[House Hearing, 114 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] RADICALIZATION IN THE U.S. AND THE RISE OF TERRORISM ======================================================================= JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 __________ Serial No. 114-163 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://www.house.gov/reform __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26-122 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TED LIEU, California RON DeSANTIS, Florida BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands KEN BUCK, Colorado MARK DeSAULNIER, California MARK WALKER, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania ROD BLUM, Iowa PETER WELCH, Vermont JODY B. HICE, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin WILL HURD, Texas GARY J. PALMER, Alabama Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director Andrew Dockham, General Counsel Dimple Shah, National Security Subcommittee Staff Director Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on National Security RON DeSANTIS, Florida, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee Ranking Member JODY B. HICE, Georgia ROBIN KELLY, Illinois STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma, Vice Chair BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan WILL HURD, Texas TED LIEU, California ------ Subcommittee on Government Operations MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman JIM JORDAN, Ohio GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair Ranking Minority Member TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina Columbia KEN BUCK, Colorado WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on September 14, 2016............................... 1 WITNESSES Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Ph.D, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Oral Statement............................................... 6 Written Statement............................................ 9 Mr. Matt A. Mayer, Visiting Fellow, Homeland Security Studies, American Enterprise Institute Oral Statement............................................... 21 Written Statement............................................ 23 Mr. David Inserra, Policy Analyst, Foreign and National Security Policy, The Heritage Foundation Oral Statement............................................... 27 Written Statement............................................ 29 Mr. Richard Cohen, President, Southern Poverty law Center Oral Statement............................................... 37 Written Statement............................................ 39 APPENDIX March 2014 Journal Forensic Sciences ``Bombing Alone'' submitted by Mr. Hice.................................................... 64 Articles submitted by Mr. DeSantis: Counterpunch ``King of the Hate Business'' May 15, 2009.......... 74 Second Class Justice ``Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center'' Sept 9, 2012.......................................... 77 CNN ``Prosecutors Say'' July 2, 2013............................. 83 Foreign Policy ``The Hate List'' March 12, 2013.................. 86 National Review ``The SPLC and Slant'' March 15, 2013............ 91 Weekly Standard ``King of Fearmongers'' April 4, 2013............ 93 Weekly Standard ``Another Killer Cites the Southern Poverty Law Center'' Feb 11, 2015.......................................... 110 RADICALIZATION IN THE U.S. AND THE RISE OF TERRORISM ---------- Wednesday, September 14, 2016 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security, joint with the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, D.C. The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:22 p.m., in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security] presiding. Present from the Subcommittee on National Security: Representatives DeSantis, Mica, Duncan, Hice, Hurd, and Lynch. Present from the Subcommittee on Government Operations: Representatives Meadows, Carter, Grothman, Connolly, Maloney, and Plaskett. Mr. DeSantis. The Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen killed 49 people and injured another 53 in an attack on a nightclub in Orlando. The shooter made three calls to 911 during the attack. According to FBI Director James Comey, Mateen dedicated his attack to the Islamic State and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. During the calls, Mateen also expressed admiration for the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, as well as a Florida suicide bomber for the al-Nusrah Front, a group that engages in terrorism in Syria. While some, such as Attorney General Loretta Lynch, were unsure about Mateen's motivations, the evidence points in only one direction: He killed in support of a terrorist ideology. Prior to the shooting, Mateen was investigated by the FBI. That investigation, which began in May of 2013, was more than just an inquiry. The FBI interviewed him twice, dispatched an informant to get close to him, conducted surveillance of his movements, and scrutinized his communications. Ten months later the investigation was closed. Agents concluded that Mateen was not a threat and had broken no laws. He was put on a watch list during his investigation, but once the investigation was closed, he was removed from the list. Two months after that investigation concluded, Mateen again came onto the FBI's radar when Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, a Florida man who attended the same mosque as Mateen, blew himself up as a suicide bomber for the Al Qaeda-affiliated al- Nusrah Front in Syria. And he had gone to Syria previously, trained, came back to Florida undetected, went back to commit that attack. The second investigation apparently ended when the FBI could find no connection of consequence between Mateen and the suicide bomber. Although the FBI's own investigation of its handling of the Mateen case is ongoing, there have been no suggestions that the Bureau handled the Mateen case any differently than the thousands of other terrorist leads that it receives annually. Now, both Al Qaeda's global network, as well as the Islamic State, among several other terrorist networks around the world, promote a global jihadist ideology. As the Congressional Research Service has found, these terrorists use, quote, ``Islam as an ideological and/or religious justification for their belief in the establishment of a global caliphate, a jurisdiction governed by a Muslim civil and religious leader known as the caliph, via violent means,'' end quote. This committee began to look at the issue of radicalization by ISIS and other terrorist groups on October 28, 2015, when we held a hearing entitled ``Radicalization: Social Media and the Rise of Terrorism.'' The Orlando attack underscores the importance of the committee's investigation into the ways terrorists in the United States become radicalized. This investigation is relevant to protecting the public from future attacks. Now, the June 12 attack in Orlando, the July 14 attack in Nice, France, and other recent terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad, committed by radicalized Islamic extremists target unsuspecting populations in vulnerable public places, represents the prevailing template for terrorist attacks. In just the last 7 months, attacks in Orlando, Nice, Brussels, San Bernardino, and Paris revealed that ISIS has become successful at using our country's own population against itself. Indeed, recent reports indicate that since 2011, over 30,000 people from over 100 different countries have traveled to the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq to join the fighting there. This group includes over 4,500 Westerners and over 250 Americans, all of whom have joined or attempted to join extremist groups in an effort to wage jihad. Recent terrorist attacks have also shown that so-called lone wolf terrorism has become a growing concern for government and law enforcement agencies in the United States. Individual terrorists have proven capable of committing a wide range of violent attacks, even though those individuals had no formal connection to terrorist groups. These have included mass shootings, bombings, assassinations. The unprecedented speed with which such individuals are being radicalized by violent Islamic extremists is difficult for law enforcement to track and is straining the ability of government to monitor and intercept suspects. Part of this may have to do with the very technological advances that have otherwise improved our way of life. Research has shown that since the terrorist attacks of September 11, the preferred method for recruiting radicals had changed. Before 9/11, the Internet contributed to only 3 percent of all radicalizations, but as of 2014, it contributed to roughly 20 percent. The evolution of radical movements may also play a role in the speed by which potential terrorists become radicalized. Today, only 42 percent of radicals identify with a specific terrorist organization, compared to 63 percent between the 1960s and 1990s. The long-term trend towards so-called lone wolf terrorism makes it challenging to stop terrorist attacks before they occur. Authorities have had far more success penetrating plots concocted by several different people than by individuals who simply choose to act on their own. U.S. policies regarding intelligence, military operations, and immigration should reflect this new reality. I thank our witnesses for their testimony today as it is important that we continue to examine the issue related to radicalization by Islamic extremists and what can be done to combat this growing problem. And I now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Mr. Lynch, for his opening statement. Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank yourself and Chairman Meadows and Ranking Member Connolly for holding this hearing to examine the threat of extremism and radicalization, especially of the homegrown ilk. And I would also like to thank today's expert witnesses for helping the committee with its work. As reported by the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve last month, the U.S.-led coalition to combat ISIS has killed at least 45,000 ISIS fighters since September of 2014 and liberated about 25,000 square kilometers in Iraq and Syria. This amounts to more than half of what ISIS previously controlled in Iraq and roughly 20 percent of formerly held territory in Syria. According to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the terrorist organization is also on the verge of losing its regional stronghold in Libya as its fighters retreat from their tactical center in the city of Sirte. It is clear that the battlefield losses have degraded ISIS to some degree and their ability to maintain offensive operations on the ground in Iraq and Syria and Libya and recruit other U.S. and foreign fighters to the region. However, the facts on the ground have also led the group to shift its militant strategy towards directing and inspiring terrorist attacks in the West. FBI Director James Comey recent predicted that while the global coalition will eventually crush ISIS, and I quote him here, ``Through the fingers of that crush are going to come hundreds of really dangerous people,'' close quote, intent on bringing the fight to Western Europe and the United States. He has also noted that the FBI is tracking nearly 800 ISIS-related cases across our country. That is 80 percent of all the FBI cases nationwide. This strategic shift has already manifested itself in an escalation of ISIS-directed or ISIS-inspired attacks in Western countries and worldwide. These include the coordinated suicide bombings and shootings in Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, and Ankara, as well the cargo truck attack in Nice, France, the cafe attack in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and in the United States, the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando. The June 20, 2016, attack in Orlando is also the most recent example of the rising threat of homegrown violent extremism in the U.S. that has accompanied ISIS' continued calls for lone wolf attacks. As reflected in the 911 transcript released by the FBI, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, repeatedly pledged his allegiance to ISIS while he perpetrated the attack, and one day later ISIS issued a statement deeming Mateen one of the soldiers of the caliphate. Given the grave threat posed by homegrown violent extremism, national security demands that we work in a bipartisan manner to adopt practical reforms based on the lessons learned from Orlando, San Bernardino, and other attacks. Since 9/11, the FBI has primarily focused its counterterrorism efforts on disrupting terrorist networks. However, the facts surrounding Orlando indicate that we must also ensure that Federal law enforcement and Homeland Security agencies are adapting to the prevalence of lone wolf attacks that are inspired to be conducted by foreign terrorist organizations. I would note that the FBI previously investigated Mr. Mateen on radicalization grounds, as the chairman noted, on two separate occasions and even placed him on a terrorist watch list. He did not, however, remain on the agency's radar given the absence of any, quote, ``ties of consequence,'' close quote. Now, common sense also dictates that we address the accessibility of firearms to individuals who are known or suspected terrorists. While Federal law specifies several grounds to disqualify a potential buyer from firearms eligibility, being on a terrorist watch list is not currently one of those. Moreover, we must continue to develop a long-term and comprehensive strategy to counter the pervasiveness of extremism and their messaging, abroad and at home. And as recommended by Ms. Farah Pandith, appointed by Secretary Clinton in 2009 to serve as the first State Department Special Representative to Muslim Communities, future actions designed to combat radicalization and homegrown violent extremism should include diplomatic and economic consequences for foreign nations that support the exportation of extremist ideologies. They must also include coordinated and proactive efforts to push back against extremist propaganda online. I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to examining issues related to the homegrown violent extremism in our country and other forms of radicalization with our witnesses. And I yield back the balance of our time. Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr. Meadows, chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, for his opening statement. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you and the Ranking Member, Mr. Lynch, for your leadership in making sure that this hearing happened. Good afternoon. Welcome to all of the witnesses. I would like to first begin by offering not only my thoughts, but my prayers for the victims and families that we lost in this summer's string of terror attacks throughout the world, specifically this June. As we all know now, in Orlando the event cut short nearly 50 innocent lives, which was the worst attack on American soil since 9/11. And I will continue to pray and encourage others to continue to pray for those who grieve, and pray for those who were injured for a complete recovery. We must remain vigilant, however, and remember that an act of terrorism by radical Islamic extremism and extremists like what happened in Orlando could have happened anywhere in the United States, including my home State of North Carolina. The Americans that have been radicalized as part of an Islamic extremist movement do not fit necessarily any sort of a demographic model. It is seemingly random in nature. And the attacks that are made up from this homegrown violent extremist group are especially challenging for our law enforcement officers. In fact, the attacks in Orlando were carried out by a lone wolf terrorist who had already been investigated by the FBI. And so it shows the complexity of what we are dealing with. Today's hearing will examine ways in which we can give our law enforcement agencies and communities the tools that they need to prevent this lone wolf radicalization before it starts. I might add that at times we continue to talk about lone wolf, but, indeed, they are not necessarily lone wolves, because they are connected to someone, somewhere who assists them in carrying this out. Indeed, anyone with a smartphone has the potential to become radicalized. Jihadists have been able to exploit the Internet as a medium for recruitment and the dissemination of propaganda and communication, and our witnesses hopefully will provide insight into how the Internet can provide an opportunity for our law enforcement and intelligence community to be able to identify these potential lone wolf actors and intercept terror plots and to counter the extremist message that is flooded, literally flooded, through social media by radical Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS. This hearing will also be able to examine the strategies that both law enforcement and the administration can undertake to address the growing threat of radicalized Americans returning to the U.S. as foreign fighters. This threat from the foreign fighters cannot be overstated. And as we look at that, the devastating attacks this past November in Paris were carried out by a French national who, indeed, had been trained with ISIS in Syria and then returned to France. And a few months later, in March of this year, foreign fighters from the same ISIS cell as the Paris attackers carried out a series of bombings in Brussels in what would be the deadliest act of terrorist in Belgium's history. So I look forward to hearing from each one of our witnesses today on how the United States can best address this radicalization of homegrown violent extremists and the unpredictability of lone wolf attacks and the rising threat of foreign fighters. And finally, pray for our law enforcement officers who have a target on their back, indeed, each and every day. And I would like to thank you, and I thank the chairman for his leadership on this as you come and testify on this critical matter. I yield back. Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased to welcome Dr. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Mr. Matt Mayer, visiting fellow of homeland security studies at the American Enterprise Institute; Mr. David Inserra, policy analyst of foreign and national security policy at the Heritage Foundation; and Mr. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Welcome to you all. Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. If you can please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you. Please be seated. All witnesses answered in the affirmative. In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of the record. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, you are up. WITNESS STATEMENTS STATEMENT OF DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for holding this important hearing on this topic. Terrorism today is not what it was even 5 years ago. It is a much deeper problem and a much more complex problem than it used to be. Chairman DeSantis spoke of technology as being one of the key factors. I agree with this. We are living in a world that is more interconnected, especially through social media. We are living in a world with much moreencryption and where much more is dark to law enforcement than it used to be, and where networks can become demonstrably thicker, even in Western countries, than they were before. When we look at the scale of the problem, it is clear that terrorism is growing across multiple ideologies. ISIS is, of course, omnipresent in our statements, as it should be. I think that jihadist terrorism is the biggest threat we face today. But when we look beyond it to sovereign citizens, White nationalism, Black nationalist groups, it is very clear that we are seeing a rise in substate violence where some of the same external factors are helping to drive violence across all these ideologies. Looking at ISIS alone, we have had already, just since the caliphate was announced in 2014, over 100 arrests of members; we have law enforcement cases at the Federal level in all 50 States; more than 250 Americans as of the end of last year who had either tried to go to Syria to join this extremist group or who succeeded in doing so; and a number of Americans, perhaps around 20, who have been killed over in the Syria-Iraq theater. This is a much bigger explosion in terrorism across this particular ideology than we have seen previously. Now, when we look at the factors I spoke to, social media makes us live in a much more interconnected world, and what is different about social media, or as its sometimes referred to, the Social Web, as distinct from Web 1.0 and 2.0, is that it puts people in proximity with each other. It is not CNN or ESPN that is the message. The message is other users. It fosters what one terrorism expert referred to as a sense of remote intimacy in which you feel as though you really get to know and are intimate with somebody who can be half a world away living in Raqqa. ISIS in particular has been very good at scoping out people who would potentially be amenable to their message and who might be drawn into the movement, preying upon vulnerabilities, needs, and other factors that are manifested in online users. Secondly, ISIS has been very good at using what I call virtual planners, people who aren't in any sort of physical proximity with terrorists but from abroad can help them to choose targets, choose timing, and even provide suggestions about technical details like bomb design. In the United States, we saw a virtual planner at play. This was in the Garland, Texas, attack that occurred last year in which Junaid Hussain was in touch with one of the attackers, Elton Simpson, and knew ahead of time that this attack was going to take place. We also can see, based on social media, that grievance can be stripped of context and omnipresence. We have seen this in a number of different examples. One example that comes up is some of the tough job of law enforcement. You have had both killings that are unjustifiable and that quite justifiably produced protests. You have other cases where it is not clear except to those who were on the scene what actually happened. But things can still spiral before the State can react and before an investigation can be done. Beyond the U.S. also, Internet penetration is growing in a number of critical regions. It is 29 percent in Africa today, 53 percent in the Middle East, under 25 percent in South Asia. Just as we have seen the Internet have a big role in radicalization in places where it has high penetration, as more of the world comes online, we will see the same dynamic occur in multiple theaters. Now, in terms ofencryption the impact is very clear. On page 10 of my testimony I have a diagram of the Paris-Brussels network. This network represents a watershed. It is the first time that you had a jihadist network in Europe carry out a major attack, that being the Paris attack, then survive the full weight of law enforcement and intelligence resources coming down on them and carry out another major attack in Brussels. If you look at the depth of this network it is the kind of thing experts would have told you, correctly, was impossible in a Western state just 5 years ago. The big thing that has changed is encryption. No longer can governments reliably depend upon their electronic surveillance superiority in trying to disrupt these networks. Now, as to what the United States Government can do, I have a few suggestions. One thing is provide transparency. If you look at one situation that could have spiraled earlier this year, that being the standoff at the National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, the FBI, when it came to ending the standoff, was able to put the entire thing on video and get it up on to YouTube quickly in order to dispel the kind of conspiracy theories and grievances that they understood could arise from that incident. Secondly, I believe that we need to move beyond what I call the myth of the lone wolf. In Europe there were a number of attacks prior to the Paris attack that were connected to that network that were described as lone wolf incorrectly, things like the Brussels Jewish Museum shooting, the Amsterdam-Paris train attack in which Americans were able to thwart that attack. In all of these cases, you had connections to the later Paris attackers. We missed the opportunity to understand that the network was there. In the United States we should not have a default assumption that attacks are lone wolf. I would say that, based on my review of the Orlando case, it isn't yet clear to me that this is actually a lone wolf case. We should be open, especially in this age of encryption, to the notion that there might be a network and our investigation isn't done right away. I look forward to further discussing things that we can do and how we can approach this very thorny problem set when we get to the questions. Thank you all. [Prepared statement of Mr. Gartenstein-Ross follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. Mr. Mayer, you are up for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF MATT A. MAYER Mr. Mayer. Chairman DeSantis, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Lynch, Ranking Member Connolly, thank you for having me here today to talk about this very important issue. With more than 315 million Americans in the U.S. and our firm commitment to liberty, securing those people is among the most difficult activities of our domestic national security apparatus. The list of vulnerabilities across America are nearly endless, from malls to restaurants to businesses and to events. A determined terrorist merely has to acquire a means to so harm. As we have seen over the past fear years, that means can come in the form of a pressure cooker bomb in Boston, a semi- automatic pistol in Texas, a hatchet on the sidewalk in Queens, and a handgun in Orlando. The injuries and deaths from these attacks are tragic and senseless. Because our domestic national security apparatus cannot stop every attack does not mean it should not stop some of the attacks. We will miss the terrorists who leave no trace of their plans before acting. We cannot miss the terrorists who provide clues about their intent and state of mind before acting. The fact that the FBI had investigated Omar Mateen several times indicates something went wrong. We may not get every investigation right, but we can make sure our policies give our domestic national security apparatus the greatest chance to detect and stop the terrorists before they act. As noted in June, the FBI, with roughly 13,000 agents, doesn't have the resources to adequately cover more than 1,000 active probes and the tens of thousands of tips it receives every year. The FBI, however, is not alone. Standing next to those 13,000 agents are more than 1.1 million badged local law enforcement officers ready to lend a hand at a moment's notice. If we want to increase our chances against lone wolf and small cell terrorists, we must more fully leverage the men and women in local law enforcement. First, the FBI and other Federal law enforcement entities must do a better job of sharing information and intelligence with local law enforcement. To succeed at detecting and stopping terrorist attacks, our Federal and local law enforcement entities must be bolted together firmly to ensure all resources available are marshaled, leveraged, and synchronized. I respectfully suggest that the ideal locations to bring Federal and local players together are the joint terrorism task forces located in most major U.S. cities. Other information and intelligence-sharing initiatives operating separately from the JTTFs only increase the odds that key terrorism data do not get shared or inadvertently do not make it into a JTTF investigation. Next, Federal terrorism funds must be directed to support human intelligence operations by local law enforcement in key locations. With the substantial increase in terrorists' use of encrypted technology, the ability of our domestic national security apparatus to use signals intelligence to detect terrorists is diminishing. To overcome this challenge, local law enforcement should increase the use of HUMINT, monitoring, surveillance, and undercover work to identify terrorist plots and cells. This work should be done in accordance with procedures erected to protect civil liberties and in partnership with the FBI. In conjunction with the use of HUMINT, local law enforcement must counterbalance that hard power by deploying more soft power as well. Last month I outlined the development of regional outreach groups in at least 24 jurisdictions across America. ROGs will bring together law enforcement