[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WORLDWIDE THREATS TO THE HOMELAND
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-367 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
2015
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Filemon Vela, Texas
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Eric Swalwell, California
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Vacancy
Steve Daines, Montana Vacancy
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Curtis Clawson, Florida
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Joan O'Hara, Acting Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Witnesses
Hon. Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Mr. James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Mr. Matthew G. Olsen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center:
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
For the Record
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
``State of Confusion: ISIS' Strategy and How to Counter It'',
Brookings, Foreign Affairs, Opinion/September 11, 2014, By:
William McCants.............................................. 33
H.R. 548....................................................... 35
Appendix
Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun for Jeh C. Johnson........ 63
Questions From Honorable Ron Barber for Jeh C. Johnson........... 65
Question From Honorable Donald M. Payne for Jeh C. Johnson....... 66
Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun for James B. Comey........ 67
Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun for Matthew G. Olsen...... 67
Question From Honorable Susan W. Brooks for Matthew G. Olsen..... 68
WORLDWIDE THREATS TO THE HOMELAND
----------
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McCaul, King, Rogers, Broun,
Meehan, Duncan, Chaffetz, Palazzo, Barletta, Daines, Perry,
Sanford, Clawson, Thompson, Jackson Lee, Clarke, Higgins,
Richmond, Keating, Barber, Payne, O'Rourke, Vela, and Swalwell.
Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order.
The committee is meeting today to examine world-wide
threats to the security of the homeland of the United States.
Before we begin today, I would like to remind our guests that
demonstrations from the audience, including the use of signs,
placards, T-shirts, as well as verbal outbursts, are a
violation of the rules of the House. I would like to thank our
guests for their cooperation in maintaining order and decorum
during today's hearing.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Secretary Johnson, Director Comey, Director Olsen, we have
asked you to come before the committee today to discuss the
array of threats facing the U.S. homeland and the Government's
response. The chief concern of ours is the proliferation of
terrorist safe havens around the world. The 9/11 commission's
No. 1 recommendation was to use all elements of National power
to deny sanctuary to terrorist groups. Yet we have seen safe
havens spread with alarming speed in recent years.
Such territory makes it far easier for terrorist groups to
train recruits and hatch plots against the West. During this
administration, no less than three extremist sanctuaries have
emerged or expanded in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. In Afghanistan,
if the administration goes forward with the plan to withdraw
our troops like they did in Iraq, we might see terrorists
reclaiming the territory from which they planned 9/11.
Our obvious and most immediate concern is the Islamic State
of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. I agree with the President that
this group does not represent a legitimate state, but it is,
rather, a cabal of butchers peddling a violent and perverted
brand of Islam. However, it should never have been taken--taken
the beheading of two Americans for our Government--it should
never have taken that to wake up the American people to this
menace.
We have known for many months that ISIS was surging and
represented the top threat to the United States. But the White
House dithered without taking action and the President played
down the danger. Despite recent U.S. strikes against the group,
ISIS still holds onto thousands of square miles of territory
where they are able to operate their terrorist army. Recent
estimates indicate that they may have up to 30,000 fighters, of
which 2,000 or so are Americans and Europeans.
These radicalized Westerners represent an exceptionally
grave threat to the U.S. homeland because of their militant
training, extremist connections, ease of travel, and intimate
knowledge of the West. Today, we expect to hear about the
administration's strategy to detect, deter, and disrupt the
return of these foreign fighters to the U.S. territory and that
of our allies. Let us be clear, our Nation is at war with this
group and the twisted ideology it is seeking to spread.
We must consider all instruments of National power to roll
back and defeat these fanatics now and destroy them wherever
they emerge. For if we do not take the fight to the enemy
overseas, we risk having to fight them here at home.
Our military efforts must include airstrikes in Syria to
cut off the head of the snake. Top military advisers to the
President, including the chairman of the joint chiefs, General
Martin Dempsey, have said that to defeat ISIS, its safe haven
in Syria must be destroyed. I agree with him. I hope the
President is taking the advice of his top commanders and
generals in the Pentagon.
But ISIS is not the only threat we face. I hope we hear
today how your agencies are working together to address the
wider danger from violent Islamist extremism here at home and
abroad. The White House has presented a false narrative in
recent years about this threat, claiming, for instance, that
al-Qaeda was on its heels, on the path to defeat, has been
decimated, while in reality, al-Qaeda network has grown and
materialized into a deadly global franchise with a spider web
of affiliates and ideologically-similar groups attempting to
fill the power vacuums across the Middle East, Africa, and
Southeast Asia.
The ideological struggle against violent Islamist
extremists is taking place not just overseas, but also here at
home. There have been more than 70 home-grown violent Jihadist
plots or attacks in the United States since 9/11, according to
the Congressional Research Service. More than two-thirds of
them have been uncovered or have taken place in only the past 5
years.
Many of the suspects were radicalized, at least in part, by
on-line Islamist propaganda, including the Boston Marathon
bombers and the Fort Hood attacker, a tool ISIS excels at and
utilizes.
Additionally, Federal authorities indicted--just yesterday,
indicted a U.S. citizen from Rochester for raising money,
recruiting, and facilitating training for ISIS.
While the United States continues to battle physical
threats posed by terrorist organizations, we must also be
vigilant protecting the homeland against asymmetric threats
like cyber attacks from state or non-state actors.
President Obama recently noted that the cyber threat is one
of the most serious economic and National security challenges
we face as a Nation. Sadly, many experts believe the Nation is
woefully underprepared to protect itself in this domain. In a
recent report from the bipartisan Policy Center, former 9/11
commissioners described the U.S. cyber preparedness as being at
pre-September 11 levels.
Last month, Defense Secretary Hagel said the world is
exploding all over. I agree with Secretary Hagel's assessment.
We look forward to your testimony here today, surveying the
threat landscape and elaborating on how we are countering those
set against us and our interests.
Before I turn it over to the Ranking Member Thompson, I
would like to note that this is the first time that the FBI
director has appeared before this committee. Sir, we very much
appreciate your presence here today.
If I could ask that the Members be cordial to him so that
we will hopefully have his return appearance before this
committee.
Additionally, this is likely one of the last Congressional
appearances for NCTC Director, Matt Olsen, who has announced
his retirement. We thank you for your service, sir, over the
years--25 years of service to the Government, Director Olsen,
and we appreciate you being here and everything that you have
done to protect Americans here in the homeland. It has been a
real honor to work with you.
Secretary Johnson, you have been on the job at DHS for 9
months, and I appreciate your good work and outstanding
relationship that we have built over those years of--or months
that you have taken office. I look forward to having you appear
before this committee again.
Thanks for your--if I could just also, I was in New York
yesterday. Secretary Johnson was leading the Governors in New
York and New Jersey, the FBI, CBP, Homeland Security officials,
the Joint Terrorism Task Force in such a professional manner.
It was really refreshing to see that kind of leadership coming
from our Department on a very serious topic. So, thank you for
your leadership, sir.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael T. McCaul
September 17, 2014
Secretary Johnson, Director Comey, and Director Olsen--we've asked
you to come before the committee today to discuss the array of threats
facing the U.S. homeland and the Government's response.
A chief concern of ours is the proliferation of terrorist safe
havens around the world. The 9/11 Commission's No. 1 recommendation was
to use ``all elements of National power'' to deny sanctuary to
terrorist groups, yet we have seen safe havens spread with alarming
speed in recent years. Such territory makes it far easier for terrorist
groups to train recruits and hatch plots against the West.
During this administration, no less than three extremist
sanctuaries have emerged or expanded--in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. In
Afghanistan, if the administration goes forward with its plan to
withdraw our troops like they did in Iraq, we might see terrorists
reclaiming the territory from which they planned 9/11.
Our obvious and most immediate concern is the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria, or ISIS. I agree with the President that this group does not
represent a legitimate ``state'' but is rather a cabal of butchers
peddling a violent and perverted brand of Islam. However, it should
never have taken the beheading of two Americans for our Government to
wake up the American people to this menace. We have known for many
months that ISIS was surging and represented the top threat to the
United States. But the White House dithered without taking action, and
the President played down the danger.
Despite recent U.S. strikes against the group, ISIS still holds
onto thousands of square miles of territory where they are able to
operate their terrorist army. Recent estimates indicate that they may
have up to 30,000 fighters, of which 2,000 or so are Americans and
Europeans. These radicalized Westerners represent an exceptionally
grave threat to the U.S. homeland because of their militant training,
extremist connections, ease of travel, and intimate knowledge of the
West.
Today, we expect to hear about the administration's strategy to
deter, detect, and disrupt the return of these foreign fighters to U.S.
territory and that of our allies.
Let us be clear: Our Nation is at war with this group and the
twisted ideology it is seeking to spread. We must consider all
instruments of National power to rollback and defeat these fanatics now
and destroy them wherever they emerge. Or, if we don't take the fight
to the enemy overseas, we risk having to fight them here at home.
Our military efforts must include airstrikes in Syria to cut of the
head of the snake. Top military advisors to the President, including
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey, have said that
to defeat ISIS its safe haven in Syria must be destroyed. I agree with
him, and I hope the President is taking the advice of his top
commanders and generals.
But ISIS is not the only threat we face. I hope we hear today how
your agencies are working to address the wider danger from Violent
Islamist Extremism here at home and abroad.
The White House has presented a false narrative in recent years
about this threat, claiming for instance that al-Qaeda was ``on its
heels,'' ``on the path to defeat,'' and had been ``decimated.'' While,
in reality, the al-Qaeda network has grown and materialized into a
deadly global franchise, with a spider web of affiliates and
ideologically-similar groups attempting to fill the power vacuums
across the Middle East, Africa, and South East Asia.
The ideological struggle against Violent Islamist Extremism is
taking place not just overseas, but also here at home. There have been
more than 70 home-grown violent jihadist plots or attacks in the United
States since 9/11, according to the Congressional Research Service.
More than two-thirds of them have been uncovered or have taken place in
only the past 5 years. Many of the suspects were radicalized at least
in part by on-line Islamist propaganda, including the Boston Marathon
bombers and the Fort Hood attackers, a tool ISIS excels at utilizing.
Additionally, last night Federal authorities indicted a U.S.
citizen from Rochester, NY for raising money, recruiting, and
facilitating travel for ISIS.
While the United States continues to battle ``physical threats''
posed by terrorist organizations, we must also be vigilant in
protecting the homeland against asymmetric threats like cyber attacks
from state and non-state actors. President Obama recently noted that
the ``cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and National
security challenges we face as a Nation.'' Sadly, many experts believe
the Nation is woefully underprepared to protect itself in this domain.
In a recent report from the Bipartisan Policy Center, former 9/11
Commissioners described the U.S. cyber preparedness as being at pre-
September 11 levels.
Last month, Defense Secretary Hagel said ``The world is exploding
all over.'' I agree with his assessment and we look forward to your
testimony today surveying the threat landscape, and elaborating on how
we are countering those set against us and our interests.
Before I turn it over to Ranking Member Thompson, I would note this
is the first time the FBI director has appeared before this committee,
and we very much appreciate your presence. Additionally, this is likely
one of the last Congressional appearances for NCTC Director Matt Olsen
who has announced his retirement. We thank you for your service,
Director Olsen, and appreciate you being here. It has been a true honor
to work with you. Secretary Johnson, you've been on the job at DHS for
9 months. I appreciate our good working relationship and look forward
to having you appear before the committee for some time to come.
Chairman McCaul. With that, the Chairman now recognizes the
Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank you for
holding this very important hearing. However, we are also
fortunate to have an exceptionally accomplished and
knowledgeable panel of witnesses to discuss the current threat
picture.
Secretary Johnson, welcome back. You have offered
informative and useful testimony before this committee, and I
expect today will be no different.
Direct Comey, it is a great pleasure to have the bureau
participate in today's discussion. As the Chairman has said,
this is the FBI's maiden voyage before this committee. We look
forward to your testimony. I hope that it won't be your last.
We will work on that, I am sure.
Mr. Olsen, your years of Federal service, the Chairman has
already spoken to, thank you for all the contributions you have
made. I am certain the future is still very bright for you. So,
thank you very much. I wish you the best in that transition.
Mr. Chairman, 13 years ago this week, just days after the
horrific September 11 terrorist attack, then-President George
W. Bush addressed Congress and the Nation. In his address,
President Bush stated, ``Our war on terror begins with al-
Qaeda. And it will not end until every terrorist group of
global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.''
Thirteen years later, there have been some successes,
particularly against core al-Qaeda. But, as we know, not all
terrorist groups have been found, stopped, and defeated.
Those of us who were in the audience when President Bush
delivered his address could not have predicted how the
terrorist threat would evolve. At this time, Congress was
completely focused on preventing another large-scale attack on
U.S. soil.
In 2001, we understood al-Qaeda to be a centralized
organization. No thought was given to the prospect that al-
Qaeda would franchise terrorism and inspire satellite groups in
the Arabian Peninsula and Africa. The prospect that an attack
would be carried out by a lone-wolf actor with no direct
training or support from al-Qaeda barely entered the
discussion.
We were thinking that terrorist groups were focused on
taking human lives. We did not predict that in a decade after
September 11, state actors or terrorist groups would try to
devastate our economy and steal valuable intellectual property
by targeting our cyber infrastructure.
Finally, we could not have imagined that on the eve of the
13th anniversary of 9/11, another American President would come
before the American people to make the case for defeating and
destroying a terrorist organization. Indeed, the threat from
the Islamic State of Iraq and Lebanon is legitimate and
warrants attention.
That said, the situation on the ground in Syria is fluid
and complex. Defeating and destroying ISIL in this context, is
no easy task. I cannot stress enough the need for vigilance and
care, particularly should we decide to partner with individuals
on the Syria and to try and defeat ISIL.
In addition to our efforts abroad, we need to remain
vigilant and improve the preparedness and resilience at home.
Last month's arrest of Don Morgan illustrates my long-standing
view that we must reject specific ethnic or religious profiles
of would-be terrorists. Violent extremism has no race,
ethnicity, religion, or culture, and there is no single profile
or pathway for individuals who come to embrace violent
extremism.
Also since September 11, State and local law enforcement
have received grant funding from the Federal Government to
prepare and prevent terrorist activity. We saw the value of
this grant funding after the bombing at last year's Boston
Marathon as the police wore protective gear and stabilized the
situation.
More recently, there was an example of what I believe to be
an improper use of Federal equipment and resources in Ferguson,
Missouri. Better oversight and tighter control of how Federal
homeland security and law enforcement resources are used by
State and local partners is one area that needs to be improved.
Another area that is a perennial challenge is information
sharing with State and local law enforcement. Even with Fusion
Centers and Joint Terrorist Task Forces, 13 years after
September 11, we still hear that information sharing can be
improved. Given threats from ISIL, al-Qaeda, lone-wolf actors
and other terrorist organizations, is there a way to an optimal
relationship between Federal, State, and local partners?
The 13 years since September 11 have shown us that we
cannot have a myopic or narrow view of the terrorist threats we
face. It is my hope that today we engage in a productive
dialogue about the variety of threats to our Nation.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
September 17, 2014
We are fortunate to have an exceptionally accomplished and
knowledgeable panel of witnesses to discuss the current threat picture.
Secretary Johnson, welcome back. You have offered informative and
useful testimony before, and I expect today to be no different.
Director Comey, it is great to have the Bureau participate in today's
discussion. I believe this is the first time we had an FBI director
before the committee to testify. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we will have
other opportunities to invite him back. Director Olsen, I join the
Chairman in commending you for 24 years of Federal service and, in
particular, your contributions as the director of the National
Counterterrorism Center. I wish you the best during your transition.
Thirteen years ago this week, just days after the horrific
September 11 terrorist attacks, then-President George W. Bush addressed
Congress and the Nation. In his address, President Bush stated, ``our
war on terror begins with al-Qaeda and it will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and
defeated''. Thirteen years later, there have been some successes,
particularly against core al-Qaeda, but as we know, not all terrorist
groups have been ``found, stopped, and defeated''.
Those of us who were in the audience when President Bush delivered
his address could not have predicted how the terrorist threat would
evolve. At that time, Congress was completely focused on preventing
another large-scale attack on U.S. soil. In 2001, we understood al-
Qaeda to be a centralized organization. Little thought was given to the
prospects that al-Qaeda would franchise terrorism and inspire satellite
groups in the Arabian Peninsula and Africa.
The prospect that an attack would be carried out by a ``lone-wolf
actor'' with no direct training or support from al-Qaeda barely entered
the discussion. We were thinking that terrorist groups were focused on
taking human lives; we did not predict that in the decade after
September 11 state actors or terrorist groups would try to devastate
our economy and steal valuable intellectual property by targeting our
cyber infrastructure.
Finally, we could not have imagined that on the eve of the 13th
anniversary of 9/11, another American President would come before the
American people to make the case for defeating and destroying a
terrorist organization. Indeed, the threat from the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is legitimate and warrants attention.
That said, the situation on the ground in Syria is fluid and
complex; defeating and destroying ISIL in this context is no easy task.
I cannot stress enough the need for vigilance and care, particularly
should we decide to partner with individuals on the Syria to try and
defeat ISIL. In addition to our efforts abroad, we need to remain
vigilant and improve preparedness and resilience at home.
Last month's arrest of Don Morgan illustrates my long-standing view
that we must reject specific ethnic or religious profiles of a ``would-
be terrorist''. Violent extremism has no race, ethnicity, religion, or
culture and there is no single profile or pathway for individuals who
come to embrace violent extremism.
Also, since September 11, State and local law enforcement have
received grant funding from the Federal Government to prepare for and
prevent terrorist activity. We saw the value of this grant funding
after the bombings at last year's Boston Marathon, as the police wore
protective gear and stabilized the situation. More recently, there was
an example of what I believe to be an improper use of Federal equipment
and resources--in Ferguson, Missouri.
Better oversight and tighter control of how Federal homeland
security and law enforcement resources are used by State and local
partners is one area that needs to be improved. Another area that is a
perennial challenge is information sharing with State and local law
enforcement.
Even with fusion centers and joint terrorist task forces, 13 years
after September 11, we still hear that information sharing can be
improved. Given threats from ISIL, al-Qaeda, lone-wolf actors, and
other terrorist organizations, is there a way to an optimal
relationship between Federal, State, and local partners? The 13 years
since September 11 have shown us that we cannot have a myopic or narrow
view of the terrorist threats we face. It is my hope that today we
engage in a productive dialogue about the variety of threats to our
Nation.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the Ranking Member.
Other Members are reminded that opening statements may be
submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have here today a distinguished panel of
witnesses before us. First, Secretary Jeh Johnson, sworn in
December 23, 2013 as the fourth Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security. Prior to joining DHS, Secretary Johnson
served as general counsel for the Department of Defense where
he was part of the senior management team and led more than
10,000 military and civilian lawyers across the Department.
He also oversaw the development of the legal aspects of
many of our Nation's counterterrorism policies and spearheaded
reforms to military commissions system at Guantanamo Bay in
2009.
Next, we are very pleased and honored to have to this
committee for the first time Director James Comey. He became
the seventh director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in
September 2013. Director Comey has a long history of service to
the Department of Justice, including holding positions as both
assistant U.S. attorney and U.S. attorney to the Southern
District of New York, and assistant U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, where I first met him when he was
conducting Project Exile, a gun violence reduction initiative.
I want to thank you for your efforts on that. He also served as
deputy attorney general at the Justice Department.
Prior to his appointment, he held senior positions at
Lockheed Martin and Bridgewater Associates.
Again, thank you so much for being here today.
Then, and last but not least, but it is his last appearance
before this committee, but I am sure we will hear from him more
times after this. But Director Matthew Olsen has served as
director of the National Counterterrorism Center since August
2011. Prior to joining NCTC, Mr. Olsen served as the general
counsel for the National Security Agency, where he was the
chief legal officer for NSA and the principal legal adviser to
the NSA director.
Director Olsen has a long record of service that includes
time spent at the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the
Guantanamo Review Task Force.
Again, we thank you for your service, sir.
The full written statements of each of the witnesses will
appear in the record.
The Chairman now recognizes the Secretary of Homeland
Security for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member
Thompson. The committee has my prepared opening statement. I
will not read it. I will just in a few moments here mention a
couple of things.
One, thank you for holding this hearing. This is a very
important hearing on a very important topic. This is just the
type of public opportunity for Congressional oversight of our
counterterrorism efforts that I welcome. This will not be my
last appearance here, I am sure, and it is certainly not my
first.
I want to say thank you to my friends and colleagues to my
left and right for joining me. Director Comey and I have known
each other for 25 years, when we were assistant U.S. attorneys
together beginning in 1988, 1989. So I have known Jim for a
very long time.
Matt Olsen I have known for 6 years now, going back to late
2008, early 2009. I hired Matt to be general counsel of NSA,
along with General Alexander. He and I hired Matt to be general
counsel of NSA. He did a terrific job there for a year, and he
has been a terrific colleague in the National security-
counterterrorism world. I and others will miss him very much
for his clarity of delivery in terms of his intelligence
assessments.
I mention my personal relationship with these two gentlemen
to highlight the fact that homeland security, law enforcement,
and the intelligence community have in my judgment a very, very
good working relationship in dealing with counterterrorism
matters. We are committed to working together on these issues.
We are committed to information sharing. We are committed to
collegiality. We are encouraging that among our staffs.
Just yesterday, Director Comey and I met with other members
of the National security team in a periodic meeting to discuss
National security topics. We do this often.
The other point I would like to make, Chairman, is ISIL is
obviously the most prominent terrorist organization on the
world stage right now. It is our focus. But from my homeland
security perspective, and I am sure my colleagues share this,
we have to stay focused on a range of terrorist threats. Al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, for example, is still active.
There are other threats emanating from that region,
emanating from other parts of the world that we in homeland
security-National security have to remain focused on. We have
taken a number of steps in recent months to address aviation
security, for example. You are aware of the enhancements that I
directed in July and in August. We are addressing the issue of
foreign fighters in and out of Syria, which I am sure we will
discuss this morning, as well as, for example, enhanced
countering violent extremism efforts here at home through
various outreach programs that we have, including the pilot
program the attorney general announced earlier this week.
So we are doing a number of things that we will be pleased
to discuss with you at this morning's hearing. I look forward
to your questions. Thank you again for holding this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeh C. Johnson
September 17, 2014
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to address world-wide
threats to our homeland.
Before I begin, I would like to recognize my colleagues at the
table: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Jim Comey and
National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Director Matt Olsen. I have
known both of these dedicated public servants for years. Twenty-five
years ago Director Comey and I were assistant U.S. attorneys together
in the Southern District of New York, and Matt Olsen was the general
counsel of the NSA while I was the general counsel of the Defense
Department. These two public servants are steadfast partners to DHS and
to me, and I consider it a privilege to work alongside them as we meet
our shared mission of keeping our Nation and the American people safe.
