tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 6, 2016 1:39am-5:01am EDT
sam nunn did 30 years ago, to give our men and women in uniform what they need from the right leadership structure to the right strategic thinking. as long as we do, i'm confident that they will continue to excel in defending our great country and making a better future for our children. thank you. [applause] john: i don't want people to think we didn't pay our bill and hat's why the lights went out. you were very gracious about my being on the armed services committee, but we have john warner over here who is one of the architects. say thank you to john warner. and i forgot one technical
announcement, at the end of our presentation, i'm going to ask you to stay here while we get the the secretary out. he needs to get a clear run out to the car. o very substantive speech. so much we could draw on. i wrote a couple of questions, we're collecting questions from colleagues. we're doing it this way, we don't need speeches which is what tends to happen when we ask people to address from the floor. i've got some good questions, i ask other people to submit them. hold them up, we've got people who will come and get them. let me start, mr. secretary, you talked about a new cyber command. and this is a complicated thing. probably any future war we fight will probably begin in the cyberspace really. how do you see that we integrate the physical fight that's kind of led and planned an coordinated by regional combatant commanders with a cybercommand?
how is that going to work? secretary carter: that's the question. we have a cyber command today. i have given cyber command in the counterisil fight its first wartime assignment and we're seeing how that works out. what that means is to bring the fight to isil in syria and iraq. what does that mean? it means interrupting their ability to command and control their forces. interrupting their ability to plot including against us here. and anywhere else against our friends and allies around the world. interrupting their finances, their ability to pay people, their ability to dominate the population on whose territory they have tried to establish this nasty ideology. all that, we can approach in part through sign . now you asked the question, what does that have to do with sent
me, the geographic -- with centcomm, the geographic combatant command. it's more complicated that -- than that as you know john, because it's not just them. t's africom, and in europe, so we're finding the problem of not just interregional integration but regional functional integration. the lines are as clean as we could make them. that's perfectly reasonable, you have to divide up the pie somehow. but once you've done that, you have to make sure the slices are able to work together and you haven't artificially created bare yeses. that's what i'm looking to the chairman for. now the reality is, i look to joe dunford for that every day anyway. so as a practical matter, i'm -- i got to have that and i depend
upon his professional military advice and his being in constant contact with all the coms and being ingrated across them. that's the role i want to clarify and strengthen. i don't think that was as apparent to people back in the day but the world has gotten more integrated so we got to get more integrated too. john: secretary, let me ask you. you've opened up this question about the power geometry in the pentagon. obviously the -- nobody questions the prime citycy of the secretary. but then there's the question of how important and how powerful is the chairman? how important and powerful are the service chiefs? how important and powerful are the combatant commanders? what's your view of the right balance of this power geometry? secretary carter: i look to each of them. i don't personally and i don't think institutionally we look at them to -- they have different
principal responsibilities but i look to the whole crowd to help in every respect. let me give you an example. this afternoon, i'll be going with the whole gang, all the cocomms, service chiefs, senior civilians to meet with the president. spend the afternoon with him. tomorrow we spend all day together. talking about everything. from budget and programs through e wars and contingency planning and the whole deal. so, john, i'll just take each of the ones you name. ther is vis chief us look at to be multidimensionally, and they are. i've had a bunch of compliments by the way. it's worth saying. since i've been secretary because i've had to name almost all the joint chiefs and the
combatant commanders. people say to me, these are great guys. i'm like, you're right, aren't they amazing? let me tell you something else, if i'd given you my second choices, you'd say the same thing. these are incredibly gifted people, they didn't get there for no reason. i look at the chiefs to operate as the joint chiefs helping the chairman provide professional military advice on operations. i look at them to help manage what their service secretaries, their individual services. i look at them to take care oour people because that more than anything else makes our military the greatest. the combatant commanders necessarily are kind of focused on their day-to-day duties. but increasingly i need to hear from them about what they need. they play a role that probably sn't as apparent early on in what we buy and how we organize, train, and equip. so i actually ask our people they all have responsibilities
written in statute and they have that. but i ask the senior people to do it all and most of them, in fact, without exception, they are capable of doing that. this is a huge set of responsibilities. so the idea that you -- i look around the room and there are, you know, 20, 25 people. and i always say, look around the room, gang. it's just us. and when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem like a large group of people, you're glad to have all the help you can get. john: you talked about the complex world, we get a radical jihaddist element that's waging a more conventional fight in syria and iraq. a more insurgency set of activities in northern africa. of course that's in a different command. african command. it is attacking our allies in paris and brussels. it suggests by what you said
that you're going to have to put a greater focus on the chairman to be the integrator of these challenges. could you amplify on that? secretary carter: sure, i'll give you some examples. somebody has to decide every day what we look at where. that changes day to day. we try to move things from one theater to another. and that's -- that has tremendous consequence. of course the answer, each individual cocom has a tendency to say, i need it all, i desperately need it all. it's human nature, it's what you want. they want to do everything they can to accomplish that mission. we don't have an infinite amount of stuff. so there needs to be a global integrator of that. that's not made clear. it's made clear in the original, it's made clear that the chairman is the principal
military advice -- -- principal military advisor to the president and i respect that. but it doesn't also say he's the one who is supposed to be every tai and periodically as we move force around giving me that advice on where things ought to be and how they ought to be used. that is self-evidently required in today's world and was not part of the original conception. now, as a practical matter, everybody knows that i look to joe dunford to do that but i think it's worth writing it down. because there'll be others who come along later and it's important to clarify that that's a requirement. of the president and the secretary of defense will make of a chairman of the giant chiefs of staff in today's world. john: i have a couple of questions here. i don't know who is collecting them but i could use some more. i have a couple eof questions about the battle against isil.
there have been some encouraging press reports recently about the momentum in the field against isil. yet also it's it's a metastasizing threat. would you share with us how you're currently looking at this? secretary carter: we've got to get these guys beaten and as soon as possible, is basically where i'm coming from. we're looking for every opportunity we can take to do that. and of course our overall strategic approach is not only just to -- not just to defeat isil but keep them defeated which means you also have to look ahead to the next stage who is going to keep the peace afterwards which is why we try to work with local forces where they can b made capable and motivated and that's difficult in some places. but that's necessary. that's a necessary part of the strategy. but we're doing more every day and john, we're looking for
opportunities to do yet more. because we need to get this over with. i'm confident we'll defeat isil new york question in my mind about it. but the sooner, the better. and that has us looking at every conceivable way that we can do that. that's why i mentioned cyber, for example. now that, years ago, even a very few years ago, wouldn't have occurred to a secretary of defense, let's get cyber in the game. but here we have an opportunity. these guys are using this tool and we need to take it away from them. in addition to everything we do in the air and on the ground. and so forth. so yes, you know, we are accelerating it. we're gathering momentum. but i want to see it over with. irst of all in syria and iraq. and then everywhere around the world. john: secretary, i'm not going
to drag you into american politics it's but startling to hear candidates talk about how nato is no longer relevant. i know you met yesterday with the secretary general. how important is nato for our future? you describe a very challenging world. where does nato fit in there? sec recare carter: since you raised a former subject let me say once again something i said on a number of occasions and i really mean this on my own behalf and on behalf of everybody else in the department. we know this is an election year. we have a tradition in this country, we in the defense department stand apart from that and so i'm going to be very careful about ever addressing anything as part of the political debate. still less do i want any of our uniformed personnel put in that position. i need to preface anything i say on that basis. i did meet with secretary
general stoltenberg yesterday. he was in town. he met with the president also. last night i had dinner with him and secretary kerry and national security advisor rice. we were talking about the things that nato is doing and can do going forward and if you think about nato, john, as you know, and you and i did this, nato waged, i would say it was successful in ending the cold war in a peaceful and principled way and there's a lot of question at that time what's going to be next? and the balkans came and nato turned out to be instrumental in that. afghanistan, nato was instrumental, remains that way in that. and in many other ways around the world. it today we're looking to for two particular things, which
are very necessary. one is to stand tall against the russian the possibility of russian aggression in europe, which i'm sorry to say is -- does become again something that we need to be concerned about that we weren't for a while. i regret it but i -- it is what it is. and also the possibility of so-called hybrid warfare, little green men phenomena. hardening our friends and allies against that secondly, helping us in the counterisil fight. now you might say, why -- all the nato members are individually members of the counter-isil coalition, so what difference does it make to have nato and nato in that fight? and the difference, where it can add value, the reason i was talking to the secretary general about it, is that for a lot of smaller countries, it's hard for them to do anything on their own
and join something add hoc. but if they get into a nato structure, they can make a contribution. we're going to lead the way but as always we want others contributing. nato is a mechanism for doing that. so that's what we were talking about yesterday. it turns out that even after its founding mission was, so to speak, accomplished, that there have proven to be lots of ways where we and europe have found it not only possible but necessary to come together and i guess one last note on that is, you can't take for granted that, you know, one of the reasons that i think we do so well as a military, i'm just going to brag on the institution here a little bit is, as i said first and foremost, it's people. second, the world's pre-eminent innovative society. it's always first with the most including in this domain and that's good.
but the other thing is what we stand for. i don't just say that, and my evidence of that is that we have a lot of friends and allies. and why is that? it's because they like what we stand for. they like our people. they love working with american service members. they think they conduct themselves well. they're not only competent but conduct thems well. i think it's a great credit to these young men and women how much liked they are to work with. but you know, you can look around the globe and say, where is it that we deeply share values to which we're very committed? europe is a place like that. something that brings us together, protecting something we share, is pretty important. so for all those reasons, we had lots to talk about yesterday. john: secretary, you're testifying these days on your budget. you've got a bit of a reprieve
this year because there was a two-year agreement. but the program of record is larger than the budget caps. that are in law. your successor is going to have to wrestle with a very difficult problem. we don't have enough money to do the things we have to do. what do you say to the american people? secretary carter: we need to come together as we did in the two-year wave behind the barren budget agreement. it's the only way. i can't do much about that as sec he tear of defense but as a citizen and if you have your -- open, you know that well, secretary of defense what i do know is our biggest strategic risk is the collapse of a bipartisan budget agreement going forward. the restoration of the sequester caps. we know we're in real trouble if
that happens and it's been a consistent in my testimony, we've got to avoid that we got a reprieve, i'm extremely grateful for people coming together, very grateful that it was possible to come together. we need to keep doing that. we all know, we can do the math. you can't balance the books on the back of discretionary spending. so i -- you've got to get in the other parts of the budget. that's much wig bigger than somebody who has an executive branch responsibility, even a vital one like mine, can influence. but that's the way it has to be. if we get back to sequester, we're in real trouble. so for me and the rest of the department, our biggest strategic risk resides in the possibility of the collapse of partisanship and restoration of the sequester caps. we're in real trouble if that
happens. john: a personal comment, i'm very disappointed this presidential debate isn't more about our national security only gailingses. it's a very, very big thing. secretary, you're going, i know, to asia, a couple of time this is summer. we've got continued island building in the south china sea. lots of questions by people in the region, where is america, can you share with us your thinking here? sec recare carter: we have a new phase of rebalance in the posture statement. we're doubling down on some of our investments, qualitative and quantitative in the asia pacific region for the reason reason that it's the single region of most consequence for america's future. over half the world's population lives and half of its economic activity is. it's essential. it's important there as
everywhere else that there be a system of peace of stability. american military power has been a critical ingredient of that for 70 years. in the rebalance we want to keep that going. it's going to have to be different of course because different -- the dynamics is different. but we have been instrumental to an environment, if you think about it, john, where first japan rose, there was a japanese herical. then a south korean miracle. then a taiwan miracle. then a soviet asia herical. today an indian and chinese miracle. all of which is great but you can't take for granned that the environment in which everybody was able to rise and fulfill themselves in their own way. that's been good for everybody but again, this is a region that has no nato. where the wounds of world war ii are still not healed. so you can't take that for granted. you mentioned, and the south china sea is just one example of
that there are a number of countries that have claims in the south china sea and some of them are pursuing military activities. china is not the only one. but far and away, particularly over the last year, china has been the most aggressive in that regard. our president were talking about this a few days ago will see whether china keeps the word that it made last time president chi was here. but we for our part are reacting. and we're reacting as part of the reba lance unilaterally. but the most important thing is countries in the region are reacting. and that is why we're being asked so much more -- to do so much more. you're right i'll be traveling down the region. what all will i be doing? i'll be working with other countries who want to do more
with the united states particularly in the area of maritime security and they want to do that because they want to keep a good thing going out there. and we're committed to that. and we will do that >> you mentioned in the end, indiana's been an awkward partner through the years. but increasingly getting close. i know you devoted a lot o thoughts thinking about india. your thoughts? >> i do spend a lot of time on it. the word i've used is "india's destiny." hat here are two great nations hat share a lot. a democratic form of government, commitment to individual freedom and so forth. so i talked about values earlier on. india is a different culture. it's many cultures. but like us, it's a
multicultural melting pot determined to working. and so we have a lot in common, in spirit. and we values a lot of common interests geo politically and geo strategically. one of them is to keep a good thing going in the asia-pacific region. we're looking to do more with india. indians are also proud. so they want to do things independently. they want to do things their own way. they don't want to do things with just us. all that is fine. so we're not looking for anything exclusive. but we are looking for a closer relationship and a stronger relationship as we can because it's geo politically grounded. the specific things we're doing with them are two-fold. one is, you know, we have the reba lance so to speak westward from the united states. they have act east which is
their strategic birth eastward and these are two hands grasping one another and that's a good thing. a second, we have our defense technology and trade initiative, john, which season s an effort to work with india to do something they dwoont which is they want to improve their technical capability for their own defense capabilities. but they don't want to just be a buyer. they want to be co-producer and co-relationship. that's what we're working with them on. and that matches very much with prime minister modi's in the india initiative. and so we're very much aligned in terms of what the government there is trying to do strategically and economically and we want to do it defense wise. when i go over there, we've got a whole bunch of things that we'll be announcing at that time
and that i want to announce mileehand but that are new stones in the relationship. >> let me shift into a different say. a lot of concern about our dependence on space and space assets. how are you thinking about this? >> it's a great strength of us. busy it is a vulnerability. you have to think through. when you have them in your military system and it works like that -- i mean, a satellite is a fixed part in essence. it's an orbital mechanics term. and remember, there's no terrain to hide in. you can't dig a whole or anything up in space. so there you are. and so it's an inherently vulnerable situation that said, there are things you can do electronically and in terms of orbital maneuvers and so forth to make it difficult for somebody to interfere with your function and we're doing that.
