[House Hearing, 114 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE NEXT TERRORIST FINANCIERS: STOPPING THEM BEFORE THEY START ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE TASK FORCE TO INVESTIGATE TERRORISM FINANCING OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 23, 2016 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 114-94 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 25-849 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]. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Vice Chairman Member PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas BILL POSEY, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Pennsylvania DAVID SCOTT, Georgia LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia AL GREEN, Texas BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ROBERT HURT, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado STEVE STIVERS, Ohio JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BILL FOSTER, Illinois RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida PATRICK MURPHY, Florida ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland ANN WAGNER, Missouri KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona ANDY BARR, Kentucky JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania DENNY HECK, Washington LUKE MESSER, Indiana JUAN VARGAS, California DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine MIA LOVE, Utah FRENCH HILL, Arkansas TOM EMMER, Minnesota Shannon McGahn, Staff Director James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania, Chairman ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Vice Chairman Ranking Member PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVE STIVERS, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida AL GREEN, Texas ANN WAGNER, Missouri KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ANDY BARR, Kentucky JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania BILL FOSTER, Illinois DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine FRENCH HILL, Arkansas C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: June 23, 2016................................................ 1 Appendix: June 23, 2016................................................ 41 WITNESSES Thursday, June 23, 2016 Cassara, John A., former U.S. Intelligence Officer and Treasury Special Agent.................................................. 9 Farah, Douglas, President, IBI Consultants LLC; and Senior Non- Resident Associate, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies.......................................... 13 Gurule, Hon. Jimmy, Law Professor, University of Notre Dame Law School......................................................... 7 Realuyo, Celina B., Professor of Practice, William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, National Defense University..................................................... 11 Zarate, Juan C., Chairman and Co-Founder, Financial Integrity Network; and Chairman and Senior Counselor, Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance, Foundation for Defense of Democracies..... 5 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Cassara, John A.............................................. 42 Farah, Douglas............................................... 52 Gurule, Hon. Jimmy........................................... 62 Realuyo, Celina B............................................ 71 Zarate, Juan C............................................... 87 THE NEXT TERRORIST FINANCIERS: STOPPING THEM BEFORE THEY START ---------- Thursday, June 23, 2016 U.S. House of Representatives, Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The task force met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Fitzpatrick [chairman of the task force] presiding. Members present: Representatives Fitzpatrick, Pittenger, Ross, Barr, Rothfus, Poliquin, Hill; Lynch, Foster, and Sinema. Also present: Representatives Garrett and Carney. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the task force at any time. Also, without objection, members of the full Financial Services Committee who are not members of the task force may participate in today's hearing for the purpose of questioning the witnesses. The Chair now recognizes himself for 4 minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today for the eleventh and final hearing of the House Financial Services Committee's Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing. Today's hearing is entitled, ``The Next Terrorist Financiers: Stopping Them Before They Start.'' I would like to again thank Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters, as well as my colleagues here, for their unwavering support as we have investigated the threat of terror finance. I would also like to take a moment to thank Liana Rosen and Martin Weiss of the Congressional Research Service for the invaluable assistance that they have provided to this body. On June 12, 2016, we watched in horror as a lone terrorist pledging allegiance to ISIS carried out the Nation's worst terror attack since 9/11. As we continue to grieve and pray for those devastated by this attack, we must redouble our efforts to be clear in our resolve to protect our Nation and her citizens from radical Islamic terrorism that continues to target us. Our efforts to combat this radicalism must be carried out on multiple fronts through diplomatic action, military force, and countering the finances used to carry out these attacks. As chairman of this Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, I have joined with Ranking Member Lynch, Vice Chair Pittenger, and this dedicated bipartisan body to investigate and evaluate the efforts made by the United States to counter and dismantle the financial networks funding these terrorist organizations. Our investigation has covered a range of topics, including the vulnerabilities of the global financial system, trade-based money laundering, the importance of assisting the developing world, and the sale and trafficking of illicit goods. During this time, it has become evident the United States must be able to work freely with its international partners and seamlessly adapt to evolving money laundering and terror financing tactics. For this reason, the task force will be proposing a series of bills which aim to improve communication and coordination amongst various government agencies, allow for increased information sharing, and ensure the Treasury is properly supported and recognized for its role in our Nation's national security strategy. These bills, coupled with the report containing the task force's findings, will provide a clear blueprint for the United States so it may continue to evolve and improve in its fight to ensure terror groups are unable to financially support their operations. Today, for the eleventh and final hearing of this task force, we will recap what we have learned with these five expert witnesses who have previously lent their voices to this discussion in past hearings. Together, we will discuss the necessary changes Congress must consider to better enable U.S. agencies in our fight. At this time, I would like to recognize a member of the bipartisan task force, Ms. Sinema of Arizona, our colleague, who has been a valuable asset and trusted friend during the course of these hearings, for an opening statement. Ms. Sinema. Thank you, Chairman Fitzpatrick. Over the course of the past 10 hearings, this task force has found that U.S. Government efforts to counter the financing of terrorism lack sufficient coordination, and that the United States has no unified national strategy to guide our counterfinancing efforts. We need a whole of government CTF strategy that enhances detection, deterrence, and prosecution, and ultimately furthers our broader national security goals. I appreciate the witnesses' testimony in past hearings, and agree that the Federal Government must change its approach and mindset to counter the financing of terrorism. I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses today about ways to improve the effectiveness of our counterterrorism financing efforts and to better align these efforts with our broader national interests. Thank you to Chairman Fitzpatrick and Ranking Member Lynch for their leadership on this task force. I look forward to continuing our work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep money out of terrorists' hands and build on our progress to strengthen America's security. I yield back. Chairman Fitzpatrick. At this time, I would like to recognize the vice chairman of the task force, Mr. Robert Pittenger of North Carolina, who was one of the first Members of the House to bring ideas on CTF and on money laundering proposals to the full House Financial Services Committee. I recognize Mr. Pittenger for an opening statement. Mr. Pittenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I deeply appreciate your great leadership on this important task force. And Mr. Pinder, thank you for your supportive role in all that we do. And thank you, distinguished panelists, for the critical role that you play with us--for some of you, this will be your second or third time to be with us--and the counsel that you provide to us. We recognize better the importance of terrorism financing. This is an important tool for us to be able to defeat the Islamic terrorists. This week, I just returned from a forum with over 100 members of Parliament and other government officials from 30 countries. As we seek to collaborate with them on issues of terrorism financing and intelligence and cybersecurity matters, the one thing that I have observed is that our partners around the world generally seek to work with us, but they don't have the tools. They don't have the understanding. And they need the resources that must be provided. So the input that you provide this task force has really been critical. So I welcome your input today and your advice, and frankly, the experience that you have had, observations, even since the last time we met. So thank you for being with us. We look forward to our further dialogue. I yield back. Chairman Fitzpatrick. We now welcome our witnesses. Mr. Juan Zarate is chairman and senior counselor at the Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Zarate served as the Deputy Assistant to the President and the Deputy National Security Adviser for Combating Terrorism from 2005 until 2009, and was responsible for developing and implementing all aspects of the U.S. Government's counterterrorism strategy. Mr. Zarate was the first ever Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes. He is also a former Federal prosecutor who served on terrorism prosecution teams prior to 9/11, including the investigation of the USS Cole attack in Yemen. Mr. Zarate is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and is a former Rotary International Fellow at the University of Salamanca in Spain. Mr. Zarate testified before the task force's April 22, 2015, hearing entitled, ``A Survey of Global Terrorism and Terrorist Financing.'' The Honorable Jimmy Gurule is a law professor at Notre Dame Law School. Mr. Gurule joined the Notre Dame Law School faculty in 1989, and became a full professor in 1996. The professor has also worked in a variety of high-profile public law enforcement positions, including Under Secretary for Enforcement at the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 2001 until 2003; Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs at DOJ from 1990 until 1992; and Assistant U.S. Attorney, where he served as Deputy Chief of the major narcotics section of the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney's Office from 1985 to 1989. He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Utah in 1974, and his juris doctorate from the University of Utah College of Law in 1980. Mr. John Cassara is a former United States Intelligence Officer and Treasury Special Agent. He has over 26 years of experience in the Federal Government intelligence and law enforcement communities. An expert in anti-money laundering and terror financing, Mr. Cassara invented the concept of international trade transparency units, and recently released a book on the topic this past fall entitled, ``Trade-Based Money Laundering: The Next Frontier in International Money Laundering Enforcement.'' He has lectured around the world on a variety of transnational crime issues, and is currently an industry adviser. Mr. Cassara holds a master's degree in international management from the American Graduate School of International Management in Phoenix, Arizona. He graduated magna cum laude from the University of California San Diego, with a bachelor's degree in political science. Professor Celina Realuyo is a professor of practice at the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Studies at the National Defense University. Prior to joining the National Defense University in 2007, Ms. Realuyo served as the State Department Director of Counterterrorism Finance Programs in the U.S. Secretary of State's Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. She has also cochaired the terror financing work group. Professor Realuyo has previously been a private banker in London with Goldman Sachs International, and also previously had a distinguished career as a United States foreign service officer. She holds an MBA from the Harvard Business School, an M.A. from Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, and a bachelor's degree from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. Mr. Douglas Farah is president of IBI Consultants LLC, and is also a senior non-resident associate for the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. From 1985 to 2005, Mr. Farah worked as a journalist, primarily as a foreign correspondent and investigative reporter for The Washington Post. Since leaving the Post in 2004, Mr. Farah has worked as a consultant to the United States Government on national intelligence reform, nonstate armed actors, critical infrastructure protection, criminal terrorist pipelines, bulk cash smuggling to Mexico, as well as other topics. He is also the author of two books, and he appears regularly in a national and international medium, and has been published in more than a dozen journals and magazines. Mr. Farah graduated from the American Cooperative School in La Paz, Bolivia. He also received a bachelor's degree with highest honors from the William Allen White School of Journalism at the University of Kansas, with a bachelor's in honors in Latin American studies from the University of Kansas. The witnesses will now be recognized for 5 minutes each to give an oral presentation of their written testimony. And without objection, the witnesses' written statements will be made a part of the record. Once the witnesses have finished presenting their testimony, each member of the task force will have 5 minutes within which to ask questions. For the witnesses, on your table are three lights, which you are familiar with. Yellow means you have 1 minute remaining. Red means your time is up. At this point, Mr. Zarate, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JUAN C. ZARATE, CHAIRMAN AND CO-FOUNDER, FINANCIAL INTEGRITY NETWORK; AND CHAIRMAN AND SENIOR COUNSELOR, CENTER ON SANCTIONS AND ILLICIT FINANCE, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES Mr. Zarate. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that kind introduction. Ranking Member Lynch, Vice Chairman Pittenger, distinguished members of this task force, I am honored to be before you yet again to testify on the evolving threats and issues tied to terrorist financing and illicit financing. I am especially honored to be with this panel, all of whom I consider friends and from whom I have learned quite a bit throughout their careers. Let me begin by commending this task force for not only your diligence but your bipartisan efforts to focus on these issues. Over a year ago, when many thought that this issue did not have relevance, I think much has happened over the last year to not only prove the relevance of this task force but the importance of your work. And I want to thank your committee staff, including Joe Pinder, for his continued efforts over the course of many years in this regard. But there have been many things that have happened since we last met. Terrorist organizations and criminal networks have continued to leverage local and regional economies and the global commercial system to profit and evade scrutiny. Growing regional and proxy battles in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa have increased the risk that terrorist and militant groups are taking advantage of crises to create for-profit militancy and networks. Terrorist infiltration and control of urban environments in places like Mosul, Sirte, and Raqqa have complicated how the U.S. Government and our allies attempt to disrupt terrorist financing, putting a premium on dislodging terrorist organizations physically from key sites and resources. The application of U.S. law and pressure from targeted sanctions to exclude Hezbollah from the Lebanese financial system has created enormous pressure in Lebanon, with Hezbollah leadership speaking out against the closing of Hezbollah- related bank accounts and a bomb exploding just recently in front of Blom Bank in Beirut. The Panama Papers and tax-related leaks have raised important questions about the limits of financial transparency and accountability, and whether the current anti-money laundering system globally is effective. Complications and burdens on the legitimate financial community in the application of sanctions and financial crime risk management have continued to abut against the public policy needs for financial inclusion. New technologies enabling the digital economy are providing not only enormous opportunities for innovation and access, but illicit actors are also finding ways to leverage tools like digital currency to create illicit bazaars via the Internet and access capital without scrutiny, as we saw in the Silk Road and Liberty Reserve cases. And continued and significant cyber attacks by state and nonstate actors on the financial sector have demonstrated yet again that the financial system remains at the heart of the cyber storm. These are just a few of the examples and recent developments that continue to illuminate and complicate the terrorist and illicit financial landscape. Billions of dollars in illicit trade and money laundering continue to reach the hands of criminals and illicit actors, despite best efforts. More needs to be done. And I know this task force has done quite a bit of work, but let me suggest seven categories of work to focus on. First, we need to continue to sharpen the tools that we use in our toolkit. The playbook that we have used since 9/11 must remain strategic, its implementation focused on effectiveness. And it must be reinforced with a strengthened and committed international system devoted to the protection of the international financial system and our collective security. Two, the United States must find strategic ways of using targeted unwinding of sanctions to our strategic benefit. We are seeing the challenges of this now with Iran, Cuba, and even Burma. The United States should ensure that it is using its power of unwinding the way that we use the power of targeted sanctions to full effect. Three, we must have a more aggressive information-sharing system between public and private authorities, within sectors, and across borders. We are working on a 20th Century model that is crashing up against the 21st Century economy and expectations. We need to think differently about how information is shared, analyzed, and used to protect the financial system. Fourth, we have to balance financial exclusion and inclusion by finding ways of sharing the risk. The twin goals of financial integrity and inclusion can be met with some creative collaboration. Fifth, we must focus on the effectiveness of the AML/CFT and sanction system. And we should not be shy about leading the world in its enforcement and in judging the world in terms of effectiveness. Sixth, we must realize and address the convergence of cyber and financial warfare. As I said, the financial community is now at the center of the cyber storm, and the recent bank heist involving the SWIFT network was a wake-up call for the attack on the trust and integrity of that system. There needs to be a more aggressive approach to private sector defense of its systems and public-private collaboration to defend critical financial systems. And finally, we need the resources to be able to regulate and enforce. This means resources not just for Treasury, OFAC, and FinCEN, the usual bodies, but also the IRS, CID, and others that are forced and need to enforce these laws and regulations. Finally, Mr. Chairman, these are tools and strategies that need to be embedded in a broader strategy of national and economic security. And this is not just confined to the quiver of economic sanctions or targeted financial measures. This has to include the development of strategies of financial inclusion that use elements of U.S. economic influence, private investment to benefit good behavior and to promote what our allies are trying to do around the world. It also involves developing defensive economic strategies with our allies to counter the potential economic influence and pressure that countries like Russia and China are already wielding. In the 21st Century, Mr. Chairman, economic security underpins the Nation's ability to project its power and influence. And the power to affect the budgets of America's enemies is an enormous power that needs to be tended carefully and wielded wisely. And America's enemies, especially nimble terrorist organizations that often blend with criminality, will continue to find ways to work around the international pressure and strictures put upon them. This is why the campaign against terrorist financing is not a static venture, but instead, an ongoing and critical part of the challenging terrorist and international security landscape. The U.S. Government must continue to innovate and find new ways and partners to make it harder, costlier, and riskier for terrorist groups around the world to raise and move money. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the privilege of testifying today. I would be happy to answer any questions you or your colleagues may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Zarate can be found on page 87 of the appendix.] Chairman Fitzpatrick. Thank you. Professor Gurule, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIMMY GURULE, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL Mr. Gurule. Chairman Fitzpatrick, Ranking Member Lynch, Vice Chairman Pittenger, and other distinguished members of the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, permit me to begin by thanking you for inviting me to testify on the important and timely topic of, ``The Next Terrorist Financier: Stopping Them Before They Start.'' As we approach the 15-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that tragically took the lives of approximately 3,000 innocent civilians, it is imperative that the U.S. Government continue to evaluate and enhance the effectiveness of such counterterrorism measures as curtailing terror financing in order to protect national security and save innocent lives. To that end, I would like to propose four recommendations to the task force and the broader committee to strengthen the U.S. Government's counterterrorist financing efforts. The first recommendation deals with economic sanctions. Shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13224. It authorizes the President as delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury to designate individuals and entities as specially designated global terrorists (SDGT's). That designation has important legal implications. First, any assets located in the United States of such individuals and entities have to be frozen. Second, U.S. persons are prohibited from doing business with the SDGTs, the specially designated global terrorists. Initially, the executive order designated 12 individuals and 15 entities as SDGTs. At present, there are now over 1,000 such individuals, such SDGTs. And while the executive order has been an effective tool in curtailing the funding to Al Qaeda, which relies largely on support from external donors and corrupt charities sympathetic to their cause, it has been less effective with respect to the Islamic State. The Islamic State poses a different terrorist financing challenge. It obtains its money primarily from external sources, including the sale of oil and gas, extortion and taxation, kidnapping for ransom, looting banks, selling stolen equities, and human trafficking--selling young girls and women as sex slaves. The Islamic State's annual budget has been estimated to be as high as $2 billion. The reason why the executive order again has been less effective with respect to the Islamic State is that the individuals who have been targeted under the executive order, members of the Islamic State, senior leaders of the Islamic State, do not have resources in the United States. They don't have assets in the United States to be blocked. Furthermore, there is no evidence that U.S. persons are doing business with such individuals. I don't want to diminish the importance of being designated under the executive order, but in large part it becomes more symbolic in kind of highlighting and identifying these individuals as bad actors than actually curtailing the funding of the Islamic State. And so what I propose, in addition--not in place of but in addition to--would be that Congress pursue a model similar to that which has been used against Iran, and which is focused not only on primary sanctions but secondary sanctions. Primary sanctions prohibit U.S. persons from doing business with the target. Secondary sanctions prohibit foreign persons and foreign entities from doing business with the entity. And I think we need a sanction regime that is similar to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, which does exactly that: prohibits foreign businesses from contributing to the energy sector of Iran. And we need something similar for the Islamic State. My second recommendation deals with the criminal enforcement and, specifically, the material support statute. I think the Department of Justice has a very checkered record of prosecuting major, underscoring major, terrorist financiers. I think to that end the efforts could be enhanced if Congress amended the terrorist financing statute 18 U.S.C. 2339C to lower the scienter threshold from requiring the government to prove that the defendant knowing and with the intent--or intended the funds to be used to finance violent crimes. Instead, it seems to me that it should be a crime if an individual donates to, let's say, a lone wolf terrorist knowing that individual is engaged in terrorist acts or intends to engage in terrorist acts. That type of conduct should be prohibited under the statute, and currently it is not. My third recommendation deals with the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). On May 17, 2016, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed JASTA. I think that it plays an important role. Civil actions play an important role with respect to deterring terrorist behavior and going after the funding of terrorism. I think it is important that any state that sponsors acts of terrorism on U.S. soil should be held accountable. And the Act seeks to accomplish that objective. And then lastly, my fourth recommendation deals with the development of a national counterterrorist financing strategy to effectively go after the money of Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the next major terrorist organizations. It is imperative that the United States develop a comprehensive, coordinated counterterrorist financing strategy. Unfortunately, no such strategy exists today. The counterterrorist financing strategy needs to be adaptive. It needs to anticipate different methods of raising money and moving money globally. It needs to be, again, proactive on the front end, not simply reacting to the crisis of the day. So with that, thank you very much, and I look forward to answering questions during the question-and-answer session. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gurule can be found on page 62 of the appendix.] Chairman Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Professor. Mr. Cassara, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JOHN A. CASSARA, FORMER U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AND TREASURY SPECIAL AGENT Mr. Cassara. Chairman Fitzpatrick, Ranking Member Lynch, Vice Chairman Pittenger, and members of the task force, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is an honor for me to be here and, in particular, to be included on this panel with friends and such distinguished colleagues. In 2008, I wrote an essay published by the Department of State entitled, ``Mobile Payments--A Growing Threat.'' Eight years later, that threat has materialized. The growth of access to cellular devices is breathtaking. In 1990, there were approximately 11 million mobile phones worldwide. In 2016, the number of mobile lines and service has surpassed global population. There are now approximately 410 million mobile money accounts in the world, with approximately 270 mobile money services operating in 93 countries. More than 1 billion mobile money transactions were processed in December 2015. We should cheer these developments. The G20 included financial inclusion on its priority agenda to help over 2 billion adults around the world who have limited access to financial institutions. I know many task force members have traveled extensively in the developing world. Undoubtedly, you have observed how easy access to M-payments via the ubiquitous cell phone is transforming lives by providing a much-needed link to financial services at a very reasonable price. Users are not required to have a bank account or a credit card. Countries without modern financial infrastructures are able to leapfrog directly into cutting edge networks. M- payments allow the purchase of products and services. Salaries and government benefits can be credited to cellular devices. M- payments have empowered small business creation, and remittances from migrant workers are sent home via the use of cell phones. However, this wonderful development is going to have some very dangerous side effects. I would like to explain how M- payments are used in the three stages of money laundering. The first stage