    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          THE FY22 BUDGET: STATE DEPARTMENT
                               COUNTERTERRORISM BUREAU

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
             MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 17, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-91

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,

                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    46-094 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022

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

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                      GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California              MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	      CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	      STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    KAREN BASS, California		      SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	      DARRELL ISSA, California
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	      ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    AMI BERA, California		      LEE ZELDIN, New York
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas	              ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    DINA TITUS, Nevada		      BRIAN MAST, Florida
    TED LIEU, California		      BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	      KEN BUCK, Colorado
    DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota	      TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		      MARK GREEN, Tennessee
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas		      ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		      GREG STEUBE, Florida
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	      DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	      AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	      PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    ANDY KIM, New Jersey	              NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
    SARA JACOBS, California		      RONNY JACKSON, Texas
    KATHY MANNING, North Carolina	      YOUNG KIM, California
    JIM COSTA, California		      MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
    JUAN VARGAS, California		      JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
    BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois

                        Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director

                                     ------

     Subcommittee on Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism

                     THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida, Chairman

    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JOE WILSON, South Carolina,
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island            Ranking Member
    TED LIEU, California		     SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas		     ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	     LEE ZELDIN, New York
    KATHY MANNING, North Carolina	     BRIAN MAST, Florida
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	     TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    BRAD SHERMAN, California	     GREG STEUBE, Florida
    JUAN VARGAS, California		     RONNY JACKSON, Texas
    BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois	     MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida

                          Casey Kustin, Staff Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                      INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Information submitted for the record from Representative Deutch..     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Landberg, Chris, Acting Prinicipal Deputy Coordinator, Bureau of
      Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State.....................    12

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    39
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    40
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    41

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    42

           THE FY22 BUDGET: STATE DEPARTMENT COUNTERTERRORISM BUREAU

                          Wednesday, November 17, 2021

                              House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
                    Africa and Global Counterterrorism,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Theodore E.
    Deutch (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Deutch. The Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
    Africa, and Global Counterterrorism will come to order.
        Welcome everyone. Without objection, the chair is
    authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any
    point, and all members will have 5 days to submit statements
    and extraneous material and questions for the record, subject
    to the length limitation of the rules.
        As a reminder to the members who are participating
    virtually, please keep your video function on at all times,
    even when you're not recognized by the chair. Members are
    responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
        Consistent with House rules, staff will only mute members
    and witnesses as appropriate when they're not under recognition
    to eliminate background noise, not to avoid embarrassment.
        Pursuant to notice, the subcommittee is meeting today to
    hear testimony on the State Department Counterterrorism
    Bureau's Fiscal Year 2022 budget. I see that we have a quorum
    and I'll recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
    statement.
        The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight of the
    Counterterrorism Bureau's budget request, as well as the Biden
    Administration's overall counterterrorism policy priorities.
        I thank Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Coordinator
    Landberg for appearing today.
        In Fiscal Year '22, the Administration requested a total of
    $248.8 million for the Counterterrorism Bureau, taking
    collectively from the NADR, ESF, American Salaries and Security
    Program's accounts, which is, roughly, in line with previous
    year's funding.
        And while the nature of terrorism is changing and evolving,
    the threat, clearly, has not dissipated. Looking at the Fiscal
    Year '22 requests, we can reasonably conclude that the Biden
    Administration is reprioritizing efforts to combat terrorism
    and violent extremism and is shifting away from military-driven
    CT approach to one more diplomacy, cooperation, and engagement.
        As the focus of U.S. foreign policy moves toward great
    power competition, we must remain hyper vigilant in our
    strategy, coordination, and action against terrorist and
    violent extremist that exist both abroad and at home.
        We must ensure that addressing root causes of terrorism and
    terrorist recruitment remains at the forefront of our CT
    strategy. The Fiscal Year '22 budget request for ESF funds has
    remained stagnant at $15 million.
        Programs funded by ESF focus on combating terrorist
    recruitment and the radicalization of individuals in partner
    countries by countering terrorist narratives and messaging,
    strengthening the capacity of partner governments and civil
    society organizations to prevent radicalization and recruitment
    to violence and promoting effective rehabilitation and
    reintegration of former terrorists.
        These resources are essential to addressing systemic
    challenges getting at the core drivers of radicalization, and I
    hope to hear more about what your bureau is doing in
    consultation with CSO regional bureaus, USAID, and DOD to
    implement a holistic approach to address these challenges.
        This September marked the 20th anniversary of the 9/11
    terrorist attacks, and while we have made significant progress
    in preventing and combating terror threats, the United States
    still faces a wide array of challenges from jihadist
    organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, Iranian-backed groups
    like Hezbollah and the growing threat of REMVE--racially or
    ethnically motivated violent extremism.
        The ISIS caliphate has been destroyed but the organization
    maintains a network of supporters and foreign fighters who are
    trained by ISIS operatives and loyal to the organization's
    cause.
        I'm concerned by the trends of continued indoctrination and
    radicalization at refugee camps across the Middle East, as well
    as the risk of recruitment or kidnapping many internally
    displaced people face in places like Syria.
        Further, ISIS-AQ and their affiliated groups have continued
    to grow and spread not only within the Middle East, but also
    across Europe, Asia, and Africa, changing their tactics and
    continuing to apply pressure even as our partner capacity
    advances.
        I'm also deeply concerned by the seemingly emboldened
    Iranian-backed proxy groups. The United States has long
    considered Iran to be a State sponsor of terrorism and its
    proxies, such as Hezbollah and Shi'a militias in Iraq, continue
    to sow chaos throughout the Middle East, threatening U.S.
    interests and military personnel, as well as our regional
    allies and partners.
        I was horrified to learn of the drone attack on the Iraqi
    prime minister earlier this month, and I'm interested to hear
    how the Bureau is thinking about both countering Iranian
    proxies as well as adapting to the threat of UAVs and other
    emerging technologies.
        Afghanistan, too, is on all of our minds today, and while I
    understand that--and I'll take the opportunity to remind my
    colleagues of this as well, certain topics may be challenging
    to speak about at length in a public setting--I look forward to
    hearing about how the events of this summer have changed the
    threat landscape in the region, our counterterrorism
    strategies, and the funding requests that we're speaking about
    today.
        I also look forward to continuing the conversation in a
    classified space in the coming weeks.
        Finally, combating racially or ethnically motivated violent
    extremism which encompasses individuals and groups motivated to
    violence by an intolerant ethno-supremacist ideology, including
    white supremacy and neo-Nazism, is a priority for me as well
    as, I know, for the Biden Administration.
        The United Nations Security Council's Counterterrorism
    Committee cited a 320 percent increase in extreme right wing
    terrorism globally since 2015, and while many argue that REMVE
    is not as potent as jihadists or Iranian-backed terrorists,
    since it lacks the global networks that make both a potent
    threat, REMVE is continuing to evolve and spread with
    individuals and groups in different countries communicating,
    recruiting, radicalizing, and sharing tactical training
    including weapon making instructions both online and in person.
        What's more, white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups appear
    to be gaining wider public acceptance in some Western countries
    with a commensurate rise in violent attacks.
        With that, I would ask unanimous consent to submit into the
    record an article this morning from cnn.com entitled ``What a
    staggering gun cache discovered in one suspected neo-Nazi's
    house says about far right extremism in Europe.''
        Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6093.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6093.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6093.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6093.046

