POLISCOPE
Back to feed
FEDERALhearing transcript

House Committee Hearing on Global Terrorism Threats

Original title: GLOBAL TERRORISM: THREATS TO THE HOMELAND, PART I

January 1, 2020

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing serves as a formal mechanism for Congress to assess national security risks and the administration's counter-terrorism strategies, though the absence of executive branch officials limited the direct testimony from government security agencies.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

The agency is subject to congressional oversight and was requested to provide testimony regarding its counter-terrorism operations.

House Committee on Homeland Security

The committee is responsible for conducting oversight of national security threats and administration policy.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2020.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The House Committee on Homeland Security held a hearing on September 10, 2019, to examine current global terrorism threats, including the status of ISIS and al-Qaeda. The Chairman expressed concern regarding the absence of key administration officials, including the Secretary of Homeland Security and the FBI Director, who declined the committee's invitation to testify.

Key Facts

  • The hearing was held on September 10, 2019, one day before the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
  • The Secretary of Homeland Security, the FBI Director, and the acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center declined the committee's invitation to testify.
  • The committee discussed the ongoing threat posed by ISIS and al-Qaeda despite their loss of physical territory.
  • The Chairman cited a Pentagon inspector general's report suggesting ISIS is resurging in Syria following the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
  • The committee noted a recent terrorist attack in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday that resulted in over 250 deaths.
  • The hearing included testimony from four expert witnesses representing various research and policy organizations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why were the Secretary of Homeland Security and FBI Director not present?
The document states they refused a bipartisan invitation to testify at this specific hearing.
What was the primary purpose of this hearing?
To receive expert testimony on global terrorism threats to the U.S. homeland and conduct of counter-terrorism efforts.

Why It Matters

This hearing serves as a formal mechanism for Congress to assess national security risks and the administration's counter-terrorism strategies, though the absence of executive branch officials limited the direct testimony from government security agencies.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Show 1 more sponsor

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Executive-Legislative Tension

The document captures a specific moment of friction where the House Committee on Homeland Security publicly criticized the administration for withholding key security officials from testimony.

Connected Entities

personAli H. SoufanWitness, Founder of The Soufan CenterMap →
personBennie G. ThompsonChairman of the House Committee on Homeland SecurityMap →
personThomas JoscelynWitness, Senior Fellow at Foundation for the Defense of DemocraciesMap →
organizationHouse Committee on Homeland SecurityCongressional committee conducting the hearingMap →
personPeter BergenWitness, Vice President at New AmericaMap →
personBrian LevinWitness, Director of the Center for the Study of Hate & ExtremismMap →
personMike RogersRanking Member of the House Committee on Homeland SecurityMap →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance65
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy60
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment30
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz20
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record