iraqi and kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment. we will also support iraq's efforts to help the sunni communities secure their own freedom from isil's patrol. across the border, in syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the syrian opposition. tonight, i again call on congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. in the fight against isil, we cannot rely on an assad regime that terrorizes its people, a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like isil, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve syria's crisis once and for all. third, we will continue to draw on our substantial

counterterrorism capabilities to prevent isil attacks. working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, counter its warped ideology, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the middle east. and, in two weeks, i will chair a meeting of the u.n. security council to further mobilize the international community around this effort. fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization. this includes sunni and shia muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of christians and other religious minorities. we cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands. this is our strategy. and in each of these four parts of our strategy, america will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. already, allies are flying planes with us over iraq,

sending arms and assistance to iraqi security forces and the syrian opposition, sharing intelligence, and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. secretary kerry was in iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity, and in the coming days he will travel across the middle east and europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially arab nations who can help mobilize sunni communities in iraq and syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. this is american leadership at its best. we stand with people who fight for their own freedom, and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity. my administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. i have the authority to address the threat from isil. but i believe we are strongest as a nation when the president and congress work together. so i welcome congressional

support for this effort in order to show the world that americans are united in confronting this danger. now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like isil. and any time we take military action, there are risks involved, especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. but i want the american people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it will not involve american combat troops fighting on foreign soil. this counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out isil wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. this strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in yemen and somalia for years. and it is consistent with the approach i outlined earlier this year to use force against anyone

who threatens america's core interests but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order. my fellow americans, we live in a time of great change. tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. next week marks 6 years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the great depression. yet, despite these shocks, through the pain we have felt and the grueling work required to bounce back, america is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on earth. our technology companies and universities are unmatched. our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. energy independence is closer than it's been in decades. for all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, i

see the grit and determination and common goodness of the american people every single day, and that makes me more confident than ever about our country's future. abroad, american leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. it is america that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. it is america that has rallied the world against russian aggression, and in support of the ukrainian peoples' right to determine their own destiny. it is america, our scientists, our doctors, our know-how, that can help contain and cure the outbreak of ebola. it is america that helped remove and destroy syria's declared chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the syrian people, or the world, again. and it is america that is helping muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful

future. america, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. but as americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. from europe to asia, from the far reaches of africa to war-torn capitals of the middle east, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. these are values that have guided our nation since its founding. tonight, i ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. i do so as a commander-in-chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform, pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the middle east and service-members who support our partners on the ground. when we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's what one of them said.

"we owe our american friends our lives. our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people." that is the difference we make in the world. and our own safety, our own security, depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for - timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the earth. may god bless our troops, and may god bless the united states of america. >> secretary of state john kerry

is in cairo today as part of the obama administration's attempt to build a coalition against isis. secretary kerry met with egypt's foreign minister and president to discuss counterterrorism efforts. his trip to egypt comes after stops in turkey and saudi arabia are to so far, 10 arab nations have expressed support for u.s. military campaign against isis. egypt and saudi arabia among them. some other countries included in that group are iraq, jordan, kuwait and qatar. secretary kerry will be talking more about u.s. strategy on capitol hill this coming week. he will be before the senate foreign relations committee at .:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3 he is scheduled to testify a day later before the house armed services committee. you can check our schedule online for that information. the chair of the house armed recentlycommittee

spoke about isis at the american enterprise institute. he laid out his own plan for fighting the hottest group while commenting -- the jihadist group while commenting on president obama. this is about one hour. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for coming today for what has been an extraordinarily timely discussion that i am very much looking forward to.

he does not need much introduction and i will save the time so we can hear from them. it is a terrific honor for me to be able to introduce him and to speak with him on this topic. as he completes a 21-year career in the house of representatives, and in all of his positions, he has been an indomitable force in favor of the u.s. military and the defense of this nation. it is entirely appropriate in that context. offering ideas to what needs to be done to defend the united states. i am going to stop right there so we can get into the discussion.

>> thank you for the introduction. it was around this time at 9:30 a.m. 13 years ago that the second plane hit the world trade center. will you please join me in a moment of silence? [no audio] thank you. here is what prime minister tony blair commented on that day.

this mass terrorism is the new evil in our world today. it is perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life. we the democracies of this world will have to come together and fight it together. he could have written that yesterday. the 9/11 commission report concluded the attacks were a shock but they should not have come as a surprise. islamist extremists had given warnings that they meant to kill americans in large numbers. several have remarked that isil is more lethal than al qaeda was on september 11, 2001. yet the president has likened isil to the junior varsity team and has argued that america is safer. nothing is further from the truth. this is the same threat we faced

september 10, 2001. if not worse. i listened to the president's remarks last night and i welcome them. there are several elements of the strategy that i support. acting through a willing coalition. ordering more airstrikes. stepping up intelligence collection, cutting off their sources of funds, curtailing the flow of foreign fighters. and training and equipping moderate opposition forces in syria. i also have full respect for the president. i have a responsibility to share my views about what more can be done. this perspective is based on my years on the armed services committee and formed recently by

a long trip i took in the middle east where i met with heads of state and multiple officials from the ministries of foreign affairs and defense. i listened and i asked questions. they gave me blunt answers and hard truths. our allies are from the hard lines. there is a genuine sense among the leaders that america is disengaging from the region and concerns about american credibility at a time when credibility counts. it is also notable that these allies are ready to bear the burden of the fight. they know their very existence depends on defeating isil. they need the united states support and capabilities and it is in our best interest to be there.

the longer we wait, the further these relationships will erode and more lives will be lost. none of the action brought out can wait another month. certainly not longer than that. what must be done? we need a strategy that pins isil down and knock them out. i believe the minimalist strategy will not get us there. i sense that he may have allowed politics to limit our chances for success. i will be brutally honest. i will not sugar coat the forces that we need or the risks involved. first, our strategy remarks that isil is an immediate threat to

u.s. national security and treated as such. the threat is not imminent to the homeland, said the president. exactly when does the threat become eminent? we need a comprehensive strategy. i call for swift action with the strategically realistic plan to defeat isil before they gain more steam. it is the only option on the table. this is planned as a success.

there is no other option. we must channel that resolve. the go slow strategy gives them space to thrive and grow and blend with the population. every month, 500 more foreign fighters join their ranks. every month, they raise nearly $85 million in revenue just from oil. every day, isil identifies and brutally executes the sunni moderates that might be convinced to work with us again. isil is a sunni movement. getting the sunnis to reject them is key. while we wait to see what the newly formed government will do, we are missing the chance to truly speak for the people.

they must have reason to believe that they could stick their necks out. this is not a sectarian fight against them. we have to get into the villages with special ops forces because if they slip through our fingers, they are gone. we have to link the security forces capabilities that were lost when we left around. -- iraq. they will all be needed to maintain postwar security and

stability. we must kick isil hard in iraq and syria at the same time. an iraq only approach will not work. striking iraq and syria will not be easy. it may sound difficult to do, that's because it is. if we want isil defeated, we need them encircled. allowing them to squirt out will

only make the fight more difficult. we need that territory to be held by friendlies. this is the only way to get this done. the president has implied that it is congress that has been stalling on giving him this tool. he also implies this is the key to defeating isil in syria. there have been doubts about this proposal. the president said arming moderate rebels has always been a fantasy and that there wasn't as much capacity as you would hope. i recognize the risks. arming surrogates is not a

formula for success against isil. it is not timely enough or decisive enough. we learned that after the horn of africa in many years. the capabilities of the united states will be required. the u.s. must take the lead to build a coalition which the president has finally started. the brutality of isil is appalling. they all have military capability and they all want to knock isil on its back. they want our help. we owe them our help.

