31 January 2012

A new generation of political Islamists steps forward


A new generation of political Islamists steps forward 

By Olivier Roy, Published: January 20 

Olivier Roy is a professor at the European University Institute in Florence and the author of “Holy Ignorance.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/muslim-brotherhood-other-islamists-have-changed-their-worldview/2012/01/10/gIQAZgjoEQ_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines


Everywhere, the Muslim Brotherhood is benefiting from a democratization it did not trigger. There is a political vacuum because the liberal vanguard that initiated the Arab Spring did not try, and did not want, to take power. This was a revolution without revolutionaries. Yet the Muslim Brothers are the only organized political force. They are rooted in society, and decades of opposition against authoritarian regimes gave them experience, legitimacy and respect. Their conservative agenda fits a conservative society, which may welcome democracy but did not turn liberal.

Under these circumstances, the ghost of a totalitarian Islamic state is raised, with the specter of imposing sharia and closing the short democratic parenthesis. But such an outcome is unlikely.

The Islamists have, in fact, changed: They are more middle-class “bourgeois,” and they benefited from the liberalization of local economies during the last decades of the 20th century, especially in countries with no oil rent. The Islamists have also drawn lessons from the failure of ideological regimes and from the success of Turkey’s AKP party. They are no longer advocating jihad and understand geostrategic constraints, such as the need to maintain peace, even a cold one, with Israel. Realism is the starting point of political wisdom.

The Islamists have been elected with a clear agenda: stability, good governance and a better economy. If they have been able to reach a larger constituency than the hard-core supporters of sharia, it is precisely because they can combine such a reformist agenda while talking about religion, values, identity and tradition. The Nahda party won the majority of the votes cast at the Tunisian consulate of San Francisco, although Tunisian expatriates in Silicon Valley are not known for their Islamic fundamentalism.

This mix of technocratic modernism and conservative values is their brand, and to turn their back on multipartism and legalism would alienate a large portion of their constituency, at a time when they have no means to confiscate power. They have neither military forces nor oil wealth to bypass the people: They have to negotiate and deliver. Their electorate wants stability and peace, not revolution.

They are stepping into a new political landscape: a democracy, although a fledgling and fragile one. The only way to maintain their legitimacy is through elections. Even if their pristine political culture is not democratic, they are formatted by the democratic landscape, much as the Roman Catholic Church ended up accepting democratic institutions. But it will take time.

Another important change, if we refer to the “revolutionary” period of the 1970s and 1980s, is that the Muslim Brothers do not monopolize Islam in the public sphere. In fact, the religious revival that has engulfed Arab societies led to a diversification and an individualization of the religious field. Religious state institutions such as Al Azhar, so recently discredited, are regaining autonomy after so recently being discredited. Al Azhar’s dean, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, openly spoke in favor of democracy and of separating religious institutions from the state. A new phenomenon is the decision of the Salafis, an ultraconservative Sunni sect, to establish political parties. On the one hand they will push for a more Islamic agenda, trying to outbid the Muslim Brothers on Islam, but this will force the Brotherhood to clarify its own position and to find a way to distance itself from the call for sharia.

To do that, the Muslim Brothers have to turn purely Islamic norms into more universal conservative values — such as limiting the sale and consumption of alcohol in a way that is closer to Utah’s rules than to Saudi laws and promoting “family values” instead of imposing sharia norms on women.

In the coming months the hot issue in Egypt, beyond the status of women, will be religious freedom. Not in the sense that Coptic Christians will have less freedom to practice — there were a lot of limitations under the so-called secular dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak — but in defining religious freedom as not merely a minority right but an individual human right, implying the right to convert from Islam to Christianity.

The issue is institutionalizing democracy, not promoting liberal policies. Democracy could take hold only if it is based in well-established values. Liberalism does not precede democracy; America’s Founding Fathers were not liberal. But once democracy is rooted in institutions and political culture, then the debate on freedom, censorship, social norms and individual rights could be managed through freedom of expression and changes of majorities in parliament. However, there will be no institutionalization of democracy without the Muslim Brothers.
 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Addactforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org


ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. 

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.

Do not respond to this e-mail for any reason. To discontinue your membership automatically please, follow the link below. You are registered to receive email as Ann Lindholm at the following e-mail address: ranblc@gmail.com. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership.
 


HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. 


HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.