As Matt prepares to leave his post at NCTC, I want to congratulate him
on his 24 years of distinguished service to this country. As President
Obama has said, every American is safer because of his service.
As this committee knows, the United States faces a constantly
evolving threat environment. Thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks,
threats to our Nation have not subsided.
The job of DHS and its more than 240,000 men and women is to remain
vigilant against these threats, regardless of where they originate or
what form they take. First and foremost, that means detecting and
preventing terrorist threats that may seek to penetrate the homeland
from land, sea, or air. As I have noted before, DHS must always be
agile and vigilant in continually adapting to evolving threats, be it a
foreign fighter or a ``lone-wolf'' terrorist living within our midst.
Counterterrorism is the cornerstone of the DHS mission. And 13
years after
9/11, it's still a dangerous world. There's still a terrorist threat to
our homeland.
Today the terrorist threat is different from what it was in 2001.
It is more decentralized and more complex. Not only is there core al-
Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula--which is still active in its efforts to attack the
homeland--al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al-Shabaab in Somalia, the
al-Nusrah Front in Syria, and the newest affiliate, al-Qaeda in the
Indian subcontinent. There are groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria, which
are not official affiliates of al-Qaeda, but share its extremist
ideology.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, previously known
as al-Qaeda in Iraq, is now vying to be the pre-eminent terrorist
organization on the world's stage. At present, we have no credible
information that ISIL is planning to attack the homeland of the United
States.
But that is not, by any means, the end of the story.
ISIL is an extremely dangerous organization. It has the elements of
both a terrorist organization and an insurgent army. It kills innocent
civilians, and has seized large amounts of territory in Iraq and Syria,
which it can utilize for safe haven, training, command and control, and
from which it can launch attacks. It engages in 30-40 attacks per
month, has more than 20,000 fighters, and takes in as much as a million
dollars a day from illicit oil sales, ransom payments, and other
illicit activities. Its public messaging and social media are as slick
and as effective as any I've ever seen from a terrorist organization.
Though we know of no credible information that ISIL is planning to
attack the homeland at present, we know that ISIL is prepared to kill
innocent Americans they encounter because they are Americans--in a
public and depraved manner. We know ISIL views the United States as an
enemy, and we know that ISIL's leaders have themselves said they will
soon be in ``direct confrontation'' with the United States.
On September 10, President Obama delivered a speech to the Nation
in which he outlined this Government's response to ISIL.
The President has already begun a military campaign to take the
fight to ISIL. To date, our military has launched well over 100 air
strikes against ISIL in Iraq, to protect our personnel, critical
infrastructure, and to support humanitarian activities there.
The United States will expand our efforts against ISIL, as part of
a broad coalition of NATO allies and other allies in the region,
reflecting the international community's condemnation of ISIL and its
tactics. As part of this, we are pleased to see the formation of the
new inclusive government in Iraq, with whom we intend to work closely.
We look forward to this new government's addressing the rights and
concerns of all of Iraq's diverse communities, and its leaders from
across the political spectrum coming together to take a united stand
against ISIL.
From the homeland security perspective, here is what we are doing:
First, to address the threats generally emanating from terrorist
groups overseas, we have in recent weeks enhanced aviation security.
Much of the terrorist threat continues to center around aviation
security. In early July, I directed enhanced screening at 18 overseas
airports with direct flights to the United States. Several weeks later,
we added six more airports to the list. Three weeks ago we added
another airport, and additional screening of carry-on luggage. The
United Kingdom and other countries have followed with similar
enhancements to their aviation security. We continually evaluate
whether more is necessary, without unnecessarily burdening the
traveling public.
Longer-term, as this committee has heard me say before, we are
pursuing ``pre-clearance'' at overseas airports with flights to the
United States. This means inspection by a U.S. Customs and Border
Protection officer and enhanced aviation security before a passenger
gets on the plane to the United States. We now have pre-clearance at
airports in Ireland, the UAE, Canada, and the Caribbean. I regard it as
a homeland security imperative to build more. To use a football
metaphor, I'd much rather defend our end-zone from the 50-yard line
than our 1-yard line. I want to take every opportunity we have to
expand homeland security beyond our borders.
Second, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, NCTC, and
other intelligence agencies are making enhanced and concerted efforts
to track Syrian foreign fighters who come from or seek to enter this
country. The reality is that more than 15,000 foreign fighters have
traveled to Syria over the last 3 years, including approximately 2,000
Westerners. We estimate that more than 100 Americans have traveled or
attempted to travel to Syria to join the fight there one way or
another. We are concerned that not only may these foreign fighters join
ISIL or other violent extremist groups in Syria, they may also be
recruited by these violent extremist groups to leave Syria and conduct
external attacks. The FBI has arrested a number of individuals who have
tried to travel from the United States to Syria to support terrorist
activities there.
Third, we are working with European and other governments to build
better information sharing to track Syrian foreign fighters. Whenever I
get together with my European counterparts, this topic is almost always
item No. 1 on the agenda. The importance of this issue is also
reflected by the fact it will be a singular topic of discussion at a
U.N. Security Council summit that the President will chair in two
weeks. In the history of the United Nations, this is only the second
time a U.S. President has personally chaired a Security Council summit.
We are increasing efforts to track those who enter and leave Syria,
and may later seek to travel to the United States from a country for
which the United States does not require a visa from its citizens.
There are in fact a number of Visa Waiver Program countries that also
have large numbers of citizens who are Syrian foreign fighters.
Generally, we have strong information-sharing relationships with these
countries. But, with their help, we will enhance this capability. We
need to ensure that we are doing all we can to identify those who, by
their travel patterns, attempt to hide their association with terrorist
groups.
We are encouraging more countries to join the United States in
using tools like Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name
Record collection, which will help to identify terrorist travel
patterns.
Fourth, within the U.S. Government, DHS and our interagency
partners in law enforcement and the intelligence community, are
enhancing our ability to share information with each other about
suspicious individuals.
Fifth, we are continually on guard against the potential domestic-
based, home-grown terrorist who may be lurking in our own society: The
independent actor or ``lone wolf'' who did not train at a terrorist
camp or join the ranks of a terrorist organization overseas, but who is
inspired here at home by a group's social media, literature, or violent
extremist ideology. In many respects, this is the hardest terrorist
threat to detect, and the one I worry most about.
To address the domestic ``lone-wolf'' threat, I have directed that
DHS build on our partnerships with State and local law enforcement in a
way that enhances community relationships. The local police and fire
departments are the first responders to any crisis in our homeland. The
local police, more than the Federal Government, have their finger on
the pulse of the local community from which a domestic terrorist may
come.
To address the home-grown terrorist who may be lurking in our
midst, we must also emphasize the need for help from the public. ``If
You See Something, Say Something'' is more than a slogan. For example,
last week we sent a private-sector advisory identifying for retail
businesses a long list of materials that could be used as explosive
precursors, and the types of suspicious behavior that a retailer should
look for from someone who buys a lot of these materials.
Within DHS, we have outreach programs with communities who
themselves are engaging youth in violence prevention. I have directed
that we step up these programs and I personally participate in them. In
June I met with a Syrian-American community group in a Chicago suburb.
Next week I will meet with a Somali community in Columbus, Ohio. In
October, the White House will host a summit on domestic efforts to
prevent violent extremism, and address the full life cycle of
radicalization to violence posed by foreign fighter threats. The
efforts highlighted at this summit are meant to increase the
participation of faith-based organizations, mental health providers,
social service providers, and youth-affiliated groups in local efforts
to counter violent extremism.
Over the last 13 years, we have vastly improved this Nation's
ability to detect and disrupt terrorist plots overseas before they
reach the homeland. Here at home, Federal law enforcement does an
excellent job, time and again, of identifying, investigating,
arresting, and prosecuting scores of individuals before they commit
terrorist acts. But we continue to face real terrorist enemies and real
terrorist threats and we must all remain vigilant.
As Secretary of Homeland Security, I see the full array of threats
to our homeland every day, from the ``lone wolf'' to al-Qaeda
affiliates like al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (which has made
repeated efforts to export terrorism to our homeland) to ISIL and its
ranks of foreign fighters.
As long as the world remains a dangerous place, as long as there
are threats to the homeland in any form from any individual or group,
the dedicated men and women of DHS will remain vigilant. We will take
all the appropriate steps to continue to protect the homeland, in
accordance with our fundamental rights and liberties, and in close
partnership with our Federal, State, and local partners, the Congress,
and the American people. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the Secretary.
The Chairman now recognizes Director Comey for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES B. COMEY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson. It is a
pleasure to be before you for the first time and to be joined
by my friends Jeh and Matt here at the table.
To Matt Olsen, the American people will never fully know
how much he has done to keep them safe, but a lot of people in
this room know and will be forever grateful.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was gone from Government for
almost a decade, and so I have a perspective that may be
different on the terrorist threat. When I came back to
Government a year ago, I discovered the threat had changed in
two ways that struck me. First, thanks largely to our men and
women in uniform, we had taken the fight to the core al-Qaeda
tumor in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region and shrunk that tumor
in a significant way.
But at the same time, we had experienced a metastasis of
that cancer, the progeny of al-Qaeda. This metastasis has
sprung up in ungoverned or lightly-governed space in North
Africa, the Gulf, the Mediterranean, in ways that are familiar
to this committee.
The manifestation in Syria and Iraq is obviously a huge
example of that metastasis. So that metastasis, coupled with
the phenomenon of travelers seeking to go to those safe havens
to get the experience of being a terrorist, to make those
connections, is a way in which that change strikes me.
I am very concerned about the going. I am even more
concerned about the coming. There will be a terrorist diaspora
out of those areas, especially Syria, that we all wake up every
day thinking and worrying about.
The second way in which the terrorism threat has changed
has come with the way the internet has changed all of our
lives. It is no longer necessary to actually meet somebody in
al-Qaeda to get training and inspiration to conduct a terrorist
attack here in the United States. Someone can do it in their
pajamas in their basement.
These are the home-grown violent extremists that we worry
about, who can get all the poison they need and the training
they need to kill Americans, and in a way that is very hard for
us to spot between the time they emerge from their basements
and maybe kill innocent Americans. Those are the two ways in
which I have seen the terrorism threat change significantly
since I was last in Government.
Secretary Johnson mentioned cyber. All of us, as I have
said, have connected our entire lives to the internet. It is
where my children--I have five--it is where they play. It is
where we bank. It is where my health care is. It is where
critical infrastructure is. It is where my Nation's secrets
are.
So that is where bad people come to do harm across those
dimensions--people who want to hurt my kids, steal my identity,
damage our infrastructure, steal our secrets, that is where
they come. So to be effective, all of us need to be able to
address those threats in cyber space. I think making sure the
FBI is positioned, equipped, and trained to do that is going to
dominate the 9 years I have left in my term.
It is an honor to be here to represent the people of the
FBI. I believe I have the greatest job in the world, and it is
a pleasure to be back in public service.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Comey follows:]
Prepared Statement of James B. Comey
September 17, 2014
Good morning, Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members
of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the FBI's efforts to combat threats against the
homeland.
Today's FBI is a threat-based, intelligence-driven organization. We
live in a time of persistent terrorist and criminal threats to our
National security, our economy, and to our communities. Just as our
adversaries and threats continue to evolve, so, too, must the FBI. The
key to this evolution lies with our greatest assets: Our people and our
partnerships. Every FBI professional understands that thwarting the
threats facing our Nation means constantly striving to be more
effective and more efficient. The people of the FBI sacrifice much for
their country, and I am proud to lead this organization of dedicated
agents, analysts, and professional staff.
To accomplish its mission, the FBI relies heavily upon its law
enforcement and intelligence partners around the Nation and around the
globe.
By combining our resources and our collective expertise, we are
able to investigate National security threats that cross both
geographical and jurisdictional boundaries.
It is important to emphasize that the FBI carries out this broad
mission with rigorous obedience to the rule of law and resolute respect
for privacy, confidentiality, civil rights, and civil liberties of the
citizens we serve.
counterterrorism
Combating terrorism continues to be one of the top priorities for
the FBI. As geopolitical conflict zones continue to emerge throughout
many parts of the world, terrorist groups may use this instability to
recruit and incite acts of violence.
While core al-Qaeda isn't the dominant force it once was, we have
seen the growth of the al-Qaeda affiliates: al-Qaeda in the Islamic
Maghreb, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Nusra Front in Syria,
and now ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
Syria remains at the forefront of our minds as the on-going
conflict shows no signs of subsiding. The continuing violence in both
Syria and Iraq and the influx of foreign fighters threatens to further
destabilize an already volatile region while also heightening the
threat to the West. Due to the prolonged nature and the high visibility
of the Syrian conflict, we are concerned that U.S. persons with an
interest in committing violent extremist acts will continue to be drawn
to the region. Foreign fighters traveling to Syria or Iraq could, for
example, gain battlefield experience and increased exposure to violent
extremist elements that may lead to further radicalization to violence;
they may use these skills and exposure to radical ideology to return to
their countries of origin, including the United States, to conduct
attacks on the homeland. The FBI is working closely with our domestic
and international partners to track foreign fighters traveling to the
Middle East and to disrupt them before they act.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) remains committed
to instilling fear and attracting recruits. ISIL has issued public
statements confirming the terrorist organization's determination and
dedication to global terrorism. ISIL's widespread use of social media
and growing on-line support intensified following the commencement of
U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. ISIL has also shown the lengths to which it is
willing to go to attract public attention. This was evident in the
videos ISIL released depicting the beheadings of ISIL-held American
hostages James Foley and Steven Sotloff. We are deeply concerned about
the safety and security of American citizens world-wide, and ISIL and
other foreign terrorist organizations may continue to try to capture
American hostages in an attempt to force the U.S. Government and people
into making concessions that would only strengthen ISIL and further its
terrorist operations.
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) remains one of the
greatest threats to the United States. AQAP's intent on carrying out
violent acts against the West is still strong. Through AQAP's on-line
English magazine Inspire, the group advocates simple and inexpensive
lone-wolf attacks against the homeland and other Western targets. The
first edition of Inspire, released in the summer of 2010, provided
specific instructions on how to build a pipe bomb. Last month, AQAP
released a new publication that further expanded upon these
instructions to include building a pressure cooker bomb similar to the
one used in the Boston Marathon bombing.
Here at home, we face a continued threat from home-grown violent
extremists (HVEs). HVEs are individuals located in the United States
who are inspired by terrorist ideology. These individuals present
unique challenges because they do not share the profile of an
identifiable group. Their experience and motives are often distinct,
but they are increasingly savvy and willing to act alone. They may gain
inspiration from terrorist narratives, including material in English;
events in the United States or abroad perceived as threatening to
Muslims; the perceived success of other HVE plots, such as the November
2009 attack at Fort Hood; or their own grievances.
As you know, the FBI also relies heavily upon its 103 Joint
Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) across the Nation. The FBI has added
approximately 70 JTTFs since 9/11. Investigators, analysts, linguists,
and experts from dozens of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence
agencies comprise the JTTFs. The JTTFs serve as critical force
multipliers that follow up on all terrorism leads, develop and
investigate cases, and proactively identify threats and trends that may
impact the region, the Nation, and the world.
Finally, in an effort to better address the evolving threat, the
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Office uses FBI resources and works
with Federal counterparts to empower our local partners to prevent
violent extremists and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing,
financing, or recruiting individuals or groups in the United States to
commit acts of violence.
Today's FBI remains agile in its efforts to combat National
security threats both here and abroad. We are committed to utilizing
all of our resources to protect the citizens of this country, and we
will continue to further our integration of operations and intelligence
to prevent acts of terrorism.
intelligence
The FBI is a National security and law enforcement organization
that uses, collects, and shares intelligence in everything we do.
There was a time when the FBI was criticized for ``working the in-
box.'' Our work was driven by sources and the complaints that came to
our door. We too often worked what was directly in front of us, which
didn't always align with our biggest threats or allow us to look beyond
the horizon.
Today we are constantly involved in a process of trying to
understand the threats we face in each of our offices here and abroad--
what's out there, what we see, what we might be missing. We gather
intelligence, consistent with our authorities, to help us understand
and rank those threats and to identify the intelligence gaps we face.
We then try to fill those gaps and continue to learn as much as we can
about the threats we are addressing and those we may need to address.
We do this for National security and criminal threats, Nationally and
within each field office. We then compare the National and local
perspectives to develop a threat prioritization ranking for each of the
FBI's 56 field offices. By creating this ranking, we strive to actively
pursue our highest threats. This gives us a better assessment of what
the dangers are, what's being done about them, and what we should spend
time on.
The FBI has come a long way in its intelligence transformation over
the years, but there is always room to improve and grow. We have
reinstituted the FBI's Intelligence Branch to elevate and expand the
intelligence program. I am confident that this will result in a more
robust FBI with continued integration of intelligence and operations. I
also anticipate the expansion will facilitate a smoother, more
efficient exchange of intelligence with the intelligence community and
international partners.
cyber
We face cyber threats from state-sponsored hackers, hackers for
hire, global cyber syndicates, and terrorists. They seek our state
secrets, our trade secrets, our technology, and our ideas--things of
incredible value to all of us. They seek to strike our critical
infrastructure and to harm our economy.
Given the scope of the cyber threat, agencies across the Federal
Government are making cybersecurity a top priority. The Department of
Justice, including the FBI; the Department of Homeland Security; the
National Security Agency and other U.S. intelligence community and law
enforcement agencies have truly undertaken a whole-of-Government effort
to combat the cyber threat. Within the FBI, we are prioritizing the
investigation and prevention of high-level intrusions against the
United States, including the biggest and most dangerous botnets, state-
sponsored hackers, and global cyber syndicates. We are working with our
counterparts to predict and prevent attacks, rather than simply react
after the fact.
FBI agents, analysts, and computer scientists use technical
capabilities and traditional investigative techniques--such as sources
and wiretaps, surveillance, and forensics--to fight cyber crime. We
work side-by-side with our Federal, State, and local partners on Cyber
Task Forces in each of our 56 field offices and at the National Cyber
Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF). Through our 24-hour cyber
command center, CyWatch, we combine the resources of the FBI and
NCIJTF, allowing us to provide connectivity to Federal cyber centers,
Government agencies, FBI field offices and legal attachees, and the
private sector in the event of a cyber intrusion.
We also exchange information about cyber threats with the private
sector through partnerships such as the Domestic Security Alliance
Council, InfraGard, and the National Cyber Forensics and Training
Alliance (NCFTA).
We developed and recently deployed a malware repository and
analysis system called Malware Investigator (MI) for intelligence and
law enforcement partners. MI provides the FBI's domestic and foreign
law enforcement partners as well as members of the intelligence
community a way to submit malware directly to the FBI. This approach
will enable the FBI to obtain a global view of the malware threat,
while also providing the submitter technical information about the
malware's functionality. Beyond technical reporting, MI identifies
correlations that will allow users to ``connect the dots'' by
highlighting instances in which malware was deployed in seemingly
unrelated incidents. MI will be provided to FBI corporate and academic
partners later this year, providing them a trusted venue in which to
investigate, analyze, study, and collaborate about malware threats.
In addition, our legal attachee offices overseas work to coordinate
cyber investigations and address jurisdictional hurdles and differences
in the law from country to country. We are supporting and collaborating
with newly-established cyber crime centers at Interpol and Europol. We
continue to assess other locations to ensure that our cyber personnel
are in the most appropriate locations across the globe.
Over the past several months, the Justice Department has announced
a series of separate indictments of overseas cyber criminals. In an
unprecedented indictment in May, we charged five Chinese hackers with
illegally penetrating the networks of six U.S. companies. The five
members of China's People's Liberation Army allegedly used their
illegal access to exfiltrate proprietary information, including trade
secrets. Moreover, in June, charges were filed against Su Bin, a
Chinese national, stemming from a computer hacking scheme that involved
the theft of trade secrets from American defense contractors, including
The Boeing Company, which manufactures the C-17 military transport
aircraft.
Through the NCIJTF and in alliance with its U.S. Government
partners, international partners, and private-sector stakeholders, the
FBI has worked collaboratively in developing a multi-pronged effort
aimed at defeating the world's most dangerous botnets. Over the past
several years, the FBI's efforts to combat these significant cyber
threats have caused the disruption and dismantlement of numerous
botnets, including Butterfly Bot, Rove Digital, Coreflood, ZeroAccess,
and GameOver Zeus, resulting in numerous arrests, extraditions, and
convictions.
In addition to these recent investigative successes against the
threat, we are continuing to work with our partners to prevent attacks
before they occur. One area in which we have had great success with our
overseas partners is in targeting infrastructure we believe has been
used in distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, and preventing
that infrastructure from being used for future attacks.
Since October 2012, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) have released more than 170,000 Internet Protocol addresses of
computers that were believed to be infected with DDoS malware. We have
released this information through Joint Indicator Bulletins (JIBs) to
more than 130 countries via DHS's National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), where our liaisons provide
expert and technical advice for increased coordination and
collaboration, as well as to our legal attachees overseas.
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and the committee, I
thank you for this opportunity to testify concerning the diverse
threats facing the Nation and the FBI's on-going efforts to combat
them. I am now happy to answer any questions you might have.
Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you. It is certainly a
pleasure to have you here today as well. I forgot that we share
the fact that we both have five children on social media, which
can always be challenging at times.
With that, the Chairman now recognizes Director Olsen.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW G. OLSEN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER
Mr. Olsen. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman, Mr.
Thompson, Members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
here this morning.
We often meet in closed Classified sessions, so this is a
really important opportunity for us to speak to the committee
in an open session and to the American people about the threats
we face. I also want to say to you, Chairman, and to the rest
of the committee, how much on behalf of the men and women of
the National Counterterrorism Center we appreciate the
committee's support in our efforts.
I will spend just a couple of minutes talking about the
threat from Iraq and Syria and then take a moment to talk about
how that threat fits into the broader terrorism landscape that
we see.
First, by every measure, ISIL has emerged as an extremely
dangerous organization in a very chaotic part of the world. The
group has exploited the civil war in Syria, it has taken
advantage of sectarian tensions in Iraq to entrench itself in
both countries.
It has established sanctuaries in Iraq and in Syria. From
where the group has the ability to plan and to train and also
to amass both fighters and weapons with really little
interference.
The group has proven to be an effective fighting force.
It's battlefield strategy is complex and it is adaptive. It
uses a mix of techniques from terrorist operations to hit-and-
run tactics, to paramilitary assaults to enable their recent
gains. Then importantly, the group also views itself as the now
leader of a global jihadist movement. It operates the most
sophisticated propaganda machine of any terrorist organization.
It turns out timely, high-quality media, and it uses social
media to secure a wide-spread following.
