59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–344 

COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM ACT OF 2015 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCCAUL, from the Committee on Homeland Security, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2899] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2899) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Office for Countering Violent Extremism, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 4 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 5 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 9 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 11 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 12 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 12 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 12 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 12 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 13 

Duplicative Federal Programs ................................................................................ 14 

Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ... 14 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 14 

Preemption Clarification ......................................................................................... 14 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 14 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 14 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 14 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 14 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 17 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 21 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015’’ or the 

‘‘CVE Act’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE FOR COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title I of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et 

seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘SEC. 104. OFFICE FOR COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is in the Department an Office for Countering Violent Extremism. The head of the Office shall be the Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism, who shall be appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary 

shall also appoint a career Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism. 

‘‘(b) ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL.—The Secretary shall assign or hire, as appropriate, permanent staff to the Office for Countering Violent Extremism. In carrying 

out this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, seek 

to assign to or hire for the Office an individual who has a demonstrated background 

in technical matters, on and offline media, communications, or marketing. 

‘‘(c) SUPPORT.—The Secretary shall appoint within each appropriate component 

and office of the Department, including at a minimum, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, the Office of Privacy, the National Protection and Programs Directorate, the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Secret Service, 

and the Science and Technology Directorate, an individual to serve as liaison to the 

Office for Countering Violent Extremism. 

‘‘(d) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism shall be responsible for the following: 

‘‘(1) Coordinating the Department’s activities to counter violent extremism 

across all the components and offices of the Department that conduct strategic 

and supportive activities to counter violent extremism. Such activities shall include the following: 

‘‘(A) Identifying risk factors that contribute to violent extremism in communities in the United States and potential remedies for use by Government and non-government institutions. 

‘‘(B) Identifying populations targeted by violent extremist propaganda, 

messaging, or recruitment. 

‘‘(C) Managing the outreach and engagement activities of the Department 

directed toward communities at risk for radicalization and recruitment for 

violent extremist activities. 

‘‘(D) Ensuring relevant information, empirically-valid research, and products inform activities to counter violent extremism. 

‘‘(E) Developing and maintaining a Department-wide strategy guiding 

policies and programs to counter violent extremism. Such strategy shall, at 

a minimum, address each of the following: 

‘‘(i) The Department’s counter-messaging program pursuant to paragraph (2), including a plan to leverage new and existing Internet, digital, and other technologies and social media platforms to counter violent extremism, as well as the best practices and lessons learned of 

other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and foreign partners engaged in similar counter-messaging activities. 

‘‘(ii) The Department’s countering violent extremism-related engagement and outreach activities. 

‘‘(iii) The use of cooperative agreements with State, local, tribal, territorial, and other Federal departments and agencies responsible for activities relating to countering violent extremism. 

‘‘(iv) Ensuring all activities related to countering violent extremism 

fully respect the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of all Americans. 

‘‘(v) The development of qualitative and quantitative outcome-based 

metrics to evaluate the Department’s programs and policies to counter 

violent extremism. 

‘‘(F) Identifying and recommending new research and analysis requirements in consultation with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

and the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis and ensure the dissemination of information and methods to Federal, State, local, tribal, and 

territorial countering violent extremism practitioners, officials, law enforcement, and non-governmental partners to utilize such research and analysis. 

‘‘(G) Assessing the methods used by violent extremists to disseminate 

propaganda and messaging to communities at risk for radicalization and recruitment. 

‘‘(2) Establishing a counter-messaging program to craft strategic counter-messages to the propaganda and messaging referred to in subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) which shall— 

‘‘(A) explore ways to utilize relevant Internet and other technologies and 

social media platforms; and 

‘‘(B) maximize other resources available to the Department, including utilizing hiring authorities available under law. 

‘‘(3) Serving as the primary representative of the Department in coordinating 

countering violent extremism activities with other Federal departments and 

agencies and non-governmental organizations. 

‘‘(4) Serving as the primary Department-level representative in coordinating 

with the Department of State on international countering violent extremism 

issues. 

‘‘(5) In coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department, providing guidance regarding the use of grants made to State, local, 

and tribal governments under sections 2003 and 2004 under the allowable uses 

guidelines related to countering violent extremism. 

‘‘(6) Coordinating with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to administer the grant program under subsection (f). 

‘‘(e) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The Assistant Secretary for Countering 

Violent Extremism shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency outlining the roles of the 

Assistant Secretary and the Administrator with respect to the administration of 

grants under sections 2003 and 2004 related to countering violent extremism. 

‘‘(f) GRANT PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism, in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department, shall establish a grant program for eligible community groups and organizations to assist such groups and organizations in establishing counter-messaging campaigns targeting violent extremism. 

‘‘(2) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism, in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department, shall provide to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs of the Senate an implementation plan for the grant program under this 

subsection, including eligibility criteria, application criteria, methodology for 

awarding grants, and a plan for monitoring and evaluating grant applications 

and awards. 

‘‘(3) PROHIBITION.—A community group or organization is not eligible for a 

grant under this subsection if such group or organization has knowingly funded 

violent extremist activities or organizations known to engage in such activities, 

as determined by the Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism, in 

coordination with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies. 

‘‘(g) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism 

shall submit to Congress an annual report for each of the next five fiscal years (beginning in the fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this section) 

on the Office for Countering Violent Extremism. Each such report shall include the 

following: 

‘‘(1) A description of the status of the programs and policies of the Department for countering violent extremism in the United States, including the budget of the Department for countering violent extremism and the number of fulltime employees dedicated to countering violent extremism programs, as well as 

the number of part-time employees supporting countering violent extremism 

programs. Each such budget shall include an accounting of all funding amounts 

for all departmental programs, initiatives, and personnel related to countering 

violent extremism. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

1The organization referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is alternatively 

known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the Islamic State (IS), and occasionally, ‘‘Daesh.’’ 