but at the same time you have to ask yourself what are you going to do if. what if it's destructed? what if it's destroyed? what do we do then? to make sure we operate through. so we're looking both at defense if you like and operate through. one thing i'll note for you, you're probably aware of but others don't because you know so much what's going on in the department. i asked and we set up a couple of years ago an operation center, the first time we've had one. i'll be there in a couple of weeks. colorado springs see how we're doing but whose job is very specifically to do that. i mean, the phrase is "fight the consolation" and if you know what that means, it means protected insofar as that is possible from disruption or
destruction and then think through what you'll do if despite everything the enemy has some success gheans consolation. what you do do nokse make sure you have a good operational value to that. >> i thank you for -- we're at the hour. we have to let you go. ould you all join me with your thanks. so thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016]
> t.s.a. administrator peter neffenger about the actions he's taking to protect the nation's airways to protect from terror attacks. he'll take questions live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. nato secretary general talks about some of the challenges facing nato including current refugee crisis. he's at the atlantic council live at 4:00 p.m. eastern.
>> book tv has 4 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some of the programs to watch for. starring saturday, at 1:00, book tv is at the "los angeles times" festival of books taking place the university of southern california. then "after words" with j.c. watts. he talks about his latest book "dig deep" which outlines the guiding principles he's followed in his personal and professional life. he's interviewed by the edited in chief of "the undefeated." >> you have to unlearn some things. you gour -- you're going to have to have humility. i've learned to try to run the race and maybe -- maybe i was, focused, in athletics i
-- i told my the reporter if my skin color that was everybody else's issue. that wasn't mine. >> on sunday, author jillian thomas talks about her book "because of sex" which talks about the civil rights act that made it illegal to discriminate gender.of >> foreign policy and terrorism analysis spoke about the attacks in europe. the panel was asked about homegrown terrorism at the committee hearing. senator ron johnson of wisconsin chairs the committee.
>> morning. this hearing will come to order. i want to welcome the witnesses. certainly thank you for your thoughtful. the we're going to be looking forward to hearing it. and have an opportunity to ask a number of questions. this hearing originally was planned and we're going to be talking about an issue that senator carp and i are also very concerned about and that's bio security and the thres that we face -- threats that we face and
with the unfortunate tragic events in brussels we may be able to expand it and pick up on some of those bio threats. we want to take a look at what is the root cause that's driving this activity in europe? what are the implications here in america? in january, 2016, we had a foiled plot in milwaukee, wisconsin against the ma sonic temple. by an individual named sammy muhammad hamza. this is a real success story on the part of the f.b.i. and those individuals, the informants that worked to foil that plot. in the complaint finaled against sammy muhammad hamza, i just got four little sensors. they're disconnected but it reveals what's on the mind or the mind of an individual that actually plot to slaughter
innocent human beings. this is what he was quoted saying. i'm telling you, if he is executed, it will be known all over the world. the people be scared and the operations will increase. that's the way we will be igniting it. we are marching at the front of the war. and we will eliminate everyone. now, in his plotting, he was trying to accomplish killing 100 people. and in the complaint he said he would be 100% happy he was able to kill 30. these threats that europe is facing, these threats that america is facing because of islamic terrorists are real and they're growing. and the purpose of this hearing is really to, again, take a look at the root cause of those problems. see what we do here in america to try to keep this nation our
homeland security as safe and security as possible -- our homeland as safe and secure a possible. i will say that d.h.s. and the f.b.i., to have witnesses before today. mittee here to cared to ely no one testify. rewant to support the didn't having the tools and the resources they need to keep this nation safe. a pretty good way to try and secure those resources or be coming like to to lay time-out reality of what the problem. is so i'm disappointed that we don't have a government witness or witnesses but we certainly appreciate to the fact that you come here today and will willing to testify. with that i'll tirnt turnover senator carpenter. >> thank you to each of our witnesses. it's good to see you and thank
you for your preparation and for joining us on this occasion. our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of the victims of those who died two weeks ago. my hope if it's something good can emerge from something awful. this hearing is part of that process. as with the paris terrorist attacks and similar attacks and places around the world like pakistan like turkey as well as the boston marathon and our own countries, san bernardino attacks. but what happened in brussels exposes yes again the vulnerability that we face in harder to defense. train stations, airports and the like. news cycle 24/7 from our living rooms we can see the devastation that these attacks have caused and the 911 they inflict on the victims and
their loved ones so. so plerns understandably easy. and they're concerned for their safety. their safe fi family and friends. it's important for us to threab the most potent weapon that trits like those who committed these is father. they want to make us afraid to go out with our every day life. we might feel a little bit safety we f we saw more audience and security. but those measures come at very high price and don't deter -- terrorist who cannot evaluate others lives lives or their own life. i believe that turning every place into a heavily guarded -- freedom.give you must continuously sharpen
our able to predict and prevent terrorist blocks. through the use of our law enforcement capabilities and the able to share information. >> we're finding these tools in insuring we face an important responsibility of our federal agencies in congress. we have a responsibility as well along with him to take. rock and syria mand other places. isis resent losses have been severe. los 40% of the territory that it once held. they have killed more than 10,000 isis fighters and 23 isis leaders. including the chief propaganda and executioner. it led to the death against crisis and second in command. we continue to enthands
abilities of attack. eerky forces the captured ramadi. and the battle to seize the ace s a strong hold with the seize fire holding her so far. more gons are being used on i'd sit. and in iraq and syria. consequences may very well be that the group out of desperation will seek power and momentum by directing and inspiring terrorism attacks in the united states and other places around the world. we must not let these cowardless acts detemb our resolves. we must double our efforts to -- roy isis to insure our that all levels of government are ready. and other places before they're
set in motion. i just want to mention one thing. there are lessons to be learned, lessons for people live there ho live in the belgium or the. and for us we need to do so to better whauns happened there and figure out what we k we do. but to help them better defense their own people and their own places. hanks so much. senator johnson would ask that my opening statement be entered in the record. >> second. so ordered. >> it is the tradition that you all stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you will give before the panel will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you good? ly yes. our first witness is mr. wap zarate.
mr. zarate is the chairman of the financial and integrity ight work. senior national security analyst for cbs news. mr. zarate. >> chairman johnson thank you very much that instruction. ranking member carper. thank you for inviting me to testify today. i'm here to discuss the current terrorist threat environment in europe and the security implications in the united states. this is a critical moment to take stock -- what i consider to be the quickest threat. and that adaptation -- and along as the intent by al-qaeda and its affiliate yaths to hit the west tsms rise and reach of isis have continues to pace expectations and continue to rice authorities.
failing to understand and the ability to understand. have led to some misguys asus in the wake of the recent attacks in europe. ites sys has used western operatives flowing into the concert zone and has attempted to inspire ink lar attacks in western society. it's build these capabilities over time and taken advantage of intelligence and security appears. this should not have come as a sur pryce prize. over two years ago tom sanderson. he visited a shabby cafe at turkish-syrian border crossing. this was the final stop for those to join terrorism groups. such fighters could ention change their passport for cash. at that time a belgium passport was on stale for $8,000.
new passport photos are being snapped in the parking lot. european authorities are coming to dick that tarkt has dozens of operatives. europe suffers from three fundamental problems. first this is the complete threat of isis european networks. isis is trained and deployed. they want to perpetrate sophisticated attacks. they have taken over the long-standing as a baseline for recruitment and in 2 part of yupe. we're on the lineage of da matic terrorism. o tap into can for their purposes. it is embedded in neighborhoods.
throughout europe such nodes of radicalization have served as micro safe hazenesses. now, isis has been able to take advantage of the weaknesses and scenes in the european system. even the best authorities in europe are overwhelmed by the number of new and radical yed individuals for whom they need to account. fortunately the united states does not base the same kind of threatses from isis that europe does. but these threats are real for ufc citizens and interest abroad and in the homeland. let me zribe it quickly. the most immediate threat to the united states are two citizens and interest in europe. isis would like to target americans wherever possible. the visa free travel for europeans and others coulds a gap. the lack of information in realtime information sharing are
major impediments to western security. attempted terrorist attack especialfully the west. and new technologies and methodologies could spur innovation on how terrorists and operatives operate in the united states. willclues new techology it .et and whether it weaks or resolves. the terrorist threat from al-qaeda. and the radical iced citizens from within. we need a strong europe. we're facing a common enemy and we're all at war together. you must work closing with the european. nd to disrespect their safe heavens.
and con to build layers of defense with our western partners. this is an important moment to reflect. we need to do this in concert with our europe partners. and we should every underestimate trifment into a adapt. especially when they have time and space into plan. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman: our next witness is mrs. julie smith. she is at the ernt for new american security. previously. you were the national securitied a vidsor before it's. nato policy. the ms. smith? >> thank you, ranking member -- oh, sorry. >> thank you german johnson, ranking members of the committee to testify this this morning.
the brussels attacks reveal a number of worryysome trends. inside europe. and among the trance atlantic partners. any successful strategy moving forward is going to require all. and i want to take each other them one by one over the course of the next four minutes. and that is that belgium has one of the largest extreme itself problems in the west. and syria in recent years. and 20% of those individuals now have returned to european soil with sophisticate training and unintentions. they revealed the number of intelligent and law enforcement short falls. part con ooted in
straights. belgium also has not had a functioning federal system for some time now. so it's ability to uncover and dismandle has bhn severely ham bered. belgium is not facing the challenge alone. europe has become a priority? . but the tools with which national capitals can actually counter radicalization. . over the years. europe's most glaring problem is the inability to share information and here it was highlights with the fact that one of the three bombers in the brussels attacks was someone that you warned the belgiums
about. as they were deportion him. that information was not followed up on and it was certainly not disseminated across the european country. on the eed to works atlantic consideration. -- we one a lot since/ worked to safeguard border controls but syria's gaps remain. most notely the primary obstacle here is differences that we have over privacy, data sharing, data privacy. these concerns only were more pronounced after the 2013 allegations that the n. s.a. was tracking. and these differences of hands have hampered the which would enable us to enhance our
intelligence sharing. >> going forward. we values to focus on the trance atlantic relationship. from the belgium perspective, they're going to have to take a complete awe did. they're going to have to overhaling. laws i think there needs to review security staff at major transportation hubs and certainly they're going to have to informs more and they're very . she's also going to have to do more. but from the individual spers speckive that makes up your -- all of them are going to have to do more than informs in their own security. and the isolation that exists inside their borters. >> i asked him not to view this as quickly as the nernl challenge. they tend to focus on homeland security measures and counter radicalization efforts. but you have to mike sure that
they are not that far away. from european soil. so for that reason i would urge more europeans to join us in the eent if you're a rock and syria. but also think about how they can do more to informs in the future of the region. we have to get pass and pry jasssi. this is going rilet. i know some urged the united states to pull back. and wra. and the threat that exists inside europe but to be frank this is a threat that we faced together. 'm the counter terrorism corporation. thank you very much. garden next sweeked mr. steenrots.
