WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford (AR-01) and Chair of the Committee’s 9/11 Review Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21) delivered the following opening statements in a full-Committee open hearing entitled “25 Years After 9/11: Confronting the Next Generation of Threats.” This hearing is part of the Committee’s yearlong bipartisan review of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations to examine how the threat landscape has changed over the 25 years since September 11th and if the Intelligence Community is equipped to counter the threats the United States will face over the next 25 years.
Watch the full committee hearing here.
Chairman Crawford’s Opening Statement as prepared for delivery:
25 years since the September 11 attacks, one thing has become abundantly clear: the post-9/11 intelligence challenges have expanded far beyond counterterrorism coordination. While our fight against terrorism remains a high priority, we now face a broader and more complex security environment.
While our fight against terrorism remains a high priority, we now face a broader and more complex security environment.
To be sure, the 9/11 Commission’s core lessons of improved information sharing and coordination within the IC and with law enforcement remains as critical as ever.
But the threat landscape has evolved significantly over the last 25 years.
Consider technological advancements in AI, quantum computing, drones, cyber, and biothreats.
Consider our country’s renewed focus on competition and conflict with great powers and strategic rivals.
Asymmetric and irregular warfare, foreign maligned influence, economic warfare, espionage, and gray zone aggression—all increasingly common threat streams.
We’ve seen China and Russia exploit domestic security gaps and take advantage of our counterintelligence vulnerabilities.
The list of new threats could go on.
Complicating matters: our adversaries often combine cyber operations, foreign influence campaigns, economic pressure, and military posturing into coordinated strategies.
So, while post-9/11 reforms improved coordination and enhanced information sharing, the IC must continue adapting—especially in the counterintelligence space.
This means strengthening public-private partnerships, expanding open-source and technical capabilities, and improving analysis of both immediate plots and long-term strategic risks.
Modern intelligence must be integrated, adaptive, and capable of detecting threats across foreign and domestic, public and private, physical and digital, and military and economic domains.
Furthermore, the IC must improve collaboration across jurisdictions and foster an environment in which various elements of the IC bring their expertise to the fight.
The bottom line: today’s threat environment calls for the same degree of reform and improved integration that was realized in the aftermath of 9/11.
At the same time, the United States must not—and need not—replicate the surveillance architectures employed by totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
Such systems run counter to the character of our Nation, our constitutional tradition, and our commitment to protecting the inherent rights and liberties of its citizens.
The United States’ enduring advantage lies not in abandoning these principles, but in preserving them.
Accordingly, reducing unnecessary barriers between intelligence collection and law enforcement must be accompanied by rigorous oversight, appropriate safeguards, and a heightened sensitivity to the inherent rights and civil liberties of Americans.
This challenge was present 25 years ago following the attacks on 9/11 and it remains so today.
I believe this panel of witnesses will greatly assist us in addressing the national security imperatives of our time while safeguarding our sacred liberties as citizens.
Rep. Stefanik’s Opening Statement as prepared for delivery:
A “failure of imagination” was one of the key failures leading up to the September 11 attacks.
At the time, Afghanistan seemed very distant to most Americans. Islamist terrorism was known but not considered an impending threat. Using aircraft as weapons seemed far-fetched at the time.
But was it that far-fetched? Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups had used suicide vehicles before to wreak havoc.
They used other modes of transportation as well. In the USS Cole attack, for example, al Qaeda used a boat.
So, was it such stretch of imagination that al Qaeda might leap to other vehicles, like aircraft?
In retrospect, the answer is easy: No. Using aircraft as weapons was not out of the question.
The problem was a failure of imagination by policymakers, law enforcement, and in the IC. That is the core objective of today’s hearing.
We cannot afford another failure of imagination. The risks are too high.
The threats that have emerged over the last 25 years are much broader and more complex than were present at the time of September 11, fueled by an extraordinary technological revolution.
Some of these threats include great power competition, artificial intelligence, foreign malign influence campaigns, drones, hostile use of emerging biotechnologies, and vulnerabilities littered throughout our critical infrastructure.
We need our IC and law enforcement agencies to think creatively, proactively, and seek innovative ways to get ahead of the new threats we are seeing today.
We must go on offense. We need to take preemptive moves to thwart our adversaries.
With all the challenges we are confronted with today, we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent.
To be sure, this is an immense challenge that we must tackle head on.
That is why this Task Force on the 9/11 Commission has held hearings, hosted briefings with the IC and law enforcement officials, visited the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial, and will visit the memorials in Shanksville and New York City.
The American people are counting on us to forge a path forward in an uncertain future.
I look forward to continuing this important discussion with our excellent panel of witnesses on confronting the next generation of threats facing our nation and want to thank them for participating in today’s hearing.
###