Redisrtricting in Florida, Rep. Allen West Affected

Rep. Allen West to seek reelection in new district

By Updated: Tuesday, January 31, 5:18 PM

Tea party firebrand Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) announced Tuesday that he will switch districts and run for reelection in Florida’s new 18th district.
West’s 22nd district, which was already Democratic-leaning, got even tougher under a new GOP redistricting plan released last week. The new district would have gone about 57 percent for President Obama in the 2008 presidential race.
But Rep. Tom Rooney’s (R-Fla.) decision earlier Tuesday to run in the open and Republican-leaning 17th district rather than the swing 18th freed West up to make the switch to the neighboring district, which is just north of his current district, which spans from West Palm Beach to Fort Lauderdale.
“Congressman Rooney is a statesman and has been an honorable public servant to the constituents of Florida’s 16th Congressional district,” West said, referring to Rooney’s current district, which is re-numbered from 16 to 18 under the new plan. “It is my goal to continue the success Congressman Rooney has had in Florida’s 16th Congressional district in the newly proposed 18th district. I welcome the challenges and excitement that lie ahead.”
West brings a vaunted fundraising operation to the new district, which is based in Port St. Lucie and contains about a quarter of his old district. But it remains to be seen whether his outspoken conservatism might cost him independent votes. Democrats will surely target the seat.
West’s departure from the 22nd district means Democrats will be favored to pick up a seat there.
© The Washington Post Company

Allen West to run in Palm Beach-Treasure Coast district, Rooney to move west, Hasner could exit Senate race

by George Bennett | January 31st, 2012
Facing a tough reelection fight in a district that has been redrawn with a Democratic tilt, U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, announced today that he will instead seek reelection in a more Republican-leaning district to the north where U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, now lives.
Rooney announced in the last hour that he will run in a newly created rural District 17 that extends from western Martin and St. Lucie counties to Charlotte County on Florida’s west coast and north into parts of Hillsborough and Polk counties.
With West’s current Palm Beach-Broward congressional District 22 without a Republican incumbent, sources close to GOP Senate candidate Adam Hasner said there are discussions going on about Boca Raton resident Hasner dropping his U.S. Senate bid to run in West’s district.
West’s current District 22 is nearly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, but a plan approved by the Florida Senate and up for a vote in the state House would give Democrats a 9-point registration advantage.
The new District 18 where West will run has a 38-to-37.3 Republican edge and includes some northern Palm Beach County voters that West represents now. The new District 17 where Rooney will run has a 40.7-to-37.7 percent Republican advantage.
Two Democrats — former West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel and businessman Patrick Murphy — are running in West’s current District 22.
West didn’t acknowledge his Democratic foes or the GOP’s registration disadvantage in District 22. But, he said, “As a 22-year United States Army veteran who commanded troops in combat, one should never underestimate my ability to be a strategic thinker.”

Shakeup: Adam Hasner to run for West's CD seat; Mack could walk in U.S. Senate primary

Miami Herald  -  

The dominoes are falling.
U.S. Senate candidate Adam Hasner will likely leave the race and run for Allen West's soon-to-be-vacated Congressional seat, a source tells us. West's seat looks a lot like Hasner's old legislative Delray Beach-based district.
Hasner's move makes sense on more levels than that. Rep. Connie Mack, of Fort Myers, is cruising in the U.S. Senate race, leading in the polls and, soon, fundraising. Hasner could have handled that.
But Hasner's campaign was dealt a death blow, of sorts, bythe presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, who stumped in the final days across Florida with Mack. Mack picked up precious TV time and the aura of the favored.
Meanwhile, to avoid a bloody primary, leadership in the U.S. House asked Hasner to run for West's seat. But first, West had to announce he'd leave his seat and run for Tom Rooney's seat. And before that happened, Rooney had to announce he'd leave his district and run for a new district.
Connie Mack still has to run in a primary, though, and former Sen. George LeMieux is sticking with it. At least for now.
All of the shifting has been sparked in large part by the Constitutional requirement to redraw congressional districts every 10 years after the U.S. Census. A new state constitutional requirement forbids state legislators, who must redraw the maps, from favoring or disfavoring an incumbent or political party.
Translation: It's a recipe for a lawsuit.
So now the question is: What happens to this Republican congressional musical-chairs game if Democrats sue and win the right to have new maps?

The ideas the President outlined in the State of the Union are based on the very model that is causing the EU to implode.


Monday 30 January 2012

Barack Obama is trying to make the US a more socialist state

The ideas the President outlined in the State of the Union are based on the very model that is causing the EU to implode.