entities and Muslim community groups and mosque leaders to strengthen connections and build trust. It is vital that ROGs are led by local law enforcement entities and not Federal entities. Finally, given the enormous resources, personnel, experience, and relationships existing in States and localities, it is time those entities had permanent seats at the National Security Council. By giving governors, mayors, and local law enforcement permanent seats, we can ensure that our domestic national security policy maximizes the resources they have to contribute and properly represents the equities, concerns, and inputs. For too many years, Federal entities have served as gatekeepers of State and local injects into national policymaking. Under our tripartite system of government, States and local governments deserve their own representative voices in Washington, D.C. Instead of reacting to what happened in the past, Congress should preemptively enact reforms that address what we imagine will be elements of future attacks. By strengthening the relationship between components of our domestic national security apparatus, we can inject fidelity into the system. By broadening the use of human intelligence by local law enforcement, we can insert nimbleness andcertainty into the system. By deepening connections and trust among local law enforcement and the Muslim diaspora, we can inoculate our communities from the virus spread by radical Islamic groups. By leveraging the expertise residing in communities across America in the development of our national domestic security policy, we can boost the odds that we adopt policies that actually work. Whether we like it or not, the use of terrorism by those who hate us or seek to use conflict with us to rally adherence to their warped cause will be a constant bedfellow for us in the decades to come. We may or may not be able to change hearts and minds in the Middle East, but we certainly can put in place policies here that protect Americans from the worst emanations of our enemies. When it comes to protecting our cities and the people therein, local law enforcement must play a more prominent role. On Saturday, I leave for Europe to get briefings from the major security groups in London, Paris, Brussels, The Hague, and Stuttgart. I would be happy to come back to brief members and staff on those findings once we have them. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and answer any questions you may have. [Prepared statement of Mr. Mayer follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. Mr. Inserra, you are up for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DAVID INSERRA Mr. Inserra. Thank you. My name is David Inserra, and the views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. Even before the attacks on Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Orlando, and Nice, there was plenty to suggest that the face of the global Islamist terrorist movement had come to look very different from what confronted the world over a decade ago. The list of what has changed is quite long, from ISIS getting its own state, to the much discussed role of social media and the Internet. Now we must answer new questions, like how to handle terrorist travel in an age of refugees and foreign fighters, and so we must assess the current state of the Islamist threat facing the U.S. As part of my research I track Islamist terror plots and attacks against the U.S. homeland. Since 9/11, there have been 89 plots and attacks. That is a large enough data set for a credible trend analysis to tell us more about the character of the threat. There are three trends that I would like to tell the committee about and then offer some thoughts on the way forward. First, the frequency of the plots has dramatically increased. There have been 25 successful or interrupted terrorist plots in the U.S. since the start of 2015, as opposed to only a handful in both 2013 and 2014. As a result, the threat is getting deadlier. While we have had 11 successful Islamist terrorist plots since 9/11, 5 of those successful plots have occurred since the start of 2015, resulting in the greatest loss of life from Islamist terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11 with 68 innocent victims. Second, overwhelmingly these plots are emanating from the homefront. All 25 terrorist plots involve a homegrown element, and since 9/11, 78 out of 89 terrorist plots have involved a homegrown terrorist. And importantly, ISIS has become the dominant influencer by far. At least 21 out of the 25 plots contained affiliation with, support for, or inspiration from ISIS. And the third trend I want to talk about is that the plots are becoming more dispersed across the U.S. and targeting a greater variety of targets. Looking at recent plots, 6 targeted military installations, 4 targeted law enforcement, 1 targeted a government building, 10 targeted public gatherings like malls, a beach, or bars, and 4 targeted religious buildings or schools. In prior years, the military was the number one target, but lately these public mass gatherings of so-called soft targets have become the primary targets, and we have also seen an increase in attacks on law enforcement. Similarly, in prior years, the plots were generally clustered in the New York to Washington, D.C., corridor, but in the last year and a half, the target cities have widely ranged from Houston to San Bernardino, and from Chicago to the Florida Keys. These trends are clear: more threats, more from inside the United States, more related to ISIS, more dispersed, and, unfortunately, more successful and more deadly. Given these trends, I would like to offer some thoughts on how we can stop these terrorists. At least 15 out of the 25 most recent plots were interdicted using sting-type law enforcement operations and confidential informants to unearth terrorist conspiracies. In 19 out of the 25, law enforcement investigations of some kind were instrumental in detecting and stopping these attacks, while 5 were successful and only 1 was stopped by security officers on the scene. This trend leads to the conclusion that the U.S. has become and remains a relatively harder target for transnational terrorist operations than it was before 9/11. Yet we face a more active threat, an assessment that is confirmed by statements and reports by the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community. Our greatest asset in preventing terrorism has been and must continue to be Federal, State, and local law enforcement, as well as our intelligence communities, armed with the tools, information, and resources they need. Since 9/11, the U.S. has taken important steps in this direction, but we must continue to improve and refine these tools. This does not mean that our government can ignore our rights under the Constitution; every program and law must meet constitutional scrutiny. But this does mean that within the bounds of the Constitution, strong and proactive investigatory tools should be given to our security forces with careful oversight from all branches of government. In so doing, we can maximize both our security and our liberty, rather than trading one for the other. I look forward to discussing this with you more in our questions. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Inserra follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes Mr. Cohen for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF RICHARD COHEN Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to have the opportunity to testify before the subcommittees this afternoon. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of our time. The anniversary that we just commemorated of that horrible day serves as a reminder of the continuing threat of terrorism associated with radical forms of Islam. But as members of these subcommittees know well, our country faces deadly threats from those blinded by racial and ethnic hatred, as well as rage at our government. Because the 9/11 attacks were so unexpected, so spectacular, and so deadly, however, these latter threats have not always been given the attention they deserve in the years since 9/11. The clearest example of this point comes from the history of the Domestic Terrorism Task Force the Justice Department established after the deadly Oklahoma City bombing. The task force was scheduled to have one of its monthly regular meetings on 9/11. But not only was that meeting cancelled, the task force didn't meet again for 13 years as the threat associated with groups like Al Qaeda came to dominate the government's attention. During this period, the number of hate and conspiracy- minded antigovernment groups skyrocketed, and the level of violence from the radical rightincreased by a factor of four. By 2014, State and local law enforcement agencies were actually more likely to see antigovernment extremism as a threat than extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. For the last 8 years, President Obama has been a lightning rod for the radical right. He reflects our country's changing diversity and has been a target of the backlash to that change. The day after he was first elected, Stormfront, the world's leading neo-Nazi Web site, whose members have committed numerous murders, reported that it was getting six times its normal traffic. Yet, when DHS released a report assessing the likely backlash to the election of our first Black President, the reaction from groups like the American Legion and Members of Congress was so fierce that the report was withdrawn and the DHS unit that produced the report was allowed to whither. In 2014, the Justice Department finally revised the Domestic Terrorism Task Force after a White supremist, Glenn Miller, killed three people in Overland Park, Kansas, who he thought were Jewish. But still there are indications that the threat of terrorism associated with groups like ISIS dominates the government's thinking. The Oklahoma City bombing was the first terrorist incident that President Obama mentioned in his speech at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in 2015, but it was virtually the only mention of terrorism from the radical right during the entire summit. On June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof, a young man who appears to have been radicalized entirely online in the echo chambers of the radical right, killed nine people in an historic African American church in Charleston, South Carolina. Yet, 2 weeks after the massacre, the House Homeland Security Committee released a terror threat snapshot that didn't mention the church killings. Congress has held multiple hearings, as it should, on the threat of terrorism associated with groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, but neither the House nor the Senate has held hearings recently on the threat of terrorism from the radical right. Nor have the House or Senate held hearings on the threat of terrorism directed at law enforcement officials by antigovernment zealots such as the Bundys. By focusing exclusively on Muslim American communities, CVE, or countering violent extremism programs, not only ignore potential threats from other communities, they often fray the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the Muslim American communities that are so essential to effective law enforcement. The nature of many of the CVE programs exacerbates this tension. Again, the threat of extremist violence from groups and individuals associated with or inspired by ISIS is perhaps the most significant one that we face, but it is not the only threat that merits the full measure of our attention. Terrorism from the radical right has been with us since the days of the Ku Klux Klan, which was born after the Civil War. In recent years it has been driven by a backlash to our country's changing demographics and rage at our own government. As our country's diversity continues to increase, the forces that propel terror from the radical right are likely to increase as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair will recognize, if he wants, the ranking member of the Government Operations Subcommittee for his opening statement. Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me echo what Mr. Cohen just said. I think it is a great distortion for us to focus only on the threat from the radicalization within the Muslim community in this country or abroad. It begs the question of lax gun control laws. It begs the question of the lack of universal background checks. It begs the question of hate speech. It begs the question of incitement at the fringes of the right-wing media that has enabled and empowered people to believe that their prejudice, their racism, their anti-Semitism, their hatred is somehow vindicated, justified. And if they are at the edge mentally? Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, last time I checked, was not an Islamic radical. He blew up fellow Americans, including children. In my home State of Virginia, Virginia Tech, that tragedy did not involve somebody who was involved in radical Islam. He was a Korean American who was mentally ill. And until Orlando, he had the dubious record of having the single worst terrorist massacre, gun massacre, in American history. This coincided with the tragedy in Charleston at a Black church. That was a White supremacist. So there is plenty of hate to go around. Radicalization is a broader concept than just one religion or one ethnicity, and sooner or later this Congress has to come to grips with that. So I hope we broaden the dialogue, and I hope we take heed of Mr. Cohen's guidance, because I think we would be well served if we did. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Mr. Mayer, does law enforcement need to change some of these prevention and investigative methods? If you look, Mateen had a lot of interaction with the FBI, and yet he ended up committing a devastating attack. The Tsarnaevs were on the radar. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood was very much, should have been on the Army's radar for some of his behavior leading up to that devastating attack. So are these just things where nothing could have been done, or do we need to maybe change the investigative and prevention methods? Mr. Mayer. I think we actually need to make some reforms. I mean, in those cases, the reporting thus far seems to indicate that there was a disconnect between the Federal law enforcement entities and State and local, that there was not a sharing of information and intelligence of what was going on related to those individuals, and that threats, in fact, had been in the communities. Additionally, I think in my written testimony, I believe Mr. Cohen in his as well, talks about he had been removed from an investigation and therefore fell off of the list, so when he bought the guns there was no trigger. And I think that we should seriously consider where if you have been under investigation for this kind of violent extremism, that at least a red flag is risen that would allow law enforcement at the Federal, State, or local level to do follow-up, determine if there is a new threat there, and if additional surveillance needs to be done in terms of human intelligence. Because, again, as we get into this lone wolf and small cell environment, if we don't increase the amount of human intelligence work being done, and, again, do it in a way that protects civil liberties, it will make it extremely difficult in the age of encryption for us to make sure we can follow the threat all the way to the end. So I think there are some things we need to do differently, yes. Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Inserra, stopping attacks before they occur is obviously what we want to do. Once people are here, it's very much more difficult. If someone's a U.S. citizen, you can't treat them the same as you would a foreign terrorist operating overseas. What, in your analysis, if any, have you looked at things like terrorists travelling here? We have the Visa Waiver Program. This committee has done a lot of work on that. The fact of the matter is, if you are in Brussels or one of these places and you have a passport, a European passport, you are going to be able to come here. We have disputes about the refugee program and whether those people are vetted. And so does part of the strategy involve identifying people who could create a risk and using our border security and other laws to prevent to be able to prevent them from even coming here in the first place? Mr. Inserra. Certainly. That certainly is part of the piece of the puzzle. But I will note that, as part of my testimony, most of the plots that we currently are facing homegrown plots. So we don't see too many people who are coming in through the Visa Waiver Program or other legal immigration flows, and very few of those folks have come radicalized with the intent to attack the United States, at least in the past several years. Most of the threat is from homegrown radicals. All of them, in fact, most recently have been, except for, I think, the wife of the---- Mr. DeSantis. The San Bernardino attacker. She clearly. So, I mean, that is just an example. She is obviously somebody who was coming here intending to harm the United States. There was evidence, pretty available evidence, of her being a militant Islamist, and yet she kind of gets a rubber stamp to come here on a fiance visa. Mr. Inserra. Yes. It certainly speaks to the importance of getting intelligence from our local partners, from our international partners, because the more information we can get flowing, as Matt talked about, at the State and local level, that can help them with their investigations, but it is also important that we are getting information from our international partners. And that information has to be flowing, especially in today's interconnected world. We have to be getting that information from our international partners. Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, there does seem to be a trend, and this is not just in the United States. If you look in Western Europe, there is a much stronger homegrown threat than there was 10 years ago. We are seeing it here in the United States. And, yes, some people are natural born Americans. Some have immigrated here. But why is this happening now? Is it because you see the rise of the Islamic State and that is inspiring more people? Or is there something else? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. I think you have a confluence of a few different factors at play. One is, indeed, the rise of ISIS. We can see an explosion in homegrown jihadist cases since ISIS was able to capture territory in Iraq and Syria and declare itself a caliphate. At the same time, the two factors I pointed to in my testimony, social media and encryption, both play a role. Social media allows much more interconnectedness. It can facilitate trajectories of radicalization across ideologies. And encryption has allowed much more robust networks to be at play. I would point to two other things as well. One of them is I think that across Western states, including in the United States, there is a declining trust in government. A lot of ideologies, ranging from jihadism to sovereign citizens to extreme right or extreme left terrorism, profit from a situation where it seems that the government has a great disconnect from citizens. We can certainly see these sentiments at play, and I think focusing on the question of how well is the U.S. Government doing institutionally, how much transparency does it have, how well is it seen as effective, is a very important question. The final thing that I would point to is that across the Middle East and North Africa, we have a situation where multiple countries are experiencing great problems. That has helped to drive the refugee crisis that you point to. Looking at recent trends in violence in Europe, both jihadist violence and also far right violence, we can see how this human migration into Europe does have a clear nexus with some of the recent incidents. Mr. DeSantis. My time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts for 5 minutes. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank you for your testimony to all the members of the panel. One of our tasks in investigating radicalization is to look at the attacks and try to discern what motivated the individuals who conducted these attacks. And I want to point to the situation in Orlando where Omar Mateen killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub, and I think he wounded about 53 others. Now, the FBI had investigated him a few years prior. He had made some statements that his family had connections with Al Qaeda. He also made some statements, apparently, to witnesses that he had joined Hezbollah. So he was investigated in 2013 by the FBI. Then, in 2014, he had some connections, some links to Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, who was a suicide bomber, and he was an American. I think he went to the same mosque as Mr. Mateen, and so there were connections there. The FBI went back in again and did due diligence and investigated him again. Then it seems like he dropped off the screen again, and we don't hear from him again until the attacks in 2016. Now, he called, he made a couple of 911 calls. He said during the attacks that he pledged allegiance to ISIL. I think he called back again and reiterated that. And he said himself at that moment that that is why he was doing that. Now, under the rules of evidence--I know I have three attorneys here--under the Federal Rules of Evidence, when you have a statement from someone, a dying declaration--he certainly knew he was going to die. He was in a shootout with the police. He was completely surrounded. He had a lot of weapons, but he knew he was going to die. He again said that that is why he did it. It was in support of ISIL. Now, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, we try to discern the evidence that is most reliable and we try to keep out the evidence that is least reliable. And under our rules, under the Federal Rules, we allow a dying declaration to come in because of its veracity. Well, not because of veracity, but that is in the mind of the person, and they know they are going to die, and so we give it enhanced credibility. Now, despite all of that, the two investigations by the FBI, the connections with Abu-Salha, his own statements, the day after the attacks, I know that Attorney General Loretta Lynch and others said we are going to launch an investigation to find out why he did this. And I just wonder, I just wonder, are we purposely looking away from this issue sometimes because of the sensibilities involved? Let me turn it around. What would lead me to believe that with all that evidence and his own statements, the dying declaration, what would lead me to believe that that was not the reason that he took that action and attacked those people in Orlando? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, have a crack at it. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. I don't think there is anything that should lead you to believe that that didn't represent his intention. There of course was some rather salacious gossip that came out afterwards about him possibly being a closeted gay. I put it that way because he by all accounts was highly homophobic, and so there is the cognitive dissonance argument. But none of that evidence has really stacked up, and the FBI has said publicly that they believe that it was highly exaggerated. His previous time in the Pulse nightclub seems to be consistent with him casing the nightclub. I think we do tend to be very trepidacious about attributing any sort of causal power to ideology. That is true within this field of study as a whole. And I think it is a trepidation that doesn't necessarily match with how people are actually motivated. Mr. Lynch. I was just wondering how we weigh the evidence. Mr. Mayer. Mr. Mayer. Yeah. I think oftentimes we don't want to see a cigar that is just a cigar. And for some reason that is good. We need to be cautious. We are in a horrible fight with a very determined enemy that doesn't play by any rules of civilization. At the same time, I find it somewhat ironic that we don't take the same caution when it comes to other types of violence. We are very quick to then jump in and put a label on that even before there are facts, especially the Omar Mateen facts, none of those types of facts, but we will jump in rapidly and label those types of attacks. So I think probably an ounce of caution is okay, but when the facts start to build, maybe we need just to call the cigar, the cigar. Mr. Lynch. Okay. My time has expired. I yield back. Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes Mr. Meadows for 5 minutes. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Mayer, let me come to you. So you were saying that sometimes we will not label something what it really is. Why is that? Why do we not do that? Mr. Mayer. One, I think there are the reasons where it makes sense where we have got to be careful before we cast judgment and make sure that the facts fit what it is we are going to say. But once they are there, we need to, I think, call it what it is. Mr. Meadows. So do you see the radicalization of Islamic terrorism to be one of the key national security threats that we are facing today? Mr. Mayer. Oh, I most certainly do. I have spent a decade writing about it. Mr. Meadows. Is it the key? Is it the top priority that we need to be facing as it relates to terrorism? Mr. Mayer. Oh, as it relates to terrorism, yeah, of course it is, yeah. I mean, we have got to first stop it at its source. Mr. Meadows. The reason I ask is that Mr. Cohen seems to believe that radical right-wing groups are of equal concern. Is that correct, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen. That is not what I testified to either in writing or here. I wouldn't argue with the point that the threat of terrorism---- Mr. Meadows. Well, you brought those up. So I guess the question, you were just saying that are we spending a disproportionate amount of time on radical Islamic extremists to the exclusion of right-wing extremists? Is that what you were saying? Mr. Cohen. I think there is no question but that that is true. Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Cohen, if you are looking at that, is it not true that our law enforcement groups, the FBI, et cetera, they know how to deal with other extremist-type groups, that that is not a new phenomenon? Your group has been involved in that since the early 1970s. Isn't that correct? Mr. Cohen. Since about 1980. Mr. Meadows. Okay. So since 1980, your group has been involved in that. So this is not something new that law enforcement is having to figure out today. It is not changing radically in the way that they are radicalized, although they may use the Internet to give out information a little bit more, but it is not inherently different than what your group has addressed since the early 1980s. Is that correct? Mr. Cohen. It is correct. And if I could just add one point. I think law enforcement has a great deal of expertise in these areas, but I also think that the record is clear that after 9/11 law enforcement took its eye off that ball. Mr. Meadows. Well, I would disagree with you there. Mr. Cohen. That would be fine. Mr. Meadows. Because let me tell you what I found in talking to my law enforcement officers of both Democrats and Republicans, sheriffs of both parties, is they understand how to go after the traditional threats. They have been well trained. They understand the investigative techniques. In fact, they can actually anticipate many times--obviously not all the times because of the horrific incident that you talked about in South Carolina where the gentleman was actually caught in my State. And so we understand how to do that. Law enforcement does that. But what they are not prepared for is this new terrorism threat in their communities of which they are, honestly, we are having to do unbelievable training, but they still don't understand it, and so that is the reason for the hearing today. Does that make sense, Mr. Cohen? Mr. Cohen. I understand what you are saying. Mr. Meadows. Okay. And if I look at the numbers, I think the other thing that is troubling is that, I start to look at the numbers, the number one group that we have to be concerned about really with total attacks in the last 2 years was the Taliban first, in 2014 and 2015, then ISIS, or ISIL, and Boko Haram after that. So, I mean, if you look at the totals in terms of where we are at. But here is the concern that I have. Mr. Meadows. Mr. Mayer, in our inability to name it for what it is, because we call it violent extremism at times instead of violent Islamic extremism, and we do that many times trying not to attach a religion to it, but we miss the whole point of what some of that