Today, we believe that ISIL has as many as 30,000-plus
fighters and controls much of the Tigris-Euphrates basin, which
is a crossroads of the Middle East. From this position, ISIL
poses a multi-faceted threat to the United States.
This past January, the leader of ISIL warned that U.S.--the
United States will soon be in direct conflict with the group.
There is little doubt that ISIL views us--views the United
States as a strategic enemy.
This threat to us is most acute in Iraq. The group's safe
haven and resources in Iraq pose an immediate and direct threat
to our presence there, particularly our embassy in Baghdad and,
of course, that threat includes the threat to Americans held
hostage by ISIL.
The death threat extends outside of Iraq to the West. ISIL
has the potential to use its safe haven and to plan, in
coordinated attacks, both in Europe and potentially in the
United States. This threat became real earlier this year, with
the shooting in a Brussels museum that killed four people by an
ISIL fighter. Then with the arrest we saw in France of an ISIL
operative who had access to several explosive devices.
At this point, we have no information that ISIL is plotting
an attack inside the United States. But we do know, as my
colleague said, Director Comey and Secretary Johnson have
referred to, that thousands of foreign fighters have flocked to
Syria over the past 3 years. This includes more than 2,000
Europeans and more than a hundred Americans.
Many of these fighters that have flocked to Syria have
joined ISIL's ranks. We are concerned, of course, that these
fighters will gain experience, training, and eventually return
to their home countries, battle-hardened and radicalized, some
possessing Western passports and travel documents.
We are also concerned about the possibility of a home-grown
extremist becoming radicalized by the information that is on
the internet and carrying out a limited self-directed attack
here at home for which we would have--we would face potentially
little or no warning.
So second, this phenomenon, the rise of ISIL, exemplifies
the threat and the transformation of the terrorism threat that
we have seen over the past several years. We have seen this
movement diversify and expand in the aftermath of the upheaval
and chaos in the Arab world since 2010. So as my colleagues
have mentioned, ISIL is just one of the groups that we are
concerned about. Al-Qaeda core continues to support attacking
the West and, for now, remains the recognized leader of a
global jihadist movement.
In Syria, we have seen veteran al-Qaeda fighters travel
from Pakistan to take advantage of the permissive environment
there. Al-Qaeda's official branches in Yemen and Somalia
continue to remain extremely active. Of course, over the past 5
years, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula sought on three times
to take down an airplane bound for the United States. Then here
in the United States, last year's bombing of the Boston
Marathon is a reminder, a sober reminder of the threat we face
from self-directed violent extremists.
So terrorist networks have exploited the lack of governance
and the lax security in parts of the Middle East and North
Africa. Terrorist groups are now active in at least 11
insurgencies in the Islamic world.
The final point I will make on this is that identifying and
disrupting these threats is increasingly challenging. The
groups are adapting their tactics to overcome our defenses, to
avoid our intelligence collection. They are looking for
simpler, less sophisticated attacks that are on a smaller scale
and that are easier to pull off, such as the al-Shabaab attack
at the Westgate Mall last year in Nairobi.
Then finally, following the disclosure of the stolen NSA
documents, terrorists are changing how they communicate. They
are moving to more secure communication platforms. They are
adopting encryption and they are avoiding electronic
communications altogether. We see this in our reporting. This
is a problem for us in many areas where we have limited human
collection and depend on intercepting communications to
identify terrorists and disrupt plots.
Members of the committee, to counter this threat, the men
and women at NCTC remain vigilant around the clock. We are
dedicated to working with our counterterrorism partners,
particularly the FBI and DHS, to identify these threats,
degrade networks and disrupt plots, both at home and abroad. We
appreciate the committee's continued support. Thank you again
for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew G. Olsen
September 17, 2014
Thank you Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of
the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to be here today to
discuss the terrorist threat against the United States and our efforts
to counter it.
As I conclude 3 years as director of the National Counterterrorism
Center, I also want to express my deep appreciation to the committee
for its unflagging support of the men and women at the National
Counterterrorism Center and our counterterrorism community, as a whole.
I am also particularly pleased to be here today with Secretary of
Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey. DHS and the
FBI are two of our closest partner agencies. Together we are a part of
the broader counterterrorism effort that is more integrated and more
collaborative than ever.
Earlier this summer the 9/11 Commissioners released their most
recent report, and asked National security leaders to ``communicate to
the public--in specific terms--what the threat is, and how it is
evolving.'' Hearings like this provide an opportunity to continue this
dialogue with the public and their elected representatives.
the overall terrorist threat
In May, the President told the graduating class of West Point
cadets, ``For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America
at home and abroad remains terrorism.'' The 9/11 Commissioners agreed,
noting in their July report, ``the terrorist threat is evolving, not
defeated.'' From my vantage point at the National Counterterrorism
Center, I would agree. Since we testified before this committee last
year, the terrorist threat has continued to evolve, becoming more
geographically diffuse and involving a greater diversity of actors.
Overseas, the United States faces an enduring threat to our
interests. We have adopted precautionary measures at some of our
overseas installations. The threat emanates from a broad geographic
area, spanning South Asia, across the Middle East, and much of North
Africa, where terrorist networks have exploited a lack of governance
and lax security.
Here in the United States, last year's attack against the Boston
Marathon highlighted the danger posed by lone actors and insular groups
not directly tied to terrorist organizations, as well as the difficulty
of identifying these types of plots before they take place. The flow of
more than 15,000 foreign fighters to Syria with varying degrees of
access to Europe and the United States heightens our concern, as these
individuals may eventually return to their home countries battle-
hardened, radicalized, and determined to attack us.
In the face of sustained counterterrorism pressure, core al-Qaeda
has adapted by becoming more decentralized and is shifting away from
large-scale, mass casualty plots like the attacks of September 11,
2001. Al-Qaeda has modified its tactics, encouraging its adherents to
adopt simpler attacks that do not require the same degree of resources,
training, and planning.
Instability in the Levant, Middle East, and across North Africa has
accelerated this decentralization of the al-Qaeda movement, which is
increasingly influenced by local and regional factors and conditions.
This diffusion has also led to the emergence of new power centers and
an increase in threats by networks of like-minded violent extremists
with allegiances to multiple groups. Ultimately, this less-centralized
network poses a more diverse and geographically-dispersed threat and is
likely to result in increased low-level attacks against U.S. and
European interests overseas.
Today, I will begin by examining the terrorist threats to the
homeland and then outline the threat to U.S. interests overseas,
including from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). I will
then focus the remainder of my remarks on some of NCTC's efforts to
address this complicated threat picture.
threat to the homeland
Starting with the homeland, terrorist groups continue to target
Western aviation. In early July, the United States and United Kingdom
implemented enhanced security measures at airports with direct flights
to the United States, which included new rules aimed at screening
personal electronic devices. This past winter, we implemented
additional security measures for commercial aviation to address threats
to the Sochi Olympics. Although unrelated, taken together these two
instances reflect the fact that terrorist groups continue to see
commercial aviation as a desirable symbolic target,
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) remains the al-Qaeda
affiliate most likely to attempt transnational attacks against the
United States. The group's repeated efforts to conceal explosive
devices to destroy aircraft demonstrate its longstanding interest in
targeting Western aviation. Its three attempted attacks demonstrate the
group's continued pursuit of high-profile attacks against the West, its
awareness of security procedures, and its efforts to adapt.
Despite AQAP's ambitions, home-grown violent extremists (HVEs)
remain the most likely immediate threat to the homeland. The overall
level of HVE activity has been consistent over the past several years:
A handful of uncoordinated and unsophisticated plots emanating from a
pool of up to a few hundred individuals. Lone actors or insular groups
who act autonomously pose the most serious HVE threat, and we assess
HVEs will likely continue gravitating to simpler plots that do not
require advanced skills, outside training, or communications with
others.
The Boston Marathon bombing underscores the threat from HVEs who
are motivated to act violently by themselves or in small groups. In the
months prior to the attack, the Boston Marathon bombers exhibited few
behaviors that law enforcement and intelligence officers traditionally
use to detect readiness to commit violence. The perceived success of
previous lone offender attacks--combined with al-Qaeda's and AQAP's
propaganda promoting individual acts of terrorism--is raising the
profile of this tactic.
HVEs make use of an on-line environment that is dynamic, evolving,
and self-sustaining. This on-line environment is likely to play a
critical role in the foreseeable future in radicalizing and mobilizing
HVEs towards violence. Despite the removal of important terrorist
leaders during the last several years, the on-line outlets continue to
reinforce a violent extremist identity, highlight grievances, and
provide HVEs the means to connect with terrorist groups overseas.
This boundless virtual environment, combined with terrorists'
increasingly sophisticated use of social media, makes it increasingly
difficult to protect our youth from propaganda. ISIL's on-line media
presence has become increasingly sophisticated, disseminating timely,
high-quality media content across multiple platforms.
the islamic state of iraq and the levant (isil)
ISIL is a terrorist organization that has exploited the conflict in
Syria and sectarian tensions in Iraq to entrench itself in both
countries. The group's strength, which we estimate may include more
than 30,000 members--as well as its expansionary agenda--pose an
increasing threat to our regional allies and to U.S. facilities and
personnel in both the Middle East and the West.
ISIL's goal is to solidify and expand its control of territory and
govern by implementing its violent interpretation of sharia law. The
group aspires to overthrow governments in the region, govern all the
territory that the early Muslim caliphs controlled, and expand. ISIL's
claim to have re-established the caliphate reflects the group's desire
to lead violent extremists around the world.
ISIL exploited the conflict and chaos in Syria to expand its
operations across the border. The group, with al-Qaeda's approval,
established the al-Nusrah Front in late 2011 as a cover for its Syria-
based activities but in April 2013, unilaterally declared its presence
in Syria under the ISIL name. ISIL accelerated its efforts to overthrow
the Iraqi government, seizing control of Fallujah this past January.
The group expanded from its safe haven in Syria and across the border
into northern Iraq, killing thousands of Iraqi Muslims on its way to
seizing Mosul this June.
Along the way, ISIL aggressively recruited new adherents. In Syria,
some joined ISIL to escape Assad's brutal treatment and oppression of
the Syrian people. Others in Iraq joined out of frustration,
marginalized by their own government. But many joined out of
intimidation and fear, forced to choose either obedience to ISIL or a
violent death.
The withdrawal of Iraqi Security Forces during those initial
military engagements has left ISIL with large swaths of ungoverned
territory. The group has established sanctuaries in Syria and Iraq from
where it plans, trains, and plots terrorist acts with little
interference. We assess ISIL's strength has increased and reflects
stronger recruitment this summer following battlefield successes, the
declaration of a caliphate, and additional intelligence. ISIL's freedom
of movement over the Iraq-Syria border enables the group to easily move
members between Iraq and Syria, which can rapidly change the number of
fighters in either country. ISIL is also drawing some recruits from the
more than 15,000 foreign fighters who have traveled to Syria.
ISIL's recent victories have provided the group with a wide array
of weapons, equipment, and other resources. Battlefield successes also
have given ISIL an extensive war chest, which as of early this month
probably includes around $1 million per day in revenues from black-
market oil sales, smuggling, robberies, looting, extortion, and ransom
payments for hostages. While ISIL receives some funding from outside
donors, this pales in comparison to its self-funding through criminal
and terrorist activities.
ISIL has sought to question the legitimacy of Ayman al-Zawahiri's
succession of Usama bin Ladin. While al-Qaeda core remains the
ideological leader of the global terrorist movement, its primacy is
being challenged by the rise of ISIL whose territorial gains,
increasing access to a large pool of foreign fighters, and brutal
tactics are garnering significantly greater media attention. We
continue to monitor signs of fracturing within al-Qaeda's recognized
affiliates.
ISIL's safe haven in Syria and Iraq and the group's access to
resources pose an immediate and direct threat to U.S. personnel and
facilities in the region. This includes our embassy in Baghdad and our
consulate in Erbil--and, of course, it includes the Americans held
hostage by ISIL.
But ISIL's threat extends beyond the region, to the West. This
January, ISIL's leader publicly threatened ``direct confrontation''
with the United States, and has repeatedly taunted Americans, most
recently through the execution of two American journalists who were
reporting on the plight of the Syrian people, and one British aid
worker. In Europe, the May 2014 shooting in Brussels by an ISIL-trained
French national and the separate, earlier arrest of an ISIL-connected
individual in France who possessed several explosive are two examples
that demonstrate this threat, and the overall threat posed by returning
foreign fighters.
In the United States, the FBI has arrested more than half a dozen
individuals seeking to travel from the United States to Syria to join
the fighting there, possibly with ISIL. We remain mindful of the
possibility that an ISIL-sympathizer could conduct a limited, self-
directed attack here at home with no warning.
al-qaeda core and afghanistan/pakistan-based groups
Turning to core al-Qaeda and Afghanistan/Pakistan-based groups, we
anticipate that despite core al-Qaeda's diminished leadership cadre,
remaining members will continue to pose a threat to Western interests
in South Asia and would attempt to strike the homeland should an
opportunity arise. Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's public efforts
to promote individual acts of violence in the West have increased, as
the Pakistan-based group's own capabilities have diminished.
Despite ISIL's challenge, Zawahiri remains the recognized leader of
the global jihadist movement among al-Qaeda affiliates and allies, and
the groups continue to defer to his guidance on critical issues. Since
the start of the Arab unrest in North Africa and the Middle East,
Zawahiri and other members of the group's leadership have directed
their focus there, encouraging cadre and associates to support and take
advantage of the unrest.
Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.--This month, al-Qaeda
announced the establishment of its newest affiliate, al-Qaeda in the
Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). Al-Qaeda used social media and on-line web
forums to make known the existence of AQIS, which al-Qaeda said it has
worked for more than 2 years to create. We assess the creation of AQIS
is not a reaction to al-Qaeda's split with ISIL, though the timing of
the announcement may be used to bolster al-Qaeda's standing in the
global jihad movement. AQIS, which is led by Sheikh Asim Umer, has
stated objectives that include violence against the United States,
establishing Islamic law in South Asia, ending occupation of Muslim
lands, and defending Afghanistan under Mullah Omar's leadership. AQIS
on 11 September publicly claimed responsibility for a thwarted
September attack on a Pakistani Naval vessel at the Karachi Naval
Dockyard. The group had planned to use the attack to target a U.S. Navy
ship. AQIS also claimed responsibility for the killing of a senior
Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence officer earlier this month.
South Asia-Based Militants.--Pakistani and Afghan militant groups--
including Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the Haqqani Network, and
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT)--continue to pose a direct threat to U.S.
interests and our allies in the region, where these groups probably
will remain focused. We continue to watch for indicators that any of
these groups, networks, or individuals are actively pursuing or have
decided to incorporate operations outside of South Asia as a strategy
to achieve their objectives.
TTP remains a significant threat in Pakistan despite the on-going
Pakistan military operations in North Waziristan and leadership changes
during the past year. Its claim of responsibility for the June attack
on the Jinnah International Airport in Karachi that killed about 30
people underscores the threat the group poses inside the country.
The Haqqani network is one of the most capable and lethal terrorist
groups in Afghanistan and poses a serious threat to the stability of
the Afghan state as we approach 2014 and beyond. Last month, the
Department of State listed four high-ranking Haqqani members--Aziz
Haqqani, Khalil Haqqani, Yahya Haqqani, and Qari Abdul Rauf--on the
``Rewards for Justice'' most-wanted list for their involvement in
terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and ties to al-Qaeda. The Haqqanis
have conducted numerous high-profile attacks against United States,
NATO, Afghan Government, and other allied nation targets. In October
2013, Afghan security forces intercepted a truck bomb deployed by the
Haqqanis against Forward Operating Base Goode in the Paktiya Province.
The device, which did not detonate, contained some 61,500 pounds of
explosives and constitutes the largest truck bomb ever recovered in
Afghanistan.
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT) remains focused on its regional goals in
South Asia. The group is against improving relations between India and
Pakistan, and its leaders consistently speak out against India and the
United States, accusing both countries of trying to destabilize
Pakistan. LT has attacked Western interests in South Asia in pursuit of
its regional objectives, as demonstrated by the targeting of hotels
frequented by Westerners during the Mumbai attacks in 2008. LT leaders
almost certainly recognize that an attack on the United States would
result in intense international backlash against Pakistan and endanger
the group's safe haven there. However, LT also provides training to
Pakistani and Western militants, some of whom could plot terrorist
attacks in the West without direction from LT leadership.
al-qaeda affiliates
AQAP.--Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) remains the
affiliate most likely to attempt transnational attacks against the
United States. AQAP's three attempted attacks against the United States
to date--the airliner plot of December 2009, an attempted attack
against U.S.-bound cargo planes in October 2010, and an airliner plot
in May 2012--demonstrate the group's continued pursuit of high-profile
attacks against the United States. In a propaganda video released in
March, the group's leader threatened the United States in a speech to
recruits in Yemen, highlighting AQAP's persistent interest in targeting
the United States.
AQAP also presents a high threat to U.S. personnel and facilities
in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. In response to credible al-Qaeda threat
reporting in August 2013, the State Department issued a global travel
alert and closed U.S. embassies in the Middle East and North Africa as
part of an effort to take precautionary steps against such threats. We
assess that we at least temporarily delayed this particular plot, but
we continue to track closely the status of AQAP plotting against our
facilities and personnel in Yemen. AQAP continues to kidnap Westerners
in Yemen and carry out numerous small-scale attacks and large-scale
operations against Yemeni government targets, demonstrating the range
of the group's capabilities. In addition, this past July AQAP launched
its first successful attack in Saudi Arabia since 2009, underscoring
the group's continued focus on operations in the Kingdom.
Finally, AQAP continues its efforts to radicalize and mobilize to
violence individuals outside Yemen through the publication of its
English-language magazine Inspire. Following the Boston Marathon
bombings, AQAP released a special edition of the magazine claiming that
accused bombers Tamarlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were ``inspired by
Inspire,'' highlighting the attack's simple, repeatable nature, and
tying it to alleged U.S. oppression of Muslims world-wide. The most
recent Inspire issue in March--AQAP's twelfth--continued to encourage
``lone offender'' attacks in the West, naming specific targets in the
United States, United Kingdom, and France and providing instructions on
how to construct a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device.
Al-Nusrah Front.--Al-Nusrah Front has mounted suicide, explosive,
and firearms attacks against regime and security targets across the
country; it has also sought to provide limited public services and
governance to the local population in areas under its control. Several
Westerners have joined al-Nusrah Front, including a few who have
perished in suicide operations, raising concerns capable individuals
with extremist contacts and battlefield experience could return to
their home countries to commit violence. In April 2013, al-Nusrah
Front's leader, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani, pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda
leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, publicly affirming the group's ties to core
al-Qaeda. Al-Zawahiri named the group al-Qaeda's recognized affiliate
in the region later last year, ordering ISIL to return to Iraq.
Al-Shabaab.--Al-Shabaab and its foreign fighter cadre are a
potential threat to the U.S. homeland, as some al-Shabaab leaders have
publicly called for transnational attacks and the group has attracted
dozens of U.S. persons--mostly ethnic Somalis--who have traveled to
Somalia since 2006. A recent U.S. military airstrike killed al-
Shabaab's leader, Ahmed Abdi. This removes a capable leader of the
group, but also raises the possibility of potential retaliatory attacks
against our personnel and facilities in East Africa.
Al-Shabaab is mainly focused on undermining the Somali Federal
Government and combating African Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and
regional military forces operating in Somalia. While al-Shabaab's mid-
September 2013 attack on the Westgate mall in Kenya demonstrated that
the group continues to plot against regional and Western targets across
East Africa, as part of its campaign to remove foreign forces aiding
the Somali Government.
AQIM and Regional Allies.--Al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic
Maghreb (AQIM) and its allies remain focused on local and regional
attack plotting, including targeting Western interests. The groups have
shown minimal interest in targeting the U.S. homeland.
In Mali, the French-led military intervention has pushed AQIM and
its allies from the cities that they once controlled, but the groups
maintain safe haven in the less-populated areas of northern Mali from
which they are able to plan and launch attacks against French and
allied forces in the region. Elsewhere, AQIM is taking advantage of
permissive operating environments across much of North Africa to
broaden its reach. We are concerned that AQIM may be collaborating with
local violent extremists, including Ansar al-Sharia groups in Libya and
Tunisia.
In August of last year, two highly-capable AQIM offshoots, Mokhtar
Belmokhtar's al-Mulathamun battalion and Tawhid Wal Jihad in West
Africa, merged to form the new violent extremist group-al-Murabitun--
which will almost certainly seek to conduct additional high-profile
attacks against Western interests across the region. Belmokhtar--the
group's external operations commander----played a leading role in
attacks against Western interests in Northwest Africa in 2013, with his
January attack on an oil facility in In-Amenas, Algeria and double
suicide bombings in Niger in May. Early this year, Belmokhtar relocated
from Mali to Libya to escape counterterrorism pressure, and probably to
collaborate with Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) and other violent extremist
elements in the country to advance his operational goals.
Boko Haram.--While Boko Haram is not an official al-Qaeda
affiliate, the group is waging unprecedented violence in northeast
Nigeria this year and is expanding its reach into other parts of
Nigeria and neighboring states to implement its harsh version of sharia
law and suppress the Nigerian government and regional CT pressure.
Since late 2012, Boko Haram and its splinter faction Ansaru have
claimed responsibility for five kidnappings of Westerners, raising
their international profile and highlighting the threat they pose to
Western and regional interests, although Ansaru has not claimed an
operation since Feburary 2013. Boko Haram has kidnapped scores of
additional Nigerians in northeast Nigeria since the kidnapping of 276
school girls from Chibok, Nigeria in April 2014.
threat from shia groups
Iran and Hizballah remain committed to defending the Assad regime,
including sending billions of dollars in military and economic aid,
training pro-regime and Shia militants, and deploying their own
personnel into the country. Iran and Hizballah view the Assad regime as
a key partner in an ``axis of resistance'' against Israel and the West
and are prepared to take major risks to preserve the regime as well as
their critical transshipment routes.
Lebanese Hizballah.--In May of last year, Hizballah publicly
admitted that it is fighting for the Syrian regime and its chief, Hasan
Nasrallah, framed the war as an act of self-defense against Western-
backed Sunni violent extremists. Hizballah continues sending capable
fighters for pro-regime operations and support for a pro-regime
militia. Additionally, Iran and Hizballah are leveraging allied Iraqi
Shi'a militant and terrorist groups to participate in counter-
opposition operations. This active support to the Assad regime is
driving increased Sunni violent extremist attacks and sectarian unrest
in Lebanon.
Beyond its role in Syria, Lebanese Hizballah remains committed to
conducting terrorist activities world-wide and we remain concerned the
group's activities could either endanger or target U.S. and other
Western interests. The group has engaged in an aggressive terrorist
campaign in recent years and continues attack planning abroad. In April
2014, two Hizballah operatives were arrested in Thailand and one
admitted that they were there to carry out a bomb attack against
Israeli tourists, underscoring the threat to civilian centers.