‘‘(2) A description of the activities of the Office to cooperate with and provide 

assistance to other departments and agencies. 

‘‘(3) The qualitative and quantitative outcome-based metrics under clause (v) 

of subsection (d)(1)(E) used for evaluating the success of such programs and 

policies and the steps taken to evaluate the success of such programs and policies. 

‘‘(4) A detailed summary of the organizations with which the Department conducted outreach to discuss countering violent extremism, an accounting of 

grants awarded by the Department to counter violent extremism, and an accounting of all training specifically aimed at countering violent extremism sponsored by the Department. 

‘‘(5) Details of the optimal level of personnel and funding for the Office. 

‘‘(6) An analysis of how the Department’s activities to counter violent extremism correspond and adapt to the threat environment. 

‘‘(7) A summary of how civil rights and civil liberties are protected in the Department’s activities to counter violent extremism. 

‘‘(8) An evaluation of the grant program under subsection (f), including information on the effectiveness of such grants in countering violent extremism. 

‘‘(9) A description of how the Office incorporated lessons learned from the 

countering violent extremism programs and policies of other Foreign departments and agencies, as well as foreign, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments and stakeholder communities. 

‘‘(h) VIOLENT EXTREMISM DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘violent extremism’ 

means ideologically motivated terrorist activities. 

‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING.—Out of funds made available to the Office of the 

Secretary, $10,000,000 is authorized to be used for the Office for Countering Violent 

Extremism for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020, of which $6,000,000 shall be 

used to carry out the grant program under subsection (f). 

‘‘(j) SUNSET.—This section shall terminate on the date that is five years after the 

date of the enactment of this section.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is 

amended by inserting after the item relating to section 103 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 104. Office for Countering Violent Extremism.’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 2899, the ‘‘Countering Violent Extremism 

Act of 2015’’ or ‘‘CVE Act’’ is to amend the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296) to authorize the Office for Countering 

Violent Extremism, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 2899 establishes the highest-ranking federal official dedicated to countering violent extremism (CVE) and the radicalization 

and recruitment of Americans and streamlines government CVE efforts by authorizing an Assistant Secretary to run the Office for Coordinating Violent Extremism (OCVE). This will provide muchneeded leadership and accountability to overall domestic CVE efforts. Additionally, H.R. 2899 requires that DHS establish a program to counter the narrative of extremist groups recruiting and 

radicalizing in the US. In his remarks on Monday July 6, 2015 the 

President admitted that we have to do more to counter the ideology 

of extremist groups—this bill helps that effort. This bill will help 

combat the spread of violent extremist propaganda online and 

through social media, a tactic increasingly used by al Qaeda, the 

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)1 and other violent Islamist 

extremists to radicalize and recruit Americans to their cause. The 

Office will serve as the primary representative in coordinating with 

the State Department on international countering violent extremism issues, a step that would help align international efforts with 

domestic CVE efforts. It will also help the Department’s community 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

2The Honorable Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, Correspondence with Chairman McCaul, July 15, 2015. 3President Barack Obama, ‘‘Remarks by the President on Progress in the Fight Against ISIL,’’ 

July 6, 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/06/remarks-presidentprogress-fight-against-isil. 

engagement efforts and serve as the Department’s liaison with 

state and local authorities engaging in CVE efforts. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

On May 30, 2014, Committee on Homeland Security Chairman 

Michael McCaul wrote to the President’s Homeland Security and 

Counterterrorism Advisor, Lisa Monaco, to announce that the Committee would conduct a thorough review of Executive Branch CVE 

programs and policies. On December 17, 2014, Chairman McCaul 

detailed the preliminary findings of this review in a letter to President Obama, stating that, ‘‘CVE efforts are especially vulnerable to 

suffer from a lack of clear leadership particularly because a successful CVE program necessarily requires the involvement of a diverse set of actors in its execution.’’ The need for greater organization and clarity for domestic CVE efforts has subsequently been 

highlighted for Committee Members in briefings with senior officials as well as public testimony. Secretary of Homeland Security 

Jeh Johnson recently noted that more than eight components and 

offices within DHS have a role in the Department’s CVE activities.2

President Obama recently acknowledged the need for improvements to Federal CVE programs, saying: 

. . . we also have to acknowledge that ISIL has been particularly effective at reaching out to and recruiting vulnerable people around the world, including here in the United 

States. And they are targeting Muslim communities 

around the world. Numerous individuals have been arrested across the country for plotting attacks or attempting to join ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Two men apparently inspired by ISIL opened fire in Garland, Texas . . . And that 

means that we’re going to have to pick up our game to prevent these attacks. It’s also true why, ultimately, in order 

for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al Qaeda it’s 

going to also require us to discredit their ideology—the 

twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their 

ranks . . . So the United States will continue to do our 

part, by working with partners to counter ISIL’s hateful 

propaganda, especially online.3

Furthermore, since the release of the Obama Administration’s 

CVE strategy in 2011, there have been several homegrown violent 

extremist plots, such as the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, and 

the July 2015 shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, as well as an 

increase in the flow of American citizens who embrace the violent 

Islamist extremist ideology of al Qaeda and ISIS to join these 

groups or their affiliates around the globe (particularly in Syria 

and Iraq). 

