intelligence community to our fidelity to the constitution. >> i believe i asked for unanimous consent for this. but i'd also ask for unanimous consent which i look to refer to the chairman's review h.r. 5488, which is legislation that is called no fly for foreign fighters. it doesn't tie your hands but it refines the watch list to make sure that everyone that should be on it is on it, particularly since the foreign fighter concept is continuing to grow. i ask unanimous consent to introduce that into the work and it forward to discussing with you gentlemen. > thank you, mr. chairman. over 100 americans have joined isil. do we know how many americans have actually joined isil as

well as other terrorist organizations around the world? any of you can give me a number? >> i want to be very clear about the numbers, if i may, congressman? so we estimate over 100 americans have traveled to syria to enjoin with extremists groups in syria or at least attempted to travel. >> so you don't know a number of who actually joined, is that correct? >> once in syria it's very difficult to discern what happens there. >> do you know who they are who have joined or traveled to certify yaw or traveled to pakistan or other places around the world? do we know who those people actually are? >> with severing -- savaring degrees we have information about whether they travel to syria or other cases. >> we're going back to passports. the state department has said they are not going to revoke

passports on americans that fly to syria and fly to these different places. if we know who those people are, i think it's an outright security threat not to revoke their passports. certainly i believe in due process but i think we can do this. it's a huge security threat if we don't revoke their passports. we already know that t.s.a. is allowed known terrorists that are on the no fly list actually to get on-air craft in america and that prents a huge security threat to america. next question, we've got cities in the state of california that have declared themselves as being sanctuaries for illegal entrance in this country. do y'all see this kind of philosophy of cities or a state being a security risk to our nation? secretary?

>> i guess i'd answer it this way, we have a pretty good ability through law enforcement intelligence, homeland security means to identify individuals, including undocumented, who are people of suspicion, suspected terrorists. and the f.b.i. proves that time and again. i do think that in any situation where there are a large number of people who are undocumented, there's a risk that it hinders our ability to track those individuals, which is why from my homeland security perspective, ide want to see those people come forward and get on the books so that i know who they are. and if what you're suggesting is that the risk to homeland security grows when there are larger numbers of undocumented

people in any one place, in any crowded area, i can't disagree with that. > we know that we've got a forced border particularly on the southwest. we already know as your department of secretary describes we have the mexicans crossing the border that we have apprehended. we don't know how many people have not been apprehended, would you agree with that statement, yes or no? >> we generally believe that we have an ability to calculate total attempts to cross the border illegally, and apprehensions are a large percentage of that. and it runs between somewhere between 70% and 90%. so we have a sense for who we didn't get who has crossed the border. >> let me apologize for interrupting you. do we know how many syrians or pakistanians or iranians or somalians or others who have

crossed the border? >> in a broad sense. there's obviously legal migration and there are obviously a large number of people who travel from those countries for legitimate means through lawful means and so i think we have a pretty good sense of the nationalities of who come through this country both through legal -- >> i think this increases our security threat too because of these terrorists being able to fly into this country on the visa waiver program. i think we need, mr. chairman, to look at that. one final question. some americans say that isil and what's going on in syria and iraq today are just involved in a local civil war. what would y'all say it them as far as the threat that this poses to our own interests here in this country? if i could get all three of you to respond to that. >> i'll start.

congressman, i think that isil represents a huge threat to our interests. it represents a potential threat to our homeland security. it represents a threat to the stability in the region and it obviously represents a threat to americans in the region and they've demonstrated the willingness to kill americans because they are americans. and as the chairman and others have pointed out, they've acquired territory. we have to be very concerned any time any terrorist organization acquires territory or training for launching attacks and we're determining to take the fight to this group. >> judge comey, would you comment, please. >> i agree with what secretary johnson said. i wish it was in a case somewhere -- in a box halfway around the world but it's not. >> i would add there's certainly no lack of understanding within our departments and agencies or

within the intelligence community of the nature of the threat the group poses. >> thank you so much. my time has expired. >> given the limited time we have with our witnesses, i'm going to hold witnesses very strictly to the five minutes rule. next we have mr. barber who is not here. paine.pain he's next to me. >> you changed seats. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, recently there have been news reports that have claimed thousands of foreign students have overstayed their visas and have disappeared. however, the department of homeland security has done a great job in their own data appears to show that while these cases were initially flags for review, the location of these

students was in fact known by d.h.s. field officers. as my -- it is my understanding that there are many reasons why a record might be flagged as a potential overstay, none of which are reasons to expect dangerous activity. for active -- for example, d.h.s. own press office has stated many cases appear to be closed due to a variety of legal reasons, including the student's receipt of a green card or departure from the united states. for generations, american foreign policy leaders have agreed to educational exchanges are one of the most successful foreign policy tools. eight of the nobel peace prize winners since 1987 have been foreign students educated in the united states, and america needs

friends and understanding around the world more than ever. and educating young people here gives us a great opportunity to develop those ties for future world leaders. therefore, we need to understand how the department manages the student visa program. can you discuss what the procedure and the systems d.h.s. uses to monitor foreign students? because i want to make sure that we do not distract the american people from the real threats that we're currently facing by mischaracterizing foreign students. >> congressman, given the nature of student visas, we have to depend to a very large degree on what the universities tell us about whether the individual is still a student, still seeking an education in this country. as you referenced, there have

been a number of individuals who have overstayed their student visas. this is something i looked into, taking a special interest in. i believe that there are a number of vulnerabilities in our ability to track these individuals that are being addressed , a number of gaps aren't being closed. we looked into the number of those who are reportedly overstaying their visas. we have found that a very large fraction have either been arrested or have returned to their countries or are in compliance to the receipt of green cards. there is a fraction of that population where they're still -- there's still open investigations. but i don't have the exact numbers offhand but a very large number of those who were initially individuals of concern, we have found are either in compliance or have returned. but there's still open investigations on some. so i think we're doing a better job of tracking these

individuals and i totally agree with what you said about the importance of the student visas and the importance of educate -- receiving an education. >> thank you. because, you know, i saw a report where they used a number of 6 0,000 which abvute -- 60,000 which was ridic -- ridiculous and absurd and it appears the number is more losely to 6,000. seist has been narrowing that number consistently is that correct? >> that is correct. of the 6,000 you refer to, we have found that a large number are either in compliance or have returned or have been arrested. there's still a number -- i don't have the number offhand -- but there's still a number that's a fraction of that 6,000 that are under investigation. but i believe most of them are are either in compliance, have been arrested or returned. >> ok. thank you. and i will yield back. >> gentleman from pennsylvania.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and director comey, i appreciate your focus on the issue of technology. i enjoyed your anecdote about the fact your sneakers may tell your fridge that you went to a ride or your sneakers could tell your wife that you went to the fridge. i do appreciate your leadership on the technology front and i'm struck by your concept, your o. after 10 years, seeing the dramatic change and the metastasize as you identify in the cyberdomain. we see the warfare being in this cybercapacity. one of our former colleagues lee hamilton who observed this same phenomenon in 2001 came back and testified that he sees the cyberthreat as even greater than the collective threat coming from isil. we know about the use of the

radicalization and the recruitment that has been done. we've seen more sophisticated attacks from iranians that have been tied to denial of services of our banks. we've seen criminal gangs use the internet for creation of ways in which they can do things like extortion and to raise revenues and i'm genuine concerned about the ability to purchase expertise out there in the worldwide domain from people that may not be directly associated but can be hired to conduct activities. and there's some concern that even a certain point the kind of islamic jihad could be tied back to isil with cyberattacks of government organizations, energy companies, transport systems, banks, things of that nature. in light of that, looking specifically at isil, what do you think the cyberdimension of the cyberthreat that isil creates? >> thank you,.