        Mr. Deutch. These trends are extremely concerning. I'm
    eager to learn more about how the Bureau is prepared to combat
    these threats globally, and discuss the strategy produced by
    the department as a result of legislation written by me and
    other members of the subcommittee.
        Mr. Landberg, we look forward to strengthening our
    understanding of how the State Department's resources are
    utilized to counterterrorism and violent extremism and, of
    course, carry out these policies in accordance with our
    American values and respect for human rights.
        I also hope you'll identify areas where greater
    congressional support might be needed so we can work together
    to help keep the American people safe.
        And with that, I will recognize Ranking Member Wilson for
    purposes of making an opening statement.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Ted Deutch, for holding
    this hearing today.
        The Department of State Counterterrorism Bureau has a major
    role in supporting our partners in combating terrorist
    extremism and identifying evolving threats.
        I appreciate the dedication of the men and women of the
    State Department to protect American families. Unfortunately,
    there is much to discuss regarding the global threat of
    terrorism.
        Sadly, we see with the recent attacks in the United
    Kingdom, the murder of a member of Parliament, David Amess, and
    the explosion of the bomb Sunday outside the Liverpool's
    Women's Hospital that the threat is ever present.
        Attacks have been perpetrated, beginning with the murderer
    of 13 Marines in Kabul, from New Zealand to Norway with heinous
    mass murder at a mosque in Afghanistan confirming the terrorist
    threat to religious institutions worldwide.
        Additionally, despite significant efforts made by the
    United States and our European partners, terrorist groups are
    capitalizing on localized civil unrest and gaining ground on
    the African continent.
        Undoubtedly, the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan
    will present a number of challenges as we see the resurgence of
    terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Islamic State and the
    emergence of smaller, more extreme offshoots from the Islamic
    Invitation Alliance.
        Sadly, with no remaining U.S. military presence,
    counterterrorism efforts to confront this rapidly evolving
    situation will, certainly, be hindered.
        Those who think the Taliban terrorists have moderated need
    not look further than the cabinet that it has now, which
    includes Sirajuddin Haqqani, senior leader of the murderous
    Haqqani Network, led by those who have committed some of the
    worst attacks on the United States and coalition forces with
    the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister
    is Islamabad of Pakistan.
        The return of Afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorists is
    occurring today, and we also have persons who were released
    from Guantanamo as terrorists who now actually serve in the
    cabinet and today, sadly, in Kabul.
        One of the greatest threats to American families continues
    to be the Iranian regime. Unfortunately, it seems that this
    Administration's policy is to lift sanctions on the leading
    State sponsor of terrorism and hope for the best.
        Iran has no intention of shifting courses. It continues to
    export terrorism and missiles around the globe with the mandate
    of death to America and death to Israel.
        Mr. Landberg, your written statement refers to the
    departure from military-led foreign policy to one led by
    diplomacy. But as history reminds, one cannot exist without the
    other. It is peace through strength.
        Last week, the Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi
    survived an attempt on his life by an explosive drone, which
    was carried out by Iranian-backed militias.
        Sadly, it's only a matter of time before terrorism returns
    to America with suicide bombers over the open southern border
    and weaponized drones capable of attacking any public building.
        The United States must maintain our commitment to fighting
    the evolving threat of terrorism and its causes. It is a global
    war on terrorism, which we cannot unilaterally exit.
        Thank you, Mr. Landberg, for your service and I look
    forward to hearing from you on the Bureau's goals and where we
    can work together.
        And we have a bipartisan to hear shake leadership between
    Ted Deutch Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Deutch. I thank my friend, the ranking member, Mr.
    Wilson, and I'll now introduce our witness.
        Chris Landberg, is the acting principal deputy coordinator
    for the Bureau of counterterrorism. In addition to this, he
    also serves as the Deputy Coordinator for crisis response and
    technical policy, where he provides oversight of the CTE
    Bureau's Office of technical programs and operations policy, as
    well as the Office of Crisis Response Preparedness and Special
    Coordination. A lot of responsibility, Mr. Landberg.
        Before joining the CT Bureau, Mr. Landberg held senior
    positions at our embassy in Bogota, where he helped bolster
    Colombia's law enforcement, military, and judicial capabilities
    to assist the country in their fight against crime and drug
    trafficking, and worked as a senior staffer in the Senate
    Foreign Relations Committee.
        Mr. Landberg, I'll remind you that you should limit your
    testimony to 5 minutes. Without objection, your prepared
    remarks will be made part of the hearing record.
        Thanks so much for being here, and you're now recognized
    for 5 minutes.

         STATEMENT OF CHRIS LANDBERG, ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
      COORDINATOR, BUREAU OF COUNTERTERRORISM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                                 STATE

        Mr. Landberg. Chairman Deutch, Ranking Member Wilson, and
    esteemed members of the subcommittee, I'm pleased to be here
    today to talk about the State Department Bureau of
    Counterterrorism's program and policy priorities and discuss
    the Fiscal Year 2022 resources we need to protect America's
    security at home and interests abroad from terrorist threats
    and also how they align with the Biden-Harris Administration's
    broader counterterrorism priorities.
        Mr. Deutch. Mr. Landberg, excuse me. Can you pull the mic a
    little closer?
        Mr. Landberg. Sure.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you.
        Mr. Landberg. Would you like me to start again or continue?
    Okay.
        The Fiscal Year 2022 budget comes at a time when we are
    shifting from a U.S. military-led counterterrorism approach to
    one rooted in diplomacy partnerships and multilateral
    engagement.
        The CT Bureau will play a critical role in this evolving
    approach as we promote counterterrorism cooperation, strengthen
    partnerships, and build civilian capacity to counter the full
    spectrum of terrorist threats confronting the United States and
    our allies.
        CT's budget request is not just shaped by U.S. national
    security interests, but it's also driven by the terrorist
    landscape which is more dynamic, complex, and fast moving than
    ever before.
        Terrorist groups remain a persistent and pervasive threat
    despite our great progress in degrading their ability to
    threaten the U.S. homeland. ISIS' global presence, including
    that of its branches and networks, continues to grow despite a
    destruction of its so-called caliphate, and complete--and also
    our complete liberation of territory it once controlled in Iraq
    and Syria.
        Al-Qaeda and its affiliates also remain an enduring threat,
    capable of inflicting damage on our allies and global
    interests, despite significant leadership losses. Iran and its
    proxies, including Hezbollah, continue to engage in dangerous
    and destabilizing activity in the Middle East and beyond.
        And, finally, we are also facing a major and growing threat
    from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist actors.
        What are we doing to address these diverse threats? CT, or
    the CT Bureau, is leading the international diplomatic campaign
    against ISIS, including the repatriation of foreign terrorist
    fighters and associated family members. The Office of the
    Special Envoy to the Defeat ISIS Coalition was formally merged
    into CT this year, and the CT coordinator is now dual hatted as
    the U.S. Special Envoy.
        The coalition remains central to the international
    community's efforts against ISIS. In the wake of the tragic
    suicide bombing in Kabul on August 26th, we quickly convened
    the D-ISIS coalition leadership and together are developing
    collective measures to counter ISIS Khorasan, or ISIS-K.
        CT is also engaged in mobilizing the international
    community against al-Qaeda, reminding our partners that the
    group remains capable and highly dangerous. CT has spearheaded
    a diplomatic campaign against Hezbollah, urging governments
    globally to take steps to recognize the group in its entirety
    as a terrorist organization and to restrict its activities in
    their countries.
        And finally, CT is playing a key role in countering
    transnational aspects of the REMVE threat. In February, the
    Secretary designated the CT coordinator as department lead for
    REMVE--related issues.
        We have developed a new comprehensive department strategy
    and have been involved in the development and implementation of
    the first ever national strategy to counter domestic terrorism.
        Focusing on our capacity-building efforts, as we shift from
    a military heavy approach and rely more on diplomacy and
    partners, it'll be even more critical to help these partners
    build their civilian counterterrorism expertise and capacity.
        We are helping them secure their borders to counter
    terrorist travel, investigate and disrupt terrorist plots,
    track terrorist financing, bring terrorists to justice, prevent
    and counter violent extremism, and rehabilitate and reintegrate
    former terrorists.
        Since 2016, Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, or CTPF,
    resources have allowed us to surge assistance and make gains
    with some of our most important partners. The Fiscal Year '22
    CTPF request includes funding that will allow us to maintain
    our successful programs and respond to areas of growing
    concern.
        The Fiscal Year '22 request also includes funding for the
    personal identification, secure comparison, and evaluation
    system, or PISCES, program. Additional funding for this program
    will allow us to enhance efforts of partner countries' law
    enforcement, foster collaboration with Interpol, and expand the
    PISCES program.
        Our Fiscal Year '22 requests also includes funding for
    countering violent extremism, or CVE, programs, which are
    integral to assist our partners to prevent terrorist groups
    from recruiting new members and help rehabilitate and
    reintegrate foreign terrorist fighters.
        In my written testimony, I provided examples of where our
    efforts had concrete results.
        But, Chairman Deutch, Ranking Member Wilson, protecting the
    United States and our interests against terrorist threats is
    our top priority.
        We greatly appreciate the resources Congress has
    appropriated to us in the past fiscal years for this important
    mission, especially your strong support for CTPF. These
    resources are vital to ensuring our partners remain committed
    and have the tools they need to sustain the fight against
    terrorist organizations. I look forward to your questions and
    our discussion this morning.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Landberg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6094.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6094.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6094.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6094.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6094.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6094.052

        Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Mr. Landberg. We will now
    move to member questions under the 5-minute rule. I will defer
    and, therefore, yield to the president of the NATO
    Parliamentary Assembly and, Mr. Landberg, like you, a former
    professional staffer from the Senate Foreign Relations
    Committee, Mr. Connolly.
        You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Okay. We will come back to Mr. Connolly.
        I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from
    North Carolina, Ms. Manning.
        Mr. Landberg, I'd like to think that there was no hack into
    our system today as this CT discussion takes place.
        But while we work that out, I'm going to continue to defer
    and I'm going to yield to my friend, the ranking member, for 5
    minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Landberg, thank you for being here and, actually, I was
    looking forward to hearing from President Connolly. So that'll
    be later.
        But as we address issues today, Iran is a State sponsor of
    terrorism. In fact, it's the leading world sponsor of
    terrorism. Is that correct?
        Mr. Landberg. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Wilson. And, additionally, we need to confirm that
    Iran's central bank, its national oil company, its national
    tanker company, its national petrochemical company, and the
    other host of banks and companies that today are subject to
    U.S. sanctions support terrorism. Is that correct?
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, they're definitely involved with the
    Iranian government in activities. Whether those specific
    entities are involved, I'd have to take that question.
        Mr. Wilson. And with that, I am concerned that the Biden
    Administration may be lifting terrorism sanctions on any of
    these banks or companies as part of an agreement that does not
    include a behavioral change on terrorism--that is, an agreement
    focused solely on the nuclear program with no change to Iran's
    financing of terrorism or the IRJC.
        It would be safe to assume these banks and companies would
    still fund terrorism if there's not sanctions. Is that right?
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, I'm not aware of alleviating sanctions
    on any group related to Iran that would be involved in
    terrorism.
        Mr. Wilson. That's encouraging and that's the way it should
    be in a bipartisan manner.
        Additionally, I was visiting the southern border a couple
    of weeks ago at Del Rio and I learned that names on the
    terrorist watch list have crossed into the United States. How
    many people on the terrorist watch lists have crossed the
    southern border from Mexico into Texas, Arizona, California?
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, I think for a specific number, I would
    refer you to DHS. But I'm happy to take the question as well
    and talk to them.
        Mr. Wilson. But there have been terrorist watch list
    persons coming across. That's correct?
        Mr. Landberg. So, you know, I know that we work very
    closely with Mexico to track travel and we have sort of layered
    defensive approach internationally. Whether there have been
    individuals that have crossed I think I would have to refer you
    to DHS.
        Mr. Wilson. And another issue--less than a month ago, the
    Undersecretary of Defense Colin Kahl discussed with the Senate
    Armed Services Committee members that intelligence community
    assessed that both ISIS-K and al-Qaeda intend to conduct
    external operations, including against the United States.
    Reports indicate that ISIS-K and al-Qaeda could possess the
    capability within a year to strike American families in the
    United States.
        What actions are being taken by the Bureau to account for
    their near-term concerns?
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, I think Undersecretary Kahl said that
    they have the intent, not--at the moment, not the capability.
        General Mingus, the J3 at the Joint Staff, was with him.
    Said that the IC assessments about ISIS-K becoming a threat
    to--external threat to the United States within six to 12
    months and AQ within one to 2 years are without pressure.
        So I think we are working collectively in the U.S.
    Government to ensure there is pressure on both of those groups
    to lengthen those periods where they would be able to do
    external plotting against the United States.
        Mr. Wilson. And what is the status of the Administration
    urging the European Union as well as other European member
    States to designate all of Hezbollah as a terrorist
    organization and to sanction it?
        What is the hesitancy of some of our European allies to
    designate Hezbollah, particularly, obviously, in Lebanon and
    the threat that it has by way of rockets against the people of
    Israel?
        Mr. Landberg. Well, sir, I will say that we have had many
    discussions with Europeans about not just designating them, the
    military--what they have designated the military side of
    Hezbollah.
        We have had a lot of success working with partners around
    the world over the last few years in particular to get them to
    designate Hezbollah as a whole group. And I would be happy to
    respond to the question for the record in more detail about
    what their specific concerns might be.
        Mr. Wilson. And it's really sad to me that, in fact, in
    Latin America only five countries have designated Hezbollah as
    a terrorist organization.
        Are there discussions underway with our regional neighbors
    to adopt a framework to sanction Hezbollah terrorists that are
    such a threat to the people of Israel?
        Mr. Landberg. Yes, sir, there are, and it's been quite
    successful. In 2018, we started an annual ministerial--Western
    Hemisphere Ministerial--focused on counterterrorism. We hosted
    the first one in Argentina, the next one then Colombia, and
    next spring it's going to be in Peru--in Lima. And those are
    always opportunities to talk to our counterparts about
    designating Hezbollah and counter----
        Mr. Wilson. And with the issue of Hezbollah also Hamas,
    with 4,400 rockets this year from Gaza, what's being done to
    work with our allies and others to sanction Hamas?
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, well, I believe that Hamas is also a
    designated organization, and so we work with all of our
    partners to counter the activities of these organizations,
    especially related to their financing.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
        And my time is up but thank you for your service and thank
    you for the State Department personnel.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
        I believe Representative Manning can now be recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Chairman Deutch and Ranking Member
    Wilson, for organizing today's very important hearing.
        It is vital that Congress and the Administration continue
    to work together to identify and increase dedicated resources
    to confronting the evolving terrorist threats worldwide.
        I want to pick up on something that Ranking Member Wilson
    was discussing, and, of course, the concerns about Hezbollah
    and about Hamas, and Mr. Landberg, you did mention that there
    are efforts to counter the activities of Hamas.
        Well, one of the things that I found particularly
    concerning about the recent conflict in Gaza was the
    determination that most of the 4,500 rockets that were fired by
    Hamas at Israel were actually produced in Gaza.
        Can you talk to us--you know, you mentioned trying to stop
    the foreign assistance, but can you talk about whether you--
    what efforts are being made to make sure that Hamas does not
    continue to have the ability and the materials to produce
    weapons in--right there in Gaza?
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you, Representative. We work really
    closely with Israel----
        Mr. Deutch. Is your mic on?
        Mr. Landberg. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Deutch. Just make sure your microphone is on. It is.
    I'll just--I'll move this closer. Sorry.
        But we work very closely with Israel on a whole range of
    counterterrorism initiatives including related to technology
    that's being used by terrorist groups against Israel and other
    partners in the region. That includes unaccompanied air
    vehicles, that includes rockets, and we do quite a bit of work
    on technological aspects of that.
        And so I'd be happy to get into more detail in a different
    setting or take a question for the record that I can answer in
    a classified response.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. And we know--we do want to make
    sure that humanitarian assistance gets to the Palestinian
    people who need help. But how can we make sure that that
    assistance gets to the right place and does not end up in the
    hands of Hamas for rebuilding tunnels, for example?
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you. So just generally, when it comes
    to humanitarian aid, we monitor very closely to make sure that
    when we have designated groups that that does not impede the
    delivery of humanitarian assistance.
        We're confident that in most or almost all cases that is
    the case. We're confident that the organizations, which are
    very experienced, especially working those types of
    environments that are engaging in humanitarian assistance can
    work with us to make sure that it doesn't fall in the wrong
    hands and definitely gets to the right people.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. You mentioned that you work very
    closely with Israel to--on these issues. Can you talk more
    generally about how does the Bureau of Counterterrorism
    allocate resources to balance between helping bolster our
    partners' capabilities to disrupt and dismantle terrorist
    networks on their own and countering violent extremism to
    prevent these terrorist threats from taking root in the first
    place?
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you. So with Israel, we do not provide
    assistance because they're a higher income country. So our
    initiatives with them are more focused on collaboration.
        But just generally, we use--we use our assistance to--for a
    whole range of activities that include everything from
    prevention, so that's countering violent extremism, to building
    law enforcement capabilities of our partners so they can
    actually do counterterrorism crisis response, to also working
    in the judicial sector to help the--you know, the judicial
    sector actually do investigations and prosecutions and even
    work like on the incarceration of terrorists, which would be
