[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FY20 BUDGET: STATE DEPARTMENT COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERING
VIOLENT EXTREMISM BUREAU
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 24, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-181 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Democrat Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and International
Terrorism
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida Chairman
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOE WILSON, South Carolina,
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
TED LIEU, California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
COLIN ALLRED, Texas ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey LEE ZELDIN, New York
DAVID TRONE, Maryland BRIAN Mast, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
JUAN VARGAS, California STEVEN WATKINS, Kansas
Casey Kustin, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Sales, The Hon. Nathan, Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
Ambassador-at-Large, Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering
Violent Extremism, United States Department of State........... 7
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 40
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 41
Hearing Attendance............................................... 42
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted from Representative Deutch...... 43
THE FY20 BUDGET: STATE DEPARTMENT COUNTERTERRORISM AND.
COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM BUREAU
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Middle East,
North Africa, and International
Terrorism,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Theodore E. Deutch
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Deutch [presiding]. This hearing will come to order.
Welcome, everyone. The subcommittee is meeting today to
conduct oversight of both the FY budget request for the State
Department's Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism
Bureau and the Trump administration's overall counterterrorism
policy. I thank our witness for appearing today.
And I will now recognize myself for the purpose of making
an opening statement before turning it over to the ranking
member.
The purpose of our hearing is to conduct oversight of both
the FY20 budget request for the Counterterrorism and CVE Bureau
and the administration's overall policy. In FY20, the
administration requested a total of $170.8 million for the
Bureau, taken collectively from the Nonproliferation, Anti-
terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs, the NADR; ESF;
American Salaries and Security Programs accounts. And while
this amount is an increase from the $160.6 million requested in
FY19, it is a sharp drop from the $237 million request in FY18
and the $294 million request in FY17.
Vice President Joe Biden once observed, ``Do not tell me
what you value. Show me your budget, and I will tell you what
you value.'' And looking at the FY20 request, we could
reasonably conclude that the administration is de-emphasizing
efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism, as the
focus of U.S. foreign policy shifts toward greater power
competition.
However, nearly 18 years after the terror attacks of 9/11,
the United States still faces a wide array of challenges from
jihadist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, Iranian-backed
groups like Hezbollah, and the growing threat of white
nationalist terrorism. In an assertive policy started under
President Obama and continued by this administration, we have
successfully confronted ISIS and liberated territory in
occupied Iraq and Syria. However, while ISIS's physical
caliphate is destroyed, the organization maintains a network of
supporters and foreign fighters who are trained by ISIS
operatives and loyal to the organization's cause. Most
importantly, these individuals seek to launch attacks against
innocent civilians in the Middle East, in Europe, and
throughout the West.
The United States has considered Iran to be a State Sponsor
of Terrorism for more than 35 years. Its proxies, such as
Hezbollah and Shia militias in Iraq, continue to sow chaos
throughout the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests and
military personnel, as well as our regional allies and
partners.
And finally, the transnational threat posed by white
nationalist terrorism is clearly growing, as exemplified by the
recent horrific attacks in Christchurch, at the Tree of Life
Synagogue in Pittsburgh, and at the Chabad of Poway, just north
of San Diego. Many have argued that white nationalist
terrorists lack the global networks that make both jihadists
and Iranian-backed terrorists a potent threat. However, since
9/11, more Americans have perished in the United States at the
hands of white nationalist terrorists than those inspired by
radical Islamist terrorism. The point being both warrant our
serious attention and concern. I am not convinced that the
State Department or the entire U.S. Government is doing enough
to counter white nationalist terrorism, and I expect that our
witness will explain how our resources are utilized to meet
this threat.
The administration's National Strategy for
Counterterrorism, released in October of last year, highlighted
many of these challenges. Ambassador Sales, I know you and your
Bureau supported the development and drafting of the strategy,
and I look forward to you describing how it informs the budget
request and how your programs support its execution.
I am also interested in your explanation for why the Bureau
plans to change its name from Counterterrorism and Countering
Violent Extremism to just the Counterterrorism Bureau. And
while you may simply seek a concise name, I hope that the shift
does not signal a diminished focus on CVE, which obviously is
an important element of keeping Americans safe.
While the United States maintains CT and CVE tools that are
second to none, success in these efforts requires working with
other countries, and I am concerned that President Trump's
frequent criticism of foreign nations hinders our policy and
makes the Bureau's job more difficult. Certainly, I expect to
hear more about our international cooperation to disrupt terror
plots and quell the extremism that plagues too many regions
throughout the world.
Ambassador Sales, we look forward to strengthening our
understanding of how the State Department's resources are
utilized to counter terrorism and violent extremism. I also
hope you will identify areas where greater congressional
support is needed, so that we can work together to fulfill our
sacred duty of keeping the American people safe.
And with that, it is my pleasure to recognize my friend,
the ranking member, Joe Wilson, for the purpose of making an
opening statement.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Deutch. And thank you for
this hearing.
I also want to thank our distinguished witness, Ambassador
Nathan Sales, for being here to testify before the
subcommittee.
All of us on this subcommittee know how important the work
is of the State Department's Counterterrorism and Countering
Violent Extremism Bureau to our national security. Created in
1972 in response to the Munich Olympics attack, the Bureau
forges partnerships with foreign governments, multilateral
organizations, and NGO's, to coordinate and advance U.S.
counterterrorism objectives and enhance global security as well
as our own.
The mission of the Bureau is more important today than
ever. Terrorist networks today are far vaster and more
resilient than they were on September 11, 2001. The simple fact
remains that there are more al-Qaeda fighters today than there
were before 9/11. The evil ideology that inspired the hijackers
today is more popular than it was at the time of the hijacks.
It inspired thousands to travel to Syria and Iraq. It animated
the brutal terrorist Statelet that called itself the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria. The global jihadist movement today is
greater than anytime since Bin Laden could have ever imagined.
Fortunately, ISIS has lost control of all of its territory
it once held, but it is far from defeated. A Pentagon report
from earlier this year noted, quote, that, ``absent sustained
pressure, ISIS could likely resurge in Syria within 6 to 12
months and regain limited territory.''
At the same time, Iran is continuing to live up to the
title of No. 1 State sponsor of terrorism. I applaud the Trump
administration for taking a hard line against the mullahs in
Tehran and their support for the terrorist groups throughout
the world.
Chairman Deutch and I have just returned from a delegation
with his very talented and involved son Cole that visited
Argentina to mark the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the
AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. Iran is
responsible for that attack which killed 85 innocent people. No
one has ever been held accountable.
Iran is sponsoring terrorist militia proxies in nearly
every Middle Eastern battlefield today. In Yemen, they have
provided game-changing support to the Houthi rebels,
effectively destabilizing the country and perpetuating the
humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.
In Syria, Iran's Hezbollah henchmen and Pakistani and
Afghani mercenaries put their lives on the line to prop up the
Assad butcherous regime. And in Iraq, they fund an array of
militias who do their bidding. The list goes on and on.
And I am grateful for the administration's designation of
an Iranian-backed militia in Iraq earlier this year. This is
just the beginning. It is time we call the Badr Organization
and AAH what they really are, terrorist groups doing Iran's
bidding in Iraq.
I applaud the White House's National Security for
Counterterrorism Strategy. It correctly frames the battle in
terms of an enduring challenge that must be managed to protect
the homeland, instead of a mission that has a beginning and an
end.
But I am concerned that the focus on great power
competition will distract the United States from the very real
terrorist threat. We are in a global war on terrorism, and this
will be a generational battle, whether we like it or not. There
is no doubt that our geopolitical rivals, Russia and China,
pose serious challenges to our national security, but it is the
threat of terrorism that is, indeed, enduring. We are going to
have to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. We simply
cannot afford to be caught asleep at the wheel again.
Ambassador Sales, thank you for your important work and
being here today. We look forward to your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
And without objection, all members may have 5 days to
submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the
record, subject to the length limitations in the rules.
It is now my honor to introduce our witness, Ambassador
Nathan Sales. Ambassador Sales was sworn in on August 10, 2017,
as the Coordinator for Counterterrorism with the rank and
status of Ambassador-at-large. He leads the State Department's
Counterterrorism Bureau and serves as the principal advisor to
the Secretary of State on international counterterrorism
matters.
Before joining the State Department, Ambassador Sales was a
tenured law professor, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy at the Department of Homeland Security, and served at
the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice, where
he worked on counterterrorism policy and judicial
confirmations, and received the Attorney General's Award for
Exceptional Service and the Attorney General's Distinguished
Service Award.
Thank you, Ambassador Sales, for being here today. I will
remind you to please limit your testimony to 5 minutes. And
without objection, your prepared written statement will be made
a part of the record. Thank you so much for being here,
Ambassador Sales.
