byrd act was enacted specifically to vindicate the unique arms caused by racially motivated -- violent charged with three attempted murders under a second federal hate crimes statute that prohibits the use or threat of force to obstruct any person free exercise of their religious belief. ..

>> i would like to thank the attorney for his and his offices work as well as a dedicated terry from the department civil rights division and extend my thanks to the solicitor for being aa partner in this matter. we have a strong working relationship and look forward to continued collaboration at the parallel state and federal prosecutions worked their way through the respective court systems. thank you for your attention. [inaudible question] >> yet to be determined.

both cases will proceed through the court system and we will work to reduce unnecessary burden to the families. [inaudible question] >> deciding who goes 1st. >> there are a number of factors. both cases are in the early stages and have yet to have motions. it is difficult to say. >> this seems to fit the definition of domestic terrorism. >> there is no specific domestic terrorism statute. however, hate crimes are the original domestic terrorism. the behavior alleged to have occurred his archetypal behavior.

we havewe have a defendant who is alleged to have harbored discriminatory views toward african-americans, to have sought out and african-american house of worship and sought out african-american parishioners at worship implicating several hate crime statutes. this is exactly the type of case that the federal hate crime statutes were conceived of the cover, racially motivated violence is the original domestic terrorism. >> if you look at the essence of the case the fact that these people are dead today can you speak to where we stand and what that says? >> this is obviously a tragic situation from a

troubling situation. the allegations reflect the mindset of this young man and his specific purpose to target individuals for death but also to target individuals for death engaged in religious worship we must remain vigilant. we do not no much more about the defendant. the investigation is ongoing. but i but i think that the message that should be clear is that the federal government and our state partners are committed to investigating these matters fully and thoroughly. >> ma'am, targeted mother in manual specifically because of historically significant

church, how do you no that is why he chose the church as opposed to any african-american church? how do you know the national significance of the church? >> i am not going to comment specifically on the evidence that will come forth except to note that we believe the evidence will support the allegation that ruth chose mother emanuel because it was an old church historic church, and historically significant, and he and he was looking for the type of church and parishioners his death would draw a great notoriety for his racist views. >> in your remarks you used the language because of. i am wondering to what extent must all other factors be precluded. he hates everyone in the world, his mother, gays what impact does that have? >> hopefully we would now be

receiving information like that although we would act upon it if we did. wherever we have the motivation we have multiple charges. they specifically alleged racially motivated violence and murder and attempted murder but also the federal hate crime statute which prohibits using violence to essentially present anyone -- present everyone from exercising their religion. we see here activity that supports allegations of more than one intent. with respect to issues you raise all of that we will be taken into consideration. i am i to speculate as to what impact other factors would have. >> you suggested this was a seven-month plan.

can you elaborate about how detailed this plan was whether he made trips to the church prior to that night? >> okay. thank you for the question and i am not able to go and how many months he was planning. it was several months prior to the incident, and i am not able to go into the evidence right now that would show his actions surrounding at this. >> following up should they're be a federala federal domestic terrorism law? for the average person who sees the way people and law enforcement talk about different types of killings what distinction should they make when they hear talk about the shooting in chattanooga has terrorism

with a shooting here as hate crime, does it matter and should they're be a domestic law? >> i am not going to speculate. as to the nature of the case, you touched upon the issue that people may feel that because we have such a strong emphasis on terrorism that when we talk about matters and do not use that terminology somehow we do not consider those crimes serious. nothing could be further from the truth. this type of crime in particular racially motivated violence is of great importance to federal government. this is the archetype.

sometimes focus on the terminology. this particular murder is that many of us are significance. >> we consider death eligible defendants. it is a detailed and thorough review process that involves submissions from defense counsel involves consultation with the victims families and involves a review of all the various factors that we would utilize to determine whether or not we feel that we could prevail on those factors a trial. ultimately after this ultimately after this review process at the us attorney's office level and

also here and comes to my desk where i make the ultimate decision whether or not to seek the death penalty. as i said before, i want to be sure that no decision has been made as to whether or not to seek death penalty but we have an obligation to place the defendant on notice that the penalty is an option. >> talk a little bit. talk a little bit about what your office is doing in conjunction with the fbi to close on the issues? >> as the director announced aboutten days ago he initiated a review into the procedures that unfortunately led to is missing the fact that mr. applied to purchase that can. this is a matter of grave

importance and was disturbing and frankly heartbreaking to all of us. we would forward to reviewing the results. >> a slightly different topic. you said you were working on the case. can you expand on that? >> referring to ms. bland who died in taxes in police custody. as noted that matter is under investigation. the fbi is monitoring the case as we often do and are awaiting the results of local investigations as well >> talk about what you were queues are on the planned parenthood videos that have been out when i receive letters from members of congress. there is an important federal law and is that something that you are going to open an investigation on? >> i am aware of those matters generally from the

media and from inquiries that have been made and we will review the information and determine what steps are deemed appropriate. >> just switching gears can we expect charges andthe department of justice kind of the traitor? >> an ongoing investigation and open matter so i am not able to comment as to what charges may or may not result but the department of justice as well as other federal agencies are actively involved in notifying everyone subjected to that breach and providing them with tools necessary to protect personal data. >> the families of the victims in south carolina your reaction. >> from the beginning the families of the victims have provided an example to the country of what true grace

and spirit and faith looks like. they are an inspiration to us all. i do not no how many of us would be able to find that type of forgiveness and our hearts so soon after such a terrible my heartbreaking loss. in particular what was hopeful for everyone watching was to see that the families acknowledge that they were angry. they did have anger toward the person who had taken there loved ones that they were able to move to forgiveness. i forgiveness. i thought that was an incredible lesson and message for office. >> it has been sometime since your office began the investigation into the deaths of eric garner. when can we expect resolution? >> i cannot comment on the timing except to say that it is active and ongoing.

the eastern district is moving ahead. >> one more question. >> given that more people are killed by non-muslims do you think you are properly organizing resources to focus on the domestic terrorism threat? >> we are tracking number of threats. certainly the death of any one is a matter of grave importance. without commenting on how we're allocating resources we take all threats seriously whether they come from a foreign terrorist organization, domestic militia organization or an individual posts threats online we take those matters seriously and devote what we feel are the resources necessary to protect

individuals who come under those threats. thank you all. >> on the next washington journal talk to congressman carlos cabello about efforts to pass aa multiyear highway spending bill. congressman branch) the house financial services committee ." to debra how we are recent cdc report on heroin use that fund increases in heroin related deaths. live with phone calls at 7:00 a.m. eastern time.