Violent Islamist extremism is regarded by most experts and senior U.S. officials as the principle extremist threat to the United 

States. The two most prominent Islamist extremist groups that 

pose a threat to the Untied States are al Qaeda (and its various 

offshoots and affiliates) and ISIS. Although the particular strateVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:52 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR344.XXX HR344

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

4Jerome P. Bjelopera, ‘‘American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat,’’ Congressional Research Service, February 19, 2014. 5The Honorable Jeh Johnson, in testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on 

the Judiciary, July 14, 2015. http://www.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-4723930?4. 

gies of each group are different, both advocate for ‘‘the establishment of a global caliphate—a jurisdiction governed by a Muslim 

civil and religious leader known as a caliph—via violent means,’’ 

according to the Congressional Research Service.4 Both groups 

present a direct threat to US security. What’s more, both groups 

actively propagandize to and recruit Americans and other Westerners to carry out attacks in the United States and her allies. The 

Committee’s goal with H.R. 2899 is to establish an office within 

DHS to confront and prevent the radicalization and recruitment of 

Americans to violent Islamist extremist organizations such as al 

Qaeda and ISIS. The Committee fully expects DHS, and all departments and agencies responsible for national security, to prioritize 

major threats and allocate resources accordingly. Any earnest and 

rational threat assessment will consider a wide array of organizations and ideologies that pose a threat to the U.S. Homeland, but 

as Secretary Johnson recently confirmed, it is the violent Islamist 

extremist ideology of al Qaeda and ISIS which presents the greatest threat to the United States. During recent Congressional testimony, Secretary Johnson noted: 

At the moment, my priority has been focusing on communities that I believe are most vulnerable, at least some 

members of the community, to appeals from ISIL, AlQaeda, and other terrorist groups overseas who are actively targeting individuals in these communities. And so 

I think we need to focus on communities that themselves 

have the ability to influence who may be turning in the direction of violence.5

While Congress and the Executive Branch should be prepared to 

address evolving and emerging threats, it is self-evident that any 

CVE program must continue to address the principle terrorist 

threat to the United States homeland. 

The Threat 

The jihadist threat in the U.S. homeland is high and has escalated dramatically in recent years. A recently released Committee 

estimate indicates there have been more U.S.-based jihadist terror 

cases in 2015 than in any full year since 9/11. The number of U.S. 

terrorist cases involving homegrown violent jihadists went from 38 

in July 2010 to 129 by October 2015—more than a three-fold increase in just five years. According to the Committee’s analysis, 

ISIS has inspired or directed 65 terror attack plots against Western 

targets, including 18 in the United States to date. Additionally, 

there have now been nearly twice as many ISIS-linked attack plots 

against the West this year (37) as there were in all of 2014 (20). 

Much of this growth has been attributed to the rise of ISIS, and 

their significant investment in online propaganda efforts and their 

effective use of social media to reach a global audience of individuals at risk for radicalization and recruitment. This is a tactic 

originally embraced by Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior cleric in the 

Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). However, the proliferation of terrorist safe havens throughout the MidVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:52 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR344.XXX HR344

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

6HR 2899 is intended to address this threat not only by establishing a counter messaging effort to challenge extremist propaganda targeting Americans, but also by requiring DHS to develop a grant program dedicated to strengthening the ability of credible, nongovernment voices 

countering the violent Islamist extremist narrative. Numerous CVE experts and senior officials 

have emphasized the importance of maximizing the impact of nongovernmental organizations, 

religious institutions and the private sector in CVE efforts. 7DHS Response to 12/2014 Letter, p. 6. 

dle East and North Africa, combined with the increased use of social media platforms has led to a rapid rise in propaganda efforts 

among multiple extremist groups around the globe. Now, violent 

Islamist extremist propaganda is segmented to reach diverse audiences, often written in the vernacular of their target audiences. 

Jihadists in the U.S. have the luxury of hearing North American 

accents on ISIS videos and reading ISIS magazines written by native English speakers. This trend has maximized exposure to extremist recruitment and propaganda efforts around the world, and 

in the United States, which only adds to the likelihood that American’s will embrace the jihadist ideology.6 There is no domestic Federal effort currently directed at challenging this propaganda which 

is designed to recruit American audiences, even though the Department of State has established a foreign-focused counter messaging 

effort to confront extremist propaganda internationally. 

Federal CVE Efforts 

In August 2011, the Obama Administration issued its national 

countering violent extremism (CVE) strategy, titled ‘‘Empowering 

Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United 

States.’’ The strategy emphasizes the importance of a ‘‘communitybased approach,’’ to recognizing that communities are often the 

best-equipped to identify violent extremist messages and to prevent 

individuals from falling victim to their influence. In December 

2011, it was followed by a Strategic Implementation Plan, which 

attempted to clarify roles and responsibilities among various departments and agencies responsible for federal CVE efforts. 

Community engagement programs run by DHS and the National 

Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) are currently the most prominent 

examples of federal CVE efforts. Community Awareness Briefings 

(CABs), which have occurred in 42 cities as of November 15, 2015 

educate communities at risk for radicalization and recruitment on 

the threat from violent extremism. Similarly, over the last three 

fiscal years, Community Resilience Exercises (CREXs) have been 

held in ten times, providing reality-based scenarios of 

radicalization and opportunities to identify solutions. Both programs are continually updated, and have recently been expanded 

to engage directly with women and youth. 

Other Federal CVE efforts include CVE-specific education and 

training for Federal, State, and local law enforcement. The sharing 

of research and information among CVE components has increased 

in the last four years, providing data and performance metrics for 

developing new and preexisting CVE programs. The DHS Office of 

Intelligence and Analysis, for example, has begun studying homegrown violent extremists and violent extremist messaging to assess 

how best to counter the radicalization threat.7 There have also 

been many CVE trainings and workshops, including multiple CVE 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

8Ibid., p. 4. 

9‘‘Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,’’ Executive 

Office of the President, p. 2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/empoweringllocallpartners.pdf 10Bruce Hoffman, Edwin Meese III, Timothy J. Roemer, ‘‘The FBI: Protecting the Homeland 

in the 21st Century,’’ Federal Bureau of Investigation, March 25, 2015. 

education programs for local law enforcement agencies at the DHS 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).8

Committee’s Review of Federal CVE Efforts 

The Committee, after a lengthy review that included multiple 

briefings and site visits, has found a number of key shortcomings 

in the Administration’s CVE strategy, which are detailed in Chairman McCaul’s December 17, 2014 letter to President Obama. They 

include: 

• The lack of a clearly defined, overall lead agency. 