might be in terms of going after the real enemy, don't we, Mr. Mayer? Mr. Mayer. I think we do. In addition to that, we also chill the, I think, interest, ability of everyday Americans then to kind of speak up when they think something may be missed because they have been taught that if they raise their voice---- Mr. Meadows. They are afraid to be either racist or whatever. Mr. Mayer. Yeah, something like that. So I think that is without a doubt an issue we've got to address, because I know we saw in San Bernardino the neighbor did not raise concerns because they didn't want to be labeled. And as a result, there was not an opportunity to kind of go into that house and potentially see the stockpiles that were being put together. Mr. Meadows. So your message to them today would be that if they see something that is of concern to them, even at the risk of being politically incorrect, they need to quietly reach out to their law enforcement agencies in the community if they see something that is of concern. Is that correct? Mr. Mayer. I think that is correct. And, hopefully, the law enforcement community has done its job over the years to build relationships where they can do that in a soft-handed way that isn't going to essentially look like it's profiling or things like that. It's going to be responsible, it's going to be done discreetly. Sometimes people see things that aren't there, but we need to be vigilant, because that's one of our key elements of defense, domestically speaking. Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. I yield back. Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for your testimony here. I wanted to talk with you all about not just radicalization, but the potential of once an individual may be radicalized, how to prevent terrorist attacks from those individuals. We've learned in the most recent and historically deadly domestic terrorist attacks that in that instance the shooter, Omar Mateen, had at one time been listed on the FBI's terrorist watch list. And this has revived a debate here in Congress about proposals prohibiting individuals from those lists in purchasing weapons and particularly guns. According to a CNN poll, 85 percent of Americans support banning people on Federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms, and that includes 90 percent of Republican individuals in this country. Mr. Cohen, it is so good to see you here. Our last meeting was in Alabama some time ago. Mr. Cohen. On voting rights. Ms. Plaskett. Yes. And I wanted to ask you, what do those numbers say to you about U.S. opinions on efforts to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns? Mr. Cohen. Obviously, the issues that you raised are very, very serious ones. And I don't think that we at this point have a position on some of the measures that have been brought up in Congress. One thing that Mr. Mayor said that I do think is worth considering, Mr. Mateen, of course, had been investigated twice by the FBI. It would have been possible to put a notation in the NICS system about that to alert the officers who had investigated him that he was buying a weapon. Now, maybe that would have been arguably unfair, but it wouldn't have prevented him, but it could have, perhaps, if a law enforcement agent had suspected that, ``Boy, that was a close call,'' it might have led him to renew the investigation and find something out that could have prevented those deaths. Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Mayer, I see you nodding your head in agreement on that. Mr. Mayer. Well, sure, whenever anyone says they agree with what I have to say, I nod my head. Ms. Plaskett. I agree with that as well. What you're talking about reminds me of a proposal, one of the amendments when the Senate took up this legislation, Senator Feinstein's amendment, which reflected legislation proposed in 2007 which would give the Attorney General the discretion to block a gun sale to a prospective buyer listed on a terrorist watch list; or uniquely, the measure would also require notification to the FBI if someone who had been on the terrorist watch list within the last 5 years was attempting or purchasing to buy a gun. And that, Mr. Mayer, I understand is in your testimony what you call, I quote, ``common sense'' to require the FBI to be notified of those purchases. Had this law been in place, the FBI would have been notified that Mr. Mateen was trying to buy a gun. Mr. Mayer, do you have any additional thoughts on that? Mr. Mayer. I think that is common sense. I mean, if you look at it this way, had the FBI gotten the alert that he had bought the gun--because I think you've got to be careful about saying prohibited from buying the gun, he hadn't done anything wrong at that point, but buying the gun--they could have either themselves or through local law enforcement gone to the gun shop, asked questions--was there any type of nervousness, suspicious behavior, things that would have tinkled your bell? Ms. Plaskett. So they would have been able to revisit him, Mr. Mateen, having been on the watch list, if at least they had been pinged or notified that, hey, this individual has purchased a gun. Mr. Mayer. Well, possibly not on the watch list, but just go talk to the gun store owner, and if there was enough evidence there, they then could have maybe started more surveillance, monitoring undercover, and then had enough evidence to go to a judge for a warrant inside the home, and then they could have done some different stuff. So the point is it could have started a chain of events that could have prevented the Orlando massacre from happening had we had some type of system in place that didn't stop a constitutional right for him to buy a gun, but at least notify law enforcement that somebody who had been under surveillance before was now engaging in a next step to potential violence. Ms. Plaskett. And, Mr. Gartenstein-Ross, would you agree as well? Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Yes, I do agree with that. And I'd point to another example as well, which is there's a case in Little Rock in which a man named Carlos Bledsoe carried out an attack at a joint Army-Navy recruiting center. Prior to carrying out that attack, he had gone into a Walmart to purchase a .22. He did not use it in the attack. The reason he went into the Walmart to buy that gun was to see if he was on a watch list. Now, there was no notification, but it was specifically part of his attack planning to buy that weapon. So it is another example of where it could have helped in terms of investigation. Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. All of the examples and the testimony that you're giving here, points that we can't know for sure, but it's possible that Senator Feinstein's measure would have in some measure been able to help foil Mr. Mateen's plan. Unfortunately, that amendment failed, as did amendments that have required background checks on practically all gun sales. But what I can say at least is that the Senate at least attempted to have a discussion on this. They put it up for a measure and there was a vote. Unfortunately, here in the House we have not had that hearing, that debate, or that discussion or that vote, and we would desperately love to have that. And I believe that some of your testimony shows that that would be true as well. Would you say so, Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen. I would. And also I would say that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the Heller decision. It leaves plenty of room for reasonable measures relating to the sale and possession of firearms, and I think that point is not well understood, quite frankly. Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much. And thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeSantis. The gentlelady's time has expired. The chair recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few months after 9/11, The Wall Street Journal had an editorial which said, when they noticed that almost every department and agency had submitted additional requests for money based on security, they said any time an agency requests more money for security we should give it twice the weight and four times the scrutiny. And then, a year after 9/11, a Tennessee corporation, FedEx, told me they had spent $200 million on security that they wouldn't have otherwise spent if 9/11 hadn't happened. About that same time, when I was driving into work here one morning, I heard on NPR that 1 year after 9/11 we now had over 3,000 registered lobbyists on homeland security. And then, a few years ago, I read this article by Ian Lustick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He said: ``Why is the war on terror so enormous, so all encompassing, and still expanding? The fundamental answer is that Al Qaeda's most important accomplishment was not to hijack our planes, but to hijack our political system. ``For a multitude of politicians, interest groups, professional associations, corporations, media organizations, universities, local and State governments, and Federal agency officials, the war on terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza, and a set of slogans and sound bites to be inserted into budget, project, grant, and contract proposals. For the country as a whole, however, it has become a maelstrom of waste.'' Then, last year, CNN had this. It said: ``Defending the country against terrorism--especially the apocalyptic variety practiced by ISIS--is expensive. How expensive? 