>> how the use of social media by extremists has changed counterterrorism operations in the us and from former reagan administration attorney general member of the fbi 911 review commission. the heritage foundation hosted this event. [applause] >> let me thank you all for coming. it is a nice day. thank you. they're could not be a more timely time for this event. breaking news about significant terrorist figures being taken out in syria. evaluating the state of the threat and what is going on particularly in light of potentially a deal with iran they could not be a better to do this. iran.

we have a terrific panel and he is going to make some remarks and it's not that we never get to talk but we are going to have a conversation so that we can flesh out some of the issues because there are so many and then we like to bring everyone into the conversation and we will do that for about 15 15 minutes or so in and bringing panel out and continue with the panel. i ran up and i said here is the secretary. it didn't work out so well. so i actually have the biography here. so watching this is important because what he has done in the expertise he brings is very

admirable in 2013 he began the chairman of the homeland security committee which has oversight of department of homeland security and all that is protecting the american people from terrorist attacks and he recently is making sure that these forces are strong, he recently discussed a whole range of issues and he is also the cofounder and cochair of the caucus and the cybersecurity caucus and the cochair of the commission for the 44th president see and that includes

on cybersecurity. and so please give him a round of applause. [applause] [applause] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i am going to cover a lot of territory, but we will have a very robust q&a discussion and dialogue and we just mentioned this strike yesterday where we took out the leader of the group that was hugely significant in one of the big external threats to the homeland and the united states and i commend the military efforts in doing that. and last week tears dropped in the american heartland and this is a type of event that we have been worried about probably the

most lately. not on the radar screen, launching an assault on u.s. oil. killing united states marines and sailors. and this was inspired by hateful ideology, he risked his life in the name of freedom. our hearts go out to the families and friends were killed in chattanooga. we can honor the memory of the victims by confronting the roots of the violence we saw and refusing to allow complacency to fall in the we of terrorism. and that is why i'm here to cellular radicalism is on the rise and war is being brought to our doorstep. it could happen in chattanooga or anywhere and i agree with the british prime minister david

cameron who said this week that we face the struggle of our generation and a deceitful perverted brand of islam expanding globally and we need to act decisively to defeat it. first i will talk about how this new age of terror has altered the security landscape on the homefront and spread rapidly throughout our communities. then i will address the second front in our struggle with extremists of how important it is for us to take this and challenge the ideological core. but i believe that we are losing on both fronts in this war against islamic terrorism. the enemies have the momentum and they have thrown us off balance. the numbers don't lie. last year was a deadly year the

deadliest on record for global terrorism with attacks rising and nearly doubling. the power behind this is affiliated with al qaeda's persistence. and by any measure we have failed to turn the tide against them. the global recruitment has soared in the territory held or expanded. the pace is so staggering that i directed my committee staff to begin issuing a monthly terror threat snapshot. cataloging the rise in extremist activity. since the president declared them to be the gigabyte team of terror last year, the group has inspired or directed more than 50 terrorist plots against the west. they also went from a single

terrorist sanctuary to having a direct presence or affiliates in 18 countries. the rapid rise has inspired more than 25000 citizens from at least 100 countries to flock to syria as foreign fighters have tripled since last july. and officials now estimate more than 250 americans in syria. terrorist groups have succeeded in spreading influence because they have evolved. gone are the days when they plotted through caves. we are seeing a new generation of terrorists radicalizing and recruiting online and we are losing on the homefront were groups like this have started to

permeate our society there are people intent on striking from within. captivated by an evil and twisted ideology that drives vulnerable minds into conscionable acts of violence. we have seen more than a dozen ices terror plots in the united states including recent plots to set off hide bombs on capitol hill they had law-enforcement officers, conduct mass shootings, detonate bombs at new york city landmarks and white stream this was a college campus and in fact more than 50 ices supporters have been arrested or

indicted in the united states. [inaudible] and now the fbi director says that he has that he has opened the isis investigations in all 50 states. the majority have never set foot in a faraway safe haven and were recruited by isis online or distributed the group social media propaganda. and with over 200000 isis tweets per day, a there are over 200,000 per day how can we possibly get a handle on this. the chatter is so high and the volume is so loud that it's difficult to get a handle. this is not terror as usual this is terror gone viral. and i commend the fbi on

homeland security and state and locals for their disrupting others many plots and as we saw in chattanooga we cannot stop all of them and authorities are searching for suspects to use secure applications to communicate and to outsource the calls for attacks, inspiring operatives who have never crossed into the borders of syria, the crossover through the internet to combat acts of terror. the cybercommanders now regularly send out internet directives and missives to their followers as we saw in sometimes that includes an internet hash tag. we need to have a frank conversation about the challenges posed by violent extremists using social media