President Barack Obama delivers the State of the Union address in Washington. He pledged to fight for a 'fairer America' (EPA) 
Janet Daley
What was it everybody used to say about the United States? Look at what’s happening over there and you will see our future. Whatever Americans are doing now, we will be catching up with them in another 10 years or so. In popular culture or political rhetoric, America led the fashion and we tagged along behind.

Well, so much for that. Barack Obama is now putting the United States squarely a decade behind Britain. Listening to the President’s State of the Union message last week was like a surreal visit to our own recent past: there were, almost word for word, all those interminable Gordon Brown Budgets that preached “fairness” while listing endless new ways in which central government would intervene in every form of economic activity.

Later, in a television interview, Mr. Obama described his programme of using higher taxes on the wealthy to bankroll new government spending as “a recipe for a fair, sound approach to deficit reduction and rebuilding this country”. To which we who come from the future can only shout, “No‑o-o, go back! Don’t come down this road!”

As we try desperately to extricate ourselves from the consequences of that philosophy, which sounds so eminently reasonable (“giving everybody a fair share”, the President called it), we could tell America a thing or two – if it would only listen. Human beings are so much more complicated than this childlike conception of fairness assumes. When government takes away an ever larger proportion of the wealth which entrepreneurial activity creates and attempts to distribute it “fairly” (that is to say, evenly) throughout society in the form of welfare programmes and public spending projects, the effects are much, much more complex and perverse than a simple financial equation would suggest.

It is probably obvious that the people from whom the wealth is taken will become less willing to incur the risks that entrepreneurial investment involves – and so will produce less wealth, and thus less tax revenue. But more surprising, perhaps, are the damaging changes that take place in the beneficiaries of this “fairness” and the permanent effect this has on the balance of power between government and the people.

There is, it turns out, a huge difference between being provided with a livelihood and feeling that you have earned it. The assumption that all the wealth that individuals create belongs, by moral right, to the state, to spend on benefits or phoney job creation schemes (sorry, public infrastructure projects), is proving phenomenally difficult to expunge in Britain, so ineradicably has it embedded itself in the public consciousness.

In the US, it has had only odd historical moments of favour (Roosevelt’s New Deal, Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”), which have been beaten back consistently by the dynamism of a country that sees its existential purpose as being to foster and promote individual achievement and self-belief. It is bizarre that Obama should be regarded (or should regard himself) as a kind-of European who is trying to bring a sophisticated kind-of socialism to American economic life, complete with government-run health care and “fair” (high) taxes on the wealthy. If his European credentials were up to date, he would know that this was precisely the social model that is causing the EU to implode, and whose hopeless contradictions the best economic minds on the Continent are attempting, unsuccessfully, to resolve.

A vendetta against the “wealthy” is one of Obama’s favourite themes, and it strikes a peculiarly familiar note. Back here, Nick Clegg is arguing (rightly) that a tax cut for the lower paid should be accelerated on both moral and economic grounds – because people are struggling, and because allowing them to keep and spend more of their earnings would stimulate growth. But he wants to balance this with a wealth tax or some such penalty on “the rich”. Both Obama and Clegg, by an extraordinary coincidence, used the same semantic trick to try to prove the injustice of their present tax systems. In his State of the Union address, the President slipped subliminally from the fact that his likely presidential opponent Mitt Romney paid tax at a lower rate (because his income came from profits and dividends which were taxed as capital gains) than his secretary (who would have paid income tax), to the claim that Mr. Romney paid less tax than his secretary.

Mr. Clegg made exactly the same charge against a putative hedge fund manager who “paid less tax” than his cleaner, neatly obscuring the fact that it was the rate of tax that was lower, not the amount which was paid. Needless to say, both Mr. Romney and the imagined hedge-fund manager pay vastly more tax than their respective secretaries and cleaners. (The top 1 per cent of earners pay nearly a third of all federal taxes in the US.)

So what does this kind of verbal trick tell us about the honesty – or the desperation – of this argument? At the very least, it is crass populism designed to provoke a particularly counterproductive form of class resentment. What is needed here and in the US are tax cuts for the many, not the few, to adapt Mr. Brown, and less demonising of the sorts of people who are able to invest and create the real wealth that will be our only chance for economic salvation.

Obama is clearly living the Left-liberal dream, which still survives in small pockets of American life. He wants to import the democratic socialism that Europe embraced after the war, which was, for European cultural reasons, imbued with aristocratic paternalism and Marxist notions of bourgeois guilt. But neither of these things are part of the American historical experience. The Left-wing intellectuals, including Obama himself, who adopt this language are talking dangerously uninformed rubbish: if democratic socialism was ever a solution to Europe’s problems (and the present crisis is making that seem less and less likely), it is certainly not an answer to any question that Americans are likely to ask.

The United States is a country that was invented to allow people to be free of domination or persecution by the state. Its constitution and political institutions are specifically designed to prevent the federal government from oppressing the rights, or undermining the sense of responsibility, of the individual citizen. If it ceases to stand by that principle, then it will suffer a catastrophic loss of purpose and identity – as well as making a quite remarkably stupid and unnecessary mistake.

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong

Middle East ForumMiddle East Forum
Promoting American Interests
Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
Follow the Middle East Forum
MEF Home   |    Research & Writings   |   Middle East Quarterly   |   MEF @ Facebook   |   MEF @ Twitter   |   Donate
Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area.

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior
Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jihad Watch
January 18, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3154/circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior
 Print Send RSSShare: Facebook Twitter Google +1
  Be the first of your friends to like this.
Has there ever been a time when one group of people openly exposes its animosity for another group of people—even as this second group not only ignores the animosity, but speaks well, enables, and legitimizes the first group?
Welcome to the 21st century, where Western politicians empower those Muslims who are otherwise constantly and openly denouncing all non-Muslims as enemies to be fought and subjugated.
Consider this video of Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami, a top-ranked figure in Egypt's Salafi movement which won some 25% of the votes in recent elections. He makes clear a point that, in a different era, would be thoroughly eye-opening: that all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive.
Discussing "the analogy between Egypt's Christians and the Jews of Medina," Burhami pointed out that Muslims may make temporary peace with infidels, when circumstance calls for it:
The Jews of Medina represent a paradigm—laid by the prophet [Muhammad]—that shows how Muslims should deal with infidels. The prophet's methods of dealing with infidels are available for Muslims to replicate depending on their situation and their capabilities. The Prophet in Mecca dealt with the infidels in a certain way, so whenever Muslims are vulnerable they should deal with the infidels in this same manner.
Burhami is referring to the famous Mecca/Medina division: when Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in his early Mecca period, he preached peace and made pacts with infidels; when he became strong in the Medina period, he preached war and went on the offensive. This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been instructive to Muslims for ages.
After quoting Koran 4:77, "Refrain from action, uphold prayers, and pay your zakat," Burhami continues:
In many infidel countries, such as occupied Palestine, we instruct Muslims to do just that [follow Koran 4:77]. Today in Gaza, we do not tell Muslims to launch rockets everyday and so destroy the country, but we tell them "Refrain from action and respect the truce." When the Prophet first arrived in Medina, he made conciliation with the Jews, conciliation without jizya [i.e., equal-term conciliation without forcing Jews to pay tribute and live as second-class dhimmis]—this is a pattern that can be followed whenever circumstances dictate. However, when they breached the covenant he fought them and ultimately imposed jizya on the People of the Book [Jews and Christians]. Nor is this Sura [Koran 9:29] abrogated; it is acknowledged and agreed upon.
Burhami exposes much here, beginning with the Koran verse he quotes: when weak, Muslims are to "refrain from action"—but "pay your zakat," which, among other things, funds the jihad. Also, as Muhammad made peace with the Jews of Medina, without making them submit to jizya (tribute to be paid "while utterly subdued"), so too are Palestinians allowed to make temporary peace with Israel. In both cases, circumstance—namely, Muslim weakness—justify it. But, when capability allows, Koran 9:29—which calls for jizya and subjugation, and which Burhami quotes as having abrogated the other peaceful verses—takes over.
Burhami's conclusion:
Yes we can deal with those Christians [Egypt's Copts] as the Jews were dealt with in Medina; it is an option. The Prophet made the Hudaybiya Reconciliation with the infidels and held a truce for ten years; that is also an option…. So, it is legitimate to choose from examples set by the Prophet,depending on what suits the situation of Muslims now.
In short, Muslims may be tolerant of Egypt's Copts now, and not collect jizya and place them in dhimmitude, until they are more capable—just like Palestinians may make peace with Israel now, till they are more capable of waging an offensive. Indeed, Dr. Mohamed Saad Katatni—the secretary general of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, which won 40% of the votes—reportedly said that Copts would not pay jizya now, implying that the idea of collecting tribute from subdued "dhimmi" Copts is very much alive among the Brotherhood, only dormant till a more opportune moment.
One may argue that Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami—"one man," a "radical"—is not representative of "true Islam." The problem, however, is that all his arguments have been made countless times by countless Muslims, including the most authoritative, throughout the ages. Even the late Yasser Arafat evoked Hudaybiya as representative of "peace" with Israel.
And yet, despite all this—despite the fact that this video is a drop in the bucket of evidence—here is the West, making the way clear for people like Burhami to power in the name of "democracy," regardless that pacts, smiles, and handshakes over cups of coffee exist solely when circumstance, in this case, Muslim weakness, dictates.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics:  Islam  |  Raymond IbrahimThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Rapid Rise in UK Shari'ah Law Cases

DEFENSE SECRETARY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR ANNOUNCE CUTS AT PENTAGON



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  
January 26, 2012
CONTACT: Chris Crawford - (202) 225-5831 or (202) 557-6446
DEFENSE SECRETARY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR ANNOUNCE CUTS AT PENTAGON
Congressman Kingston pledges to help identify savings without harming national security
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) is pledging to work with the nation’s military leaders to review a significant reshaping of the nation’s military and trimming of the Pentagon’s budget.  While he has concerns, Kingston acknowledged the tough task taken on by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and is cautiously optimistic that the changes will not negatively impact the South Georgia military installations he represents.
“We should, to the extent possible, find ways to save taxpayer dollars without further exposing our troops or the American people to harm,” said Kingston.  “I appreciate the effort of Secretary Panetta in putting together this proposal and look forward to reviewing it carefully.  While we are in an extremely difficult budget situation, we must ensure that the decisions made today are not penny wise and pound foolish.”
“With respect to the bases in our area, we work every day under the assumption that another round of closures is just around that corner,” he continued.  “That’s why I make it one of my top priorities to work with our communities and military personnel to identify new missions and make sure our bases are good hosts to the troops they house.  I am consistently impressed by each of our installations and know that their excellence is not unnoticed inside the Pentagon.”
In April of last year, Kingston testified before the House Armed Services Committee in support of bringing new missions to the installations he represents which include Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Airfield, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, and Moody Air Force base in addition to a National Guard training facility and the Townsend Bombing Range.
The proposed changes would reduce the size of the military by 100,000 troops, eliminate some programs and delay others in an effort to save $487 billion over the next decade.  It will also call for another Base Closing and Realignment Commission (BRAC) to review military installations for possible closure.
As a senior member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Kingston intends to work with Secretary Panetta and each of the service chiefs to review the proposals when working to set the nation’s defense budget his committee will craft for the coming year.

DEFENSE SECRETARY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR ANNOUNCE CUTS AT PENTAGON



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  
January 26, 2012
CONTACT: Chris Crawford - (202) 225-5831 or (202) 557-6446
DEFENSE SECRETARY, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR ANNOUNCE CUTS AT PENTAGON
Congressman Kingston pledges to help identify savings without harming national security
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) is pledging to work with the nation’s military leaders to review a significant reshaping of the nation’s military and trimming of the Pentagon’s budget.  While he has concerns, Kingston acknowledged the tough task taken on by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and is cautiously optimistic that the changes will not negatively impact the South Georgia military installations he represents.
“We should, to the extent possible, find ways to save taxpayer dollars without further exposing our troops or the American people to harm,” said Kingston.  “I appreciate the effort of Secretary Panetta in putting together this proposal and look forward to reviewing it carefully.  While we are in an extremely difficult budget situation, we must ensure that the decisions made today are not penny wise and pound foolish.”
“With respect to the bases in our area, we work every day under the assumption that another round of closures is just around that corner,” he continued.  “That’s why I make it one of my top priorities to work with our communities and military personnel to identify new missions and make sure our bases are good hosts to the troops they house.  I am consistently impressed by each of our installations and know that their excellence is not unnoticed inside the Pentagon.”
In April of last year, Kingston testified before the House Armed Services Committee in support of bringing new missions to the installations he represents which include Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Airfield, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, and Moody Air Force base in addition to a National Guard training facility and the Townsend Bombing Range.
The proposed changes would reduce the size of the military by 100,000 troops, eliminate some programs and delay others in an effort to save $487 billion over the next decade.  It will also call for another Base Closing and Realignment Commission (BRAC) to review military installations for possible closure.
As a senior member of the Defense Appropriations Committee, Kingston intends to work with Secretary Panetta and each of the service chiefs to review the proposals when working to set the nation’s defense budget his committee will craft for the coming year.