'The answer is a lot and very hard to break out,' said Gordon Adams, a national security budget expert. Adams estimates that the U.S. spends at least $100 billion a year on counterterrorism efforts.'' And lastly, the Nieman Watchdog Web site at Harvard University estimated that we've spent over $1 trillion on domestic security efforts since 9/11, and it said, quote: ``For the counterterrorism spending since 9/11 to be fully justified, Homeland Security would have had to deter, prevent, foil, or protect against 1,667 Times Square-style attacks a year, or more than four attacks a day.'' Now, I want to make clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't be spending any money, but I think we're spending much of our terrorism money in the wrong way. I can tell you, one former Member of Congress said we did everything we needed to do on the planes when we secured the cockpit doors. Yet we spend billions at the airports now, and we've got these air marshals that fly back and forth, back and forth, the easiest job in the Federal Government. There have been more air marshals arrested than arrests made by air marshals. I think they now spend, it comes out to over $200 million per arrest. And the big threats now are, I think, totally different. I think they come from cybersecurity. I think it would be much more dramatic, for instance, than the planes if somebody blew up a major college football game or a mall at Christmas or poisoned the water supply of a major city or something like that. So I think that, number one, we're wasting an awful lot of money that, to me, could be spent in much more helpful ways, to get better housing for people or cure cancer or education or almost anything. And yet we are pouring it down this security rat hole just because everybody in Congress is scared to vote against anything that says security and all of us want to be as tough as possible. But I also think that we need to use a little common sense on some of these things. I'm the only Republican left in Congress who voted against the war in Iraq. I think I am the only Republican who wants to close down Guantanamo because we're spending ridiculous amounts to keep Guantanamo open. So I look at things a little differently from most people, I guess. I'm out of my time really, but if the chairman will allow it, I would be interested to hear comments about how we can more efficiently spend all this money that we are spending on security measures. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. Sir, I think it's a great question. I assume you want to go down the line. Mr. Duncan. Yes. Mr. DeSantis. His time is--so if you want to go, and then I'm going to recognize Mr. Hice. So go ahead and say what you were going to say, but the time has expired. So then I'm going to recognize Mr. Hice after you finish your comment. Mr. Gartenstein-Ross. All right. So the last mass market book I wrote, ``Bin Laden's Legacy,'' gets into at great detail a lot of wasteful spending that we've used in pursuing the war on terrorism. I also, as you can see in my truth and testimony form, do work for a company that is a contractor for the Federal Government, Valens Global, as does Ian Lustick, not for the same company, but the first person you quoted also works in that industry. Both of us have offered critiques from within the industry. The main thing I would say is the way Federal Government tends to spend its money doesn't make any sense to me, right? It is not just Homeland Security spending, but every kind of spending that is done makes almost no sense. If it were private industry it would never be done that way. Even when it is meant to save money, like lowest cost technically acceptable bids, we've seen bids where the difference between the winner and the loser was 3 cents. Now, any of us, if we were looking for a contractor to fix our HVAC system or to do our roof, we would never say, ``Okay, honey, the problem is settled, this one wins by 3 cents,'' right? We'd start to look into quality. Inherently, the government tends to make proposals cost a large amount of money. I've see proposals that have cost millions or tens of millions of dollars for a contractor to put together. And when that's the system, of course the product is going to cost so much more. I think looking at the process of acquisition, and then the second thing is monitoring and evaluation of what the benefit is that we're getting, focusing on those two questions could help to produce a needed revolution in this area. Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Mr. DeSantis. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes. Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really appreciate this hearing. All of us understand deeply how serious the problem is, and the radicalization in homegrown terror is something that we have got to get on the front end of. So I appreciate each of you showing up. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to enter a 2014 article from the Journal of Forensic Sciences entitled ``Bombing Alone: Tracing the Motivations and Antecedent Behaviors of Lone-Actor Terrorists.'' Mr. DeSantis. Without objection. Mr. Hice. Thank you very much. This was actually co-written by Dr. John Horgan, who is a leading scholar at Georgia State University. And the reason I wanted to bring this article up, he traces--analyzes, I guess, is a better word--119 loan-actor terrorists, particularly leading up to events before the act that they committed. And some of the findings, I'm not going to go into a great deal of detail here, but I want to bring a couple of highlights out of this article that I found personally just to be astounding. In 79 percent of these cases others were aware of the individual's commitment to a specific extreme ideology, almost 80 percent of the time. In 64 percent of the cases family and friends were aware of the individual's intent to engage in terror-related activity. And the reason is because the person verbally told them what they were going to do. In 58 percent of the cases other individuals had specific information about this individual and their intentions prior to the act. And in nearly 60 percent of the cases, the offender actually made public statements. I mean, when you get this kind of information, I would think that a study looking at 119 different actors, you can draw some pretty specific conclusions, and the information here to me was pretty startling. I'm sure each of you are aware of the case in my area, the Tenth District of Georgia, Leon Nathan Davis was actually in prison for drug trafficking, and it was while there that he was converted to Islam. But when he got out of prison he was radicalized by online media and social media and that type of thing. And, I mean, just like the studies that I just referenced by Dr. Horgan, Davis did similar things, he made public his intentions. And, fortunately, he was on his way to Turkey, from Atlanta to Turkey, and, fortunately, the Atlanta police, along with the FBI, intercepted, and he is today serving 15 years. We're grateful for that. But I guess what keeps so many of us up at night is just the big, huge question mark: How many Davises are there out there that we're not catching? And we all know they're out there. And I don't really know who to address this couple of questions, so I'm just going to kind of open it up to you, but if you would be as brief as possible. But what can be done to continue to improve communications between Federal and local law enforcement as we're trying to capture these people? Mr. Mayer. I think one of the things that we need to do is make sure that they are in the same room, and oftentimes they're not. We have created a system that we have a bifurcated system. We have a JTTF somewhere in a city and typically we have a State and local fusion center elsewhere, and they may be connected through intelligence pipelines or email, but they are not there physically together. So I think to the degree that we can bolt them together, that will help us make sure that information and intelligence is populated across that room in order to ensure we give ourselves the greatest chance of detecting and stopping a potential attack. Mr. Hice. Well, let me just throw this out one step further in this. What can we do to help in the whole communication between Federal and local communities so that when family and friends or others see stuff they go to the authorities rather than stay silent? Mr. Mayer. Well, I think you have to build relationships. You have to create an environment where law enforcement can build relationships with the at-risk communities, because if they don't exist, there is going to be a lack of trust. I mean, remember, many of the folks that are coming come from countries in which law enforcement is not a good thing. And so we've got to kind of tear down those historical mistrust notions and get to a point where they know that they can talk to law enforcement and it doesn't mean that their son is going to be thrown in jail or sent to Guantanamo Bay, it simply means they are going to create an off-ramp to get that person away from the radicalization pathway and elsewhere and back into the fold of the community. So we have got to, I think, increase those relationships, which is why I put out the piece about a month ago on creating regional outreach groups all over the country, including in Atlanta. Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous consent for a series of articles involving the Southern Poverty Law Center be placed into the record. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. DeSantis. I'd like to thank the witnesses for attending today. And without further business, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] APPENDIX ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]