and dark space to further violent plots. extremists have migrated away from telephones and onto new platforms that the laws and policies have not kept pace, making it difficult to uncover terrorist plots. they communicate in darkness and we cannot shine a light to see what the communications are to attack in the united states. i do not claim to have all the answers to this, but i have started a working group with the fbi and the high-tech community to get some answers. and what i know is that we all share some common ground from silken ballet to the halls of congress that we want to see terrorists brought to justice. this has to be the starting point in an urgent dialogue in the high-tech sector and policymakers to ein solutions for the lawful monitoring of violent extremists while at the same time protecting civil

liberties. we also need to do more to stop the spread of fanaticism. before it leads to violent things. we spend billions of dollars to detect and disrupt terror plots and we have dedicated few resources toward combating and preventing the radicalization at the root of terror. this is called the crucial prevention aspect of terrorism. sadly while they are moving at broadband speeds we are moving at bureaucratic speeds. the administration has not appointed elite agency in charge of combating domestic resources and few are even allocated to it. when asked by our committee of the top department and agency can only identify around $50 million within a million being spent in around two dozen people working full-time on this

issue. and that is basically it. and that means that we have arrested twice as many isis recruits in the united states this year than there are full-time officials working to prevent isis from radicalizing americans in the first place. in a high threat environment i believe that this is unacceptable. every day we wait we see more ground going to the average adversaries. i will not stand on the sidelines asking for more reports and studies while terrorists murder our people and our military. killing our u.s. marines and servicemen and seek to divide our nation. that includes raising the priority and focus of the department of homeland security's efforts to combat the viral speed of violent extremism

and our bill would give them the tools to combat propaganda here at home that shows islamist terrorism for what it really is and it would also help dhs empower local communities to spot signs of violent radicalization and help them develop off ramps to discourage individuals from being lured overseas to fight with terror groups or be convinced to commend acts of violence at home. ultimately we must recognize the best homeland defense is a good offense and to win this war against islamic terrorism, we have to take the enemy overseas. i spent the last weekend meeting with our general leaders and talk into operations officers at the u.s. central command and special operations command at

the air force base and i'm proud of the work that they have done to dismantle terror groups and their focus on defeating isis in the recent victory of taking up the leader of the khorasan group. but the white house strategy under which they operate it only gives them the authorities to contain it rather than to hold back and defeat it. they said we needed to drain this so that we don't have to swap the mosquitoemosquitoe s. we all know that isis will replenish the ranks and that is a fact and the numbers we have killed over there they have replenish to an equal amount. we all know that they will expand globally until we have eliminated at the source at iraq and syria. right now we are fighting with one. under the current strategy and

the rules of engagement than too high to strike important targets and the number of military trainers is too low. the force is being tapped from assisting with the fight by ground troops, telegraphing weakness or enemies. as a result, isis has been able to hold an extended key territories in syria and iraq despite our airstrikes and the iraqi government is beginning to rely on shiite militias to fight back. the development that empowers them and could prolong the struggle by inflaming sectarian issues. i spoke to them several weeks ago when i was in baghdad. but it's clear that what that expanded american leadership they are running out of options

to win this fight. the bottom line is that right now i believe that we are losing the war against isis and the wider war against islamist terrorists. the present strategy has failed and the evidence of failure mounds with every terror plot in america and every attack against our allies and every one of those that are willing to die in the name of the deprived and depraved ideology. the time has come to overhaul these strategies and it's time for the president to level with the american people about what the threat truly is and about what is needed to win this generation long war with radical islamists. and today i want to outline the

basic frame work starting with a campaign against isis. we must take the ability to increase the number of trainers and expanding participation by bolstering the air campaign with close air support and easing the rules of engagement beyond zero collateral damage authorizing american military personnel to a company and assist the iraqis in combat including ramping up the number of special operations forces and accelerating the delivery to peshmerga forces. but even with these improvements, more is going to be needed to win this campaign. the president's first strategy has left us with a credible ground force to fight them without a credible ground force

to fight isis in its main stronghold in syria and recently secretary carter announced that we have only trained 60 serial troubleshooting combat this group, which can range between 30 to 50000 strong, depending on who you talk to. the reasons we have one of the reasons we have with recruits is that reportedly we make them pledge not to bite the bashar al-assad regime especially when their hometowns are being attacked. we like a serious ground force in syria while isis boasts a 30,000 man army. i'm calling upon the president to stand up a coalition to build

the force needed to clear the sanctuary in syria. and we need a can mind one now that include special operation forces and most importantly regional military partners including other partners. the coalitions media mandates should be to strengthen the opposition so that they can take the lead in taking back their country. not just from isis but from all sunni extremist terrorist groups. and that includes the current regime, the brutal oppression is one of the main drivers behind the growth and the rapid growth of isis in syria in the first

place. he continues to decimate the moderate syrian opposition including with chemical weapons that we need. and we need them to fight these extremists. but them out of the way the syrian rebels dead and better chance of rolling back terror groups and regional partners who want him gone and would be are willing to have that assurance. before taking action the coalition would need to develop a post bashar al-assad transition. syria and libya are falling apart and as a result coalition action in syria must be paired with a viable plan to stabilize the country and prevent it from becoming a vacuum.

in our regional partners will play a role on the ground in this coalition. i have spoken with syria's neighbors on many things both in turkey and saudi arabia and other allies who are willing to put forth these resources and combat troops on the ground and it's hard to articulate that we have a strategy because we don't. and they want the assurance that they will be out of the equation because they will not do anything that will empower and embolden the regime. they cannot live with this next door and the spillover effects

are part of this. some are prepared to help fight isis by committing their own ground troops and this is after all their backyard. it is their mass and i think it is part of them to bring it up under american leadership and for us not to have to carry this water. but there is no substitute for american leadership. [inaudible] i was pleased earlier this year to see arab leaders propose the creation of a regional military force but such an organization is years away from reality. and we cannot afford to wait for this to play out, the strategy that he admits would take years

to putting the coalitions of nations and we also cannot forget core principles needed to win this war against terror. the reach of this extends far beyond the territories. yet the counterterrorism approach can be best described as a whack-a-mole by drones. and make no mistake, we have eliminated terror leaders through targeted air strikes including the head of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula yesterday and earlier this month. and that includes the leaders to blow up airplanes using ied's.

but these terror groups are getting better and quickly replacing fallen leaders and we chase these fanatics. but in order to win we must destroy sanctuaries with serious ideology and we need to identify and confront threats early wherever they emerge in places like libya and yemen, we need to work with partners to develop full-fledged stabilization plans and we must counter the ideology because we have seen it spread to all corners of the globe in the same way that communism and fascism led to decades of destruction and in the short run

this means exposing the brutality and naked journey of life of the role of islamist terrorists and so recruits will realize that they are headed to this. this is not happening right now the state department, the dod is trying and it's not happening at dhs. in the long run we need the president to outline the whole of government for this fight the strategy should draw on all elements to promote liberty and dignity to oppression fear and terror. authoritarian systems are the wellspring of fanaticism political and economic development are the only reliable long-term antidote to terror. which is why american foreign policy must be geared to shaping

a balance of power in the international system that favors the expansion of free states. as churchill talked about. and leads us to face more enemies on our city streets rather than on the battlefield overseas. and as the prime minister talked about. the ideas prevail, every time we witness a weed out not to be intimidated and we send a clear message to fanatics. and we will bring justice and that is resolve of the american

people and the resolve that will take us to a victory in this war against islamic terror. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity to follow up with the speech a little bit. the first question i want to ask you is by putting yourself into contact. we never really understood what was going to be and what kind of joked that they were doing these many similar things. and you really saw the administration put its interest on how it identifies the war on terror some and there are more

terrorist attacks more than there ever were. realistically the odds of him saying that i got it all wrong and doing something different are pretty slim, what we are really doing is that we need to have a vigorous year and a half debate about what the next president is going to do. >> unlike what we did in world war ii in germany, japan, after korea, it left a dangerous hotspot because i think that that coupled with this the

prime minister, secretary clinton traveled one time for three hours. that was a creation. [inaudible] and that created the threat today and so that wasn't supposed to happen. this narrative. it defines the campaign narrative and i think the strategy for him is running the clock out as they enter the home town. and i think that that is a huge mistake of foreign policy, it makes it dangerous to the homeland. one of the driving issues here i'm not seeing it right now. and i have to tell you that i'm not saying a lot of experience in national security and the. usually it is about the economy

and this issue will be the driving debate. and i think that every american i would ask the question if you feel safer today than he did before and i think most americans would answer that question as no. >> spring in a related issue which i think is fair fair to do they go together because ron is the other great destabilizing force and we have to live with the aftermath. so i would like your assessment. >> secretary of state kerry, we sent letters to them going to

congress first before dropping this at the u.n. security council, samantha powers called me after hearing and within days they submitted this to the u.n. security council and they have circumvented this with the congress. and so i think that this is flagrant, it defies the spirit and we know that china and russia and venezuela they will vote to lift u.n. sanctions. so what can be done, the only thing that we have left is to override the president's veto and that is the last several days to try to appeal to democrats and that is the only

way that this whole process can stop. >> we can pass the sanctions to dismantle a nuclear capability. and the capability can still continue to go forward. there is only one reason and that is to deliver a nuclear warhead starting a middle east arms race. they say that our allies are confused. and we are strongly opposed to this. now we are going to see a nuclear arms race in pakistan, egypt is going to look at it, turkey. lastly the hundreds of billions of dollars that will be lifted

and given to the largest state sponsor of terrorism with hamas and hezbollah in the western hemisphere and other countries we saw the saudi ambassador plot this and they conduct cyberattacks routinely on our financial sector. and i think it's one of the biggest foreign policies that i have seen is a mistake in my lifetime. >> your assessment is what this deal actually does protect the nuclear infrastructure and allows them a stronger breakout

and that includes more freedom in terms of trying to contain this. >> i think that chuck schumer is a key player in this in the senate and we are working very hard to make this a bipartisan opposition in the more the american people hear about this deal. they are celebrating in the streets of tehran. i'm not saying a celebration in the streets of america and if we cannot accomplish that and i think the only thing left.

>> dealing with the issue of terrorism from the offenses and defensive points, stopping the front to drive this and counterterrorism. some of the legislation that you propose, part of that is how we do it as well. and what is to prevent this administration from using that go into political opponents maybe conservative groups and

much in the way that the administration has been accused of. how can you prevent that. >> it's not anyone's political place. if that ever occurred with pretty good response. [inaudible] he was kicked out and it would have been nice to have known that. most of these guys with the exception of chattanooga would have a lot that were up before they kill people. if we can identify that beforehand and de- radicalized,

that would be very helpful. it's a two-pronged deal. one of their biggest priorities is homeland security. mine is protecting the homeland from within and also protecting the homeland by limiting the threat outside. for instance, what i call cybercommanders and the idea that we cannot do this and pressing them to identify, i cannot name the names or identify who they are and take them out. not to say it's double ended. there will be those that will follow. at the end of the day it is a war of ideology and that is why this is so important to provide the counter narrative to radical

ideology that we are in a long-term struggle. and i hope it is in my children's lifetime. >> when it is done right i was in st. louis recently were two individuals were providing material support and the community was completely and utterly outraged and they actually were extremely cooperative and wanted to engage with state and local and fbi officials. >> i want to get one more point

before we do that which is something that we have dealt with which is the role of homeland security and the importance of consolidating authorities enters action are part of this. >> unlike the house armed services and the department of defense or the department of justice our committee was built upon a compromise after 9/11. and i think the 9/11 commission came back and said this is one of the biggest threats to the united states in congress and

the jurisdiction is the whole part of it in the congress and i think that it's something that needs to be fixed and i think that the argument needs to be made and needs to be done. >> if you can state your name and affiliation, we will try to squeeze that in and maybe one other question as well. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for speaking today. i am a subject matter expert and terrorist radicalization and de- radicalization among russian is for doing a lot of research and

if you complain about a twitter candle, it takes weeks, not months, for those that are definitely radicalizing for different groups and it comes up with this as well and so my question is will you be addressing how to perhaps influence this comparable to counterparts and not be used as a platform for terrorism and recruitment and radicalization. >> first help support this legislation in groups like heritage to support it. i think that it's common sense

and this is a high-tech challenge. and there are these cybercommunities, serious isis. they change their handles and twitter accounts instead of trying to stay in front of them knowing that we could argue that to include this and it's just kind of dicey in the privacy side. we are looking forward to the technology the first meaning is friday morning with the high-tech sector and the leaders like google and twitter and homeland security and doj to see

what kind of solution we can provide and we see these communications from syria into the united states. we sought in new york, we sought in boston, for all i know this guy and chattanooga could have and i'm not saying that he did could have been communicating this. and what is that we met they will go to another platform knowing that it is secured even with a court order. you can't see it. and so there's a lot of different communication going on between cybercommanders and syria and americans -com,-com

ma those with thousands of followers in the united states and we can't shine a light on the communication. and this all has to be part of the equation, but we need to find a technologies lucian to this so that we can better stop it, otherwise we can't seek medications and we can't stop it. if the guy with there was operating in this way they would make a pretty big case. we talked to the director and the secretary of homeland security, this is one of the biggest concerns but they cannot lawfully monitor these communications. >> let's take one last question here. >> thank you.

>> you know we can agree that monitoring this lawfully or unlawfully, given this is a war of ideology is there anything for policy to try to sway that ideology that the recruits will be replenished as long as they can be reached out to. do we have a way to counter this ideology and ended? >> that is a great question and again, when you go to this in terms of proposing the ground force, there has to be the arab nations providing the ground force and they told me that they will and they met with world leaders, they will do that if there was a strategy and part of the equation. and we try to do this only do

100,000 u.s. combat troops. that is kind of the choices that we have. that is an option that should be on the table. but when you do that you inflame them because the infidel is on their land. so this is a smart approach and smart way to do it with sunnis, sunni moderates and extremists that seems to me under american leadership that that is a purpose for the bill the counter violent extremism, the state department doesn't have the counter narrative abroad and the dod has a lot of this technology and capability to do it in the ambassador was there at the meeting and i am urging them to start this counter

narrative and you're going to get put on the front lines. the frontline had a great special. it's terrific what they do. and that is the counter narrative that i think needs to be out there more. at the end of the day it is providing stability when they fall and it breeds terrorism. we have seen libya yemen we have no intelligence we have had to pull out of many places completely out of iraq and

syria and without a counter narrative and a strategy it is going to continue to breed and thrive. and the problem is it is metastasizing so greatly globally and that is what worries me. >> i'm going to ask you to join with me in a small round of jujitsu. i'm going ask you to join me in thanking senator mike mccaul. for his conversation and as soon as the exit the stage i would ask our panel to jump up and i will introduce them and we will jump right into it and thank you for joining me. >> we appreciate it.

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> remember i told her the story that i lost this and i couldn't introduce him. so maybe it is a pattern. but fortunately i know all of these guys and they are pretty awesome.

[inaudible] >> when you're working in the homeland security, you see this than those advising every day and those at the highest level. the general was not just the attorney general of the united states but was the most distinguished scholars here at the heritage foundation and i told him beforehand that they work harder now than when on active duty here. but among the things is he recently served on an important commission that reviewed the counterterrorism function of the fbi and so here is someone with knowledge and experience and we've had an opportunity to do a key component of this.

the key component is david and sarah who are policy analysts on homeland security work this stuff every day and not just the entire department that really the entire homeland security enterprise and i will ask each of you to make some remarks and then we will get as much q&a at the end as we possibly can. sometimes we start late but we always end up on time. so should we start with you? >> yes go ahead. thank you, everyone, for coming today. i want to use this time to lay out the statistics and trends and we are going to get some general recommendations echoing what the chairman said about what we can do to better counter this threat. they have been tracking this

against the united states homeland since 9/11. the data tells me that the u.s. has faced more terrorist plots and attacks in 2015 and we have seen in any prior year and we are only in july of this year. and so just to echo chairman mike mccaul this is the most dynamic period that the u.s. has seen since 9/11 and it's all according to publicly available information that we do not have access to and do not know about. they are tracking hundreds of individuals across this and it's clear that we do have a serious problem. i want to describe what it is that we do and how to categorize the criteria. first, it has to be a concrete block with actual action taken to further that plot.

and if someone wants to do applaud that we can consider that. that includes being motivated by islamist ideology to achieve that goal. generally we also look for an official statement by the government and law enforcement to indicate that this was an act of terror usually indicated by criminal charges but that's not always the case take the fort hood shooting and with this in mind we have been watching this since 9/11 and this includes international law enforcement and we got lucky and honestly

there's some of these in total. at least 27 of these individuals were trained in terrorist camps abroad. xt one of the 72 were homegrown terrorist plots here in the when they were radicalized and they didn't get their ideology while they were staying abroad. and what exactly were they targeting and the number one has been the u.s. military and the personnel were actual basis. nineteen attacks obama after our military. and the mass transit systems and in washington dc and in law

enforcement not unless you want to be on. recent plots have been unique. they have been directed by isis. by most were conducted by some other ideology come to have all 10 plots in the past six months all be connected to one group, shows the influence that they have and it's not a coincidence that we have seen a spike in terrorism and we have also seen a spike in the plot against law enforcement, which makes sense given the fact that they have talked about law-enforcement and officials. the question is what we do about this. we will have an opportunity to dive into some details and i

