piece of fiction. and i've said to some of the folks during these television
interviews, a few of them and i won't name the tv stations, were a little concerned about how thick the book was. and i would say, but some of the harry potter books are longer than this, and this story's even more unbelievable. [laughter] i really do give a lot of credit to president clinton and ken starr. this was a very painful summit for both of them. -- subject for both of them. i guess they figured who was less threatening to write this story than some law professor from pittsburgh, seemed fairly harmless. but they did understand, i made it very clear that this would not be an account where i bashed the other side or i treated the other side as evil incarnate. and yet they still cooperated. so it was only because of their willingness to cooperate and the trust of so many people; friends, family, people here on this stage who did sit down and share their recollections of this very difficult period in our history that i was able to
tell this incredible story and preserve it for history. and in many ways i just let them tell the story which made it even more interesting for me. so it is a special honor for me to be here for this particular gathering, and i appreciate professor julio sullivan and you, john, for putting this together because this is the first time this group or a group like it has gotten together to talk about these events. and i really do believe it is meaningful. >> ken, before i plunge into the questions on the panel, give a quick summary of your title and what it means. >> the death of american virtue: clinton v. starr. when i'm talking about the death of american virtue, i'm talking about a notion of public virtue. and the real concern here is that both sides lost their way, and both sides forgot how important it is to exercise
restraint, i think, when you're trying to exercise power responsibly. and that was the point of that overwrought title. >> got it. you'll see it in many of my questions, i'm fascinated by, with this story i'm fascinated by what-if questions. that is at critical moments in the plot if ball had just bounced a little differently, how would have history unfolded in be quite a different -- in quite a different way? either these events never coming to light, never being investigated under some scenarios, or other scenarios where president clinton might have actually had to have left office or been forced from office. and i'm going to -- that's among the things i'm going to pursue. and i have, mr. fisk, you were the summit of a lot of the -- subject of a lot of the what-if questions. certainly bill clinton and his team believed that if you had
stayed in your position as the first whitewater prosecutor, this would have been wrapped up in a much more expeditious and they believe in a much more fair away. of course, some people take it back even further than that, even you should never have been appointed, that the initial predicate facts in whitewater never justified the appointment of a special counsel. remember, of course, that it was president clinton himself who in january of 1994 called for an independent counsel saying that this was needed to, in order to get to the bottom of the controversy. he believed that it would be a way of getting this off the national agenda as a way of removing the distraction of whitewater. that turned out to be a miscalculation on his part, in fact, quite the opposite occurred. so let me ask you, mr. fisk, a
very basic question. should whitewater ever have been investigated in the first place? >> well, i think you have to go back to what was going on in 1993. there were public allegations about impropriety in connection with the loans that president and mrs. clinton along with the mcdougals had taken out to finance their development in whitewater, a house on the white river, part of the whitewater development. but more important, there was public allegation by a municipal judge in little rock called david hale who claimed that when he was president of a company called capital management, that president clinton -- then-governor clinton -- came to him and asked him to take out a loan for capital management from the small business administration, represent to the small business administration that capital management needed the money to run its business when, in fact, the money was going to be used by president
and mrs. clinton to help pay back their loan. now, if that was true, that would have been a federal crime, a false statement to a government agency. so there was, i think, most people felt a factual basis for janet reno to ask for, to appoint an independent counsel. secondly, while the initial cry for the appointment of an independent counsel came from republican senators, there were also several democratic senators including, i remember, senator bradley, i believe senator nunn, senator moynihan who joined in the request that there be an independent counsel. also, of course, as mr. harris just said, president clinton in the end himself asked for the appointment of an independent counsel. so i think the original appointment was very much justified. >> and, again, the what if, people who think that ken starr was an irresponsible prosecutor who led a politicized
investigation or, at a minimum, just lost his sense of proportion, say, well, if a professional prosecutor like bob fisk was in there, this never would have been pursued, specifically the morphing of this case from a controversy about real estate and political influencing to investigation of what president clinton did or did not do and whether he testified truthfully or untruthfully about monica lewinsky. is that true? would you have stopped this case from morphing from, just to oversimplify it perhaps, stop this case from morphing to a real estate case to a sex case? >> that's the easy question. [laughter] >> well, let me put it this way. first of all, we started in january of '94. by august we had a team of experienced federal prosecutors,
we had the prosecutor of the year in texas who was, never lost a case in 113 trials in the texas. and we were moving at full speed and ready to proceed with, with virtually every indictment that subsequently came down later that ken starr followed through with. and i do feel that when i was replaced, there was that slowed things down for a couple of reasons. first, because, of course, ken wanted to bring in his own people, which he did and it took time for them to become familiar with what had been going on. and also we had been able, i think, to move very exwe dishes -- expeditiously making decisions, and i think we would have moved the investigation faster if we'd been able to finish it. ..