STATEMENT OF HON. NATHAN SALES, COORDINATOR FOR
COUNTERTERRORISM, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE, BUREAU OF
COUNTERTERRORISM AND COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Sales. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Deutch, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you today. I am happy to be here to discuss the State
Department's counterterrorism priorities, our FY 2020 budget
request, and our efforts to protect our country from terrorist
threats.
The threats we face today are more complex than ever
before. We have destroyed the false ISIS caliphate in Syria and
Iraq, but now we need to stop ISIS from continuing the fight
from its networks and branches around the world. Meanwhile, al-
Qaeda has taken advantage of the world's recent focus on ISIS
to quietly reconstitute its capabilities. Today, its network is
as strong as it has ever been.
Iran remains the world's worst State sponsor of terrorism.
It has dedicated about $1 billion a year to support terrorist
proxies across the globe, including Hezbollah. Iran can and
does strike anywhere. We were reminded of this last week in
Buenos Aires, where I joined Secretary Pompeo and others in
commemorating the 25th anniversary of Hezbollah's bombing of
the AMIA Jewish Community Center.
As the threats we face to continue to evolve, the United
States and our partners increasingly will need to rely on
civilian sector counterterrorism tools. Counterterrorism is not
just a problem that needs military solutions; it is a problem
that requires civilian sector solutions as well.
And the administration's 2020 budget request includes more
than $241 million to sustain a number of vital programs. Those
include the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, or CTPF, the
Antiterrorism Assistance Program, the Terrorist Interdiction
Program, as well as our CVE efforts. This will enable us to
advance key priorities which include building law enforcement
capacity to investigate and prosecute terrorists; enhancing
aviation and border security; countering the financing of
terrorism, and combating terrorist radicalization and
recruitment.
The fight against terrorism is not a battle that we can win
on our own. We need capable and willing partners to play their
part in confronting this global scourge. Our budget request
represents an investment in the CT capabilities of our partners
on the front lines. Our goal is for them to be able to confront
the terrorist threats they face without needing to rely on the
United States for continued assistance.
While we are ready to help our partners fight the terrorist
threat before it reaches our shores, we are also asking them to
increase their own commitment of resources to this fight. Since
the Trump administration began to emphasize equitable burden-
sharing more than 2 years ago, some of our partners have
stepped up in important ways, but there is more that they can
and should be doing.
Let me review some of our main counterterrorism efforts.
First, increasing our partners' ability to investigate and
prosecute terrorists for the crimes they have committed. One
example is our use of CTPF funds to develop the Somalia Police
Force joint investigative teams. These teams have investigated
more than 400 terrorist attacks, resulting in more than 100
convictions.
We are also promoting the use of battlefield evidence in
civilian settings. Battlefield evidence can be crucial to
convicting terrorists, including foreign terrorist fighters who
have been captured and are in custody in Syria. Let me pause
for a moment on that theme.
I should note that the CT Bureau has taken the lead in
pushing nations to repatriate and prosecute their FTFs. We
assess that that is the most effective way to prevent these
battle-hardened terrorists from returning to the fight. While
some countries have responded, others continue to refuse. Let
me speak plainly. Hoping that others will solve this problem
for you is not a recipe for success.
The second priority is stopping terrorist travel. Over the
past year, we have expanded the PISCES system. That stands for
Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation
System. In February, the Afghanistan border police were able to
arrest a senior Taliban member, Abdul Jalil Haqqani, when he
triggered a match in PISCES.
More broadly, CT promotes effective screening and
watchlisting around the world. We are pushing ICAO to adopt a
standard for using passenger name record data to screen
travelers, and we would like to see that in place by the end of
this year. We are also leading an effort to extend access to
INTERPOL data bases at ports of entry in 60 key countries by
2021.
Third, terrorist designations. We continue to hit
terrorists and their sponsors in the wallet by making it harder
for them to raise money and move it through the international
financial system. Since January 2017, the State Department has
completed more than 100 terrorism-related designations actions.
That includes 43 actions against ISIS-related individuals and
entities. We have also announced 30 actions related to al-
Qaeda, 12 related to Hezbollah, and 13 related to other Iran-
backed terrorists.
In April, Secretary Pompeo designated Iran's IRGC,
including its Quds Force, as a foreign terrorist organization.
This is the first time the U.S. has ever designated part of
another government as an FTO. This unprecedented step will help
us starve the Iranian regime of the resources it uses in its
deadly campaign of terrorism around the world.
We continue to urge other countries to designate Hezbollah
in its entirety and reject the false distinction between its
military wing and a purportedly political wing. Just last week,
Argentina became the first country in South America to do so,
and we applaud it for its leadership. Argentina's action comes
on the heels of the decision by the United Kingdom in May to
designate Hezbollah in its entirety as well.
We also work closely with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
to integrate the Rewards for Justice Program with our terrorist
designations. In November 2018, we announced the $5 million
reward for information leading to the identification or
location of Khalid al-Batarfi, a senior regional leader for al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Finally, we are addressing terrorists' ability to
radicalize and recruit by bolstering our CVE efforts. For 2020,
we are requesting a substantial increase in funding for our CVE
programming, nearly 60 percent above last year's request. Show
me what you spend money on, and I will show you what you value.
Finally, we are addressing terrorists' ability to
radicalize. I said that already. In the CVE space, we work to
combat the underlying ideology that breeds terrorism. We are
partnering with government officials, private sector actors,
religious figures, and community leaders to help craft counter-
narratives that are capable of turning people away from a path
toward radicalization. In my written testimony, you will see
examples of where these and many other efforts have yielded
concrete and tangible results.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, we greatly appreciate the
resources that Congress has appropriated to us as we execute
this important mission. We have made responsible, effective use
of those resources. They will help ensure that our partners
remain committed to our common fight and have the tools they
need to counter the evolving terrorist threat.
I look forward to your questions and to our conversation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Sales follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Ambassador Sales, for your
testimony.
We will now move to member questions. Under the 5-minute
rule, I will begin, followed by Ranking Member Wilson, and
then, we will alternate between the parties.
Ambassador Sales, I wanted, also, to pick up where you and
Mr. Wilson left off on the topic of Hezbollah. I would like to
commend you and the Bureau for your work that led to Argentina
designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. As the
ranking member pointed out, we were proudly part of a
delegation also in Buenos Aires marking 25 years since the AMIA
bombing and applauding Argentina for the designation.
I was also glad to see that in the joint communique of the
Ministerial Conference for the Fight Against Terrorism 16
countries expressed concern about the activities of Hezbollah's
network in the Western Hemisphere. In your opinion, what are
the most important factors in securing those diplomatic
victories? What are you doing? How can we be helpful? And in
the victories thus far, do they offer any lessons for
convincing other countries to designate and call out all of
Hezbollah for their terrorist activities?
Ambassador Sales. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I would say
that success has many fathers and many mothers. A lot of people
have been working this file for a very long time. There is one
other deliverable that I would emphasize from the Ministerial
that I think is also important. And that is that the United
States has agreed with Argentina and Brazil and Paraguay to
launch a new regional security mechanism that will be focusing
on Hezbollah financing and other activity in the tri-border
region of those three countries, as well as organized crime and
the connection between organized crime and transnational
terrorism. We look to build on the successes of the three-plus-
one security dialogue, which has been dormant for more than a
decade.
I think, going forward, the challenge will be to ensure
that countries in South America have equipped themselves with
the same legal tools that the United States has, and that now
Argentina has, to make designations, to impose sanctions on
terrorist groups like Hezbollah and cutoff their money.
Argentina's decision to designate Hezbollah and, also, its
decision to adopt a legal framework is a model for the rest of
South America, and we are encouraging our partners to follow
their lead.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much.
The National Strategy for Counterterrorism States, and I
quote, ``The strategy will protect the United States against
all terrorists that threaten our country. We will not focus on
a single organization, but we'll counter all terrorists with
the ability and the intent to harm the United States, our
citizens, and our interests abroad.''
Ambassador Sales, how does white national terrorism fit
into this approach, and what is the administration doing to
meet the challenge of that sort of terrorism?
Ambassador Sales. Well, Chairman, I will start with the
strategy that you began with as well. It begins with clearly
identifying the threat, and this administration has clearly
identified the threat. In the National Strategy for
Counterterrorism, we specifically call out racially motivated
extremism, racially motivated terrorism, as a problem that
merits further attention, a problem that threatens our
interests here at home and abroad. We were the first
administration to ever include a reference to racially
motivated terrorism in a National CT Strategy. So, we are
clear-eyed about this threat.
Let me say a few words about the division of labor. The
State Department plays a role here alongside domestic agencies,
such as the FBI and such as Homeland Security, both of which
have sent representatives up to Congress to testify as to the
actions that they are taking to confront this threat.
The State Department's role here is the one that I will
speak to at greater length. We are looking at at least three
lines of effort to address this challenge.
First of all, we are looking at the extent to which
racially motivated, ethnically motivated, religiously motivated
terrorist groups operate as international networks or seek to
cross international boundaries.