ignoring the plea is a quick way to end up friendless and with little if any u.s. influence left in the region. let's not forget our allies around the world are watching and wondering if they can never trust the u.s. again. american leadership is not an option here. it is a necessity. we are the missing piece in the puzzle. there are certain capabilities we have invested in for decades. the ability to control air and put troops in difficult terrain in hostile territory. the ability to communicate on the battlefield. that is how we pulled these nations together. this is no light lift. the man that held together the most difficult alliance in history had it right when he said only strength can cooperate. weakness can only beg.

though many allies have strong doubts about the obama administration's willpower, we still carry weight in the middle east. i think we can bring sunnis and shias and kurds and turks together. to make that happen, the president needs a team of diplomats. and soldiers on the ground assuring every player towards the same purpose. not just this week but on a sustained basis. we heard good things from western allies at the nato summit. now is the time to match words to action. they have a stake in this fight. we are holding the starter pistol and the time to pull the trigger was yesterday. most of us cringe at the term boots on the ground. but we need to talk about what boots on the ground actually means. some have taken it to mean large

occupying forces. that is a red herring. the best way to make sure we never have to drop an entire maneuver corps is to be smart about using the right boots on the ground today. the president may not admit it but he has made this distinction. he has inserted special forces, trainers, advisers, and security forces. this is the right decision. but more can be done. that includes increasing our assistance and empowering moderate sunnis when and where we can. and bolstering the nonsectarian forces in the iraqi security forces. this will take troops but it will not take divisions. there is no way around it. american boots will be standing on sand. americans will be shot at and they will be shooting back.

there is simply no other way to do this. this strategy is not without risk. neither is the president's. it would be wrong to sell it that way to the american people. this is a dangerous business. it is dangerous any time we have our sons and daughters take to the skies, the seas, or the shores to defeat an enemy. the only thing more dangerous is waiting. we must not rely solely on counterterrorism. wars are not won by counterterrorism alone. the 1990's proved as much. the president has said he will approach the problem with heavy emphasis on counterterrorism forces. that is like trying to solve a problem, a puzzle, with a single piece.

the spread of terrorist groups has not stopped. the president wants to use a light footprint now in hopes that he doesn't need a heavy footprint later. this approach was not terribly successful in libya, which has fallen into chaos. it has short term benefits and will be cheaper for now. i want our coalition to go all in now so that we do not risk to use an enormously more blood and treasure later. i would rather fight in iraq and syria today than fight them in iraq, jordan, syria, lebanon,

and kurdistan tomorrow. fortune favors the bold. isil is a threat we all share. they are an enemy of the free world and they must be stopped. i believe the president is finally waking up to that and what must be done to stop this evil. so that he commits to swiftly and decisively seeding this enemy, he will have my support. history punished us once. it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that never happens again. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, mr. chairman, for those excellent remarks. in my haste to get the chairman before you, i neglected to introduce myself. i am fred kagan at the american enterprise institute. and i, like the chairman, was disappointed with the president's speech last night. i think it was, at best, a partial plan. an idea, a sketch, but inadequate.

i have also been working on an alternative that i will publish along with my co-authors at the institute that will be available tomorrow. and it will focus on, among other things, the very issue that you raised, the need to focus on the sunni community. that is what i really didn't hear in the president's speech. i heard a lot working with the shia government in iraq, working with the kurds, not working with assad which i think is very good. but it really seemed like a strategy focused on the periphery. this is fundamentally a problem in the sunni arab community. one question i think is important to answer is, do you think there is a risk the

president's strategy will make things worse? is there a risk by pursuing this approach that we may be encouraging the development of independent kurdistan that can be seen as threatening to sunni arabs? does the president seem to be ignoring the community? >> his strategy holds risk, my getting out of bed in the morning holds risk. what you have to do is do what we can to mitigate the risk. history favors the bold. this is not a time to the piecemealing this. every day that goes by, they get stronger. they are growing. when i was talking to king abdullah, he said they are ready to go.

the threat is right on their borders and he is ready to fix bayonets and go today. i think when we get the sense of that same urgency. when we say we are all in, i liked a lot of things that the president said. my concern is not what he says, it's what he does. what we really need to be focused on is not last night 's speech. we need to be focused on what he is going to do today. what he's going to do next week. what he's going to do a few weeks from now. we have an election coming up and there is a 10 station to start talking about other things. and he needs to zero in on this. his legacy is going to depend on this.

president bush did not want to be involved in a war. he wanted to be the education president. on 9/11, he was in a school. and that was his big thing. i was called down to meet with him in the texas statehouse before he was even sworn in as president. he invited a bunch of us down and that is what he wanted to work on. you don't get to always decide what you are doing. you have to take life as it is right now. he needs to be focused on protecting this nation and our interests around the world. it needs to be his sole overriding focus. time will tell, but history has shown that he doesn't stick with anything for long enough to get it done.

if he can generate the will to stick with this for the next two years, i think history will treat him better than if he leaves with all of these problems. for the same reason we have problems there, the leaders of these nations are concerned with what our resolve is. we need to prove that we can stick to something. our men and women in uniform will follow whatever orders are given. they will take the hill. they will do what is necessary. we keep asking our military to do more and more. at the same time, we are saying go do this and taking away their

resources with the other hand. it doesn't make sense. >> there has obviously been some immediate reaction to what the president said and what you have laid out. let me ask you a couple of hard questions about things that are on people's minds. we are talking about the islamic state as a major threat to the united states. but it is a threat that is undertaking a plot against the homeland according to the administration. people ask why is it such a big threat? why is it a bigger threat than al qaeda? for hezbollah, for that matter. organizations that can attack the united states but most of them are not currently attacking. what makes you feel isil is such a great threat to the united states that it should be our priority as compared to these

other problems? >> it is a problem, no question. it is the best lead or best financed group that we have come into contact with. they were using extortion, bribery, many methods to gain money. they took all the banks' money, they took these oil fields in syria and are deriving $1 billion a year. and they have adequate leadership to know how to use that money. it makes them a huge threat. the reason i call them isil, some say isis -- this is one

threat we're talking about. i use isil because their goal is to take us back to the way they lead that area between 600 and 650, they moved into the middle east region and held it until 1500 ad. almost 1,000 years. they want to go back to that and eliminate the borders and it would give them tremendous area in which to breed and foster the terrorism that they are working on. if this had worked a little earlier, think of the lives that we could have saved.

you wait until the threat is so overpowering, we wait until pearl harbor or poland falls or france falls, england is ready to fall. and we say, there is a threat. leadership looks ahead. they see threats in the future and sometimes they can be eliminated before they ever become a threat. secondary leadership is one right in front of your eyes. lack of leadership says somebody behind me will take care of it. we need to step up right now and take care of this thread. >> i think the point is often lost on people that you are making.

the region where these groups are operating matters. a group in the middle of the sahara desert is generally less than a threat than in the heart of the middle east. >> the whole time i've been in congress, we've talked about becoming energy independent. 22 years. we haven't done it. we could do it. i mean, there are places in this country right now where we're really doing the job. we're really developing our resources. they're on public land, and they find ways around government stalling tactics, and they're working. but think if we really took the effort, if we really set a goal. jfk. let's go to the moon. okay? let's become energy independent. if a leader steps up and really was sincere about that, really said, we're going to win this fight, we could become totally independent. we wouldn't need oil from that region. we have a lot of allies that do. so it is important. it's very important.