among some will die at the lewinsky investigation was the president having sex with someone and why should an independent counsel care about that? i think the bases in other people can talk about this better than me, but they understood the predicate for it was there was an obstruction of justice aliment, which was similar to an obstruction of justice issue that he was already looking at the time and i believe that is the way he justified it. but i have never tried to put
myself in that position because it's very difficult to do that, unless you were really there at the time and understood everything he knew. >> i was hoping the 151st time would be the charm, but no such luck. craig, you have publicly talked about a what-if scenario of sorts, the u.s. said that in the critical months in this controversy -- i'm talking the late summer of 1998, early fall of 1998. so what has happened by that time? president clinton after months of resist and has given grand jury testimony. he went on to the public and gave a speech that was briefly contrite, but remained thrust of his speech to the nation was political backlash including among many democrats who didn't like the tone of that speech. there is a fragile moment they appeared in u.s.a. you could
envision circumstances where the fragile moments actually would have worst president clinton to leave office by resignation but you were maybe a few votes away to a serious democratic backlash. >> no, i never said that. i made a statement to kent conrad, had a conversation three or four days after he started working, but the lawyers had been on the talk shows and had not done well. tom daschle had written a letter to the president, saying get rid of the lawyers, you directly. i talked to kent conrad usage or three or four days away from getting to delegation of senate democrats asking to reside. that is the closest i think. >> okay, did you agree? >> i had no one way or the other. when i arrived september things were not jolly. i will say that you've
identified us as members of a fraternity that were close to ground zero. i have a collection as there is a woman or two near ground zero. >> i use that innate gender future away. that's a gender neutral corner who's been living in arguing about it in the years since. tell us about what you saw when you arrived at the white house. it's been going on for months by the time you were there. >> there were two or three things i recall it. one is that many of the people on the senior staff of the white house had recently gotten their grand jury transcripts to review and correct and so when i went around to introduce and sadness of town and talk to john podesta and a few others, they were
giving the readings from their grand jury testimony. there was also a feeling of betrayal by the president to the members of the senior staff. so there was, i think, and not great attitude towards the future. >> i think that's fair to say. >> hadn't they concluded that time he admitted i think most of the country had long since believed it was true. what is the last 90 people in america? >> i didn't put them on a polygraph, but i think there was sadness in the white house. >> mr. davis, another what-if that the case of clinton versus jones had never come this far is it to. in the summer of 1997 before
monica lewinsky's name is known to the public by about six months, u.n. the president's lawyer, todd bennett, had worked out a deal to settle the paula jones case for $700,000 to not score in the complaint along with the statement by president clinton that ms. jones had done nothing wrong in the excelsior hotel in little rock, where the alleged improper had taken place. even bennett supposedly cut the deal. resident clinton agreed to it. yet at the last moment, the deal falls apart in your client, miss jones, is the reason for that. explain what happened and what would've happened differently. how would it have unfolded if you guys are just been able to get the deal done? how good a veto would have been publicly when it came out? >> it would have been a victory for her and the restoration of what she said was their interest
and that was the reputation that she wanted to enjoy. and there would've been more money frankly than what was eventually on the table. the lawyers to cut our fee is way down to try to persuade her. she was influenced and i think clearly mr. gormley finds correctly that she was influenced by her has been to was very how should i put it, wanted to play the tough guy and met a woman in california come as news and carpenter who became a spokesperson for her and influence that maybe should make more money on defense. as far as my colleague and i, we thought that once a litigant
gives and pays the amount of money that the addendum one on the table in more than not, something we could not have received without an agreement and that is a statement by the president that reteamed her reputation. once that was on the table, there is nothing further to fight about. and so, we withdrew from the case and were trying very hard to persuade her. >> to do ever get paid? >> yes, yes, ultimately there is money put on the table during the course of the succeeding layers and frankly i think the judge was perturbed to bet that the case hadn't paddled and she made a comment. i thought it intense book that there was a reasonable attorneys