i remember fondly our time working together. thank you for caring so much about these issues. think it does transforms all of the things we're responsible for. i see isil focus most on using the internet cyberspace to recruit, both through peer to peer communications to try to lure people to come fight for them. but as also as the chair said through their very slick propaganda efforts to energize and train would be fighters. i know this is something nctc has spent a lot of time on as well. >> have you seen something, mr. lsen, with regard to there's a growing compet competency threat from isil? >> at this point i would characterize it it as basically as -- as operational in terms of

asperational. the primary concern about cyberright now is the use of internet to recruit and track followers. >> director johnson, or secretary johnson, you may feel kohl fortable in commenting on that. but i want to thank must remaining minute to thank you for your leadership and close cooperation with this committee as we have worked to structure new legislation that would enhance the ability for the agencies across the board to better prepare to be responsive of this growing technological threat. can you tell me -- r -- i know you support it -- but can you tell me why you believe this legislation is critical to the enhancement of your mission and why it's so critical that we react in a timely fashion on

this? >> congressman, thank you for your leadership in this area. i think it's critical. there are several reasons why i believe legislation in this area is important, one, to codify the authority of d.h.s. to act in the .governor world. there is legal uncertainty about our -- about our ability to protect the .gov world. there are statutes that some would interpret to inhibit our ability to protect the .gov world. so the existing statutory landscape needs clarity in order for us to do our job. we know also that in the private sector there are those who are concerned about their legal authority to share information with the government. they're concerned about their potential civil liability if they share information with the government, if they act in response to the government. and we're also looking to

enhance our authority to hire cybertalent. but one of my immediate concerns, which i know you're focused on, is clarity in terms of helping us police the .gov world and this is something we've got to do on a daily basis. we face attacks on a daily basis, not just a cybersecurity threat anymore. >> i thank you again for your leadership, particularly the promotion of the ncic as the kind of junction through which a lot of this activity can take place and how vital it is. i yield back. >> thanks for your leadership on cyber. secretary, your strong support and the administration's support for passage in the submit as well. chair recognizes mr. higgins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first on the isil numbers, about five weeks ago in published reports it was estimated to be 7,000 and 11,000 isil fighters.

the most recent c.i.a. report puts the evment mitt -- estimate at 31,000. i'm wondering if that distinction is a result of bad number aanalysis or rapid recruitment success on the part of isil? >> the current assessment is their strength is anywhere between 20,000 and approximately 31,000, 31 k. 500, that obviously demonstrates what we're talking about is an approximation with a large range. we have limited intelligence on this question, and that's by virtue of the fact that our ability to collect on this question is limited in syria and in iraq. but the increase in that number does also reflect some of the recent gains that the group has made through its battlefield successes and its recruitment efforts particularly in iraq.

so it's both the change reflects our limited intelligence collection, but also the gains the group has made more recentlyly -- renl. >> since the commencement of air strikes, have those numbers dropped? because i think part of the military strategy there is to stop the isis momentum because that more than anything else is probably the most potent recruitment advantage that isis has. >> what we've seen from the intelligence perspective is certainly the air strikes have had an impact on the military momentum of isil. it's had an impact on the battlefield. i think it's too soon to tell how those strikes will affect the overall number of isil fighters or their ability to attract people to join the ranks. >> so the estimate of future

recruitment in terms of isil members is open and unknown? >> that's right. how it will look in a year or more from now at this point is a question that we -- >> you know, it's hard to know where this is going because nobody saw it coming. fanned we saw it coming we potentially could have acted earlier to hold its progress. and we know that 15,000 foreign fighters traveling to syria, 2,000 of which are from europe and the united states begins to bring this closer to home. isil is younger than al qaeda. it's more aggressive. it's more brutal. it's better at raising money. it's more technologically sophisticated. and this poses the major problem. you know, my district alone, last year there was a terror

plot to blowup a passenger plane that was thwarted that was going through niagara falls and two individuals were indicted and thought to have al qaeda affiliation. in 2003, six home-grown terrorists were convicted of providing materials support to al qaeda after having traveled through afghanistan and participated in al qaeda training camp s. and just yesterday in rochester, new york, about 50 miles from my district, a man was indicted for attempting to provide material support to isil, attempting to kill u.s. soldiers and for possession of firearms and silencers. be think people shouldn't alarmed but i think the growth of isil, our inability -- we have the strategy that it's not full -- full proof.

it depends on people who we have not demonstrated any confidence in brrks the free syrian army, and all of the thousands of militias that make that up. this is a major concern. and i saw in the secretary's statement there were five things the department of homeland of security is doing, including aviation safety and a number of other thicks. that's fine. but i think the threat of isil to the american homeland is much -- it's more substantial than we're willing to acknowledge. the idea is not to alarm anybody but to prepare for what is a very, very serious situation that is metastasizing in that part of the world and they're not going to stop in eastern syria or northwestern iraq. they have a goal and it's very specifically defined. the borders in that part of the world, these people have no appreciation for historically

because they have nothing to do with it. they're looking to upend the entire middle east earn region and want to claim it for themselves. i yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> i want to thank mr. higgins for his comments as well. thank you, gentlemen, for your service to our nation. you have an immense challenge ahead of you. we all recognize that and we support it where we can. having a dialog about the global threats to safety and security is very important not only for law enforcements and policymakers but also the american people. i want to comment about secretary johnson, you mentioned whether you use a broad spectrum and whether it's broad or narrow, the fact is we have no idea who's in our country or what their intent is.

one side of the political spectrum really wants to paint a rosy picture we have a secure border but the fact is americans realize that we don't. and we also i think americans are counting on us in this arena to transened politics in order to keep the bad elements out of our country to work to keep another 9/11 from happening. they expect you guys to transcend politics and focus on keeping us safe. i grew up in the cold war and at that time we were as a nation tracking troop movements of the soviets, tank placements, surface and subsurface ships and where they may be across the country -- across the globe. now we're tracking individuals, foreign fighters who may have left our country or europe and travel to syria to fight jihad who may have been radicalized who may have the ability to travel back to their country and

may have the ability to come here. in june i was in brussels and before we got to brussels a foreign fighter had traveled to syria, was radicalized, made his way back through turkey and germany. germany actually knew about this individual, failed to let the belgiums know, he went into brussels and shot up a museum, at least three if not four individuals lost their lives. he tried to flee through france and was caught at the bus stop with the very weapons he used to commit the crime. we're relying on information sharing as we try to track individuals, foreign fighters as they travel around the world. it's an immense challenge as i mentioned earlier. we heard earlier about the 100 or so americans that have gone to fight with isis, but we also have somali americans who have traveled to fight, we've got bokeo harme, al qaeda, wherever they may be.

don't take your eyes off al qaeda as we focus on isis because it is still a threat. the thing i want to question about this morning is a it is unclassified now. n internal memo. the traditional f.b.i. lanes and it goes on to talk about mission creek by homeland security investigations is an issue in a alarming number of field offices. i appreciate the director of f.b.i. saying that's really not an issue. but what i want to point out is d.h.s. was stood up in 2003 to recognize after recognizing the stove piping of information. the laws are barriers of sharing information between agencies that possibly could have

thwarted the 9/11 hijackings. i go back to the comments i made earlier about germany failing to let belgium know about about a foreign fighter who traveled through their country who ended up killing some folks at a jewish museum. we cannot afford to have these type of turf wars between agencies charged with keeping us safe. so how, director, how do you combat that? how do you keep that mission creed issue from being an issue? and i would love to hear from secretary johnson on how he feels about that. >> thank you, mr. duncan. by talking about it constantly that report made my head explode. so i shared that head explosion with every leader in the f.b.i. to let them know how i think about it. the f.b.i. does nothing alone to protect the american people. there's no other way to do it.

the american taxpayers should have no patience for turf battles. i got none. >> director, i appreciate y'all's communication, i'm concerned about communication where the rubber meets the road and that's where the communication need to happen. if you got turf wars i'm afraid the information may not be shared appropriately. >> i visited now 44 of my 56 field offices. i talk about it everywhere i go it make sure i'm shaping the culture in a right way and i think that's a exception what's reflected in that particular news account. i think we have made tremendous progress in 13 years and we will keep working on it. >> thank you. secretary. >> congressman, just yesterday director comey and i got together to talk about cybersecurity to ensure that our organizations are working together effectively on cybersecurity. we both have a role in cybersecurity, along with other agencies. and so one of our challenges is to make sure that what you refer

to doesn't happen because that doesn't do any good for the american people for our government, for the taxpayers to see us engaged in turf wars. so we have committed to setting the example at the top and instilling that example in the rank and file in our leadership. so on cybersecurity, for example, we get together routinely to talk about what is our framework, are we getting it right, are we having any turf battles? so all three of us i think, and i think i speak for our respective organizations and our respective communities are committed to working together. i think it does depend a lot on the personalities at the top committing to work together. the last thing i'll say is your comment about d.h.s., in the nine months i've been in office, i have seen the advantage of having the components within my department together in one conference table. when we were dealing with the

situation in the southwest border this summer in the rio grande valley, i could put together at my conference table cvp, i.c.e., the coast guard to seen the - i've synergies of putting a lot of these components together in one department. the thrust of your comment i very much agree with it. >> i'm glad it's working. i'm glad you're communicating with all of your elements. we need to learn from the 9/11 commission report. the reason we combated the stove piping sharing of information, americans are counting on you guys. thank you so much and god blesses you. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. orork. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join my colleagues who said earlier there's perhaps no way the american public can know each of you and the men and

women who work with you have done to protect this country. we o we e our thanks and i want to let you know how much we appreciate it. secretary johnson, i appreciate you setting the record straight on terrorist threats to the homeland from our border with mexico. and i could not agree more with you that despite our success thus far, that there have not been any terrorist plots connected to the southern border, that there's no evidence that isis is preparing to infiltrate the united states at the southern border, i couldn't agree with you more than that this is something we need to guard against, continue to use all of our resources as warranted by the threat that exist based on the evidence that we find. i also appreciate you answering my colleague's question about whether or not we have sufficient resources on the southern border.

we're spending $18 billion a year. we have 20,000 border patrol agents. the vast majority are on the southern border today. those are double the numbers that we saw five or six or seven years ago. as you mentioned, the number of apprehensions is at a record low level. we saw 1.6 million apprehensions 15 years ago on the eve of 9/11. this year with the spike in rio grande valley, i think it's going to be right at about half a million at the highest. in el paso sector, the community i represent, the average agent apprehended 4.2 migrants or crossers this last year, 4.2 per agent. now, that number does not reflect the deterrent value that those agents have. i think there's a lot to be said for that. but you also said earlier that while we have sufficient federal resources there, we could use more. you mentioned the senate proposal which i think was to

add another 20,000 agent on -- agents on the border. i'm concerned when we know the greatest risk is at our airports, we talked about home-grown terrorists that we are obsessively focusing on the southern border. again, let's remain vigilant but we have finite resources. we should apply them where we have the greatest threats based on established risks that we've been able to determine. let me get your thoughts on ha comment. >> most people would endorse the notion of a risk-based strategy to homeland security, border security, aviation security. we focus resources where we believe the risk exist. it's an effective efficient use of taxpayer dollars. in aviation security, for example, we made the judgment to vill the t.s.a. precheck program where we focus resources on the population we know less about. and the border patrol experts

that i've talked to also endorse that approach. and so with additional personnel, additional boots on the ground on the border comes surveillance technology, the ability to monitor what's going on on the southwest border to know where the threat areas are because they do migrate. they do move around. we had a challenge this summer in south texas and so i continually with our border patrol personnel look at where are the threat areas, how it has evolved and so in my judgment in response to your question i think that a risk-based strategy is appropriate and i think the technology, more technology, more surveillance is the key to our future for border security. >> just following on your comments, my colleague sought analogy in previous conflicts to

apply to this threat from terrorists who might want to enter the homeland. i also think about the french on the eve of world war ii and the obsession with the line -- we are going to somehow how -- solve a threat posed to this country. i think we have to be far more creative and be rigorous and disciplined about applying resources to where those threats are or where they could be based on established risks. last question to you, mr. secretary, there is a southern boreder and approaches campaign plan through d.h.s. some have compared this to a uth come type effort against organize resources against a threat. can you describe that? >> first of all, going back to your previous question, i think i speak for my colleagues when i say none of us want to -- none

f us downplay or underestimate the risk or the concern of a terrorist or terrorist organization infiltrating our homeland. i mean that is probably our primary concern day-to-day when we go to work every day. and it's something we have to continually be vigilant about. southern campaign plan is in development. i expect to be in a position to announce some things in the month of october concerning the southern campaign plan and it is in effort to more strategically bring to bear all the resources of my department onboarder -- onboarder -- on border sec uret n a way that is strategic with how we use all the resources in our department. >> thank you.

>> chair roses mr. -- >> thank you. secretary johnson, i want to thank you particularly for the dw good work the men and women are dog at homeland security. i can tell the production and response of congress in terms of responding to our letters and inquiries is the difference. i cannot tell you how much better it is and i thank you and the people who work on those. i do appreciate it. secretary -- >> i'd like the responses but you're getting them fast. >> thank you. true. since you took office, secretary johnson, on -- secretary johnson on december 23rd, are you aware of any apprehensions of suspected or known terrorists who are trying to come to our country illegally? >> that's an important question. attempting to come to this country? who -- >> who came across our border illegally.

did you ever apprehend anybody who was a known terrorist, a suspected terrorist, somebody who had ties to a terrorist organization? >> sitting here right now, no specific case comes to mind. .hat doesn't mean there is none perhaps director comey can think of one. sitting here right now none comes to mind but that doesn't mean there isn't one, nor does that mean there's no investigation of one either. >> my concern is i have a reason to believe that on september 10 there were four individuals who who were trying to cross the texas border who were apprehended it at two different stations who have known ties to the middle east. are you not aware of that? >> i've heard reports to that effect. i don't know the accuracy of the reports or how much credence to give them, but i've heard reports to that effect. >> i guess that's my concern is

you as the secretary does that information rise to the level of the secretary -- let me give you some of the reasons i'm concerned about what's going on in the southwest border. this is an internal document of yours. ile it was noted there was 466,000 apprehensions over the ast 351 days, we also have 157 backs,e had several turn but one of the other things that's fascinating is the sensors that are found there primarily throughout the southwest, we had just under five million sensor hits in fiscal year 2013. but in fiscal year 2014, we have now more than six million of those hits. now, we've got wild burros and tortoises and animals there's a

lot of false positives there. but the concern is if you look at the apprehensions, we've apprehended people from 143 different countries, 143 countries acoording to the internal statistics, 13 were from syria, six were from iraq, four were from iran and the list goes on to 143 different countries. the men and women who work on our southwest border they do an amazing job. but to suggest we have operational control of the border, help they -- me understand this. you said there was a 70% to 90% success rate? explain to me what that is. >> when you look at what we believe to be total attempts to ross the border illegally, the estimated rate of those who make the attempt of those who are apprehended is somewhere between 70% and 90% and it varies in

time. >> previously the gal had indicated there was only a six% control of the border. what is the operational control of the bodder at this time? >> i don't have that number offhand. i do agree with you that the challenge of those coming from countries other than memory ko, particularly into the rio grande valley sector, is one i'm very concerned about. it's something that i've been concerned about since i took office in january. i've seen it myself at our detention center in brownsville when i visited there in january there was something like 80 nagsaltses -- nationalities of illegals present there. >> i've got to interrupt you to a yes or no question. a 983 president reagan put prohibition on libyan nationals

to get certified in aviation and nuclear sciences, myself and the judiciary chairman introduced a piece of legislation that would keep that prohibition in place. there's been a process going through your offices and through the administration to actually reverse that prohibition that was put in place in 1983 that now sits on your desk. what is your view of listing that prohibition? >> i do not intend to lift that prohibition at this time. i don't believe legislation to prevent me from lifting is -- it is necessary. i do not intend to lift it at this time. >> i appreciate it. yield back. thank you. >> chair recognizes mr. -- >> thank you, chair. 13 years ago i was a congressional intern here in this town when september 11th happened. i watched with great interest our country's response to

september 11th and i watched the creation, mr. secretary, of your department. and this committee become a full standing committee. and now i think what we are experiencing with the rise and spread of isil in the middle east and our efforts to respond to it is exactly why this department was created. and so first i just want to thank you, mr. secretary, the two directors for the work you do every day to answer to these challenges to keep us safe here at home. because while we are going to consider today what offensive measures we may take abroad, the critical component i'm most concerned about is what are we doing here at home? and so i want to get out of the way something that my colleague from texas alluded to. mr. secretary, do we have any everyday of any of the following groups coming across our southern border? sil? >> we have no specific

intelligence that members of isil are crossing into the united states on our southern border. >> how about -- >> director olsen can comment more specifically. >> i'll go one by one. how about hezbollah, yes or no? >> same answer. >> how about alneutra? >> i believe the answer is the same but i want to refer to my intelligence colleague here in terms of any assessments of the current environment. >> may i also ask, in addition to not stopping anyone or interacting with anyone or -- who's not a member of these groups, would it be safe to say that the intelligence community has not collected any information and there's various means and methods it uses to collect information and there are efforts under way to use the southern border to go into the

united states? >> i think if that's true certainly with respect to your first question, isil. we've seen chatter from sympathizers about that question, but we've seen nothing to indicate any effort to enter the united states through the southwest border by isil. >> i was in jordan, egypt, morocco and israel two weeks ago and met with our state department teams and our allies over there. my greater fear is not the southern border, but we were told about the number of americans who are over in syria and iraq fighting shoulder to shoulder with isil as well as the number of westerners who are over there. i was hoping that you could elaborate on what we are doing to disrupt any plans of theirs to return to the united states and carry out with the tools and hate that they've built and developed abroad. >> congressman, we've made

enhanced efforts to track these individuals within the viryause communities of the u.s. government. as you heard me mention, we have enhanced our aviation security measures. we are making enhanced efforts. we've stepped up our dialog with our allies, with our partners there. the president will share a u.n. security council -- he will chair a council next week on the topic of foreign fighters. we are considering a number of things of things that will give us more information from passengers from visa waiver countries so that we know more about individuals who attempt to travel. there's always law enforcement. i believe the f.b.i. does a terrific job from the law enforcement perspective from investigating and arresting people who attempt to join terrorist organizations who attempt to leave the country. i believe our allies also

understand the nature of this threat and are making enhanced efforts as well. >> and with the number of foreign fighters coming into yria and iraq, i have asked, mr. secretary, we really expedite the number of visa waiving countries who are participating in interpols in stolen and lost passports. back in the spring the malaysian airlines, two passengers had boarded that flight with lost or stolen passports. i think now more than ever we need to make sure we know and have these other countries to report to interpol. if you could update us briefly. >> we've been having that dialog with our allies and i think they understand the nature of that issue. >> great. and thank you again to each of you for what you're doing to keep us safe and i yield back. >> when you say this committee

is considering legislation to require visa waiving countries to provide more data in exchange for that privilege. >> thank you, mr. chair. i don't know if we're making the argument here whether or not we should secure our southern border or not. that's the feeling i'm getting. there's been a lot of talk that if any terrorist, whether or not any terrorists have crossed the border illegally but we do necessity that those wishing to do us harm have manipulated in the past had our immigration to remain in the united states. one terrorist was a convicted perpetrator of the 1993 world trade center bombing received amnesty after he claimed to be an agricultural worker, despite being a cab driver in new york. the only thing he planted in

america was a bomb. president obama told the american people that he plans to grant some form of administrative amnesty to potentially millions of those currently in the country unlawfully. secretary johnson, as you make recommendations to the president, as to how he should implement such a program, how will you assure the american people that another terrorist will not slip through the cracks? >> congressman, i am very weused on knowing as much as can about individuals who are undocumented in this country, if an earned that path to citizenship were to become law, that would encourage people to come forward and submit to a background check so

they can get on the bookeds -- books. i know there's a lot debate about it. from any homeland security per sfect e inspective i want people who are living in this country undocumented to come forward and get on the books and subject themselveses to a background check so that i can know who they are. d whether it's the current daca program defered action or own r earned path to citizenship, from my perspective i want people to come forward -- >> secretary johnson, i've dealt with this as a mayor in my hometown. do we honest live believe that any would be terrorist or criminal or drug dealer is going to come forward to have a criminal background check on them or are they going to continue to remain underground? nobody with a criminal record is going to come forward. >> the more i can learn about

the undocumented population in this country, the better. the more effectively we can use our removal resources against the type of person you just described, the better. and so i'm interested in going after public safety national security threats in terms of our removal resources, and i want to have a system that more effectively gets it that population. >> do you think the terrorist would have come forward for a criminal background check in 1993? >> most criminals do not subject themselves to criminal background checks i agree with that. >> so he still would have planted the bomb in the world trade center. here, i eport i have we t was -- why haven't taken -- the very first line

says enforcement of our immigration laws is a core commonecomponeent that according to the commission up to 15 of the 19 hijackers could have been intercepted or deported through more diligent enforcement laws. why are we not picking up the recommendations. the 9/11 commission report so we don't have another attack again? > there are a number of 9/11 commitment recommendations that i wish with we could adopt. very plainly, enforcement of our immigration laws is a top priority of mine and with the resources that congress gives us we can and we should do an effective job of going after those who makes a threat to our safety >> and the discussion we've had in the past -- >> i agree with you -- >> -- somebody has crossed the border already that's a terrorist, nobody used a plane to crash into one of our buildings until the first time

as well. that's not a good reason that we shouldn't secure the border because we believed that nobody has crossed the border who who's a terrorist already. thank you. >> chair recognizes mr. kitting. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank all three of our witnesses for their services, particularly director olsen as you lead for your service. it's pretty clear -- also i want to thank particularly director comey for being here for the first time. i appreciate it and i think it's very important. it's clear from all your testimony that the number one threet remains, homegrown radicalized terrorists in our country. and that's something i think is heightened with the isil threat as well. there's a person that's on the most wanted list by the f.b.i. as a terrorist who went to

school -- the same school that one of my children did and later went to school just a few miles away from them. it's close to home. and when you look at these threats and you look at the different challenges and reminded of our work of the boston marathon and that -- bombing and that information including information sharing with lockal police is so important. and given dr. olsen's testimony about how isil has now become more sophisticated, it's harder to intercept messaging, that remains even more of a priority. so i'd like to ask director comey to share with the committee, the progress that you've made in terms of doing a better job sharing information with local police and also what progress is made in terms of formalizing that, too, in terms of a memorandum of understanding that can be there and transcend