    related to, for example, trying to preclude radicalization in
    the prisons.
        So we work on the whole spectrum of counterterrorism with
    our partners. With some countries, we focus more on some
    aspects and in some countries, we--it's the whole spectrum. But
    we use assistance in every part of the chain of terrorism in
    building our partners' capabilities.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. One of the things that we have
    grown increasingly concerned about is the ability of terrorist
    groups or would-be terrorist activists interacting on the
    internet, and terrorist groups have become increasingly
    sophisticated at using the internet to fuel recruitment and
    radicalization.
        And in recent years we know ISIS has posted videos on
    TikTOkay. Al-Qaeda has developed a new website to disseminate
    terrorist content around the world.
        What is the State Department's strategy for countering this
    potent source of terrorism and extremism and does the Bureau
    have the resources necessary to do so?
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you. That's an excellent question.
    Terrorists' use of the internet is something we have been
    focused on for quite a while. It actually affects both sort of
    a traditional kind of CVE programming in our REMVE programming.
        We, generally, are approaching radicalization via the
    internet by working with social media companies directly often
    to help them or to encourage them to enforce their terms of
    service, encouraging them to work with--especially the larger
    social media companies to work with smaller companies, and then
    also encouraging those companies to support initiatives through
    positive content to counter the negative content.
        Our experience and research has shown that responding with
    positive content tends to work best. So terrorists' use of the
    internet is something that we're very focused on. We work with
    partners and through multiple organizations.
        We recently joined the Christchurch Call to Action to
    counter radical speech online. And so this is an area of
    intense focus by both the CT Bureau and the U.S. Government.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Ms. Manning.
        I'm now pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Mast from
    Florida.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Deutch. I appreciate it. Thank you
    for your time today.
        You were with the State Department under President Trump as
    well?
        Mr. Landberg. Yes.
        Mr. Mast. What was your position when you were with State
    under President Trump?
        Mr. Landberg. So I was first--for the first 3 years I was
    the head of the counternarcotics operation in Bogota.
        Mr. Mast. First 3 years--what is that?
        Mr. Landberg. First 3 years of the Trump administration.
        Mr. Mast. Not the year.
        Mr. Landberg. In the last year I was Deputy Assistant
    Secretary in the Counterterrorism Bureau.
        Mr. Mast. When the embassy in Afghanistan was evacuated in
    an emergency way, was that under the Trump administration or
    the Biden Administration?
        Mr. Landberg. That was under the Biden Administration.
        Mr. Mast. When Bagram was evacuated, which was followed on
    by retreating into a not wholly protected airport, resulting in
    the death of 13 of our U.S. service members and hundreds of
    others killed and injured from other countries, was that under
    the Trump administration or the Biden Administration?
        Mr. Landberg. It was under the current administration.
        Mr. Mast. On April 14th, President Biden announced leaving
    Afghanistan on September 11th, probably the date most
    synonymous with terrorism in the United States of America. What
    did you think about announcing September 11th as a withdraw
    date from Afghanistan?
        Mr. Landberg. Well, I have a long history working in and on
    Afghanistan. I'll be honest, I think, looking back, I wish over
    many administrations we'd made fewer mistakes and that we had
    left in a better way.
        Mr. Mast. Totally agree. What did you think about leaving
    on September 11?
        Mr. Landberg. I guess I wasn't--I think I thought the
    deadline, really, that we were looking at was August 31st.
        Mr. Mast. Okay. President Biden said September 11th. He
    said that on April 14th.
        Mr. Landberg. Okay.
        Mr. Mast. Let me move to another question. On August 19th,
    President Biden was doing an interview with George
    Stephanopoulos and he said, ``We will stay until everyone is
    out.'' Did we stay until everybody was out?
        Mr. Landberg. We continue to work to get everybody out.
        Mr. Mast. Did we stay?
        Mr. Landberg. Well, my understanding is that--I think I
    need to say it this way. My understanding is that determination
    was made that if we stayed beyond August 31st it would be more
    difficult to get everyone out and more dangerous.
        So no, when we left not everyone was out. We continue to
    aggressively get the people out who need to get out, especially
    American citizens.
        Mr. Mast. I thank you for your candor.
        I want to move a little bit to the Haqqani Network--the
    remains of the Haqqani Network. The implications of members of
    the Haqqani Network, a designated terrorist organization
    holding positions in the new Taliban government and what you
    think our engagement in that shadow should be with the Taliban
    government.
        And you can expound on that and there's a number of
    directions you could go, but I'm asking about the Haqqani----
        Mr. Landberg. Absolutely. And we're--you know, we're
    concerned. Siraj Haqqani is the minister of interior. We're,
    obviously, concerned with that.
        We have been very clear at all levels about what we expect
    from the Taliban.
        Mr. Mast. Be more specific, please. You're concerned.
    That's a big umbrella of things that could be potential
    problems.
        Mr. Landberg. So from the President, the Secretary of
    State, other members of Cabinet, we have been clear with the
    Taliban what we expect from them, especially on
    counterterrorism.
        What was in the Doha agreement was that they cannot allow
    Afghanistan to become a safe haven. That includes no training,
    no financing, no allowing foreign fighters to go back and
    forth. No external plotting.
        That's what we expect, right. That's what--they can earn
    legitimacy with us and the international community if that's
    what they fulfill.
        So it's on them. The onus is on them. And no, we understand
    that there are members of their group that are from Haqqani
    which was a mostly internally focused organization. But our
    greater concern with regards to terrorism emanating from
    Afghanistan are ISIS-K and al-Qaeda.
        Mr. Mast. You're leading the CT Bureau. That's serious. And
    so your opinion on this is a valuable opinion. Should the U.S.
    recognize a government that includes designated terrorists?
        Mr. Landberg. We have no obligation to recognize the
    Taliban government. It will be determined over time. They know
    exactly what they have to do in terms of allowing freedom of
    movement, allowing people to leave, ensuring protection of
    human rights and civil liberties, and especially on
    counterterrorism. They know exactly what they need to do to
    earn legitimacy over time.
        At this moment, we do not feel any obligation to recognize
    them and it's, generally, been U.S. practice not to do so after
    a change of government like this.
        Mr. Mast. Thanks for your candor.
        Mr. Deutch. I now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for your service. I just wanted to delve into
    counterterrorism finance aspects of your responsibility and, in
    particular, how does--how would you describe the partnerships
    that we have, going forward? Are they continuing to--are we
    continuing to bolster the capacity for partner countries?
        How are we dealing with what is a stronger global threat by
    working with, particularly, our transatlantic allies as well?
    Could you go into that in a little greater depth, please?
        Mr. Landberg. Sure. So counterterrorism finance has been
    one of our priority lines of effort for a very long time. It's
    been very successful.
        We use designations, in particular, for foreign terrorist
    organizations, especially designated global terrorist
    organizations and individuals to help to block terrorist
    financing and that we work with our partners for them to also
    designate and, obviously, work within the U.N.
        It's been a successful area of cooperation internationally.
    We have had quite a bit of success. This year, one of the
    things we have done is we have integrated CTF funding into our
    broader CTPF line of funding, which allows us to have
    integrated programs to help build capabilities, not just
    specifically in counterterrorism financing but, like, we can
    work with prosecutors in a country to build their broader
    counterterrorism capabilities but include specific training on
    counterterrorism financing.
        So I think this approach that we're going to be taking,
    going forward, with the current budget that we have requested,
    I think, is going to give us more flexibility and have more
    success.
        Mr. Keating. And, generally, how is the--what do you
    determine--what are you seeing in terms of white supremacist
    type extremism behavior? How are you able to contract?
        I know that it's happening, expanding. We have our own
    issues in the U.S. but also Central Eastern Europe and that
    expanding area. How do you see some of that cooperation going?
        Mr. Landberg. I'm sorry. I think I heard you ask about--was
    it REMVE--related terrorism? Is that what you were asking?
    Sorry.
        Mr. Keating. White identity terrorism.
        Mr. Landberg. White identity terrorism?
        Mr. Keating. Yes.
        Mr. Landberg. Yes. So we have a long history of working on
    counter violent extremism and we're building on a lot of the
    lessons learned, which also include our countering terrorists'
    use of the internet.
        So with REMVE, or white identity terrorism, we are working
    closely with partners. But, essentially, we're using
    designations just like we do elsewhere. We're trying to block
    travel. We're using diplomatic engagement.
        There are a number of international organizations that we
    have helped to create, which are ways we can build capabilities
    of partners to deal with REMVE or violent extremist
    organizations and, you know, we're also building capabilities
    directly.
        And then we started something that we modeled on a really
    successful program we have in countering Hezbollah, which is a