• The lack of an overall definition of ‘‘CVE.’’ 

• The lack of budgeting for and accounting of CVE efforts and 

reliable personnel figures. 

• The lack of established metrics for success. 

• Unclear coordination between domestic and foreign CVE efforts. 

The DHS CVE Mission 

First, as the Administration’s 2011 CVE strategy notes, an effective CVE effort ‘‘must use a wide range of good governance programs—including those that promote immigrant integration and 

civic engagement, protect civil rights, and provide social services— 

that may help prevent radicalization that leads to violence.’’9 As 

some current and former federal officials have noted, DHS touches 

on a wider array of these types of programs than perhaps any 

other entity among the four departments and agencies that engage 

in domestic CVE efforts, considering their numerous component 

agencies which handle immigration, transportation security, and 

training for federal, state and local law enforcement, among other 

issues of importance to communities at risk for radicalization and 

recruitment for violent Islamist extremism. 

Additionally, other agencies responsible for domestic CVE programs and policies have a unique role to play, but need a reliable, 

robust, and well-organized partner in DHS. As an intelligence 

agency, the NCTC is primed to support CVE activities with expertise and understanding of the changing threat landscape, but is unlikely to be able to work closely with a wide array of communities 

at risk for radicalization and recruitment, in large part because of 

resource limitations. At the same time, the Final Report of the 9/ 

11 Review Commission released by the FBI earlier this year, details several reasons why the Bureau cannot take on the ‘‘social 

and prevention role in the CVE mission.’’10 Of note, this report specifically identifies DHS as having the potential to take on FBI’s 

work in this field. The Department of Justice has a major support 

role with regard to CVE as U.S. Attorneys were identified in the 

Administration’s 2011 CVE Strategy as the primary focus of community engagement efforts. But U.S. Attorneys have competing demands and diverse challenges. It is unrealistic to expect each U.S. 

Attorney’s office across the country to invest the necessary time 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

11‘‘Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson on DHS’s New Office for Community Partnerships,’’ 

Department of Homeland Security, September 28, 2015. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/09/ 

28/statement-secretary-jeh-c-johnson-dhs%E2%80%99s-new-office-community-partnerships. 

and energy into CVE, but rather they should be able to provide 

guidance and support to DHS outreach and engagement efforts. 

As a practical matter, DHS CVE efforts have received significant 

support from senior Department leadership, which has arguably resulted in these programs being further along. Secretary Johnson 

has participated in a series of community engagement events 

across the United States and created the Department’s first standalone CVE Coordinator in 2014, and established the Office for 

Community Partnerships in September 2015 dedicated ‘‘to the mission of countering violent extremism . . . to continue to build relationships and promote trust, and, in addition, find innovative ways 

to support communities that seek to discourage violent extremism 

and undercut terrorist narratives. In one major example, ’’11 Federal officials have explained that the Los Angeles Pilot Program 

Framework developed with assistance from a DHS official dedicated to CVE for that area reflects work that was already being 

carried out before the pilot program was initiated, while related 

frameworks for Minneapolis and Boston, developed by the U.S. Attorneys offices in those cities, reflect future programs still being implemented. HR 2899 therefore provides Congress the ability to better organize and clearly resource ongoing DHS CVE activities, and 

ensure they meet the expectations of the American people. 

HEARINGS

No hearings were held on H.R. 2899, however the Committee 

held the following oversight hearings: 

112th Congress 

On March 10, 2011, the Full Committee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community 

and That Community’s Response.’’ The Committee received testimony from Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress 

from 15th District of Michigan; Hon. Keith Ellison, a Representative in Congress from the 5th District of Minnesota; Hon. Frank 

Wolf, a Representative in Congress from the 10th District of Virginia; Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, President and Founder, American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Mr. Abdirizak Bihi, Director, Somali 

Education and Social Advocacy Center; Mr. Melvin Bledsoe, Private 

Citizen; and Sheriff Leroy Baca, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 

On June 15, 2011, the Full Committee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in U.S. Prisons.’’ 

The Committee received testimony from Mr. Patrick T. Dunleavy, 

Retired Deputy Inspector General, Criminal Intelligence Unit, New 

York State Department of Correctional Services; Mr. Kevin Smith, 

Former Assistant United States Attorney, Central District of California; Mr. Michael P. Downing, Commanding Officer, Counter-Terrorism and Special Operations Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department; and Dr. Bert Useem, Department Head and Professor, Sociology Department, Purdue University. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

On December 7, 2011, the Full Committee with the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

held the first ever joint hearing entitled ‘‘Homegrown Terrorism: 

The threat to Military Communities Inside the United States.’’ The 

Committees received testimony from Hon. Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, Office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense, accompanied by Mr. Jim Stuteville, United 

States Army Senior Advisor, Counterintelligence Operations and Liaison to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; LTC Reid L. Sawyer, 

Director, Combating Terrorism Center at West Point; and 

Mr. Daris Long, Private Citizen. 

On July 30, 2012, the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence held a field hearing in Buffalo, New York entitled ‘‘Beyond Borders: Are the Department of Homeland Security’s International Agreements Ensuring Actionable Intelligence to Combat 

Threats to the U.S. Homeland?’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Deborah Meyers, Director, Canadian Affairs, Office 

of International Affairs, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. 

Daniel J. Neaverth, Jr., Commissioner, Department of Emergency 

Services, Erie County; and Mr. James Voutour, Sheriff, Niagara 

County, New York. 