A second thing that we are focusing on is the risk of a
cycle of escalation between jihadist terrorist groups that
might commit an attack, racially motivated groups that commit
an attack in response or in retaliation, setting off a cycle.
And a third area that my team and I are focusing on is the
extent to which racially motivated terrorist groups are
learning from the techniques and tactics of jihadist groups
like ISIS and al-Qaeda, such as online radicalization, such as
communications, and such as fundraising.
I just returned--I know you are short on time, but there is
one last point I wanted to share with you.
Mr. Deutch. All right. Good.
Ambassador Sales. In June of this year, I was in London for
3 days of meetings on this very topic with our like-minded
partners, Western European countries that focus on the
counterterrorism challenges that we focus on. And there was a
consensus that this is a problem that requires more attention.
I can also tell you our partners are just now beginning to
address this problem in the same way that we are. So, it is
something that we will be working on more going forward.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate that, Ambassador Sales. I hope
that you will keep us apprised on efforts that you are
undertaking and that we can participate in with you in
collaborating with our like-minded international partners who
can help us address this.
Ambassador Sales. I am happy to do so. My team has offered
a classified Members' level briefing, and we are working to get
that scheduled for sometime this fall. So, I would be happy to
brief you at greater length.
Mr. Deutch. Great. We will look forward to that. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, you are recognized.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Ambassador, again, thank you for your service and your
testimony. It has really been very helpful.
As you cited, last week Argentina, a very dynamic country
of extraordinary citizens, designated Hezbollah a foreign
terrorist organization. What is the significance of this
designation and what are the prospects of other Latin American
countries making similar moves?
Ambassador Sales. Well, thanks for the question.
I think there are two important dimensions to this. First,
the symbolic and messaging dimension and, second, the practical
dimension. The messaging aspect of this is clear. The Southern
Hemisphere is awakening to the reality that Hezbollah is a
global terrorist threat. It is not the defender of Lebanon, as
it purports to be. It is a terrorist organization that operates
as a proxy for the regime in Tehran.
Just as important I think are the practical consequences of
this designation. It equips Argentina's law enforcement and
financial sector, financial regulators, with the tools they
need to cut off the flow of money to Hezbollah and its
facilitators. We would like to see more countries in the region
follow their lead.
Mr. Wilson. And I hope every effort is made to help the
countries and Argentina itself. The prosecutor Nisman who was
proceeding with the investigation was assassinated. And
actually, there has been no prosecution. And so, any way that
we could help countries around the world to identify who the
perpetrators are, and then, bring them to justice, it certainly
would be helpful.
Ambassador Sales. If I may on that point----
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. I strongly agree with you,
Mr. Ranking Member, and that is why the Secretary of State
announced a Reward for Justice in the amount of $7 million for
Salman Rauf Salman, who was the on-the-ground orchestrator of
the AMIA attack in 1994.
Mr. Wilson. And that was front page of the newspapers in
Argentina. So, congratulations on your and Secretary Pompeo's
success.
The United Kingdom is considering making it illegal for
citizens to travel to certain countries or regions within a
country that are designated as terrorist areas, save havens.
What are your thoughts on these proposals, and would it make
sense for the U.S. to consider similar prohibitions?
Ambassador Sales. Well, I think every country needs to have
a law on the books that enables them to hold accountable people
who fight for ISIS or other terrorist organizations. Here in
the United States, our prosecutors have used the material
support statute to prosecute folks who have traveled to Syria
to fight for ISIS or attempted to do so.
I do not have particular policy advice for our friends in
the United Kingdom, but we applaud, as a general matter, their
efforts to make sure that their statute books are updated to
reflected the nature of the threat we face.
Mr. Wilson. Additionally, groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda
continue to use social media for recruiting and virtually
guiding attacks. How would you grade social media companies in
their efforts to block extremist content? What is the CT
Bureau's strategy to address social media companies based
outside the United States that are taking insufficient action,
like Telegram?
Ambassador Sales. I think they have made progress, but I
also think they have some more work to do. The internet service
was--let me take a step back. The U.S. approach for many years
has been to support tech companies' voluntary removal of
content that violates their terms of service or that violates
U.S. law. And we have been encouraged to see Silicon Valley do
more to remove content from their platforms. They recently
formed an organization known as the GIFCT, or Global Internet
Forum to Counter Terrorism, in which established players in the
market are able to share techniques with new entrants about how
to spot terrorist content online and the most effective
techniques for identifying it and removing it. We would like to
see more. We would like to see the content come down more
quickly. We would like to see information shared more
extensively. But we are pleased to see that the industry has
taken some important steps.
Mr. Wilson. I am really grateful that I have had two sons
serve in Iraq and am just so hopeful for a free and democratic
Iraq. But it concerns me that there have been reports that U.S.
foreign assistance has been dispersed to officially Iranian-
backed militias tied to the IRGC. What is being done to make
sure that American taxpayers' money is not being used
ultimately to attack America?
Ambassador Sales. I share the concern, Mr. Ranking Member.
Iran-aligned militias exist throughout Iraq. They have proven
themselves to be a threat to the United States, and they have
proven themselves to be a threat to the Iraqi government as
well.
Let me just say, nothing is more important to the State
Department than force protection. If our diplomats are serving
abroad, if our soldiers are serving forward, it is essential to
make sure that they are protected from violence or the threat
of violence.
What we have done about this at the State Department, we
have imposed terrorism-related sanctions on a number of these
organizations, such as Kata'ib Hezbollah which operates in
Iraq, such as HAN which operates in Iraq. We just designated
HAN several months ago, and we are continuing to look at other
organizations aligned with Iran that might meet the standards
for terrorist designations.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Sales. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Sherman, you are recognized.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
I want to commend you for designating the IRGC as a foreign
terrorist organization. We fight terrorism, but I am not a fan
of the change of name because I think fighting violent
extremism, dealing with the ideology is the most important way
to fight terrorism. Once there is already people plotting with
guns and with explosives, and you intercept them, or you do
not, that is already almost too late. You want to stop when
they are even thinking that that would be a way for them to
dedicate their efforts. That is why I think the most important
thing we do is the broadcasting and the work on the internet to
get the right message out.
I am familiar with the State Department over the last 22
years, very bright people who go to very, very good colleges
and universities and grad school programs. But there are people
in my district that may not have a degree in diplomacy but
understand the culture of a country from which a lot of the
terrorism comes. Do you have the flexibility to hire people
because they understand Saudi Arabia or Iran, because they have
lived there, they have grown up there? Or do you pretty much
just have to hire people that studied about Iran when they
first got to college?
Ambassador Sales. No, Congressman, we want the best and the
brightest.
Mr. Sherman. But do you have the flexibility to hire people
based on their understanding of a culture and the language as a
native speaker, as an understander, as someone who grew up in
the culture, rather than somebody who can prove it because they
have a master's degree?
Ambassador Sales. Yes, we do.
Mr. Sherman. OK, good.
Ambassador Sales. And I say it as somebody who does not
have a master's degree in foreign relations.
Mr. Sherman. What?
Ambassador Sales. I say this as somebody who does not have
a master's degree in foreign relations.
Mr. Sherman. OK. And then, for the record, I would like you
to describe what somebody should do if they want to enter the
chat rooms and combat the violent extremists, but they do not
want to be thought of--they do not want the FBI knocking on
their door and saying, ``Hey, you're in the chat room. Time to
be deported.'' What can be done by people to register with or
cooperate with law enforcement, so that they can be volunteers
in the chat rooms?
The U.S. dollar has played a critical role in everything we
have done. It is the reason why Iran is exporting only half a
million barrels of oil. And you recognize that. You have got a
whole program of counterterrorism finance and assistance to
other countries to help them develop financial intelligence
units. The people working against you most effectively are
those creating crypto currencies. The administration, both
Mnuchin and Trump, have denounced those crypto currencies. They
are going to undermine your efforts. You are not going to be
able to do this. Are we going to see from the administration
proposed legislation to ban crypto currencies or just the press
releases?
Ambassador Sales. Well, Congressman, it is an important
topic. Terrorists are very adaptive. When you cutoff one avenue
for them to raise money, they look for others.
Mr. Sherman. And we know that Hamas advertises for Bitcoin
contributions. We know that the advocates of Bitcoin brag about
how this is a device to escape the power of the U.S. Federal
Government. And we know that Zuckerberg is planning to allow
people to trade in his currency--I call it the ``Zuck buck''--
without anyone actually knowing who they are.
But I want to shift to one other question. The United
Kingdom ended this fictitious designation, their distinction
between Hezbollah's military and political wing. Argentina took
a similar step. What is the State Department doing to get other
countries to recognize that Hezbollah is Hezbollah?
Ambassador Sales. Hezbollah is Hezbollah, and we can take
their word for it. We do not have to look at their finances to
know that they are a terrorist organization, root and branch.
We can simply look at what their leaders say.
So, we are holding up to other countries the example of the
U.K. and the example recently set by the Argentines. I cannot
get into the details of confidential diplomatic negotiations
here, but I can----
Mr. Sherman. Well, I would hope that you would involve
Members of Congress. These Ambassadors and foreign ministers
come to us all the time. And if you can identify those that
should hear from those on this committee and subcommittee that
deal with them, please allow us to be helpful in that.
And I will yield back.
Ambassador Sales. Well, thank you for that, and we will
certainly take you up on that kind offer.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you.
Mr. Kinzinger, you are recognized.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Ambassador, thanks for your good work and for being
here.
There is certainly a military component to
counterterrorism. I think it is a central component. If
somebody is radicalized and they have made it clear that they
want to destroy the United States, like a group of ISIS, then
they deserve to be on the receiving end of U.S. military power,
and certainly we are in and we will continue to be.
But I also think there is a social component, which is
really where your kind of bread and butter comes in. And my
concern, when you look at the situation in Syria, for instance,
I think our inaction there has been, frankly, a big shame on
our country in the long term. I think we have a situation where
terrorists have been recruited, not out of necessarily an
affection toward that thought process, but because they see no
other alternative to a guy that killed their dad and their
grandparents, and their kids in some cases. And so, they have
radicalized.
And so, my concern with Syria specifically is, when you
think of the 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-year-olds right now that are in the
refugee camps in Lebanon and Turkey and Jordan, and displaced
anywhere else, one of the best ways to prevent, whether it is
somebody being recruited into a gang in the United States or
into a terrorist group, is to give them hope and opportunity,
and to give them a future, because they are much less likely to
be radicalized.
I appreciate your budget proposal, and I think we will be
very supportive of it, but what in there are you guys focusing
on in terms of preventing the next generation, the 7-, 8-, 9-
year-olds? Because they are going to be the ones that have to
actually defeat terrorism because they are going to do it
within their own religion.
Ambassador Sales. No, I agree with that, and this really
goes to what we are trying to do with our CVE programming. And
I want to agree with what Congressman Sherman said a moment
ago. By the time they have strapped on the SVEST, it is too
late to change them from a path to radicalization and violence.
We have got to get to them earlier.
So, we have done a number of different programs in the CVE
space, and our request for a 60 percent increase in CVE-related
funding will help us expand these efforts. One of the things we
have done is create an online graphic novel that depicts the
realities of life under ISIS's brutal rule and it shows would-
be recruits the effects that their decision to travel to Syria
would have on their families, on their mothers, fathers, their
siblings. It was seen by 17 million people, and as a result, we
saw a really dramatic decline in viewers' support for terrorist
organizations and terrorist ideology. Support for radical
ideology went down 40 percent among the 17 million people who
saw this, and support for specific organizations went down even
more dramatically, by 50 percent.
So, that is the kind of battle of ideas that I think has to
be a central part of any campaign against terrorists, and that
is the sort of work that my Bureau wants to do with the budget
that Congress entrusts us with.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, I think about it because I think the
difficulty of your job--and frankly, the military, too--is you
can never quantify what did not happen that could have
happened. For instance, we have debates in here with people
that want to cut the U.S. military, of people that want to pull
the troops out of everywhere around the world and become,
basically, neoisolationists. And the reality is, it is hard to
quantify what actually has been prevented by, for instance,
fighting terrorists where they exist instead of where we exist.
So, I would continue to encourage you to look at that next
generation, because I think, like the cold war, you know, it
took decades to win, it ultimately was won, yes, by our
military buildup economically, but it was won by the ideas
behind the Iron Curtain that eventually overthrew the yoke of
communism. And the same will happen here.
I want to just touch on a couple of other issues. It may
not end up being a question because I have limited time. But
Josh Rogin today put out a piece in the Washington Post about
Rukban in Syria that is 30,000 people under the protection of
the United States near the Tanf area, and how we are not
feeding them, and that we are actually in negotiation right now
with Russia to help feed them.
I just want to put it out there on the record that I think
those kinds of things--and they may be out of your purview--but
those kinds of things will actually help to recruit terrorists
in the future, when they see the United States not feeding an
area of people that are desperate and hungry and starving, when
400 meters away U.S. troops are fed. I think those are basic
things you can do to eliminate that population.
Iran also, again, as everybody else has, I want to commend
you on what you have done with Hezbollah. I think seeing
Iranian investment in terrorism prior to the nuclear deal,
during the nuclear deal, and post-pullout of the United States
of the nuclear deal, I think you would definitely see that
those investments track along that action. And we have seen,
for instance, in Lebanon much less Iranian investment in
Hezbollah there because they simply do not have the money.
And the last point I want to make in my 17 seconds is
Afghanistan. I think the United States is making a strategic
mistake by negotiating with the Taliban without including the
Afghan government, because the Taliban are a terrorist
organization. You cannot trust the Taliban. Eighty percent of
the Afghan people support the United States being involved in
Afghanistan, and I think to leave the Afghan government out of
those negotiations is a terminal mistake.
So, I know some of that is not in your purview, but I
wanted to get that on the record. Thank you so much for your
service and for being here.
And I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Kinzinger.
Mr. Keating, you are recognized.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Ambassador, for being here today and the
work you are doing.
It was not long ago that a group of us in Congress went
around sort of tracking the foreign terrorist fighters and
where they came from originally. Clearly, one of the areas with
the greatest influx of these recruited terrorist fighters was
the European area as a whole and the thousands of people that
were there.
I am just curious in terms of coordination with Europe,
what are they doing there? What is the EU doing? What are
countries perhaps doing individually to try and deal with this?
And how are we coordinating with them?
Ambassador Sales. Well, thanks for the question. I think
the answer is not enough. As you pointed out, Western Europe
was a pretty fertile ground when it comes to ISIS recruiting.
Thousands of them traveled to Syria to fight for the false
caliphate, and a number of them are now in custody of our
coalition partners.
Our policy in the Trump administration is that every
country has a responsibility to repatriate their citizens and
prosecute them for the crimes they have committed. We think
that is the most effective way to ensure that they never return
to the battlefield. Because if given the opportunity, they
certainly will look for ways to continue the fight.
This is something the United States has lived up to. We
have repatriated five fighters, four men, one woman, and they
have faced charges here in the United States. It is not too
much to expect that Western European countries that have deep
pockets and courts that are accustomed to trying difficult
cases will be able to do the same.
Other countries around the world with fewer resources and
fewer capabilities have been able to repatriate and prosecute.
Kazakhstan, for instance, has brought back several hundred of
its citizens. Kosovo has brought back a number of its citizens
as well. We would like to see that kind of activity in Western
Europe, too.
Mr. Keating. Yes. Now, as we mentioned before, we are
really fighting an ideology and an idea. We did a great job, I
think, with our allies working on the caliphate, reducing the
geography there. But it is safe to say, is it, that there is
going to be more incubation of other terrorists, maybe not the
scope that we had during the last several years where there was
a caliphate to go to, but is this still ongoing?
The prisons, particularly in Europe, are a great incubator
of conversion to this kind of extremist ideology. So, in terms
of the current efforts in preventing future terrorist fighters
or extremists, anything going on in Europe with that that you
are aware of? And are we coordinating with them in any respect?
Ambassador Sales. We are, yes. I think our European allies
are well aware of the vulnerability that they face to
radicalization in their societies. The countries that saw the
greatest number of their citizens travel to ISIS are, in no
particular order, the U.K., France, Belgium, and Germany,
measured per capita.
And I think that the outflow of fighters was a real wake-up
call for our European partners that we need to be doing more at
the front-end of a terrorist life cycle.
Mr. Keating. Yes.
Ambassador Sales. We need to engage them as they begin to
take the steps toward radicalization.
Mr. Keating. Along those lines--and I apologize; I only
have a minute and a half left--but, along those lines, this
committee and the full committee have worked hard to engage
women in prevention of this kind of extremist behavior and
growth of this ideology. They are in a wonderful place, in the
better place I think, as a mother, as a sister, to see this
really transpire and to deal with it. Are we engaging women? I
mean, we have done a lot with Women, Peace, and Security, and
the administration is joining in that effort. But is this an
area of concern? Is this an area of focus for the
administration, engaging women in this prevention?
Ambassador Sales. Absolutely. And let me give you a couple
of examples of some of the things we are doing. Women can be
victims of terrorism. They can be perpetrators of terrorism.
They can be observers of terrorism and serve as a sort of early
warning mechanism, as radicalization begins to take place.
So, some of the things that we have done to address this
challenge, the set of challenges, in Southeast Asia and in the
Balkans, we have a number of programs where we work with
mothers to help them spot the signs of radicalization in family
members, so that they are able to intervene before it becomes
too late.
It is also the case that women are able to gain access to
certain communities that males may not be able to gain access
to. And that is why in Iraq, for instance, we recently trained
an all-female class of police recruits, because we assess that
they will be able to make connections with parts of the
population that is unique. And we are doing that sort of work,
also, in places like Niger and the Philippines as well. So,
this a top priority.
Mr. Keating. Thank you. I have been there for some of those
trainings, as a matter of fact, a few years ago.
I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Keating.
Mr. Mast, you are recognized.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it.
Sir, I would love to just start with something that has
been spoken about a lot on both sides, and it is the underlying
ideology, the under ideology, the caliphate. And if you could
just be a little bit more specific and identify for us what is
the underlying ideology that we are all combating that breeds
terrorism?
Ambassador Sales. Well, thanks for the question. So, let me
start with ISIS, in particular----
Mr. Mast. Please do.
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. Because there are obviously
variations among different groups. ISIS, in particular,
advances a supremacist and intolerant vision of Islam that sees
people who are Sunni but practice differently as inferior, and
that certainly sees Shia Muslims, Jews, Christians, and people
of other faiths or no faiths, as ``the other''. And the
ideology further prescribes the use of violence to achieve a
desired political end-State of a caliphate, particularly the
use of violence against people who do not subscribe to ISIS's
teachings. That is it in a nutshell, Congressman.
Mr. Mast. So, beyond somebody committing a violent act,
which is a pretty telltale sign that somebody has been
radicalized, what are some of these signs of radicalization
that you have been speaking about and others have been asking
about?
Ambassador Sales. Yes. So, other signs of radicalization
that are short of acts of violence or support for violence
would be support for supremacists or intolerant theological
interpretations. The notion that, if you are a Christian, if
you are a Jew, if you are a Shia, you are less than fully
human. You are not entitled to the same legal protections as
others. You should be shunned. You should be subjected to
various forms of pressure. Those are some of the signs that are
not always associated with violence, but that can lead to steps
down the road to violence.
Mr. Mast. So, where would you say, in looking at this
ideology and some of these signs of radicalization, do we see
our partners lacking in capabilities in combating terrorism, in
combating these that are becoming radicalized? And then, I
would say, even more specifically, which partners are lacking
in those capabilities? Obviously, there is a difference between
lacking in capability and lacking in commitment. And so, if it
leads you to touch upon that as well, I would encourage you to
do so.
Ambassador Sales. Sure. I think a lot of countries have
some work to do here. I would say that the United States has
been relatively successful compared to some of our peer
countries in combating ideology that terrorists use to
radicalize and recruit.
One of the things that we have been trying to do in the CT
Bureau is to partner with authorities who can speak credibly
and offer alternatives to this radicalizing and intolerant
ideology. So, we work with members of civil society and
religious leaders in places like Jordan, places like Morocco,
Indonesia. These are all parts of the world that have
longstanding and deep roots in a version of Islam that
emphasizes pluralism and tolerance and respect for difference
and coexistence. And those are the sorts of voices that I think
we in the United States, and other countries that are
struggling with radicalization, need to be partnering with,
because they have a credible account that Western governments
simply cannot match.
Mr. Mast. So, are they lacking capability or commitment
then?
Ambassador Sales. I think it is not so much commitment. I
think there is a recognition of the problem and there is a will
to address the problem. I think some countries are--overwhelmed
is too strong a term, but worried about their resources and
their ability to reach the vulnerable populations, which is why
I think partnering with those authentic voices is the most
effective approach.
Mr. Mast. So, I want to go to back to this a little bit
more. When we talk about U.S. taxpayer dollars, looking for
partners that need assistance with their capabilities, and us
partnering with them, so that we can, hopefully, prevent
attacks here at home, who are some of these specific partners
that need help with their capabilities? And where do our
resources go to help with a capability, not a lack of
commitment, based upon the ideology within their own
population?
Ambassador Sales. Well, I can tell you that we are very
active in this CVE work in places like West Africa, East
Africa, the Balkans, Southeast Asia. These are all regions
where countries may not have the same resources that the U.S.
has, but they have the will to address the problem and the will
to be a partner of the U.S. So, I think we are seeing some good
returns on investment there.
Mr. Mast. My time is expiring. I thank you for the time,
Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Mast.
Mr. Allred, you are recognized.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for being here.
I want to begin by talking about ISIS. Despite the claim
from the President that ISIS has been defeated, as you noted in
your testimony, we have an ongoing fight here. And I recently
met with the regional representative for Kurdistan. In that
meeting, she expressed her concerns about the resurgence of
ISIS near Kirkuk in Iraq in the disputed territories between
Kurdistan and Iraq, and in that area where neither is able to
fully exert themselves.
And there is an agreement there. DoD is onboard that the
Kurds and the Iraqis should work together to combat ISIS there.
But we need, I think, to apply more pressure to Baghdad to make
sure that they get onboard with this and that they help our
Kurdish allies there. Can you address that?
Ambassador Sales. Yes, I am happy to. So, as you rightly
pointed out, the physical caliphate in Syria and Iraq has been
destroyed, but that does not mean that the fight against ISIS
is done. It means we are moving into a new phase.
I think the next phase has two components. I have spoken a
bit about using civilian tools to attack ISIS networks around
the world, but there is another component to it as well. That
is, in theater, in Syria and Iraq, making sure that the
remnants of ISIS are not able to reorganize themselves into an
insurgency and carry on the fight there on the ground.
So, there is a military dimension to that, but there is
also a diplomatic and civilian-side dimension to that as well.
We need to work with the Iraqi government and the Kurdish
officials, of whom you have spoken, to make sure that we do not
let the boot off of ISIS's neck. We have got them on the
ground, but we cannot let up now.
So, what specifically do we need to be doing? Well, we need
to maintain our training of Iraqi military, Iraqi law
enforcement, and others who are there on the front lines to
make sure ISIS cannot resurge.
Mr. Allred. Yes. Well, and I will also just ask you to
apply whatever pressure you can to the Iraqi government to work
with the Kurds, especially there in that region, in those
disputed territories, to combine forces, do what we can. I
agree with you, we do not want to let them resurface.
And I want to also address a couple of the aspects of ISIS
that have been the hardest to combat; namely, their
sophisticated media apparatus and their financing. And you
addressed it a little bit in your testimony, your written
testimony. Can you discuss what our plan is going forward to
try to combat those two elements of their sustained capability
to exist and operate?
Ambassador Sales. Sure, I am happy to. I have spoken a bit
about the ideology and the CVE efforts that we are trying to
pursue to prevent radicalization and recruitment. So, let me
say a bit about financing and ways of facilitating terrorist
attacks.
I mentioned that we have designated 43 ISIS-related
individuals and entities since 2018--since 2017. That is a good
start, but we have got more work to do. ISIS was able to raise
an extraordinary amount of money through a variety of different
means when it held a so-called caliphate. It could tax a
population. It could exploit natural resources. It could
launder money.
Some of those revenue streams have gone away, but others
are still there. And so, ISIS operating as an organized crime
syndicate, we need to think about it that way. Raising money
through money laundering, raising money through illicit trade,
including in narcotics. And so, we have to attack those nodes
in the ISIS fundraising network through a combination of things
like unilateral sanctions, sanctions at the United Nations, in
which our domestic efforts are amplified by international
pressure, and by bilateral engagement with other countries to
encourage them to take the same kinds of actions that we are
taking.
One example of that that I would point to is the TFTC in
the Gulf, the Terrorism Financing Targeting Center, in which
the United States partners with a number of Gulf countries to
jointly issue designations. We have done some against Hezbollah
and the IRGC. We have also done some ISIS-related entities in
tandem with our Gulf partners. We would like to see more of
that.
Mr. Allred. And do you believe that you have the
authorities right now to conduct the additional pressure
campaigns that you are talking about there?
Ambassador Sales. I think we do, yes.
Mr. Allred. All right. OK, good. Well, I have only 30
seconds left, so I also want to just mention the Iraqi Shia
militias that are backed by the Iranians. This is another thing
that was raised for me in my meeting with the Kurdish
representative and something that I think we need to keep our
eye on, make sure that we are not forgetting that. And I want
to commend some of the actions that have been taken in terms of
designating some of the Iranian elements as terrorist
organizations. So, thank you for that.
Ambassador Sales. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. All right. Thank you, Mr. Allred.
Mr. Watkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your time and insight.
How integral is the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism
Partnership to interagency efforts to combat terrorism in
Trans-Sahara Africa?
Ambassador Sales. I think it is important. The Sahel and
the Maghreb regions of Africa face a perfect storm of
challenges. You have a number of terrorist organizations that
are extremely active there, groups like JNIM, AQIM, ISIS West
Africa, ISIS Greater Sahara, Boko Haram. And coupled with that,
you have States that have in many cases porous borders, States
that do not have complete control over the periphery of their
territory, police forces that may not have the same
capabilities that we are accustomed to in the United States.
And so, the efforts that we are taking under the TSCTP and
other lines of effort I think are incredibly important. We need
to boost the capability of these States that are on the front
lines of the fight against ISIS affiliates and al-Qaeda
affiliates and other terrorist groups.
Mr. Watkins. And how is the Department of Defense, USAID,
the Department of State coordinating their programs, both in
the field and here in Washington?
Ambassador Sales. Well, we all have different comparative
advantages that we bring to the table. DoD, of course, is
second to none in providing assistance to partner military
forces. USAID focuses on the humanitarian and relief and
development dimensions. My Bureau focuses on building the
capacity of the institutions that nations need to counter the
terrorist threat more effectively--financial intelligence
units, border security officials, police, judges, prosecutors,
and so on.
Mr. Watkins. Going back to al-Qaeda and ISIS, how do those
two threats compare to each other?
Ambassador Sales. Boy, that is--how much time do you have,
Congressman?
Mr. Watkins. I have got 3 minutes.
Ambassador Sales. OK, I will be concise.
The world's attention has been focused on ISIS in recent
years. They grab the headlines. But we should not be fooled
into thinking that al-Qaeda is less of a threat than it has
been. As some of your colleagues have pointed out in today's
hearing, the number of AQ fighters today is greater than was
the case before 9/11. Al-Qaeda has been strategically patient.
They have been content to allow ISIS to absorb the brunt of the
counterterrorism pressure that the world has brought to bear.
But that does not mean they are out of the fight. Al-Qaeda
affiliates are extremely active, particularly in Africa. I
talked about AQIM and JNIM already. In the Horn, Al-Shabaab is
an extremely dangerous terrorist organization. They commit
attacks on a routine basis within Somalia. They also have shown
the ability to strike their neighbors, Kenya, in particular.
So, I would rate the threat from al-Qaeda has high and
underappreciated by the public.
Mr. Watkins. And what is the larger threat to the U.S.
homeland?
Ambassador Sales. I think they are both equal threats to
the U.S. homeland. They both have the capability and the intent
to hit us here at home.
Mr. Watkins. All right. I yield the balance of my time.
Thank you.
Ambassador Sales. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Watkins.
Mr. Malinowski, you are recognized.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
Ambassador Sales, you wrote an op-ed recently with
Ambassador Brownback on the Chinese Communist Party's
persecution of Muslims, which I thought was absolutely first-
rate. And in particular, you made the point that, quote, ``By
painting its human rights violations as a legitimate
counterterrorism effort, these abuses in China undermine the
global consensus on counterterrorism.'' Exactly right.
My question to you is, this is not just a Chinese
phenomena, though? You would agree that there are a number of
countries around the world that also paint their human rights
abuses as legitimate counterterrorism?
Ambassador Sales. Unfortunately, China is not unique in
that respect.
Mr. Malinowski. Right. Can you think of some others?
Ambassador Sales. I would be happy to share them with you
in a different setting, Congressman.
Mr. Malinowski. OK.
Ambassador Sales. But, yes, I can.
Mr. Malinowski. Well, I wanted to ask you, in particular--
there are so many examples--but I wanted to ask you, in
particular, about Egypt, where you have had tens of thousands
of people detained in horrific conditions in prison for mostly
the peaceful exercise of their political views, and many of
them prosecuted under counterterrorism laws. You have bloggers,
journalists, human rights activists prosecuted explicitly under
counterterrorism laws.
According to Amnesty International, at least 35 individuals
have recently been detained on charges of, quote, ``joining a
terrorist group, because they stood together in solidarity in a
small, peaceful protest against increased metro fares.'' Does
that help bolster the international consensus on
counterterrorism?
Ambassador Sales. Well, peaceful political protests and the
expression of dissident political views, that is fundamental to
what it means to be an American. The reason it is in the First
Amendment is because we care about freedom of speech and
expression and assembly more than any other.
Mr. Malinowski. Right. It is wrong, but would you also make
the same argument that you made about Chinese repression of
Uyghurs, that when it is justified as counterterrorism, it
undermines the global effort to identify and fight real
terrorism?
Ambassador Sales. So, I believe that States should use
their counterterrorism tools to confront actual terrorists. And
I would also say that the scope of the repression in China is
so vast and overwhelming that it sets it apart from other human
rights concerns that we have elsewhere in the world. We are
talking about----
Mr. Malinowski. Well, it is of enormous scale, but we are
talking about tens of thousands of people in Egypt as well, and
I would not underplay that.
Ambassador Sales. And I do not mean to, Congressman.
Mr. Malinowski. OK. Syria, I wanted to echo Representative
Kinzinger's points as well. We are seeing, as anyone would have
predicted, the resurgence of ISIS after the defeat of the
caliphate, driven, in part, at least in Syria, by perception
among Sunnis living under control of the SDF that they are not
being included in decisions; their rights are being violated.
Do we have a civil-military plan in Syria in the areas where
our troops are present to deal with that?
Ambassador Sales. We do. And I am happy to update you on
where things stand, but I am going to defer in the main to
Ambassador Jeffrey, who has the lead for the U.S. Government on
these questions.
Our vision for the end-State in Syria is fairly
straightforward. We want a Syria that is not a threat to its
neighbors or a threat to its own people. And for too long, the
Assad regime has been both.
The end-State we seek is one in which ISIS is defeated
enduringly, in which there is a political settlement, pursuant
to the applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions, and in
which human rights are respected. That is a vital U.S. national
security interest. And finally, an end-State in which all
Iranian-commanded forces are removed from Syria.
Mr. Malinowski. Understood, but I asked a much more
discrete question, and I would love it if you could get back to
me on exactly what the State Department is doing to ensure that
the SDF, which is our allied force, is not violating human
rights, because I think you would agree that has
counterterrorism implications.
Ambassador Sales. We would be happy to followup.
Mr. Malinowski. Finally, to get back to an issue that Mr.
Deutch raised, the massacre of Muslims in the mosque in
Christchurch, was that a terrorist act?
Ambassador Sales. Yes, it was, and the White House has
called it as such.
Mr. Malinowski. OK.
Ambassador Sales. May 15.
Mr. Malinowski. All right.
Ambassador Sales. Yes.
Mr. Malinowski. A little late, but----
Ambassador Sales. And National Security Advisor Bolton also
called it a terrorist attack in the immediate aftermath of the
terrorist attack.
Mr. Malinowski. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
Mr. Cicilline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
I want to begin where Mr. Malinowski left off. Since
September 11th, more Americans have been killed in the United
States by a white nationalist terrorist than by radical
Jihadist terrorists, and a number of attacks have already been
referenced in this hearing. So, I would really like to know
what--first of all, do you acknowledge that white national
terrorists are as much of a threat to Americans as radical
Jihadists?
Ambassador Sales. We recognize that it is a significant
terrorist threat. And you can turn to our National Strategy on
Counterterrorism, where we were the first administration ever
to specifically call out racially motivated terrorism as a
threat that needs to be confronted.
Mr. Cicilline. So, would you talk a little bit about how
your Bureau is using the countering violent extremism tools to
counter white national terrorists worldwide? And do you think
the Bureau can do more, should be doing more? What is the
current status of those efforts?
Ambassador Sales. Sure. So, let me say a word, first, to
situate what we are doing at the CT Bureau within the context
of the broader U.S. Government approach. When it comes to
racially motivated terrorists here in the United States,
domestic terrorists, as you know, that is a DHS and FBI
responsibility. Our responsibility at CT begins where the water
begins.
And so, the things that we are doing in the CVE space, in
particular, we have been engaging with internet companies, with
tech companies, about the removal of radicalizing content. One
of the things we have seen is that racially motivated
terrorists around the world are quick studies. They have
learned from ISIS and its use of social media to propagate
messages of hate and intolerance and violence. And so, we
engage social media companies about the need to remove content
that violates certainly law, but also their terms of service.
Mr. Cicilline. OK. In addition to that, what else?
Ambassador Sales. And so, another thing that we do is, with
the Strong Cities Network, which is a program that my Bureau
funds, we connect people and cities in the United States with
municipal officials overseas to exchange best practices for
confronting radicalization, including racially motivated
extremism.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Ambassador, as the Acting Under
Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights,
you are responsible for oversight of the Bureau of Democracy,
Rights, and Labor, is that right?
Ambassador Sales. That is correct.
Mr. Cicilline. And what type of work does the Bureau known
as DRL perform?
Ambassador Sales. Well, as Congressman Malinowski well
knows, it is the principal organ within the U.S. Government
that monitors and advocates for the promotion of human rights
around the world.
Mr. Cicilline. And I take it you have confidence in the
knowledge and the capabilities of the men and women who serve
in DRL to advise you and the Secretary on issues of human
rights?
Ambassador Sales. I certainly do, and if you could put in a
word with your Senate colleagues, we would love to have the
nominee confirmed to lead the office on a permanent basis.
Mr. Cicilline. And you are familiar with the Secretary of
State's recently announced Commission on Unalienable Rights?
Ambassador Sales. I am.
Mr. Cicilline. And so, you know that, according to the
notice, the purpose of this Commission is to, and I quote,
``provide fresh thinking about human rights discourse where
such discourse has departed from our Nation's founding
principles of natural law and natural rights.'' End quote. Were
you consulted or involved in the creation of this Commission?
Ambassador Sales. I was not.
Mr. Cicilline. Can you define ``natural law'' for me?
Ambassador Sales. As a former law professor, I could
probably spend the next hour doing so. A concise version of it
is the law that is natural to human beings qua human beings.
That is to say, law that is written on the heart of man, to use
the 18th century expression.
Mr. Cicilline. How about ``natural rights''?
Ambassador Sales. Natural rights, ``We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal'' and endowed
with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness,.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Ambassador, you may know that the terms
``natural law'' and ``natural rights'' have close associations
with movements that are expressly homophobic and discriminatory
toward women and minorities. Do you believe that rights for
women are included in the Secretary's definition of
``unalienable rights''?
Ambassador Sales. I absolutely do.
Mr. Cicilline. And what about the rights of the LGBTI
community?
Ambassador Sales. Absolutely.
Mr. Cicilline. Are you aware that the Chairwoman, and some
of the other members of this Commission, has a history of
publicly arguing against and disparaging the rights of LGBTI
individuals?
Ambassador Sales. Well, Congressman, I am here to talk
about the State Department's counterterrorism----
Mr. Cicilline. Well, I am going to ask questions, sir. Are
you familiar with that?
Ambassador Sales. I am here to talk about counterterrorism.
Mr. Cicilline. Are you familiar with that Commission Chair?
Ambassador Sales. I am here to talk about counterterrorism.
Mr. Cicilline. Sir, please answer my question.
Ambassador Sales. I am here to answer questions about the--
--
Mr. Cicilline. Well, I will ask another question. What type
of message do you think it sends to the LGBTI community when
the State Department, and many of whom are serving overseas in
very difficult capacities, to have a chair of a commission that
has historically been used to discriminate against the LGBTQI
community, who has said disparaging comments about the
community? What kind of message does that send to diplomats who
serve our country in dangerous places around the world?
Ambassador Sales. I think the message that we are sending
is the one that the Secretary has been very clear about from
the day he took the oath of office. And that is that every
person is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect,
regardless of their views, regardless of their backgrounds. And
that is a message that I, personally, convey to my team, as
Under Secretary and as Assistant Secretary, and it is one that
we take very seriously.
Mr. Cicilline. My time has expired. I wish I had a little
more time to followup on that, but I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Trone, you are recognized.
Mr. Trone. Ambassador, thanks for being here today.
On April 8th, as we talked about earlier, you designated
the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. This is the first
time that we have a State institution designated as such. Does
that represent a shift in the U.S. definition of terrorism?
Ambassador Sales. No, Congressman, I think it represents an
extension of longstanding definitions of terrorism to a State
actor in the IRGC that has been engaging in terrorism for a
long time, but has never been called out as such.
Mr. Trone. OK. So, there could be more coming?
Ambassador Sales. I am not in a position to sneak-preview
any sanctions that may or may not be happening, but we are
always on the lookout for individuals or organizations that
might meet the legal standards for designation.
Mr. Trone. As you weigh this out, what are the benefits and
risks of this designation?
Ambassador Sales. Well, I think the two principal benefits
of the designation are, first of all, the messaging, which
illustrates in a very dramatic way that Iran is unique among
the nations of the world in its use of terrorism as a basic
tool of Statecraft. The IRGC promotes, and does more than just
promote and support, but actively engages in terrorism around
the world.
A second benefit is that this gives us new tools for
prosecutors to hold accountable people who provide support to
the IRGC. It is a Federal criminal offense to knowingly provide
material support or resources to a designated FTO. And so, with
the FTO designation of the IRGC, this creates opportunities for
our prosecutors to pursue additional charges.
Mr. Trone. Any downside?
Ambassador Sales. Any downsides? I do not think that
calling the IRGC a terrorist organization is a bad idea.
Mr. Trone. OK. The CT Bureau is responsible for CT-related
cooperation with international partners, including programs to
enhance partners' law enforcement capacities. What are some of
the achievements that CT partnerships have brought us the last
year?
Ambassador Sales. Well, one of the most important things
that we do is train crisis response teams around the world. We
need to make sure that the people serving on the front lines
are able to respond to terrorist attacks in real time as they
are happening, and either turn the attacks off or mitigate the
amount of damage that is being done.
And we have seen some pretty dramatic successes from our
work in this field. I just returned from Kenya several weeks
ago, where I was present for a U.N. Conference on Terrorism
Threats in Africa. And Kenya is a pretty important success
story about how we have been able to boost the ability to
respond to terrorist attacks. You will recall, in 2013 and
2015, Al-Shabaab militants, Al-Shabaab terrorists committed
attacks against the Westgate Mall and against the university
with really extraordinarily high casualty counts.
Fast forward to January of this year. Al-Shabaab tried it
again, this time attacking the Dusit Hotel Complex in Nairobi.
While they were successful in killing, I believe, 20 people,
the response teams that the CT Bureau trained were able to
intervene very early on in the attack and minimize the
casualties. Of course, we mourn the 21 lost lives, but we are
grateful that this team was in place to prevent the carnage
from being far worse.
Mr. Trone. Who are the most challenging partners you deal
with?
Ambassador Sales. I am happy to answer that question in a
different setting, sir.
Mr. Trone. OK. How do you ensure compliance with
international law and human rights law when implementing the CT
cooperation programs in complex environments like Afghanistan,
Iraq, and sub-Sahara?
Ambassador Sales. Well, let me start by saying why that is
really important. Respect for human rights and counterterrorism
go hand-in-hand. Countries that have a lower respect for human
rights are less resilient to terrorist radicalization. Security
forces that commit abuses are an important source of motivation
for terrorists. So, it is important that we get this right.
And the way we do this is we comply with the Leahy law,
which requires us to withhold assistance from units that engage
in gross violations of human rights. So, we robustly enforce
that requirement through investigations that we conduct in
cooperation with our embassies abroad, our regional bureaus
that have oversight, as well as the intelligence community.
Mr. Trone. Thank you for your service.
Ambassador Sales. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
Mr. Zeldin, you are recognized.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you to the chair for holding today's
hearing and the ranking member.
Ambassador, thank you for being here.
I believe that, briefly, earlier on in the hearing, you got
into the topic of social media and as it relates to your
mission statement. We have designated foreign terrorist
organizations operating on social media platforms in other
parts of the world. Hamas comes to mind. They still have
accounts. Muslim Brotherhood is not a designated foreign
terrorist organization, although there is a debate in Congress
as to whether they should be.
But, focusing specifically on the designated foreign
terrorist organizations, it is interesting, using Hamas as an
example--and I have been engaged, a number of Members have been
engaged with Twitter on the back-and-forth. I believe that if
you look at Twitter's own criteria for a violent extremist
group, which is the term that they use, the three elements that
Twitter uses, Hamas meets that definition of a violent
extremist group.
If an operation is conducted abroad against that designated
foreign terrorist organization, and any of the traditional
media platforms are taken offline, Hamas is able to stand up
their media operation in an instant utilizing, for example,
their Twitter platforms.
So, can you speak in a little more detail as far as what is
the path forward? You have United States companies providing
this invaluable resource to designated foreign terrorist
organizations, and it harms not only our national security
interests, but those of our allies.
Ambassador Sales. I think that is exactly right,
Congressman. And another thing I would add is that it could
harm the social media companies that host this content as well,
because, presumably, they do not want to be seen as enabling
the activities of a terrorist organization like Hamas, like
Hezbollah, or like the IRGC.
One of the things that we have done at my Bureau--and other
players in the executive branch have done this as well--has
been, when there is a designation of an individual or
organization as a terrorist, to reach out to social media
companies to make sure that they are aware of the fact that
this person or this group has been designated, so that they are
able to consider the implications for a decision to continue to
host that person or group on their platforms.
We have actually seen social media companies respond to our
designations. After the IRGC designation was announced in
April, we saw some social media platforms evict IRGC-related
individuals, so as to not run afoul of U.S. sanctions
requirements.
Mr. Zeldin. One of the things that the social media
companies will do, using Twitter and the Hamas example as one
that is perfect for this back-and-forth, is try to separate a
political wing from a military wing. That debate played out in
Parliament in Germany when they were trying to decide recently
whether or not to designate Hezbollah's political wing, as they
would call it. We would advocate for Germany to designate
Hezbollah as a whole. There are European countries/entities
that have designated specifically just the military wing.
So, in your interactions with these social media companies,
are you able to get down to that level and make headway?
Because while some platforms clearly are being removed from
certain entities, Hamas still has their Twitter accounts.
Ambassador Sales. Yes, we do discuss that with social media
companies. And the U.S. position on Hezbollah, in particular,
is perfectly clear. It is a terrorist organization through and
through. We reject the false distinction between a political
wing and a military wing.