program. securitying he is the. con summing focused on the challenges by violent. and not unseen actors. >> thank you distinguished members. it's an honor to discuss with them. we've had very obviously in a span about four months. it's a watershed for a variety of reasons. ne of them is that this is the first time have i succeeded in carrying out one major attack. resources are being drawn down upon it. and the second major attack if you look at what's been said following the brussels attack, it's tryinging. only now, four months after
paris have they starred to get their heads around. you have a. . about 22 members of his network are still at large. other media outlets i've not been able to identify that specific number. she needs to be accurately accurate. one analogy with trying to become terrorists. is that a start-up firm. and the economic is fear. >> i used this not to be cuse or try it but because and the problems that we have in dealing with these kind of organizations. today it's very clear that start-up firms have some of their new jersey. they're able to innovate quickly. larger firms are often incouncil member bered by their own weigh. with too much bureaucracy. un.
with the same kind of speed. julie did a great job that occurred -- that helped past the attackers to the succeed. >> when you go back through them. one thing that he's hurening in. an organizational structure that isn't the challenges. according to open source reporting one thing that may have awe ay lowed him to be free. indulge ctions don't him. >>. intelligence was not acted upon. one of the suicide attackers at the brussels airport. asn't picked up. turningish authorities. which is a major interest. that obviously as the european officials now. indicate should have raced her
red flag. so what do about this. >> in the europe needs to deal with a kale. not just this one network but they've been waving your hands around. >> he baisley all of their resources amongst investigators, deck actives. we're used to deal with the. there were many indicationed at that it's spokeen. wum should be diskrged. our own experience with the mom. it's the first criminal. was ultimately arrested, indieted. not for being a bootlegger. but rather for not. it was said under robert ken de's student .
ultimately finding lesser offenses is important. networks.an there's financial proud. and other small frames. where they can pick speem up. this isn't a perfect solution but this the swlerm we've had two major attacks who are at large right now. i think it's very important to disrespect the networks. > in the longer term, look . including within countries. and we also need to be very much surprised of those that affect the united states. this is a very unique time because they're saying it can fit. the european easter pretation of. from our own measures. were. i'll pull out our own border
school. we need to understand just how much this is in place right now. senator kearp said that perhaps something good could come from something awful. we should push for the necessary reforms. and also in the. >> thank you. very our final witness is mr. watts. it's a fell. and senior fellow with the security. he served as the us has more nl. a special agent shows. for of all thank you for your service and your testimony. >> thank you. thank you chairman johnson. ranking member harper and member oves the committee. many research es saw it thousands of young men flocked to syria to join the ranks of those fighting against the assad
regime. most of those coal is the world with the japanese state. all you had to do is watch them on twitter. >> not only do they tell you it's there is. as soon as they got in those countries to let everybody know they were there. for a long time. and we should have known and we didn't know they are always going to come home. this problem wasn't probable. it was inevitable. we are now flat on our feast. . it's already happened. it is over. we are down on the defense. and that's a position you never want to be in. so today, the situation calls terrorists. and we have counter, >> in wund year they have
achieved. and they would do that because they have a volume yuke of foreign fighters who say you people are people ho have fraveled there together. they had in their homelands. and they have traveled to the sir. we always get credit on and old al-qaeda member. not only are they more connected socially than ideologically they're more criminal than they are pie pious. we never saw with al-qaeda. they tend to micro manic their disputes. what do we call? that's the intent. they don't pick large symbolic. no. they know. and they plan those plots and put them together almost it seems like at random. they do it agressively and
quickly. and so when we look at the situation, we have today with the counter terrorisms. we have them operating with all the borders. they were wait. they can follow all the leads. now only that, they have unevent capability, france, the u.k. germany. in terms of counter terrorism. but that isn't shared with a lot of these smaller countries. belgium is the prime example. they do not ou argue. they don't have special tiss. they have a lot of roles around sharing information a policy preventings them. the way we do here in the states. so when you look at this patchwork that we have in terms of no f.b.i. the girl stepped in and they're
great. that sbu they can't step across borders. and so they had run wild through europe today. my fellow -- -- my fellow testifies up here today. i would tell you the most dangerous part of the world of this situation is that every success that the islamic state. a successful attack in paris, is tan bowl. has no connection. to start to move forward. we've seen that with sam bern knar dino. maybe at our ibb. success breeds suck set. it only inspires people at home. so while we should look at a lot of defensive measures in terms of what he can do. i would tell you we have to gone the offense and europe after
911. i would push to help the european union, put together a counter terrorism task force. not a committee, not hing. >> looking what i the ace break thrifts. there's three or four times that are helping sup part or someone in that network. help other thing we can out that europe can help them. pushing to them and helping them. and the last part i would say better rickets assessment for travel warnings. we tend to issue travel warnings after an attack happens. hey're in these european countries, thank you for having me. >> thanks, mr. ross, i want to stewart you. because you mentioned the key point here is most of the
testify you faulked about going o offense. you're talking about helping going -- have america have an offense. >> i want to talk about actually going into offense. i want to talk about the fact that you said that this has been uilding in sir and attack. >> as we walk the events unfold here. they're gaining in syria. they're getting into afghanistan. we're having boca ha ram and other terrorist dorgsdrgs. that is growing. i want to talk about an effective offense. i want to give an indication there. very study your terrorism. response to it. >> i realize these statistics are very une67b. but if you take a look at pry has ears up to 911, this
average and protein. hey're left with 5,000 fatal tins. . in 2014 there was about 40. i dnd realize the measure is about to give cold. but it gives us some indication on hoe it is a growing threat. i don't see how we can succeed. just speak about -- what's a real offense to white out this threat. and how long's going to take. what i would say is i do like how we're. against the second one that's important one. we will have to pursue special operation to force fine.
and robust until it is sharing. for as long as we live. everybody in here will have to do that we'll have to man cute sthat. . so i think the notion that we need to put forth in our country and particularly in the country. a constant offense is the only way to keep them on the defense. i would say that. is the most. this is what i -- we had a maze ive. mike: foreign fighter to eafs. 25 you incorporated into al-qaeda. to yoors ago. and the last dekate that. and now we're looking at the. d there will be some sort of
nrbling. because you can restore any sort of government. and therefore. what count be a more which is not >> those are just washington terms we sort of thrown around because i gives people lay bore to understand it. they oss the entire world have varying degrees. and they may choose different parts. mostly based on local political environments. but the one thing that you can look at is the lack of governs government. and as a -- we helped everyone boat. and so we have safer havens stretched all the way from estern africa to south lead.
they will pick up the next. if they think they can pull up but they will surpuse. the dangerous part for sus when they pursue their own operate is. that he cables in. and how do we track down the new threats that are out there. >> when we witnessed isis just olled up city's in iraq. they had game plan and. that was there. this >> youth. 're trying can anybody speak to the real danger there. >> would i would say -- this is going to happen buzz there's a lack of government. we've gotten sbo into a situation we did. last decades was a great spence
hich ultimately created a. hoping that. keep every one down. 1. pwheen the 198 s if you look at our competitors. they're. they're our greating problem is we don't know. we don't want anything bad to happen. youth never get what you do want. and i haven't pecked up whuth our brellas are. we're in a michigan sb. the one thing we are doing. who opens up the window. our sberblesbsm that alone won't get us there. fter this aw, north a
place that. . another big issue as whelm >> very quickly. mr. garden steen and ross gave us the pursue ones. i'm one of those small studded companies. it's easy to compete against big companies in. your system. and one of my current is i want you to speak because we know they're in plus ls. of a nuclear. can you speak to the lakers and what might be on their minds there. . "love no no methodology. and the use. multiple sophisticated atocks. the use of chemicals reports
today of saul of our work were an. the question question is whether or not they have wcvb. two dwiff cape nls of. hey have the last >> and just a bit. and you with dressdz one of the major. or sus the hate. in the hinter lafpblet we're talking about. the second largest city could ever walk. mu -- these are real subsidies with real. all of which they're taking advantage of. to include in ibblet.
. and i think one of the major dakers. n my guyn there are this qualitatively different. you seen this not just in the context of naval attack. you saw it with the attack on the middle of the sipe un. to the ex-anticipate that they have fighters to train. they have spake in which to plan and leadership that's intent to attack the west. >> by the way, that's the offense. i. away from this. . this is an exceptional panel of witnesses. thank you so much for joining us. . i spent a number number of years in my life as a may.
have the officer got our commending. you have a cartoon up on the wall. and i see the picture. a man on a very small island trying to climb up every single try and the caption ike the car tothe we friends in -- are -- and were trying to help them and help themselves. how do we go back to giving them double. the number of faces in here too. > senator, first and home. hese are not nure they have developed a rag
alliesed. radical clerics. and of generations of to continue to be ebb. dentified sbf clfment they will not only protect countries whether particular nakedse are most at ricks. it has produced the vas book of foreign fighters over the course of the year. and so there are these pocks that need be identified and in minute m ways. . -- many have the general problem of integration and asim bration. this is a problem that's only going grow worse in europe given crisis. ee pry
you don't have a new generation f read cals emerging from that re just because the other win r witnesses have a night. >> sure, yeah, the integracious. they're about 13 million on. many of them didn't expect to stay. they have. with this communities. they have every isen there are a largely discriminated against verages the nature of the challenge is just enormous. >> in several countries across. what makes it challenges right now. is the fact that european public pinion of muscling is worsing. >> incredibly worried about our. oh, testify. they are uncomplees loss.
and so you start to see the range. for, there's more on scent greg: outside. need to. your fighting a resistance and pushed back from european society. sond acan't thinking this is going to be. >> thank you very much . it's always useful to look at it rough the eyes of the ed a versation. trying to go throwing. the first thing just kind of emarked about this lane. . they don't have surveillance. to cor the. share that with us . and the. had trouble? the tom hardy exists.