113th Congress 

On May 22, 2013, the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence held a hearing entitled ‘‘Assessing the Threat to the 

Homeland from al Qaeda Operations in Iraq and Syria.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from Seth G. Jones, Ph.D., Associate 

Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, The 

RAND Corporation, Mr. Robin Simcox, Research Fellow, The Henry 

Jackson Institute; Mr. Thomas Joscelyn, Senior Fellow, Foundation 

for the Defense of Democracies; and Mr. Barak Barfi, Research 

Fellow, New America Foundation. 

On July 24, 2014, the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence held a hearing entitled ‘‘Jihadist Safe Havens: Efforts to 

Detect and Deter Terrorist Travel.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Fred Kagan, Director, Critical Threats Project, 

American Enterprise Institute; Mr. Robin Simcox, Research Fellow, 

The Henry Jackson Society; Dr. Peter Brookes, Senior Fellow, National Security Affairs, Davis Institute for National Security and 

Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation; and Seth G. Jones, Ph.D., 

Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, The 

RAND Corporation. 

114th Congress 

On February 11, 2015, the Full Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Countering Violent Islamist Extremism: The Urgent Threat of 

Foreign Fighters and Homegrown Terror.’’ The Committee received 

testimony from Hon. Francis X. Taylor, Under Secretary, Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Hon. 

Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and Mr. Michael 

B. Steinbach, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

On March 24, 2015, the Full Committee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘A Global Battleground: The Fight Against Islamist Extremism at 

Home and Abroad.’’ The Committee received testimony from 

Hon. Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; General Michael Hayden (USAF-Ret.), Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency and Former Director, National Security Agency; Mr. Philip Mudd, Senior Fellow, New America 

Foundation; and Mr. Brian Michael Jenkins, Senior Adviser to the 

RAND President, The RAND Corporation. 

On June 3, 2015, the Full Committee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘Terrorism Gone Viral: The Attack in Garland, Texas and Beyond.’’ 

The Committee received testimony from Mr. John J. Mulligan, 

Deputy Director, National Counterterrorism Center; Hon. Francis 

X. Taylor, Under Secretary, Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Mr. Michael B. Steinbach, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. 

On July 15, 2015, the Full Committee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘The Rise of Radicalization: Is the U.S. Government Failing to 

Counter International and Domestic Terrorism?’’ The Committee 

received testimony from Mr. Seamus Hughes, Deputy Director, Program on Extremism, Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, 

George Washington University; Ms. Farah Pandith, Adjunct Senior 

Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; Mr. Richard Cohen, President, Southern Poverty Law Center. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee met on July 15, 2015, to consider H.R. 2899, and 

ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a favorable 

recommendation, amended, by voice vote. The Committee took the 

following actions: 

The following amendments were offered: 

A Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by 

MR. MCCAUL (#1); was AGREED TO, as amended, by voice vote. 

An Substitute Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by 

MR. THOMPSON of Mississippi (#1); was NOT AGREED TO, by 

voice vote. 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 2899 offered by MR. KATKO (#1A); was AGREED TO by 

voice vote. 

In subsection (d) of the proposed section 104 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(as added by section 1 of the bill), add the following: ‘‘(6) Coordinating with the 

Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to administer the 

grant program under subsection (f).’’. 

Redesignate subsections (f) through (h) of the proposed section 104 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (as added by section 1 of the bill) as subsections (i) 

through (k), respectively. 

Insert a new subsection entitled ‘‘(f) Grant Program.’’ 

In subsection (i) (relating to the annual report), as so redesignated, of the proposed section 104 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (as added by section 1 

of the bill), insert the following: ‘‘(8) An evaluation of the grant program under 

subsection (f), including information on the effectiveness of such grants in countering violent extremism.’’. 

In subsection (h) (relating to authorization of funding), insert before the period at 

the end the following: ‘‘of which $6,000,000 shall be used to carry out the grant 

program under subsection (f)’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 2899 offered by MR. LOUDERMILK (#1B); was AGREED TO 

by voice vote. 

Page 8, beginning line 13, insert the following: 

‘‘(8) A description of how the Office incorporated lessons learned from the countering violent extremism programs and policies of other Foreign departments and 

agencies, as well as foreign, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments and 

stakeholder communities.’’. 

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

to H.R. 2899 offered by MR. DUNCAN of South Carolina (#1C); was 

AGREED TO by voice vote. 

Page 8, line 20, strike the closing quotation mark and the second period. 

Page 8, beginning line 21, insert a new subsection entitled ‘‘(i) Sunset.’’ 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. 

No recorded vote was requested during consideration of H.R. 299. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight hearings and 

made findings that are reflected in this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 2899, the 

Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015, would result in no new 

or increased budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, August 6, 2015. 

Hon. MICHAEL MCCAUL, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2899, the Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

H.R. 2899—Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015 

Summary: H.R. 2899 would establish the Office for Countering 

Violent Extremism in the Department of Homeland Security. The 

bill would authorize the appropriation of $10 million annually over 

the 2016–2020 period for the office, including $6 million each year 

for the office to make grants to community groups and other organizations for counter-messaging campaigns targeting violent extremism. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2899 would cost $41 million over the 

2016–2020 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this 

legislation because it would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 2899 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2899 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 750 (administration 

of justice). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016– 

2020 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ....................................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 50 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 4 8 9 10 10 41 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized in 

the bill will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and 

that outlays will follow the historical rate of spending for similar 

activities. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2899 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the 

private sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa A. Gullo, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 2899 contains the following general performance goals and objectives, including outcome related goals and 

objectives authorized. 

H.R. 2899 requires that for each of the next five years, the Department of Homeland Security must submit to Congress a report 

which includes ‘‘qualitative and quantitative outcome-based 

metrics’’ for measuring the success of CVE programs. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

DUPLICATIVE FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c) of Rule XIII, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 2899 does not contain any provision that establishes or reauthorizes a program known to be duplicative of another Federal program. 