Iranian Threat.--In addition to its role in Syria, Iran remains the
foremost state sponsor of terrorism, and works through the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force and Ministry of Intelligence and
Security to support groups that target U.S. and Israeli interests
globally. In March, Israel interdicted a maritime vessel that departed
Iran and was carrying munitions judged to be intended for Gaza-based
Palestinian militants. Iran, largely through Quds Force Commander
Soleimani, has also provided support to Shia militias and the Iraqi
government to combat ISIL in Iraq.
Iran continues to be willing to conduct terrorist operations
against its adversaries. This is demonstrated by Iran's links to
terrorist operations in Azerbaijan, Georgia, India, and Thailand in
2012. Iran also continues to provide lethal aid and support the
planning and execution of terrorist acts by other groups, in particular
Lebanese Hizballah.
nctc's missions and initiatives
NCTC serves as the primary U.S. Government organization for
analyzing and integrating all terrorism information. Now in our 10th
year of service, we are guided by our mission statement: ``Lead our
Nation's effort to combat terrorism at home and abroad by analyzing the
threat, sharing that information with our partners, and integrating all
instruments of National power to ensure unity of effort.''
Intelligence Integration and Analysis.--NCTC has a unique
responsibility for the U.S. Government to examine all international
terrorism issues, spanning geographic boundaries to identify and
analyze threat information, regardless of whether it is collected
inside or outside the United States.
Leading the Intelligence Community's Terrorism Warning Program.--
NCTC chairs the Interagency Intelligence Committee on Terrorism (IICT),
which is the IC's terrorism warning body. The IICT--which is comprised
of the CIA, DHS, DIA, FBI, NCTC, NGA, NSA, and DOS--is responsible for
the publication of products that warn of threats against U.S.
personnel, facilities, or interests. The IICT serves several thousand
customers, from senior policymakers, to deployed military forces and
State and local law enforcement entities.
Watchlisting and TIDE.--As you know, this committee and the
Congress charged NCTC with maintaining the U.S. Government's central
and shared knowledge bank of known and suspected international
terrorists (or KSTs), their contacts, and their support networks. To
manage this workload, NCTC developed a database called TIDE--the
Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. Through TIDE, NCTC advances
the most complete and accurate information picture to our partners in
support of terrorism identities analysis, travel screening, and
watchlisting activities.
The Kingfisher Expansion visa counterterrorism screening process
for U.S. visa applicants successfully launched in June 2013 and
provides a secure on-line vetting platform for FBI, DHS, and the
Terrorism Screening Center to participate in the review of applicants.
This process allows for a more comprehensive and coordinated response
back to the State Department. To date, this program has conducted the
review of more than 11 million visa applications.
In addition, in the last year, NCTC--in coordination with DHS--
deployed the Kingfisher Expansion Electronic System for Travel
Authorization (ESTA) program. NCTC has been providing screening support
on ESTA applicants since 2010, however, the new interface provides NCTC
analysts with a streamlined method of performing identity resolution on
potential matches and provides a means for matches to be automatically
populated into DHS' National Targeting Center-Passenger's ESTA Hotlist.
Situational Awareness and Support to Counterterrorism Partners.--
NCTC--via the NCTC Operations Center and Joint Counterterrorism
Assessment Team (JCAT)--is engaged 24/7/365 as the eyes and ears of the
U.S. Government's global counterterrorism situational awareness effort.
The Operations Center uses unique accesses and works with collocated
assets, personnel, and resources from across the intelligence community
to identify, track, and share key threat reporting streams and
information with appropriate audiences in a timely fashion at a variety
of classification levels.
JCAT complements the Operations Center's situational awareness
efforts by building collaborative ties and enhancing information flow
with our Federal, State, Tribal, and local partners through a variety
of specialized downgraded products that can be shared across a much
wider audience. Most recently, NCTC developed a new unclassified
magazine, Alliance, which features counterterrorism articles from FBI,
DHS, and NCTC, and serves our State, local, and Tribal customers.
Strategic Operational Planning.--NCTC is charged with conducting
strategic operational planning for counterterrorism activities,
integrating all instruments of National power, including diplomatic,
financial, military, intelligence, homeland security, and law
enforcement activities. In this role, NCTC looks beyond individual
department and agency missions toward the development of a single
unified counterterrorism effort across the Federal Government.
NCTC develops interagency counterterrorism plans to help translate
high-level strategies and policy direction into coordinated department
and agency activities to advance the President's objectives, for
example in confronting ISIL and al-Qaeda. These plans address a variety
of counterterrorism goals, including regional issues, the use of
weapons of mass destruction by terrorists, and countering violent
extremism. Additionally, working with our colleagues from DHS, FBI, and
other agencies, NCTC engages with domestic and international partners
on initiatives to improve resiliency, engage communities on countering
violent extremism, and enhance response plans and capabilities in the
face of evolving terrorist threats.
addressing the threat from syria foreign fighters
NCTC draws on these capabilities and initiatives to address the
threat posed by Syrian foreign fighters. The United States, the
European Union--including the United Kingdom, France, and other member
states--and the broader international community have increasingly
expressed concerns about the greater than 15,000 foreign fighters who
could potentially return to their home countries to participate in or
support terrorist attacks. The United Kindom's Home Secretary announced
the terrorist threat level in the United Kingdom had been raised to
severe, explaining, ``The increase in threat level is related to
developments in Syria and Iraq where terrorist groups are planning
attacks against the West. Some of those plots are likely to involve
foreign fighters who have traveled there from the UK and Europe to take
part in those conflicts.'' This past week, Australia also raised its
threat level from medium to high.
Syria remains the preeminent location for independent or al-Qaeda-
aligned groups to recruit, train, and equip a growing number of violent
extremists, some of whom we assess may seek to conduct external
attacks. The rate of travelers into Syria exceeds the rate of travelers
who went into Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or Somalia at any
point in the last 10 years.
European governments estimate that more than 2,000 Westerners have
traveled to join the fight against the Assad regime, which include more
than 500 from Great Britain, 700 from France, and 400 from Germany.
Additionally, more than 100 U.S. persons from a variety of backgrounds
and locations in the United States have traveled or attempted to travel
to Syria.
NCTC, FBI, and DHS are part of a broader U.S. Government and
international effort to resolve the identities of potential violent
extremists and identify potential threats emanating from Syria. Central
to this effort is TIDE, which is much more than a screening database--
it is an analytic database. It feeds the Unclassified screening
database so that DHS, the State Department, and other agencies have
access to timely and accurate information about known and suspected
terrorists. Initiatives such as Kingfisher aid in this screening
process. As disparate pieces of information about KSTs are received,
trained analysts create new records in TIDE, most often as the result
of a nomination by a partner agency. The records are updated--or
``enhanced''--regularly as new, related information is included and
dated or as unnecessary information is removed. In all cases, there are
several layers of review before a nomination is accepted into the
system. In the case of U.S. persons, there are at least three layers of
review, including a legal review, to ensure the derogatory information
is sufficient and meets appropriate standards.
To better manage and update the identities of individuals who have
travelled overseas to engage in violence in Syria and Iraq, we've
created a special threat case in TIDE. This is a special feature in the
TIDE system which allows us to focus efforts on smaller groups of
individuals. A threat case links all known actors, and their personal
information, involved in a particular threat stream or case and makes
that information available to the intelligence, screening, and law
enforcement communities.
NCTC's management of this unique consolidation of terrorist
identities has created a valuable forum for identifying and sharing
information about Syrian foreign fighters--including ISIL--with
community partners. It has better integrated the community's efforts to
identify, enhance, and expedite the nomination of Syrian foreign
fighter records to the Terrorist Screening Database for placement in
U.S. Government screening systems.
Counterterrorism efforts focused on law enforcement disruptions are
critical to mitigating threats. We also recognize that Government alone
cannot solve this problem and interdicting or arresting terrorists is
not the full solution. Well-informed and well-equipped families,
communities, and local institutions represent the best long-term
defense against violent extremism.
To this end, we continue to refine and expand the preventive side
of counterterrorism. Working with DHS, in the last year NCTC revamped
the Community Awareness Briefing (CAB), a key tool we use to convey
information to local communities and authorities on the terrorist
recruitment threat. The CAB now also includes information on the
recruitment efforts of violent extremist groups based in Syria and
Iraq. Additionally, this year NCTC and DHS developed and implemented a
new program--the Community Resilience Exercise program, designed to
improve communication between law enforcement and communities and to
share ideas on how to counter violent extremism.
conclusion
Confronting these threats and working with resolve to prevent
another terrorist attack remains the counterterrorism community's
overriding mission. This year, NCTC celebrates its 10th year in service
to the Nation, and we remain focused on continuing to enhance our
ability to counter the terrorist threat in the years ahead.
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this
morning. I look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, director. I now recognize
myself for questions. We mentioned there is no specific and
credible threat to the homeland. But having said that, I don't
think I have seen a threat environment any higher. Particularly
as it exists overseas, with the spread of the so-called Islamic
State in the Levant. We have known about this threat for over a
year.
I don't think it was until the beheadings of the
journalists, and now the British aid worker, that it really got
the attention of the American people as to what kind of evil we
are dealing with. It has changed popular opinion, in terms of
driving policy to eliminate a threat that they don't want to
see here in the United States, perpetrating those acts of
brutal savagery.
At the same time, you have core al-Qaeda and Zawahiri in
what appears to be a competition now with ISIS or ISIL to see
who is the true heir apparent to bin Laden. It is a dangerous
competition. The way I see it is to up the ante. What better
way to do that than to attack the West? Coupled with 30,000 of
these ISIS fighters, 15,000 are foreign fighters, over 100
American U.S. citizens. Many of these fighters have Western
passports. So the ease of travel going back and forth obviously
concerns homeland security officials and the intelligence
community and the FBI.
So, first, I want to congratulate the FBI on the half a
dozen or so arrests that have been made, including two in my
backyard in Austin, of individuals traveling--wanting to travel
to Syria or those who have--they have come back, who could have
pulled off a terrorist attack, and you stopped that.
But at the same time, I am concerned about what you don't
know what you don't know. I don't know what our level of
confidence is in terms of who is on the ground, both in the
United States and Syria that could imply a future attack in the
United States.
So my question to the panel, and we have seen, you know,
the Florida gentleman left Florida, went to Syria, came back,
went back to Syria. It was a suicide bomber. We did see
Tamerlan who was on the radar actually leave the United States
and come back virtually undetected to pull off a terrorist
attack. That is the kind of profile that I am concerned about
and want to stop.
What assurances can you give this committee that we will be
able to stop that type of foreign travel or foreign fighter
from coming back in as a trained jihadist and killing
Americans, Director Comey?
Mr. Comey. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman.
It is something that the people at this table and the
thousands of people we represent work on every single day to
try to use our human sources, both here and abroad, and our
technical resources to try and identify those who want to
travel. Our first mission is to identify those and lock them up
before they go. If they go, to try and keep very close tabs on
them so that we know when they are headed back here so we can
interdict them overseas. That is our preference. Or we can lock
them up when they arrive.
Very difficult, as you alluded to. We have an enormous,
wonderful, free country. There are thousands of ways to get
from the United States to Syria, and there are tens of
thousands of Americans who travel for legitimate purposes every
single day.
So, sorting among that group to find the bad guys is
something we spend every single day focused on. We have had
good success, but I am not overconfident, given the nature of
the challenge.
Chairman McCaul. Secretary Johnson.
Secretary Johnson. Chairman, the question of----
Chairman McCaul. Can you turn your mic up? Thank you.
Secretary Johnson. The question of our degree of confidence
is one that the three of us talk about. My impression is from
the information we know and the systems that we have in place
to track those who travel, attempt to travel to Syria, is--from
that, I think we have a reasonable degree of confidence, not a
high degree of confidence, but a reasonable degree of
confidence that we know the numbers, and we know who is
attempting to travel.
The FBI has done a very good job of investigating,
arresting, and prosecuting those who are attempting to leave
the country, as you mentioned. There was another arrest just
yesterday, and we are enhancing our ability to share
information in the National security community of the U.S.
Government and with our allies.
We are evaluating ways to potentially limit the travel of
those who want to leave this country to go to Syria and pick up
the fight. That is something we are in the midst of doing right
now.
As I think you know, Chairman, we have been focused on the
issue of foreign fighters for some period of months. In
February, I said that Syria had become a matter of homeland
security, principally because of this issue of foreign
fighters. So, monitoring, interdicting the travel of those who
might want to leave this country and go there is an area of top
concern, right now.
Chairman McCaul. Well, I think you were the first one to
say Syria poses the greatest threat to the homeland, and one of
the first ones to say that, so I appreciate that.
Director Olsen.
Mr. Olsen. Chairman, I would just add that you know, this
is an effort that begins with good intelligence. So, the better
intelligence we can get, particularly looking overseas, at who
is traveling into Syria, who is seeking to leave Syria, the
better position we will be to apply the various multiple layers
of screening that are available to prevent those travelers from
entering into the United States.
As my colleagues have said, we have been focused on this
for many, many months. The area that I am encouraged by most
recently is the level of attention that this is getting with
our allies in Europe in particular, and how closely we have
been able to work with them to share information and buttress
their ability to interdict individuals seeking to travel to
Syria or return from Syria.
Chairman McCaul. In my limited time, I do want to hit on
the other threat, and that is within the homeland. This idea of
home-grown, violent extremism. Radicalization from within. I
know Pete King had many hearings on this topic last Congress.
There are two very glossy publications, one is--we have
known about this one for awhile, Inspire magazine, which has
come out with a recent edition. Page after page of how to make
IED explosives, how to make bombs. Then this one from ISIS, a
very glossy, in English--it is what I called when I wrote my
Wall Street Journal op-ed, what they call jihad cool. This
recruiting effort that they have on-going to train, to recruit,
and radicalize Americans in the United States; not only to
bring them to Syria, but also, God forbid, to pull off an act
of terrorism in the United States. After all, they are already
here.
I know the attorney general had a recent announcement on
this. What can you tell me about that Mr. Secretary and
Director, what the FBI and Homeland Security is doing to
counter--and NTC, for that matter--counter this home-grown,
violent extremist?
Secretary Johnson. Chairman, the Department of Homeland
Security, for some time now, has had programs for outreach into
communities in the United States that themselves have the
capacity to reach those who might turn to violence.
We recently took that program and we put it into a separate
office, which reports directly to the deputy secretary and me
to enhance its visibility and enhance it as a priority. Our
outreach people are all over the country in various different
programs, and I have personally participated in these outreach
programs.
I did one in suburban Chicago earlier this year with a
Syrian-American community, and I am planning to do another one
next week in Ohio. I agree with you that with the literature
and the social media, and I have been through it myself, that
heightens the risk of domestic-based extremism. Because people
can learn tools of mass violence through literature, like what
you just referenced.
So we have got our engagements. We are stepping it up. The
attorney general announced earlier this week a pilot project
focused on three cities, which we are all participating in,
from DHS, the Department of Justice, FBI, and so this is a top
priority, and we are very focused on it.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you. Director Comey.
Mr. Comey. The only thing I would add to that is on the
enforcement side, we are, the FBI, in every community in this
country through our Joint Terrorism Task Force is working with
our State and local partners to try to find these people and
lock them up before they can actually harm somebody. So we are
trying to make sure that we are touching communities of
interest, that we are, in an on-line way, seeing what is going
on, so we can spot folks, assess them, and then take them out
of action if they really are a threat.
But as we have discussed, in a country this big and this
free, with the material that is available, it is a big
challenge for us.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you. They are very sophisticated in
their social media. It makes it very difficult.
Just like Tamerlan, his postings were very radical, I know
the FBI is getting very aggressive, trying to spot that kind of
activity.
Director Olsen.
Mr. Olsen. Just to add. I mean, a fundamental tenet of the
strategy that we all work on together with respect to
countering violent extremism is that the neighborhoods and
communities that are at risk, they are in the best position to
identify someone who is on the path to radicalization. So, an
important part of this effort is to give them the tools, the
education, the knowledge, the information to understand how
magazines like the ones you just showed can influence an
individual, and then be able to work with their State and local
law enforcement community and Federal law enforcement community
to intervene when someone is on that path.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you. Time has expired. I recognize
the Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, there have been comments made relative
to ISIL making attempts to enter from our Southern Border. Can
you, for the sake of this committee, indicate whether or not
there is any evidence that that has occurred or that anyone has
been captured trying to enter our Southern Border?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, we see no specific
intelligence or evidence to suggest at present that ISIL is
attempting to infiltrate this country through our Southern
Border. I am sure my intelligence colleague could add to that.
Having said that, we do need to be vigilant. We do need to
be aware of the risk of potential infiltration by ISIL or any
other terrorist group. We have tools in place to monitor that
and to do that.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Olsen, you?
Mr. Olsen. Yes, I agree with Secretary Johnson. There have
been a very small number of sympathizers with ISIL who have
posted messages on social media about this, but we have seen
nothing to indicate that there is any sort of operational
effort or plot to infiltrate or move operatives from ISIL
through the--into the United States through the Southern
Border.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Director Comey, you talked about cybersecurity being upon
your return, one of the new real threats. This committee has,
on a very bipartisan basis, came together and has promoted what
we think is one of the solutions to address many of the
vulnerabilities that our cyber framework possesses.
Can you just enlighten the committee a little more on where
you see some of those cyber threats coming from?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
They come from everywhere. I call it a sort of an evil
layer cake, with nation states at the top, terrorist groups,
international criminal syndicates, hacktivists, and thugs and
criminals and child abusers and pedophiles.
As I said, because our entire world is now on the internet,
I am told soon my sneakers will talk to my refrigerator to tell
the refrigerator I just went for a run.
But because our whole world is there, that is where those
who would do us harm come. So, it runs every bad motive and
every bad kind of person that you can imagine, that is where
the threat is.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, that legislation would have
given DHS the resources and authorities that it needs to
perfect and protect civilian networks and critical
infrastructure. Do you see that type of legislation being
important as we look at this vulnerability?
Secretary Johnson. Very much so, Congressman, and I
appreciate and congratulate you and the Chairman and other
Members of this committee for your leadership in this regard. I
am aware that the bill that came out of this committee passed a
full House, and I have spoken to your colleagues in the Senate
about doing the same on the Senate side.
I believe it is critical. I have written an op-ed recently
on the importance of cybersecurity legislation. There is real
bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for
cybersecurity legislation, and I think it is critical to our
National security.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Olsen, with respect to violent extremism, there--and to
the extent that you can give information in this kind of
setting--have you seen any difference in the recruitment and
sophistication of ISIS or ISIL in comparison to other terrorist
groups?
Mr. Olsen. I would say that what we have seen from ISIL is
a very sophisticated propaganda effort. The types of
information that they are putting out on the internet, and in
particular, using social media, really exceed the types of
propaganda that we have seen from other groups. So, certainly,
that effort has been quite sophisticated and extensive.
I think we still are--it remains to be seen the impact of
that information on potential recruits. The one issue--one fact
I could point to is, is the number of foreign fighters, and the
significant number of foreign fighters that have traveled to
Syria. Again, many of those--not all, but many of them joining
ISIL's ranks. So, from that perspective, it is obviously a
concern that the propaganda is having an impact in recruiting
individuals.
Mr. Thompson. Last point is, with respect to violent
extremism, and how we counter it, there is something you see
our allies doing that maybe we should adopt as we look at how
we as a country address that here?
Mr. Olsen. We do work in coordination with our allies,
particularly the United Kingdom, which has a strong program of
countering violent extremism. We seek to learn from their
lessons. They have had a little more experience with this than
we have. So, our teams, both FBI and DHS and NCTC interact
regularly with, in particular, our U.K. colleagues, to identify
ways to improve our efforts in this regard.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for
holding this hearing. This is extremely timely and appropriate.
Let me join you in welcoming the witnesses and thank Matt Olsen
for his years of service. It has really been a--you know, a
privilege to work with you, Matt. I want to thank you for what
you have done.
Secretary Johnson, you have certainly hit the ground
running, and I want to thank you for that. Also, for your visit
to New York the other day. I think it is always important to
remind the people even in New York about the constant terror
threat that we face.
Director Comey, I think your being here today really does
show the extensive cooperation that is needed among all of the
counterterrorism forces in our country.
All of you have mentioned that it is not just ISIS, but it
is also the whole panoply of al-Qaeda threats we have to face.
AQAP, core al-Qaeda itself. You know, there is one group--and I
am only mentioning this because it was in the media the last
several weeks--the Korazon group. Is there anything you can
tell us in an Unclassified setting regarding that?
If not, I understand. I am only mentioning it because it
has been in the media.
Mr. Comey. A discussion of specific organizations I think
should be left to a Classified setting.
Mr. King. I understand that.
Ranking Member Thompson asked a question about working with
our allies. Director Comey, I would ask you, what are the
pluses and minuses of Prime Minister Cameron's proposal that
passports be taken away from people of particular countries
that travel to Syria? So, in our case, Americans traveling to
Syria--what are the pluses and minuses from your perspective--
from the FBI's perspective--of taking away their passports?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. King. That is a question I think
probably better answered by Secretary Johnson. But just,
quickly--it is of interest to us. I met with the home
secretary, as I know Secretary Johnson did, from the United
Kingdom this week, to try and understand better how that is
working for them.
Among the concerns I would have is: What is the due process
that would come with that in the United States? How would I
protect sources and methods? How would we be able to use, if at
all, Classified information to make the showing that would be
necessary? So, I am interested in any tool that might help us
identify and incapacitate these people. But I would want to
understand the details a little bit better.
Mr. King. Also, if I could ask, what would be the
advantages of allowing them back into the country and
monitoring them to see who they have contacted? Or is that too
risky?
Mr. Comey. No, we do it on a case-by-case basis in all
manner of circumstances. Sometimes, it makes sense under
limited circumstances to let somebody back in, cover them very
closely to see who they connect with. Sometimes, it makes sense
to have them come back in the country and lock them up right
away. So, it is hard to say in the abstract.
Mr. King. Secretary.
Secretary Johnson. I agree with the FBI director that the
suspension of passports should be considered on a case-by-case
basis. The State Department has the authority to suspend
passports. I also know that suspension, revocation of passports
can be done on an expedited basis when the situation warrants,
in a matter of hours or days. It does not necessarily need to
be a lengthy process. I agree, given the current environment,
that we need to seriously consider limiting the ability of
certain individuals to travel, either to go from one foreign
country to another, or from our country to another country.
Mr. King. Director Olsen. No?