it's going to remain important for the foreseeable future. we need to be a part of that, because there is no other leader like america in the world. who else is going to step up and take care of this if we don't? china? russia? how do we feel about what's happening in the ukraine? these people see opportunities because we've been trying to lead from behind. it is time. >> you have spoken eloquently about their willingness and eagerness to fight. one of the arguments the white house is making against sending u.s. ground forces in is that it would be much better to have indigenous ground forces, regional ground forces leading the fight. there are some people even saying there are iranian forces

on the ground and it would be better to let the regional countries solve this problem. people have gone so far to say it is counterproductive to send american forces in because it'll just encourage the regional states and iraqis not to do their jobs. what do you make of those arguments? >> it's not either/or. as i mentioned, we're not talking about sending in divisions that are going to do another iraqi freedom. what we're talking about is using the local forces there, iraqis, syrians, helping them rise to the capabilities that they have. there are shortcomings they have that we can fill. we can do the logistics and the communications. we can have provide the air support. and there's nobody that can plan and carry out missions like we can. i'm not saying we push the

iraqis aside, go full bore in and say, okay. we're here. that is the wrong thing because that would then give the arab world something to say, yeah. these guys are coming in trying to take over again. no. we want to help them win their fight, the iraqis want to do it, jarodanians want to do it, saudi arabians want to do it, but they need us. there are certain capabilities we have nobody else in the world has. that's what we need to do. not go in and take over and make their problem our problem. we need to help them solve their problem, which is also our problem. >> and you're arguing that our air power is not enough. we need to have forces on the ground to help them. >> i mentioned, we tried that in it libya. it hasn't worked. i talked with the other day with the chief of our air force, general wells. we have the most powerful -- there is nothing to stand up to our air support and those people on the ground when they see

those planes coming, they don't want to be there. but after the bombs drop, somebody has to take the ground. somebody has to hold the ground. if you don't, they just come back. you know? >> so one of the things i think came out loud and clear from the president's speech is he really sees this as a counterterrorism problem and he wants to pursue a counterterrorism approach. he is basing that approach on a couple of specific models. he mentioned yemen and somalia as being the models of operation that he wants to repeat in iraq and syria. there has been a fair amount of this written as we follow yemen and somalia. what do you make of that notion? >> it doesn't -- it doesn't work. you don't -- yemen and somalia

are a good example. they are still very strong. even though -- >> pardon? >> the al qaeda franchise. >> right. right. and we've made gains there. we've killed a lot of their leaders. we've done things. we've made improvements. but that could go on foryears and years. in the meantime, they're getting stronger, also. they're able to train and send out people that -- one of the top bomb makers is in that area. we haven't been able to get him yet. he's the one that did the underwear bomb and other things that he's able to do from that area. so that doesn't totally work. we need to clear ground and hold ground and deprive them of any places where they can train and foster and continue the spread of their terrorism. >> right. and as we are tracking here, in

fact, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula has established a new safe haven in yemen and eastern yemen and is pushing back into territory that was theoretically cleared earlier. although we killed the leader of al shabab, he is not the first leader we've killed, and the organization is very quick to replace him and continue operations. so i think it's interesting that the president should point to those cases as being the evidence that this is going to work in a much harder, as you pointed out, much harder situation against a much more lethal set of enemies. >> well, another example, too, that i wondered why he used it, saying that america was the leader that pulled the world together to fight russia in the ukraine. i was in a meeting in the white house a few weeks ago, and the president was giving us a synopsis of problems around the world. i said, you didn't mention crimea. is that just gone?

and the basic answer was, yeah. that's gone. well, since then we've also lost eastern ukraine. and to use that as an example, when the ukraine last week signed a cease-fire basically to keep from losing their whole nation. i don't think that's a good example of american leadership. i think we could probably find other things where we did a better job. that's like saying custer was a good guy and we should follow that example. no. custer might be a good guy but that was probably not a good example that we would want to use in going to war. >> certainly one wouldn't want to ignore the last battle in custer's career. >> right >> and only focus on other parts of it. i want to ask you a couple quick questions about the congressional situation in response to a couple things and

then turn it over to the audience for a few questions. one is we're talking about special forces a lot and you and i agree that this is primarily a special forces mission. and you also talked about the damage the sequester has done o to the military and so forth. i think the question of the relationship between special forces and the rest of the military and whether we need such a large military or can rely more heavily on special forces is one of the arguments the administration has sort of been relying on to defend its cuts. we have a terrific paper that actually just came out from aei talking about the history of the relationship between the special forces and conventional forces. let me ask you, you know, why is it not the case or is it not the case that we can have a smaller ground force that has a

heavier special forces presence by sacrificing some of the more expensive conventional units? >> well, i think if you talk to the commander of the special forces he'd be the first one to tell you the special forces provided a unique function, but they're working on the shoulders of a lot of people behind them. and i think if you don't have the conventional force to back them up, then they wouldn't -- they couldn't do the full job. they do great at what they do, but you need the air power. you need the navy to get people where they need to be. you need the army when you need a bigger, more forceful body. special forces come from all of those branches. and i think the idea that we have joined forces that work very well together is one of the things that makes us so strong. in visiting one of these countries i find that their air

force and their army don't work too well together. and that -- you know, during a football game it's okay to go at each other, but in war you better be working together. and we do such a fantastic job of that and they're all needed. i think one thing that -- the cuts that we've made on our defense are so devastating. if people really knew how much we've cut and what our readiness is and the abilities that we have right now, the ability to do things we could do just a few years ago are gone, the admiral was in a hearing in one of our hearings just a few weeks ago and he made the comment, if sequestration comes back, and i reminded him, sequestration is the law of the land. we took a little hiatus by

getting a budget passed this year that hopefully was going to help, but it is the law of the land. when they work on the budget next year, if they don't fix that problem, his comment was it won't just hollow out the military. it will break the military. and to be talking about breaking our military right now when we're looking at all of these spots around the world, i mean, as bad as isil is and all of this we're talking about right now, when i was visiting with prime minister netanyahu, he said the most -- you know, they just finished 5o days of war. and his comment was, the biggest threats facing the world right now are iran, their sprid of terrorism, and then this islamic terrorist threat that's facing us. i said, what about korea? he doesn't have to worry about that. we have to worry about the whole world.

i'm as serious as isil is i'm very concerned about korea. i went there again last month and hadn't been there for a while and visiting with the general, the problems that we see there, seoul extends out almost to the dmz. millions of people under the threat of 41 batteries aimed right at them. i told mr. netanyahu, i said, you know, you finished 50 days of war and you had 2,000 casualties. it's phenomenal the job you did to avoid killing innocent people. in korea if things went bad immediately we would have

hundreds of thousands of lives. we have to look all the way around the world. we have to have our military stationed for that plus other areas and this is such a pressing threat, isil, because of their daily adding to their force and daily adding ground to their territory. and that's a huge threat that we have other major problems, too, and like i said before, if not us, who? >> it's sort of hard to point to a part of the world where things are going well at this point, which is sobering. >> disneyland is still doing well. >> that's great to hear. i'm going to go to the audience and take two very quick questions.

