Opening Statement

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
“ISIL in America: Domestic Terror and Radicalization”
House Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Crime
Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 10:00am

       Like you, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.  “ISIL” is a grave regional threat.  Operating from Anbar province in western Iraq, it has seized territory from Baghdad to Aleppo, and continues to press north into Kurdish territory.  In more familiar terms, ISIL now controls an area larger than the United Kingdom.  Along the way, it has directed horrific violence at thousands of civilians – particularly at ethnic and religious minorities.  And ISIL has also executed hostages – including four United States citizens – in barbaric and often public fashion.

       So we should not underestimate ISIL’s murderous intent, or its ability to inspire others to do us harm.  But we have learned much from the past decade of fighting radical extremists, and it seems important to apply some of those lessons in our discussion today.

       The first, and most simple lesson: don’t panic.  As of this morning, the Department of Homeland Security is “unaware of any specific, credible threat to the United States Homeland from ISIL.”  The National Counterterrorism Center confirms that assessment, noting further that “any threat to the U.S. homeland from these types of extremists is likely to be limited in scope in scale.”  I do not suggest that we ignore ISIL, or the suffering it has caused. I point out only that the group’s ability to strike directly at the United States appears to be limited, and that our reaction on the home front should be measured and appropriate.

       The rise of the Islamic State is not an excuse for domestic law enforcement to stigmatize American Muslims.  It does not legitimize tactics that have isolated and alienated the communities whose help we need most. Nor does the threat of ISIL justify the government’s continued use of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act to conduct mass surveillance on law abiding citizens. The NSA’s telephone metadata program has never disrupted a terrorist plot, does not extend to the new media formats favored by ISIL, and must be brought to an end without delay.  We have better tools at our disposal.  Which leads to my second point: our best hope for countering the threat of radicalization at home is community engagement at the local level.

       We have no evidence of a direct threat from ISIL on the U.S. homeland – but, as my colleagues have noted, the group has an aggressive social media presence.  Their propaganda targets the most isolated elements of our society. We know what works to counter this messaging.  Local, state, and federal law enforcement must build partnerships with teachers, clergy, and other community leaders.  These efforts must clearly preserve religious exercise and freedom of expression. Once we have established trust and open lines of communication between police and the communities most at risk for radicalization, we win on two fronts: we are better able to identify potential threats before they grow dangerous, and community leaders have enlisted a powerful partner in countering the twisted rhetoric of ISIL and others like it.  I believe all three witnesses here today will testify to the effectiveness of this basic approach, and I look forward to further discussion with them on the matter.

       Finally, and perhaps most pressing at this late hour, we must fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. 

     Mr. Chairman, I believe it comes down to a question of priorities.  We must preserve the capability to track foreign fighters before they attempt to enter the United States.  We must keep the U.S. Air Marshals in the sky.  And we must continue to coordinate with our agents on the frontlines of homeland security: the Transportation Safety Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, and our partners in state, local, and tribal law enforcement. Some of these functions may continue in the event of a shut down.  But many will not. Most of the Department’s leadership team will be furloughed, federal support to state and local initiatives will terminate.  None of the officers who must show up to work will necessarily be paid.

       Mr. Chairman, there was a time when I believed that we would find common ground on comprehensive immigration reform.  I still believe that, if Speaker Boehner would allow the measure to come to the floor, the bill that sat on his desk for more than 500 days would receive majority support in the House. But even if we must disagree for now on the urgency of immigration reform, surely we can agree that we must not compromise our national security in a futile effort to score political points against the president.

       Whatever you think of the underlying policy, a decision to defund the Department of Homeland Security simply will not result in the president’s reversing his actions on immigration.

       I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the threat posed by ISIL to the homeland is real. I hope that our conversation today will convince my colleagues to prioritize our security over an unrelated political spat, and fully fund DHS without delay.

       I thank the Chairman, and I yield back.