I think this was touched on by the Chairman--how concerned
are you of, let's say, to put it in simple terms, the rivalry
between core al-Qaeda and ISIS, or AQAP and ISIS, as far as to
get themselves back in the headlines or reestablish themselves
as the No. 1 terrorist force, that they would--to increase the
chances of an attack upon the homeland?
Secretary Johnson. I am very concerned about that. These
groups are in competition with another for attention, for fund-
raising, for recruitment. One way to compete is to show that
you are the biggest and baddest group out there. So, I think
that the environment we are in right now presents additional
challenges. So, I agree with the premise in your question.
Mr. King. Mr. Olsen.
Mr. Olsen. I agree with Secretary Johnson. I think there is
this concern about competition among these groups. One
particular example of this would be the recent announcement by
al-Qaeda core of a new affiliate in the Indian subcontinent.
That was announced on social media on September 3. It could be
viewed as an effort by core al-Qaeda to reassert its supremacy
in this global movement.
So, those sorts of efforts can be viewed in the context of
what might be an emerging competition among groups.
Mr. King. Director Comey.
Mr. Comey. You know, Mr. King, the logic of it is
compelling because you are not going to be the leader in the
global Jihad without striking America. So, it drives that sense
of competition that my colleagues have talked about.
Mr. King. Thank you all for your testimony.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman recognizes Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I, too, would like to thank the Chairman
and Ranking Member for this hearing. I would also like to thank
each of the presenters--Members of the panel for your service
to this Nation.
Having served on this committee from the beginnings of the
recovery period of 9/11, when the Select Committee on Homeland
Security was first formed to create this Department, I know how
important the issues that all of you gentlemen are speaking of
are to the Nation and to the security of America.
I think it is important even in this meeting to hold up the
Constitution, to tell all of those who would have a malicious
intent toward the United States is that we will not sacrifice
our values, our liberty, our commitment to equality and justice
for their terroristic ways. I thank all of you for recognizing,
as my Ranking Member indicated, that we are not here to label a
faith, Islam, or the Muslim people. We are here to ensure the
security and safety of the United States of America.
I want to first of all say that as I was looking over
materials that I think are relevant, I think it is important to
note from an article, and I ask unanimous consent to put into
the record an article by William McCants, who indicated that
the issue or the idea of ISIL began in 2006, long before
President Obama, long before Secretary Johnson or anyone was in
the positions that they are in today, and before the American
withdrawal from--and had at that time popular backing.
So let me be very clear. I believe our President has been
very effective in trying to both downsize and bring down the
war in Iraq and, as well, address the National security of the
American people. I will not vote for an authorization for war,
but we cannot talk about ISIL without doing something. So I
will vote today for ensuring that other fighters, in this
instance the Free Syrian Army, is well-trained to do the job.
That means that we here in the United States must be very sure
of what we are doing to protect the homeland.
Secretary Johnson, I would ask as a follow-up question on
my colleague, Mr. Thompson. Coming from Texas, do you feel that
you have sufficient Federal resources on the border to, if
there was such an intrusion, that your staffing between ICE,
which is on the inner side between the Border Patrol,
intelligence, working with your colleagues, do you believe you
have the right and necessary resources?
Secretary Johnson. We have more resources today than we
have had at any time previously. Over the last several years,
we have put at the border, particularly the Southwest Border,
an unprecedented level of resources in terms of people,
technology, vehicles, and other equipment.
As you know, I am sure, Congresswoman, apprehensions over
the last 14 years have gone down. They have gone up this year
because of the spike in the Rio Grande Valley sector. But we
could use more. The bill passed by the Senate last year, S.
744, would have gone a long way to providing additional
resources, additional personnel for the Southwest Border----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Toward border security.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson. So----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I wanted to be clear, if I could, because
my time is running, that you do have--I do support that
legislation and I would rather have the Federal resources than
unpaid National Guard that has been put down by the Governor of
the State of Texas.
Let me quickly ask a question to all of you. We know that
we have been hacked. All of us have been hacked. But the
question is, do you--are you able to discern the distinction
between the identity-thief hackers and that of the state
hackers that are coming in as terrorists on the cybersecurity
grid? Could you all answer that question?
My last question, so I would get it in so you can answer,
if you might. The women of this Nation are seemingly targets of
recruitment for ISIL. Women coming from Western nations, poor,
maybe uneducated--are we having a special target to recognize
the concern for those women and how we would stop that? If all
three of you could answer that, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Johnson. Congresswoman, let me begin with the
question on cyber. As Director Comey suggested, we face cyber
threats from a range of different types of actors. I think we
do a pretty good job of detecting the nature and the type of
actor for each specific attack, but it is a range from private
individuals to others.
I will defer to my colleagues.
Mr. Comey. I agree with Secretary Johnson, though
attribution gets increasingly difficult as the private--the
thieves get increasingly sophisticated and some of their
techniques come to rival those of nation-states. But we do a
reasonably good job of being able to sort them out.
With respect to the recruitment of women, you are
absolutely right. There is a targeted effort by ISIL to attract
fighters and people who would be spouses of fighters. Given the
nature of their male orientation, the spouses are always women.
They are trying to attract them from all over the West to come
to their so-called caliphate to be--to start families in their
warped world.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Olsen.
Mr. Olsen. I would only add to what Director Comey said
about the recruitment of women. You know, among the most
barbaric aspects of what ISIL has done in Iraq is the
enslavement of women and young girls. So it is obviously a huge
concern to us.
If I may add, Ms. Jackson Lee, you held up the
Constitution, and today is Constitution Day.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, it is.
Mr. Olsen. I would say that the director of National
intelligence, Jim Clapper, yesterday held a swearing-in for
those of us to reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution,
with the workforce. I think that reflects the commitment within
NCTC and the broader intelligence community to our fidelity to
the Constitution.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I might, Mr. Chairman, thank Mr. Olsen
for his service and ask unanimous consent--I believe I asked
for unanimous consent for this--but I would also ask for
unanimous consent, which I would like to refer to the
Chairman's review, H.R. 5488, which I would like to ask
unanimous consent just to put into the record, which is
legislation that is called ``No Fly For Foreign Fighters.'' It
doesn't tie your hands, but it refines the watch list to make
sure that everyone that should be on it is on it, particularly
since the foreign fighter concept is continuing to grow.
I ask unanimous consent to introduce that into the record
and look forward to discussing it with you gentlemen.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
State of Confusion: ISIS' Strategy and How to Counter It
By: William McCants
Brookings, Foreign Affairs, Opinion/September 11, 2014
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/09/11-counter-isis-
strategy-mccants
In 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of al Qaeda, had a killer
idea: the al Qaeda franchise in Iraq (AQI) should declare an Islamic
state. In a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the brutal leader of AQI,
Zawahiri explained how it would work. The Islamic state, he wrote,
would fill security vacuums around Iraq left by departing American
forces. Once the Islamic state successfully fended off the attacks from
neighboring countries that would undoubtedly follow, it could proclaim
the reestablishment of the caliphate, the one-man institution that had
ruled a vast empire in early Islamic history. For the scheme to
succeed, Zawahiri warned Zarqawi, al Qaeda had to make sure that the
Sunni masses supported the project.
Once it was loosed into the world, Zawahiri's idea was too powerful
for him or the al Qaeda leadership to control. By 2006, long before the
American withdrawal and far too early to have built up much popular
backing, AQI had established Zawahiri's Islamic state. The new head of
AQI after Zarqawi's death, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, dissolved his
organization and pledged his allegiance to a new ``commander of the
faithful,'' Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who purportedly controlled the Dawlat
al Iraq al Islamiyya, or the Islamic State.
Baghdadi's title confused the jihadist community. In medieval
Islam, ``commander of the faithful'' was usually reserved for the
caliphs. Was Baghdadi claiming to be the caliph? And what of Mullah
Omar, to whom al Qaeda's leaders had aleady pledged allegiance? The
name of the group was also puzzling. The word for ``state'' in Arabic
is dawla. Was the new group claiming to be a dawla in the modern sense,
an institution jihadists believe is un-Islamic? Or was the Dawlat al
Iraq al Islamiyya simply an ode to the name of the man revered as the
greatest caliphate, the Dawla Abbasiyya?
The Islamic State was not eager to dispel the ambiguity. It either
liked implying that it had more power than it actually possessed or
believed that the jihadist community was not ready to tolerate the full
freight of its claims. Ambiguous audacity captured the imagination and
was thus the key to the group's power.
Although Zawahiri had first suggested the idea of establishing a
state, he and the other al Qaeda leaders were blindsided by its early
realization. Writing four years after the ISI was declared, Adam
Gadahn, an American al Qaeda operative, confided in a private letter
that ``the decision to declare the State was taken without consultation
from al'Qaida leadership,'' a move that ``caused a split in the
Mujahidin ranks and their supporters inside and outside Iraq.''
Al Qaeda's official position, nevertheless, was to endorse the fait
accompli, probably in an effort to keep a hand in the Iraq game and
avoid further dissension in the ranks. ``I want to clarify that there
is nothing in Iraq by the name of al Qaeda,'' proclaimed Zawahiri in a
December 2007 question-and-answer session. ``Rather, the organization
of [AQI] merged, by the grace of God, with other jihadi groups in the
Islamic State of Iraq, may God protect it. It is a legitimate emirate
established on a legitimate and sound method. It was established
through consultation and won the oath of allegiance from most of the
mujahids and tribes in Iraq.'' But neither point was true, as al Qaeda
leaders privately groused.
Al Qaeda may have ratified its affiliate's decision to disband
after the fact, but it was still an open question as to whether the
Islamic State was subordinate to al Qaeda Central or an altogether
independent entity. The state itself never addressed the question,
again relying on ambiguity to imply greater power and independence than
it actually possessed. And al Qaeda's leaders made the fateful decision
never to dispel that uncertainty.
From private documents, though, we know that al Qaeda Central
believed that the Islamic State was under its authority. In his private
letter, for one, Gadahn claims as much. The United States also
uncovered a paper trail of documents from 2007 and 2008 attesting to
that fact. Al Qaeda Central ordered the Islamic State of Iraq to carry
out attacks, for example, against Halliburton in 2007 and the Danes in
2008. Al Qaeda Central also asked for information on the state's
personnel and expenditures. When the group refused to answer corruption
charges leveled by one of its former officials, al Qaeda Central
summoned Masri, the group's war minister and previously the head of
AQI, to the woodshed in ``Khorasan'' (Afghanistan or Pakistan).
Whatever control al Qaeda exercised over the Islamic State of Iraq
had further eroded by 2011, either because the Islamic State rarely
heard from al Qaeda Central owing to U.S. counterterrorism measures or
because the state did not want to listen to its superior. As Gadahn put
it in his letter, ``Operational relations between the leadership of al-
Qaeda and the State have been cut off for quite some time.''
Still, there was no formal break between the two organizations.
Even Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State's spokesman, who today
denies that the Islamic State of Iraq ever pledged an oath to obey al
Qaeda, acknowledges that it was ``loyal'' to al Qaeda's commanders and
addressed them as such, and that it continued to abide by al Qaeda's
guidance on attacks outside Iraq. For example, he says, the group
refrained from ever attacking Iran (even though its soldiers demanded
it) out of deference to al Qaeda's desire to ``protect its interests
and its supply lines in Iran.'' The Islamic State also held back from
carrying out attacks in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia because
al Qaeda asked it to. But when it came to targeting decisions inside
Iraq, the spokesman contends that it never followed al Qaeda's
``repeated request'' to stop targeting Shiites. And, in his telling, al
Qaeda Central never issued a direct command or asked about the
disposition of its forces inside Iraq. When al Qaeda's leaders expelled
the group in 2014 for its disobedience, Adnani retorted that al Qaeda
could not disown what had never belonged to it in the first place.
Adnani is lying, has a poor memory, or is unaware of high-level
discussions between the Islamic State of Iraq and al Qaeda Central. Al
Qaeda certainly inquired about the Islamic State's troops and issued
requests and demands for it to change its targets, modify its tactics,
and reform its bureaucracy, as the documents from 2007 and 2008
demonstrate. That al Qaeda usually couched its instructions in polite
language does not mean al Qaeda expected the Islamic State to ignore
them.
There are many reasons the Islamic State grew unruly, some of them
bureaucratic--it is hard to govern a terrorist group remotely,
especially when even the local leader loses control of a corrupt
faction of the group--others security-related--many of al Qaeda
Central's messages were delayed or simply did not get through because
of U.S. counterterrorism measures. But other al Qaeda affiliates
bedeviled by the same infighting and hardships had never revolted. What
separates them from the Islamic State of Iraq is also what explains its
aberrant behavior: the group came to believe its own propaganda that it
was, in fact, a state. Its flag--and not al Qaeda's--had become the
symbol of the global jihad. Even al Qaeda's own affiliates flew it.
Jihadist fanboys on-line counted the days since the state's
establishment. And after the Islamic State began to control territory
in 2012, it could truly claim to be a state in fact and not just in
theory.
When, in 2013, the Islamic State (now calling itself the Islamic
State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS) proclaimed its authority over Syria
and Iraq, Zawahiri demanded that it renounce that claim and return to
Iraq. The response of the ISIS's emir was dismissive: ``I have chosen
the command of my Lord over the command in the message that contradicts
it.'' Months later, ISIS proclaimed itself the caliphate, rallying many
in the global jihadist community to its side. It is far more exciting
to be fighting for a caliphate that has returned than for a distant
promise of its return under al Qaeda. Zawahiri's killer idea had taken
on a life of its own, dismembering al Qaeda and replacing it as leader
of the global jihad.
Despite ISIS' success in capturing jihadists' imagination, the idea
of an Islamic state has one fatal flaw: its physical incarnation makes
it vulnerable to attack. Take away the state's territory and expose its
brutality and rapaciousness, and you discredit the standard-bearer of
the idea. You may even discredit the idea itself. As Adnani prayed in a
recent message, if this state is false, then may God ``break its back .
. . and guide its soldiers to the truth.'' The United States and its
allies should do everything they can to ensure that the higher power
does indeed destroy the state--and expose the truth.
______
113TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H.R. 5488
To require a review of the completeness of the Terrorist Screening
Database (TSDB) maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the derivative terrorist watchlist utilized by the Transportation
Security Administration, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 16, 2014
Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To require a review of the completeness of the Terrorist Screening
Database (TSDB) maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the derivative terrorist watchlist utilized by the Transportation
Security Administration, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No Fly for Foreign Fighters Act''.
SEC. 2. REVIEW OF THE COMPLETENESS OF THE TERRORIST SCREENING DATABASE
(TSDB) MAINTAINED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AND THE DERIVATIVE TERRORIST
WATCHLIST UTILIZED BY THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, acting through the
Director of the Terrorist Screening Center, shall complete a review, in
coordination with appropriate representatives from the Department of
Homeland Security and all other relevant Federal agencies, of the
completeness of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) and the
terrorist watchlist utilized by the Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration to determine if an individual who may seek to
board a United States-bound flight or a domestic flight and who poses a
threat to aviation or national security or a threat of terrorism and
who is known or suspected of being a member of a foreign terrorist
organization is included in such Database and on such watchlist.
(b) Report.--Not later than ten days after the completion of the
review under subsection (a), the Director of the Terrorist Screening
Center shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the findings of such
review.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Dr. Broun, from Georgia.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Olsen mentioned in his oral testimony that over,
roughly--I am sorry--100 Americans have joined ISIL. Do we know
how many Americans have actually joined ISIL, as well as other
terrorist organizations around the world?
Any of you can give me a number?
Mr. Olsen. I want to be very clear about the numbers, if I
may, Congressman. So, we estimate over 100 Americans have
traveled to Syria to join with extremist groups in Syria, or at
least attempted to travel.
Mr. Broun. So you don't know a number of who have actually
joined, is that correct?
Mr. Olsen. Once in Syria, it is very difficult to discern
what happens there.
Mr. Broun. Do you know who they are, though, that have
joined or have traveled to Syria, have traveled to Pakistan or
other places around the world? Do we know who those people
actually are?
Mr. Olsen. To varying degrees, we have specific information
about who they are, whether they travel to Syria or other
locations.
Mr. Broun. Well, going back to what former Chairman Peter
King was asking about passports. The State Department recently
has said that they are not going to revoke passports on
Americans that fly to Syria or fly to these different places.
If we know who those people are, I think it is an outright
security threat not to revoke their passports. Certainly, I
believe in due process, but I think we can do this. It is a
huge security threat to this country if we don't revoke their
passports.
We already know that TSA has allowed known terrorists that
are on the No-Fly List actually to get on aircraft in America.
That presents a huge security threat to America.
Next question of all three of you is that we have got
cities, and now the State of California, that have declared
themselves as being sanctuaries for illegal entrants into this
country. Do you all see this kind of philosophy of cities or
even a State being a security risk to our Nation?
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Johnson. I guess I would answer it this way. We
have a pretty good ability through law enforcement,
intelligence, homeland security means, to identify individuals,
including undocumented, who are people of suspicion, suspected
terrorists. The FBI proves that time and again.
I do think that in any situation where there are a large
number of people who are undocumented, there is a risk that--it
hinders our ability to track those individuals, which is why
from my homeland security perspective, I would want to see
those people come forward and get on the books so that I know
who they are.
So, you know, if what you are suggesting is that the risk
to homeland security grows when there are larger numbers of
undocumented people in any one place, in any crowded area, I
can't disagree with that.
Mr. Broun. Well, we know that we have got a porous border,
particularly on the Southwest. We already know that as your
Department, Secretary, describes this, we have OTMs, other than
Mexicans, crossing the border, that we have apprehended. We
don't know how many people have not been apprehended. Would you
agree with that statement? Yes or no.
Secretary Johnson. We generally believe that--we have an
ability to calculate total attempts to cross the border
illegally. Apprehensions are a large percentage of that. It
runs somewhere between 70 and 90 percent. So we track total
attempts. So we have a sense for who we didn't get who has
crossed the border.
Mr. Broun. Well, I have limited time. I apologize for
interrupting you. Do we know how many Syrians or Pakis--
Pakistanians or Iranians or Somalians or others have crossed
the border?
Secretary Johnson. In a broad sense. There is obviously
legal migration and there are obviously a large number of
people who travel from those countries for legitimate means,
through lawful means. So I think we have a pretty good sense of
the nationalities of who comes to this country, both through
legal migration and through apprehensions.
Mr. Broun. Well, frankly, I believe that this Visa Waiver
Program that we have increases our security threat, too,
because of these terrorists being able to fly to this country
with--on the Visa Waiver Program. I think we need to, Mr.
Chairman, look at that.
One final question: Some Americans say that ISIL and what
is going on in Syria and Iraq today are just involved in a
local civil war. What would you all say to them as far as the
threat that this poses to our own interests here in this
country? If I could get all three of you to respond to that.
Secretary Johnson. I will start.
Congressman, I think that ISIL represents a huge threat to
our interests. It represents a potential threat to our homeland
security. It represents a threat to the stability in the
region, and it obviously represents a threat to Americans in
the region. They demonstrate the willingness to kill Americans
because they are Americans.
As the Chairman and others have pointed out, they have
acquired territory. We have to be very concerned any time any
terrorist organization acquires territory for training, for
launching attacks.We are determined to take the fight to this
group.
Mr. Broun. Director Comey, would you comment, please?
Mr. Comey. I agree with what Secretary Johnson said. I wish
it were the case that it was something that was in a box
halfway around the world, but it is not.
Mr. Broun. Okay.
Director Olsen.
Mr. Olsen. I completely agree with Secretary Johnson and
wound only add that there is certainly no lack of understanding
within our departments and agencies or within the intelligence
community of the nature of the threat that the group poses.
Mr. Broun. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, my time has
expired. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman's time has expired. Given the
limited time we have with our witnesses, I am going to hold
Members very strictly to the 5-minute rule.
Next we have Mr. Barber, who is not here, so Mr. Payne, who
is also--where is Mr. Payne? He is right next to me. You
changed seats with the Ranking Member.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you
know, recently there have been news reports that have claimed
thousands of foreign students have overstayed their visas and
have disappeared.
However, the Department of Homeland Security is doing a
great job, and their own data appears to show that while these
cases were initially flagged for review, the locations of these
students was in fact known by DHS field officers.
It is my understanding that, you know, there are many
reasons why a record might be flagged as a potential overstay,
none of which are reasons to expect dangerous activity. For
example, DHS's own press office has stated that many cases
appear to be closed due to a variety of legal reasons,
including the student's receipt of a green card or a departure
from the United States.
You know, for generations American foreign policy leaders
have agreed that educational exchanges are one of the most
successful foreign policy tools. Eight of the Nobel Peace Prize
winners since 1987 have been foreign students educated in the
United States.
America needs friends and understanding around the world
more than ever, and educating young people here gives us a
great opportunity to develop those ties for future world
leaders. Therefore, we need to understand how the Department
manages the student visa program.
Can you discuss what the procedures and the systems DHS
uses to monitor foreign students? Because I want to make sure
that we do not distract the American people from the real
threats that we are currently facing by mischaracterizing
foreign students.
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, given the nature of student
visas, we have to depend to a very large degree on what the
universities tell us about whether the individual is still a
student, still seeking an education in this country.
As you referenced, there have been a number of individuals
who have overstayed their student visas. This is something I
have looked into, taken a special interest in. I believe that
there are a number of vulnerabilities in our ability to track
these individuals that are being addressed.
A number of gaps are being closed. We have looked into the
number of those who are reportedly overstaying their visas. We
have found that a very large fraction have either been arrested
or have returned to their countries or are in compliance to the
receipt of green cards.
There is a fraction of that population where there are
still open investigations. But, I don't have the exact numbers
off-hand, but a very, very large number of those who were
initially individuals of concern we have found either are now
in compliance or have returned, but there are still open
investigations on some.
So I think we are doing a better job of tracking these
individuals. I totally agree with what you said about the
importance of student visas and the importance of receiving an
education.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Because, you know, I just--I saw a
report where they had used a number of 60,000, which absolutely
was ridiculous and absurd. You know, it appears that the number
is closer to maybe 6,000. But ICE has been on top of closing
and narrowing that number consistently. Is that correct?
Secretary Johnson. That is correct. Of the 6,000 you
referred to, we have found that a large number are either in
compliance or have returned or have been arrested. There are
still a number--I don't have the number off-hand, but there are
still a number that is a fraction of that 6,000 that are under
investigation. But I believe most of them are either in
compliance, have been arrested or returned.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Thank you, and I will yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Meehan,
is recognized.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Comey, I
appreciate your focus on the issue of technology. I enjoyed
your anecdote about the fact that your sneakers may tell your
refrigerator that you went for a run. I know you appreciate
that those same sneakers could tell your wife that you went to
the refrigerator.
But I do appreciate your leadership on the technology
front, and I am struck by your concept that--your observation
after 10 years returning, you are seeing the dramatic change
and the metastasis as you identified it in the cyber domain.