identify yourself and ask a quick question, please. over here. then we'll go over here please. sir? >> george nicholson, special operations command. first i want to thank you and your predecessors for everything you've done. people don't realize there wouldn't be a socom today if it hadn't been for those who supported it. along those same lines i know one of the highest initiatives was to go ahead and replicate what we've done with nato special operations command in europe. he wanted to replicate that and replicate that and there's been a congressional pushback on that. any comments? >> the second question we'll take over here. >> could you just say that again ? i lost my hearing aid -- >> one of the admiral's highest priorities was to replicate what we have in nato's special operations command in europe which has been extremely successful and doing the same

thing. if there's been a pushback just like the pushback on increasing, taking slots out of tampa and putting them up here in washington to the national capital interface, i know there's been a pushback on congress. can you talk about it? >> i think, as i mentioned, there are problems all around the world. we need friends all around the world. that's why i went to the pacific and visited and met with the leadership in taiwan and korea and japan, went to china. and then we got a briefing. i think wherever we can put together or could put together alliances that would help us, i don't know why the pushback, maybe the concern is that we may get drug into things. but we get drug into things anyway. we might as well have people that are ready, willing to join us in the effort. i'm happy that japan has been

able to work on their constitution to come up with more ability to defend themselves. that's been an issue for them obviously since world war 2. but now china keeps pushing closer and closer. and it just gets pretty testy. if we can have them do more to help their defense, that's less that we have to do. so i think those kind of efforts would be good, i think, in -- we also took a trip to south america and visited those countries down there. i went there when i was fairly new in congress and we couldn't go to colombia because of the drug problems. well, now colombia is a strong ally. we've had special forces in there helping them. we've had the navy cutting off the drug flow.

their local people have pulled together the wherewithal, the ability, and they've pushed the drug people far back into the jungle. they're winning the fight. they love us because we really helped them. so i think if we put more effort into central america, south america, we could do a lot more than we're doing for a lot less money than we're spending in some other places. i think alliances are good. we should try to create them. not just when we need them. we should plan before and develop the bonds, develop the friendships and then when we get into problems like we've got in the middle east now with isil, they're already there with us. >> hi. i'm penny starr with cnn news. you spoke about the threat all around the world, but what about right here in the united states? for example border security and

also fighters who have joined isis abroad who hold u.s. passports? thank you. >> what did she say? >> what about the threat here, border security and isil fighters who have u.s. passports? >> that's a huge threat. we have -- we had two people from minnesota killed in a fire fight over there recently. one had worked for tsa for ten years. if he had decided to stay here and cause problems instead of going over there, what could he have done? and the problem -- the people of the area all understand -- foreign fighters, a real problem. we have probably 100 americans over there fighting. they go. they learn. they come back. it's a big threat for us, for the europeans, for other western nations.

there's a number -- i've heard 15,000-18,000 possible people involved that have, i used the wrong number. maybe 10,000 people that have american or european passports that could come back into this country without a visa and that's a very, very serious problem. that's one of the reasons why we have to eliminate this threat over there, because it could happen here any day. that's the imminent danger in this threat. >> that's one of the things that obviously differentiates this threat from some of the other threat groups around the world that don't have anything like that, concentration of u.s. or european passport holders involved in that conflict so the specificity of this really matters. >> yeah.

it all comes back to the whole purpose of this thing is protecting our people. protecting our nation. they pointed out to me over there that the oceans won't protect you this time because you're just a few-hour plane flight away. you know, these people have become very, very sophisticated. they're using social media. you know, i read something the other day that as bad as we saw the beheading of those two journalists, there are people that actually thought it was a wonderful thing. about 28,000 tweets came in. i've heard they've already had one beheading in imitation of what they did. that's really scary. and they know how to psychologically take advantage of that. probably what happened at fort hood.

>> so to respect your time, i'm going to ask you a quick question and ask for any closing thoughts that you have. but i'd be remiss if i didn't put this question to you. about this time last year we were having a debate over whether congress would support unbelievably small air strikes in syria, and it looked very much like the president was headed toward defeat in his request for congressional support for that. so i think we have to ask the question, if the president went to congress now and asked for support for his operations in iraq and syria, do you think he would get that support? >> probably be, right now, american opinion is really -- has really switched from, don't do anything to go after them. and i've heard it said that if

the people will leave, the leaders will follow. so that's kind of what happens in congress. once this message hits home, that, hey, people want us to do something, then maybe they would be more supportive. frankly, i was happy to hear the president say that he would go after them in syria, that they wouldn't have the ability to, you know, hit and then run. that remains to be seen what he will do. that's not what he's talking about coming to congress for, though. we were going to pass a continuing resolution today to fund the government for the rest of the year, and he came to -- he called the chairman of the appropriations committee tuesday afternoon as he was getting ready to submit the bill that we were going to vote on today and asked him if he would put in there authority to go into saudi arabia because they have

offered to give us bases or places that we could use for training free syrians in there, to go back into the fight. so that kind of was a last-minute request and has caused us to not vote today. we pulled that back. in fact, right now we're in a -- in a session that i missed talking about that, about what we do. and we will have another classified briefing in an hour to where we talk about more of it. so we're trying to see, what is the mood of the congress? will we be able to do this? i tend to think that given the seriousness of the situation that we would give him that authority to take advantage of

saudi arabia's offer, but, you know, sometimes things happen in congress and people get mad about one thing or another so it's hard to predict until we actually get language and people have a chance to read it and then decide if they would vote for that or not. right now i would tend to think they probably would support that. he has not talked about asking us for anything else. he says he has the authority to do everything he needs. there are some that think he doesn't and we should be moving toward a big debate and a vote and then there are others that don't want to do a thing before the election. so timeliness of all this is really important. but it's a day-to- day thing right now. >> well, we are very grateful to you for having skipped out of the leadership session on this

to be here today talking with us about it, presenting your plan. very grateful to you also for offering a plan. this has been something we've seen a lot of -- people criticizing, which is easier to do. so it is very remarkable when someone in your position comes out and offers something concrete in its place. i think it's a good plan that you've suggested and something that we can build on. i also want to take the opportunity to thank you for your many, many years of leadership on this issue and fighting to protect american national security and all you do. please join me in thanking the chairman. [applause] >> thank you. thank you.

>> the idea is training of arming syrian rebels is one that will be considered in the coming days. as you just heard, vicki and president obama have requested funding from congress to carry out that effort. several news reports say that the funding could come in a temporary bill that offers services through december of this year. makers,"weekend's "news steny hoyer talked about how lawmakers might feel about that strategy. >> i believe that it is a two-step process. that is what we will pursue. i think that there will be consideration of the president's request to train and equip regional players.

from syria,ple iraq, and other middle eastern countries. they will be the boots on the ground that people talk about. i think we will be the facilitators and supporters. and yes, we will help to coordinate a large coalition, which the president and secretary of state are now putting together. we have some significant number of nations upholding -- indicating that they want to participate. we will be the first -- that will be the first thing we will consider. hopefully next week, authorizing the president under our command to equip and train in an overt way, as opposed to covert way, people to take on isil. yes, we have air power and other access. boots on the ground is boots on the ground, who live in the neighborhood, who have a vested

interest. now that we have a government hopefullyying to and lower present sunni and shiite interests -- and they feel they're in this partnership to confront isil, criminal elements -- i think we will proceed on them. i think that at some point in time, when we come back after the elections, there will be a consideration of a larger authorization for support. you can watch the entire interview with steny hoyer tomorrow on "newsmakers" at 10:00 and 6:00 pierced a house homeland security subcommittee looked at the threat posed by isis. officials from border protection, the state department command homeland security, testified to talk about current programs for preventing

terrorists from entering the u.s. as well as how information is shared. this is just under two hours. >> the committee on homeland security, the subcommittee on border and maritime are security will come to order. meeting today to examine the threat posed by isis foreign fighters >> jennifer lasley, we welcome you. , from multilateral affairs.

i will introduce you more formally shortly. tomorrow is the 13th anniversary of the most heinous and cowardly attack in the history of our nation. terrorist attack that took the lives of nearly 3000 fellow americans. it happened in part because our visa security and border security was not very effective. among the most important weaknesses that the attackers were able to exploit or our ports, border security -- in total, the 19 hijackers captured the border security 68 times back and forth, without being detected. on that day, we learned a very hard lesson. forth without being detected. and on that day in september we learned a very hard lesson. as noted by the 9/11 commission, i quote, for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons, unquote. i think that's a very, very important statement by them. it's so true.