While H.R. 2899 does not establish a duplicative existing program, it is intended to establish within the Department of Homeland Security an Office for Countering Violent extremism, to replace and enhance the authority of the existing Office of Community Partnerships, established on September 28, 2015. 

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED

TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the Rule XXI. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

In compliance with section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, requiring the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 

resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the bill or 

joint resolution is intended to preempt State, local, or Tribal law, 

the Committee finds that H.R. 2899 does not preempt any State, 

local, or Tribal law. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that H.R. 2899 would require no directed rule makings. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short Title. 

This section provides that this bill may be cited as the ‘‘Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘CVE Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

Sec. 2. Authorization of the Office for Countering Violent Extremism of the Department of Homeland Security. 

This section established with in the Homeland Security Act of 

2002 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq) a new section as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 104. OFFICE FOR COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM.’’ 

SUBSECTION (A) amends Title I of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002 by adding ‘‘Sec. 104. Office for Countering Violent Extremism.’’ This section is broken down as follows: 

Paragraph (a)—Establishment creates an Office for Countering 

Violent Extremism in the Department of Homeland Security, led by 

‘‘The Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism’’ (the 

Assistant Secretary) and will be appointed by the Secretary of 

Homeland Security. The Secretary will also appoint a career Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism. 

Paragraph (b)—Assignment of Personnel requires the Secretary 

to assign or hire permanent staff for the OCVE, and seek to assign 

or hire an individual with a background in technical matters, the 

media, communications, or marketing. 

Paragraph (c)—Support requires the Secretary to appoint liaisons from each appropriate component and office within the Department to support the OCVE, including at a minimum U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Office of 

Privacy, the National Protection and Programs Directorate, the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the U.S. Secret Service, and 

the Science and Technology Directorate. 

Paragraph (d)—Responsibilities outlines duties of the Assistant 

Secretary and the OCVE. Some of these functions reflect ongoing 

efforts DHS is currently engaged in that would be managed or coordinated through the OCVE across DHS. 

This includes coordination on A) identifying risk factors and potential remedies for violent extremism; B) identifying populations 

targeted by violent extremist propaganda, messaging, or recruitment; C) managing DHS outreach to these at-risk populations; D) 

ensuring relevant and empirically valid research and products inform CVE efforts; E) developing a Department-wide CVE strategy 

(which is required to address a counter- messaging program that 

uses the Internet, digital, and other technologies and is based on 

the best practices of domestic and international partners, engagement and outreach efforts, cooperative agreements, privacy and 

civil liberties, and qualitative and quantitative and outcome-based 

evaluative metrics); F) identifying areas for CVE-related research; 

and G) assessing methods used by violent extremists to disseminate propaganda. 

In addition, the Assistant Secretary is required to establish a 

counter-messaging program using the internet, relevant social 

media platforms, and other resources; act as the department-level 

representative to coordinate CVE efforts with other departments 

and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); serve as the primary 

Department-level representative in coordinating with the Department of State on international CVE efforts; and assist the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator and the 

Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in awarding CVE-related 

grants. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

Paragraph (e)—Memorandum of Understanding requires the Assistant Secretary for to enter into a memorandum of understanding 

with the FEMA Administrator regarding CVE-related grants. CVE 

is already an allowable use for these grants under current DHS 

policy. This section provides clarity on the roles of the Assistant 

Secretary and the Administrator in the evaluation of grant applications and the awarding of grants. 

Paragraph (f)—Grant Program establishes a program for eligible 

communities and organizations to receive grants to create countermessaging campaigns. This program will be coordinated by the Assistant CVE Secretary, FEMA Administrator, and CRCL Officer, 

who all must provide the both the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees with an implementation plan for the grant program 90 days after the section’s enactment. An organization or 

community group is ineligible for a grant if they have funded or engaged in violent extremist activities. 

Paragraph (g)—Annual Report requires the Assistant Secretary 

to submit an annual report to Congress and outlines topics for the 

report to address. These include: 

1. a description of the status of DHS CVE-related programs and 

policies and the Department’s budget and personnel dedicated to CVE (including those dedicated to CVE full- and 

part-time); 

2. a description of how the OCVE is working with other departments and agencies; 

3. quantitative and qualitative outcome-based metrics for evaluating the success of CVE programs within the Office and details on how these programs are evaluated; 

4. a detailed summary of NGOs with which DHS conducted outreach or to which DHS awarded CVE-related grants; an account of how those grants were spent; a list of all CVE-related trainings sponsored by DHS; 

5. details of the optimal level of personnel and funding for the 

Office; 

6. an analysis of how the Department’s CVE activities correspond and adapt to the threat environment; 

7. a detailed summary of how civil rights and civil liberties are 

protected in the Department’s CVE efforts; 

8. an evaluation of the grant program, including its effectiveness; and 

9. a description of how the Office incorporated lessons learned 

from CVE programs and policies belonging to other departments and agencies. 

Paragraph (h)—Violent Extremism Defined defines the term ‘‘violent extremism,’’ which for the purpose of this bill means ‘‘ideologically motivated terrorist activities.’’ 

Paragraph (i)—Authorization of Funding authorizes $10 million 

of the funds made available to the Office of the Secretary to the 

OCVE for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020, with $6,000,000 

for use by the grant program established under subsection (f). 

Paragraph (j)—Sunset will commence five years after the date of 

enactment. 

Subsection (b)—Clerical Amendment amends the table of contents in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to reflect the insertion 

of Sec. 104 after Sec. 103. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeland Security Act of 2002’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as 

follows: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 104. Office for Countering Violent Extremism. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 104. OFFICE FOR COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is in the Department an Office for 

Countering Violent Extremism. The head of the Office shall be the 

Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism, who shall be 

appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall also appoint a career Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism. 