fees available or should be if there is money on the table. and we did a fairly sizable amount of time. the other lawyers thought we should get about $25,000. we did not think that was appropriate, so we maneuver to get a larger fee and we did. but i always have regretted that she did not take that settlement and you ask what the consequences were. number one, we would've never heard of monaco and he. we would never has been and schmidt. the matter -- i don't know whether politically what would've happened with respect to the politics of it, but i do think that if you look at what a biblical analogy, that the cat -- clinton begat paula
jones. paula jones begat monica lewinsky. lewinsky begat impeachment and an impeachment begat the advent of george bush as president of the united states. i mean, it's not provable, but every place he went he said i will restore dignity to the office of the president he. and i think in a close election as that was, as we all know made the difference. there were other things that make some differences also, but i think that was the underlying theme. he never had to say anything more people understood it. i don't think people were very anxious to see the president leaves office. and frankly, i was not terribly anxious to have that happen. as you recall, it was either about sex or perjury. while i was on the perjury side, but there was another middle
ground is that nobody, as far as i know, very few people took and not was proportionality. you know, should the president have been impeached and found guilty of impeachment? and that's an interesting question that nobody could beat it really. and so i think our politics would've been different and certainly the impeachment would not have occurred and then the other consequence is i think would've been more helpful to have had a big vision that said something about who we are as a people, even more than the 19 nothing supreme court decision in that we all sort of worship in a secular way our political freedoms and equal justice before the law, the paula jones was a below the lot and bill clinton wasn't about it and the processes of government and the justice system should prevail with the interest of all been
considered. and so i think it would have been better had she, in that sense, had she taken that deal at the time. >> though clinton believes the course the case was about politics from start to finish. what have you concluded about that? you first have to leave the allegations that she made them? were they truly were the people pushing her with a head in the case and presumably pushing her not to take the settlement offer, are they motivated fundamentally by politics or something else? >> at the time you're speaking, there is maybe money at issue, less so perhaps the politics. at the beginning of the case and for some time, and i think the delay in getting the case over with changed her view and frankly changed mine, too. i thought that the second year that she was entitled to get them remuneration if she
prevailed. but initially, she didn't want to bring this case. i mean, this was 1991 at the excelsior hotel. she told her friends and her family about what happened and they said well, you need to say something and bring a case or complaint. and she said no. she said this was -- there was police guarding the door. i will perhaps lose my job. i may lose my boyfriend. nobody will believe me because it is head and knee. and she said no, i'm not doing anything. the only thing she did was register to vote and she voted to a republican and a republican candidacy in that state in little rock. and so, i just think that the delay and a lot of people said why did she do it quite well, it's clear. she didn't want to bring a suit.
when it was put in her face as she had to say yes or no with the american spectator and "the l.a. times," she got her back up and that caused the thing to go forward with it. >> if i could just jump in on one of the one what it do so which are seen as they interviewed robert jarrell, editor of the american backed tatar magazines and he said it was a mistake that they ever published the name paula in the article that said a woman named paula had gone up in the excelsior hotel. that a policy against using names. so is a mistake. it had not been there, none of this would've ever happened. >> the plaintiff chairs was not my most code -- monica lewinsky's first lawyer. her first was bill ginsburg and there is to this date in washington and expression that reporters use a lot when a public person manages a full
ginsburg. it sounds like some acrobatic stunts, when somebody is on all five sunday shows in one day. you've done a full ginsburg. that can also qualify as a full ginsburg. he was the first person ever to do it. it's a little easier these days, but he was the first person who either did it. and the general consensus of people filed the story did not serve her interest well by allowing us to become a public spectacle although i think there's some people who think whether he did intentionally or not, he did manage to keep her in the game long enough that there wasn't an agreement with ken starr is prosecutors and so perhaps for making a premature deal. what if you had been contact on the very first day that she knew she was in legal jeopardy?
>> let me say something about playing the shares. he was the finest trial lawyer i have ever known in the 40 years of prior to flaw. and i don't mean to pump you up any higher than you should be, but there is nobody that comes close in my opinion. >> did you get any legal trouble -- 1802 chairs. >> but which are done instead of coming several months later? >> yes, we came in, jake's ini, i must add were cocounsel, ably assisted by sidney hoffman and we came in after a period of time because the family was getting concerned that the case was not progressing to a point where monaco is comfortable about what was going to happen
to her. but what i've done the first day? i think we would not have given many interviews to anybody and we would have waited to see what was going to transpire. when we came in the case, we were told that the independent counsel's office had decided that monaco was in jeopardy and that she would be indicted. we heard that. jake and i both felt that if there was to be a trial would be pretty good trial. we would have somebody named bill clinton thing i did not have sex with that woman. that's a pretty good witness. in any event, we negotiated, as you know, a disposition that gave her totally community and that is what she wanted and not his split we got her. >> was there any scenario that said have at it.
let's find out if you really do have the guts to prosecute. was there any scenario where you might contemplate paying to ken starr, have at it. i think you've got the guts to prosecute her and if you do are ready to take them on? >> well, we didn't use those words and we didn't use them at ken starr. people on the staff were here -- you were here. [laughter] he didn't tell us he was going to prosecute one of his associate and we said we are not going to plead guilty to anything and we left. for not using the word you didn't have the guts, but we said the same thing. >> i don't remember any meaning for you were threatened. >> you and jake were coming insane man from heaven and beware. >> will look, we have not been
to do with what transpired before regarding the case. so we came in the case and dealt with ken starr and his minions. >> one question i do wonder is what if you had been able to strike a deal right at the beginning, seemed january 1998 to get her testimony. how is that it's a different? d. think ken starr would've prosecuted someone like mono lewinsky who have time for kind of a bystander? >> there were people and assess who who wanted her prosecuted. so yes, they probably would. >> well, your first question is a question that's on top of many times. and the general consent does this if we had struck the deal fairly with them were, you know,
essentially monica's statement was not significantly different when it was the written statement to ginsburg dinner was with plato and jake. the certain historical thing in the offices we insisted on it in person proper, which is plato knows his standard operating procedure when somebody comes and wants to enter into a guilty plea first there's a proper and almost all instances is the proper session. in kingsbury did not understand significance of that and wanted to plead essentially strike an agreement -- strike an immunity agreement of some kind without bringing her foreign and person proper. before it come to the office and before a few of us had come to the office, we had been allowed to strike a deal without the offer agreement and there was
the dealing that we have not cooperated fully. and so there were a number of us insisted upon following procedure and this is the way you do at any prosecutor's office i have to say i was the one who insisted that no deal could be struck with out them in person proper. but in answer to your question, the agony is if we had done that, i think there was a much better chance that president clinton would not have been able to survive. the general consensus is to the delay in the attacks on us
conversation in progress at georgetown university and the independent oil and investigated president clinton during whitewater and monica lewinsky trials. [no audio] [no audio] >> we have this woman named linda tripp to come in and here is what she has told us. in my professional opinion we shouldn't go any further with it. we should tell doj about it and maybe if somebody else look at it. i don't have any doubt that can would've come along with that. you listen very carefully to his senior people. >> here's a question you've been
asked not 100 times, but a thousand times. this had nothing to do with the initial matter that this was about, the initial matter that mr. fiske was asked to investigate. why not use prosecutorial discretion this is not about that. >> you're asking me? >> yeah. >> waited view it that way because you have to remember by the time it happens, we investigate a lot more than madison guarantee and whitewater which the mandates are broader than people realize. we investigated number of other things, some of which we have wanted and some of which have been thrust upon us and we have been asked to do by attorney general remount and none of this is news to people who followed this, but we were looking at an obstruction investigation because we found out during a period right before and during the time he was to be cooperating with us come he was
$700,000 at least in consulting contracts in the white house, which is considerably more he made at the laugh or we are looking into that and investigating a convert and jordan, no suggestion whatsoever he was engaged in an effort to silence but was instrumental in getting employment and getting some of those consulting contracts including from the holding company or a company with revlon. if you recall the story we got when we first came in, we certainly were accurate about monica lewinsky was there was enough for an revlon. so we were concerned in general about obstruction of justice and her other investigations in my own personal thought was here is something that's very similar to this and it is close enough in
somebody's going to have to investigated. it actually was almost immediately collaborated at key points. >> did you believe at the time saw, that though clinton was a fundamentally dishonest or corrupt man? and what do you think now as you've seen him continue to be a very prominent figure on the public's age for a full decade after he left office? what was your basic take on this man who spent all your professional hours trying to understand one aspect of his behavior and his inking? >> i don't think an answer to your first question -- i don't take on the person to ask about whether or not any politician is fundamentally corrupt. [laughter] i am just not the person you want to have about that. with respect to the second question, >> want you guys driven by just a real fundamental in the heat
of the moment, a fundamental animist towards your target? >> to quote my favorite armor president, let me say this about that. [laughter] we will really test the age of some people in the room. and i want to say this in a friendly way. this has been a very friendly and professional session, so i really want to try to be accurate. i think it's fair to say that at that time, that he was very difficult and i don't complain this to our staff. it was very difficult to investigate the clintons if you were a prosecutor for very long and not have an animus and it isn't necessarily because they were evil or guilty. it was because the way that they responded to investigation.
and also remember that in my opinion, ken starr -- look, every prosecutor should be questioned about their methods and what they do, but i thought ken starr was subject it to an unprecedented personal vilification. we were being investigated by private investigators. >> what point in time are you there's no question. it's very hard not to have been animist to somebody you believe is how you private investigators to look at you. so i don't hope that answers your question, but if you are saying because we hated him, were we looking for any reason to get him? i would say no. if you're saying was there an animus at that point in time, yes. >> let me say this. what you had in president clinton was a politician who lied about his sex scandal.
i don't think that necessarily makes him corrupt. so i don't think he was a corrupt person. he did what most politicians do in the circumstances. [laughter] >> let me ask a question because it is something i've been interested in from the time that i was representing paula jones at the time just before the grand jury was in panel to investigate and have clinton as a witness. and i think it may save some name about ken starr who i admire greatly and i think probably was the best person for clinton to have under the circumstances because he kept his thoughts to himself. he didn't go on the microphone and talk about how that clinton was there anything else. but here's the question that has always bothered me to know the
answer to it. why did not your office hold the dress until after the grand jury testimony? >> if memory serves me correctly , i'm trying to remember. i think there was almost immediately a leak and it may have been from the bureau, but it may be getting confused the fingerprints on some of the white house doing records, but in a broader sense, but they say the answer to that question, but the fact that ken starr made it clear and this is something people forget about.
ken starr made it clear to the white house, you know, what those results were. they also knew because the second blood test wouldn't have been taken if there hadn't been hashed results of the first one had been significant. but he made it clear to the white house that the president shouldn't line about the relationship. now your question is a good one. a hard ask prosecutor would say, i can't believe you would do something like that. why not keep it secret? >> the fact that ken didn't says a lot about 10 from what he didn't want the president to do and what he thought about the country. that might be a good time. he speaks to that. go ahead, plato. >> i was just going to say about the blue dress. i think that was what caused the case to finally end. i think when the dress was delivered to be a vi, that they
immediately went to the white house and took dna from the president. that was important. so they had to do that because who knew of some address until they get the dna. once they did that, they established their event the relationship. so that's why it was important that the two that right away and not hold the dress until he testified because they wouldn't have known what the dna would show. >> before the grand jury that. >> that could be. that could be. ken has cut a fascinating and note in that story in which lewis told you something relating to the sequence of events. >> welcome the loomer reddy was the director of the secret service and fought fierce late to among other things prevented agents from having to testify in front of ken starr's grand jury because he thought that would
set a dangerous precedent for future presidents. in the midst of all of this happening, lou goretti told me i have to say i do check out this information, that he was pulled aside a high-level fbi official when the blue dress was being tested right before president clinton was about to testify in the grand jury and told don't worry about it. there's no tma on the dress. and lew merletti interpreted this was an attempt at a senate to get them to bring that information back to president clinton to have had lied in his grand jury testimony and that would be the end of things. that is what lew merletti perceived. >> you checked it out. did you ever find any verification to a story? >> i did. i don't identify the source, but it did have a collaboration.
>> i am amazed and that would be amazing to me if that were accurate. >> the person i have it. -- the footnotes are worth reading. [laughter] but i believe the person when pressed finally said no comment. >> let's get down to this end of the table. craig, did you have something to weigh in on that? >> i don't have any comments to make them the blue dress. i will say that after reading your extraordinary book, ken, i do not agree with your conclusion that you gave today that both sides lost a leg and both sides fail to ask restraint. i couldn't disagree with at work. clearly the president asked his site to exercise restraint in his own personal might hear when you talk about abuse of power, when you talk about use of