Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, nearly two years after the President vowed to ‘‘degrade and ultimately destroy’’ ISIS, the terrorists are still holding their sanctuary in Iraq and Syria. Foreign fighters are still flocking to ISIS’ so-called caliphate to fight alongside the terrorist group and tyrannize local populations. But ISIS has not stopped there. In 2015, ISIS significantly stepped up its attacks outside Iraq and Syria. From the Charlie Hebdo attack last January to the attack last May at the Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas, ISIS has illustrated its dangerous capability to strike outside of its territory. The bloody year was finally capped off with the tragic massacre in Paris that left 130 people dead. Then came the attacks in Brussels only two months ago. ISIS suicide bombers killed 32 people and wounded over 300 in the heart of the European Union. The attacks showed the world that despite a year of pulling off these coordinated attacks, ISIS’ appetite for carnage and its ability to strike have not abated. Besides the looming threat of ISIS, terrorism has continued to plague countries the world over. Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel, Bangladesh. These are just a few countries facing serious and destabilizing terrorist threats. In fact, more people were killed by terrorists in 2014 than ever before. There was an 80 percent increase in terrorist related deaths in 2014 compared to 2013. Yet in the midst of this struggle against terrorism, the Administration wants to cut the main antiterrorism account by 25 percent while increasing a general foreign aid account by 41 percent. The State Department’s Counter-Terrorism Bureau is not saved from this cut. In fact, State Department wants 31 percent less dollars for 2017 than 2016 for the CT Bureau. That budget request does not match the Administration’s rhetoric that countering terrorism is a top priority. Originally set up as an office back in 1972 in response to the terrorist attack at the Olympic Games in Munich, Germany, the primary mission of the Bureau for Counterterrorism is to forge partnerships with non-state actors, multilateral organizations, and foreign governments to advance the counterterrorism objectives and national security of the United States. Under that broad mission it has five principal responsibilities: 1) countering violent extremism; 2) capacity building; 3) counterterrorism diplomacy; 4) U.S. counterterrorism strategy and operations; and 5) homeland security coordination. As the Bureau has grown in size, it has struggled to keep up with evaluating its programs to see if they really work. Even though the Bureau accepts the idea that it should be spending 3 to 5 percent of program resources on monitoring and evaluation, it has no way of tracking how much was actually spent so it can know if it is meeting that goal. Over the last 5 years, the Bureau has completed 5 evaluations. It needs to be doing more. It also needs to be doing better evaluations. The Bureau should do an impact evaluation to see if its project really made any difference. The Bureau should go back a year or longer after a project is completed to see if that project made a lasting difference. This year, the Bureau is putting strong emphasis on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). Even as it faces a 31 percent cut, the Bureau wants to set up a new office, hire more staff, and expand its CVE programs. But CVE, which the Administration hails as a ‘‘pillar’’ of its counterterrorism strategy, has never even been evaluated by the Bureau. A GAO study stated that while the Bureau has promised to evaluate CVE since 2012 it still has not evaluated it. I’m glad to hear the Bureau finally has plans in the works to evaluate CVE, but if this evaluation was done years ago, we could be a lot more confident the new dollars going to CVE would be well spent.In January, the State Department announced the establishment of another office, the Global Engagement Center (GEC). Outside of the CT Bureau, it is tasked with coordinating messaging that delegitimizes violent extremists. It is not yet clear how the Bureau will engage and coordinate with the GEC or how it will not duplicate efforts. A big part of countering violent extremism is winning the battle online, especially over social media. ISIS has been able to recruit over 20,000 foreign fighters, from more than 90 different countries, partly because of the organization’s use of social media. In 2011, the White House acknowledged terrorists’ use of social media to spread hate and promised a strategy to prevent online radicalization. Five years later, we are still waiting. In a time of limited resources and dangerous terrorist threats; we cannot afford to waste any dollars. Our national security depends on it. It is clear that terror attacks are on the rise. Despite the Administration’s so-called progress at winning back territory in Iraq and Syria, terrorists successfully conduct deadly attacks worldwide. ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates continue to grow deeper roots in local communities thanks in large part to their use of social media. Now more than ever is a time to be vigilant about our counterterrorism efforts. The Department of State’s role in this fight is not to be taken lightly. We need to make sure these programs are effective at combatting radicalization and the threat of terrorist attacks. The State Department must prioritize the monitoring and evaluation of their programs and ensure that lessons from such evaluations are implemented in a timely manner. We must develop a better understanding of what is working and what is not. The safety of Americans and our allies depends on it. And that’s just the way it is.