You know, we see the fifth dimension of warfare being in this
cyber capacity.
One of our colleagues, former colleagues Lee Hamilton who
observed this same phenomenon from our time together in 2001
came back and testified earlier in the week that he sees the
cyber threat as even greater than the collective threat
currently coming from ISIL.
So we know about the use of the radicalization and the
recruitment that has been done. We have seen more sophisticated
attacks from Iranians that have been tied to denial of services
of our banks. We have seen criminal gangs use the internet for
the creation of ways in which they can do things like extortion
and to raise revenues.
I am also genuinely concerned about the ability to purchase
expertise out there in the world-wide domain from people that
may not be directly associated but can be hired to conduct
activities. Of course there are some concerns that even at a
certain point the kind of Islamic jihad could be tied back to
ISIL with cyber attacks that look at Government organizations,
energy companies, transport systems, banks, things of that
nature.
In light of that, looking specifically at ISIL, what do you
think the cyber dimension is of the cyber threat that ISIL
creates?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. I remember fondly our
time working together. Thank you for caring so much about these
issues because I do think it transforms all of the things we
are responsible for.
I see ISIL focused most on using the internet, cyber space,
to recruit, both through sort-of peer-to-peer communications to
try and lure people to come and fight for them, but also as the
Chairman said, though their very slick propaganda efforts to
energize and to train would-be fighters. I know this is
something NCTC has spent a lot of time thinking about as well.
Mr. Meehan. Have you seen something, Mr. Olsen, with regard
to the activities that lead you to believe that there is a
growing competency that may create an actual threat from ISIL
on the cyber domain?
Mr. Olsen. It is something we are concerned about, but at
this point I would characterize it as basically just
aspirational in terms of any capability of ISIL or other
similar groups to carry out cyber attacks. I think as Director
Comey said, the primary concern about cyber right now is the
use of the internet to recruit and attract followers.
Mr. Meehan. Okay. Director Johnson, you--or Secretary
Johnson, you may feel comfortable in commenting on that, but I
want to take my remaining minute to thank you for your
leadership of and close cooperation with this committee as we
have worked to structure new legislation that would enhance the
ability for the agencies across the board to better prepare to
be responsive to this growing technological threat and
particular the use.
Can you tell me not just--I know you support it, but can
you tell me why you believe this legislation is critical to the
enhancement of your mission and why it is so critical that we
act in a timely fashion on this?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman Meehan, thank you for your
leadership in this area. I think it is critical. The reason--
there are are several reasons why I believe legislation in this
area is important.
One, to codify the authority of DHS to act in the dot-gov
world. There is legal uncertainty about our ability to protect
the dot-gov world. There are statutes that some would interpret
to inhibit our ability to protect the dot-gov world. So the
existing statutory landscape needs clarity in order for us to
do our job.
We know also that in the private sector there are those who
are concerned about their legal authority to share information
with the Government. They are concerned about their civil
liability--their potential civil liability if they share
information with the Government, if they act in response to the
Government.
We are also looking to enhance our authority to hire cyber
talent. But one of my immediate concerns which I know you are
focused on is clarity in terms of helping us police the dot-gov
world. This is something we have got to do on a daily basis. We
face attacks on a daily basis. It is not just a cybersecurity
threat anymore.
Mr. Meehan. Well, I thank you again for your leadership,
and particularly the promotion of the NCIC of the kind of
junction through which a lot of this activity can take place
and how vital it is.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on that issue,
and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Thanks for your leadership on cyber.
Secretary, your strong support and the administration's support
for passage in the Senate, and I--we all appreciate that as
well.
Chairman recognizes Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just first, on the ISA or ISIL numbers. You know, about 5
weeks ago in published reports, it was estimated to be between
7,000 and 11,000 ISA fighters. The most recent CIA report puts
that estimate at 31,000. I am just wondering if that
distinction is a result of bad numbers analysis or rapid
recruitment success on the part of ISA?
Mr. Olsen. Yes, Congressman.
So the current assessment is that their strength is
anywhere between 20,000 and approximately 31,000--31,500. So it
is--that obviously demonstrates that what we are talking about
is an approximation with a large range. So we have limited
intelligence on this question and that is by virtue of the fact
that our ability to collect on this question is limited in
Syria and in Iraq.
But the increase in that number does also reflect some of
the recent gains that the group has made through its
battlefield successes and its recruitment efforts, particularly
in Iraq. So it is both. The change reflects our limited
intelligence collection, but also the gains the group made more
recently.
Mr. Higgins. Since the commencement of air strikes, have
those numbers dropped? Have the increases been reduced? Because
I think part of the military strategy there is to stop the ISIS
momentum because that, more than anything else, is probably the
most potent recruitment advantage that ISIS has.
Mr. Olsen. What we have seen from an intelligence
perspective certainly is that the air strikes have had an
impact on the military momentum of ISIL. So it has had an
impact on the battlefield. I think we are--it is too soon to
tell how those strikes will affect the overall numbers of ISIL
fighters or their ability to attract people to join the ranks.
Mr. Higgins. So the estimate of future recruitment, in
terms of ISA members is open-ended and unknown?
Mr. Olsen. Well, I think that is right. How it will look in
a year or more from now is, at this point a question that we--
--
Mr. Higgins. Well, let me tell you why I ask that question.
You know, it is hard to know that--where this is going, because
nobody saw it coming. If we saw it coming, we potentially could
have acted earlier to hold its progress. We know that, you
know, 15,000 foreign fighters traveling to Syria, 2,000 of
which are from Europe and the United States, you know, begins
to bring this closer to home. You know, ISA is younger than al-
Qaeda. It is more aggressive. It is more brutal. It is better
at raising money. It is more technologically sophisticated.
This poses a major problem.
You know my district alone, last year there was a terror
plot to blow up a passenger train that was thwarted. It was
going through Niagara Falls and two individuals were indicted
and thought to have al-Qaeda affiliation. In 2003, six home-
grown terrorists from the city of Lackawanna were convicted of
providing material support to al-Qaeda after having traveled to
Afghanistan and participated in al-Qaeda training camps.
Just yesterday in Rochester, New York about 50 miles from
my district, a man was indicted for attempting to provide
material support to ISA, attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and
for possession of firearms and silencers.
So you know, I think it is--people shouldn't be alarmed,
but I think that the growth of ISA, our inability to come--and
we have a strategy that is not fool-proof. It depends on people
who we have not demonstrated any confidence in before--the Free
Syrian Army and all of the thousands of militias that make that
up. This is a major concern.
I saw it in the Secretary's statement, you know, there were
five things that the Department of Homeland Security is doing,
including aviation safety and a number of other things and that
is fine.
But I just think that the threat of ISA to the American
homeland is much--it is more existential than we are willing to
acknowledge. The idea, again, is not to alarm anybody, but to
prepare for what is a very, very serious situation that is
metastasizing in that part of the world. They are not going to
stop in Eastern Syria or Northwestern Iraq. They have a goal
and it is very specifically defined. The borders in that part
of the world, these people have no appreciation for,
historically, because they had nothing to do with it. They are
looking to upend the entire Middle Eastern region and wanting
to claim it for themselves.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Duncan is recognized.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
timeliness of this committee. I want to thank the gentleman,
Mr. Higgins, for his comments as well. Thank you, gentlemen,
for you service to our Nation. You have an immense challenge
ahead of you. We all recognize that we support it where we can.
Having a dialog about the threats, global threats to safety and
security is very, very important, not only for lawmakers and
policymakers, but also the American people. I want to comment
about--Secretary Johnson, you mentioned the OTMS and whether
we--that you use a broad spectrum. Whether it is broad or
narrow, the fact is we have no idea who is in our country or
what their intent is.
One side of the political spectrum really wants to paint a
rosy picture that we have a secure border. But the fact is
Americans realize that we don't. We also--I think Americans are
counting on us in this arena to transcend politics and work to
keep the bad elements out of our country, to work to keep
another 9/11 from happening. They expect you guys to transcend
politics and focus on keeping us safe.
I grew up in the Cold War. At that time, we were, as a
Nation, tracking troop movements of the Soviets, tank
placements, surface and sub-surface ships and where they may be
across the country and across the globe. Now we are tracking
individuals. Foreign fighters who may have left our country or
Europe and traveled to Syria to fight Jihad who may have been
radicalized, who may have the ability to travel back to their
county and may have the ability to come here.
In June, I was in Brussels. Before we got to Brussels, a
foreign fighter had traveled to Syria, was radicalized, made
his way back through Turkey and Germany. Germany actually knew
about this individual, failed to let the Belgians know. He went
into Brussels and shot up a Jewish museum. At least three, if
not four, individuals lost their lives. He tried to flee
through France and was caught at a bus stop with the very
weapons he used to commit the crime.
Germany knew, but failed to share that information. We are
relying on information sharing as we try to track individuals--
foreign fighters as they travel around the globe. It is an
immense challenge. To go back to what I mentioned earlier. We
talked earlier or heard earlier about the hundred or so
Americans that have gone to fight with ISIS. But we also have
Somali Americans who have traveled to fight with al-Shabaab. We
have got Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, wherever they may be, in the
Arabian Peninsula or other places. Don't take your eyes off of
al-Qaeda as we focus on ISIS, because it is still a threat.
The thing that I want to question about this morning is a
Classified--actually it is Unclassified now, internal memo from
FBI. On June 13, the violent criminal threat section sent out a
request for information regarding encroachment admission creep
by other Federal law enforcement into traditional FBI lanes.
It goes on to talk about mission creep by Homeland Security
investigations. It is an issue in an alarming number of field
offices.
I appreciate the director of FBI saying that that is really
not an issue, but what I want to point out is DHS was stood up
in 2003 to recognize--or after recognizing the stove-piping of
information, the walls, or barriers of sharing information
between agencies that possibly could have thwarted the 9/11
hijackings.
I go back to the comments I made earlier about Germany
failing to let Belgium know about a foreign fighter that
traveled through their country, who ended up killing some folks
at a Jewish museum. We cannot afford to have these type of turf
wars between agencies charged with keeping us safe.
Director, how do you combat that? How do you keep that
mission creep issue from being an issue? I would love to hear
from Secretary Johnson on how he feels about that.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
By talking about it constantly. That report made my head
explode, and so I shared that head explosion with every leader
in the FBI to let them know how I think about it, which is that
the FBI does nothing alone. To be effective in protecting the
American people across all our responsibilities, we need the
kind of partnerships you see actually visually represented by
the two of us sitting together. There is just no other way to
do it.
The American taxpayer should have no patience for turf
battles. I have got none.
Mr. Duncan. Director, I appreciate y'all's communication. I
am concerned about communication where the rubber meets the
road, and that is where the communication needs to happen. If
you have got turf wars going on, I am afraid that information
may not be shared appropriately.
Mr. Comey. Yep, and that is what I meant by talking about
it. I am pushing that. I have visited now 44 of my 56 field
offices. I talk about it everywhere I go to make sure that I am
shaping the culture in the right way, and I think that is an
exception, that particular--what is reflected in that
particular news account. I think we have made tremendous
progress in 13 years, and we will keep working on it.
Mr. Duncan. That is his time. Thank you. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Johnson. Congressman. Just yesterday, Director
Comey and I got together to talk about cybersecurity to ensure
that our organizations are working together effectively on
cybersecurity. We both have a role in cybersecurity, along with
other agencies. So, one of our challenges is to make sure that
what you refer to doesn't happen, because that doesn't do any
good for the American people, for our Government, for the
taxpayers, to see us engaged in turf war.
So, we have committed to setting the example at the top and
instilling that example in the rank-and-file in our leadership.
So, on cybersecurity for example, we get together routinely to
talk about what is our framework? Are we getting it right? Are
we having any turf battles?
So, all three of us, I think, and I think I speak for our
respective organizations and our respective communities, are
committed to working together. I think it does depend a lot on
the personalities at the top committing to work together.
The last thing I will say is your comment about DHS. In the
9 months I have been in office, I have seen the advantage of
having the components within my Department together at one
conference table. When we were dealing with the situation in
the Southwest Border this summer in the Rio Grande Valley, I
could put together at my conference table CBP, ICE, CIS, FEMA,
and the Coast Guard to deal with the situation, to tell them
what needs to be done.
These are entities that were scattered across the Federal
Government, previous to the creation of DHS. So, I have seen
the synergies of putting a lot of these components together in
one Department. So, if that was the thrust of your comment, I
very much endorse it and agree with it.
Mr. Duncan. Well, that was the whole idea. I am glad it is
working. I am glad you are communicating with all your
elements. That is why it was stood up. We need to learn from
the 9/11 Commission Report. The reason we combated the
stovepiping, the sharing of information, Americans are counting
on you guys.
So, thank you so much, and God bless you.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you sir.
Chairman recognizes Mr. O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I join my colleagues who said earlier that there is
perhaps no way that the American public can know everything
that each of you and the men and women who work with you have
done to protect this country. Nonetheless, we owe you our
thanks, and I want to join my colleagues in letting you know
how much we appreciate it.
Secretary Johnson, I appreciate you setting the record
straight on terrorist threats to the homeland from our border
with Mexico. I could not agree more with you that despite our
success thus far, that there have not been any terrorist plots
connected to the Southern Border, that there is no evidence
that ISIS is preparing to infiltrate the United States through
the Southern Border.
I couldn't agree more with you that this is something that
we need to remain vigilant against, and continue to guard
against. Continue to use all of our resources as warranted by
the threat that exists based on the evidence that we find.
I also appreciate you answering my colleague's question
about whether or not we have sufficient resources on the
Southern Border. We are spending $18 billion a year. We have
20,000 Border Patrol Agents, the vast majority of whom are on
the Southern Border today. Those are double the numbers, more
than double the numbers that we saw 5 or 6 or 7 years ago.
As you mentioned, the number of apprehensions is at a
record low level. We saw 1.6 million apprehensions 15 years ago
on the eve of 9/11, this year with the spike in Rio Grande
Valley, I think it is going to be right at about half a million
at the highest.
In the El Paso sector, the community I represent, the
average agent apprehended 4.2 migrants or crossers this last
year; 4.2 per agent. Now, that number does not reflect the
deterrent value that those agents have. I think there is a lot
to be said for that.
But you also said earlier that while we have sufficient
Federal resources there, we could use more. You mentioned the
Senate proposal, which I think was to add another 20,000 agents
on the border. I am really concerned that when we know that the
greatest risk is at our airports, we have talked about home-
grown terrorists, that we are obsessively focusing on the
Southern Border.
Again, let's remain vigilant, but we have finite resources.
We should apply them where we have the greatest threats based
on established risks that we have been able to determine. I
would love to get your thoughts on that comment.
Secretary Johnson. Most people would endorse the notion of
a risk-based strategy to homeland security, border security,
aviation security. We focus resources where we believe the risk
exists. It is an effective, efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
In aviation security, for example, we made the judgment to
develop the TSA Pre-Check program, where we focus resources on
the population we know less about. The Border Patrol experts
that I have talked to also endorse that approach.
So, with additional personnel, additional boots on the
ground on the border comes surveillance technology, the ability
to monitor what is going on on the Southwest Border, to know
where the threat areas are. Because they do migrate. They do
move around.
We had a challenge this summer in south Texas.
So, I continually, with our Border Patrol personnel, look
at where are the threat areas, how has it evolved, and so in my
judgment, in response to your question, I think that a risk-
based strategy is appropriate, and I think that technology,
more technology, more surveillance, is the key to our future
for border security.
Mr. O'Rourke. Just following on your comments, my colleague
sought analogy in previous conflicts to apply to this threat
from terrorists who might want to enter the homeland. I also
think about the French on the eve of World War II and their
obsession with the Maginot Line. Yet somehow, through
fortifications and a line of defense and a specific place, we
are going to somehow solve a threat posed to this country.
I think we have to be far more creative and really be
rigorous and disciplined about applying resources to where
those threats are or where they could be based on established
risk.
Last question to you, Mr. Secretary. There is a Southern
Border and approaches campaign plan through DHS. Some have
compared this to a SOUTHCOM type effort of organizing resources
and assets against a specific threat. Could you very briefly
describe the intent of that campaign, and where you are in its
implementation?
Secretary Johnson. Well, first of all, going back to your
previous question, I think I speak for my colleagues when I say
none of us downplay or underestimate the risk of, or the
concern of a terrorist or terrorist organization infiltrating
our homeland. I mean, that is probably our primary concern,
day-to-day, when we go to work every day, and it is something
we have to continually be vigilant about.
The southern campaign plan is in development. I expect to
be in a position to announce some things in the month of
October concerning the southern campaign plan. It is an effort
to more strategically bring to bear all of the resources of my
Department on border security in a way that is not stovepiped,
in a way that is strategic in how we use all our different
resources within the Department.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you Chairman, and I thank all three of
you for your dedication, for the men and women who serve in
your departments and agencies.
Secretary Johnson, I want to thank you particularly for the
good work the men and women are doing in Homeland Security. I
can tell you, since you have taken office, the production and
the response to Congress in terms of responding to our letters
and inquiries is--the difference, I cannot tell you how much
better it is. I thank you and the people who work on this. I do
appreciate it.
Secretary Johnson. You may not like the responses, but you
are getting them faster.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Yes. True.
Since you took office, Secretary Johnson, on December 23--
or Secretary Johnson, on December 23, are you aware of any
apprehensions of suspected or known terrorists who were trying
to come to our country illegally?
Secretary Johnson. That is an important question.
Attempting to come to this country?
Mr. Chaffetz. Who came across our border illegally. Did you
ever apprehend anybody who was a known terrorist, a suspected
terrorist, somebody who had ties to a terrorist organization?
Secretary Johnson. Sitting here right now, no specific case
come to mind. That doesn't mean there is none. Perhaps Director
Comey can think of one. Sitting here right now, I--none comes
to mind, but that doesn't mean there isn't one, nor does that
mean there is no investigation of one either.
Mr. Chaffetz. My concern is that I have a reason to believe
that on September 10, there were actually four individuals
trying to cross the Texas border who were apprehended at two
different stations, that do have ties to known terrorist
organizations in the Middle East.
Were you not aware of that?
Secretary Johnson. I have heard reports to that effect. I
don't know the accuracy of the reports or how much credence to
give them. But I have heard reports to that effect.
Mr. Chaffetz. I guess that is my concern, is you, as the
Secretary, does that information rise to the level of the
Secretary? Let me give you some metrics and some of the reason
I am concerned about what is going on on the Southwest Border.
This is an internal document of yours. While there were, as
noted, nearly 466,000 apprehensions over the last 351 days, we
also had 157,012 got-aways; we had 142,630 reported turn-backs.
But one of the other metrics that is also fascinating to me
is the sensors that are found there primarily throughout the
Southwest. We had just under 5 million sensor hits in fiscal
year 2013. But in fiscal year 2014, over the last 351 days, we
have now had more than 6 million of those hits.
Now, we have got wild burros and tortoises and animals
that--there are a lot of false positives there. But the concern
is if you look at the apprehensions, we have apprehended people
from 143 different countries--143 countries, according to the
internal statistics; 13 were from Syria; six were from Iraq;
four were from Iran. The list goes on to 143 different
countries.
The men and women that work on our Southwest Border, they
do an amazing job. But to suggest that we have operational
control of the border, I--help me understand this. You said
there was a 70 to 90 percent success rate. Explain to me what
that is.
Secretary Johnson. When you look at what we believe to be
total attempts to cross the border illegally, the estimated
rate of those who make the attempt, of those who are
apprehended, is somewhere between 70 and 90 percent. It varies
in time and it varies in sector.
Mr. Chaffetz. Now, the GAO--previously, the GAO had
indicated that there was only a 6 percent operational control
of the border. What percentage--what is the operational control
of the border at this time?
Secretary Johnson. I don't have that number off-hand. I do
agree with you that the challenge of those coming from
countries other than Mexico, particularly into the Rio Grande
Valley sector, is one I am very concerned about. It is
something that I have been concerned about since I took office
in January. I have seen it myself at our detention center in
Brownsville when I visited there in January. There was
something like 80 nationalities of illegal migrants present
there.
Mr. Chaffetz. I need to interrupt because I have just a
little time. I have got to switch real quick to a yes or no
question.
In 1983, President Reagan put in place a prohibition on
Libyan nationals from seeking visas to come to the United
States to be trained in aviation security--or aviation and
nuclear sciences. Myself, the Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte,
Congressman Trey Gowdy, and I introduced a piece of legislation
that would keep that prohibition in place. There has been a
process going through--through your offices and through the
administration to actually reverse that prohibition that was
put in place in 1983. That now sits on your desk. What is your
view of lifting that prohibition?
Secretary Johnson. I do not intend to lift that prohibition
at this time. I don't believe legislation to prevent me from
lifting it is necessary. I think given the current environment,
I do not intend to lift it at this time.
Mr. Chaffetz. I appreciate it. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman recognizes Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. I thank the Chairman. To our witnesses, 13
years ago I was a Congressional intern here in this town when
September 11 happened. I watched with great interest our
country's response to September 11 and I watched the creation,
Mr. Secretary, of your Department and this committee become a
full standing committee.
Now I think what we are experiencing with the rise and
spread of ISIL in the Middle East and our efforts to respond to
it is exactly why this Department was created.
So first, I just want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and the
two directors for the work you do every day to answer to these
challenges to keep us safe here at home. Because while we are
going to consider today what offensive measures we may take
abroad, the critical component that I am most concerned about
is what are we doing here at home.
So first, I just want to get out of the way something that
my college from Texas alluded to. Mr. Secretary, do we have any
evidence of any of the following groups coming across our
Southern Border: ISIL?
Secretary Johnson. We have no specific intelligence that
members of ISIL are crossing into the United States on our
Southern Border.
Mr. Swalwell. How about Hezbollah?
Secretary Johnson. Director Olsen could comment more
specifically, or correct me on that, but----
Mr. Swalwell. I will just go one by one, and if you think
it takes further elaboration. How about Hezbollah? Yes or no.
Secretary Johnson. Same answer.
Mr. Swalwell. How about al-Nusra?
Secretary Johnson. I believe the answer is the same. But
again, I want to defer to my intelligence community colleague
here in terms of any assessments of the current environment.
Mr. Swalwell. May I also ask, in addition to not stopping
anyone or interacting with anyone or interdicting anyone who is
coming across who is not a member of these groups, would it
also be safe to say that the intelligence community has not
collected any information in the various means and methods it
uses to collect intelligence, that there are efforts underway
to use the Southern Border to go into the United States?
Mr. Olsen. I think that is true certainly with respect to
your first question, Congressman, on ISIL. We have seen, as I
mentioned, chatter on, from sympathizers about that question,
but we have seen nothing to indicate any efforts to enter the
border--enter the United States through the Southwest Border by
ISIL.
Mr. Swalwell. I was in Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and Israel 2
weeks ago and met with our State Department teams and our
allies over there. My greater fear is not the Southern Border,
but we were told about the number of Americans who are over in
Syria and Iraq fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with ISIL, as well
as the number of Westerners who are over there.
I was hoping that you could elaborate on what we are going
to do or what we are doing to disrupt any plans of theirs to
return to the United States and carry out with the tools and
hate that they have built and developed abroad?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, we have made enhanced
efforts to track these individuals within the various
communities of the U.S. Government. As you heard me mention, we
have enhanced our aviation security measures. We are making
enhanced efforts. We have stepped up our dialogue with our
allies, with our partners there.
The President will chair a U.N. Security Council session
next week on the topic of foreign fighters. We are considering
a number of things to do that will give us more information
from passengers from the countries, from visa waiver countries
so that we know more about individuals who attempt to travel.
There is always law enforcement. I believe the FBI does a
terrific job from the law enforcement perspective of
investigating and arresting people who attempt to join
terrorist organizations, who attempt to leave the country. I
believe our allies also understand the nature of this threat
and are making enhanced efforts as well.
Mr. Swalwell. With the number of foreign fighters coming
into Syria and Iraq, I have asked that you, Mr. Secretary, and
others from the Department, that we really expedite the number
of visa waiver countries who are participating in Interpol's
Stolen and Lost Travel Documents Database.
Because I still remain concerned after what happened back
in the spring with the Malaysian Airline's disappearance of two
passengers who had boarded that flight with lost or stolen
passports. I think now more than ever we need to make sure that
we know and have these other countries really step up their
efforts to report to Interpol. I--if you could just update us
briefly on what we are doing to get these countries----
Secretary Johnson. We have been having that dialogue with
our allies. I think they understand the nature of that issue.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you again to each of you for
what you are doing to keep us safe.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Let me say, this committee is considering
legislation to require visa waiver countries to provide more
data and information in exchange for that privilege.
So with that, the Chairman now recognizes Mr. Barletta.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know if we are making the argument here of whether
or not we should secure our Southern Border or not. That is the
feeling I am getting. There has been a lot of talk that if any
terrorists--whether or not any terrorists have crossed the
border illegally. But we do know that those wishing to do us
harm have manipulated in the past our immigration system to
enter and remain in the United States.
Mahmoud Abouhalima, he was a convicted perpetrator of the
1993 World Trade Center bombing; received amnesty in 1986 after
he claimed to be an agricultural worker, despite being a cab
driver in New York. The only thing he planted in America was a
bomb.
President Obama has told the American people and potential
terrorists that he plans to grant some form of administrative
amnesty to potentially millions of those currently in the
country unlawfully.
Secretary Johnson, as you make recommendations to the
President as to how he should implement such a program, how
will you assure the American people that another Abouhalima
will not slip through the cracks?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, I am very focused on
knowing as much as we can about individuals who are
undocumented in this country. I believe that--if an earned path
to citizenship would have become law, that would encourage
people to come forward and submit to a background check, so
that they can get on the books. I know there is a lot of debate
about--just give me a second, please--there is a lot of debate
about the earned path to citizenship. From my homeland security
perspective, I want people who are living in this country
undocumented to come forward and get on the books and subject
themselves to a background check, so that I can know who they
are. Whether it is the current DACA program or an earned path
to citizenship, whether it is deferred action or an earned path
to citizenship, from my homeland security perspective, I want
people to come forward and submit----
Mr. Barletta. But Secretary Johnson, I have dealt with this
as a mayor in my hometown. Do we honestly believe that any
would-be terrorists or a criminal or a drug dealer, is going to
come forward to have a criminal background check done on them
or are they going to continue to remain underground? Nobody
with a criminal record is going to come forward.
Secretary Johnson. The more I can learn about the
undocumented population in this country, the better; the more
effectively we can use our removal resources against the type
of person you just described, the better. So, I am interested
in going after public safety National security threats in terms
of our removal resources. I want to have a system that more
effectively gets to that population----
Mr. Barletta. Do you believe Mahmoud Abouhalima would have
come forward for a criminal background check in 1993?
Secretary Johnson. Most criminals do not subject themselves
to criminal background checks; I agree with that.
Mr. Barletta. So he still would have planted that bomb in
the World Trade Center. So the 9/11 Commission Report that I
have here, I question why--this was a report and
recommendations that was passed by Congress and signed by the
President--why we haven't taken those recommendations and
enforced them. The summary in the very first line, it says
enforcement of our immigration law is a core component that,
according to the Commission, up to 15 of the 19 hijackers on
September 11, could have been intercepted or deported through
more diligent enforcement of immigration laws.
Why are we not taking up the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Report, so that we don't have another attack again?
Secretary Johnson. There are a number of 9/11 Commission
recommendations that I wish we could all adopt.
Mr. Barletta. But enforcing our immigration laws is No. 1.
Secretary Johnson. Very plainly, enforcement of our
immigration laws is a top priority of mine. With the resources
that Congress gives us, we can and we should do an effective
job of going after those who represent threats to public
safety.
Mr. Barletta. Secure the borders.
Secretary Johnson. Secure the borders.
Mr. Barletta. The discussion here and we have had in the
past in another hearing----
Secretary Johnson. I agree with you.
Mr. Barletta [continuing]. Whether or not----
Secretary Johnson. Securing the borders is----
Mr. Barletta [continuing]. Somebody has crossed the border
already that is a terrorist. Nobody used a plane to crash into
one of our buildings before, until the first time as well. That
is not a good reason that we shouldn't secure the border,
because we believe that nobody has crossed the border who is a
terrorist already.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you.
The Chairman recognizes Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
three of our witnesses for their service, particularly Director
Olsen, as you leave, for your service. It is pretty clear--also
I want to thank, particularly Director Comey for being here for
the first time. I appreciate it and I think it is very
important.
It is clear from all your testimony that the No. 1 threat
remains home-grown, radicalized, terrorists in our country.
That is something that I think is heightened with the ISIL
threat as well. There is a person that is on the Most Wanted
list by the FBI as a terrorist. Ahmad Abousamra, who went to
school, the same schools that one of my children did and then
later went to school just a few miles away from them. It is
close to home.
When you look at these threats and you look at the
different challenges, I am reminded of our work that we did
with the Boston Marathon bombing and that investigation that
concluded that information sharing with local police is so
important. Given Director Olsen's testimony about how ISIL has
now become more sophisticated, it is harder to intercept
messaging, that remains even more of a priority.
So, I would like to ask Director Comey to share with the
committee the progress that you made in terms of doing a better
job, sharing information with local police and also what
progress is made in terms of formalizing that, too, in terms of
a memorandum of understanding that can be there and transcend
different administrations and the need, if any, for regulation
of statutory change in that regard.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Keating. Yes, for anyone who was
asleep before 9/11 and woke up today would not recognize the
depth and extent of information sharing among Federal agencies
and with our State and local partners; the world is transformed
in that respect. But I also believe we can always find room to
improve it. So a number of things we have done since Boston
that I think have improved it is we have made clear that we
want the default to be information sharing, and we don't want
anything to be an impediment to that or misunderstood as an
impediment to that.
We have also done something else that I think makes great
sense, which is each of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces now has
a regular meeting with all the leadership of the agencies
involved to review our inventory--what came in over the last--
it has to be with at least 30 days--30 days or a week or 2
weeks--what came in, what got closed, questions, concerns, to
make sure everybody is in synch on what is going on in the
JTTF.
There are a number of other smaller ways in which we--I
think we have improved our information sharing. I travel around
the country and meet with State and local law enforcement now
in 44 field offices, and I am hearing good things. I think we
are in a good place. But I don't want to rest on that, because
there is always something I haven't thought of us, so I want to
continue that dialog to improve it.
Mr. Keating. I appreciate that. One of the areas that I
have found that local officials aren't taking enough advantage
of--local police now have access to Classified information more
than they did. But it is my understanding they are not taking
advantage of that the way they can. Is there something that we
can do to help those numbers, to make it easier for them or to
encourage them to get more of that information?
Mr. Comey. I don't know, other than just encouraging it. I
am urging all leadership of agencies to participate in our task
forces, to at least get the Secret-level clearance. So that if
you need to, you can see things very, very quickly. We are
getting there. People are coming around to it. People are very,
very busy. They also know that there are officers and
detectives that are on our task forces, are cleared and are
seeing everything. So I think that removes some of the sense of
urgency, which I get, but we would like to encourage it more
and more.
Mr. Keating. I just want to follow up, too, that--I want to
thank you for your meeting with me and your--our shared
interest in information sharing with local and State officials.
I just wanted to reinforce the fact that, even though you
are--I think you are the only seventh director, there will be a
time that all of go from our different positions. It is the
importance of having things in writing, whether is a memorandum
of understanding or something that transcends that
administration. What progress are we making in terms of having
something in writing in that regard, in terms of information
sharing?
Mr. Comey. I think that makes good sense. Yes, I will--in 8
years and 51 weeks, I will be leaving this job. I would like to
make sure that it doesn't depend upon people, but that the
processes are documented.
Mr. Keating. All right, thank you. I think Director Olsen
wanted to talk.
Mr. Olsen. If I could just add very briefly, Congressman,
to Director Comey's answer to your question about
Unclassified--or Classified information in State and local.
Together, with the FBI and DHS, we have a program called the
Joint Counterterrorism Assessment Team, in which we bring State
and local police officers and firefighters to the National
Counterterrorism Center, where they have access to all the most
Classified information on a basis of detail more than 2 years.
They then help us design products that are Classified and
turn those into Unclassified products. Again, working through
DHS and FBI and their channels of communication with those
communities, so that we can get what we are seeing at the
Classified National level and turn it into information that is
usable by police officers on the street and firefighters around
the country. It has been a very successful program over the
last several years.
Mr. Keating. Great. I believe that is our first line of
defense. I want to appreciate your efforts at making that
easier to get.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman recognizes Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your service to the
Nation. You have a very difficult job. It is a privilege to be
here with you today.
Within--any of my questions, all of my questions, I would
hope you would answer. Certainly, I know you would, but I want
to acknowledge that I recognize the confines of operational
security. But still, within whatever ability you can to answer
the questions--Mr. Secretary, what are the Department's
mechanisms in place that would prevent known American and
European citizens fighting for terrorist organizations in Syria
and Iraq from re-entering or entering the homeland?
Secretary Johnson. First of all, Congressman, we have our
No-Fly List. That is the first thing that comes to mind.
Second, general aviation security. Though, unless you are
carrying something suspicious, aviation security in and of
itself wouldn't necessarily pick you up.
Passenger travel data, API data, PNR data. The more I can
learn about travelers, the better. We have a fair amount. I
think we can do a little better.
From visa waiver countries, passengers are required to
answer questions on Electronic System for Travel Authorization
called ESTA. We have as a condition for participation in the
Visa Waiver Program security assurances that each Nation is
required under what we call HSPD-6, which requires security
assurances from visa waiver countries.
We have general information sharing with the National
security intelligence community, communities within each of
these other governments. So, with the current threat stream,
the current environment, I think we all agree that we need to
be particularly focused, particularly engaged in making sure
that these mechanisms work appropriately.
Mr. Perry. So, let me ask you this--I am not a--you know,
was never in law enforcement, so I defer to you folks. But what
I hear, it seems like--somewhat passive. I don't mean to
degrade its ability and capability, but it seems somewhat
passive. You know, asking a passenger to disclose information
that is vital to us in securing the Nation, when their motives
might be otherwise, seems less than optimal. So, I am looking
to see if there is anything that we have done that is new, so
to speak, that you would be, and should be willing to--or could
be willing to divulge. Maybe anything that you might think that
we should be looking at to get to the issue.
Secretary Johnson. Well, I want to defer to Director Olsen
on this, but we can just outright prevent them from traveling--
--
Mr. Perry. Right.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Or prevent them from
entering----
Mr. Perry. True.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. The country. Or if they
don't quite rise to the level of being on a No-Fly List, they
should be subjected to some form of secondary screening,
though--which is more than just answering questions. It gives
us an opportunity to provide enhanced scrutiny on an individual
before they get on an airplane. But Director Olsen, go ahead.
Mr. Olsen. I think, exactly as Secretary Johnson said,
there are a number of opportunities and layers of screening
that occur for anyone trying to travel to the United States
that--arriving at the border is just one point in time, but
before they ever arrive here, one of the--there are
opportunities to do that. One of the changes from the 9/11
Commission 13 years ago was to create a single consolidated
database of known suspected terrorists. Together with the FBI
and DHS and a number of other agencies, we have a single
database that is consolidated across the Government of every
known suspected terrorist that we have information about. That
information, Classified, is then turned into an Unclassified
watch list that is shared with the Terrorist Screening Center
and a number of other agencies that have a screening
responsibility. So, the No-Fly List is just one example.
But everyone who applies for a visa and everyone who seeks
to travel here from a visa waiver country through the ESTA
program--their information is screened against in that
database. So, when they put their name and passport number into
the system, whether they are applying for a visa or coming from
a non-visa-requiring country, that information is then checked
to see if they are on the watch list. They are either then
subject to additional screening, or stopped altogether from
traveling to the country.
Mr. Perry. All right. I understand. I appreciate the
answer. I am not here to be critical, so I am not going to be.
I am just curious.
While my--before my time expires--suspected ISIS social
media accounts have called for unspecified border operations,
where they have sought to raise awareness for illegal entry
through Mexico as a viable option. Based on even some of your
testimony that says that we have weak immigration laws, and the
fact that we would use DACA, do you think that we should be
concerned that they would use this propaganda to breach the
Southern Border and use that as an operational tool? Should we,
as Americans, be concerned about that possibility, based on
everything that you know in our posture today?
Mr. Olsen. Yes, absolutely, we need to be concerned about
all the ways in which someone can enter this country for the
purpose of carrying out a terrorist attack. As Secretary
Johnson said, it is our overriding No. 1 priority, is to
prevent that from happening.
Again, we need to be--we need to allocate our resources
based on the information we have and where we see the threat.
At this point, while we have seen some social media, I think in
small numbers, not individuals who are sympathetic to ISIL,
talking about the Southwest Border. We have seen nothing to
indicate that there is actually any real effort to use the
Southwest Border to enter the country.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman now recognizes Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first of all, just applaud all of your efforts to
keep the American people safe and secure. You know, I think all
of my colleagues have stated it, but I wanted to emphasize that
since 9/11, we have really progressed and stood up in
infrastructure that has, for the most part, kept our Nation
safe from foreign terrorist attacks.
I want to also wish you much continued success in all of
your endeavors.
I want to drill down a little bit more on the subject of
cybersecurity, particularly the workforce. We have heard a
number of colleagues raise it today. But I know that the
Federal, State, and law enforcement organizations face
challenges in having the appropriate number of skilled
investigators, forensic examiners, and prosecutors.
We all know that the pool of qualified candidates are
limited, because individuals involved in investigating or
examining cyber crime are highly trained specialists, requiring
both law enforcement and technical skills.
According to some, once an investigator or an examiner
specializes in cyber crime, it takes up to 12 months for that
individual to really become proficient in the use of those
skills. Add to that the competitive nature of the arena, the
difficulty of competing with the private sector.
So, my question to you is: When we know that it is a
challenge to recruit such individuals from a limited pool of
available talent, retain them in the face of private sector
competing offers, and train them up, to date, with changing
technology and increasingly sophisticated criminal techniques,
how are you dealing with this specialized manpower issue in
your agencies?
I want to also submit to you that while today we are not
necessarily seeing the nexus between advanced terrorist
activity through the use of the internet, I can envision theft
that then feeds money into these enterprises, and I am sure you
can as well--as creative as we can be in our minds, they too
can be creative.
So, would you just share with us some of your thoughts?
Secretary Johnson. I will start with that. I agree that
talent, cyber talent is critical to our efforts.
I have personally engaged in recruitment efforts, and have
encouraged young people in graduate schools in the cyber
corridor in northern Louisiana, Georgia Tech, and other places,
to consider a career or at least a short period of time before
they go into the private sector working for DHS or the FBI or
some other place, to serve their country.
There is a tremendous level of learning they can get by
serving their country in the cybersecurity world, even for a
short period of time.
But Congress can help us with this. There is a bill pending
right now, I think on the Senate side, to enhance my cyber
hiring capability, and I am hoping along with some other
pending legislation in cyber that the Congress will act on
that. Because I do need help in attracting cyber talent.
Ms. Clarke. What about the issue of retention? Are you
finding that people come--and I mean is it an ebb and a flow?
How do we maintain----
Secretary Johnson. I just lost a very, very valued member
of my cybersecurity team to Citigroup. So, yes, there is an
issue with retention. Financial sector has much more capability
to offer, very attractive packages, than either Jim or I do.
So, even though everybody knows it is cool working for the
FBI----
Ms. Clarke. Do either of you want to add to that?
Mr. Comey. I don't want Secretary Johnson to know my
secrets, because I am competing for the same talent. But he
just figured one out. It is much cooler to work for the FBI.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Comey. That is part of my pitch. But it is a big
challenge.
Secretary Johnson. Everyone watching on C-SPAN, I was
joking.
Mr. Comey. I oversaw security in two major private-sector
enterprises before returning to Government, so I used to
compete from that side for talent. The amount of money that is
paid to these young folks, doesn't have to be young, but folks
with talent, we can't compete with.
So--but I believe we can compete on the nature of our
mission.
All right, you are not going to make much of a living doing
what we do, but what I say to young people is, ``you are going
to make a life that is unlike any other, because you are going
to be saving lives.'' That is what we do for a living. So that
is a different way to think about work, but I think it is a
place we can and should compete for these folks.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman recognizes Mr. Sanford.
Mr. Sanford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thanks to each one of you for coming, testifying
before the committee.
You know, in as much as today's hearings about world-wide
threats to the homeland and in as much as we are going to take
a fairly significant vote today with regard to homeland
threats, I would be curious to hear each one of your
perspectives on what you view to be the biggest deficiency with
regard to that plan that we will vote on today.
Secretary Johnson. I would say that the plan the President
has put forward to deal with ISIL, assuming that is what you
are referring to----
Mr. Sanford. Yes, sir.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Is a strong plan in many
respects. We have got to work with an international coalition,
we have got to work to support the efforts made by the new
Iraqi government, and we have got to take the fight directly to
ISIL.
So, I think it is incumbent upon Congress to act on the
authorities we have requested. I think the President himself
has said that we cannot expect this--we cannot expect to deal
with this threat overnight. It is going to take an enduring,
sustained effort.
So, I hope Congress will support our efforts in that
regard.
Mr. Sanford. Well, might I interject there? I continue to
always be impressed with your skills, as a former lawyer.
What I asked was for the biggest deficiency is.
Secretary Johnson. I would refer you to the State
Department and the Defense Department, Congressman.
But I believe that our proposal and our plan is a strong
one for degrading and ultimately defeating ISIL.
Mr. Sanford. It is a pass, I understand. Anybody else want
to take a crack at the apple?
Mr. Comey. I just don't think that is something that, at
the FBI I can or should comment on.
Mr. Sanford. Okay.
Mr. Olsen. I agree.
Mr. Sanford. All right. I got three passes on that one. How
many--let me rephrase the question then.
You know, von Clausewitz, in his study of war, talked about
how is it that you impact your enemy's center of gravity? Many
people have argued that what we are doing, though it is action,
it is engagement, that it is doing something, we are not at the
end of the day impacting the enemy's center of gravity and
their ability to bring harm to the United States.
Are there any thoughts, if you were to pick one thing that
you think would impact the terrorism threat to the United
States these days or around the world, what do you think to be
their primary weakness, that center of gravity that, if
affected, would really begin to impact the outcomes?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, let me answer that question
this way.
From my DHS experience and from my Department of Defense
experience, I think that it is important that in our efforts,
we not enable the enemy to recruit faster than we can capture
or kill the enemy. So, and particularly when it comes to the
homeland.
So, along with the efforts of our military, and along with
the efforts of our partners overseas to take the fight directly
to ISIL, there has to be an effort at countering their
propaganda, their social media. There has to be an effort at
engaging potential violent extremist threats here at home,
because, as has been pointed out by many Members of this
committee, these groups in the current age are very good at
propaganda, at recruitment without having to recruit somebody
and indoctrinate them in a terrorist training camp.
So, I am focused on countering violent extremism at home.
Together, we are focused on counteracting the literature and
the propaganda, the notion that ISIL is an Islamic state, which
is false. It is not a state, and it is not Islamic. It is a
group of murderers and kidnappers who commit genocide. So, they
are a group of depraved individuals who have captured the
world's attention right now.
So, I think I am addressing the premise of your question,
which is that it has got to be a comprehensive effort that
involves multiple agencies of our Government.
Mr. Sanford. I see I am down to 30 seconds, so let me just
skip to my last question, very, very quickly.
That is, given what some of the testimony has uncovered
with regard to this constantly recurring theme of roughly 6
percent operational control, based on GAO report with regard to
the border, our Southern Border, why not, again, simply build a
fence?
I would be curious to hear each one of your quick thoughts
as to, yes or no, why not simply build a fence?
Secretary Johnson. Would you like me to start?
Mr. Sanford. Well, you filibuster the best. So, I think I
would rather go to the others first.
Mr. Comey. I am just going to give you a pass so I can
pitch it back to him.
Mr. Olsen. Yes, really, pass as well, since it is not
really within our remit.
Secretary Johnson. First of all, Congressman, what we do on
the Southern Border depends in very large part on the resources
that Congress is willing to give us, so----
Mr. Sanford. So, absent the resource question, what would
be your recommendation? Why not simply build a fence?
Secretary Johnson. My recommendation is the most effective,
efficient use of our resources is a risk-based strategy. I do
not believe that building a wall across the entire Southwest
Border is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
If I build a 15-foot wall, somebody is going to build a 16-
foot ladder. So, we have the technology in place, and we need
more to be able to look to where the risk----
Mr. Sanford. I might interject, they might build a 16-foot
wall, but it would certainly not allow school-age children to
walk up to officers and hand themselves over.
Secretary Johnson. Very definitely, the situation we faced
this summer was one where many of these kids wanted to get
caught. So, when you are dealing with that kind of situation,
it is important to demonstrate that our--that if you come here,
you will be apprehended, and we will send you back.
So we stepped up our ability to send people back quicker.
We engaged in a pretty aggressive public messaging campaign
about the hazards of doing that. But again, when we go down
that road, we need a partner in Congress. I didn't get one this
summer.
I asked for money to help pay for our efforts to step up
our border security, and we didn't get help. I now have to pay
for it----
Mr. Sanford. I have many, many different thoughts on that,
but I see I have entirely burned through my time, Mr. Chairman.
To be continued, sir.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman recognizes Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses here, who play a great part in protecting the area I
represent in Louisiana. With that, let me just ask, because I
heard it said before that cybersecurity and our home-grown
terrorists are really what keeps us up at night. It was
mentioned that especially with the home-grown terrorists, it is
someone--well, cybersecurity could be someone sitting in their
basement on a computer trying to wreak havoc.
So, we know what we do, Secretary Johnson, in terms of our
chemical facilities and making sure that they are equipped to
deal with those types of things. But in Louisiana we also have
a number of ports and shipping companies. We have the loop that
handles at its peak over 1.2 million barrels of oil a day and
is responsible for probably 50 percent of oil getting to the
refineries in Louisiana.
How confident are we that we are communicating enough with
State police, local police, wildlife and fisheries, and all the
other departments to make sure that our facilities offshore and
our facilities that connect are covered?
Also embedded in that question is making sure that the
intelligence sharing is there and that our State police and
local police have done what they need to do to have the
clearance.
Secretary Johnson. Going back to what Director Comey said,
I would welcome the opportunity to be in a position to share
more with our State and local partners in terms of Classified
information once they have a security clearance and a
background check. I think it is in all of our interest that we
do that.
I have been impressed in the 9 months I have been in office
with the level of cooperation and participation we get from
State and local law enforcement. I think in some areas of the
country the relationships are better than in others.
I have also visited a number of ports. I haven't been to--I
have been to the Coast Guard station in New Orleans. I have
not--I don't know that I have been to the commercial port
there, but I have been to a number of ports. I have been
impressed with our level of cooperation with local authorities.
But we have got to keep at it and we can always do a better
job. Port security is one of my priorities while I am in
office.
Mr. Richmond. The other thing--and you talked about
resources especially in response to the question from my
colleague Mr. Sanford. What other resources that--do you think
that we could provide local governments to help them with
homeland security? I know that with different port police
departments you all have offered license plate scanners and
they can apply for grants to do things of that nature.
But in a city like New Orleans, for example, that brings in
about over 9 million visitors a year, hosts Super Bowls,
National championships, Mardi Gras, all of those things,
outside of just the area of the ports, assets like those could
be very, very valuable.
The question becomes what do you think the role is of the
Federal Government to assist local police departments and State
police in getting that equipment that would make the country
more safe, especially when you have events that have millions
of people in town at a time?
Secretary Johnson. I think the principal means is our
grant-making activity. Through our grants, we fund a number of
different programs, training, the ability to provide equipment
for homeland security. So I think grants is the principal means
by which we should do that.
I want to make sure that we have our grant formulas
correct. That is something I am looking into. I want to make
sure that we--our grant making around the country is at
appropriate levels.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Comey, Mr. Olsen, I will just ask you
slight request, and if you want to reply it would be great. To
the extent that your intelligence sharing and your
effectiveness also goes hand-in-hand with the ability and
competence of local police departments, and you all do a great
job what you do, but you can't be successful if the local
police departments are not focused and competent in doing what
they do.
To that extent, do you all have a mechanism to let Members
of Congress know, hey, your police department is slacking in
some areas that could make your communities unsafe? I think it
is something that all the Members of Congress would take great
interest in to make sure that they know all of the police
departments and sheriffs in their area are focused on it.
If they are not, we may have to give them that extra push
to get them there. So can you provide us that information and
do you see cases of that?
Mr. Comey. It is a good question, Congressman. I don't know
is the answer. I don't think there is a vehicle for us to do
that. In a way, we don't focus a lot on that because if we see
a problem we try and work with that partner to help them fix
that problem. If they need resources, we go to Jeh's people,
see if a grant can be made. So the answer is I don't think so.
Mr. Olsen. I agree with Director Comey on that point. I am
not sure that I have seen an actual mechanism. Obviously we--as
Director Comey said, we just try to fix those problems when we
see them in the field.
It is something that from my vantage point, NCTC, we work
through DHS and FBI in any outreach we have with State and
local law enforcement. But I do agree with your fundamental
point that it is fundamentally our best line of defense, our
first line of defense against any sort of particularly home-
grown attack.
Mr. Richmond. Well thank you for your questions. I would
just say that if you see that any of my law enforcement chiefs,
if they don't get it, please let me know that they don't get it
so that I can get involved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you for calling this
meeting.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you.
Let me thank the witnesses for being here today. I think it
has been an excellent discussion. Great oversight hearing.
Mr. Secretary, as always, thank you for being here and
thanks for your outreach to this committee.
Matt, we wish you well in your future endeavors, and I know
we will be talking about that personally.
Director Comey, I think it speaks volumes, your presence
here today, of a new era being ushered in with the FBI and DHS
and State and locals coordinating and working together, which I
always think is the best formula which actually does sort-of
epitomize what the JTTFs were founded to do in the first place.
But I think your leadership and being here today, I just can't
tell you how much I appreciate it.
So with that, Members may have additional questions in
writing. With that, this hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun for Jeh C. Johnson
Question 1a. Do we know how many Americans have attempted to join
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other similar
terrorist organizations?
How many have succeeded?
Answer. Recent estimates indicate there are as many as 16,000
foreign fighters, of which 2,700 or so are Westerners. DHS is aware of
over 100 U.S. persons who have traveled to Syria or sought to travel to
Syria to join terrorist groups operating there, including the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), al-Nusrah Front, and other violent
terrorist groups. We can provide a more comprehensive answer, including
details on how many have succeeded, in a Classified setting \1\ (see
Classified appendix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From Testimony of NCTC Director Matthew Olsen at hearing on
Worldwide Threats to the Homeland (September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1b. Our current policy is not to suspend the passports of
American citizens who we believe are traveling overseas with the
intention of joining organizations dedicated to doing harm to America
and American interests. Why should these individuals be allowed to
continue traveling on an American passport? Is it time to reconsider
and reevaluate this policy?
Answer. DHS works with its interagency partners, including the
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
State Department to identify and act on cases where individual's
activities abroad could cause serious damage to the National security
or foreign policy of the United States. In certain circumstances, the
Department of State has the authority to revoke or limit passports on a
case-by-case basis, which can be expedited when the situation warrants.
Working with interagency partners, DHS retains a range of tools to
identify and disrupt threats from terrorist travel.
Question 1c. Does the Department of Homeland Security communicate
with the Department of State to request that these individuals'
passports be suspended or revoked? If not, why?
Answer. DHS works with our interagency law enforcement,
intelligence, and military partners, including the Department of State,
to identify actual and potential U.S. citizen foreign terrorist
fighters, and will, if and when appropriate, recommend that the
Department of State use its authorities to revoke the U.S. passports of
these individuals.
Question 2. Of these individuals who have traveled overseas with
the aim of joining terrorist organizations, have any of them attempted
to return to the United States? How many?
How are the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation monitoring these individuals upon their return to the
United States?
Answer. We have seen a few instances where U.S. persons who
traveled to Syria to join terrorist groups have returned to the United
States. We can provide more details in a Classified setting (see
Classified appendix).
As with any terrorism investigation, DHS provides appropriate
support to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through Joint
Terrorism Task Forces that manage the investigations. We respectfully
defer to the FBI on the details of how their investigative subjects are
monitored.
Question 3. Several American cities and even the State of
California have declared themselves to be ``sanctuaries'' that will
protect individuals who have illegally immigrated into the United
States. Although there are certainly many illegal immigrants who are
not terrorists or potential terrorists, I am concerned about the
prospect of dangerous individuals also seeking shelter in these
communities where they know that they will not be questioned about
their identity or immigrant status. Do you believe that the potential
of dangerous individuals who may have ties to terrorist organizations
hiding amongst these ``sanctuaries'' is a threat to our National
security?
Answer. DHS is concerned about any methods used by terrorists to
gain access to the United States. We can provide more details about our
assessment in a Classified setting (see Classified appendix).
Question 4a. I believe that our failure to completely secure the
border is a threat to our National security. Individuals can enter our
Nation illegally without being intercepted by border law enforcement.
How can the Department of Homeland Security know the number of people
and from where they originate if they are not first intercepted at the
border?
If there are unknown individuals crossing the border into the
United States, how can we be sure that none of these individuals are
members or have ties to terrorist organizations?
Question 4b. If we cannot be sure of the identities of individuals
entering our country illegally, then how can we be sure that these
individuals are not bringing dangerous materials and weapons into the
country to be used against our citizens?
Answer. DHS is committed to prioritizing and focusing our efforts
to best protect the American public from threats such as terrorism,
illegal drug and precursor trafficking, human trafficking and illegal
migration, and arms traffic, while simultaneously facilitating and
securing lawful flows of people, goods, and intellectual property
through all potential transit pathways.
We are continually refining our risk-based strategy and layered
approach to border security, extending our borders outward, and
focusing our resources on the greatest risks to interdict threats
before they reach the United States. The success of our targeted
security measures depends in great part on our ability to gather,
analyze, share, and respond to information in a timely manner--using
predictive intelligence and analysis to identify existing and emerging
threat streams to target responses. Our success also depends in part on
our U.S. Border Patrol's mobile and dynamic workforce, in order to
assign agents to address evolving threats.
Question 5a. What specific threats does the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL) pose to our homeland?
What centers of American interests overseas are threatened by ISIL?
Answer. To date we have no information suggesting that the ISIL is
currently plotting attacks against the United States. However, an ISIL
spokesman on September 21, 2014, issued a statement calling for attacks
on all countries involved in the coalition targeting the group in Iraq
and Syria, including the United States and France. This is the first
time we have seen the group's leadership explicitly calling for attacks
on the United States; their previous messaging had called on
individuals, including Westerners, to travel to Iraq and Syria to join
the group's efforts there.
We remain concerned that individuals inspired by the group,
including some in the United States, could seek to follow the group's
advice and carry out attacks here, although to date we have no
information suggesting U.S.-based ISIL adherents are plotting attacks
inside the United States. As the arrest of an individual seeking to
travel to Iraq or Syria at Chicago-O'Hare International Airport in
early October indicates, group sympathizers will likely primarily
remain focused on traveling to Syria or Iraq for the time being.
We do assess that ISIL poses a more significant direct threat to
U.S. interests in Iraq, Syria, and the immediate region. We
respectfully defer to the FBI and the Department of State on this
issue, however.
Question 5b. What specific threats does the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL) pose to our homeland?
Do you believe that this threat justifies a declaration of war
against ISIL?
Answer. DHS takes no position on whether the threat posed by ISIL
justifies a declaration of war.
Question 6. I am a firm believer in the importance of human
intelligence in our National security strategy. Do we currently have
enough human intelligence capacity--both here in the homeland and
overseas--to counter the threats posed by state and non-state actors
alike?
Answer. DHS is working on increasing its human intelligence-
gathering capabilities at home and anticipates increasing its field
collector/reporter personnel by 50 percent, from 19 to approximately
30, during the coming year. We are also training Intelligence Officers
in State and major urban area fusion centers to do intelligence
reporting. This will increase the human intelligence capability by
additional 50-60 personnel.
The DHS Intelligence Enterprise has increased intelligence
reporting, producing over 3,000 reports in fiscal year 2014.
An assessment of homeland intelligence capability would require
consideration of the FBI role and input from the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Assessment of the overseas capability is outside of the DHS mission
and should be directed to the ODNI.
Questions From Honorable Ron Barber for Jeh C. Johnson
Question 1. What is the Department of Homeland Security doing to
prevent so-called ``lone-wolf'' acts of terror and how are you engaging
local communities in these efforts?
Answer. The Department remains concerned about the consistent level
of home-grown violent extremism (HVE) activity, as well as the
potential for conflict areas such as Syria to inspire and mobilize
U.S.- and Europe-based home-grown violent extremists to participate in
or support acts of violence.
We understand that the threat posed by violent extremism is neither
constrained by international borders nor limited to any single
ideology. Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious,
political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence
against the United States.
Moreover, increasingly sophisticated use of the internet,
mainstream and social media, and information technology by violent
extremists add an additional layer of complexity.
To counter violent extremism (CVE), the Department is working with
a broad range of partners to gain a better understanding of the
behaviors, tactics, and other indicators that could point to potential
terrorist activity within the United States or against U.S. interests
abroad, and the best ways to mitigate or prevent that activity.
community engagement
To counter violent extremism, the Department regularly engages with
diverse community groups across the United States in order to
strengthen resiliency to violent extremist recruitment efforts. Using
existing community engagement efforts, as well as participatory trust-
building processes, these efforts aim to empower community opposition
to violent extremism. Active engagement with diverse communities can
undermine key recruiting narratives used by violent extremist groups,
such as al-Qaeda, al-Nusrah Front, and Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL).
Accordingly, the Department has implemented a number of community
engagement efforts as part of its broader CVE mandate. These include:
Community Awareness Briefing (CAB).--DHS's Office for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and the National
Counterterrorism Center's (NCTC) Directorate of Strategic
Operational Planning (DSOP) developed and implemented the
Community Awareness Briefing, designed to share Unclassified
information with communities regarding the threat of violent
extremism.
Community Resiliency Exercise (CREX).--The CREX was
developed by DHS CRCL and NCTC's DSOP to increase trust between
communities and law enforcement officials. The CREX is a half-
day table-top exercise designed to improve communication
between law enforcement and communities and to share ideas on
how best to build community resilience against violent
extremism.
CRCL has held more than 100 community engagement events over
the past few years, and more than 5,000 State and Local Law
Enforcement and fusion center personnel have been trained by
CRCL on cultural awareness and how to best engage with
communities at over 75 training events and National law
enforcement conferences.
CRCL has led an enhanced engagement initiative around the
country with key leaders and officials of Syrian-American
organizations who have become strong partners.
Question 2. As we work to defeat ISIL, what steps can we also take
in our National counterterrorism strategy to ensure another group does
not take ISIL's place?
Answer. Current U.S. strategy is working to degrade, dismantle, and
ultimately defeat ISIL. This strategy includes lines of effort to
support effective governance in Iraq, to deny terrorist groups a safe
haven in Iraq and Syria, and to promote an eventual peaceful settlement
of the conflict in Syria. U.S. counterterrorism strategy includes
measures to protect the American people, the U.S. homeland, and
American interests, both at home and abroad. It involves military,
intelligence, security, diplomatic, and law enforcement efforts to
disrupt, degrade, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates and
adherents. It includes efforts to prevent terrorists from developing,
acquiring, and using weapons of mass destruction. It also includes
efforts to eliminate terrorist safe havens, build enduring
counterterrorism partnerships and capabilities, and counter al-Qaeda's
ideology and violent extremism generally. Efforts are underway to deny
ISIL, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups the access to resources and
financial networks.
As noted in the National Counterterrorism Strategy, there are steps
that the United States can take, and is taking, to address the causes
that motivate terrorism and violent extremism, and to take additional
measures to protect our security when a group poses a threat to U.S.
National security interests. It is important that those contemplating
whether to engage in terrorist acts see a united opposition against
them, not just from the United States, but from other nations and
societies as well.
In addition to addressing terrorist threats directly when they
arise, the United States holds core values of respect for human rights;
encouraging responsive governance; respect for privacy rights, civil
liberties, and civil rights; balancing security and transparency; and
upholding the rule of law. As our National Counterterrorism Strategy
says, the power and appeal of our values enables the United States to
build a broad coalition to act collectively against the common threat
posed by terrorists, further delegitimizing, isolating, and weakening
our adversaries.
Question 3. How are you currently collaborating with local law
enforcement to protect ``soft targets'' in our communities and what
potential gaps in education or training remain?
Answer. DHS, alongside Federal and State, local, Tribal, and
territorial, and private-sector partners, identifies and assesses a
myriad of potential and actual threats to the United States. It is
critical that all partners work together to effectively prevent and
protect against these varying and complex threats.
Collectively, DHS and intelligence community partners, to include
the FBI, draft and disseminate joint intelligence products to State,
local, Tribal, and territorial customers. For threat indicators
originating at the local level, DHS works in concert with State, local,
Tribal, and territorial partners to provide DHS information and
intelligence holdings necessary to accurately identify and characterize
threats.
A key aspect in developing, maintaining, and exercising these
threat-related mission contributions with State, local, Tribal, and
territorial partners are Nationally-deployed DHS Intelligence Officers.
Intelligence Officers aid and support State, local, Tribal, and
territorial partners by supporting the access, analysis, and
dissemination of DHS and Federal intelligence products, specifically
how these National-level products impact States and localities.
Assisting State, local, Tribal, and territorial partners in threat
mitigation and application of protective measures, Intelligence
Officers work closely with DHS's Protective Security Advisors.
Protective Security Advisors are critical partners and assist in
conducting vulnerability assessments, serving as critical
infrastructure liaisons, and security planning. Protective Security
Advisors' capabilities and contributions can be applied to ``hard'' and
``soft'' targets. This spans from chemical manufacturing sites and
transportation nodes, to mass gathering special events, large retail
locations, and other ``soft target'' sites.
With respect to training and education, the State, local, Tribal,
and territorial community is complex and diverse in terms of protection
capabilities. DHS's close partnership with State, local, Tribal, and
territorial partners provides a means to not only share and understand
threats but also work to offer technical capabilities, training, and
educational assistance based on needs.
Question From Honorable Donald M. Payne for Jeh C. Johnson
Question. Thank you for your testimony, and for what you do to
ensure that appropriate steps are taken to continue protecting our
homeland. During the hearing, you made it clear that DHS has the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) in place to
track and monitor foreign students. The SEVIS database called into
question whether some students were in compliance with their
immigration status. It is my understanding that the immigration status
of these foreign students may have been unclear because they changed
their school enrollment status, received a green card, or obtained an
H1B visa. While testifying, you agreed with this assessment, but also
stated that some of these students have been arrested for
noncompliance. Can you please clarify your testimony by distinguishing
between arrests for terrorist-related offenses, if any, and non-
terrorism issues?
Answer. Of the potential visa overstay candidates you reference in
your question who may possibly be the subject of criminal investigation
by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Homeland
Security Investigations, we can clarify that none of these individuals
are currently being investigated for any terrorism-related offenses.
Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun for James B. Comey
Question 1a. Do we know how many Americans have attempted to join
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other similar
terrorist organizations?
How many have succeeded?
Question 1b. Our current policy is not to suspend the passports of
American citizens who we believe are traveling overseas with the
intention of joining organizations dedicated to doing harm to America
and American interests. Why should these individuals be allowed to
continue traveling on an American passport? Is it time to reconsider
and reevaluate this policy?
Question 1c. Does the Department of Homeland Security communicate
with the Department of State to request that these individuals'
passports be suspended or revoked? If not, why?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Of these individuals who have traveled overseas with
the aim of joining terrorist organizations, have any of them attempted
to return to the United States? How many?
How are the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation monitoring these individuals upon their return to the
United States?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. Several American cities and even the State of
California have declared themselves to be ``sanctuaries'' that will
protect individuals who have illegally immigrated into the United
States. Although there are certainly many illegal immigrants who are
not terrorists or potential terrorists, I am concerned about the
prospect of dangerous individuals also seeking shelter in these
communities where they know that they will not be questioned about
their identity or immigrant status. Do you believe that the potential
of dangerous individuals who may have ties to terrorist organizations
hiding amongst these ``sanctuaries'' is a threat to our National
security?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4a. I believe that our failure to completely secure the
border is a threat to our National security. Individuals can enter our
Nation illegally without being intercepted by border law enforcement.
How can the Department of Homeland Security know the number of people
and from where they originate if they are not first intercepted at the
border?
If there are unknown individuals crossing the border into the
United States, how can we be sure that none of these individuals are
members or have ties to terrorist organizations?
Question 4b. If we cannot be sure of the identities of individuals
entering our country illegally, then how can we be sure that these
individuals are not bringing dangerous materials and weapons into the
country to be used against our citizens?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5a. What specific threats does the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL) pose to our homeland?
What centers of American interests overseas are threatened by ISIL?
Question 5b. Do you believe that this threat justifies a
declaration of war against ISIL?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. I am a firm believer in the importance of human
intelligence in our National security strategy. Do we currently have
enough human intelligence capacity--both here in the homeland and
overseas--to counter the threats posed by state and non-state actors
alike?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Paul C. Broun for Matthew G. Olsen
Question 1a. Do we know how many Americans have attempted to join
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other similar
terrorist organizations?
How many have succeeded?
Question 1b. Our current policy is not to suspend the passports of
American citizens who we believe are traveling overseas with the
intention of joining organizations dedicated to doing harm to America
and American interests. Why should these individuals be allowed to
continue traveling on an American passport? Is it time to reconsider
and reevaluate this policy?
Question 1c. Does the Department of Homeland Security communicate
with the Department of State to request that these individuals'
passports be suspended or revoked? If not, why?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Of these individuals who have traveled overseas with
the aim of joining terrorist organizations, have any of them attempted
to return to the United States? How many?
How are the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation monitoring these individuals upon their return to the
United States?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. Several American cities and even the State of
California have declared themselves to be ``sanctuaries'' that will
protect individuals who have illegally immigrated into the United
States. Although there are certainly many illegal immigrants who are
not terrorists or potential terrorists, I am concerned about the
prospect of dangerous individuals also seeking shelter in these
communities where they know that they will not be questioned about
their identity or immigrant status. Do you believe that the potential
of dangerous individuals who may have ties to terrorist organizations
hiding amongst these ``sanctuaries'' is a threat to our National
security?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4a. I believe that our failure to completely secure the
border is a threat to our National security. Individuals can enter our
Nation illegally without being intercepted by border law enforcement.
How can the Department of Homeland Security know the number of people
and from where they originate if they are not first intercepted at the
border?
If there are unknown individuals crossing the border into the
United States, how can we be sure that none of these individuals are
members or have ties to terrorist organizations?
Question 4b. If we cannot be sure of the identities of individuals
entering our country illegally, then how can we be sure that these
individuals are not bringing dangerous materials and weapons into the
country to be used against our citizens?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5a. What specific threats does the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL) pose to our homeland?
What centers of American interests overseas are threatened by ISIL?
Question 5b. Do you believe that this threat justifies a
declaration of war against ISIL?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. I am a firm believer in the importance of human
intelligence in our National security strategy. Do we currently have
enough human intelligence capacity--both here in the Homeland and
overseas--to counter the threats posed by state and non-state actors
alike?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable Susan W. Brooks for Matthew G. Olsen
Question. There have been recent media reports of a laptop seized
from a building occupied by ISIS containing files describing methods to
grow and disseminate biological pathogens. These reports, if true,
indicate an interest on the part of ISIS to develop and deploy
biological weapons. ISIS may also have the opportunity to develop such
weapons, having access to university laboratories in Iraq. Considering
this interest and opportunity, while acknowledging that there are
significant technical hurdles that must be overcome to develop such
weapons, I am interested in your assessment of ISIS' capability to
develop and deploy biological weapons.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
[all]