    law enforcement forum where we bring together law enforcement
    partners, especially from countries like some of our European
    partners, to focus on trends and share information.
        We are doing that in the REMVE space for white identity
    terrorism as part of that where we're bringing together--you
    know, we'll have DHS and DOJ on our side along with State
    Department and they'll have their equivalents, and they'll come
    and share information about how we can counter that----
        Mr. Keating. Has there been more difficulty in that regard
    in areas where there's been some democratic backsliding in
    terms of the rule of law issues because of the work with
    prosecutors and work with their criminal justice investigators?
    You know, have you noticed any slippage due to democratic
    backsliding in that enforcement cooperation and participation?
        Mr. Landberg. So I think there--when we looked at, for
    example, that sub-Saharan Africa space, you know, there's some
    concerns. When it comes to our assistance in, first of all,
    human rights, and civil liberties are built into everything we
    do. We do a lot of vetting related to that.
        So when there might be concerns, we are going to react
    really quickly to try to pressure our partners to change their
    approach or we have to discontinue our work in that area.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Keating.
        I'm now pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, share your
    passion for, I guess, hatred of neo-Nazis and all that that
    represents. My mama lost her brother fighting the Nazis in the
    Second World War and I'm constantly reminded of that. I've got
    a 48-star flag that was draped over his casket.
        Not a day went by that my mama didn't refer to her brother,
    Roy, and so I appreciate that and anything I can do to sign on
    anything I would appreciate that opportunity, brother. I really
    would.
        Sir, I've asked this question, and thanks for being here,
    brother. I've asked this question in the past committee
    hearings and I really didn't receive a satisfactory answer.
        There are recent reports that U.S.-trained former Afghan
    security personnel are joining ISIS-K because they're the
    strongest group still fighting the Taliban. How do you think
    this plays out in Afghanistan and how does this complicate our
    efforts to stamp out terrorism in the country?
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you. I think--again, we're going to
    have a classified briefing in early December. I think some
    sensitive issues like that is something we could talk about at
    that point.
        I'd say, generally, it's a dynamic environment and there
    are, you know, people joining different groups. Our focus is on
    countering ISIS-K, ensuring that, you know, they do not develop
    external operations plotting capabilities, and over the longer
    term, making sure that al-Qaeda does not--is not able to use
    Afghanistan as a safe haven to do the same. We are working with
    all our partners to make that happen.
        So we're very focused on that. ISIS-K, what they're doing
    on recruiting, I think, maybe--and what happened after the--
    some of the prison breakouts we could talk about that in early
    December in that briefing.
        Mr. Burchett. Okay. OK, this is the next question. Kind of
    hits close to home to me because it was--because of a
    constituent of mine. It was Staff Sergeant Ryan Knauss.
        He was listed as the last person to die of the 13. He was
    the last person to actually die in Afghanistan, and he died, of
    course, when the Hamid Karzai International Airport was
    attacked, and the botched withdrawal, whatever.
        But it's been reported that the suicide bomber in the
    attack was released from the Bagram airbase when the Taliban
    took control. What are the near-term and long-term
    counterterrorism implications of these prison breaks conducted
    by the Taliban during their summer offensive?
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you. That was a devastating attack and
    there were 13 enlisted killed and many wounded as well, and I
    think I want to point that out. And I think we need to be
    worried about the breakouts and how that led to increasing the
    ranks at ISIS-K. The prison itself was the called the DFIP.
        The Detention Facility in Parwan near Bagram was run by the
    Afghans, and when they left their posts and they got out, I
    mean, you know, many of those prisoners have now joined the
    ranks of ISIS-K. It's something that we're really closely
    monitoring and I think--I'll say this, that I think the Taliban
    are very motivated to go after ISIS-K as well.
        And so I think what we're seeing is increased activity by
    ISIS-K activity for sure within Afghanistan, but increased
    Taliban countering--efforts to counter that threat.
        So we're looking at it really closely. I think our priority
    is always going to be the external operations plotting, which
    at this point we do not fully see. But, certainly, it's our
    major concern, going forward.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
    remainder of time. But I would say that we still do not have
    the proper refreshments in the break rooms and I just want to
    bring that to your attention.
        And I put that in the form of a motion. A Dr. Pepper or a
    Mountain Dew would go a long ways, Mr. Chairman. I know you're
    a giver. So I appreciate that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, brother, for----
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, member, and I will take that under
    advisement.
        I'll now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Vargas from California.
        Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I didn't
    realize you were a giver like that. Fantastic.
        Director, I appreciate very much your testimony today. I do
    want to ask you some questions, if I could, about potential
    help that we could get.
        Just recently I returned from a congressional delegation to
    Indonesia, and I didn't realize that they had a ministry of
    religious affairs. Are you familiar with that ministry?
        Mr. Landberg. I'm sorry. In what country was that, sir? I
    couldn't quite----
        Mr. Vargas. Indonesia.
        Mr. Landberg. Indonesia?
        Mr. Vargas. Yes.
        Mr. Landberg. Did you hear me? Sorry. I wasn't personally
    aware of that.
        Mr. Vargas. Okay. The reason I ask that, it was
    fascinating, really. When I first heard of the ministry, I
    suspected it wasn't going to be something very positive. But
    turned out something I found very interesting.
        What they attempt to do through this ministry and, frankly,
    everyone that I met in the ministry was Muslim, they attempt to
    harmonize the religions in Indonesia.
        In particular, they try to make sure that there's no
    radicalization, and they seem to have been pretty effective so
    far, and that's why I was curious if you had any information
    about that or any collaboration with them.
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, I'm happy to take that question back. We
    have a really strong counter violent extremism team. They work
    with a lot of different organizations that work with
    communities and including religious leaders on exactly this
    type of counter radicalization efforts, and I'm sure that they
    are familiar with this and I'd be happy to give you more
    detail.
        Mr. Vargas. I think it is important to take a look at what
    other nations are doing. As you know, Indonesia is the largest
    Muslim nation in the world, and they haven't been afflicted
    with all the terrorism that we have seen in other countries and
    the Middle East.
        And, again, speaking to the ministers, the minister and his
    aides, I was very impressed with what they do to try to
    harmonize and also to take a look at the troublemakers and
    either work with them or have them under surveillance.
        But again, I think it's been very effective for them.
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, I wanted to point out that Indonesia is
    actually a member of the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the
    GCTF, which is an organization we set up years ago.
        Been highly successful in bringing many countries--it's
    about 30 members, kind of core members. They coordinate on
    exactly this type of thing. So Indonesia has actually been a
    leader in the GCTF including on these issues.
        Mr. Vargas. I would also bring up that we met with the
    foreign minister, who's a woman, and we talked to her about
    having her meet with Taliban and have a stronger presence.
        I mean, it's very fascinating to be in such a Muslim
    country and have so many women involved in government and have
    a woman in charge of the foreign ministry and super capable,
    super impressive, and very, very well respected in her country
    and, certainly, in the region.
        We should team up with her more and more to see if we can
    help in Afghanistan with women and with girls. I think she also
    would be a great force to make sure that there isn't the
    radicalization that you see in other countries.
        Mr. Landberg. Well, thank you. Certainly, I'll take that
    back. I think, just generally, when we think about
    rehabilitation and reintegration of radicalized individuals or
    foreign fighters that are returning to their homelands, women
    often play a really key role both in the helping to
    rehabilitate and reintegrate, but also just in catching or
    getting ahead of the whole radicalization cycle early on.
        So in all of our counter violent extremism work, women play
    a key role. And we also are working with women in law
    enforcement, and one of the things we have been really
    pressing, we have an empower program where we press for more
    high level professionalization of women law enforcement
    members. So it's two areas that we have been working on pretty
    consistently.
        Mr. Vargas. And last, I would say this. I heard your
    comments and responses to Congresswoman Manning about Israel,
    and I hope we do collaborate closely with them. I think they're
    a great, of course, ally of ours, a great friend.
        And I hope that we do more and more work with them because
    I think, again, they do an excellent job. They're in a very
    dangerous neighborhood, and we're very good friends, obviously.
    And so, anyway, I hope that our collaboration becomes closer
    and closer.
        I know you've said that because they are a higher income
    nation we do not give them much financial support. But,
    certainly, I hope we get more collaboration with them. I know
    they're anxious to work with us.
        Mr. Landberg. Yes, they do not need the financial support,
    but we collaborate both on specific initiatives but also just
    generally the very close cooperation. Israel faces a lot of
    terrorism-related threats, Hezbollah being just one of them,
    and I mentioned what we're doing on countering Hezbollah's
    activities globally.
        So I think, you know, there's really close cooperation just
    between our governments on counterterrorism issues, but
    specifically with the CT Bureau we interact with our Israeli
    counterparts on a regular basis.
        Mr. Vargas. My time is up. I appreciate that very much.
    Thank you. Continue--and I hope you continue that.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity.
        Mr. Deutch. My pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Vargas.
        Mr. Kinzinger, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for being here, everybody.
        I'm going to ask a couple of questions. I'm sorry if
    they've been repeated. I, unfortunately, had other commitments
    and I couldn't be on for the whole hearing. But appreciate your
    willingness to be here.
        One of the first things I want to say is I think we need to
    continue. For some reason, it's always been kind of slow to
    progress, but we need to continue to push for alliances with
    India, particularly in the region that we're talking about,
    given how difficult that is.
        I want to ask you a few questions about Pakistan. I think
    it's hard to discuss the failures in Afghanistan without
    Pakistan. Over the past two decades, we have seen every
    administration attempt to appease Islamabad.
        A few months ago, there were reports of Pakistani drones
    helping the Taliban fight against both Afghan forces and the
    National Resistance Front in the Panjshir Valley.
        How can we hold Pakistan accountable for the Taliban's
    armed coup? And I think that's an important point to keep in
    mind. The legitimately elected government of Afghanistan is not
    the Taliban.
        So how can we hold them accountable for the coup of a
    democratically--elected government and should the
    Administration reconsider Pakistan's status as a major non-NATO
    ally?
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you. So some of this I'd be happy to
    get into in more detail in early December when we have our
    classified session. But I'll say this.
        I mean, Pakistan has played a complex role in all of this,
    has suffered greatly as well, has serious concerns about
    terrorism activity emanating--and not just terrorism activity,
    but instability emanating from Afghanistan.
        So they are an important country for us to work with and I
    believe as in the SASC hearing when Under Secretary Kahl was
    discussing how--you know, we work closely with Pakistan on
    everything related to doing over-the-horizon counterterrorism.
        So, you know, that is an important partnership, going
    forward. We're actually trying to enhance our discussions,
    specifically with the State Department lead with Pakistan on
    counterterrorism.
        That said, you know, we're very clear on our expectations
    for Pakistan and we'll work with them closely where we can.
    There are other areas where our interests might diverge and
    then we'll be clear about that and we'll, you know, make sure
    that we're defending, you know, United States core values and
    interests.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Well, let me ask--you mentioned the over-
    the-horizon capabilities. I think there's no doubt that, you
    know, leaving Afghanistan, which I opposed, but I understand
    there's, you know, positions on both sides.
        We are where we are. But we have lost a lot of contact,
    obviously, with Afghan Special Forces, intel assets, and a lot
    of real view into the rise of extremism. We tout this over-the-
    horizon capability.
        Is the Administration, in your view, committed to defending
    the homeland should a threat arise out of Afghanistan, a real
    threat to the United States?
        And let me add to that, where do you see--given the
    difficulties we have had, where do you see Afghanistan in five
    or 10 years, in your mind?
        Mr. Landberg. So the first answer is yes, I believe the
    Administration is extremely committed to ensuring, and I think
    the President, certainly, Secretary of State have both said and
    I think Secretary Austin as well have been very clear that we
    will do what's necessary to ensure that we're disrupting,
    deterring, and degrading any terrorist threat that would--to
    the United States in particular.
        And so, yes, that commitment is there. I would like to
    point out that when it comes to the Counterterrorism Bureau,
    when we are working on over-the-horizon activities, a lot of
    what we do is actually counterterrorism cooperation with
    countries in the region.
        So our focus is really more on helping our partners in the
    region control their borders, you know, disrupt any possible
    plotting, deter foreign fighter flows crossing their borders,
    and improve their law enforcement capabilities.
        So that's where we focus. Where Afghanistan goes in 5 years
    depends completely on whether the Taliban is willing to meet
    the expectations of not just the United States but, really, the
    international community and what they need to do. And I did
    mention what they were before, and I'd be happy to go through
    that again. But----
        Mr. Kinzinger. Yes, that's fine. Look, I appreciate that. I
    know it's a tough position. I do want to mention in the last 30
    seconds I have I read an article today--I forget which--where
    it was at, but it was talking about the mental health impacts
    on State Department employees.
        And I think it's important to point that out. You know, as
    a military guy, we get a lot of focus of, you know, mental
    health effects on the military, rightfully so, you know, law
    enforcement, everybody.
        But I think, you know, given the--really, the tragedy of
    what happened in Afghanistan at the end, you know, thinking of
    these employees on the phone dealing with these issues, I do
    think it's important to mention.
        And so please pass my best to everybody and thank you for
    being here.
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you. We have all been working on
    Afghanistan for years, very committed, some of us--maybe me--
    obsessed. It's been a hard period but everybody's been
    volunteering, doing overnights and work very hard. Very proud
    of my fellow State Department colleagues.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Me, too. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Kinzinger. I want to associate
    myself with Mr. Kinzinger's comments and concern and
    appreciation for our dedicated State Department employees.
        And I'm pleased to yield to Ms. Jacobs for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for letting
    me unofficially join here--your subcommittee.
        Mr. Landberg, thank you for testifying today on this topic.
    It's great to see you again.
        I want to dig into how the Bureau is incorporating lessons
    learned and the latest research. As I think we might have
    talked about, when I worked at the State Department, we did a
    study on the factors that drive violent extremism, which found
    that much of the conventional wisdom on what causes violent
    extremism is not actually validated.
        So it's not poverty. It's not income inequality. It's not
    madrassa education. Rather, we found that there's empirical
    evidence of the link between violent extremism and factors like
    State repression and an absence of civil liberties.
        Since I left the State Department, there have been multiple
    studies that have continued to come out that show that one of
    the key drivers of violent extremism is the abuse or the
    perception of abuse by government authorities, including a 2018
    study funded by the EU and the U.N. that found that the most
    determining factor contributing to vulnerability or resilience
    to violent extremism in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger is the
    experience or perception of abuse and violation by government
    authorities.
        The 2017 study done by UNDP found that confronting
    extremism with heavy-handed or extrajudicial law enforcement is
    likely to backfire by inflaming real or perceived socioeconomic
    cleavages and exclusionist narratives that are used by violent
    extremist groups.
        And so I was wondering how is the Bureau incorporating
    lessons learned and research and analysis on preventing and
    countering violent extremism into your policies and programs?
    And to what extent are you looking at the abuses or perception
    of abuses as root causes of violent extremism and how you're
    doing your program design and overall strategy?
        Mr. Landberg. Thank you, Congresswoman. I absolutely agree
    with you, and I think that's how we see it, that human rights
    violations and restrictions on civil liberties are, certainly,
    drivers of radicalization. Absolutely.
        And I think what we see is a lot of--when we talk about
    ISIS and al-Qaeda expanding in places like sub-Saharan Africa,
    they're moving into places where there's lack of good
    governance. They're moving into places that are uncontrolled.
    But also they're taking advantage of exploiting local
    grievances often to build their brand.
        So I think that's something we're really seeing. Monitoring
    and evaluation efforts, I think, is one of the big successes of
    the last few years for the Counterterrorism Bureau.
        We have dramatically increased how we're both doing the
    internal monitoring and we have added resources, and in our
    budget request we're actually requesting three more positions
    that will help us with program oversight.
        And then on the evaluation side, we do a lot of contracting
    now, and I'll just point out one contract that we had with RAND
    where they evaluated our prison programs, and they actually
    found out that a lot of what we were doing, I think what--like
    what you're talking about was probably not that effective.
        And so we used that study to then help alter how we're
    approaching, you know, deradicalization or counter
    radicalization efforts in the prisons. And so that's one
    example of how we're trying to do a better job and I think we
    have been improving every year.
        Ms. Jacobs. Well, that is music to my ears and, certainly,
    a change from when I worked with you all.
        As I think it's actually on the M&E, if you could talk a
    little bit more about how you're measuring the effectiveness,
    what key indicators are you looking at, what surveys are you
    using, and, in particular, how are you measuring outcomes
    versus just the outputs?