different administrations and the need, if any, for regulation of statutory change in that regard. >> thank you, mr. keeting. for anyone who was asleep before 9/11 and woke up today would not recognize the depth and extent of information sharing among federal agencies and with our state and local partners. the world has transformed in that respect. i also believe we can find room for improvement. a number of things we have done since boston, we've made clear that we want the default to be information sharing and we don't want anything to be misunderstood as an impediment to that. we've also -- each of our joint terrorism task forces now has a regular meeting to review our inventory. what came in within the last 30 days or week or two weeks, what came in, what got closed, questions, concerns to make sure

everybody e everybody is in sync . i travel around the country and meet with state and local law enforcement now in 44 field offices and i'm hearing good things. i think we're in a good place, but i want to rest on that because there's always something i haven't thought of yet. i want to continue that dialog to improve it. >> one of the areas i found, local police now have access to classified information more than they did, but it's my understanding they're not taking advantage of that the way they can. is there something that we can do to help those numbers to make it easier for them or to encourage them to get more of that information? > i don't know than just encouraging. i'm encouraging all leadership to at least get the secret level clearance so that if you need to you can see things very, very quickly. and we're getting there. people are very, very busy and they also know that their

officers and detectivives on our task forces are cleared. we'd like to encourage it more and more. >> i want to thank you for your meeting with me and our shared interest in information sharing with local and state officials. i just wanted to reinforce the fact that even though i think you're only the seventh director, there will be a time that all of us go from our different positions and that's he importance of having things in writing what progress we're making in terms of having something in riting -- writing in that regard in terms of information sharing. >> i think that makes good sense. in eight years and 51 years i will be leaving this job and i would like to make sure that it doesn't depend on people but that the processes documented. > if i can add real briefly?

in answer to your question about un-- classified information, we have a joint program in which we bring state and local police officers and firefighters to the national count trarism center where they have all access to the classified information on a basis of detail for two years. they even help us to design products that are classified fide and turn those into unclassified products. working through they're channels and communities so we can get what we're seeing at the classified national level and turn it into information that's usable by police officers on the street and firefighters around the country and that's been a very successful program over the last few years. >> i appreciate your efforts making that easier to get. i yield back, mr. chair. >> chair recognizes mr. perry.

>> thank you very much for your service to the nation. you have a very difficult job. it's a privilege to be with you here today. all of my questions i would hope you with answer. i want to recognize the confines of operational security. still within the ability of whatever you can answer the questions. mr. secretary, what are the department's mechanisms in place that would prevent known american and european citizens fighting for terrorist organizations in syria and iraq from reening or entering the homeland? >> first of all, congressman, we have our no fly list, that's the first thing that comes to mind. second, general aviation security, though unless you're carrying something suspicious, aviation security in and aof itself wouldn't necessarily pick you up. passenger travel data, a.p.i. data, p. and r date you aa, the more i can learn about travelers

the better. we have a fair amount. i think we do a little better from visa waiver countries. passengers are required to answer questions on an electronic stem for travel organization. we have as a condition for participation in the visa waiver it requires insurance. we have general security within each of these other governments. environment, it think we all agree we need to be particularly engaged in making sure these mechanisms work of

reportedly. >> i defer to you folks. seemshat i hear it somewhat passive. asking a passenger to disclose information that is vital when their motives might be otherwise seems less than up month. i'm looking at whether you have coulding new that you devote and whether you have something new we should looking at. >> we can prevent them from entering the country. or if they are not on the no-fly

list they can have secondary screening. go ahead. >> there is a number of opportunities and layers of traveling toanyone the united states. arriving at the border is only one point in time. one of the changes from 13 years ago is to create consolidated base. across thensolidate border of every non-suspected terrorists we have information about. that turns into an unclassified watchlist and a number of other agencies that have a screening possibility. visaone who applied for a and everyone who seeks to travel

, their information is screened against that database, so when they put their name in the him, checkedormation is not to see if they are on the watchlist. there is additional screening or they are stopped from entering the country. >> i am just curious. isis social media account have called for where they raise awareness for entry into mexico as a viable option. do you think we should be thisrned they would use propaganda to breach the southern border and use that as an operational tool? thatd we be aware of

possibility? >> we need to be aware of all the ways someone can enter this country. overriding priority to prevent that from happening. we need to allocate our resources for where we see a threat. numbers.ll we have seen nothing to indicate there is real effort to use the southwest border to get into the country. >> think you. recognizes mrs. clark. >> i want to a plot all of your efforts to keep the american people safe and the cure. my -- secure.

progressedwe have and set up an infrastructure that has kept our nation they've from foreign terrorist attack. you continued success. talk about cyber security. in particular for the workforce. -- and statel aid law and forth and has challenges in having investigators and prosecutors. we know that the pool of qualified candidates are limited because individuals involved in investigating cyber crime are highly enforced specialist with technical skills.

once an examiner specializes in cyber crime it takes up to 12 months for the individual to become proficient in the use of those skills. competitiveness of the arena, competing with the private sector. when we know it is a challenge to recruit, retain them from private sector competing, and trained them with changing technology and increasingly .ophisticated techniques how are we dealing with manpower issues within the agent the? well we are not necessarily -- seeing the nexus

between advanced terrorist through the use of the iternet, i can envision feeds money into these enterprises. would you share your thoughts? to ournt is critical efforts. i have engaged in recruitment effort and have encouraged young people in graduate schools in to consider aidor career or at least a short time before they go into the private dhsr -- sector working for to serve their country.

get thema lot he can serving even for a short time. congress can help us with this. enhance an effort to fiber hiring capability. will act oncongress that. i need help attracting cyber talent. >> what about the issue of retention? is it evidence low? how do we maintain -- ebb and flow? >> i just lost a member of my team to citigroup. there is an issue of retention. the financial sector are has more capability to offer it is coolpackages.

orking for the fbi. back he figured it out. it is much cooler to work for the fbi. >> i was joking. oversee security before going to government. i used to recruit from that side for talent. the amount of young folks for talent we cannot compete with. you are not going to make much of a living doing what we do. you are going to make a life unlike any other because you are going to be saving lives. it is a place we can and should -- shouldring

compete. >> the chair recognizes mr. sanford. >> think you. -- thank you. in the hearings about threats to the homeland, we are going to take a fairly significant vote. i would be curious to year each on what to vote for today. >> i would say that the plan the president has put forward to -- isil is aold strong plan in many person -- respect. we have got to work to support the effort and take the fight directly to isil. i think it is incumbent upon

congress to act upon the theorities we requested. we the president has said cannot expect to deal with this overnight, and it is going to take an enduring sustained effort. will support our efforts. impressednue to be with your skills. what i ask is the biggest deficiency. refer you to the state department and defense department congress man. i believe our plan is a strong for defeating icicle. >> it is the past. i understand. dumping i think that

can or should comment on. that is the thing i can or should comment on. >> the study of war talked about how is it you impact your enemies center of gravity. thoughople have argued it is doing something, we are the center ofng gravity and their ability to do harm to the united states. if you could pick one thing, what do you think would be their primary weakness, the center of impact thet would outcome? >> let me answer from my experience. important that we enemy to recruit

faster than we can capture or kill the enemy. in particular when it comes to the homeland. along with the and ourof our military partners overseas to take the --ht direct the to isolate, the fight directly to isil, there has to be an effort in engaging potential extremist threats here at home. these groups in the current age are very good at rob again that, at recruitment, without having to recruit someone or indoctrinate them in a terrorist camp. i am focusing on countering .xtremism at home