is placement of illicit cash into financial institutions. One of the most prevalent techniques is structuring or smurfing. For example, a professional money launderer takes a large amount of drug dollars and divides it into small amounts. He gives the small sums to runners or smurfs to deposit. The transactions are done in ways that attempt to avoid mandated financial transparency reporting requirements. M-payments offer criminals a new way to place the proceeds of crime. For example, runners are recruited and given proceeds of criminal activity or even charitable or terror finance contributions. They are given instructions to go to M-payment establishments and use the illicit funds to load up their cell phones with e-value under the maximum threshold level. The runners are then directed to forward the mobile money credit to master accounts controlled by the money launderer. This technique has been called digital smurfing. The next objective is to layer the dirty money by multiple transfers, thereby confusing the paper trail and adding multiple levels of venue and jurisdiction. With M-payments, layering will be taken to new levels. In most jurisdictions, mobile value can be transferred from person to person and account to account, and then directed to a financial institution or money service business either in the host country or perhaps sent to another country or even an offshore haven. Mobile value could even be credited to an online account or perhaps used to purchase virtual currencies in cyberspace. Informal value transfer systems such as hawala can also be added to the equation. Finally, a criminal organization uses the place and layered funds to integrate them into the economy by purchasing, say, for example, property, equities, and commercial enterprises. For example, the daughter of one of the worst kleptocrats in Africa has invested in cell phone carriers and M-payment providers in multiple countries. While there are currently few documented cases of money laundering and terror finance related to M-payments, in large part this is because the countries where M-payments are present and our terrorist adversaries operate, have few, if any, anti- money laundering or terrorist-financed prosecutions and convictions. I believe we should move quickly to engineer new forms of data collection and analytic tools into M-payment systems, and put in place effective regulatory and enforcement countermeasures. Please see my written testimony for more details, including recommendations. Thank you again for the honor of being here. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cassara can be found on page 42 of the appendix.] Chairman Fitzpatrick. Thank you. Professor Realuyo, you are now recognized. STATEMENT OF CELINA B. REALUYO, PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE, WILLIAM J. PERRY CENTER FOR HEMISPHERIC DEFENSE STUDIES, NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY Ms. Realuyo. Thank you, Chairman Fitzpatrick, Vice Chairman Pittenger, Ranking Member Lynch, and task force members, for the opportunity to appear before you again today to discuss improving efforts to combat terrorist financing through more public-private partnerships. I am honored to be here alongside those of us who started the financial front of the war on terror in the wake of 9/11. Today, we face a broad spectrum of threats such as global terrorism, transnational organized crime, and cyber attacks that requires a multidisciplinary approach to comprehend and counter. The convergence of terrorism and crimes threaten state sovereignty and our economy. Governments can no longer guarantee the security, prosperity, and rule of law that their people expect. Average citizens who see something and say something are often the first to identify threats. They know their industries and their communities best. Therefore, governments need to actively engage the public to detect, dismantle, and deter illicit actors. By fostering robust public-private partnerships, together we can better counter terrorism and crime at home and abroad. This is particularly true for threat financing, since funding is the most critical of enablers for terrorism, crime, and corruption. We have witnessed how financial intelligence, economic targeting, and sanctions have helped us to counter threats around the world since 9/11. This is the case of our current campaign against ISIL, where we see momentum on both the financial and military fronts in Iraq and Syria. Since I last appeared before this committee in May 2015, following the money trail has been instrumental in degrading ISIL's ability to generate revenue and fund its criminalized caliphates. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, as recently as Monday here in Washington, said, ``We have seen results in targeting ISIL's leaders and finances through Operation Inherent Resolve. Our attacks on its economic infrastructure, from its oil wells to its stashes of cash, are putting a stranglehold on the group.'' As we speak here today, ISIL is on its heels in Iraq and Syria, as Iraqi forces have just begun to liberate Fallujah and prepare to move on Mosul. But ISIL, unfortunately, is proving to be a very adaptive adversary. Terrorism expert Jean-Charles Brisard said that despite constant coalition air strikes, ISIL still has a $2 billion empire. As oil revenues have decreased by 30 percent, it is more reliant on taxation in the territories that it still occupies. Therefore, reestablishing control of those territories is paramount to defeating ISIL militarily, financially, as well as psychologically. ISIL has expanded its reach beyond Iraq and Syria, as we have seen with the tragic attacks in Paris and Brussels. It is present in 19 countries, including a new caliphate in Libya. And ISIL's influence has reached our own shores. FBI Director Comey says that upwards of 200 Americans have traveled or tried to fight for ISIL. And the FBI has some 1,000 ISIL-related cases open nationwide. It has inspired homegrown terrorists like those responsible for the deadly attacks in San Bernadino and Orlando. For the FBI and joint terrorism task forces that I train on terrorist financing, financial forensics are a critical component of all of their investigations. While these latest attacks don't cost very much money, the public can assist law enforcement in identifying suspicious activities before terrorist attacks occur rather than afterwards. Since the 1970s, the U.S. Government has worked with the private sector to pursue financial crimes, like tax evasion and money laundering. Since 9/11, we have seen constructive public- private partnerships. The financial intelligence and information-sharing working group imparts case studies and red flags for financial crimes. Similarly, the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center disseminates timely physical and cyber threats to alert its members, reflecting the changing nature of the domain that is cyber. Over the past decade, we have definitely increased our ability to detect terrorist financing, levied effective economic sanctions against both state actors as well as terrorist groups, and raised awareness on how our evolving financial system can be exploited to fund terrorism and crime. But we could do more to thwart future terrorist financiers with the following five measures that I propose. Number one, integrate the financial instrument of national power more deliberately into U.S. strategies to counter emerging threats. Number two, strengthen domestic and international financial intelligence and information-sharing mechanisms to counter threat financing. Number three, dedicate more human financial and technological resources to those responsible for pursuing terrorist financing across the U.S. Government. Number four, research the drivers of the illicit economy and anticipate how new financial innovations could be used by future terrorist financiers. And lastly, empower the public and private sector, and more importantly, individuals, to actively detect and support our counterterrorism financing operations. In a chapter that will be coming out in a book that we are publishing called, ``Beyond Convergence,'' next month, I write about something called C3 through P3, and it is that we need to communicate, cooperate, and collaborate through public-private partnerships to counter the complexity of threats and safeguard our national security, whether it is talking about terrorist financing, countering violent extremism, or the new threats that we face in the cyber domain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and task force members, for your time and attention, but more importantly, for highlighting the importance of the financial instrument of national power that those of us on this panel have been advocating for the last 15 years. And I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Realuyo can be found on page 71 of the appendix.] Chairman Fitzpatrick. Thank you very much, Professor. And Mr. Farah, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS FARAH, PRESIDENT, IBI CONSULTANTS LLC; AND SENIOR NON-RESIDENT ASSOCIATE, AMERICAS PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Mr. Farah. Chairman Fitzpatrick, Ranking Member Lynch, and members of the task force, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue of the changing nature of terrorist financing. I speak only for IBI Consultants and myself at this hearing. I would like to address three main issues today: the emergence of criminalized states; the use of commodities, particularly gold, in the terrorist and criminal financial structures; and the use of offshore havens. In my 3 decades of focusing on transnational organized crime and illicit money flows, I have found that there is really very little new under the sun. What has changed in recent years is the volume of the streams of illicit money flows in which terrorists and allied transnational criminal organizations can hide their money movements. I believe the emergence of criminalized states in Latin America, Africa, and the former Soviet Union, meaning states where the senior leadership is involved on behalf of the state in transnational organized criminal activity, is a primary factor. The fact that these illicit flows are now embedded within state structures is a key factor in making it difficult to halt such financial flows. In the Western Hemisphere, it is the involvement of numerous states led by Venezuela in an ongoing criminal enterprise that makes disrupting and dismantling financial networks so difficult. The government of Nicolas Maduro, along with the governments of Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and Salvador Sanchez Ceren in El Salvador, grouped under the umbrella of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, or ALBA, has actively helped the FARC, Hezbollah, Spanish ETA separatists and other designated terrorists and criminal organizations develop a significant presence not only in Latin America but across the world. In each of the ALBA nations, as detailed in my written testimony, the leaders control hundreds of millions of dollars that do not pass through the national budget or any other accounting mechanism, and serve essentially as slush funds for the ALBA leadership and their allies in transnational organized crime and, potentially, terrorists. Within the context of these vast, economically irrational money flows already moving through criminalized states, the growing amount of unusual mining and exporting of minerals, particularly gold in Latin America, must be viewed with concern. The relatively high price of gold, coupled with the ease of movement, placement, and sale, and the striking lack of control over the movement of the commodity make it particularly attractive to both criminal and terrorist groups. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos estimated that gold provided $2 billion a year to terrorist and criminal groups in his country, outstripping cocaine as the primary financial asset. While it takes 6 months to grow coca and process a kilo of cocaine, along with significant technical skills, low-cost and low-skill gold mining in Colombia--in the Colombian jungle can easily yield 2 kilos of gold a month. A kilo of cocaine sells for about $2,570 in the Colombian jungle, while a kilogram of gold can fetch up to 19 times that much. The precious metal is also relatively easy to legalize, while cocaine remains illegal and heavily penalized. Because the FARC and its allies in Venezuela want to disguise the origin of their gold after it is mined, they often move it through Guyana, Suriname, Nicaragua, and Ecuador to avoid detection of gold entering the market from places that might arouse suspicion of either terrorist or transnational criminal connections. Those using gold often disguise the origin of the gold so that they can avoid detection and paying taxes, thus you have the unusual situation where Peru and others were exporting--they were moving their gold to Colombia and declaring it as Colombian gold as they moved it out so that Colombia on paper was exporting more gold than it actually produced. The massive leak of internal documents at the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, now known as the Panama Papers, also gives an unsettling view of just how easy it is to use law firms in certain jurisdictions to incorporate entities where the real owners are never disclosed, and then use those entities to move massive sums of money to offshore havens where the anonymity is not only preserved but enhanced and reinforced. While privacy issues are real and valid, the current structure represents one of the most glaring weaknesses in the financial structures that are used by a host of illicit actors, including terrorists and transnational criminal organizations. It is easy but dangerous to forget that Al Qaeda and Hamas used extensive offshore structures in the Bahamas to move money around the globe, both prior to and following the attacks of 9/ 11, something Juan Zarate worked extensively on when he was at the Treasury Department and helped shut down a significant flow of funds at that time. This opaque world overlaps with the vast unregulated world of gold and other commodity movements, and both intersect in the growing number of criminal state jurisdictions. This amounts to a perfect storm for terrorist financiers and transnational criminal organizations to hide and move cash and cash value across the world in ways that are virtually untraceable. I offer recommendations on dealing with these issues in my written testimony. And I welcome the chance to answer any questions you may have. Thank you again for the valuable work of this task force. And thank you for the opportunity to testify again here. [The prepared statement of Mr. Farah can be found on page 52 of the appendix.] Chairman Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Farah. And thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony here today and your work with the task force, as well as the staff in preparation for the hearings and for the bills that are going to be introduced. Mr. Cassara, in your written statement, you note that FinCEN's MSB registration process, the money service businesses, have been less than effective. I think you state that they were weak. Can you identify some specific examples of weakness and