The following is a transcript of an interview with Representative Jim Himes, a Democrat, on “Face the Nation” that aired June 30, 2024.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We now turn to Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. He is the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Good morning.
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Good morning, Margaret.
0:11
MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you were recently informed about those arrests in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York City and the eight Tajik citizens with suspected ties to ISIS-K. Do you know where we are in terms of understanding whether they were a cell working together, whether there were direct ties?
0:33
REP. HIMES: Yeah, so law enforcement, as you would expect, is making quite a bit of progress in determining who these people were talking to, what the plans were, other people involved in the network, whether an attack was imminent, whether there was specific plans were for an attack. And- and this isn’t new, right? In other words, you know, as you know, shortly after these individuals entered the United States, were not stopped because there was no negative information about them at the time, some negative information was developed very quickly. And the decision was made to keep an eye on these guys. Now, the reason you keep an eye on these guys, rather than immediately arresting them, is that their behavior and their communications can really paint a very specific picture of a conspiracy, if there is one. Obviously at some point they made the decision that the risk/reward was so great that they made these arrests. But of course they continue to work to understand whether there were plans, and if so, who else might have been involved.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It appears that intelligence is still being gathered from these eight individuals. How can we then say that there is no active threat?
REP. HIMES: Well, Margaret, we can never say there isn’t an active threat. You know, there is always a basic threat of an act of terrorism in the United States, there is absolutely nothing we can do to change that fact. So you can never say there is zero risk. What you can do is look at the period since 9/11, the tragic attack on 9/11, and say, how many Americans have actually died in a terrorist attack orchestrated by foreigners? And the answer to that question is – is negligibly small. Our people are very, very good, but you can never have zero risk of a terrorist attack.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you support a public hearing with the heads of the intelligence agencies to lay out the facts as we know them? I know Director Wray said, we are at the highest possible threat level right now.
REP. HIMES: Yeah, and Margaret, look, I think it’s really important for people to keep this in context. That may be true. And that’s probably true, because the world is a more complicated place than it was a decade ago, particularly with the war in Israel and Gaza. We’re seeing every radical Islamic group, from the Houthis to all the Iranian-backed proxies, interested in doing things that they might not have been interested in doing a decade ago. So Director Wray may be right. And in fact, you know, I think our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are on high alert in a way that they haven’t been in a very long time. And look, the Tajik story is a success story. They were arrested. They didn’t commit a terrorist attack.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Your Republican colleague, Mike Turner, was on this program a couple of weeks ago and he said, quote, “We have terrorists operating in the United States who pose a threat to Americans.” Is that an accurate characterization? And — and if so, why not?
REP. HIMES: Well, I the– the Tajik case is, to my knowledge, the only case that we’ve been briefed on by the Intelligence Committee of our intelligence community, our law enforcement community, that tracks people that we believe may be involved in a conspiracy. I’m certainly not aware of any other situations like that. Now, it’s almost certainly true, in a country of 350 million people, that there are people who are considering committing violent acts. We see a lot of violence in this country, most of it is domestic, most of it is– is not related to transnational terrorism. But again, you asked earlier for a public hearing on the facts here–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Yes.
REP. HIMES: And I didn’t answer it directly, so I’ll answer it directly now: We’re probably not at that stage yet. Because what we were talking about, which is the absolute necessity of law enforcement, really understanding the full contours of that Tajik group and doing the work that they need to do, which is best done in secret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of what’s happening and the connection to the southern border, President Biden said during the debate on Thursday, “I’m not saying no terrorist has ever gotten through.” So he seems to recognize that element of the unknown here. Do you think the intelligence community has the resources they need right now to address the threat and the vulnerability at the border?
REP. HIMES: Of course a border where people come in and we don’t know who they are is a risk, there’s no question about that. And I wish we had taken the opportunity of the bipartisan bill negotiated by Jim Lankford and Chris Murphy, a conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat, to actually do something about that. But Donald Trump said: No, he said don’t do it. I want to run for office on this subject. So I would have liked to have seen that happen. But again, you know, people need to put this in context. How many Americans have been killed in a terrorist attack by someone sneaking across the southern border? The answer to that question is zero. So, resource allocation – should the FBI, should the CIA be laser-focused on the southern border? Don’t know. It is clearly a risk and a vulnerability. But you know, a lot of these conspiracies we pick up because of our ability to collect data abroad.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you think the resources are adequate for intelligence gathering abroad?
REP. HIMES: Well, I think if you had the head of the FBI, or any of the people who were involved in this effort, they would say that we could really use more resources, right? But one of the challenges that we haven’t talked about is that we can’t forget that we’ve been talking about the pivot to China for ten years, over ten years now. Right, China, the invasion of Taiwan is an outcome that is catastrophic in ten different dimensions. If we’re serious about pivoting to Asia, if we’re serious about supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia, some of the things like counterterrorism, inevitably, because we don’t have infinite resources, we’re not going to get the full amount of resources that you would expect. You would want.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, how do you think America’s foreign adversaries assessed President Biden’s performance on Thursday night?
REP. HIMES: I suspect that, you know, pretty much everyone watched that debate and thought the president didn’t perform the way we would have liked to see him. However, I have spent time with three different presidents Margaret, and I will tell you that the job of the president is extremely tough and involves all kinds of things, not one of which is being on TV for 90 minutes and having a debate . The president’s job involves passing legislation, I hope people will compare this president’s record in that regard to the previous president’s record. He–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –being quick on your feet is kind of important for the job.
REP. HIMES: –Part of the president’s job is to set the tone. Well, yes, yes. And again, I think he’s recognized — the vice president has recognized that — that was not the performance we were looking for. But I’m not so cynical as to believe that the American people are going to elect a president based on a 90-minute debate rather than a four-year record of stunning legislative achievement and setting a tone that makes the rest of the world say, “Wow, you know, America is back to being the decent leader that we thought it was before the Trump administration.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman Himes, thank you for your time this morning. We’ll be right back.