want to touch on two broad ideas which the chairman has arnie touched on. it's critical that the united states take a combative approach. when we treat terrorism as a crime, we can deter it punish it after the fact we misunderstand the nature of the threat and terrorist are happy to and sometimes even want to die in pursuit of their goals. the bigger bang they make the more likely they are to look for changes and opportunities and they are looking to hurt us and. [inaudible] furthermore they are looking for soft targets that are very easily attacked. or look at tunisia and the attack there, these are

softhearted, not guarded by security very often. and so the point is that it's not enough come you cannot have security officers everywhere. we have we can't do that. sometimes it can help us in preventing from getting out of hand, but that was too close for comfort, i think we can all agree. so we need to be doing is look at how we can be more proactive and this means that law enforcement needs to have the tools, the lawful intelligence tools to find terrorists and to make sure that the public is never put in danger. not a lot secondly the u.s. does need to do more and to defeat isis abroad. the reality is that they are

attracting followers and a lot has been made of them and their use of social media and there's no doubt that they are very effective at using social media and other online tools. but it's not just social media which is causing individuals to take up around the world. social media is just a tool that they are using to display the message that it is a caliphate in possession of real territory that they can do and and expand. it's a compelling message to many in the world and this means that the allies need to take more effective steps to isolate and undermine the islamist terrorist groups. honestly this is needed to uncover these from abroad to the united states i will read some

of these topics were michael panna . most of the time anytime since 9/11 the u.s. cannot be complacent. this is not about fear mongering but about accurately grasp ring this. >> the fbi has been involved in counterterrorism and intelligence activities for a long time. at the time i was in the

department i recognize suddenly it's almost 30 years ago, but at that time the terrorist groups were mostly overseas like the red army faction of groups and so on and most of the attacks were on u.s. citizens and happen to be abroad. and of course 9/11 was the big change the start of a whole new era of terrorism, obviously, for the united states. so the 9/11 commission was formed and they did an extensive review of the united states as a government and the country had to do and almost for a couple of years and then continued to monitor the situation after that. and one of the major decisions they had to make was shall we follow britain and canada and some other countries that established a different organization from the law enforcement agencies to deal

with terrorism and i think wisely they decided no, it was to give the charge to the fbi but they change the fbi and actually what they said was that and that includes the national security workforce established in the fbi consisting of analysts and surveillance specialists who are recruited and trained and rewarded to ensure the development of an institutional culture imbued with a deep expertise and this required a great many changes in

the idea of criminal investigation is primarily to find out who did it and then gather the evidence so that they can be successfully prosecuted. this is a new rule and that is to find out what is going on to prevent something from happening as david has properly talked about and secondly this meant an organizational change instead of having the criminal investigation division is the primary focus on intelligence to carry out this role of situations. this broad cultural change because we not only had special agents, the people that carry guns and badges and handcuffs

and they had to be given a status comparable to and equal to the special agents themselves. in our commissioner looked at what was happening in terms of all of this when they got off to a good start, they made extensive progress and particularly is something that the congressman has mentioned

them to keep his with the accelerating threats we face throughout the world which were discussed by the congressman at this point. in the division is that the future of the fbi was to be an organization that might be described in these terms. an fbi in which criminal investigation and counterintelligence and intelligence collection and science and technology are all complementarity of a global intelligence and investigative organization rather than the prior incarnation as primarily a domestic organization. the idea that they had the

global aspects with the fbi at its hub would be a collaborative enterprise and that includes a considerable amount of activity in which the private sector would be involved. and this involved, as i mentioned, intelligence analysts at a very high level. but it was necessary to develop a recruiting program because we have to go into colleges and universities to find the kinds of people who have the skills, the analytical skills and also the background in international relations and the like. in involved in training and education programs and one of the major changes was at the fbi academy to have special agents

and intelligence analysts training in the same classes that were relevant to what they were doing in terms of intelligence and training together and working together at the start of their careers this includes the first time working side-by-side that pertain to this with a special agents. and that includes a new form of leadership in the field office. and every one of these divisions and it meant also a change in

status of the acceptance by special agents of them as full professionals and that includes the opportunities that they have, opportunities to go overseas, opportunities to have inner agency responsibilities and to go to other agencies like the defense intelligence he at other places where they can expand their professional capabilities by fieldwork with other agencies so that they would become truly a part of the intelligence community as a whole. today we have 16 or 17 depending on how you count them, different intelligence agencies and the federal government. it was a matter of increasing the scope and the understanding of the special agents and

analysts and what the other agencies were doing so they could work together with the people in those particular agencies. and it also created a new career path and promotional opportunities and so on so we can retain the intelligence along with the special agents. in another change was to expand the role of the legal attaches. this is a phrase that depicts the fbi people working overseas in the various embassies and they have a unique role. ..

>> these kinds of things are probably best known as we integrate that information with special agents themselves but are collecting so that we have in terms of potential terrorist activities and the importance of the legal authorities and we have a great debate as was discussed briefly here and at

the same time at the importance of maintaining civil liberties of our citizens generally, it's why we recommended that the fbi director had a directory panel on a continuing basis and these are some of the things that we have found, some of the things that we have recommended as far as the future is concerned. and over the decade since 9/11 there have been some tough moments and it has been difficult to make the cultural changes but they have made remarkable progress up until now

he said the new director is totally behind the recommendations we have made and it's very important because the future of the fbi will be the way in which this country is protected. >> with regards to radicalism and also important implications very and as we use that term it's useful to expand that typology in terms of what the different flavors of terrorism are an obviously foreign terrorism is one of those and including those that are supported by foreign terrorist

groups operating in the united states or elsewhere and the second is domestic terrorists and those are primarily based in the united states and not under the direction of influence of inspiration of foreign terrorist troops but operating independently and then we have the third that is the violent extremist that are based in the united states and inspired by foreign terrorist groups but not directed or supported by those groups. and the reason why they are significant and i will get into it and a little bit more is the increasing emphasis on preventing violent extremism rather than countering radicalism and so are the terms that radicalism and violence we miss him are using our tangibly if you can be a radical

extremists and not be violent we track that and so we are focusing more as of late with those that are actually about to or currently breaking the law versus those to the left and then there is a third area with increasing availability of what some described as technologies of mass empowerment particularly in that category of extremist is what are they capable today that they may not have dreamed about 10 or 15 years ago. and so let me start with growing concerns with regard to violent extremists and this is reinforced by the events in chattanooga characterized right

either lone wolves or individuals that are operating or self radicalized or radicalized in a way that only has them toward inferences necessary communicating with other entities or small groups and therefore they do not have that signature in that typically they are weighing in on. as they travel and keep sorting with individual and those are the tippers that allow us to focus and they present the greatest threat terry and this includes what we track prevent various if there is a silver

lining we have traditionally looked at these groups as having relatively low capabilities and that includes relatively large numbers of people in terms of this, but you are not looking at 9/11 with this or worse. which takes me to the next area which is how do we differentiate what we are going to be concerned about and focused with limited law enforcement versus the broader of much larger set of people who may be disenfranchised in this includes other concerns with this country for our way of life in this includes the intent. we have a constitution that

encourages freethinking and we have a lot of people that are considering radicals and their time martin luther king, others, a whole host of them. and so we have a society and a culture as long as they are not illegally entering other people's space so holding this doesn't necessarily progress to violent extremism and there is no typical pathway in this includes the classic pathway to say that this is an individual on the way to physical acts of terrorism and we see a lot of people again who are haile disenchanted and have extreme thoughts. most of them do not going to

violent extremism is. and maybe it's an outreach initiative as its and the initiatives to the american muslim communities to identify individuals in their communities who are prone to radicalization, that would be the softer side, that would be less of a legal act and often have the unintended result of alienating those communities and cultivating a sense of paranoia and prosecution and persecution and so if you look at the efficacy of many of our efforts today it is very difficult to do as a government in terms of engaging with these communities and what the counter narrative is because we are getting into religious.and ideology and thinking and it's not a space that many are comparable talking or nor do they do it very well

and it's difficult for them to address the ideological foundations and theological aspects of the radicalization process and i'm not just talking about united states. if you follow the united states or canada, they have sims mythic and challenges on the radicalization program where they have moved more and more to focus on the individuals who are conducting legal acts right on the verge versus looking to getting that to the left versus to the right. and it's also about taking care not to alienate them who do not hold those populous views when they are not prepared to behave in violent ways because we want to avoid contributing to more conversions to violent extremism than we are to have the

diversions away from them. and i will just briefly read you the difference and the different characterizations from dhs and the ask. the dhs does not focus on radical thought or speech but instead on preventing violent attacks and the fbi, which of course as he recognizes the lead federal agency for counterterrorism had a little bit more of a robust approach and the fbi approach is to reach people before they cross the line of radical extreme violence. one of the key strategies is to reach out to communities to stem the tide of violence and that has been a big challenge for the relationship with these communities and the muslim community in particular is a

strain one and it's a very difficult balancing act to work with communities that they are opposed to violent behavior and where you're drawing the line between someone that has legitimate defensible thinking and they are trading the freedom away because the bureau is concerned about possibly making that move. so the sum result of these tensions between the competing phenomenon is essentially a catch-22. so as not to risk worsening the problem, we have got off earlier to identify and divert those most prone to violent extremism of where they act out those haters. now we are left with the even more challenging proposition until radical thoughts are at the precipice of violence leaving precious little time and

that is a tough space for us to operate in but that is the reality of what we are dealing with. so i will get to this third and final category of technologies of mass empowerment and this gets back to this amazingly rapid evolution and ubiquitous availability of this technology and increasing the enablement of small groups all the way down to individuals with the means to cause significant damage in ways that were limited to nation space how many years ago and i am talking about five or 10 years ago and capabilities now in the hands of the individuals who are dead weapons type of capabilities that we have expert control score and you can look at your iphone six and there are a number of them right in that platform and you can use that as a guidance navigational mechanism for this message. so there it is a future of

violence and it highlights the trend and i would say that many of us could differ on how this could change the world order and they offer a lot of the russians about what that does to the nationstate in what is interesting is that they do go down the path of three different rapidly developing technologies and biotechnology robotics and cyberand they posit the different scenarios literally by small groups all the way to individuals with regard to these advanced technologies and very significant hype consequence of facts. if you look at the brothers in an you have to knuckleheads who put a lot of time and effort into developing their profile

and building these devices that were certainly impactful on a local scale and you are talking about now how these individuals again have only been able to do paint by numbers and biosequencing and this with 80 bna sympathizer they can get off the internet and that is what we are talking about and we have not yet seen the potential that is their and this is particularly concerning for violent extremists because we cannot defend against every attack and we recognize that and we recognize the threshold of consequence that they have been able to attract to date is tragic as it is that has been relatively small acts of these types of individuals have high consequence of effect of large

numbers of consequence in a scary place and i fear that that's against the backdrop of all of the mounting concerns for homegrown concerns. but these actors are not capable of really having high affect is going to fade. >> thank you sir. and we will have time to get a few questions out there and that would be great. i will recognize you and that would be terrific. so folks listening can hear it. let me just unpack a few things before we move on. so you lay out the framework of the areas and the areas that are critical.

going from the international program to the role of intelligence in the fbi science and technology issues, legal authorities and information sharing is kind of part of us. so i'm guessing that if i has to put the strongest way in which they've made the most progress you would say this. >> well, i would say partially, but there's still a lot more to do because when you put your foot in the atlantic ocean you come across the state department and their is a certain bureaucratic resistance to expanding and providing more resources overseas and i would say there's a long way to go there. and i think it's more accurate to say that the pharmacist has

gone from the whole idea of bringing this in prior to 9/11 intelligence analysts, i don't even think that they used that term they would've thought about this as advanced clerks, if you will but there's always been a tradition that there was a big dividing line between special agents and everybody else in the intelligence analysts were putting it in the other category and i think it's been the development of the idea of intelligence analysts as total equal with special agents and that is really improving because it's only been within the last year that we've had the joint training where intelligence analysts and agents were in the same educational programs. >> the question i would ask is which it's the lowest grade.

>> i would say science and technology. i think that the computer programs from the communications in the information technology as a whole is probably lacking the hand and it was doing so with the department of justice and i'm sure probably within the community and i would say that that is the one that meets the budgetary support and i mentioned secure telephones, you would think that when we went to the office for example, and i think he was in london there was one secure telephone in the whole place in a little telephone booth, the kind that superman is to change clothes and where is if they had had more it's a matter of intelligence analysts being able to pick up the phone and talk to someone who is working in the

same area to be able to exchange information and if they have to maybe wait to some other facilities that are available they really interferes with their capability. >> there's a lot of discussion about remarks under points and some of the points that david made about countering violent extremism but i think that you alluded to it that there's kind of two very different but related missions there and one in his space that i think the fbi and homeland security kind of figured it all out, which is this line between people that have extremist views and are potentially operational like that. and i think that we can debate what the best structure is and

say that that's appropriately something they should be involved in and they ought to figure that out. the other is a much broader id idea which we never have had it is a different ideology and worldview which is in competition with the united states and the much broader mission and a different topic than i think it's something that the united states has been completely about. but i want to ask you about this of people that are embracing the views and might have the potential to up over the line and the question is given as david said we have that with 330 million americans and you look at those that are left to be foreign fighters, it has and

may be in the tens compared to other countries working there thousands given the size of the united states and the percentage of populations that is radicalizing to this extent that it's a problem, what is the and given all the other ct things that we have done, what is the right level here. >> you make an important point that it's a tiny percentage of the population that you might consider at a greater risk of your talking about radical islam and you would be looking at a muslim population the majority of which is not radical and does not share radicalized views. so it's a small percentage that we have seen acting upon that and you have a number of those individuals who are very conservative what many would consider to be radical thought they have no intent and have demonstrated no actions in terms

of effecting those outcomes in a violent way. to this gets back to and the chairman made the point if you want to deal with this, you need to have a counter narrative and we have done it very poorly. and it's very difficult thing. when you do this against what some perceive you run into a lot of problems. we want to first do no harm we have this great majority of the population that private citizens of the country and we don't want to create more alienation and so i think that that is the peace that we have wrestled with and not done a very good job and the same for the canadians and the grits. >> what is the level of effort that we should be looking here between do-nothing and the

manhattan project. where do we need to be? >> we have to take a risk informed approach to all threats and we cannot prevent any individual who might go into this and buy a rifle and go on a shooting spree. and we need to look at who poses the most significant threat and so if we spend all of our resources trying to identify anyone who may do any act no matter what the consequence, we will run out of this way before we are able to focus on this as individuals and it is highly emotional people respond psychologically than to have to

deal with that dynamic as well. >> let me ask you one last question when we look at this more narrow point and that is a grand narrative in debating this and you are working with this and you have looked at the legislation on the program and the strategy. you are linking up with people in the community as well and some of those other things as well. >> there has been a recent one that has been done in minneapolis, minnesota, those are very interest in studies. many of the civil society folks

support them. but are we reaching the right folks, are we making the right alliances with these folks a lot of groups got funding from the government and we're great at maintaining the funding from the government that didn't necessarily -- were not able to show significant improvements in what they were doing. other organizations were able to show good improvements. so how can the government that's partner, that's a challenge. so who's the best person to take on that support role. you address the question and should they be doing it. and i think you said maybe it

should go to dhs, i think that dhs could be the right place because they are often working with state and lows and that includes the counterterrorism knowledge that is useful. and since they have been connecting i think of them as a place to coordinate. >> there ought to be metrics of measure and the focus is really more on this what is the common interest and the public safety of the community.

>> the larger issue in the war of ideas with radical islamism is actually doing some excellent panels on that over the last two months. and also talk about the differences, and how it's not just a political thread and so if there are questions from the audience we will continue. if you just wait for the microphone and state your name that would be awesome. >> my question is do you know

how many were born in the u.s. how many were citizens how many were here illegally? >> i am looking into trying to break out some of those things. we are looking at some of the most recent issues and there have been a fair number of folks who are on naturalized citizens and so i know that it is an abnormal number becoming nationalized citizens in case of this. the boston marathon bomber is a great example, another case was an individual who became naturalized while he was in the

naturalization process and he was running his trip to syria. he went to syria. >> thank you where your service. >> thank you for your service, that's a question that gets to the strength and the limitations of this database. in terms of raw numbers about population it doesn't tell you anything useful. there's also 80 million other people. and you can say that there's a significant percentage that are naturalized.

..anything. what you find is whatever categorization you make there are a tiny percentage of anything. >> the.he said that shows process was pleased to look at. what it does tell you in the naturalization process there are things that we are not doing which would much more clearly identify people you should not have given citizenship to which is the kind of stuff that is super useful. >> is one thing, the returning foreign fighters. people going overseas. you immediately have an indication someone that you need to look into and have gone to syria, the middle east command come back