(b) ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL.—The Secretary shall assign or 

hire, as appropriate, permanent staff to the Office for Countering 

Violent Extremism. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary 

shall, to the maximum extent practicable, seek to assign to or hire 

for the Office an individual who has a demonstrated background in 

technical matters, on and offline media, communications, or marketing. 

(c) SUPPORT.—The Secretary shall appoint within each appropriate component and office of the Department, including at a minimum, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, the Office of Privacy, the National Protection and Programs Directorate, the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the 

Secret Service, and the Science and Technology Directorate, an individual to serve as liaison to the Office for Countering Violent Extremism. 

(d) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Assistant Secretary for Countering 

Violent Extremism shall be responsible for the following: 

(1) Coordinating the Department’s activities to counter violent 

extremism across all the components and offices of the DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:52 Nov 20, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR344.XXX HR344

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

ment that conduct strategic and supportive activities to counter 

violent extremism. Such activities shall include the following: 

(A) Identifying risk factors that contribute to violent extremism in communities in the United States and potential 

remedies for use by Government and non-government institutions. 

(B) Identifying populations targeted by violent extremist 

propaganda, messaging, or recruitment. 

(C) Managing the outreach and engagement activities of 

the Department directed toward communities at risk for 

radicalization and recruitment for violent extremist activities. 

(D) Ensuring relevant information, empirically-valid research, and products inform activities to counter violent extremism. 

(E) Developing and maintaining a Department-wide 

strategy guiding policies and programs to counter violent 

extremism. Such strategy shall, at a minimum, address 

each of the following: 

(i) The Department’s counter-messaging program 

pursuant to paragraph (2), including a plan to leverage 

new and existing Internet, digital, and other technologies and social media platforms to counter violent 

extremism, as well as the best practices and lessons 

learned of other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, 

nongovernmental, and foreign partners engaged in 

similar counter-messaging activities. 

(ii) The Department’s countering violent extremismrelated engagement and outreach activities. 

(iii) The use of cooperative agreements with State, 

local, tribal, territorial, and other Federal departments 

and agencies responsible for activities relating to countering violent extremism. 

(iv) Ensuring all activities related to countering violent extremism fully respect the privacy, civil rights, 

and civil liberties of all Americans. 

(v) The development of qualitative and quantitative 

outcome-based metrics to evaluate the Department’s 

programs and policies to counter violent extremism. 

(F) Identifying and recommending new research and 

analysis requirements in consultation with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology and the Under Secretary 

for Intelligence and Analysis and ensure the dissemination 

of information and methods to Federal, State, local, tribal, 

and territorial countering violent extremism practitioners, 

officials, law enforcement, and non-governmental partners 

to utilize such research and analysis. 

(G) Assessing the methods used by violent extremists to 

disseminate propaganda and messaging to communities at 

risk for radicalization and recruitment. 

(2) Establishing a counter-messaging program to craft strategic counter-messages to the propaganda and messaging referred to in subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) which shall— 

(A) explore ways to utilize relevant Internet and other 

technologies and social media platforms; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

(B) maximize other resources available to the Department, including utilizing hiring authorities available under 

law. 

(3) Serving as the primary representative of the Department 

in coordinating countering violent extremism activities with 

other Federal departments and agencies and non-governmental 

organizations. 

(4) Serving as the primary Department-level representative in 

coordinating with the Department of State on international 

countering violent extremism issues. 

(5) In coordination with the Administrator of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and the Officer for Civil Rights 

and Civil Liberties of the Department, providing guidance regarding the use of grants made to State, local, and tribal governments under sections 2003 and 2004 under the allowable 

uses guidelines related to countering violent extremism. 

(6) Coordinating with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to administer the grant program 

under subsection (f). 

(e) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The Assistant Secretary 

for Countering Violent Extremism shall enter into a memorandum 

of understanding with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency outlining the roles of the Assistant Secretary 

and the Administrator with respect to the administration of grants 

under sections 2003 and 2004 related to countering violent extremism. 

(f) GRANT PROGRAM.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Assistant Secretary for Countering 

Violent Extremism, in coordination with the Administrator of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Officer for 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department, shall establish a grant program for eligible community groups and organizations to assist such groups and organizations in establishing 

counter-messaging campaigns targeting violent extremism. 

(2) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—Not later than 90 days after the 

date of the enactment of this section, the Assistant Secretary for 

Countering Violent Extremism, in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 

Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department, 

shall provide to the Committee on Homeland Security of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an implementation plan for the grant program under this subsection, including eligibility criteria, application criteria, methodology for 

awarding grants, and a plan for monitoring and evaluating 

grant applications and awards. 

(3) PROHIBITION.—A community group or organization is not 

eligible for a grant under this subsection if such group or organization has knowingly funded violent extremist activities or organizations known to engage in such activities, as determined 

by the Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism, in 

coordination with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies. 

(g) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Assistant Secretary for Countering Violent Extremism shall submit to Congress an annual report for each 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

of the next five fiscal years (beginning in the fiscal year that begins 

after the date of the enactment of this section) on the Office for 

Countering Violent Extremism. Each such report shall include the 

following: 

(1) A description of the status of the programs and policies 

of the Department for countering violent extremism in the 

United States, including the budget of the Department for countering violent extremism and the number of full-time employees 

dedicated to countering violent extremism programs, as well as 

the number of part-time employees supporting countering violent extremism programs. Each such budget shall include an 

accounting of all funding amounts for all departmental programs, initiatives, and personnel related to countering violent 

extremism. 

(2) A description of the activities of the Office to cooperate 

with and provide assistance to other departments and agencies. 

(3) The qualitative and quantitative outcome-based metrics 

under clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(E) used for evaluating the 

success of such programs and policies and the steps taken to 

evaluate the success of such programs and policies. 