then how you would address it, if you were us? Mr. Cassara. Just a little bit of background. I was at FinCEN. Before 9/11, the head of FinCEN at the time, Stan Morris, was very concerned about what he called money service businesses (MSBs). He contracted with a accounting firm, one of the Big 8 accounting firms, to do a study. And the numbers came back that there were approximately--at that time; this was about 2000--240,000 MSBs in the United States. Very little was done with that information. Then, 9/11 happened. The PATRIOT Act was passed. After that, MSBs in this country are supposed to be registered with Treasury's FinCEN, and I think they are supposed to be licensed in 47 or 48 of the 50 States. There are approximately--I haven't been on the site recently--40,000 MSBs that have registered with FinCEN, which means, if that earlier study was correct, that 200,000 are missing. If you go back to the 2007 national anti-money laundering strategy report, that strategy report says, in effect, that approximately 20 percent of MSBs are registered with FinCEN. In other words, where are the missing MSBs? MSBs, as you all know, are everything from PayPal to mom-and-pop check cashing companies to hawaladars to casas de cambio along the Southwest border. We have not done a very good job of getting them registered. Of course, if they are not registered, they are not filing suspicious activity reports. The program hasn't worked as it was constructed. Chairman Fitzpatrick. So what would your recommendation be? Mr. Cassara. Well, I can defer to my distinguished colleagues here, but the IRS, I believe, has the mandate to work with regulators to go out and ensure that those MSBs are in fact registered. That hasn't been done. In my opinion as well, there should be more outreach to the money service business communities, particularly in the various ethnic communities in this country because, quite frankly, a lot of them don't know that they are supposed to be registered. More work needs to be done in this area. Chairman Fitzpatrick. Would any of the other panelists like to add anything to that? Mr. Zarate? Mr. Zarate. I think there are three things that could be done, Mr. Chairman. I think one is the outreach that John has talked about. I think there is always awareness-building that has to be done, not just in the traditional money service business sector, as John mentioned, but also with new digital payment sectors, the bitcoin community, et cetera, which now have to register if they are acting and transacting as money service business. So there is a lot of outreach that still has to be done. Education. So that would help. Second, is the enforcement of the regulations themselves. As I mentioned in my remarks and in my testimony, the need for resources is very real. The IRS has been given the mandate to go out and regulate on behalf of FinCEN. The Bank Secrecy Act in this sector, frankly, they just don't have the resources to do it at the scale to deal with the nationwide sort of disbursement of the sector. Part of that is also enlisting State authorities a bit more. These are State-regulated entities in many regards. Third, is that money service businesses now have the challenge of having bank accounts. And I think there is something here to be done in the context of financial inclusion, as I had remarked, to work with the formal financial system, in particular the major global banks, as well as smaller regional banks, to try to work with money service businesses, not only to register them, but to make sure that they have access to the financial system, and understand what their obligations are as a regulated entity under the anti- money laundering rules of this country. So I think those three categories of activities would take us far afield from where we are and would certainly be an improvement. Chairman Fitzpatrick. Professor Gurule? Mr. Gurule. Yes, I would add, I think first there has to be a prioritizing with respect to if there are 240,000, at a minimum, MSBs, I think that resources should be spent on identifying the largest MSBs that are moving the largest amount of money annually to ensure that those particular MSBs are registered. One way to ensure that might be, for example, to require that when the MSB files its tax returns with the IRS, it must submit some statement, some affirmative statement, that they are in fact registered with the Treasury Department. So they have an affirmative obligation to state that. And if they fail to state it, then that should raise a red flag. If they falsely state it, then they could be prosecuted for making a material false statement, which is a Federal violation. Chairman Fitzpatrick. My time has expired. I recognize Mr. Lynch for 5 minutes. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, let me just thank Chairman Fitzpatrick and also Vice Chair Pittenger for the great work, and to all the members on the task force. And I want to say thank you to this all-star panel. You have all been up here multiple times testifying on various issues, cutting-edge subjects in this area. And I just want to say thank you for all the work you have done. As I said before, you have all been up here multiple times. And in wrapping up this iteration of the task force, we really benefited greatly not only from your testimony today but also from your advice, your counsel, helping us to formulate legislative responses to the problems that we have talked about here. And we have some of those that we will roll out after the conclusion of this hearing. But I just want to say thank you for your service to our country, and thank you for allowing us to be the beneficiaries of your expertise. The members of this task force are well-traveled. My colleagues, there is nobody on this task force who hasn't put in a lot of frequent flyer miles trying to drill down on this problem. We just came back not too long ago from Nigeria and Tanzania. And there are some wonderful, wonderful things being done, Mr. Cassara, with mobile payments, as you mentioned. And it is incredible what is happening in parts of the Third World where, for example, in Nigeria where mobile payments are now financing a solar energy culture there where electricity is being brought into some of the most remote areas of that country. And with the growth of their population, it has been really incredible what they are doing with very small micro payments, but giving these villages in some pretty remote places the ability to import electricity into their homes. It is revolutionizing that country. But as you all have indicated, it also presents a real problem for us in trying to track the flow of terrorist financiers. And we have done some work up on the Syrian border. We met with--members of this task force have met with a half a dozen--they are a so-called moderate Syrian rebel groups, but I am not so sure how moderate they really were or are. But the bottom line is they are all using WhatsApp and they are all financing their operations. And these are the rebel groups. And I would bet that their counterparties there, ISIL and other groups there, the al-Nusrah Front, are also using the same mobile apps to finance their efforts as well. So our ability to drill down on this is really--the pace-- well, the velocity of change is so quick, it has been breathtaking. And it has been very difficult for us, because just when you think you are catching up, something new will come out. You know, the last thing we looked at was sort of a model of this bitcoin platform that uses blockchain. And now we are trying to catch up to that to see if this presents another area of vulnerability. Mr. Cassara, in the area of mobile payments especially, and all the panelists, you have all been working on this, what are the single most persistent vulnerabilities that you see there? We had trouble, for example, getting some of the companies to take down sites where we know there has been chatter. In other cases, we also know that there has been work being done on a video game platform. So they go into these chat rooms, and I am sure that there is--finance is a component of what is going on there as well. How do we--what is the most effective way to get at that problem? Mr. Cassara. Thank you for the question. I think the largest threat dealing with M-payments is the simple volume of M-payments. For example, according to experts, there are about 1 billion mobile money transactions in a given month. If only 1 percent of those are suspect, okay, 1 percent, so fraud, money laundering, suspect charitable contributions, terror finance, whatever it is, you are talking about 120 million suspect transactions a year. And you think 1 percent is too high? Break it down. Say it is half of 1 percent. So you are talking 60 million suspect transactions a year. It is overwhelming. And we, the 93 countries where this is going on, don't have any systematic way to analyze the very volume of these things to put in place red flags so that law enforcement, even the financial intelligence units can get involved with tracking these things. Another tremendous problem, and something I would like to go into a little bit more detail on, is the fact of where these very systems operate. You mentioned Syria, you mentioned Nigeria, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. These are some of the areas in the world where we have the very weakest law enforcement. And so there aren't any cases. And this is something that we need to address. Mr. Lynch. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The vice chairman of the task force, Mr. Pittenger, is recognized. Mr. Pittenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for, I think, a very sobering analysis. And the scope and impact of what we now clearly see through of the transfers from mobile payments, from bitcoin, from gold is enormously challenging. We have our own structures inside Treasury with FinCEN and OTA and OFAC. And yet, as I shared earlier, we have our allies, our friends, who seek, for the most part, to cooperate with us, but have very limited resources. What else do we need to be doing to support our own agencies and to broaden their capacities to the extent that they can address the issues that were brought up today and broaden our ability to help our friends around the globe? I was with President el-Sisi last December. I am going to see him again at the end of next week. And he, in spirit, I believe, wants to be supportive. They lack enormous technological support. We saw that, of course, in South America as well. So speak to that and what we need to be doing resource-wise inside our own financial institutions to support them, to address these prevailing challenges, and how we can better support our allies around the world? Juan, would you like to start? Mr. Zarate. Thank you, that is a great and expansive question. I think the first thing we need to do is make sure we have a system that actually ensures transparency and accountability, that then allows the regulators and authorities that are responsible for ensuring that our system isn't being misused by criminals or terrorists, actually can see what is there. And I think there has been a lot of progress this past year with the issuance of the customer due diligence rule from Treasury, something we had talked about a year ago as being necessary. That is incredibly important to getting to the ultimate beneficial ownership of corporate entities. The beneficial ownership legislation that has been presented to Congress, I think, needs to be taken up and looked at carefully to determine how best to get at who owns the entities in this country that are acquiring vast amounts of real estate, or perhaps even trying to hide their hand in placement or movement of funds. So I think that is critical, first and foremost. There has to be that. Second, what I mentioned in terms of information sharing, we do have to move to a more aggressive model of information sharing, in particular with the private sector. The private sector is required to help, by law, they want to help, by now, culture and by being hit over the head with enforcement actions. And we need to find ways of enabling them to be the gatekeepers of the financial system, which helps the government regulate bad behavior. So I think that is critical. And third, I think we need to be more demanding of our foreign partners. The reality is that the United States, for the last 20 years, has been the only country in the world that has an Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that is responsible for administering and enforcing sanctions. No other country in the world has had a similar entity. And the reality is, we need our partners around the world to have a discipline around the enforcement of these measures, and it is part of the reason why I argue that we need to continue to push the enforcement of these issues and sanctions, in part because we have been put in a position of driving that international agenda and focus. You have seen it with the FIFA corruption case; you have seen it with sanctions; you have seen it on terrorist financing. That will remain our role, but we need to be demanding of our foreign counterparts, in particular governments and banking centers that do have capacity and resources to do this well. Mr. Gurule. Domestically, I think that there needs to be a better job of information sharing between the Federal regulators and DOJ. With respect to HSBC, for example, there are multiple instances where the OCC, which was responsible for auditing and ensuring compliance of HSBC with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), found multiple violations where the bank was in noncompliance with the BSA. And the question is, was that information being shared with the FBI? Was that information being shared with DOJ? I think there needs to be a stronger partnership between those two agencies. The Federal regulators are really on the front lines of auditing these banks to ensure compliance with the BSA and counterterrorist financing regulations, and we need to ensure that once they find a problem, once they find, for example, a failure to file SARs, or an ineffective--or they are in noncompliance with respect to having written policies and procedures to prevent terrorist financing, we need to engage and make sure that the FBI is involved in looking more closely to see whether or not that noncompliance has resulted in money laundering, the use of the bank by drug cartels and terrorists. And then second, something that I spoke to just briefly in my oral statement, the importance of a counterterrorist financing strategy. So to ensure greater coordination, to ensure--between Federal agencies, interagency coordination, to ensure prioritizing, to ensure that we are not only confronting the current threat, but anticipating the future threats and the future methods which the terrorists are going to use to move money globally. We need to be thinking through that, and ensure that we are not simply reacting to the problem and the crisis of today. Mr. Pittenger. My time has expired, but I sure would love to hear more. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses. When I step back and look at this problem, I think of it sort of in two different levels. The first thing is, can we define a world in which money laundering is impossible? And then what are the essential features of such a world? And then to step back again, do we actually want to live in such a world, because of the implications for the costs and the privacy that will be essential for this. And so to start with the first part of the question, what are the essential elements of a world where it would be impossible to launder money? Okay. I think at a minimum, you have to get rid of anonymous shell corporations in the United States. And is there anyone who thinks that even needs an asterisk? It is essentially mandatory that you not be able to hide behind that. And that is a big part of this, starting by cleaning up our own house first, that we have to make the United States a model for at least inside the United States, we would not be able to launder money internally. My predecessor in Congress just started a jail term for failing to attempt to launder money and as part of some other criminal activity. But another essential part of this has to be mandatory traceability of financial transactions. You simply cannot allow electronic financial transactions where the beneficial owner is not recorded, and it would be some kind of crime not to do that. And is there any way around that as an absolute requirement to a regime that would make it impossible? Well, thank you. I think I agree. And then you have to--because of the volume problem, you are going to have to have the ability to do big data analytics on this in some way that does not cause privacy concerns, which is a heck of a problem and gets to the second part of my question. Another essential part, I think, has to be authentication, that you have to know when someone claims he is this person, that he is the beneficial owner, that you have to have something akin to a national digital ID card, where you can't cheat on it to know that you actually know the beneficial owner, and have an electronic record of who that person is and it is not some third party. So it seems to me that all of these are essential just to clean up the financial part and to make it impossible to launder through the financial system. And then, as has been brought up by our witnesses, there are two more steps. You have to internationalize this, which to me means you are going to have to simply deny access to the United States and the world- regulated financial system to any country that doesn't adopt essentially equivalent rules. I think that is unavoidable. And then, finally, you have to deal with the commodities problem, that everything from Bitcoin, to gold, to hard-to- value assets will have to come under the same regime that I have just described for financial services. This is a very Draconian set of requirements. I think, however, we can waste a heck of a lot of time and money if we define a system that has gaping loopholes in it that people can immediately drive a truck through. And so, it seems to me that we are really facing a binary choice. Do we want to make it impossible to launder money, or do we want to have all of the things I have just described? Is there something that is sort of wrong with that big picture analysis? Are there things that I am missing in this? I have to say that I am not convinced which road we want to go down, because you are talking about a world where cash is simply not--the benefits of cash where you can have anonymous transactions would not be allowed, at least electronically. And a lot of people, including me, have a lot of worries about going down that road. Are there big points that I have missed in that sort of binary choice that we have to make? Mr. Farah, you look like you are reaching for the-- Mr. Farah. I think that is really a good description of what--sort of the macro questions that we are facing. And I think that, to me, there is something of a middle ground in taking away the really easy advantages that illicit groups have in ways that don't impinge on your privacy or your ability to actually conduct business. I think, as John Cassara was talking about, the sheer volume, most of it for good stuff, there is a threshold at which if you overregulate, you kill business and our commerce comes to a grinding halt. So I think that things like not allowing anonymous shell corporations, I think that basic regulation of commodities and an accounting of how--for example, why, for a certain amount of time, Colombia was exporting more gold than it produced. Those should raise red flags. That is not rocket science. That is sort of basic due diligence on your commodities and how they move. The fact that in several countries where gold move extensively, you have free trade zones built into the airports, so you can fly gold in, walk it to the free trade zone without ever declaring it, and reship it to another country without it ever transiting in any formal way. That is the most basic loopholes that you can begin to close. I think if you-- Mr. Foster. So how rapidly will people--let's say you close those loopholes. Then you have Bitcoin or things like that, and there will be billions of dollars flowing immediately. Are we-- Mr. Farah. I think the key is to raise the cost of illicit transactions to the point where they are no longer quite so lucrative and quite so easy, and over time, you build up, as we have done with some success in some ways with drug trafficking money, where you began enough regulations that it is no longer that easy, that cheap, and that--and with absolute impunity. You raise the cost over time. And I think, as I think many of my colleagues addressed, that these are rapidly adaptive groups, that you have to be able to think rapidly and ahead of the curve, which is something that bureaucracy is not very good at, but if you raise the cost over time, you diminish the impact of illicit behavior. Mr. Foster. Okay. And I guess my time has expired, but I thank everyone for their thoughtful participation in this, because it is a real decision our society is going to have to make. Thank you. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for being with us today to continue this serious conversation that we have been having about terror financing. I would like to direct my first question to Professor Gurule. In your testimony, you discussed the importance of secondary sanctions, and you recommend that the United States both strengthen existing sanctions, and potentially impose new ones, like those in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 aimed at the Islamic State. As you know, however, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, actually lifted many secondary sanctions against Iran and created loopholes, for example, regarding the sale of commercial passenger aircraft, which Boeing is already seeking to exploit. Do you think it was wise for the President to waive these sanctions as part of the JCPOA? Mr. Gurule. Well, I think that perhaps it would have been better to have waited to decide to lift the sanctions, to determine whether or not Iran is in compliance with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. To lift those immediately after the agreement was signed perhaps is questionable. Mr. Rothfus. There are two aspects in dealing with Iran: one is the nuclear; but the other is that it is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. Wouldn't lifting these secondary sanctions weaken our efforts to combat the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism? Mr. Gurule. Well, certainly. And let's keep in mind that I think it was the secondary sanctions that really put the squeeze on Iran, and I think forced them to the bargaining table and forced them to agree to make certain concessions with respect to developing their nuclear sector. And then to take kind of that principal leverage that was used against Iran to bring them to the bargaining table and then to lift that, again, raises some serious questions whether or not that was premature, whether or not we should have waited, permitted some time to determine whether or not Iran is going to live up to its obligations under the agreement. Mr. Rothfus. In your testimony, you also recommend that the United States should develop a comprehensive counterterrorist financing strategy. My concern is that the President can't even articulate an actual strategy to combat the Islamic State militarily. It is really not surprising that the Administration has also failed to develop a strategy to counter the financing of such groups. In your opinion, why hasn't the Administration done this work to develop a plan to cut down on terrorist financing? Mr. Gurule. It is a good question that you raise. And one possible answer is that it isn't a priority of the Administration, despite public statements to the contrary, and it certainly goes to the question of the effectiveness of the current U.S. Government's counterterrorist financing efforts. I worked at the Treasury Department. I know how committed those employees are, how hard they work to counter this effort, but I think that their efforts would be enhanced if it was done in a more thoughtful, forward-leaning, forward-thinking, comprehensive manner, in terms of targeting priorities, anticipating future methods of moving money for terrorists around the world, and then there are specific strategies that have been developed in coordination with other important government agencies to combat those threats. So I think the failure to have such a strategy has undermined our overall efforts. Mr. Rothfus. Mr. Zarate, your testimony also talks about the need to develop this comprehensive strategy. Here we are more than 2 years--it is June 2016--since the Islamic State was dismissed by the President as the ``JV team.'' Do you have any insights as to why we don't have this comprehensive strategy outlined yet from the Administration? Any insights? Mr. Zarate. Congressman, I think we were caught flat- footed, to be quite honest. I think our withdrawal in 2011 left us blind to what was happening in Iraq. We had established the Iraq Threat Finance Cell in 2006, precisely to look at the financial intelligence and information around how Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in the insurgency were raising and moving money. That was dismantled, and I think we were caught flat-footed; we just didn't have eyes on the ground, we were no longer looking at it. So I think that is one of the reasons. And think we have been playing catch-up. And to Professor Gurule's point, in order for sanctions, or secondary sanctions, or any type of tool to work, we have to have the intelligence, we have to understand how these financial infrastructures work. We have to understand who their moneymen are; we have to understand what brokers they are relying upon; we have to understand what the intersection is with the regional and global economy; how money service businesses are potentially implicated. All of that has to be done, and I think we are playing catch-up. And to Professor Gurule's point, I think we have colleagues at the Treasury Department who are working assiduously and with enormous energy to try to get at this problem, but I think we are doing a lot of catch-up work. Mr. Rothfus. I yield back. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, is recognized. Mr. Sherman. There is, obviously, division in any political organization, such as the Administration. It may explain why we are not going after certain targets. There are those in the Administration trying to do everything possible to reduce the economic power of Iran, and now the Administration is considering a $100 billion Boeing jet deal so that Iran will be able to efficiently airlift thugs to Damascus, where thousands of people will be killed as a direct result of that airlift capacity and where hundreds of thousands will be driven into exile as a result of that capacity. Perhaps the biggest terrorist financial transaction will be licensed by Treasury, that is to say, a $100 billion transaction for an airline available to the IRGC for its airlift capacity. I should also point out that--and this is outside the scope of this task force--when we look at financial problems, it is not just our enemies; it is our so-called friends. If people want to say, why do we have ISIS? We have ISIS because we have Malaki. Why did one of the best equipped and most lavishly provisioned armies in the history of the Middle East not only fade into nothing, but give its weapons to ISIS on the way out, and then leave the money in the Mosul Bank? You have to look at Mr. Malaki and we have to wonder why we ever put him into power. I want to focus with Mr. Zarate and Mr. Gurule on just how much evidence you need to put an entity on the terrorism list. I think the book, ``Treasury's War,'' says there was once an 80/20 rule. If you are 80 percent sure, put them on. Now, I see an awful lot of IRGC entities that aren't on. And I wonder--you look at what the legal standard is, which is you can put them on unless the courts determine it is arbitrary and capricious. That basically means the law says you get to do almost anything you want to do. I don't know--I think it is incredibly rare that any entity has gone into a U.S. court and said, take us off the list, it is arbitrary and capricious to put us on. Some have appealed to the Administration, but never has the Administration, to my knowledge, been overruled by the court system. So basically, the Administration can do what they want. Has the thinking in Treasury swung too far in the direction of we need more proof, more documents, more files, and more review before we put an entity on the list? Gentlemen? Mr. Zarate. Congressman, the standard is a reasonable basis to believe that the individual meets the criteria of the executive order, and so there has to be a body of evidence. And with the USA PATRIOT Act allowing for the use of intelligence and protecting that information, intelligence can also be used as part of the body of evidence. But you are right, that is the lowest standard in the legal context that you would allow, and the appellate review is obviously the most permissive under U.S. law. I think three things are at play: one, there has been more reticence to avoid litigation, because there have been challenges, and I think there is a bit of resistance there; two, I think there has been a recalibration as to when to use targeted sanctions most effectively. Is it effective to put people on these lists if they don't have any financial connectivity, don't have any business interest; so a more strategic thinking around how you use the list and for what purposes-- Mr. Sherman. Are you saying that there are circumstances where it is pretty obvious they are a terrorist organization, but you just don't bother to put them on the list because they don't seem to have much of a bank account? Mr. Zarate. It is not necessarily terrorist organizations, but particular individuals, for example, who may be foot soldiers, for example, in Mosul who may not be transacting, may not be have any financial benefit. And, frankly, one of the concerns that the Treasury has to deal with is banks and financial institutions dealing with a laundry list, as Professor Gurule mentioned, over a thousand STGTs, and the STN list is even longer; so a desire not to clog the system with irrelevant names, or less strategic names. So I think that is a serious issue. And the third is diplomatically, what makes sense. A lot of times, the