>> there's the poe terrible ush. >> allowed already seeing that david less caught right. fnt spot they wanted to discuss. . and european de. the final thing i won't mention politics. is one of the things that is happy with the rice and. . we you kent to from the twors the word it's very dangerous vimplete within you're up. >> thank you. mr. yarks say. . or entity slay nouse problems. they focus on the issue of why
ss a staying. i would focus on two messages. one, can you turn the. . . the it's a fe lowell isis. right now we're watching defect others. ou know, three killing two pressure men. i think that and get into the mind of the young people. you need to offer him another one which is more full of truth. so i would. who are very much pushing away not giving us. . and they came back if from the
united states. and syria was not the one they that had. and i would published the sate yid debt. ey used ferm that would be -- > and i would ask to that ling only% we went from 19le 0's to i can't stapped. >> i can tell you it's where you were going to go. are we going push to dosome. . today i just want to question you a pass they're's. . and one of the issues that he's pushing is a partnership really with the muslim communities to
counter violent extreme nism our country. ur committee has reported that bipartisan. in terms of responding to a root cause. smart policy to pursue or not. >> i think absolutely. and we've established a commission at csis led by tony blair to look at precise of this issue for the next administration. so absolutely rights. these are issues not just of a safe haven. -- with your last question, blast lem and his family and net worths. we find that family networks. but it's contracts to the support. and it's often found that they're able to entering. >> aggressively. . i think it's critical for us to
pursue. . t we need to get . see what works and what doesn't. >> thank you. >> yes, with the caveat that a lot of the early efforts will certainly be accurate and faltering. so some of the benefit will be learning from what doesn't work. >> thank you. >> mr. watts? >> i wouldn't put much effort into it, to be honest. i've worked with a lot of those programs, there is some value from building twrust the community i do respect. but i don't think they're going to be great weapon in thwarting recruitment. communities these people are disenfranchised and parents are the worst ones in knowing what their kids do. i think it's good for a community in general but it's an effort. >> thank you. >> i want to thank chairman. this is an excellent panel but
let me say the fact that we had a major terrorism attack in europe, and we can't get before this committee an initial f.b.i. or the national counter rism center. to me speaks volume. come and make their case before this committee. i want to back the chairman up on the point that he made, i think very respectfully earlier. i would like to ask each of you one of the things that i. coming loud and clear is the lack of intelligence sharing in europe. and the problems we have with that lack of intelligence sharing. as you know most -- the european countries, in fact, we have about 38 countries that are part of our visa waiver program. and to be part of that program, you have to essentially meet certain basic standards of information sharing. you have to enter into an agreement the u.s. to report
lost or stolen passports. and most pornly have an agreement with the u.s. to share information whether a nationalw. as i hear your testimony today, i see a huge, glaring flag. at the end of december, we passed a law which i was glad we did that essentially said that individuals who had travel to now the syria, iran and homeland security secretary has added some other countries like libya to that list, but here's the problem. if we don't have good information sharing, as highlighted by what happened in belgium, we can put that in place all we want, but if we don't know that someone travel to iraq and syria -- if you look at what happened with paris, one of the individuals had come over from greece with a fake
passport. factso know now that in the information that came from turkish authorities was not properly acted upon. i would have to think they are not sharing that information with us, that they weren't acting upon it themselves. what does this mean in terms of what we should be doing to protect our citizens with the lack of information sharing? obviously needs to be a priority with us to get information sharing between us and the transatlantic relationship, better information sharing among europe, but i think our citizens need to understand -- what do we need to do to protect our citizens, to make sure that someone doesn't travel to iraq in syria, and we are unaware of it because the information has not been shared, and then is able to travel to the united states without a visa? do you want to comment? >> senator, great questions,
important concerns. you have aioned, problem of lack of information sharing, lack of real-time information sharing, lack of detail in the information, as well as gaps of information generally. 've seen that the terrorists have adapted around this. they are infiltrating the refugee flows. we have seen from some of the plotters in recent attacks that they have use methodologies of returning into europe using backpacker sort of routes so as to avoid connections back to the country of concern. there are two things we need to do. one is we have to engage in self-help. we have to gain more intelligence. we have to be more aggressive about what we are doing on the ground, as well as along the routes are we suspect the pipelines are operating. the turkish-syrian border, we know where that strained of
border is, where they continue to move in and out. i'm hoping and expecting that we are on that, trying to get as much information and understanding where they are flowing elsewhere. secondly, i think we need to spur the europeans to work closely together. i think that means we have to collect them together, weather with a task force model -- >> one of the things i called upon was i asked the president to bring nato together. do you think nato could be a helpful avenue to bring people together? >> nato could be, but what you need are the intelligence services that focus on counterterrorism. the french and british are good at this. the germans are very good. what you need is some mechanism to knock heads. there is something to the fact that passenger name records are shared in a real-time basis, but passenger name records are not shared in the european union. think about that.
we've developed a protocol to understand whether a suspect is trying to access the commercial aviation system. europe wide doesn't have that internally. in a sense, we will have to catalyze a lot of this innovation and what my fellow panelists have talked about. we have to take a leadership role, like it or not, because we have vulnerabilities of the type you describe, senator. >> yes. >> senator, that's an excellent question. theuld add to that that u.s. has a number of bilateral relationships. the cooperation we have with europe is completely and even. some are wonderful, others and complete disrepair. we have to bring everyone to the same standard. there are improvements that need to be made to our intelligence sharing with europe, but juan is right, the emphasis should be put on sharing inside the continent. the fact that they are not going to move forward with an eu-wide implementation of pnr until our
election is ridiculous. they are waiting to see who the next president is to get our views on intelligence when they need to move on this yesterday. we should push them not to wait for our election but to advance his agenda as soon as possible. david ignatius really put it best. the europeans are interested in our intelligence for all the obvious reasons, but they have this real distaste for collection, and we have got to break through this to say, enough is enough, we need to make progress on these issues and work through these issues you have on data privacy and data sharing. >> i see mr. watts wanting to comment. you made a statement in your testimony that you believe we need better warnings as well. >> yeah. one thing the u.s. can do for the european union is we just spent a decade building the national counterterrorism center, all these integration functions, and doing intelligence sharing both up and across.
we do it from the federal state and local level, and we know how to manage that, and we know how to do it with partners and in the agency. i think that is something we can help them do. it's how do we develop those relationships? they are all bilateral. why should we provide the french in the u.k. the same intelligence to each of them individually? they need to somehow synchronize their systems; maybe we can offer them a way to do that, or provide support. european countries don't want to deal with their data privacy issues and collection issues until they have -- how do we communicate that? say thisanyway we can is the risk profile for you, denmark. just hypothetically. this is what you are facing. do you want to wait to see what happens or do you want to come in? there's a way we can work with all of those countries. germany, denmark, all of them,
to come up with a brokered way to get the solution. i don't know that it can be achieved but that is what has to happen, because right now it is one off exchanges based on one piece of intelligence. that will never allow you to put together the picture we saw with belgium and france. >> i know my time is up and i didn't want to leave the doctor out. about visation was waiver and ensuring our own borders. that u.s.int out customs and border protection is ultimately the last line of defense. when you have somebody who the search doesn't correlate with iraq, syria, libya -- it comes down to the counterterrorism response team. one thing i would put some focus on is did the counterterrorism response teams, do they have enough resources? do they have the training they need to undertake the human intelligence collection they are doing at the border, to see if
somebody is suspicious? moreover, do you have enough professionalization and incentive to get the best and brightest to stay in the program as opposed to going to another agency? that, i think, is something that is entirely appropriate for the legislature to look into. >> i thank you all for your answers. based on what you said, i think we have to take a leadership role here. i don't see another country that will be able to bring everyone together and get them to act. >> thank you. well we are on this topic, i just want to ask a very simple question. the theory is that the visa waiver program, the 38 countries on that program, there is a threshold level of information sharing that should be sufficient. does anybody want to express an opinion -- are all those 38 countries, are they at the threshold level or should we be taking a look at putting those visa waiver programs on
probation or evaluate that? quickly. >> i think it is worth reviewing, especially in light of the recent attacks. elgin; therek at is no quit -- look at the belgium; there is no question. the highest per capita of foreign fighters. i think it is wholly appropriate to look at some of these countries. without prejudice, realizing the deep economic, social, and importance -- but i think a healthy review and some skepticism is worth it. timeybody else want to joi chim eine in? >> i don't know what the levels are, but i would say start with the countries that have the most foreign fighters per capita. then i'd moved down the list
from there. >> senator ernst. >> thank you, mr. chair. and thanks to all of you for joining our panel today. this has been very helpful for all of us. as i noted before in my capacity on the senate armed services committee, i do share concerns that have been expressed by general breedlove about the support for force protection measures, for service members, dod civilians and their families. a couple of examples of that. the u.s. military recently ordered military family members to exit turkey. we have a state department that order the departure of family members of staff at a u.s. consulate. recently, the wife of an air force officer was killed in the brussels attack. so if we can focus on belgium for a moment, reports are suggesting that the dod has about 1300 military personnel in dependence and 600 civilian employees in belgium, which of course we all know is home to
nato. i'd like to start with you, mr. watts, and if the rest of the panel can answer as well. do you share my concern in general breedlove's about u.s. force protection in europe? and what do we need to do to make sure that force protection is adequate? and how do we move forward on that? >> i would start off in terms of concern -- i am concerned, in particular for one big reason. what we have seen is two big attacks in paris and brussels, and counterterrorism is out aggressively. we know also that there are other parts of the network still at large. if you believe you are being closed in on, what do you do? you rapidly put together a hasty attack. there is no target better than a military person deployed overseas. we saw that with the two airmen killed in germany. that's a target of opportunity.
if you're an inspired recruit or someone in the network that knows you are on your last few minutes, this is a great target of opportunity. i think there is a huge risk for that as these investigations progress, the way they have in the past, they will pick targets of opportunity. mostost vulnerable, targeted u.s. people will be state department employees and department of defense employees. i think it's a concern. we know the network is there, and we know they will look for targets of opportunity. in terms of how do you protect them, it's extremely challenging. you have one of two options; you try to protect them in place, which is difficult, so you put more active defense measures in place. this is increasing diplomatic security, surveillance,.those sorts of things . very tough to do. th othere part is you remove them from those countries. we were talking about the service men and women's
families, that's a major signal. it also had impact in europe. we believe europe is insecure. i don't know that i have the right answer for what to do, but i do think we can be risk forecasting much better than we do. we don't wait for an attack to happen, we say there's something bad, travel warning. we know where these foreign fighters are coming from. we can map that out as a risk forecast and literally put out -- here's the risk of traveling in these nations based on the number of foreign fighters, the capacity we put them at, and where we have seen attacks, weather in high-traffic locations, subways, popular western venues. this looks a lot like what we see in the middle eastern north africa, targets of opportunity where there are lots of westerners. i think we can indirectly send some signals to europe by setting up our own assessment,
and i would make it public. i'd have a map, like with disease control maps, these are the places we are worried about the most. good.t's very i would like to hear from the other panelists as well. yes. >> senator, thank you. ook not just that risk mapping but also intelligence gathering around surveillance. family members and soft targets that are tied to military personnel. i wouldn't worry so much about the hardened bases and other sites around which we have security that we can flex aggressively as need be. those are always targets, but terrorists have a hard time executing against those. i worry more about the soft targets outside those rings of security. and understanding where the terrorists may be surveilling, doing counterintelligence, i think is important to understand the specific risks around personnel and family members. one other note -- on a cyber
perspective, what some of the followers and adherents of isis have tried to do is expose military personnel and their family members with personal data, addresses, etc. there is a real effort underway to at least threaten if not put at risk family members and personnel, outside the bounds of classic security. we have to be quite conscious of that encounter it if we can. >> thank you. anyone else? >> i've heard these concerns. what juan said -- one of the emerging tactics that isis in particular is trying to use is stocking and killing it -- is stalking and killing its foes, especially those related to government. taking them out of the government's fear, making them -- government sphere, making them easy to track. i was in a basin stuttgart, and
i saw servicemembers leaving the base in uniform. that is a concern. andng family members members of the military -- it's basic online security, something drilled in within the institutions. making them aware of how much information they are giving off on social media. a lot of the information isis when it put out addresses was easily gleaned not from hacking but by going to people's social media accounts and finding out this information. but ultimately, i think this is a very high-level concern that fits with what the organization has done and also the direction it is moving in in terms of its evolving tactics. >> i appreciate that. i know my time is expiring.
when my husband was serving in saudi arabia in the late 1990's, he was considered a combatant commander, and part of a combatant command. those -- those family members could not live in saudi arabia at that time, however the next set of quarters over there was a noncombat and commander, whose families could live there. it was ironic to us -- i don't think terrorists distinguish between who is a combatant into is not in situations like that. but i do think this is something the united states needs take seriously. we need to make sure we are protecting our service members as well as civilians serving overseas. thank you very much for being here today. >> senator ernst. senator peters. >> thanks to the panelists. i'm sure we will continue to findt his hearing interesting and w appreciate your expertisee. i'd like to pick up on some
questions that senator carper had related to the community and what we have seen with the attacks in paris and brussels, that the individuals involved for homegrown, radicalized in their own country, went off to be foreign fighters, came back. you are he talked about the conditions in those european neighborhoods that these individuals are exposed to. given the fact that we have a very vibrant muslim american community in the united states, michigan, my state, in particular, can you comment on what you see as the differences between the united states and europe? because wessons -- thankfully have not seen those types of influences -- what lessons can be learned from the united states that may be helpful to the europeans? what is happening here? is a different? and elaborate on why that could be a good lesson for others.