(4) A detailed summary of the organizations with which the 

Department conducted outreach to discuss countering violent 

extremism, an accounting of grants awarded by the Department 

to counter violent extremism, and an accounting of all training 

specifically aimed at countering violent extremism sponsored by 

the Department. 

(5) Details of the optimal level of personnel and funding for 

the Office. 

(6) An analysis of how the Department’s activities to counter 

violent extremism correspond and adapt to the threat environment. 

(7) A summary of how civil rights and civil liberties are protected in the Department’s activities to counter violent extremism. 

(8) An evaluation of the grant program under subsection (f), 

including information on the effectiveness of such grants in 

countering violent extremism. 

(9) A description of how the Office incorporated lessons 

learned from the countering violent extremism programs and 

policies of other Foreign departments and agencies, as well as 

foreign, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments and 

stakeholder communities. 

(h) VIOLENT EXTREMISM DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘violent extremism’’ means ideologically motivated terrorist activities. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING.—Out of funds made available to 

the Office of the Secretary, $10,000,000 is authorized to be used for 

the Office for Countering Violent Extremism for each of fiscal years 

2016 through 2020, of which $6,000,000 shall be used to carry out 

the grant program under subsection (f). 

(j) SUNSET.—This section shall terminate on the date that is five 

years after the date of the enactment of this section. 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(21) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015, the Committee on Homeland Security approved by voice vote, H.R. 2899, ‘‘The Countering Violent 

Extremism Act of 2015,’’ or ‘‘CVE Act’’ as amended. At the markup, I was prepared to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute that would have addressed significant concerns I had about 

H.R. 2899’s potential impact on Americans’ civil rights and civil liberties. After a vigorous debate, however, I received a commitment 

from Chairman McCaul that he would work with me to resolve 

these issues, which were raised by Committee Democrats and 

shared by outside organizations, most notably the American Civil 

Liberties Union. While I am pleased that the Chairman agreed to 

make some refinements to the bill, I remain skeptical about H.R. 

2899. 

H.R. 2899 would establish a high-level office for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The legislation requires DHS to establish a program to 

counter the narrative promulgated by extremist groups that seek 

to recruit and radicalize individuals in the United States. I appreciate the threat posed by terrorist organizations that utilize social 

media and the Internet to spread propaganda and radicalize American youth, I continue to have concerns about the efficacy of the approach advanced by H.R. 2899. 

Under its existing CVE program, DHS coordinates with other 

Federal agencies to provide training to local law enforcement, as 

well as community engagement activities, to build resiliency in atrisk communities. These CVE activities are not without controversy. Civil rights and civil liberty concerns are implicated when 

the practice of a CVE program is to focus almost exclusively on 

Muslim communities while ignoring other types of violent extremism despite recent incidents. Sovereign citizen and other antigovernment groups have successfully recruited new members 

through the use of mainstream sites such as Facebook as well as 

through dedicated extremist sites. The assailant who carried out 

the deadly attack in Charleston, South Carolina frequented such 

sites. Moreover, the Department’s current approach risks conveying 

a message of discrimination, and inequality that may play into terrorists’ recruitment propaganda. 

I am encouraged that H.R. 2899, with the refinements negotiated 

with the Chairman, now expands the DHS’ CVE activities from 

‘‘ideologically motivated terrorist activities’’—which is not defined 

in statute—to ‘‘ideologically motivated international terrorism,’’ 

which is defined in code (18 U.S.C. 2331). This definition would 

broaden the scope of the Department’s CVE activities to target not 

only ideologies linked to foreign terrorist organizations, but also 

ideologically-motivated ‘‘domestic terrorism.’’ This is an important 

clarification of Congress’ expectation of DHS in the CVE mission 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

space. Despite numerous requests for the Department to expand its 

CVE activities beyond Muslim communities, DHS has yet to comply. Thus, it is unclear whether the Department will fully embrace 

its responsibility to address ideologically-motivated ‘‘domestic terrorism.’’ 

Additionally, after much negotiation, the legislation now requires 

the Department to issue a CVE strategy that links its activities 

with ‘‘homeland security risk posed by violent extremism based on 

the threat environment and empirical data assessing terrorist activities and incidents, and violent extremist propaganda, messaging, or recruitment.’’ Ostensibly, this would bring DHS’s singular focus on recruitment from foreign terrorists into alignment 

with the current threat environment that most state and locals 

agree is posed by domestic terrorism. 

Although DHS continues to be actively engaged in CVE, it has 

rebuffed opportunities to come before the Committee on Homeland 

Security to testify about its current CVE efforts. DHS still has yet 

to present a CVE strategy or formal statement of the Department’s 

position on this bill. Moreover, there are no studies or identifiable 

metrics to show the effectiveness of the CVE programs. 

Until there is more transparency from the Department regarding 

its current CVE activities, and a strategy for implementation tied 

directly to validated approaches, it is premature to establish a 

high-level CVE office. Put simply, there is no justification for creating a new office with new authorities and a $40 million dollar 

budget to engage in activities that have not yet been scientifically 

validated. 

While I share my colleague’s commitment to countering the 

threat of violent extremism in all of its forms, the concerns I raised 

at the Committee mark-up in July remain. H.R. 2899 can only 

achieve its goal if the Department puts forth identifiable metrics 

and an agency strategy that ensures that the office respects civil 

liberties and civil rights while addressing domestic and international threats of violent extremism. 

Despite my concerns, I am hopeful that H.R. 2899 can be successful in our efforts to counter violent extremism, without making 

unnecessary and ill-advised concessions to the civil rights and civil 

liberties of ordinary Americans. Whether H.R. 2899, or similar legislation, is enacted into law or not, I look forward to continued, rigorous oversight of DHS’ CVE programs in the weeks and months 

ahead, and I urge the Chairman to make this oversight a priority. 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS