[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]