>> senator, thank you. i do think there is a difference. first, there is a difference in numbers. you look at the per capita number of radicalized individuals, be in cases brought by the fbi or foreign fighters who went to fight in a variety of foreign terrorist complex, the numbers are quite low. in terms of foreign fighters in the most recent context of syria and iraq, we are looking at 200 or so. given that we don't have full information, and that foreign fighter who turned himself in, that was not known to u.s. authorities. we don't have a full picture but the numbers are much smaller than what we see, which is in the thousands. muslim american communities are incredibly diverse. they are well integrated and have done incredibly well socially and economically. if you look at the figures in
terms of per capita income, the numbers are very high. organicvery natural and . the very notion of an american ofntity, as a common form individuals and communities, the fact that anyone from any race, creed, or religion can call themselves american, be they first generation were 12th generation, is incredibly powerful. the notion i think -- and several social scientists have pointed out -- there is a gravity to the idea of the american dream, the american ideal. it's in counterweight to the narratives of the terrorist groups, in the dream of the islamic caliphate, which is animating so many to fight. forone thing i would argue america is we have to make sure we recognize that. we embrace our diversity.
we tackle the challenges like the somali americans, where you see a higher percentage of individuals going to fight and ensure you don't have the ghettoization for the sense of targeting of muslim american communities. that is a bedrock of american power and identity, and it will hold us in good stead against this ideology. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator, for that good question. i'd like to follow up -- juan is exactly right. distress one point on identity, we benefit here in the united states from the fact that it is very easy to have a hyphenated existence. the problem is that these migrants that have arrived, many from north africa, for example, feel neither french nor moroccan. they've been in this country; many of them were born there. but they don't feel part of society, and there is no path
for them forward to integrate into the societies. it makes them very susceptible to someone who comes along over social media or in a coffee has to say i have an identity; this is where you belong. come join us in the islamic state; this will be your home because france is not your home and you are not going to go to morocco or algeria or wherever it might be. let us provide that sense of identity. that is an entirely different challenge from what we have in the united states. it's not to say we don't have folks susceptible to radicalization, that it is a very different challenge than what we see on the other side of the atlantic. >> thank you. >> you can see some of this bear out statistically. it has been a few years since i looked at statistics on demographics within the american muslim community, so this might be dated. but the last time i looked into this, the average muslim had a higher level of education in the average american.
in the unitedslim states also had a higher level of employment and socioeconomic status, which speaks to relative levels of integration. -- i thinkution there are lessons that europe can learn from the united states, but the u.s. is fairly unique in its identity as a nation of immigrants. i traveled the world a lot, as is everyone on this panel, and i can't think of many other societies other than canada where you don't have integration problems. i don't mean muslim integration problems, but any sort of class. this, in general throughout the world, you have a much more rigid set of identities than we have in the united states. i wouldn't think of it as a quick fix in terms of lessons from america, but rather i see this as being a systemic problem that will be with us, i think, for decades to come, that most
countries do not integrate new populations the way the u.s. has been successful in doing. >> thank you. mr. watts. >> i like to shift just a little bit, to show why europe's problem is worse now than ever. the best recruiter of a foreign fighter is a former foreign fighter, and that is about the physical relationship,. the way you recruit it's the same in the states. the best recruiter of a marine is a former marine. there's indirect channelan you come through that gets you going. and right now europe has bleed out; foreign fighters bleeding back into europe. at the same time, they have the other problem with -- they want to go but can no longer do that. you have these catalysts, former foreign fighters working with recruits. it's almost half and half. you have some foreign fighter veterans and some inspired recruits working together, and that is the worst-case scenario.
we're lucky here in the states; we don't have the foreign fighters coming back the way we see in europe, and most of our recruits are virtual recruits, probably 90% are online. they don't have a direct connection; they work to build a connection with the group. that takes longer, it is more difficult, and you get a different style of recruit. they are more ideological, where others are more social. this is a different dynamic that plays out. with the exception of minneapolis, we don't have that same dynamic which allows us to detect them online as well as on the ground much faster. they send signals that are easier to detect. whereas in europe they have a huge problem; a lot of the recruitment is never seen by law enforcement, because it is having face-to-face. >> thank you. i appreciate your responses. if i could summarize, it sounds as if we certainly have to be vigilant.
we have to have strong intelligence and make sure we are being offensive in our actions. but ultimately the strongest shield we have are american values, the special place where we are a nation of immigrants, where anyone can come here and have opportunity to pursue the american dream. if we ever let that slip, then we truly are vulnerable. thank you. >> senator booker. >> thank you. you said something which seemed like you were downplaying the effectiveness of efforts to counter the propaganda. do you think that is not as fruitful of the pathway? >> i don't believe that most of at leastforts -- comparing the states and europe is challenging. but i believe it is an indirect way to get at the motivations which are recruiting these young people. part of the reason i believe they are recruited is because
they are in disenfranchised communities, not connected to the community, and they are not connected socially and not listening to what their parents are saying. a just saw two weeks ago mother in europe found out her son was in the islamic state. she didn't know until a newspaper contacted her. parents are good at knowing what their young people are doing; that's normal. in sun communities, they seem to not be on board. i think it is a good effort for a lot of reasons, regarding violent extremism and also building relationships to break down those borders. if you want to get at the problem right now, you have to change -- this is where we come to the communications part of it, the mindset -- you have to change how they view opportunities to become a jihadist. they are fickle. we watched online for years al qaeda recruits -- you should go
to yemen, and then we saw mali. that lasted three days. you should go to syria. that's gone on for four years because the islamic state was being successful. that narrative was a propaganda; it was truth. we are advancing on the cities, and the way we set our strategy, we are achieving success in building a state. as soon as we wrote that, and i think that is happening now, you start to see fewer recruits. but i think the key point is to focus on the individuals and why they are wanting to join rather than trying to go through the community. i am not sure they are the best lever. i would rather change the image. >> clearly we are eroding territory in syria and iraq, which is undermining some recruitment efforts, but i do same time focusing back on trying to show that isis is making victories, pushing perhaps a more fertile ground for trend to be foreign attacks.
you are really taking efforts and separating them into buckets. one is the communications of family members trying to create better networks within muslim communities, versus just a propaganda that they are feeding these in people, trying to make sure that we are hammering the propaganda with our own, exposing them for the frauds and shams they are. >> and i think it is a funnel. usually we talk about vulnerable radicalizing. there is more of the vulnerable stage; these are the communities who want to reach out for. that is where we might focus. there is radicalizing, people we know who are connected to foreign fighters. they look like they are mobilizing, taking on the image and the talk of those they want to join. then the guys that are trying to do an attack at home were trying to make their way to syria and iraq. >> that's law enforcement. and i agree. but you are telling me you don't
have much confidence in seeing former freedom fighters -- excuse me, former radicalized folks to come back, who have converted back to sanity. engaging them in telling the truth to others. mr. watts: i'm a big fan of them. i focused or the radicalizing numbers. what i'm not so interested in is this massive vulnerable audience where we try to push in the "let's buy the world a coke" method where we say, we can integrate and solve some of your problems. i feel like those are good problems to do, but to focus with atrocities, focus on crimes that are happening on iraq and syria, and focused over the radicalizing audience.
that is where i would aim that message. sen. booker: ms. smith? ms. smith: i have a different view. you need multiple lines of effort, obviously. you've got the military angle, law enforcement, but we have to invest in these cde measures. to pull someone off the path of radicalization, you've got to give them an alternative path. they have to have a network of individuals they trust, a mom, teacher, parent or neighbor who can make them make the right choice. they have to have some element of doubt about going down this path. some of the measures that have been launched are trying to do just that, to provide a network of individuals that can lay a hand on someone as they are wavering. for the young kids that are on the brink of packing it in and taking a flight to turkey and crossing the border into syria,
i think we have to look at these programs. not all of them produce real results and we have to scrub, understand what is working, what is not, but we have to keep trying and working with our allies whether it is the folks in the uae or our european allies. it is an important component of the wider strategy. sen. booker: so things that weren't really successful, finding the ones that are working, investing in those, not undermining law enforcement efforts. out of curiosity, the few minutes i have left, because this is the great night i had, going to bed listening to npr, there was a good article about why some neighborhoods are very radicalized, but some are not. you have a moroccan neighborhood where they are, and a turkish neighborhood that is not, but they have some of the same characteristics.
why would you say that? mr. zarate or mrs. smith. mr. zarate: it is a great question that bears more investigation during you have these hotspots of radicalization. this is part of the difficulty of the efforts. one who bears the scars of working in this space, i can attest to it. the reality is, you have family members growing up in the same home, the same neighborhood. one goes off to fight, the other doesn't. the question is, why? , think sociologists archaeologists, anthropologists are all looking at this. surgeis a social science to figure out what is the difference. one of the things is that personal connection between the radicalizing, the ideologues, and the lineage of ideological
and operational networks. where you've seen these groups continue to persist, continue to produce radicalized individuals and fighters year after year is in these communities where there are people who are actively trying to recruit as part of their mission. you've seen it in norway. you've seen it with preachers in the u.k. you've seen it obviously in france or belgium. you have this ideological lineage in communities that becomes a hotbed. i think that is one factor. scientists are trying to figure this out. not even within families can we figure out what radicalizing is one individual. sen. booker: the radical right that is growing in europe is creating more combustible feel for radicalization. does that concern you about rhetoric in the united states that might be doing the same?
ms. smith: i am very worried about political developments inside europe where we've seen the rise of in tiger immigrant -- of anti-immigrant and anti-eu policies and what it is doing to fuel the grievances these muslim communities have. careful we have to be here about our own rhetoric and ask of discrimination and alienation. we have to recognize that we are dealing with a very small percentage even in europe of the muslim community. it is not fair to say that all muslims inside europe are susceptible to radicalization. i'm watching developments inside europe very closely, trying to figure out how this is going to unfold and change their approach. i think we have to watch ourselves as well. >> senator, we cannot move to a position where in this country,
we are propagating and echoing the narrative of other. we are all americans, muslim, christian, jewish, agnostic. we are all americans. to the extent that our political discourse drives us into divide, that is not only destructive, but dangerous. >> thank you very much. sen. portman:. sen. portman: thank you for holding this hearing. you had a great panel. i'm sorry we did not have administration officials here. when we had them, we've learned a lot. i think we've been constructive about giving ideas about what should be happening in addition to what is already happening, both on the international side, the global threat at home, and winning the hearts and minds, which has been a good conversation today. in ohio, people are worried. they see what happened in brussels. they remember paris and san
bernardino. we are told by the experts in washington that the threat is increased in the united states. we face an increased threat today. i would wonder whether you agree with that. some of you seem to be saying that may be recruiting is down, that isis is not as successful because of the military victories. someone said they are by us. a lot of victories are by the syrian military army. there are consequences to that that may create additional refugee flows, if that makes any sense. my question to you is, one, do you think that somehow the threat has ebbed? two, i would like to dig deeper into the ideology. i think there's more consensus, even though it is not entire there's moret consensus on what we ought to do
in terms of protecting the homeland. there's less about how to actually get at the hearts and minds. one data point that has been then you mays, dispute, but is very interesting as it relates to our conversation about what is happening here in the muslim and young people, recruits, is that 38% of u.s. citizens who have been charged with isis related offenses are converts. we sometimes talk about the lone wolf. often, it is a convert. e that wet agree mor need to do more in the muslim community. i will tell you, the first foreign fighter i believe who came back was in columbus, ohio. he was somali. part of the reason that we were able to apprehend him was because of cooperation between
the police and the somali community. is this figure accurate, that almost 40% of those arrested here on isis charges are converts, and what does that mean in terms of dealing with this issue? is it even broader than the importance of going into these muslim communities and having the leadership provide that alternative path and letting people know that as mr. watts said, these people are villains rather than heroes -- those are my questions. one, what do you think about the threat overall, in second, what do you think about dealing with the challenge we have in this country of people who are becoming radicalized and particularly those who are converts to islam becoming radicalized. juan, i'll start with you. mr. zarate: great questions as always. first, i think the scope, scale,
and sophistication of terrorist threats are more significant now than ever before. part of this has to do with the diversification of nationalities of the citizens involved. a lot of it has to do with geographies. with isis establishing these layouts, these geographical areas applying to be part of isis, we seen it in southeast asia, the geographic scope, the diversity, the numbers are still there and the sophistication is increasing. this is a group that is thinking about the next generation. you've seen recruitment of women, attempts to engage in education and schooling. all as a way of breeding a new generation of radicals as part of an isis 2.0 perhaps. finally, the idea of the caliphate, the fact that it is beginning to spread in other parts of the world, the very
notion of it being a reality and persisting, continues to animate the movement in very dangerous ways. i mentioned southeast asia. you mentioned the reanimation of terrorist networks that we worked so hard to suppress now resurrecting because the idea and animation of the caliphate is driving some of these things. i think we are in a more dangerous, animated time for terrorism. sen. portman: how about here in the united states? mr. watts, you could take a crack at that. mr. watts: we have a lot more ones and twos rather than community recruitment in the states. of those, many of them have deep psychological issues. maybe not part of this radical ideology for very long. how do you detect them if they are not part of a community? are of the converts that finding islam and going to the extreme and mobilized to support
isis, that can happen in months or years. the only real way to do that is online electronic surveillance. that is your best bet at picking those people up. they are self-medical rising. you don't have a community that can help you detect them. you don't have a law enforcement issue that can protect them. your best chance is online. that comes to the point of how comfortable are americans watching that. i'm no longer in government. i can sit at my house and watch extremists online and know that they are mobilizing, but yet law enforcement in many ways has more hurdles to hop over to monitor that sort of information. oftentimes, i can provide it easier than they can do it themselves. how do we work through the system? that 40% worries me because i feel like they have a propensity
to violence. sen. portman: those are good points. our time is expiring, but one thing we did not get into earlier is what is going on online. our inability to counter the narrative in an effective way is a real concern even at our center in ohio. that is very important. it seems to me we should be increasing our efforts. this committee has talked about this with administration officials. we have helped nudge them toward this, to go online come away those individuals who may be converts or lone wolves are finding this information. it is not a physical contact. the young man from cincinnati who was a convert was working online to become radicalized. i think this is an area where we have a real gap in terms of our ability to project.
any thoughts on online messaging and how to counter message? ms. smith: i would just note that we've seen different stages in hell crisis has taken the fight away from the region and into europe. they first wanted to inspire attacks. then they tried very hard to enable them and now they are working to direct the attacks. to counter their efforts have to be driven towards every single one of those efforts through law enforcement, through the use of our military, to give them back home in the safe haven where they exist. you are exactly right. presence, their ability and sophistication online, is something that should worry all of us a great deal. sen. portman: if i could add one thing, because i failed to mention it earlier, senator
booker's question was, there are online programs that do have merit. one is called one-to-one online interventions. moonshot is a group that has done it. effectiveat is an example of how you can do that in the online space. what tends to happen is that is more expensive. we tend to shy towards, if we do this program with 10 people, it might reach 1000. i would rather go heavier on those that we know our closest to getting on that airplane for showing up here with an explosive device and invest heavier in those programs. sen. portman: that is one of our challenges. i couldn't agree more. thank you all very much. >> thank you. mr. watts, you indicated that as a private citizen, you can do
more to identify these individuals than government officials can. talk about the handcuffs that are actually on government officials from trying to do what we need to do. mr. watts: i think it is twofold. i teach with the new jersey state police a lot. accountshow them these that are wide open. it comes down to two issues. what are the rules around me collecting this information on private citizens? law enforcement and federal systems have different comfortability with it. the second part is capacity to do it. state and locals can benefit a lot from protecting people online but have the least capacity to do it. the federal government has the most capacity, the most technology, but may have trouble communicating that information to state and locals. the other part is, if i have to
go to a government location and do a briefing, it is almost impossible to use the technology just to access the information, all for good reasons. but you almost can't even observe it. it becomes a barrier. whereas at my house, i can open up my doors and just watch what is going on or collaborate with people online who are watching this and set up basically our own databases. introducedthat get into the government, whether it is bureaucracy, capability, access, everything tends to go sideways. it becomes very difficult to do. sen. johnson: do you see a solution to that that protects american civil liberties? mr. watts: i do. i just feel there's needs -- there needs to be some sort of legislation. the snowden leaks did nothing for us in terms of helping the government, accessing that
information, but i think a more forward approach saying, the best way we can secure our nation and safeguard you is if we watched what is going on online. when people talk about mobilizing toward violence, we need to talk to them. but if you can't see that information, it is hard to have a preemptive law enforcement approach. zarate, you: mr. talked about what the goal is. we held a hearing based on graham woods, what isis really wants. my conclusion is two things. world domination and they want to set up this apocalyptic final battle. somewhat conflicting goals. i want to ask all the panelists, what is behind this? it is baffling to americans. theyeda, the narrative was wanted the west out of the middle east.
this is different. can you first speak to that? what do you think they are after? mr. zarate: i think the next evolution of the violent sunni extremist ideology, and they've given life and manifestation to the mythology of reestablishing the islamic caliphate. they want to establish not only this caliphate, but demonstrate that they can govern and this is a place where it is the only place where you can practice true islam. so, they've morphed the al qaeda narrative, which is the west is , thiswith islam, into caliphate and the way we are governing it is the only place where you can actually live as a true muslim. it is that that is the core of their message. that animates outward, because their job is to kill and convert infidels. west, alongand the
with our allies, will not allow them to do this long-term. sen. johnson: you talked about, as long as that caliphate exist, it inspires and prompts additional action. i was interested in you talking about the application process. it sounds like a gang initiation. mr. zarate: what you've seen his that different terrorist groups, the moment the caliphate was announced, there was a moment of strategic decision for al qaeda as well as other violent extremist groups. they had to determine, do we believe in it? this is part of the strategic renting and division you've seen between al qaeda core and the islamic state. what a number of groups have done, to include boko haram, was to then send messages to the islamic state, initiating membership, in essence pledging allegiance and then applying to actually be an official province
of the islamic state. this is a reality for them. they see this as a governing reality. you've seen this in libya, in egypt, in afghanistan and pakistan, in saudi arabia, in yemen. these are very real individuals thinking they are something bigger than themselves. that has dangerous implications because they have to prove that they are worthy, which is why you've seen these attacks in places like jakarta, with people trying to be part of this broader caliphate. it is animating the movement and resurrecting these networks that we had long suppressed. sen. johnson: so the inescapable conclusion of this from my standpoint, if you want to go on offense versus continued defense, where defense is incredibly difficult, almost impossible, don't you have to destroy that caliphate? don't you have to deny them that
territory? vista gartenstein-ross. mr. gartenstein-ross: i agree with that. it was mentioned earlier in the hearing that messaging that diffuses their image, their image which i call a winner's message, is a very important thing. the ammunition is there to do that. if they lose their caliphate, the have some explaining to do as one would say. you have at least a couple different kinds of people who are recruited to islamic state, those who are heavily ideological and those who are a more criminal element. for both of them, if the caliphate is lost, those who are more ideological will understand that that destroys isis' interpretation of islamic prophecy. those who are criminal elements will just see them as losers. right now, they are not weak.
they just carried out a couple of major attacks. but one thing that our messaging apparatus has done poorly is broadcasting those losses they've experienced in afghanistan, in algeria, and elsewhere. a lot of that comes back to the bureaucracy question. sometimes, when you look at our messaging apparatus, for some parts, it is how you even have a tweet approved. for others, there are limitations where they can't go beyond their immediate theater, which hinders the strategy of our messaging. sen. johnson: again, messaging is all about reality. the reality is the caliphate remains. it has been described, then and work is growing. they've gone from inspiring to erecting. the reality is, they are not losing yet. they have not lost yet. i would argue that until they are overtly losing, they are
going to continue to inspire and the threat continues to grow. mr. gartenstein-ross: i would add one thing. ultimately, isis has understood in particular the potential of social media to mobilize people to carry out attacks. had more ofd have an image of strength in certain theaters than is justified. if you look back to how they convinced boko haram to join their network, part of that story is convincing people that they controlled the city in libya, which they never did. as they start to lose more, i think it is in our interest to amplify that message of their losses. that will give them doubly hard. they will have more trouble drawing in recruits. we need to think about getting our messaging right. when they do start to lose the
caliphate, we want to put that out in a message that is effective. sen. johnson: i'll give you all a chance to have some final thoughts at the end of this. i want to be respectful of my ranking members time. >> i'm very much interested in the line of questioning we just had with the chairman. i was going to pursue that myself. one of the things we've not touched on today is the issue of real security in this country. in china, a bunch of our colleagues had an opportunity to ride on some of the most beautiful, comfortable, attractive, timely trains that i've ever ridden on in quite a while. i ride the trains quite often. coming down from new york city to washington today was, compared to china, eye-opening. it was not encouraging, let me
just say. they are doing a pretty good job over there investing in infrastructure and we are not. speaking of rail, i want to ask you if you would help us rate the security of our rail system relative to maybe our aviation system, and what lessons do you think we might learn from the brussels attacks? mr. watts. mr. watts: i would say rail as compared to air is always going to be far less. we've always had a very open system with rail, as do almost all countries. i think it is logical. i don't even just mean amtrak. the subway systems, the vulnerabilities are impossible really to defend against. that is why the best defense is the offense, the investigations, running down leads. i'm not sure that even if we wanted to secure it that there
is a good way we could do it. i think it is a feasibility issue. to thereally can get amtrak or subway systems, whatever rail system it might be. i don't have a good answer, but i see it as a vulnerability worldwide, not just the u.s. sen. carper: thank you. esther gartenstein-ross. mr. gartenstein-ross: i think there's two problems. the problem is, number one, the more you harden it like with checkpoints, the more you defeat the purpose. the reason why so boys are so effective is because you can up on. it doesn't take you hours to get across town. have to wait in the tsa line. the second thing is the very problem we saw in the brussels airport. even if you have a checkpoint, terrorist cannot check right outside the checkpoint. the checkpoint outside, you have a line of waiting passengers
outside and that puts car bombs into play. one exception is good human policing. that is what amtrak tries to do. you have the teams with dogs going around amtrak trains to make sure nothing is amiss. it is far from being as effective as airline security, but that is the last line of defense for our rail security. ms. smith: i would just know that i was in brussels two days before the attacks. i took the train over to london and they have hardened their rail security because of the differences between the u.k. in mainland europe. it did create an incredible vulnerability. i felt as i stood there that you had this huge mass of people waiting to go through security to get on a train to go through the tunnel to london. i agree with the point that in
some ways, these fixes can make a bad situation worse. europe, on the aviation security point, we have a pretty dire situation in that past the security checkpoint, those areas are regulated and mandated to meet a certain level of security standards. but before the checkpoint, each individual country can handle security as they wish. which as you can imagine creates a whole array of standards and levels of security. i think europeans have to have some sort of discussion on how they want to collectively set standards on how they handle those areas before the checkpoint. thank you.: mr. zarate. mr. zarate: i think deploying more behavioral analysts is important in an open system. and tsa have tried to do that at airports and train facilities.
there are new technologies coming online that allow for better detection to a certain extent. youhas invested at mets as know. some of these technologies, it if applied in addition to these other behavioral analysis could give you a better sense of what the threats might be. but the long-term is the risk of mitigation and that is what we have in our train system. quickly give me one important issue for consideration on which you think there is near-unanimous agreement. zarate: i would say two of
them if you give me the indulgence. paradigm of the post 9/11 environment. it has to be operationally applied. they talk about it. but they have to move to an operational preventative mindset to and we have to help them get there. the second thing, for dhs purposes, moving toward systemic defense key critical infrastructure. water, electrical grid, we need to build redundancy around the systems because we know not only terrorists but state and nonstate actors are looking for fun or abilities. only dhs can help drive that in this country. in wake of the paris attacks, a new european counterterrorism center was created. what happens when these new happens is in the eu
they become largely informational and we have to work with them to ensure the counterterrorism center is in fact operational. >> i think there is near unanimous agreement that the sanctity of our intelligence processes are important. said,ator johnson privatization of territory is the best way to craft a safer future from mass casualty attacks. it is extraordinarily disturbing to read the new report. you have now not only allegations by numerous analysts, dozens of them, about the politicization of intelligence. it is discouraging me for -- it is discouraging to me to see mr. clapper dumpsite that.
if you have actual retaliation ongoing and leadership is not acting, then we have a tremendous problem. >> last word. talk.e action the and we saw paris, we saw brussels for months later. some of the same attackers, same network. nothing has happened. wording short of moving or , putting together a actual resources and a plan with stated objectives about how they will deal with the threat has to happen within 30 days. within two weeks. it is obvious this problem is not going to go away. >> you have been exceptional, panel. there is going to be another panel in a couple weeks.
your panel sets up the next panel. >> i want to clarify what i said, i did not invite secretary johnson. top officialse but not secretary johnson. >> thank you mr. chairman. me to say this, but thank you senator booker for allowing me to go. the fbi is not here because they are in the middle of an investigation. tothe 26th you are going have a hearing which should be a very good hearing. i think homeland security and so on are not here because the fbi could not be here. we will get there but it is important for them to do their job. testimonyall for your and for being here. secretary johnson is going to be legislationnew
coming to the senate. there has been a lot of conversation today about the eu and how certain countries are not doing what they need to do to share information. which is a problem. i do not know how to solve it without writing a big old that check that will not help us with our debt here. security is important, make no mistake but those folks have to step up. these are questions that were brought about taking potential countries off that list. thathairman, you ask question. maybe we ought to bring some folks in here who know what reasonable is and what is not. who is not cutting the mustard and make recommendations. that is appropriate when it comes to the security of this country. it you can tell me your opinion. is the security we have in the airports in this country where it needs to be?
>> a could always be better, but i think it is where we needed to be in this country. can and if you tell me why we have full body scanners. the magnetometers good enough? >> the full body scanners allow you to determine if there are other types of explosives on the body of the person. >> thank you. so, if we have airports that to do not have full body scanners, just magnetometers, are we opening up ourselves for a security risk push mark >> potential it. i think would tsa is trying to do is to apply a risk-based model and approach. >> where do we apply them? which airports are most vulnerable?
ask that approach i assume is based on population. the number of people going through. terroristsk the would know that? >> they would. they are constantly probing for vulnerabilities. working outside of the rings of security. trying to infiltrate. trying to get access with insiders into the system as we have seen in the past with radicalized individuals who work or within security layers. >> that is true and that is why i have made the point. they will go to the weakest link and they will find it in the eventually there there. even though you base initially on volume, the and goal should be to make sure we have them there asap or why would we have the scanners? let me ask about perimeter security. what happened in belgium did not happen on the other side of the tsa checkpoint if that is what they call them in belgium.
it happened outside, where there is lots of people. is there a solution for that? can seeystem that you that it would not be cost-prohibitive? >> senator, i was just in roman saw thein brussels and measures they were employing for the terminals where american carriers and americans were likely to trouble and they had deployed a couple of key checkpoints. in essence, chill points. they have a lot of visible security online and overhead. i can't imagine you have seen this in major u.s. airports in terms of heightened threat where you can apply these regular searches and checks at particular sites without causing too much commercial or vehicular or traffic disruption. more random checks around points ---- for example, check in
and perhaps even more behavioral analysis and canines and others deployed in key airports. but it is difficult without disrupting traffic and commercial activity. this -- and look, i think there is some merit to doing that. i guess the question is, does anybody know what kind of appropriation it would take to maybe not have it to all the time, but have enough so that they would not know? >> i do not know, senator. do withthis has to local authority and others that have to deploy resources as well. >> that's good. >> i think you could probably do it with very little appropriation if you take what right now is passed or at the check week and moved it in rent. is we have these
behavioral detection teams and they are a good idea but what they do is by design pretty limited. >> ok. that is good. >> senator i would only add one thing which is that we would go all out on passengers in terms of screening but the real vulnerabilities we have seen in the last two attacks is about, can they blow up an airplane in flight. we saw al qaeda did that insider. and it was done in somalia, it is not clear if it was by an insider. if i was going to invest now in airport security at would not look at re-hardening the passenger line but other vintages. >> which gets to my next question, are we certifying? testing, however you want to put it, the folks that work with the baggage, with work for
the airlines, worked in security? we they -- are they -- are doing enough there? honestly, sir, have no idea but that goes toward what our risk policy is and the preemptive intelligence. >> i certainly appreciate your testimony. thank you much. hearingou attend the dh we had? -- dogs dhs? an excellent session. i am all for that, especially outside the perimeter in 19 that would be money very well spent. senator booker? >> i want to drill down one more time. obviously we are attacking al qaeda and affiliates in the
field of play every day around this country. we are sort ofaq shrinking the territory and making considerable gains. i love that you said it is a matter of when not if and i do believe that is the case. we are looking at places like libya and algeria where they are starting to set up other outposts. level not equally important is to undermine the terrorist network and that is a lot of what we talked about today to be clearly, i agree with what i think the panel said that we need to be a lot more aggressive. it is outrageous to me that they are sharing communication transatlantic lay but not within europe. they have sort of pre-9/11 problems have not worked through. i believe we are very vulnerable
acause it is far more so than being aprogram to me lot more aggressive with our posture. that is obviously something we have a lot of work to do i want to get back with my final few nowtes the efforts which i realize mean so many different things to so many different people so let me just say what i think it means. the work talking about of law enforcement but the other people going on to stop from falling prey because i am concerned about what is happening in the field of battle. the field of battle for network terrorists. radicalization right here at home. in and i do agree as was said by the panel that this is not something that is a matter of
when. this is something we will be dealing with for a very, very long time. so how we deal with them is one defensivedition to a tool creating a stronger and i am extremism curious and open it up to the panel. we have the administration launching their task course. as these get off the ground, could you please distill for the panel what specific recommendations would you have the panel focus on? and should andp must? let's go to my left which is something as a democrat i often do. >> the first thing i would say is where to focus that. in my experience over the past few decades we have done a lot
that has been broadly applied. focus on those very few communities where we know there is a lot of people being recruited from and there is strong sentiment. then i would focus on online. sometime they overlap sometimes they are the virgin. we should pinpoint where we want to focus those programs. over the were all place. then is how we will apply them. where on the spectrum of extremism do we want to apply. the better way to bring it up is we have a pyramid but your investment should be the reverse. heavier on the engagements which an eye mama or cleric that does that physically or it is online. how dohe radicalization we undermine the mission to make villains not martyrs.
another foreign fighter, that radicalizing population and that is where we use vectors or peers. investment is winning over the community focus. 10 years ago we were the reverse. let's get out in the community and make people feel good about our approach like public affairs. i would rather see better >> thank you very much. real quick, want no over there is hoping he can talk. >> two quick ones. the first is fast and de-bureaucracy eyes with metrics for success. the second idea, the big idea, is self-image in and what makes a hero in multiple parts of the world. i was talking to a colleague in the east africa who set
hyperbolically, if you are a hero here, you could be a rapper, a businessman, or in isis fighter. not a member of the u.s. forces they are not a rope. if you think about the united states, anyone can be a hero. a soccer coach, a senator, a forces, athe armed policeman, a firefighter. in the rest of the world that is not the case. so i would think about self image because isis and other groups are definitely tapping into self image into giving people a route to become a hero. >> as we know, dod has invested in a new office to try to tap technology. all over the world they are facing this. the state department is opening a tiny presence in silicon valley and utilizing this office
to do the same thing but to use existing technology with the amazing kids in california to apply this end know how to with the challenge is one of the better ways in which you can use this to man office. stateying to use that department presents to tap into what already exists and apply it to the sophistication we are seeing in terms of encryption, surveillance, document forgery, the list goes on. i think it would be a wise investment. >> three things. the department for naming george as the head of the task force because he is a professional. he understands the challenges ahead and is great for this major challenge. three ideas.
we need a network of networks. this is something government agencies unto themselves cannot do. you need the sisters against violent extremism. you need the entrepreneurs and muslim communities to be part of not creating only a sense of hair was am but a sense of identity in the 20th century. those networkste of networks. it is a huge challenge for the government because we do not like to give up control. how do you give micro grants to these efforts. we have to figure this out because that is at the grassroots level. out where theure manifestation of the precursor of the ideology begins to take place. have an inhospitable ecosystem for the ideology. we cannot find ourselves in a armingn where we have a
ham or somewhere where these radical ideologies take root. it's cannot happen. how do you counter online? how do you he radicalize for people to come back and tell you leverage them? and finally and this is where community engagement is so important, how do you define identity and opportunity for these? the government cannot define that. friends, communities have to play a role in defining that. at the end of the day it is a problem of identity. >> thank you senator booker. second whatnt to the other senators said. this has been an exceptional panel and hearing. laying out a reality, defining problems. admitting we have a problem.
i want to commend my colleagues for asking good questions and the staff for assembling the panels. this has been an extremely good hearing. i will give you all a chance to make a concluding comment. one question they did not get answered, i alluded to it in terms of the hints that nuclear facility. if anybody wants to address critical infrastructure, i am highly concerned about it we saw the cyber attack against ukraine, we saw the physical attack in california i am highly concerned about that. add go aheading to if not, just a concluding comment. >> thank you for the privilege to be here, i am honored to be with this expert panel. let me reiterate on the dhs mission because it is more critical now than any time since 9/11. dealing with particular groups
it is the role of dhs to ensure our critical national system and infrastructures are not only secure but they are resilient and redundant. no other agency has that mission. a critical role to make sure our systems are redundant. that goes a long way in making a strong and deterring terrorist attacks. the second point is i do not think we can downplay the strategic impact. seen this in places like paris and brussels and we run the danger if we define the threat to a current lens of whether it is existential and directed to the homeland, we run the risk of the strategic impact over time of what these groups can do to our societies and laws of our economy.
>> i cannot agree more. i do not want to give anyone my mindut in coordinated smaller attacks on ourave greater impact economy. >> let me say briefly these atacks could not have come at worse time for brussels for the european union, for europe as a whole. not only are they facing very severe counterterrorism threats but as you well know they are under the weight of a migration crisis, a resurgent russia actively trying to destabilize the continent. they have week economies. the potential exit of one of their biggest. we are not a member of the european union and cannot do everything for them but it is in our interest to suppo the project. the europeanrt
union so rather than pulling away we have to invest in the relationship and do what we can to help them with the very real security challenges. mrs. smith. mr. ross. >> i think one area we should look to in general is, where in our security apparatus is there obvious vulnerabilities. at least two regarding nuclear security in europe and elgin in particular. in particular. these facilities are vulnerable .o a coordinated armed attack i think there are significant questions about whether they are doing enough to support their personnel. one i highlight in my testimony went to syria as a foreign fighter.
a had been a technician in nuclear power plant from 2009-2012. this calls into question whether these screening is sufficient for personnel who has access to sensitive areas. well-suited to the challenges of the 20th century. i would focus on system design. we have put our fingers collectively on a number of problems. a password of systems, no central law enforcement body and it means that terrorists who operate transnational he are at an advantage. the u.s. system is better than the european system but it has its problems. the question, i would say is our bureaucracy, our internal system designed to keep up with this?
are we ready to keep up with the startups that will be challenging us and trying to kill our citizens? >> my final points would be, what do we want in terms of counterterrorism. we held al qaeda, now we have the islamic state, today we are talking about europe. to bek we're likely talking about north africa maybe six months or a year from now. and yemen is on the horizon. acceleratedh these weeks and valleys where we get mobilized and get it fleshed out and the we get upset when it comes back a year later. tolerance and objective for risk i don't think we have a good handle. we get to these emotional points where we react and take aggressive actions, but what are the four or five things we can do in counterterrorism on the horizon to get this to a
steadier state. and not think there is an to the islamic state because i think it will just be called something else. what do we want to achieve over the horizon i would love to see the government come to terms. level, thetioner fbi, the cia, they are pursuing counterterrorism on a day-to-day basis, but what steady state do we want to achieve? i could not agree more. >> we have got to have a commitment to offense and be relentless. we cannot act off. this is going to be a generational problem and you have didn't step-by-step. the fact that caliphate exists, the fact they hold that territory, is incredibly dangerous. we have to defeat that caliphate. we have to defeat basis.
announcer: of next, a conversation on student debt and higher education. senatorted cruz and bernie sanders each one their primary and wisconsin yesterday. we will have their speeches later on this morning. announcer: on today's washington journal, we will get an update on yesterday's primary results in wisconsin and preview what is
ahead in the presidential race. jonathan's one of the hill will join us. we will talk to a economy is kyle palmer low of the tax foundation. later, a discussion about theity and an article in standard that looks at school nutritional programs and eating disorders. washington journalists live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. you cannot join the conversation by phone or on facebook and twitter. americans hold 1.3 million -- trillion dollars in unpaid student loan debt. a closer look at student debt, next.
>> good afternoon everybody, and welcome. i am the dean here at the gerald ford school of public policy -- imd lighted to see all of you with is here today. i would like to thank the education policy initiative for which i our event today know you, like me, have been looking over to. would also like to acknowledge the center for higher and post secondary education. susanhe charles and gessner for their generous support of the program. we are grateful for all of those engagements. we will address a very important question. ?s there a student debt crisis many of us are well aware of the
ever expanding student loan markets and the latest estimates are that nearly 40 -- million americans are laden with $1.3 trillion worth of student debt. one in four of the borrowers is either in delinquency or default. last year's graduating class had an average of $35,000 in student debt. the obama administration recently announced two policy changes and presidential candidates have focused on a variety of alternatives of ways to lower the debt burdens. today's speakers are two leading voices. rohit chopra was recently named special adviser to the u.s. department of education. he previously served as the assistant director of the consumer financial protection bureau.
he led that agencies work on behalf of students and consumers. the secretary of treasury named him as the agencies first student loan investment. he has frequently testified before congress on alleviating student debt burdens and private student loan performance. susan is a colleague. she is a professor of education, public policy, and economics at the university of michigan. susan is one of the countries top advocates for accessible higher education. she has testified before congress on education and tax policy and is widely consulted on student aid reform, including a federal reserve, the department of education and treasury, and with the department of economic advisories. she also writes with a new york times and if you are on twitter, i encourage you to follow her for an informative and witty commentary.
first, ignored about today's format. each of our panelists to getting with susan will kick things off with three opening remarks. i will then have the pleasure of moderating a conversation with our experts. i will start with a few questions of my own before opening things to the audience. please write your questions on the notecards you received and we will have volunteers circulating to collect them from you during the program. if you are watching online, please send us your questions on twitter. let's get started. susan, the floor is yours. ms. dynarski: thank you, everyone. i'm going to start with the data. i want to start by talking about if there is indeed a crisis in student debt, where is it? there at a university in a
school of public policy so we should be addressing this question with data as opposed to say introspective and thinking about our own experiences or those of our friends or colleagues. also, instead of maybe just reading the latest dramatic piece in the news about a distressed borrower, but rather by analyzing the data. data has been a problem in this context. and it does have filled the void. if there is not a good data on the problem, the arising and anecdote will fill the void. department of education, which is responsible for the federal loans in this country, has not been terribly forthcoming and releasing to the public information about who borrows, who defaults, their experiences.
that is changing a bit and as of this past fall, we have some excellent data on debt to default for people who have borrowed since the late 1990's or so up until the present. what i'm going to say here is based on the analysis of that data. what does the data say? they say you should erase from your mind -- if you are thinking of who the face of the student debt crisis is, you should erase it from your mind the image of a yale graduate or nyu graduate or columbia graduate or even a um graduate. everyone who graduate with a ba is relatively unlikely to default. people who graduate have a low default rates. the default rate to drop in the schools selectivity. for schools like um and harvard and columbia, about 5% is what the default is. that is what it was before the recession, during. people who graduate from elite
schools are pretty well above buffered from economic distress. not everybody. but we talking about averages and tendencies. so, you should also not think of folks who are going to graduate school. so people who graduate -- i know you do not like debt, but the question is whether it is the base of the crisis in our country. nobody likes debt. everyone would rather have stuff free then pay for it. ok? that is an economic principle. you have your certificate now in economics. ord students are the most least likely to default because they make good money compared to other folks. ok? people who borrow for graduate school are unlikely to default. -- from schools
toe um might borrow up 50,000 total but they tend to make good money said they can support a debt and pay it off. that is who it is not. one thing to note, you know, that i just lifted the profiles of the people who are focused on the media. so when the media focuses on student debt crises, the people they profile are people at columbia, nyu, people with graduate degrees. this week in slate, a graduate of connecticut college with a graduate degree from penn state, talked about their experience with $200,000 in debt. unlikely amount of debt. very few people have that much debt and people who graduate with graduate degrees tend not to default. there is also a lovely article thate new york times
enraged me into writing several guy whoosts from a graduated with not one, not to, but three degrees from columbia university and subsequently defaulted on all of them and was urging others to follow his and setting himself up as a sort of leader of a student loan revolt. these are not the real faces of defaults.t loan a person who spent one year or two years at eight public college, proprietary school, corinthian, university of college eight community or a non-selective community college. if you look at who is defaulting, that is who it is. they are first-generation college students. they grew up poor, they enter college late in their 20's or 30's. many of them were running away from the recession in its they
went to one of these schools to try to troll up so they can get a better job. littlerrowed relatively but they dropped out after one year or six months. wrote maybe 5000-10,000 dollars a year. 5-2 --l they borrowed $10,000. they exited with low earnings. $20,000 per year. they entered poor, they left poor. this typical default is less than $10,000. more around $5,000 is the typical load to default right now. people who borrowed at for-profit colleges. nearly one third of students who entered college during the recession into borrowed to attend a community college or for-profit college defaulted within five years. for the people attending a selective institution, it is 5%.
ok? so the problem is at community colleges and for-profit institutions. so this is who i have firmly in mind when i think about victims a student debt crisis. low income, first-generation students attending community .ollege or students of corinthian colleges were defrauded into borrowing for what was ultimately a non-is fisting education -- a education. local community college borrowers who exited with very low earnings. in my opinion if there was a crisis of any sort it is a isis of low earnings and our country. we lack the safety net. we have a large number of people are earning very low earnings $5,000 in handle even debt as a result. >> thank you for having me and
thanks to all of you for being here. as dean mentioned, i recently joined the department of education and am just a few days into the job. my comments today represent my own opinions. question, why do we have student loans? it is important to remember we have student loans for a good reason, and backed is to ensure that people who might not be able to afford to go to college can make that investment into themselves which can pay off a very, very big win done right but things have changed so much in the past 10 years that it is helpful to think through that. many people concerned about student debt might come from the education world. i probably come from the other stepchild of this world, which is thinking about it from a
consumer financial markets perspective and those of us -- from our lens, we are really colored and shaped by the foreclosure crisis we saw in the past several years. for those of you from michigan, you probably know very well that problems in the mortgage market absolutely devastated parts of michigan and this was not unlike other parts of the country. today, we have a mortgage market that is very different but i think some events that really change the lower -- the student loan market also. it is worth mentioning some of them. to the financial crisis, there is no question that the financial crisis had two real big effects. one is that it really eroded family wealth.
actually, trillions of dollars in household wealth of that he waited in the form of home equity, retirement savings. many families felt distressed. about being able to contribute toward their dependent child upon education. at the same time, the financial crisis hit state budgets very hard and there was some very substantial cuts to public higher education. i want to echo something sue said. when you think about who goes to college, the biggest group is those who go to public colleges. so the mix of families feeling more financially stressed and higher tuition, which either way as not just something that is recent. i understand 40 years ago, undergraduate tuition at the university of michigan was $800.
inflation adjusted that is probably about four or five times higher. the tuition for undergraduates is four or five times more the in $800. but deep -- the crisis pronounced that effect and we have seen substantial increases in reliance on student loans. the secretary of education has that student loans became the norm at a certain point. what else happened is important for context and i think we forgot there was a lot of talk thet the rescue of financial system due to gambling on wall street. a huge changealso in our federal student loan law thatich was a essentially led to the government purchasing a huge
amount of federal student loans. the 410, most were originated by educational institutions. now much of them are owned by the government. in 2010, the president got a law passed to essentially and the bank subsidy program and now when you borrow it is all directly through the department of education. moref this put together of borrowers, more students relying grants, on student loans combined with the government taking the unprecedented action has in some ways created a lot of policynities that the makers and the research community are thinking about all of the different tools that can be used to make improvements to the system and i think we are at the place where we need to keep
helping people go to college but we need to remember the macro as well as some poor performing programs are leading to people being and high levels of distress and i cannot tell , if i push you to remember, when someone is delinquent on their student loan it is often not just one sign of a broader array of shocks happening in their lives. pay rent, struggling to make payment on car loans, and drink the -- thinking the traumat about they are managing is something to keep top of mind. that said, there is a lot of policies pursued to not only address the borrowers who are struggling, but also to in nokia broader structure of
college being hard to afford. there is now new repayment plans. are in.ou it is a broad expansion of of affordable loan modification that allow borrowers to pay a reasonable amount of income to manage the times of distress. my understanding is there are about i thousand people and rolling per day on average and we have to figure out how we can them on their to manage that and there are also new ways for borrowers to get out of default. new rules that have been put in place allow borrowers to get back on their feet through loan rehabilitation and we have to make sure borrowers are not hiding and they know there are options. has been a lot of interest
and activity on and enhancements to student loan services. theent loan servicers are companies that help make a lot ofand there is work to do to make that process work better. the president and acted a student aid bill of rights that called for a number of potential improvements to student loan servicing and there is good work done to help borrowers navigate through that process. going forward, we have to think about how to in future generations to not be deterred by the high sticker prices. ending some of those bank subsidies for the program created money to invest in the pell grant program.
are taking ale look at the role of credit tours and state oversight agencies. of corinthian colleges has raised a lot of questions about the role of how we do oversight and many of you may have heard of the administration gainful employment initiative which essentially is a regulatory framework to prevent schools from graduating or not graduating students with unaffordable levels of debt. conversationsder oliver society and inside and outside of washington about colleges threey or more affordable and i would encourage all of you as you think about this issue, that there is not one initiative that is going to be a cure-all. it is a series of tools to fight
a discrete set of problems. affordability will not fix the issues and the reverse is true as well. to tacklerd problems big solutions are needed. >> thank you very much for helping to frame this complex and nuanced set of it issues. they are of vital importance and i say that road from my live as the dean of a policy school and as a parent of two college aged students. there are many issues on the table. i will ask a couple of questions to start things off that i encourage you to use the note cards to open things up to audience participation. perhaps the place to start is to get more of a sense of how
worried we should be about this crisis. really you talked about the mortgage loan crisis at the beginning of your remarks and certainly some have suggested what is happening is a bubble that could be as concerning as the mortgage crisis was as we all well know. be abouted should we what is happening with student debt? >> coming from the view of someone who is more of a practitioner,ices i have a very stringent definition in my mind of what eight debt crisis is. crisis as we see in parts of continental europe or puerto rico is different.
it will cause mass devastation very quickly. "bubble" do notes that something will pop and be very quick and dramatic. do not think what we are seeing is something that will create rapid systemic risk because there is not close interconnectedness. said, those are technical terms but there are thatpeople in our country it is a personal crisis in that they cannot manage the debt. sue hasy respect what shared with the data but i wonder if some of the borrowers who do not borrow much but are in default, are they in debt on
a lot of other instruments? did they finance their education and other ways that may not show up in the student loan data? maybe it is not a doomsday that we thought would think collapse of some of the large financial institutions but on a personal level, i think we have to ask ourselves how can somebody who default on the student loan really recover and become someone who can participate in the economy and not be discouraged and frankly not to feel like a failure? i don't want to debate over the word about what the status is but i think we can all agree there's so much we can improve for individual borrowers and we need to know more about what the potential impacts are on the rest of the economy. there may not be something immediately by there is more to learn there. ms. dynarski: i agree with everything you just said.
a bubble emerges when an asset can get flipped over and over again and it's pricing gets inflated. think of the tulip crisis in holland, think of a house that gets flipped in the price increases. you cannot flip human capital. you cannot get the same kind of crazy inflationary. what we do have is a lot of suffering. i want to mix in concrete observations about what it means when we have 8 million people in default. what does that actually mean for individual lives? for someone in default, they have a enormous of the lot on their credit record. what does that mean? any landlord's now do credit checks before somebody can rent so they are shut out of parts of the housing market. if they want to buy a car to get to work because they are living in a neighborhood that is not where the jobs are, they are shut out of getting a reasonably priced alone for their car and they have to get a 25% interest rate loan, which further
depresses on their finances. many employers now check credit records. they will miss out on job opportunities. of course add to that the psychological stress of someone calling your cell phone or your home phone, your relatives on a daily basis to harass you about your debt. and there is a lot of suffering and that's bad. i think that is what the crisis is. we had people who went to school to improve themselves at our encouragement. we provided a lot of subsidies and told people the right thing to do was improve your self in
school. as a result, they are suffering and it's a man-made crisis. that is what i think of as the student debt crisis. >> in terms of the magnitude, the mortgage crisis at the peak, the lending was the magnitude of the dead was close to two thirds of u.s. gdp. magnitude is not at that level, correct? mr. chopa: there is approximately 14 trillion outstanding mortgage debt. in the sub mortgage lending context, there was a set of risky features as part of those loans that led to some potential cataclysmic events. there was in fact a subprime private student loan market that really blossomed in the years of just one subprime mortgage lending. most of the lending that is occurring is in the federal loan market where fortunately people have access to these income driven repayment plans. i think that understanding how the mortgage market unraveled is important but there are also important differences and i
think an important lesson is looking at servicing. how in my old role we regulated both mortgage servicers and student loan servicers. i was quite struck particularly with the private student loan servicers at the same type of deficiencies. servicing is a tough business but when it goes wrong for a borrower, it can really be quite devastating and it can lead to some suffering. i really encourage that there is a lot of interest in doing more to improve that piece of the puzzle.