        Mr. Landberg. So I think a fulsome answer is probably maybe
    in writing.
        Ms. Jacobs. Sure.
        Mr. Landberg. I'll be happy to take that. What I can tell
    you is that we have multiple contracts ongoing to evaluate
    different aspects of our programs, and what we--what we're
    trying to do is measure--we have--in our program design we have
    what the outcomes are and when we're not meeting those outcomes
    or where we see problems or when we see our partners aren't
    fulfilling their side of the deal and when we see concerns, for
    example, related to, you know, human rights, that's when we're
    able to use these results to alter.
        Happy to give you also summaries of those evaluations. The
    evaluations themselves are often very sensitive. But happy to
    give you more information.
        Ms. Jacobs. Wonderful. I will look forward to reading that.
        I guess just on that point, what kind of feedback loops
    exist between local civil society organizations and the folks
    in D.C. who are designing these programs and either the M&E
    portion or just the program design itself?
        Mr. Landberg. Okay. So, really quickly. Sorry. There are
    multiple organizations we work through. I think you're familiar
    with Hedayah, Strong Cities Network, GCERF, the International
    Institute of Justice, and, obviously, the GCTF, which is sort
    of like the mothership for all those organizations, and we do
    constant program implementation and evaluation, and then
    there's natural feedback loops in those organizations.
        So I think that's where you see it happening and I think
    it's been fairly--a good process and I think which is why we're
    helping to implement sort of better CV programming, trying to
    then also use that when we're looking at the REMVE threat as
    well.
        Ms. Jacobs. Wonderful. Well, thank you. I will look forward
    to reading your written response, and I yield back.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Ms. Jacobs. Thanks for joining us
    today.
        I'll now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Schneider of Illinois.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Deutch, and thank you
    for having this important hearing. I'm very grateful. And Mr.
    Landberg, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
        I want to start with in June of this year the Biden
    Administration released a national strategy for countering
    domestic terrorism. Can you elaborate a little bit on how the
    CT Bureau's role--what role CT Bureau played in the strategy?
        Mr. Landberg. Yes, sir, and very easily. Our authorities
    start at the water's edge and look out. So our involvement was
    everything related to the transnational linkages of domestic
    groups with international groups.
        So that was our focus on domestic strategy. So we weren't
    the main piece of this. But we played a very important role in
    tracking of all that international activity of concern.
        Mr. Schneider. Great. And just building on that, the
    Bureau's actions on REMVE, you know, internationally fighting
    terrorism in other countries, how does the interagency
    coordination look in that respect?
        Mr. Landberg. You said the interagency coordination?
        Mr. Schneider. Interagency. Yes.
        Mr. Landberg. I think excellent. One of the things that we
    are working on very closely with DHS and DOJ, as I mentioned a
    little bit earlier, a law enforcement forum focused on REMVE.
        So this would be something that we'd work, especially with
    European partners, but partners around the world that are
    dealing with, like, sort of a growing REMVE actor problem.
        And in this is going to be, you know, all three of our
    agencies working together. It's a forum that's useful for
    sharing information, information about trends, and then
    coordinating our activities.
        So I think that's a perfect example of how, I think, you
    have very strong interagency coordination.
        Mr. Schneider. Great, thank you. And, you know, expanding
    on that, we have our own issues here in the United States with
    REMVE. How does the U.S. response here at home and the
    implications it's having at home, how does that affect the work
    you're doing with countries abroad?
        Mr. Landberg. Well, the way it affects it is, I think, what
    we have seen is growing transnational linkages among these
    groups. So that is our main concern.
        So there's communication, which is quite hard to track.
    There is efforts to train and share information that's helpful
    between these groups.
        So this growing transnational connectivity is what we're
    most focused on and that's why the State Department's and,
    especially, the CT Bureau's work is enabling our partners in
    building their capabilities, and using other tools, for
    example, like designations and also countering terrorist travel
    are so important.
        Mr. Schneider. Sure, and are there things that we can do in
    Congress? You have the tools currently, but are there other
    tools or other steps that Congress can take to help assist that
    effort?
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, I guess maybe the best thing would be
    for me to respond to you in writing on that.
        Mr. Schneider. Fair enough. Let me shift gears and talk
    about the Middle East. We see continuing cause for concern by
    actions Iran is taking not just in their nuclear program, which
    is alarming enough, but their support for terrorism groups like
    Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, their actions in Syria
    and Iraq and Yemen as well.
        You touched on this in your opening statement, again,
    specifically the work you're doing to try to push back. Are
    there things that we might be able to do to advance that work
    as well?
        Mr. Landberg. Yes, sure. So we have multiple--you know,
    Iran is a State sponsor of terrorism. We have multiple
    initiatives ongoing to work to counter those activities--the
    terrorist related activities that Iran might be supporting or
    is supporting.
        That includes all of our counter Hezbollah work, which it's
    a designated organization so a lot of it is counterterrorism
    finance related to Hezbollah where we work really closely with
    many partners.
        Just over the last few years, we've--14 of our partners
    have designated Hezbollah in its entirety. We have a Western
    Hemisphere Initiative where we have annual summits where we
    share information and talk about Hezbollah activities.
        We also are working to counter different groups that they
    might be supporting. We have designated many of the
    organizations that you're talking about, including what we call
    Iran-aligned militia groups, or IMGs, or Shi'a groups operating
    in Iraq--for example, KH and AH.
        So through designations, through work with our partners,
    and we have--I think we have pretty extensive multiple lines of
    effort to counter those activities.
        Mr. Schneider. Great. Staying on that for a second and, in
    particular, Hezbollah, 7 years ago, I was proud to help author
    the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act.
        We're 7 years later. Do you have a sense of how that act is
    holding up the test of time? Are there more steps that we can
    or should be taking to box in and constrain Hezbollah and
    support Lebanon?
        Mr. Landberg. So I have experts on that, I think, to get
    you a precise answer. But I will say that just generally on
    counter Hezbollah financing activities, we have made pretty
    significant strides, especially in Latin America, but also with
    our European partners to counter Hezbollah's illicit economic
    activities, just broadly.
        Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you. And with that, I'm out of
    time. Again, Chairman Deutch, thanks for holding this hearing.
    And I yield back.
        Mr. Landberg. My pleasure.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
        I yield to Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Chairman Deutch and Ranking
    Member Wilson, for holding today's hearing on a really
    important issue. And thank you to Mr. Landberg for being here
    today and for the work of the State Department's Bureau of
    Counterterrorism in countering violent extremism, which is
    making the United States and the entire world a safer place.
        Mr. Landberg, I want to begin, I serve as the chair of the
    Antitrust Subcommittee and we have done a lot of work in
    challenging the large technology platforms in their--the use of
    these platforms as it relates to disinformation and
    radicalization.
        And so my first question is, are there countries that are
    conducting really good or successful online counterterrorism
    programs that we can learn from or examples we should look at?
        Mr. Landberg. I believe, certainly, there are. Recently we
    joined the Christchurch Call to Action and, you know, I think
    working with New Zealand and France on those activities.
        I think there are countries where we can learn. I think I
    do want to caution that, you know, for example, related to
    designations and using that kind of thing to counter some of
    the activities of these groups, we cannot go after hate speech
    on its own, right, and some of our partners can.
        So some of the capabilities that our partners have in the
    United States because of the First Amendment is, you know,
    that's not something we're going to do. So we're going to--we
    tend to be more focused on working with social media companies
    to encourage them to take action.
        And, you know, I think when we joined the Christchurch Call
    to Action, we made really clear that when we were joining it
    that that meant that we were going to continue to ensure that
    freedom of expression was--you know, continued to be protected.
        So I think there's some differences sometimes in our
    authorities. But I think there's also a lot of information
    sharing going on, and we're learning from our partners.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. And, again, recently released
    documents by whistleblower Francis Haugen suggests that
    Facebook knowingly used recommendation systems and algorithms
    to push some of its users toward fringe ideologies and
    extremist groups.
        And given the widespread use of platforms like Facebook
    and, really, the kind of failure of Congress, at least so far,
    to regulate them in any significant way, can you just describe
    what kinds of challenges that these practices create for your
    work in countering online threats and deradicalization efforts
    and what Congress can do to help mitigate some of the effects
    you're seeing from these practices?
        I mean, where their business model incentivizes them to