together we are focused on counteract the the literature and propaganda, the notion isil is an islamic state. it is a group of murderers and kidnappers who commit genocide. they are depraved individuals who have captured world ttention. it has got to be a comprehensive effort that involves multiple agencies. >> icam down to 30 seconds, so let me get to my last question. -- i see that i am down to 30 seconds, so let me get to my last question. with roughly 50% operational border,on the southern why not simply build a fence? i would be curious to hear your quick thoughts, yes or no, why

not complete build a fence? >> he is going to give the past so i can pitch it acted him. -- back to him. >> what we do on the southern depends in large part on the resources congress is willing to give us. my recommendation is the most effective, efficient use of our resources is a risk based strategy. wallnot believe building a along the entire southwest order is an appropriate use of tax dollars. wallbuild a 15 foot someone is going to build a 16 foot ladder. we have the technology, and we need more. >> a might build a 16 foot wall,

but he would not allow school-aged children to walk up to officers and hand themselves over. >> the situation we faced this summer was one where many of these kids wanted to get caught. are dealing with that kind of situation, it's important to damage trade that if you come here -- to demonstrate that if you come wee you will be sent out. engaged in a public message campaign. down that road, we need a partner in congress. i didn't get one this number. i asked for money to help pay for our efforts to step up order security, and we didn't get help.

but i have many thoughts on that. >> the chair recognizes mr. richman. >> thank you to the witnesses, who play a great role in protect the -- protecting. i have heard it said before cyber security and homegrown terrorists are what keeps us up cyber security -- homegrown terrorism could be someone on the computer trying know what toc. we do to make sure they are equipped for those kinds of things. in louisiana we have shipping it handles over 1.2

million euros of oil a day. barrels of oil a day. how confident are we we are communicating enough with eight police, local police, wildlife officials, and other departments to make sure our facilities are sureed and to make intelligence sharing is there and state and local police have done what they need to do to have clearance? welcome would r the opportunity to be able to share more with state and local in terms of classified information, once they have a

security clearance and background check, i think it is in our interest to do that. i have been impressed with the level of participation we get from state and local law enforcement. i think in some areas of the country the relationships are better than in others. i have is a did a number of ports. i have been to a coast guard station in new orleans. i have been to a number of court. with --he in impressed in impressed with our cooperation with local authorities. we can do a better job. jobsauthority is one of my while in office. >> you talked about resources.

what resources do you think we can provide local government to help with homeland security? i know you have offered license plate tanners, and they can apply for grants, but in a city like new orleans that brings in 9 million visitors a year, outside of just the area like the ports, assets like that could be very valuable. the question becomes what do you think the role of the federal statement is to assist police and getting the equipment that would make the country more safe, especially when you have a van -- events.

>> through our grants we find a number of different row graham, the ability to provide equipment the ability to provide equipment. i want to make sure we have our formula is correct. sure our grant making around the country is at appropriate levels. ask you a question. the extent your intelligence sharing and effectiveness also goes hand in hand with the of localnd competence police departments, you do a great job, but if they are not -- do youd competent

have a mechanism to let members of congress know that the police department is lacking in areas that could make the community unsafe? i think they would take great when they make sure the police department are focused on it. we may need to give them an .xtra push can you provide that information, and the youth the cases? >> i don't know the answer. that.ay we don't focus on when we see a problem we try to work on it. the answer is i don't think so. >> i am not sure i have seen an

actual mechanism. we work through dhs and the outreach we have with state and i agreew enforcement. that it is our first line of defense against any homegrown attack. >> if you see any of my law and forth and chief don't get it, please let me know they don't get it. >> thank you for being here. well.h you i know we will be talking about that personally. it speaks volumes about a new

with state and local coordinating and working together, which is the best formula. leadership, i cannot tell you how much i appreciate it. with that, this hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> chuck hagel testifies earth day about the president gravity for combating -- testifies they about the president's strategy for combating isis. live coverage starts at 11 a.m. -- c-span seas and 3 3. >> the c-span video cam , helpingon is underway the students create a documentary about the three branches and you. prices --200 cash prizes for teachers and

students. for a list of rules and how to get darted go to studentcam.org. >> coming up, john kerry's strategy -- on the president's strategy for combating isis. later the heads of homeland security and the fbi testify about national security threats. coming up, representative marcy kaptur discusses the vote on training rebels to fight isis. and then u.s. defense and foreign-policy, including the threat posed by isis. universityndiana president.

washington journal is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on .ace book and twitter john kerry testified about the administration's strategy to fight isis. is four hours. >> no more war! no more war! no more war!

>> the committee will come to order. we have a warm welcome. having just returned from a coalition building mission that will determine the breadth of strategy in the near long-term, you are here at a critical moment for the people of the region and the united states and the world. set, in myat the out view, the coalition you are working to build will require fully engaged and contributing senior partners, a coalition that must be defined not by words but by deeds. this.s. can lead coalition, but our partners, particularly sunni partners, must be and. the game will be different -- .ust eat in -- must be in

i am pleased i the willingness of our partners in the middle east to provide resources for this campaign. from abu dhabi to cairo to beirut, our partners are sending the signal to isil that they are not come, that they have a bankrupt religious ideology, and that a will be aggressively confronted. ideology and that they will be aggressively confronted. above all, the problems in iraq and syria that created an environment susceptible to isil's advance can only be solved locally. in iraq this means an inclusive government with a national agenda and leaders ready to empower the iraqi security forces and kurdish peshmerga forces to take the fight to isil. in syria, it means training and equipping a vetted syria opposition force that shares our

vision for a pluralistic free syria, free of isil and all violent extremist groups, but also free of assad and his regime backers. this fighting force should be prepared to support a post assad political structure whenever the circumstances under which he ultimately leaves syria by negotiated settlement or other means much the president laid to you the a comprehensive holistic strategy that purports to provide the tools to defeat isil. what i expect to hear today is some specifics. the timeline for this mission, the scope, the resources in both personnel, funds, intelligence, military assets an assistance as well as roam our coalition partners in play. we must be clear-eyed about the risks before providing our enduring support for this operation. the fact is, we are living in 2014, not 2003. we must not repeat the mistakes

of the past give inthe nature of the threat we face. this means clearly defining the objectives, the political end state that we seek through this anti-isil campaign. i want to hear what success looks like in iraq and syria across the region and what conditions will indicate when it's time to end military action. now, this is what we know about isil. what has brutally, mercilessly i barbarically followed through on its threats to kill american hostages james foley and steven sotloff. it beheaded british aid worker david haines on saturday and threatens to execute another british citizen, alan henning. it promotes genocide against anyone who does not share its warped version of islam, moderate sunnis, shias, christians, yazidis, minority, it enslaves women and children. it has seized u.s. and iraqi military equipment as built a formidable fighting force. it's pumping oil and selling it

to the tune of $1 million a day to fund its brutal tactics, along with kidnappings, theft, extortion and external support. it is recruiting disciples for its unholy war at a frightening pace from europe, the u.s. and anywhere they can find disaffected people. these foreign fighters are crossing often from turkey, which either because of fear or maybe ideology has declined to participate to stop that flow of fighters and to counter isil. it has declared the territory it occupies a caliphate with intent to seize more territory from u.s. partners and allies from jord ton saudi arabia to lebanon. the risk to jordanian and lebanese stability is real, it's urgent and it's grave. we would be fools not to take this threat seriously. eyesle is an enemy of the united states and the civilized world. now, as i have said many times, temporary and targeted air strikes in iraq and syria fall

under the president's powers, as commander in chief. but the military campaign lasts for an extended period of time, which i gather it will, it is my belief that congress will need to approve an icicle-specific authorization for the use of military force. i'm personally not comfortable with reliance on either the 2001 aumf that relies on a thin theory that eyesle is associated with al qaeda and certainly not on the 2002 iraq aumf which relied on misinformation. i expect the administration today and in the days ahead to brief this committee on its comprehensive strategy and the operational objectives by which we will defeat isil so we can draft an appropriate aumf to address the very grave isil threat we face. now let me be clear, i support the president's strategy and his sense of urgency and i come mend you, mr. secretary, for your

efforts with allies in the region who also face violent and destabilizing threats from isil. let's not, however, make the 9/11 mistake of rushing into an aumf, an authorization for the use of military force, that has become the overriding authorization for the last 13 years, has about used for indefinite duration, and has been used from south asia to the persian gulf to africa and southeast asia. the fact is, we need to ensure that whatever authorization for the use of military force we consider is comprehensive and appropriate in scope and dur railings to meet the threat and sustain the fight. it is our responsibility to answer three fundamental questions, what will it ultimately take to degrade and destroy isil? how does this fight end? and what end state do we seek in the region? we need to get it right in my view, not just get it fast and in doing so, we need a

bipartisan approach that puts politics aside and the nation first. this is a long-term effort and we in congress must be very deliberate in our consideration of any new strategy, new authorities and new funding that it will take to meet the new threat we face. i believe we need to defeat isil before they develop the operational capacity to perform a september 11th-like attack. i never want to lose as many citizens from my home state of new jersey or from the united states as we did on that day. that is our responsibility and it is our solemn obligation. with that, let me turn to the ranking member, senator corker, for his comments. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate the full and broad opening comments you've made and the way you've expressed many of our concerns regarding isil and their capacity over time to harm

americans. i know we're here a few days after the president publicly addressed this as the nation and many others around the western world, the civilized world are outraged over the conduct of isil and i know that americans are greatly concerned about, over time, the effects they might have on this nation, as you just expressed. we are also here exactly one year and two weeks after in this very room this committee voted out an authorization for the use of force in syria is one to. bright moment, in my opinion, of this committee, not necessarily because of the product, but because we all worked together in such a way to come to an end that we thought was best for the country, much in the light and in the tone the chairman just laid out. so i want to start by welcoming our secretary.

we have had some conversations. i appreciate his hard work. but i do want to say i'm -- as i've said to him personally, i'm very disappointed that the administration has choosesen to go about what they're doing without explicitly seeking the aught ridsization of congress. i think that's huge mistake. i realize that part of that, unfortunately, has to do with the political season that we're in, which is, to me, very unfortunate that that might be a factor to some. and i also realize that part of the strategy and plan or big parts of it are still being created and therefore, it's being put together as we move along and we're really not in a place right now for congress to fully ascertain what the plan might be. and as the chairman just mentioned, he's gonna deal with an authorization, our committee will deal with an authorization.

but i just want to say to our secretary, i hope that when that's done, it's done with the administration explicitly seeking that, not saying if congress wants to play a constructive role, it can and it would be welcomed, but one where you seek it and you lay out in detail for us, in both classified and open settings, what it is we are seeking to achieve and how we are gonna go about it. and again, i know much of this is being made up as we go along. i do hope -- i do hope that the secretary today will outline the true nature of the threat. i know he was in a meeting prior to coming in here where some of that was being discussed, but i hope that clearly today, you'll lay out what you think the true nature of the threat is. thirdly and just one glaring s of state probably don't have the same opportunity that senators do to visit people in refugee

camps and to see people that we've said we would support and don't. we've been pushing in this committee for years, or for a long time to arm and train the vetted moderate opposition. we passed out of this committee a year and a half ago almost on a 15-3 vote that we've been pushing for for longer than that. and in spite of the fact that there are some alleged activities that are occurring, we have not done the things that we said we would do. as a matter of fact, i would say that the position that the administration has taken over this last year and two weeks. since we were here meeting about the authorization and passing one has led to many of the;4v[m problems that we are facing today, many of the problems that are causing civilization itself to be fearful. and, again, though, i appreciate the fact that the secretary's here today, that the administration has stepped

forward and has the beginnings of a thought process as to how to address it. i do want to say that what i've heard about dealing with the moderate opposition to me is odd. i know that the administration especially at the white house has stated how generally feckless, to use a -- to use a word, i think, that describes it. . they believe this moderate opposition to be, and yet, we look at this and today it's our entire ground game. i have supported the training and arming of these rebels for some time. i will say i was shocked yesterday to hear that in the armed services testimony these rebels are actually going to be used against isis. all of them that i've met with

and things may have changed. but their focus has been taking out assad. i know they've had a two-front battle or war raging as they've tried to do that. but i'm surprised that the administration is basing their entire ground game on a group of people that candidly are going to receive very little training under the small authorization that's been put forth, and that's our entire ground game, which brings me back to point two talking about the very nature of the threat. seems to me, the administration has placed many, many caveats on what we will not do. and at the same time, the rhetoric describing the threat is far greater than it seems to me the plan that's being put together. and i'll close with this. i know that typically when you have a coalition, you have the coalition put together before you announce it. i know in this case, we're announcing a coalition, and we are attempting to put it

together. and i hope that what we're going to end up with is more than a group of coat holders. i hope that we're going to have people who are really going to be doing things on the ground that matter. but i do hope the secretary through his hard work is generating commitments that will matter as it relates to this. this effort we all know is not going to be a one or two-year effort. it's going to be a multi-year effort. some people are saying a decade. some people are saying a decade. and so i do think it's important as our chairman laid out that all of us fully understand what we're undertaking. fully understand the nature of the threat. fully understand the commitment of this administration to deal with this threat in the appropriate way. i welcome you here today, i look forward to your testimony and to our questions. >> with that, mr. secretary, we welcome you back to the

committee so ably and distinguishedly chaired. we thank you for your service to our country. we know that you just recently arrived from building this coalition. and we appreciate you being here today in order to inform members of what has been achieved, what is in front of us, and with that, the floor is yours. >> well, chairman menendez, ranking member corker and members of the committee, my friends and former colleagues. i really thank you for holding this hearing on an issue that is obviously fraught with all the high stakes that both the chairman and the ranking member have just described and all of the members of the committee understand deeply. and i really look forward to this opportunity to both define the threat that isil does pose, the ways in which it does, and, of course, our strategy for

defeating it. and all of that could not be more critical for the country. during the years that i had the privilege of serving here and working with different administrations, it always struck me that american foreign policy works best and is strongest when there's a genuine discussion, a dialogue, a vetting of ideas back and forth. really a serious discussion much more than an articulation of one set of ideas and another and they depose each other and they sit out there. there's no real effort to have a meeting of the minds. so i want to make sure that by the time we're done here today, i've heard from you, i know what you're thinking and you know what we're thinking, what the administration is thinking. and that you have a clear understanding of what it is that we have done so far, of how we

see this and how hopefully we can come to see it together, what we're doing now, and where we go next. and i state unequivocally, and it's not a passing sentence that i welcome the input, need the input of this committee because it is together that we're going to be much stronger and much more effective in guaranteeing the success of this effort. and it's a big effort in a lot of ways. it's about isil in the immediacy, but as we will discuss today, it's about a lot more than that. so i want to underscore at the start. you know, there's some debates of the past 30 years, 29 of which i was privileged to serve in the senate that will undoubtedly fill up books and documentaries for a long time. and iraq is certainly one of

them. iraq has caused some of the most heated debates and deepest divisions of the past decade. a series of difficult issues and difficult choices about which people can honestly disagree. but i didn't come here today in hope we don't have to rehash those debates. the issue that confronts us today is one in which we all ought to be able to agree. isil must be defeated. period. end of story. and collectively, we are all going to be measured by how we carry out this mission. you know, as i came in here, obviously, we had some folks who spoke out, and i would start by saying that i understand dissent. i've lived it.

that's how i first testified in front of this country in 1971. and i spent two years protesting a policy. so i respect the right of code pink to protest and to use that right. but you know what, i also know something about code pink. code pink was started by a woman and women who were opposed to war but who also thought that the government's job was to take care of people. and to give them health care and education and good jobs. and if that's what you believe in and i believe it is, then you ought to care about fighting isil. because isil is killing and raping and mutilating women. and they believe women shouldn't have an education. they sell off girls to be sex slaves to jihadists.

there's no negotiation with isil, nothing to negotiate. and they're not offering anything health care of any kind. you know, they're not offering education of any kind. for a whole philosophy or idea or cult, whatever you want to call it. that frankly comes out of the stone age. making a mockery of a peaceful religion. that's precisely why we're building a coalition to stop them from denying the women and the girls and the very future that they yearned for. and frankly, code pink and a lot of other people need to stop and think about how you stop them and deal with that. so i -- >> will not protect the homeland! your invasion will not protect the homeland!

your invasion will not protect the homeland! >> it's important for people to understand. important for people to understand. there's no invasion. the invasion was isil into iraq. the invasion foreign fighters into syria. that's the invasion. and it is destructive to every possibility of building a state in that region. so, even in a region that is virtually defined by division and every member of this committee understands the degree to which these divisions are deep in that region. leaders who have reviewed the last 11 years very differently have all come together for this cause. they may agree on very little in general, but they are more unified on this subject than anything that i've seen them unified on in my career.

as president obama described last week when he spoke directly to the american people, we do have a clear strategy to degrade, defeat and destroy isil. and it's not in its infancy. it has been well thought through and carefully articulated and now is being built in these coalition efforts that began with a meeting and moved to paris and will move to the united nations this week when i chair u.n. security council meeting on friday. the united states will not go it alone. that has been a fundamental principle in which president obama has sought to organize this effort. and that is why we are building a coalition, a global coalition. there are more than 50 countries that already have agreed or are now doing something, not every

country will decide that their role is to have some kind of military engagement. but every country can do something, and will show exactly what that means. and as i traveled around the region and europe in the last days, the question that foreign leaders were asking me was not whether they should join the coalition, but how they can help. we're also, and i emphasize this, we're not starting from scratch. this is an effort that we have been building over time, both on our own and with the help of our international partners. even before president obama delivered a speech last week, nearly 40 countries had joined in contributing to the effort to strengthen the capacity of iraq to be able to strengthen its military, to train, to provide

humanitarian assistance. we've been focused on isil since its inception as the successor to al qaeda of iraq. in 2013. and back in january, realizing that we ramped up our assistance to the iraqi security forces, increasing our intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, or isr, the flights that get a better picture of the battlefield. we expedited weapons like the hell fire missiles for the iraqis in order to bring their capacity to bear in this fight. early this summer, the isil threat accelerated when it effectively and the mosul damn fell. the president acted immediately. we further surged, we set up

joint operation centers in baghdad immediately, and our special forces conducted a very detailed, in-depth assessment of security forces and kurdish forces. we did that purposefully without jumping as some of us wanted us to. what wanted to understand what is the iraqi capacity of the army to fight? how many brigades having seen what happened in mosul are still prepared to engage? are we getting into something that, in fact, we don't have the answers to with respect to who could do what. and to date, we have launched, we have supported those iraqi security forces that by the way helped in the liberating, helped in the freedom of sinjar mountain, helped in taking back the mosul dam. and now we have launched more than 150 air strikes.

and it is because of the platforms that we put in place last january and even before that those strikes have been among the most precise strikes that we have ever taken. the percentage, i won't go into it here, but i will tell you, you'll be astonished if you heard openly now the accuracy of those efforts. those were put in place back in june. and those strikes have been extremely effective in breaking the sieges that i described and beginning to move confidence back into the iraqi military. the judgment and assessments of our military that went over there to look at the iraqi military came back with a judgment of a sufficient number of brigades capable of and ready to fight.éveuc%.b+÷ and with the reconstitution of the military in a way that can bring the country together and not be divided along sectarian lines or viewed to be the army

of one individual, it is entirely likely that there'll be much greater and more rapid progress. so that has given us time to put in place the two pillars of a comprehensive strategy against isil. an inclusive iraqi government which was essential. there would be no capacity for success here. if we had not been able to see the iraqi government come together. and secondly, the broad international coalition so the u.s. is not alone. we redoubled our efforts, frankly, to help move the iraqi political process forward. and we were very clear eyed about the fact that the strategy of isil would only succeed if we had a strong inclusive government. and frankly, that required transformation in the government which the iraqis themselves effected. with our support and several weeks of very complex negotiations, he nominated him

to serve as prime minister. and shortly thereafter, again with our support and others was able to form his cabinet and present it to the parliament. and last week, that government was approved. i have to tell you, it was quite astonishing to be in jeda the other day with the saudis and bahrainis, jordanians, the turks, the lebanese and iraqis. iraqis and saudi arabia and everybody here knows what that relationship's been like for the last 30 years. and to hear the foreign minister of iraq who chaired the meeting say that they were prepared to open an immediate embassy in baghdad. that's transformative. the result is something also for iraq that has never seen before in its history.

an election deemed credible by the united nations, followed by peaceful transition of power without any u.s. troops on the ground. i must say, i was so distraught yesterday, the "wall street journal" had an article talking about arab divide, but above the arab divide language is the -- is the shia foreign minister of iraq, the kurd president of iraq and the sunni foreign minister of saudi arabia. all in communication and jointly working as never before. so i think people need to focus on what has been accomplished here. as you know, i went to iraq last week, i traveled, i met with the leaders of iraq. and throughout the entire process, we have been touched with regional leaders to ensure that the new and inclusive government is going to receive support from the region.

it is time for a defensive strategy. our international partners have pursued to get things together, get the inclusive government, know exactly where we're going to now transition to an offensive strategy. one that harnesses the capabilities of the entire world to eliminate the isil threat once and for all. president obama outlined the strategy in detail. i'm not going to go through it in that detail. but i'll quickly say, and i'll be quick in walking through it. at its core, our strategy is centered on a global coalition that will collaborate across a number of specific areas. including direct and indirect military support. it can come in a range of forms from training and equipping, logistics and airlift. and countries from inside and

outside of our region are already right now providin >> we will have the capabilities and the resources we need to ucceed mill -- militarily. president obama made it clear we will take on isil in iraq, in syria, wherever it is found. it is not the gulf war in 1991. it is not the iraq war in 200 3. number one , u.s. ground troops will not be sent into combat into this conflict. from the last decade we know that a sustainable strategy is not u.s. ground forces, it is enabling the local forces to do what they have to do for themselves and for their country. i want to be clear, u.s. troops that have been deployed to iraq do not and will not have a

combat mission. instead, they will support iraq forces on the ground as they fight for their country against these terrorists. and in syria, the on the ground combat will be done by the moderate opposition which serves as the current best counterway in syria to extremists like isil. we know as isil gets weaker, the moderate opposition will get stronger that. will be critical to bring about the -- that is one of the reason whys it is so critical that congress authorize the opposition train and equip mission when it comes to the floor. but it's also critical that the opposition makes the most of the additional support, the kind of support that they've been requesting now for years and they need to take this opportunity to proveth