U.S. Treasury and the State Department use the list in a diplomatic way to push action, for example, the Saudi government. And sometimes, listing an individual or entity makes sense, and sometimes having a quiet conversation to get the same effect and impact makes sense. And so I think there is some degree of that balance that takes place. So those would be the three reasons I would give as to why you have seen the phenomenon you have described. Mr. Sherman. Mr. Gurule, should we be listing entities more quickly, do you think? Mr. Gurule. I think that, as you stated, the legal standard is incredibly low. And then on appeal, if a designation is challenged by the person who has been listed, again, it is a very deferential standard to the administrative agency, arbitrary or capricious. And I would say 99 times out of 100, the designee loses. There are very, very few cases in which the designation is overturned. So it shouldn't be for fear that, oh, we are going to lose this and it is going to be overturned by a Federal judge. I guess my concern is listing individuals primarily kind of for symbolic value. Okay, now we have listed, we have publicized that this guy is a senior member of ISIS, now he has been out and now the world knows, and so that has some value, but if there are no assets in the United States to be blocked, if there is no evidence that U.S. persons are doing business with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, it seems to me that the designation does not have much value in terms of the objective of curtailing funding. If that is ultimately what the objective is, then-- Mr. Sherman. Part of the objective is just to punish and name shame the individual, but I will agree, maybe you don't want to do privates, but a colonel or a general is worth putting on. I just want to, for the record, indicate that this contract to sell wea---planes, I was about to say weapons, because that is what they are also, is not $100 billion, but it is tens of billions of dollars. I yield back. Chairman Fitzpatrick. Mr. Poliquin of Maine is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I appreciate you bringing these distinguished witnesses before us, and all the great work that we have done in the past year on this issue. In a very frightening way, I think we all saw in Orlando that for all kinds of reasons, terrorism has now reached our shores. And this is something a lot of folks have been very concerned about for a very long period of time, so many issues that we have already discussed today. Lacking a priority by this Administration to stay on offense has put us in a very difficult situation, in my opinion. Ms. Realuyo, let me ask you this question: What impact, if any, would the defeat of ISIS have on a broader impact on interrupting money flows to terrorist organizations around the world who look to harm us? Ms. Realuyo. We have to take a look at the fight against ISIL in a specific way. And you have seen various Administration officials actually tout the progress that is being made, if we categorize it as a campaign against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. So we have seen that militarily and financially. But what has happened is that the group has actually metastasized, and this is what the fear is, is that they are actually sending people who are--the foreign fighters, we are now up to 40,000 foreign fighters, according to the CIA, who have traveled to Syria to fight alongside ISIS, including over 200 Americans. Now, the problem that we have is that return of the foreign fighters, and I know several of you serve on the Homeland Security Committee, where that is the concern that we have. Then the third batch that we are worried about is the fight in the Levant, then those who are returning to places like Brussels and Paris. And the third iteration, which sadly we have seen here in the United States, are those who are inspired. I think the victims and the families of victims of any terror attack are not making this distinction between ISIL- directed and ISIL-inspired. I think a lot of us are kind of caught up with what was the categorization of, sadly, the attack in Orlando or San Bernardino. The effect is the same, right, if we think of terrorism defined as the act of violence against innocents for a political or ideological or religious cause. What we are seeing, though, is that even if we were to defeat ISIL, which is very important, there are three phases of the campaign against ISIL. There is the physical, which is the military. There is the financial, which actually has done very well in the last year since I last appeared before you. They are down year on year, about 30 percent. And as we know, they need money to actually pay the foreign fighters and then, more importantly, sustain its caliphate. And then the psychological one is what I think is now really coming to the forefront of the average Americans. What does it take and how are these people inspired so far away in basements across the United States, or in the U.K., or in France, or in Brussels? This is the question that we have to ask. What is important is that defeat of ISIL, because of its ability to propagandize, and then, more importantly, inspire and train, which is what we saw in the case of the European attacks, foreign fighters who will then return to their home countries to wage jihad against their local populations. So it is a very complex issue that really has metastasized in a way that not just the United States, but other countries across the world now are trying to grapple with, this idea of homegrown versus ISIS-directed, and then, more importantly, the fight that we see now on the ground, particularly in Iraq. In the last couple of days, we have seen the Iraqi forces take up arms, and are actually trying to clear and hold parts of Fallujah. But the financial piece--and to address the other question: So in the White House strategy of November 2014, there were nine lines of effort, and line number five is disrupting ISIL's financing. When we take a look at grading--since I am a professor, we grade, right--the nine lines of effort, the military and the financial have actually--we have seen progress on both fronts, but as we have seen, these attacks don't take a lot of money. So you have to really keep fighting the fight physically, financially, and more importantly, psychologically. And I know that there are other hearings on the Hill this week that are looking at this concept of countering violent extremism, both here in the United States and abroad. Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Cassara--if I may, Mr. Chairman. If you could pick one thing, one thing only, what would be your primary issue to interrupt? What would have the greatest impact, based on all the hearings that we have had and all those that you have participated in, all the work that you have done in your career, the one thing that would have the greatest impact at interrupting money flows to terrorist organizations, what would that be? Mr. Cassara. The thing that I would like to see the most, and it impacts more than terror finance, I would like to see trade transparency. We talked about this in the previous hearing. I think it is doable. I think the time is right. I think it impacts terror finance; it impacts underground finance; and it impacts revenue streams for governments. I think the time has come to aim towards international trade transparency. Mr. Poliquin. Mr. Zarate, same question to you, sir. Mr. Zarate. Without a doubt, disruption and dislodgement of terrorists' control of resources and territory that they use to develop diversified portfolios and war economies. Groups that occupy real territory in urban environments not only are able to tax, develop trade schemes, exploit the resources, but they also use those environments to serve as an economic shield. We have been reluctant to be more aggressive in Mosul precisely because we have to worry about the day after, and we have to worry about the financial and other infrastructure of that city. The reality is ISIS has used that city to fund itself, and to use that as a hub, along with Raqqa and its control of other cities, to develop a war economy. That is why some estimates have them raising $2 billion, and even with our best efforts, they continue to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. And so, I would say, whether it is ISIS or Al Qaeda or the FARC or Hezbollah, their ability to actually leverage resources and territory is probably the most fundamental thing you can do to disrupt terrorist financing today. Mr. Poliquin. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it very much. I yield back my time. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and Congressman Lynch for your significant leadership, and I appreciate the ranking member and the chairman of the full Financial Services Committee in sponsoring this task force, because I think it has been so important, and I think it has been a demonstration really across the Congress of returning to something that was a tenet of mine some 30-plus years ago, which was a strong, consistent, bipartisan view on foreign policy matters. And I want to thank Mr. Lynch and Mr. Fitzpatrick for demonstrating that in this matter, and thank the staff for their hard work, since they also have other things to do here at the Financial Services Committee. And thanks to our panel for coming back and for your full participation over the last year. I just can't help but react to some of the commentary. You know, I think the issue that terror finance has really not been on the radar screen of this Administration until more recently is due to what I think is an a la carte NSC process that has thwarted the best judgment of our professionals at the State Department and our professionals at the Department of Defense. And it is not my opinion, it is Leon Panetta's opinion, it is Bob Gates' opinion, it is the Joint Chiefs' opinion, and therefore, we have been behind the curve on so many of these issues, as my friend, Mr. Sherman, noted. And one of those we have been behind the curve on is terror finance. If we had had a better process in working with the Iraqis, I don't think we would have seen the explosion of ISIS out of Syria into Iraq, and by not reacting, they got the terror network they have today. If we were doing today what--2 years ago or 3 years ago, they would not have the terror network that we are so concerned about. So since San Bernardino and Paris, I do commend the Administration for changing the rules of engagement, including terror finance targets as military targets. It is something I think we talked about in our very first hearing of this group. Well, as everyone on the panel knows, I have a pet project in this terror finance arena, and so I would like to get some views on it. First, I commend the Treasury's draft on eliminating this foreign-owned, single-member LLC issue. I think that is a good catch, one I personally didn't know about, that they didn't even register to get a taxpayer ID number, so I think that is an important catch and will have lasting benefits. Mr. Zarate, as we have talked before and as we have had testimony on this panel, we have talked about this issue, though, of beneficial ownership, and the Treasury proposal, in my view, sort of misses the mark, because it is too broad, it is 24.9 percent or 25 percent, it is relying on the usual suspects, i.e., the banks to sort of police it and basically report it through a SAR process, which is good, or okay, but it is extremely cumbersome, paper-based, burdensome on small institutions, I think way after the fact, not very timely, and I don't think will be effective, and it will end up being a major new paper-shuffling exercise. But as I have argued in here, I think the IRS data and sharing the IRS data, particularly now that we add single- member non-citizen-owned LLCs is the most robust way to have a single data source that is all digitized, and it is already in the possession of the Federal Government. So how do we add properly in 26 U.S.C. 6103 the ability for FinCEN to have access to the ownership information you find on a K-1 for an LLC and maintain privacy rights and follow our normal procedures? I will start with you, Juan, if I might. Mr. Zarate. Congressman, thank you. And I know that you have been focused on this issue for some time. I think you have to create a particular carve-out for the IRS to be able to share this information. And to your point, the information doesn't do much good if it is locked up in an archive and isn't made available to those who actually have to regulate and look for problematic trends, individuals, and networks. I would also say there has to be a way for the markets to actually understand with whom they are doing business, and so, there should be some sharing of the burden. I agree with you, the burden shouldn't always be on the banks to have to determine ultimate beneficial ownership, but that does then put the onus on corporate registration regimes and entities, including at the State level, to actually understand and to have available information about corporations and LLCs that are based in those jurisdictions. So I don't disagree with you, but I think there has to be a very specific carve-out to protect privacy and civil liberties, but it has to be real time, and there has to be some market mechanism by which market actors can share information about who their customers are, because ultimately, we want banks, financial institutions, regulated bodies to understand who they are doing business with. Mr. Hill. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, and go another round if you have one. Thank you. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is now recognized. Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Lynch. Thank you for your leadership on this task force over the last year. This has been an important exercise in determining how we can better disrupt and degrade terrorist organizations through the financial streams that seem to end up in terrorists' hands. And thank you to the panel for your insightful testimony. I wanted to focus a little bit on this Orlando attack, because the FBI has said to us in the aftermath of this tragedy that these are the kinds of attacks that are the most difficult to disrupt, the most difficult to detect, a lone-wolf scenario, a self-radicalized individual for whom normal intelligence gathering efforts are incapable of disrupting these kinds of lone wolf attacks. So outside of the Bank Secrecy Act, or referencing the Bank Secrecy Act, is there anything that Federal law enforcement can do to identify financial transactions of individuals who are on watch lists that could maybe detect, before a tragedy like this, individuals who might engage in this kind of activity? Does anyone want to weigh in on that? Ms. Realuyo. I think, sadly, the Orlando attack shows that people did see something and say something, well beyond the financial piece. So from what we know that has been disclosed through the reporting and open sources, he obviously transferred the deed for a very small value. Someone had to actually do that transaction. It is not a banking transaction, but there were probably lawyers involved. The other thing as well, our system, because of this $10,000 threshold, we are always looking at the nature of the transaction as opposed to these kind of what I call institutionalized levels. So the other thing I study is transactional organized crime, and, sadly, we have seen human trafficking as a scourge that is really dealing with the migration patterns through the Americas, around the world. A lot of those transactions are below that $10,000 threshold. But we also need to see and figure out, and that is what I wrote my testimony on, is how can you actually have the public who do see something, say something, know how to approach law enforcement or the government, whether they work at a bank or another financial institution, or some sort of interaction where they can actually take their complaints and, more importantly, their suspicions in a safe way to those who could prevent the next Orlando or San Bernardino. We saw this too. I had the privilege of going and working with the L.A. Joint Terrorism Task Force the day after the San Bernardino attacks, and it was pretty interesting to see that after the attack, a lot of the neighbors were saying, well, we saw suspicious things taking place, but we didn't want to say something. So I think it goes beyond just financial services, but if we can actually educate our public and, sadly, we also have a new generation. So my students at George Washington University who just graduated, they were children on 9/11. For them, it was a movie. We all know exactly where we were and, more importantly, we were inculcated in that culture of see something, say something, and we have to get the next generation to be just as aware that these people have this intent, irrespective of what the motivation is, and want to use violence against innocent people. Mr. Barr. To follow up with any of the other witnesses, in the financial system, is there a blind spot? Is there something that we are not doing in our financial system that we should be doing to help identify suspicious financial activity that might tip Federal law enforcement to weapon purchases, things like that? Mr. Gurule. I think it is difficult, because, again, the lone-wolf terror attack does not involve a lot of money. These are financed with a few thousand dollars at most. I can't imagine that the Orlando shooting cost Mateen more than that. And so I think it is very difficult to identify any financial transaction that would alert or raise some red flag, and then cause law enforcement to react. But I am concerned about people who have knowledge of someone who is going to commit a terrorist attack, such as the wife and other associates of Omar Mateen, and there is no legal obligation to disclose that information to the police. It is interesting, however, that if you are a schoolteacher, you have to disclose information regarding a child who has been physically abused, or you believe has been sexually abused. If you are a nurse or a doctor, you have to disclose that to the police, but if you are a citizen and you have reason to believe that your boyfriend or close associate is going to launch a terror attack, you have no legal obligation to disclose that to anyone. You have not committed a crime by keeping that information to yourself. And by the way, if you provide that person some money, let's say for benign purposes, or some other material support, that isn't even a crime. Under the Material Support statute dealing with lone-wolf terrorists, it is only a crime if you provide the material support knowing or intending that that support will be used to commit a violent crime. So if you provide it for a benign purpose, you haven't committed a crime, and you are not prosecutable. And so one of the recommendations that I made is that I think that those particular statutes, 2339(a) and 2339(b), need to have a lower scienter like 2339(b) that says, if you knowingly provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), regardless of your intent, that is a crime. And I think that we need to bring those two statutes in line with 2339(b), and I am not saying eliminate the knowing or intending, but make it a lesser crime if you have knowledge that the person is a terrorist, or about to commit a terrorist attack, and you provide that person material support. Mr. Barr. Thank you. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The gentleman's time has expired. We are going to go to a second round of questions. And the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Pittenger, is recognized. Mr. Pittenger. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your leadership on this important task force. One reference to Mr. Poliquin's statement and inquiry dealt with the data, and your response, I believe, Juan, was that we have legislation that hopefully will get passed before we break, to collect data from Customs and Treasury and Commerce, bill of lading and other export-import data, and then assimilate that and then provide it to FinCEN and other departments, so Customs and others. So at least we are moving that direction on that. Ms. Realuyo, I would like to ask you, and Mr. Farah, your thoughts in terms of the nexus between the criminal element and the terrorist. I know that you are getting ready to have a conference in that regard. And just speak to that issue, if you would. Ms. Realuyo. Several years ago, Doug and I began taking a look at this convergence of terrorism and crime. Traditionally, terrorist groups have state sponsors, and there are still state sponsors that do exist, in the case of Iran supporting Hezbollah, but what we have seen with contracting Al Qaeda core, which was basically funded by donors, as opposed to what we see now in terms of ISIL and its other affiliates, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, they are actually reliant on criminal activities to support and sustain themselves, and some groups have actually moved away from the terrorist aspirations and just become criminal groups. What we are seeing, then, is an actual need now to combine those who are doing the law enforcement, military intelligence, information gathering, and then, more importantly, operations to counter crime and counter terrorism in a much more interdisciplinary and interagency way. So the way we are looking at this is actually we refer to them now academically at the National Defense University as illicit networks, which will also include nuclear proliferators, as well as all of their facilitators. And this is what we are trying to do, is when you take a look at--and Doug can speak much more in depth about this, drug trafficking transactions are actually supporting terrorist groups, as we have seen through the Lebanese Canadian Bank, is that case was briefed to you all here before, but this question that we were limiting ourselves by having silos of excellence here in Washington, right? Those who did counterterrorism only looked at terrorist groups, and those who worked on crime or drug trafficking were very siloed. What we are seeing now is that our adversaries who threaten sovereignty and, more importantly, our economic viability, are actually joining forces, if not becoming these hybrid groups, and that is the case when we take a look at things like the FARC, Hezbollah, Shining Path, and then, more importantly, the metastasis of ISIL, which is really an auto-financed group, it is something we hadn't really seen before, that has actually created its own territory across two countries. I defer to Doug, who can go much more granularly into this convergence that we have actually seen on the ground. Mr. Farah. Thank you, Celina. I think it was in the early days a few years back, there was a lot of resistance to the idea, because the idea was that terrorists didn't care about money and criminals didn't care about ideology or whatever was diving terrorists. And over time, it became abundantly clear, and I think in the early days, Juan and John and others were working on in the policy world and on the ground seeing exactly how, for example, Al Qaeda was able to use blood diamond flows controlled by Hezbollah in West Africa to move and hide their value. And as you see that I talked about today, gold and other things are available to them. And it doesn't matter anymore on the ground really what you belong to if you are--because so many groups are in the money-making business together. And I think that goes back to one of the points I was making in my testimony about states that allow this or protect transnational organized crime as instruments of policy. So when you have Venezuela using the FARC, which is both a designated terrorist organization and a major drug trafficking organization, as an instrument of their foreign policy and allowing them safe harbor and constructing in their country a safe space where Hezbollah can come, where multiple other terrorist organizations can come, learn how to benefit from the drug trafficking and exchange methodologies and thoughts, then you have an entirely different level of complicity and convergence in ways that are very, very hard to disentangle. Mr. Pittenger. Can I ask you a quick question? Do you have a concern with FARC, the agreement between FARC and Venezuela? Mr. Farah. Yes, sir, I do. I would say there is a potential, there is a template that other groups have followed that I think that the FARC is very well advised on and is likely to follow. I think the primary leader, or the designer of the template are both the FMLN in El Salvador and the FSLN in Nicaragua, where they learned that they could take control of the state. Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are not exempt from this as well. They also are the brains behind how to move into the process as a political force, get rid of all the moderates in that political force that you create, and go almost directly into illicit financing mechanisms to perpetuate yourself in power with the complete absence of accountability. I think in my written testimony, I noted that, for example, Daniel Ortega has acknowledged that he gets about $500 million a year from Venezuela, supposedly from the sale of oil, which is not nearly that much, which is essentially his personal slush fund. It doesn't--it is 20 percent of the national budget that is not allocated in the national budget in any way and which there is no oversight. In El Salvador, you have Alba Petroleos, which is generating, by their own accounts, $1 billion a year, which is 23 percent of the national budget, which does not go through any appropriations process, any oversight whatsoever, and is simply the slush fund of senior party leaders, who have deep ties to the FARC, which allows the FARC to move money out and launder it through their state structure. So I think that is an enormous problem, which the FARC is going to take full advantage as they move forward, because I think at the end of the day, one, it comes down to one's assumptions. The FARC are genuinely interested in becoming-- incorporating into the peace process and joining the democratic process, because that is what they believe, or is it an extension, is the peace process an extension of their political agenda to take power and hold it over a long period of time? I believe the latter. Mr. Pittenger. I thank each of you for your invaluable insight and assistance. I yield back. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The ranking member, Mr. Lynch, is now recognized. Mr. Lynch. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Professor Realuyo, in your remarks, you identified those five or six points that you really got to focus. I want to talk about point four, which is enhancing our financial intelligence in some of these areas, and especially Iraq and Syria where that is going on. We have a bill that I think has four Republican Members and four Democratic Members here, to establish basically a reward system that allows and enables the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare a reward system for intelligence coming out of that area. One of our great difficulties is that we don't have boots on the ground in a lot of these spots. You are right, it is a very unique auto financing system, they have control of territory, and we don't have a whole lot of information coming out. So one of the thoughts was to, and not only in this case with ISIL, but with other--I think Mr. Cassara has described them as criminalized nation states, being able to get information through whistleblowers or people who will come forward. Do you think that is a practical approach to try to incentivize some greater intelligence capacity within our partner states, and also with insurgencies that are going up against Bashar al-Assad and some of these other, more criminalized nation states? Ms. Realuyo. What I think you are referring to is something we call Rewards for Justice, a type of model. And it actually worked in terms of the very beginning of our engagement in Iraq to find Saddam Hussein and his sons. And actually, those who helped identify and locate Saddam Hussein are now living in the United States as their reward for justice. So it is an interesting way to complement the types of things that we are doing on the financial front, but also internally, we still need to invest a lot more in terms of those who are within our U.S. Government on how to use and then, more importantly, validate that type of information that might be coming, because if it is just a question of, like, we call confidential informants that we use throughout law enforcement agencies, such as the DEA, we have to figure out a better way to do that. So the question is, how do we enhance our own intelligence capabilities, whether they be in our military or across the greater and broader U.S. Government, on how to keep up with-- and this is the thing, I think, most of us are quite concerned with. I know Juan and I have talked about it. Financial innovation and financial technology is moving at an unprecedented pace, and unfortunately, a lot of the talent and those who can detect the backdoors to these very constructive technologies that help us, whether they be virtual currencies or mobile payments, we need to get that kind of brain trust into the U.S. Government to help us take a look at these new anomalies. And that is what we are looking at, more ways to proactively promote public-private partnerships, which has been embarked, by the way, in the area of cybersecurity, because the firms that we are working with really understand the cost of these cyber breaches, we should impart that into financial services and the broader sector with the same aplomb as we are doing in the cyber sector. Mr. Lynch. Great. And, Mr. Zarate, you have had a good perspective inside Treasury. One of the frustrating parts for us on this committee is when we--we were in the Gulf recently, and we got--one of our Treasury attaches is trying to interface with the FIUs in those areas. We have one young agent there who is handling five different countries. So we are understaffed. And with the complications with money coming out of the Gulf going up to Iraq and Syria, it is a real problem. We have a bipartisan amendment to try to push through some more money to FinCEN and parts of Treasury that would deal with that, OTA and other departments. How critical is that to--as the professor pointed out, we are in a competition for this talent, and the folks who are really, really keen on some of the cutting-edge