    share the most provocative, most dangerous, most untrue content
    because it has the deepest engagement.
        Mr. Landberg. So I'll partly reiterate what I said earlier.
    I think, you know, we are working with these social media
    companies to strongly encourage them to enforce their terms of
    service, which in every case prohibits hate speech and the kind
    of radicalizing speech.
        That's our approach. We have a number of organizations that
    we work with, including the U.N. but there's also a group
    called GIFCT, and in these organizations we work with them as a
    group to try to get them to do so.
        That's the right approach. One of the things we try to do
    is help them--encourage them to support the creation of
    positive content also to counter the negative content.
        Mr. Cicilline. But when you say, you know, you're working
    with these platforms to encourage them to, you know, follow
    their own policies, I mean, are there things--I mean, it seems
    as if you shouldn't be at the mercy of their willingness to do
    this because what we have seen over and over and over again is
    they are motivated by a single objective, to grow their
    companies, increase their profits, increase user engagement
    regardless of the content, and they have displayed no
    willingness to curate the content in any way which protects the
    public good or which reduces violence or limits the sharing of
    radical false information.
        And so, I mean, clearly, you must have thought about having
    some tools that Congress could give you to not just nudge them
    but to prevent them from being platforms that, in fact,
    facilitate deep radicalization in this country.
        And what I'm asking you--and if you do not have thoughts
    today I'd ask you to give it some thought--because we have a
    responsibility. We can no longer just sort of hope and prod and
    push and wish that they are going to prevent their platforms
    from being used to facilitate violence and radicalization and
    real harm in our country and around the world.
        We have got to make them stop playing that role and I
    just--I think--again, I appreciate your effort to try to make
    them follow their--but that's not working. These platforms are,
    you know--so I do not know if you have some thoughts on--I do
    not mean to take----
        Mr. Landberg. Well, I think they're probably listening to
    you right now. So I think, you know, it's in their interest to
    do what you're talking about, to limit hate speech, limit
    efforts to use their platforms to radicalize individuals,
    especially radicalize them to violence.
        We're going to keep working with them and keep pressing
    them to do the----
        Mr. Cicilline. As you point out, they have not----
        Mr. Landberg. Happy to provide more.
        Mr. Cicilline. Right. Great. Thank you so much. And I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Landberg. My pleasure.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline, for your excellent
    line of questioning. I'm going to followup on where Mr.
    Cicilline left off as we bring this hearing to a close.
        Mr. Landberg, you're the acting principal deputy
    coordinator for the Bureau of Counterterrorism, and what you
    said today and just now with Mr. Cicilline was that we have
    been encouraging the social media companies to take action,
    that we have strongly encouraged them to enforce their terms of
    service, and that we have encouraged them to post positive
    content to counter the negative content.
        This is a hearing on counterterrorism. You understand--and
    I'm grateful for all you do and your thoughtful answers today
    and your dedication to public service. I do not want you to
    take this the wrong way.
        But I want--I just want to spend a moment reflecting on the
    fact that we have seen this increase in REMVE terrorism and
    white identity terrorism, so much of it lone actor, so much of
    it driven online, right? That's correct, right?
        Mr. Landberg. Correct.
        Mr. Deutch. And the response from the Counterterrorism
    Bureau, trying to prevent acts of terror against American
    citizens, is that we're strongly encouraging them to enforce
    their own terms of service.
        I'm going to join with Mr. Cicilline in asking you to give
    a lot of thought to what more can be done beyond the mere
    encouragement that we have been offering, because I know, given
    the thoughtful answers that you've given today and all of--and
    your deep knowledge of these issues and all of the ways that
    you've used the many tools that you do have here and around the
    world to help keep America safe that you would use more tools,
    if you had them. That's clear, as you're really good at what
    you do.
        But if what we're doing is strongly encouraging companies
    to enforce their own terms of service, then you need some more
    tools.
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, I probably should have mentioned, using
    our foreign assistance funds we work to build the capabilities
    of a lot of our law enforcement partners to do online
    investigations, for example, on the dark web, you know, as part
    of their investigations and, you know, going after malafide
    actors.
        So we do use foreign assistance to do that. When it came to
    the social media companies, that's why I was answering in that
    way.
        Mr. Deutch. No. No. I understand, and I--do you work--Mr.
    Landberg, can you just share--since we're wrapping this up, is
    there anything you can share with us more specifically about
    how you encourage these companies to enforce their terms of
    service, what you share with them in terms of the real threats
    to our Nation if they fail to live up to their responsibility,
    even to enforce their own terms of service?
        Mr. Landberg. Well, I think this has been mainly with the
    social media companies an effort to work collectively with them
    to deal with this problem, recognizing that there are some
    larger companies that have more capabilities than smaller
    companies.
        So we have been working with them through the organization
    I was telling you about, GIFCT, also through the U.N. group
    that we work with to address this issue.
        As far as trying to force them to do it, I mean, no, we're
    working collaboratively with them. We work with partners
    overseas using foreign assistance.
        In many cases, we have helped--for example, we worked with
    the Philippines police. They were tracking online
    radicalization efforts. Started tracking certain individuals
    using our training and assistance and actually were able to
    foil a building plot.
        So, I mean, I think we have had success in that respect.
        Mr. Deutch. What I'm getting at, just to try to be a little
    more specific, is when I--and I know you're working with them
    and I appreciate that, and I appreciate that--I readily
    acknowledge that the companies do not want their services to be
    used to create dangerous situations and acts of terror.
        But what I'm--what I'm asking is what do you--what do you
    provide to them? In those conversations, what is it that you're
    sharing with them to encourage them to take action? What is it
    that you're warning them might happen if they do not enforce
    their terms of service?
        Mr. Landberg. So I do not think that we have been very
    clear about punitive actions.
        Mr. Deutch. No. No. I'm not--I'm not asking you about--I'm
    approaching this from a cooperative--I acknowledged the
    cooperative effort and I'm not--I am curious to know, and we
    have asked you to think about additional tools that you might
    need, but from a cooperative standpoint, what--encouraging them
    to take these actions, what is it that you're presenting to
    them?
        What is it that you're showing them that should lead them
    to conclude that they need to redouble their efforts to enforce
    their terms of service and to take action when there's
    dangerous content?
        Mr. Landberg. Yes. So we're, certainly, sharing with them
    what we know is going on in terms of terrorists' use the
    internet. So we do have that dialog about trends we see, how
    terrorists are using the internet, what groups that we're most
    concerned about, and how they're operating.
        And so, yes, there is that dialog, for sure.
        Mr. Deutch. And then, finally, there are--there are lots of
    groups, NGO's, who have their own various forms of expertise
    who also work with providing information to social media
    companies.
        Do you interact with those groups? Is there a coordinated
    effort among your Bureau and among the NGO's who are focused on
    these issues to provide as much information as possible to
    these companies about what's actually happening?
        Mr. Landberg. Sir, the extent there's a lot of coordination
    going on, the extent of that in how much we work with NGO's,
    I'd have to get back to you.
        Mr. Deutch. Okay. I am--I would ask that you do.
        And just very--the last question on this topic of REMVE and
    white identity terrorism, you talked about designations and
    blocking travel.
        Mr. Landberg. Yes.
        Mr. Deutch. How many groups have been designated? Have
    there been actions taken to prevent individuals from traveling
    to our country or elsewhere?
        Mr. Landberg. Yes. We have designated one group, the
    Russian Imperial Movement, and we are always looking for
    opportunities to do more designations, both as groups and also
    for individuals.
        Designations is complicated with REMVE actors. They've
    learned lessons from ISIS and al-Qaeda and other terrorist
    groups. They're more diffuse, unclear command and control.
    Often, they use end-to end-encrypted applications to, you know,
    hide their communication.
        So it's more complex. But we're absolutely looking at
    opportunities to designate more.
        On terrorist travel, we have put in place a layered
    security system worldwide working with partners, and we
    integrate names of known suspected terrorists into those data
    bases, working with our partners to prohibit travel.
        Mr. Deutch. Great. Well, Mr. Landberg, I really want to
    thank you. I'm grateful for your appearance today. Really
    appreciative of your very thoughtful answers. I think that I
    can speak on behalf of the members in expressing our gratitude
    for that and as I said before, immensely grateful for your
    public service.
        I will remind all of the members that additional questions
    to the extent that any of the members have them should be
    submitted within five business days, and we'll ask you to
    respond to those questions in writing.
        And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]