many more terrorists since have exploited the visa system in one fashion or another, and it's an ongoing vul neshlt, heightened by the significant growing threat that the islamic state of iraq and syria pose to our nation. our best estimates are that thousands of individuals carrying western passports have joined in the fight in syria and in iraq, including several hundred americans. two innocent american journalists, james foley and steven sotloff, were brutally bye headed by an isis terrorist who is likely a british citizen. these tlugs have no regard for life and have threatened to attack our homeland. and the united states government must be prepared to prevent such an act from happening. terrorists with western passports pose an additional risk to the homeland because many are eligible for visa-free travel. terrorists could be just one

visa-free flight away from arriving in the united states, bringing with them their skills and their training and their ideology and their commitment to killing americans. all these things that they've learned overseas. let us remember that zacharias moussaoui, the so-called 20th highjacker actually traveled on the visa waiver program before he enrolled in a minneapolis flight school. richard reed, the shoe bomber who tried to ignite explosives in a shoe also traveled on the visa-waiver program and ram za yousef who was one of the main perpetrators in the world trade center bombing again used the visa waiver program to enter the country. these attacks occurred before the advent of increased scrutiny on the visa waiver countries. why i think we are confident that we can identify many threats today through the electronic system for travel authorization, commonly called esta. we'll be talking about esta

today which all these waiver applicants have to fill out, it's clear that we may have trouble determining if some individuals have traveled to terrorist regions. although cvp continually vets all applicants, that information is imperfect if we do not have a complete pictured of an individual's travel route, collecting more information upfront could be very, very helpful for us to do just that. patriot and other pilot programs that look at the totality of data on an es ta and visa application are certainly good tools to help close some of our intelligence gaps and make skek connections that we would otherwise miss. however, critical information sharing, especially with our european allies, is critical to help combat the threat of foreign fighters bound for the united states. unfortunately, europe as a whole has been reluctant to share

certain passenger data with the united states and such a gap certainly puts our citizens in the united states at risk. i want to commend our allies in the united kingdom who have been quick to realize the severity of the threat, especially as many brits are among the isis fighters. we must work with our foreign allies like the united kingdom and others to quickly identify those radicalized by isis in similar groups and prevent them from traveling to the united states. like the u.k., i also think we should be looking at the authority that we have or we may need -- and that will be a big part of our discussion here this morning -- to revoke passports of american citizens who go to fight in isis. we need to reduce their ability to travel to the united states, and i think we need to consider what it will take to strip passports from those who provide support to or fight with terrorists. i certainly look forward to hearing from our witnesses today

on what further changes we have made in our visa security system to combat the threat of foreign fighters who travel often over land through neighboring turkey's porous border, into syria and into iraq before returning home to europe. it might be hard for many americans to comprehend, but for many in europe, traveling to syria is as simple as just getting in their car and driving there. today's hearing is really about one simple question. can the united states government adequately detect terrorists' travel patterns, identify suspicious movement, and prevent those who would do us harm from coming into the united states. how can we best protect our homeland? our enemies are intent on attacking our country and are actively seeking to avoid our counter measures. we need to be one step ahead instead of constantly reacting to their latest attack. defeating terrorists' ability to move internationally has long

been a focus area for this subcommittee. terrorists who have plotted horrific attacks against us have crossed the u.s. border for training or fraudulently obtaining a student or a work visa. there are certainly further opportunities that we can take to prevent attacks and to limit terrorists' mobility and that's why we are holding this hearing today. our visa security process obviously needs to be robust and we must deny terrorists freedom of movement because 13 years ago we unfortunately saw what failure looked like. the chair would now recognize the ranking minority member of this subcommittee, the gentle lady from texas, miss jackson lee for her opening statement. >> good morning, let me thank the chair woman for yielding and let me also acknowledge the ranking member of the full committee, mr. thompson and thank him for his leadership as he is joined by the chairman of the full committee, mr. mccall and the way that they have worked diligently to provide

leadership in securing the homeland. as i often remind our colleagues and as often as we are questioned by our constituents, the homeland security committee is a pivotal committee that stands in the gap of making sure that the needs of our nation, domestic needs in protecting the homeland are the priority and recognized by the american people as having a department and a committee that is clearly assigned to protect the homeland. 9/11 continues to be a symbol for all of the untoward terrorists across and around the world. they view that as a challenge to them every year as to whether or not they can continue to intimidate the western world and, of course, the united states of america.

our values are contrary to their beliefs, and therefore 9/11 poses for all of us a time of recognition that we still remain in the eye of the storm and we must be diligent. i would offer to say that we will not fall victim to the terrorists' intent, and that is that we will not terrorist ourselves. we will be vigilant which i believe is extremely important, but we will be fair and adjust and we will recognize the civil liberties of all. but we are in some very challenging and difficult times, and so i want to thank the chair woman for allowing us and this committee in working with me and the full committee to be the very first committee that is addressing the question of isis here in the united states congress upon our return. that is an important statement for homeland security armed services, the intelligence committee are the corner stone of defending this nation, and

our collaboration and working together is key. and that, we are doing. this fact-finding hearing will lay the ground work for many other hearings that will be necessary to expeditionly address this question. this evening the president will address the nation and discuss new protocols as to how we confront isis, and as he has indicated, degrade and end isis. and so i am not willing to seed the point that isis does not represent a threat to the united states. i did not say imminent. i did not say today. but i believe this hearing recognizes that isis is a threat to the united states and to the people of the united states. again, not in the instance of being intimidated but being prepared to protect the people of the united states of america. like all americans, i was

horrified, outraged and saddened by the bye headings of two american journalist, james foley and stephen sotloff by isis terrorists. they have used brutal remedies and tactics to expand control over iraq and syria, threatening the security of both countries. they have attacked, killed, kidnapped and displaced thousands of religious and ethnic minorities in the region, including christians and including small ethnic minority groups. u.s. officials have warned that syria-based terrorist extremists may also pose a direct threat to our homeland. one concern is that foreign fighters holding western passports might travel to this country to carry out a terrorist attack. additionally, our own u.s. citizens are known to have likewise left the united states

and gone to the battlefield to perpetrate jihad. the total number of armed opposition fighters engaged with various groups in syria including isle is estimated to 100,000 persons. 12,000 of foreign fighters. among those foreign fighters are estimated to be more than 1,000 individuals from europe and over 100 from the u.s. with did a dozen american fighters with icele specifically. we may be reminded on 9/11 the count was approximately 19 who created the most heinous terrorist act, killing over 3,000 here in the united states of america. we mourn for them and their families. many have skplesed particular concern over western foreign fighters because they hold passports from the visa waiver program which generally allows them to travel to the united states without obtaining a visa.

i want assurances today that these individuals have been appropriately watch listed, and i want to discuss and look at whether or not we need to make the no-fly list more robust. i would look to the idea of legislation quickly passed that makes sure that we shore up the no-fly list, not to undermine civil liberties, but to protects the nation. i am interested in a discussion of that going forward and classified or what is available today. i would note, however, that while these waiver travelers usually do not need a visa to visit this country, they are currently vetted upon departure and arrival to the u.s. i expect that we will discuss that process in more detail at this hearing. some are concerned about u.s. citizens who go to the fight and

return to the country by air. we're aware of two who recently died in battle. i expect discussion today about what dhs and federal partners can do to address such situations beyond adding individuals to the no-fly list if and when the need arises. indeed the department of homeland security and state play a vital role in disrupting terrorists' rival to the u.s. programs are essential to addressing the foreign fighter threat to the homeland. i hope our state department witnesses can speak to us about how these programs operate and how they can be used to address concerns regarding the vwp travel specifically. i also hope to hear from our state department witnesses about how we engage -- how we are engaging with foreign partners to help address information gaps regarding individuals of concern in their travel patterns. like chairman miller, i am glad that europe is standing up. i believe that they should stand

up and collaborate while we maintain our values. we can security this nation. while the u.s. cannot resolve the larger situation in syria and iraq in its totality, we can do it collaboratively with our middle east allies and western allies. we do have the responsibility to protect the homeland from threats from isis and similar terrorist organizations. and be mindful, as we mourn and commemorate 9/11, be mindful 69 fact that we have work to do. i therefore strongly encourage the administration congressional leadership to ensure that all relevant committees including intelligence, armed services and homeland security are included in briefings so there can be a collaborative strategy in conjunction with the administration. so we can work collaboratively together and address these issues, i know that our chair persons and ranking member are prepared to do so. finally, ij president's address to the nation tonight as he outlines his plan for combatting isil.

i remain committed to working with any of my colleagues on this committee and will look forward to the property legislation that we would hope will be expedited and passed to ensure the safety and security of the homeland. it is our duty and it is our challenge. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson for his opening statement. >> thank you very much chairman miller, ranking member jackson lee. thank you for holding today's hearing. i'd also like to thank the witnesses for appearing to testify about the government's efforts to identify foreign fighters in syria and iraq who may seek to travel to the u.s. to do our nation harm. since its establishment in the wake of terrorist attack of 9/11, this committee has been engaged in helping to address the threats posed by terrorists' travel. for example, members of the committee advocated for a key

provision in the 9/11 act requiring the implementation of an electronic system for travel authorization to enhance the security of the visa waiver program. this committee also examined the lessons learned from the attempted bombing of flight 253 on christmas day 2009 and urged dhs and the rest of the intelligence community to strengthen programs aimed at identifying travel to this country who might do us harm. today we turn our attention to the threat posed by foreign fighters with islamic state of iraq and lebanon, isl, particularly those holding western passports who could attempt to travel to this country without obtaining a visa. top u.s. officials have made public statements warning that syrian-trained extremists, including foreign fighters

linked with isil may pose a threat to this country. intelligence officials know that individuals from north america and europe that travel to syria could be exposed to radical and extremist influences before returning to their home country. as ranking member lee has already said, the u.s. government estimates that there are 12,000 foreign fighters who have traveled to syria to engage in the ongoing civil war, including more than 1,000 europeans and over 100 u.s. citizens. of those 100 u.s. citizens fighting in the region, about a dozen are believed to be fighting along isil. i hope our conversation today provides insight into the full scope of foreign fighter issues facing the u.s. government, as well as how we, along with our foreign partners, can maximize our intelligence and

information-sharing regarding these individuals. with that in mind, i want to hear from the department of homeland security and department of state witnesses about their ongoing work to identify foreign fighters coming to the u.s., and whether or not they need to increase their efforts in response to isil. we know that the threat posed by isil foreign fighters is very real and serious. the american people want assurances that our government response is and will continue to be equal to the task at hand. again, i thank the witnesses for joining us today and the members for holding this hearing. madam chair, with that, i also yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman very much for his opening statement. i would before we begin, would ask unanimous consent that the

gentleman from nevada be included in the statement. other members are reminded that opening statements might be submitted for the record. we're pleased to have distinguished witnesses with us today to discuss this very important topic. let me formally introduce them. troy miller service as the acting skmigser for intelligence and lee a san. they are responsible for implementation of targets and supporting the primary mission of securing america's border. mr. miller began his career in 1993 as a customs inspector in north dakota and has since held various positions throughout cvp. mr. john wa wagner is the assistant commissioner for the office of field operations and border protection. he formerly served as executive director of admissibility and passenger programs with responsibility for all traveler

admissibility-related policies and programs. miss jennifer lasly is the deputy undersecretary for analysis at dhss office of intelligence and analysis, a position that she's held since april of 2013. in this role, she leads the dhs office charged with providing all intelligence analysis of threats to the homeland. prior to this assignment she served as vice deputy director for analysis at the defense intelligence agency. miss hillary johnson is the acting deputy coordinator for homeland security and multi-lateral affairs in the state's department of bureau of counter-terrorism. she oversees approaches to protecting the homeland on issues such as cargo security, terrorism screen to include terrorism agreements with foreign partners to combat terrorist travel. with that, the chair would recognize mr. miller for his testimony.

>> chair woman miller, ranking member thompson, ranking member jackson lee, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of u.s. customs and border protection and securing the homeland against terrorist threats. more than a decade after the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001, terrorists continue to focus on commercial aviation as their primary target of interest. as this committee knows, the department of homeland security has been aware of and continues to adjust and align our resources to address the evolving nature of the terrorist threat to the homeland. the capability has allowed us to get information and respond to emerging threats as a part of our intelligence-driven counter-terrorism strategy. of particular concern of those threats that continue to im you late from al qaeda, their affiliates, isil and other like minded terrorist organizations

from across the globe. the office of intelligence has focused on the growing threat of u.s. citizens and europeans travel to support terrorist activities and those who then returned to the u.s. or allied countries. this past may a 22-year-old american citizen blew himself up while detonating a massive truck bomb at a restaurant in northern syria. in addition, in august, two u.s. citizens were killed while fighting for extremist groups. in order to address this and other emerging threats, the office of intelligence provides operational and analytical support to our front line officers on a daily basis through situational awareness briefings and tactical intelligence such as link analysis on known subjects of interest. cvp in conjunction with our partners has long-standing protocols for identifying, examining and reporting on encounters with persons on the terrorist watch list. as a compliment to its ability

to identify watch listed individuals attempting to travel, cvp also takes steps to identify those unknown to law enforcement and intelligence community for further scrutiny. these efforts occur before departure from the u.s., before departure from foreign locations destined to the u.s. or upon rival at u.s. ports of entry. through robust information sharing and collaboration, vcp continues to work with our law enforcement intelligence community partners to enhance its comprehensive intelligence driven targeting program to detect previously unknown terrorists and their facilitators. cvp's research and analysis on a recent traveler suspected of being a syrian foreign fighter revealed the identity of a new suspect, a co-traveler, which provided previously unknown information to the investigation and expanded our intelligence framework. as a foreign fighter threat

grows, cvp works in close partnership with federal law enforcement counter terrorist communities as well as the private sector to counter the threat. in addition, the threat posed by syrian foreign fighters and isil is now limited to the united states. there's a growing international commitment to combatting the shared threat to our security. staff from the national targeting center and intelligence office interact with foreign counterparts including those two the five european countries on almost a daily basis. most importantly, intelligence works aggressively to continue leverage assets and resources across the intelligence community and other federal partners to communicate, coordinate and collaborate with our international partners which enables officers and agents to take the appropriate operational response. in conclusion, cvp will continue

to work closely with the dhs, the department of the state, the department of defense, the intelligence community and our foreign counterparts to detect emerging terrorist threats such as those presented by isil and identify and address all potential security vulnerabilities. i appreciate the committee leadership and providing this opportunity to speak on this very serious issue. i look forward to working with the committee on this issue and other matters of urgency and priority. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. the chair recognizes mr. wagner for his testimony. >> thank you, chair woman miller, ranking member thompson, ranking member jackson lee, distinguished members of the committee. it's a privilege to appear today to discuss the efforts in securing the border. in response to the potential threat posed by the islamic state of iraq and other terrorist groups and supporters

including those who are u.s. citizens we continually remine our border operations focusing our resources on the greatest risks before they reach the united states. because terrorist organizations continue to primarily target commercial air transportation as a means to move operatives into the united states, we detect and respond to the threats in the air. we processed over 100 million in our airports. we have developed our resources to mitigate the risk posed by travelers at every stage along the international travel continuum, including when an individual applies for travel documents, checks in at the airport while on route and upon rival. before a foreign national travels to the united states they're first required to apply for a nonimmigrant visa with the department of state or for visa waiver programs, a travel

authorization from cvp through the electronic system for travel authorization also known as esta. before issuing the visa the department screens the applicant. three es ta, we screen applicants in advance of travel in order to assess eligibility and potential of risk to the u.s. in this year we have denied applications for yearly 300 travelers for security-related reasons. before the flight departs, we obtain and analyze all data including passenger name records and manifest information which contains the passport biographical data and the flight information to assess the risk of all passengers regardless of citizenship or visa status. the national targeting center analyzes traveler data and applies intelligence driven targeting rules to conduct a risk assessment.

if derogatory information or other risks are discovered, we're able to take action prior to actual travel so we can address these concerns. in order of descending authorities and capabilities we have preclearance, the immigration advisory program and then we have our regional carrier liaison groups. our highest capability is preclearance where officers operate on foreign soil in uniform with capabilities similar to what we have in the united states. travelers are questioned, gone through the database and inspected before they bored the aircraft. it requires clearance from the host country, but after the flight is precleared at a foreign airport, the flight is generally treated as a domestic flight once it arrives in the u.s. there are currently officers an agriculture specialists stationed in 16 locations in six countries. they have refused entry to 24 travelers for security-related

reasons. our security in abu dabby which just opened this year gives cvp a location in a strategy cal location. next is the advisory program where we have officers in 11 airports in nine countries to work with carriers to work and identify potential threats. they have no search authority per se but can question travelers in an advisory capacity and recommend additional security screening or recommend an airline not board a traveler. so far in this fiscal year, they have recommended that foreign airlines deny boarding to over 60 passengers for security-related reasons. in locations without preclearance operations, we utilize22ux our carry-on groups prevent passengers who may pose a security threat or are otherwise inadmissible from

boarding flights to the united states. these are basically in constant contact with the airlines to exchange this information. it all points in the travel continuum, we continue vetting passengers and travel information including visas and es ta authorizations to ensure that any changes in a traveler's eligibility are identified in real time. this allows us to coordinate appropriate actions such as referring individuals for further inspection upon rival. so far this year it has caused almost 400 previously approved es tas to be revoked. upon rival in the united states all travelers are subject to inspection. our officers review entry documents, conduct interviews, run biometric queries against databases. we have response protocols in place at ports of entry for passengers linked to possible terrorism.

we also conduct outbound operations, leveraging all available advanced travel information and utilizing intelligence-driven targeting rules specific to the outbound environment to identify, when appropriate, interview, or app helped travelers for law enforcement or security related reasons. thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank you for the attention you're giving to this very important issue and i stand ready to answer any of your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. wagner. the chair recognizes miss lasly. >> thank you chair woman miller, ranking member thompson, ranking member jackson lee and distinguished members of the committee. i am pleased to be here today with my colleagues from cvp to discuss the threats to the homeland from foreign fighters traveling to syria to participate in the conflict there and what we are doing to mitigate the threats. as you have collectly stated, the on going conflict in syria has more than 1,000 europeans

and over 100 u.s. persons who have joined or seek to join the fight there. our concern remains that these individuals if radicalized could return to their home countries or the u.s. and knew their skills to carry out attacks. we have seen an example of this in europe where in may a french national who fought alongside the islamic state in syria is charged with conducting a successful attack against a jewish museum in brussels, killing four people. although we currently have no credible information to indicate that the islamic state of iraq or isil is planning to attack the homeland, we remain concerned in the long term that their access to westerners and to safe havens in the middle east will allow them to plan and coordinate attacks in the u.s. veteran al qaeda fighters have traveled to syria from pakistan to take advantage of the permissive operating environment as well as easier access to

foreign fighters, particularly europeans and u.s. persons. we're concerned that syria could emerge as a base of operations for al qaeda's international agenda which would include attacks against the homeland. u.s. persons who link up with violent extremist groups in syria, regardless of their original reasons for traveling to the country could gain combat skills, extremist connections and possibly become radicalized or be further persuaded to conduct organized, coordinated or lone wolf attacks, potentially targeting u.s. and western interests. because border transportation security and immigration personnel are at the front lines of many encounters with potential syrian foreign fighters, the department is working to ensure that they have the most up to date information and can act on it in coordination with law enforcement and partners as port. ina is working to inform dhs and state and local law enforcement partners about observable

indicators of u.s. persons planning or attempting to travel to syria. we've produced tailored assessments on the motivations of u.s. travelers, their travel patterns, the role social media is playing and the way in which u.s. persons are providing support to syrian groups. ina is also partnering with dhs operational components to help identify foreign terrorists who may be seeking to travel to the united states and are working with interagency partners to disrupt their travel or take appropriate law enforcement steps. we work every day to leverage our unique dhs data to ensure that individuals who are not fully identified in intelligence

channels can be appropriately watch listed and denied entry into the united states. finally, we work hand in glove with the department to provide intelligence assessments that support the visa waiver program, a program that dhs has managed since 2003 in consultation with the state department that facilitates low risk travelers into the u.s. for tourism and business. countries participating in this program must undergo a rigorous review process and agree to share information with the u.s. our intelligence assessments which are one factor in the country reviews look at a number of criteria for determining a country's el jilt to participate in the visa waiver program, including the terrorist threat to the u.s. posed by nationals of that country, the counter-terrorism capabilities of that country, the state of information sharing between the u.s. government and that country, and the security of passports and other identity documents. in using similar criteria, we

participate in dhs-led reviews of all visa waiver program countries which must occur at a minimum every two years to evaluate whether a country should remain in the program. these are just a few of the ways in which we are working to keep the homeland safe from threats and those posed by returning foreign fighters. thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today about these important issues, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much and the chair now recognizes miss johnson for her testimony. >> thank you. chair woman miller, ranking member thompson, ranking member jackson lee and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the state department and with my colleagues from the department of homeland security or dhs. we are very deeply supportive of dhss efforts to protect the u.s. homeland and we make every effort to amplify its work through engagement with our allies and partners. we remain concerned about the

terrorist activities in syria and iraq and isil. we have seen in syria a trend of foreign fighter travel for the purposes of participating in the conflict, largely driven by global connectedness through the internet and social media. the state department is working closely with countries effected by the problem to counter the threat these fighters pose. the department of state works closely with dhs to support its mission in protecting the united states by promoting effective border security screening with foreign partners through enhanced information sharing. for example, we believe it is in our best interest to share terrorism screening information with select foreign governments as all of us face a global terrorist threat that does not recognize national boundaries. to this end, we work closely with the terrorist screening center which implements sharing agreements with foreign partners, including visa waiver

programs. this helps us to deter terrorist travel and creates an extra layer of security for the united states. we also work closely with our partners at dhs to strengthen global aviation security by engaging foreign partners to bolster aviation screening at last points of departure airports with flights to the united states. we do this to identify and prevent known terrorist and attacks from global aviation. the department of state is leading interagency efforts to engage with partner partners to prevent foreign extremist travel to syria and we work closely with the interagency including dhs to expedite approaches. this includes facilitating foreign exchange with partners, building partner capacity and developing shared objectives. the ambassador robert bradkey, senior advisor on foreign

fighters leads this work for the state department and has met with officials from the member countries, north africa, the gulf, the ball cans and the asian pacific to discuss this threat. important progress has been made but more work remains. countries in the ball cans have recently adopted or are considering more counter-terrorism laws. other countries have increased penalties related to terrorist financing. the european council recently called for the acceleration in support of member states to combat foreign fighters. this includes finalizing a pnr proposal by the end of this year and increasing cooperation with partner nations such as the united states to strengthen border and aviation security in the region. we will continue to work closely with partners in the coming months to enhance this

cooperation and build on our efforts today. in the week of september 24th, president obama will chair a security summit on the rising tlelt posed by fighters. this presence a unique opportunity to demonstrate the breath and build momentum on policy issues at home and abroad. that same week secretary kerry and the turkish morning minister with co-chair a gctf minute tier yal meeting. at this meeting members will adopt the first ever set of global good practices to address the foreign terrorist fighter threat. gctf members will also launch a group dedicated to working globally to advance implementation of these practices. the department of state remains deeply supportive of dhss

efforts to protect the homeland. this is a critical component to combatting terrorist travel. i look forward to answering your questions and working closely with you and our friends and allies across the globe to make the united states safer. thank you. >> thank you all very much. this subcommittee and our full committee has had a number of hearings about visa, about our visas, about the status of our visa programs. we certainly have had a lot of discuss about the visa waiver program and i'm hearing that we had a year ago this month in a hearing in march of this year, this subcommittee has asked a lot of questions about the visa waiver program, so we certainly understand that the program started back in the mid '80s really to expedite tourism and travel which was a very good idea at that time. but the world is changing. as we think about things that we need to do to grow our economy, we also have to consider some of these various processes and systems that we have in place

with other countries, our allies, our friends, and what kinds of programs we've actually put in place that put america at risk. and so to that i guess my first question would be -- we haoh --d estimates of as many as 12,000 that are from countries that are in the visa waiver program, et cetera, and one of the things obviously in the visa waiver program requires information sharing. as we sit here on the day before -- we're talking about 9/11 really, one of the things that the 9/11 commission recommendation that they made, an observation that they made that always sticks in my mind is

how we had to move from the need to to know to the need to share information. information sharing is such a critical component to be a country that's participating in the visa waiver program here with the united states. and we certainly see, for instance, the passenger name record, the pnr data which we can utilize to identify fighters or suspicious travelers or what have you, we see our ally as i mentioned in my opening statement, the u.k. being so great on sharing information. everybody gives them act laids their their sharing of information with us, but some of the other european countries may be not so good. it appears that mexico is pretty good, at least i have heard that. canada, there has been some concerns raised about information sharing there. i guess i would say, first of all, how many countries do we currently have?

i think it's close to 30. are there any -- are there any that have ever been eliminated from this program? are there any that we are thinking about? are there things that the agencies are able to do to really be much more aggressive about making sure that we are getting the information that we think we need shared with us in order for these countries to participate in the visa waiver? are there things that we need to be doing legislatively to assist the agencies? i'm not quite sure who i'm directing this question to. who would like to start with that? mr. wagner, mislasly? >> i can how many members we have today in the visa waiver program. so currently we have 38 members. 30 from europe. seven from the asia-pacific region, and one in latin it's my understanding that we have, since the inception of the

program, as you have stated, two countries have been taken from the visa waiver program list. that was argentina and uruguay. and it was many years ago and not because of terrorism issues but more economic issues. >> is there any thought -- is there anything that you need from us legislatively to assist you in being more aggressive? if there are these kinds of concerns about information sharing for many of these countries, should we be much more aggressive about the information that we think we need in order to feel comfortable to continue to have visa waiver eligibility from the various countries. >> so, we do get a lot of information from the countries. every two-year we do a review of the countries and their proceed

yours. they do report their lost and stolen passports. and then all the travelers do fill out the application where we get about 17 data elements. which we run through a series of background checks and recurring checks, some of the members i mentioned earlier. you know we denied this fiscal year which is coming to close in a couple of weeks. and this was after it was issued. new information came to light that caused us to issue that revocation. our total applications we've denied is over 35,000. so it's a small number of overall denials, but consequential and important numbers. so some of the things we are looking at is reviewing all of our procedures, our data collection efforts. are there other elements we need? are there other elements we can

use? >> how does it impact the privacy of individuals? how does it impact our travel and tourism facilitation efforts as well? but these are the things we are revealing. > >>, along with many other procedures and things we do in all of our programs. >> the electronic system for travel authorization, as you know, was added as a security requirement. by congress, actually. after 9/11. previous to that, we didn't have it. as you mentioned, 17 different elements that you're asking on the form, mr. wagner. the name, obviously the name, passport number, et cetera, et cetera. information elements that you're obtaining that you can then check again on the data bases. et cetera. but the full visa application,

you have to have about 110 pieces of information apparently required. and in regards to what's been revoked and denied, et cetera. i'm drafting legislation right now. and this is one of the things i was going to ask you. currently hope to be introduced today to clarify what the purpose is. that we need to ensure that terrorists don't get on airplanes. and then asking the department to tell us what other changes to esta may be necessary to increase security. i'm asking you, what your thought is on legislation like that. do you think the agencies, again, have the authority short of any congressional legislation to ask for additional -- it would seem to me, i'm not in your business, but it would seem to me asking for legislation particularly from a number of the countries in the visa waiver

program, more than just 15 or 17 pieces of information would be something under consideration, and again, you think you have the authority to do that, understanding that esta was initiated again by the congress after 9/11. after the commission from the recommendations, and should we be giving you legislation to assist you there? >> thank you. we are reviewing this as well as a number of other programs that we have part of that review is do we need additional authorities to collect additional information? i believe we have the authorities, but that's one of the things we are reviewing. what other types of information could we need, could we use it? how would we collect it? is it verifiable information? is it useful information? and do we have systems to make the data that we could collect and would it be helpful? so we are looking at those things as an operational operation, we're always looking

for additional data and additional data sources. but again with respect to people's privacy, and is there a useful need for us to collect that information, and can we actually put it to use. but in general, it's coupled with the pnr and airline data. it really helps us paint a better picture of travelers and where they're going, for how long, and what other information we can relate that to. so having in general terms a broader set of data to allow us to identify individuals or identify individuals not the person we're looking for because we have the additional data and we can dismiss any connections we think are there with the person. but that's one of the things is balancing the privacy and the costs and where we would keep the information. >> just being cognizant of my time here, but i am going to ask

one other legislation. in addition to that piece of legislation, i'm also preparing another piece of legislation that would seek to clarify the authorization that i think the department or state already has, in order to revoke passports. we're looking at what cameron is doing in the uk and with dual citizenship, et cetera. we are a very free and open society. but we are looking at a changing world here. and whether or not you have the authorization to revoke the passports, how can we help you clarify that? because i was looking for the -- trying to become familiar with exactly what has to happen to lose your citizenship. for instance, it talks about if you're entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state. perhaps that's ambiguous a bit when we're talking about terrorist operations because they're not really a foreign state. these are the kinds of things

that this committee is looking for today from you. we want to give you the tools you need to help you to protect the homeland. and if there's a flaw in what we have, it's not strong enough, we need the feedback from all of you. i don't know if anyone has any comment on that. >> briefly the state department does have the authority to evoke passports on national security grounds. we are very concerned about the over 100 americans in the foreign fighter ranks. we do work very closely with law enforcement intelligence partners on information because we don't just unilaterally revoke passports, of course. so we are reviewing right now in consultation with the law enforcement intelligence partners our current tools at our disposal and authorities because this is a big concern. that we want to look to be able to use the authority if we need