technology in the financial services area are being pulled away by big money, understandably, by the private firms, and that is why these partnerships are so important. How critical is it to make sure that we get the resources to hire the people, and especially with--as Mr. Gurule has indicated, I forget how many money service businesses are out there, but just to get coverage on that, how important is it to pump more money into FinCEN and Treasury so that we plus-up our capacity within the government? Mr. Zarate. I think it is incredibly important. And I think you are right that we have been under-resourced in a whole range of areas in this domain for a good period of time. And I will tell you that what you saw out in the Gulf was actually leaps and bounds beyond what we had when I was there, when we were fighting for budget dollars just to put one attache out there. Now you have, I think, three in the Gulf region. But I think you are absolutely right. The international presence has to be deeper. The technical expertise has to be present, and you are right that the market itself is sucking the expertise out of the U.S. Government. I work a lot with the private sector now on the outside, and a lot of these major global banks look like Treasury alumni associations-- Mr. Lynch. Yes. Mr. Zarate. --and all of the key global compliance officers are all Treasury alumni, and for good reason-- Mr. Lynch. Yes. Mr. Zarate. --for good reason, but it does demonstrate that there is a real demand in the private sector and in the public domain. A final point: I think we now realize, and this comes from the years of experience that is represented on this panel, that these issues are not just critical to financial regulation, but they are central to our national security. And we have underinvested in this domain, both in the context of our tools and resources, but also our long-term strategic thinking in this domain. If you look at this compared to our DOD dollars, and those are important, I am a huge fan of our kinetics and our military force and projection, but if you look at it in comparison, it is miniscule, when in many regards, this is a key asymmetric power for our country, and we need to be thinking strategically, we need to be adapting quickly, and we need to contend with the fact that our enemies are thinking pretty creatively around our controls and our power, and that starts, first and foremost, with the office we created, the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, they need to be resourced. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I know I am over my time, and I appreciate the chairman's indulgence, but just to put a finer point on the talent cycle here, even here on our subcommittees and task forces, Treasury is hiring away our staff, because someone else is hiring away their staff. And so, I guess it is-- Mr. Zarate. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Mr. Lynch. There is just--we have to train a lot more people on the things we are working on, but I am preaching to the choir here. As a group, you have been tremendous on this stuff. I yield back. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, is recognized. Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just before I switch subjects, if I could return back to this issue of beneficial ownership and just continue my visit here on that. So I understand the States and State incorporation laws, and there is a lot to be done there, and I am for any innovative suggestions on that. But still, regardless of that, whether I incorporate in Delaware or I incorporate in Arkansas, if I have an LLC, and it is domestic, I have a taxpayer ID number. And every year I file a balance sheet and K-1s for all those investors, at every percentage, not 25 percent, but at .9999 percent. Therefore, I think it is a superior support with also a legal basis that it has to be accurate or you violated Federal law. Whereas, the statutes on, do I fill out my LLC information form with the Secretary of State, I am not sure how imposing that is. So I would like other members of the panel to kind of react to Mr. Zarate's and my little colloquy we have had. Any other thoughts on this subject? Mr. Gurule. I would add simply that, again, it seems to me that it is a critical component of know-your-customer. Know- your-customer has been a fundamental principle guiding transparency with financial institutions through the Bank Secrecy Act for decades. Mr. Hill. Right. Mr. Gurule. And I think that it is really part and parcel of that. I don't think that the principle of know-your-customer is being fully implemented if we don't know who the beneficial owner is of the particular company that is the customer of the bank. We have a CIP program that again requires--regulations require a customer to identify itself, and his name and address basically. And I don't think that goes far enough. And so I think to fully implement the requirement of KYC to fully understand who you are doing business with, we need that information. And I don't think that it is an unreasonable request to impose on banks. Mr. Hill. Fair enough. And I don't--I can understand that point of view. And people already have that Gramm-Leach-Bliley obligation. It is a legal obligation they have. They have an obligation to file an SAR when they see something that merits that. So those are already in place. In other words, they should know their beneficial owners, particularly in a credit situation. I would argue they know them all intimately because of the guaranty process to get that credit facility put in place. But I am up here at a macro level saying, if I was trying to collect big data and I wanted it in a consistent format, and use some discovery techniques that are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, all this talk about whether the banks have it digitized or it is in paper in their files and all is, you know, a more--it is less robust than an IRS solution if I were looking for the needle in the haystack. So that is my comment on that. Anybody else want to go there? Probably not. Good. I have worn you out. So let me, if I could, switch to--well, let me do one thing before I switch to Section 314. How about the idea of a utility format for this data repository at the state level? We have automated secretaries of state, we have paper-based, we have robust Internet accessibility. I would still argue it is not timely and it is not impressive. But we can automate it. So what about a utility-type structure? Mr. Zarate, do you want to start with that, and then others, to tackle this beneficial ownership issue? Mr. Zarate. Congressman, I think the utility model is incredibly important to pursue, not just in the context of ultimate beneficial ownership information (UBO), but more broadly to provide a new model for how the anti-money laundering system itself works. I think we will talk about 314 in a second, but the reality is the current system is very much stovepiped institution by institution, transaction by transaction. We are now moving into an age when not only can we deal with big data, but we have potential use of AI technologies, the ability to collect data and analyze it in ways that are helpful not only to look at the past but also even predictive ways. And there are ways of collectivizing the risk and looking at vulnerabilities across sectors, as opposed to just one institution at a time. And so to your point, I think a utility for purposes of State registry of corporations and ultimate beneficial ownership, is a great idea because people need access to that information, be they a bank or a car dealer or another regulated entity. But more broadly, and I think a big idea that stems from this, is we need to think aggressively about how we use new technologies to actually make this system more effective, to use the data we have. We have a lot of data. And it is part of what this task force has been looking at. And to use that technology to actually protect privacy and civil liberties, while also making the information more valuable on a real-time basis. So we have talked a lot about this over the years, but there is now an opportunity, given the technology, to create a sense of a utility not just around particular data points, but around the entire system itself. Mr. Hill. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I have--would you yield me a minute? I just want to touch on 314 about this issue of collaboration, Professor Realuyo, you mentioned--do you anticipate that the best approach to that is another center like our center in Pittsburgh on cyber or do you view it as just statutory protections that allow collaboration when it is needed? What do you think the best way to achieve collaboration is from our point of view as legislators, where there needs to be a framework, some sort of a legislative framework change made? Ms. Realuyo. I have my lawyers here. But the real problem, and more importantly, we have been working on at our agency on counterterrorism and countercrime issues. You have to--on top of having actual requirements for information sharing and mechanisms for really timely information sharing, because we see now that our adversaries are moving in milliseconds. And if you are aware of an app called WhatsApp that the rest of the world is using, you can really send instructions quite quickly. And we are only catching up in terms of this piece. You have to create this culture of sharing. And I think it has taken--for example, the military, for jointness, it has taken decades for them to actually become what they call purple. So we need to incite, and more importantly, when we are looking inside the tragedies like Orlando and San Bernadino, highlight the fact that we are not sharing at light speed, even though our adversaries are operating at light speed, and then use legislation that compels and create mechanisms. So you have to have the actual legal framework, and then within the legal framework, have the institutions who have--led by people with political will to actually enforce that legislation, and then have these actual mechanisms that can incorporate real-time data and information, and then pass it along to those in law enforcement or in the intelligence or military to actually act upon it. We have greatly improved in the last 15 years since the tragic attacks of September 11th, but we have to see how these different facets help us to achieve the mission of countering terrorist financing. Mr. Hill. Would any other panel members like to comment on that? Mr. Zarate. I can weigh in and defend Celina, if you like, sir. A couple of things--I think the Pittsburgh Center is an important model because it creates a discipline around the information sharing that is more than just sharing one piece of data at a time. It is about looking at trends, looking at particular cases. In the U.K., they are experimenting with a model called JMLIT, which is a joint money laundering task force that is actually combining the private sector and the public sector in a more aggressive way. So I think more aggressive information- sharing models work. One thing to keep in mind--and I know this task force has traveled a lot and has great influence when you meet with counterparts. One of the restraints internationally, though, is in laws around the world that prevent the sharing of customer data and information, even within a global institution. So a major global bank, let's say based in the United States, can't necessarily see on a real-time basis information about a customer or a transaction that happens in Malaysia or that happens in Turkey, in part because there are restrictions as to how that data can flow outside the borders of that country. In a global enterprise, when we are asking institutions to manage their risk and where we want real-time information sharing, that is a 19th Century model for how we manage risk. And I think we have to take that up not only internally, but also with our counterparts around the world. Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time back. Chairman Fitzpatrick. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, has yielded back. And with that, the time for all questions has expired. I also want to again thank our witnesses for their testimony, not just today, but for your willingness to appear before this task force on multiple occasions and for providing your expertise even between hearings. One of the things we tried to do with this task force was recognize the body of sort of your life's work, what you do each and every day, which is think about and work to protect our country, the citizens, the economy, and bring that focus back here to the House Committee on Financial Services. And one of the other goals I had for the task force was to make sure that, as we look back at the work between the members of the task force and between parties, that there would be no light between us, since we are all singularly focused on the goal of chasing down terror finance, cutting it off, and keeping our country safe. And that occurred largely as a result of the work of Ranking Member Stephen Lynch, who has been really an incredible partner throughout this process. And I want to thank Mr. Lynch for his work. And the work that we have going forward, we have a series of bills that are going to be coming out here. And finally, I think the witnesses would all recognize that the work we do is supported by a lot of staff back in the office. They are the ones who keep the wheels turning. And Joe Pinder--when this idea was first brought to the Committee on Financial Services and presented to Mr. Pinder, not only did Joe immediately embrace the idea of going forward with this task force, he had already in his mind been thinking about this for some time; this is something he has a special interest in, and he has brought an incredible expertise to this. And so, Joe, I want to thank you for what you do, what you have have done for the task force, what you do for our committee, and have done for our country. But the members of the task force have committed a lot of time and effort over the course of the last year. I see French Hill is still here at the very end. And French has never missed a meeting, and has been an incredible resource with his background both in the Administration and now as a Member of Congress, as well as in the financial services sector. He is laser-focused on the issues, not just the ones he talked about here today, but the ones he has been talking to us about for the last more than 12, probably 18, months as we went through this work. So with that, I just want to again thank the witnesses for what you have done for us. We are going to keep in touch. When the report comes out, that will be a result of staff work. There is a series of bills that will be introduced very shortly. And as those bills are introduced, it is our commitment to the witnesses to keep you engaged with us as we ask for your support. We believe these bills are as bipartisan as the work of this task force has been, and we hope to see them on the Floor soon and hopefully over to the Senate after they pass the House of Representatives. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. With that, and without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X June 23, 2016 [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]