Hassan Nasrallah is not a political figurehead. He runs a
terrorist outfit, full stop. And so, we have communicated to
social media companies that, when seeking to comply with U.S.
sanctions/law, you should be aware of the fact that we see the
entire organization as sanctionable.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes, real briefly, switching gears, a quick
question. Just last week, there were disturbing reports in the
media about the ISIS flag being flown at a camp in northeast
Syria which currently houses women and children. Can you speak
briefly to, are you concerned about these camps serving as
incubators for radicalization?
Ambassador Sales. Yes. Yes, we are. So, I think you are
referring to the Al-Hawl camp in Syria, which houses, I
believe, about 70,000, give or take, mostly women and children.
The majority of the population is either Iraqi or Syrian, but
there are about 11,000 people in the camp who hail from other
countries around the world, Western Europe, Africa, the Gulf,
Southeast Asia, and so on.
Our policy for how to treat the residents of these camps is
essentially the same as our policy for what should be done with
the male fighters with which they are associated. They need to
be taken back to their countries of origin. In the case of
women, some of them may have committed crimes. If that is the
case, they should be repatriated and prosecuted, and we should
not give them a pass simply because they happen to be a woman.
The United States does not do that. We have prosecuted a woman
whom we repatriated from Syria and Iraq, and we expect other
countries to do so as well.
The point is, for as long as these women and children are
in an internally displaced person's camp in the middle of the
desert, we are not going to be able to do the hard work of de-
radicalizing them and reintegrating them into society. That can
only happen if countries of origin take responsibility for
their citizens and intervene actively to disengage them from
the ideology.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your
concern. I am out of time.
Ambassador Sales. Thanks.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin.
Mr. Vargas, you are recognized.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Ambassador, thank you very much for being here. I
appreciate it very much, as we all do.
I am glad you are talking about ideology and ideas. I think
that your job is very important and what you do within the
administration is very important, because I do think that this
is ultimately a battle of ideas and philosophy. I mean, I am
very optimistic about the future of humanity. I am not
pessimistic.
And the reason for that is, I look back in history and look
at what was happening in Spain under Moorish Spain. You had a
high degree of tolerance under Moorish Spain between Jews,
Christians, and Muslims. It was not perfect, but I do remember
what happened once the Catholics got involved and, ultimately,
reconquered. You had Isabella and Ferdinand with the expulsion,
the forced conversions, horrible things that we Catholics did.
We learned our lesson and found out that it was a very bad idea
and I have hoped we have reformed. It took us a while to do
that, but that is why I am optimistic. I know that people can
change.
So, that is why I look at your budget, and the work that
you do I think is very, very important in this battle of
ideology. But it seems like you are not getting the money that
you need, the personnel that you need, the positions. Can you
talk a little bit about that?
Ambassador Sales. Sure. I am happy to, Congressman. So,
first of all, thank you for the support that you and the
committee and Congress as a whole have provided to us,
financial support. Our budget request of $241 million is the
amount of money that we think we need to do the job
effectively. Now it is less than we were appropriated last
year.
Mr. Vargas. Sure.
Ambassador Sales. But if you compare this year's request to
the long-term historical trend, it is actually right in line.
So, from 2009 to 2015, our budget request was typically between
$230 and $250 million in foreign assistance. Now there was a
spike in fiscal years 1916 and 1917 where the numbers were
substantially higher. But this year's budget request represents
a return to the historical norm. I think we were effective in
2015. I think we would be effective with this budget as well.
Mr. Vargas. OK. It does concern me, again, because it seems
like we were going in the right direction. I like this
investment that we are making with counterterrorism, the fight
between ideology and philosophy. I think you guys are doing a
good job, but it seems like we are starving you. And I do not
agree with that. I will support this budget, but I would like
to see an enhancement.
I do want to yield the rest of my time, though, to my good
friend from Rhode Island, who has some questions. Thank you.
Mr. Cicilline. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Ambassador, you just said, in response to Mr. Trone's
question, ``Respect for human rights and counterterrorism go
hand-in-hand.'' It is in light of that statement that I am
particularly disappointed that the Acting Director of the
Bureau of Democracy, Rights, and Labor, who claims he has
confidence in the men and women of his Bureau, will not at
least acknowledge the inappropriate statements of the chair of
this new commission and condemn them publicly, who made
comments disparaging and arguing against the rights of LGBTI
people.
And the impact that has on the agency, on our standing in
the world, is very disturbing. And I hope you hear the message
loudly and clearly that those of us who believe that the United
States plays an important role in defending human rights around
the world, as one of the most important ways to keep this
country safe, have a responsibility not only to speak those,
but to live those actions by the conduct we engage in.
Ambassador Sales. And I would----
Mr. Cicilline. And I will tell you that your refusal to
even acknowledge it is gravely disappointing to me.
Ambassador Sales. Well, Congressman----
Mr. Cicilline. But I will move--no, no, sir, you are not
going to acknowledge it. So, are you prepared to acknowledge
what the chairwoman said?
Ambassador Sales. Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to answer the
question?
Mr. Deutch. The gentleman asked you a question.
Mr. Cicilline. The question I asked you is, are you aware
that the chairwoman and some of the other members of this new
commission have a history of publicly arguing against and
disparaging the rights of LGBTI individuals?
Ambassador Sales. My answer to your question is that the
Secretary and I, and the rest of the Secretary's leadership
team, are fully committed----
Mr. Cicilline. That is not the question, sir.
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. Fully committed----
Mr. Cicilline. I will repeat the question.
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. To human rights----
Mr. Cicilline. Are you aware that the chairwoman----
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. To the rights----
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. And some of the other members
of this commission, not you, not the Secretary, I am asking
about the chairwoman of this newly created commission that is
supposed to talk about natural rights has made disparaging
comments and argued against the rights of LGBTI people? That is
a yes or a no.
Ambassador Sales. I cannot speak for----
Mr. Cicilline. You are not aware of it?
Ambassador Sales. I cannot speak for people to whom you are
referring. I can only speak for myself, the State Department,
and----
Mr. Cicilline. So, your answer is, no, you are not aware
that the chair of this commission----
Ambassador Sales. But I can tell you----
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. Has made disparaging comments?
Is your answer no?
Ambassador Sales. And I can tell you that anyone who comes
to work for the State Department is expected to live by the
highest standards of personal integrity. That includes respect
for others, because of the inherent dignity which all people
are entitled to----
Mr. Cicilline. Sir, sir, with all due respect----
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. Regardless of their
background----
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. That is not my question.
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. Regardless of their views--
--
Mr. Cicilline. I am asking whether you are aware, as you
sit there today, that the woman who was appointed to chair this
commission and several of the members have made disparaging
comments and argued against the rights of LGBTI people? That's
a yes or a no. Either you do, are aware of it or you are not.
Ambassador Sales. I am telling you----
Mr. Cicilline. I am not asking you to characterize their
views. I am asking you, are you aware of those positions of the
members of that commission?
Ambassador Sales. Congressman, you are characterizing their
views. I am not in a position to express an opinion other than
what I have told you, which is that I personally, and the
Secretary and the entire State Department leadership team are
committed----
Mr. Cicilline. Reclaiming my time----
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. Fully committed----
Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. You are not going to answer the
question; I am not going to allow you to make a speech.
I yield back.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you.
Before we conclude, Ambassador Sales, I would just like to
clarify one thing from earlier. Radical Islamist terrorism, we
have spent a lot of time talking about it is a worldwide
movement of different groups committed through their ideologies
to terror activities, correct?
Ambassador Sales. I would--yes, broadly, yes.
Mr. Deutch. And I am just looking in broad terms. Racially
motivated terrorism, is that the same? Is there also a network
of groups committed to racially motivated terrorism? Or does
the term ``white nationalist terrorism'' more accurately
reflect that collection of groups that is committed to that
ideology?
Ambassador Sales. Well, the term that our interagency
settled on was ``racially motivated terrorism'' a year and a
half ago----
Mr. Deutch. Right.
Ambassador Sales [continuing]. When we started working on
the National CT Strategy. So, that is the term that we use to
express, and there are other terms. I have heard the term
``ethno-violent extremism,'' and various others.
Mr. Deutch. I understand. Before we wrap up, I just wanted
to make sure I understood whether there is a worldwide epidemic
of racially motivated terrorism, whether you are saying it is
the same as white nationalist terrorism, or is white
nationalist terrorism part of it? Because a lot of us believe
that the data suggests that it is white nationalist terrorism
that is the growing threat.
Ambassador Sales. Well, the way I would answer that
question is to say there are different terms that are being
used to attempt to describe essentially the same phenomenon.
And the terms that you have used, that I have read in the
literature, that our international partners use, all differ,
but I think we are all trying to describe the same problem.
Mr. Deutch. OK. Thank you.
I thank you and all the members for being here today. This
was a terrific hearing, Ambassador Sales. Thanks for your
testimony.
Members of the subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you. We ask that you please respond to those
questions in writing. And I would ask my colleagues to submit
any questions to the subcommittee clerk within five business
days.
Mr. Deutch. And with that, without objection, the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]