    [Senate Hearing 114-487]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-487

                            THREATS TO THE HOMELAND

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 8, 2015

                                   __________

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    22-380 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2016
    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    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, gpo@custhelp.com.

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                        Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
                 Elizabeth McWhorter, Professional Staff Member
                  Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
               John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
           Harlan C. Geer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator Carper...............................................     2
        Senator Tester...............................................    17
        Senator Ayotte...............................................    19
        Senator Heitkamp.............................................    23
        Senator Portman..............................................    25
        Senator Lankford.............................................    28
        Senator Baldwin..............................................    36
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    41
        Senator Carper...............................................    42

                                    WITNESS
                           Thursday, October 8, 2015

    Hon. Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
      Security.......................................................     4
    Hon. James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation...     6
    Hon. Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism
      Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence........     8

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Comey, Hon. James B.:
        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    54
    Johnson. Hon. Jeh C.:
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
    Rasmussen, Hon. Nicholas J.:
        Testimony....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    60

                                    APPENDIX

    Article submitted by Senator Johnson.............................    64
    Responses to post-hearing questions submitted for the Record:
        Hon. Johnson.................................................   103
        Hon. Comey...................................................   109
        Hon. Rasmussen...............................................   113

                            THREATS TO THE HOMELAND

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2015

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
    SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Ayotte,
    Ernst, Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Baldwin, Heitkamp,
    Booker, and Peters.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
    order. I want to first of all welcome our distinguished panel
    of witnesses. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your
    thoughtful testimony. Thank you for your service to this
    Nation.
        When I took over chairmanship of this Committee--what was
    it? About 10 months ago--the first thing I did is I reached out
    to Senator Carper, another person of real integrity, and I
    suggested we do something maybe a little unusual for a Senate
    Committee. We developed a mission statement. I guess that is my
    business and my manufacturing background. And so we came up
    with one that is pretty simple. It is, simply, to enhance the
    economic and national security of America.
        I think that accomplished two things: First of all, it
    starts our relationship as the Ranking Member and Chairman and
    as the Committee on an area of agreement. I mean, who could
    disagree with that? It also directed the activity of our
    Committee.
        And so the other thing we did is we established--we have
    really kind of two Committees in one, Homeland Security and
    then Governmental Affairs. But on the Homeland Security side--
    and that is what this hearing is all about--we established some
    basic priorities, and not in any particular order. We
    established five: border security; cybersecurity; protecting
    our critical infrastructure, including our electrical grid;
    doing whatever we can to counter violent extremists, Islamic
    terrorists whose threat, Director, in your testimony you say is
    growing; and our fifth priority was really kind of directed at
    the Secretary, but I will include both you gentlemen as well,
    doing everything we can, committing this Committee to help you
    achieve your goal, your mission of keeping this Nation safe.
        So, again, I want to thank you for your service. It is
    exactly what this Committee is trying to do. Your testimony,
    which I have reviewed, basically follows right down what our
    list of priorities are. These threats that we face in the
    Nation are real. They are not diminishing. They are not
    receding. They are actually growing.
        And so I know you are, again, three men of integrity that
    take your duties and responsibilities very seriously. So,
    again, I thank you for that. I am certainly looking forward to
    your testimony. I want to thank the Senators that are here. I
    am looking forward to a very informative hearing.
        With that, I will turn it over to Senator Carper.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. Thanks. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to start off by calling an audible here. I was
    thinking today, Secretary Jeh Johnson, coming down on the
    train, that in the last couple of weeks, we have been visited
    by Pope Francis up and down the east coast, all over the place,
    millions of people involved with him. We have been visited by
    the President of China, President Xi Jinping, a big entourage.
    Up in New York City, at the United Nations, I think leaders of
    over maybe 70 countries have visited our country, New York
    City, the U.N. The thing to me that is remarkable about all
    that--and I think you are going to touch on this in your
    testimony, but I want to just add a word as well. When the
    Secret Service screws up--and they have--we call them on it.
    And when people make a mistake, there needs to be
    accountability. I know you believe in that, and we do as well.
    And the Pope's visit, the visit of President Xi, the visit of
    all the 70 national leaders who came to our country, for it to
    come off without a hitch is just amazing. It is just amazing.
    And it gives me some encouragement that folks in the Secret
    Service, most of whom are hardworking and want to do the right
    thing, do the right thing every day, that better days lie
    ahead. They did not do this by themselves. They had a lot of
    help from other entities within the Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS), State and local law authorities, and others.
    But I just want to say, as we say in the Navy when somebody
    does a job well, ``Bravo Zulu.''
        Since 9/11, the most acute terrorist threats came from
    Osama bin Laden. Today bin Laden is dead. The core of al-Qaeda
    is largely dismantled.
        Unfortunately, ISIS and al-Qaeda's affiliates in Yemen and
    Syria have filled the void. The tactics they use against us and
    others have changed. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
    in particular has perfected, as we know, using social media to
    spread its online propaganda and recruit members to its ranks.
    These new tactics mean that we can no longer rely solely on
    military force to eliminate a terrorist threat.
        We must identify the root causes of why Westerners join the
    ranks of ISIS and tailor our counterterrorism tactics to meet
    this evolving challenge, and that is no easy task. To do this,
    we will have to improve our ability to counter violent
    extremism, and I know we are focused on that. I know this is a
    priority for all of our witnesses, and I commend the Secretary
    for establishing a new office at the Department that will be
    focused on countering violent extremism (CVE).
        Moreover, if we are to be truly successful in countering
    ISIS' message, among other things, we must remind the world of
    the principles and values that our country stands for. We have
    a long history of granting refuge to the war-weary. We have a
    moral obligation to continue this tradition by taking a
    reasonable share of Syrian refugees.
        The Pope reminded us as he invoked not just the Golden Rule
    but Matthew 25, ``When I was hungry, did you feed Me? When I
    was naked, did you clothe Me? When I was thirsty, did you give
    Me to drink? When I was sick and in prison, did you come to
    visit Me? When I was a stranger in your land, did you take Me
    in?'' So there is a moral imperative here. The moral imperative
    for us is not to be blind to this really awful situation that
    is faced by all these millions of Syrian refugees, but also to
    realize that there is a smart way for us to play a role. We are
    doing a huge role financially, leader among the nations of the
    world in providing aid, emergency aid to the folks that are
    displaced, and so there is sort of a tension here between how
    do we be consistent with Matthew 25, the least of these, and
    how do we do that in a way that protects us from extremists who
    might like to try to use this as an opportunity to come in and
    infiltrate our country?
        The other thing I want to mention is cybersecurity. I just
    came from a meeting with a bunch of folks over in the Capitol
    on cybersecurity, and when I finished my remarks, we took a
    little bit of time, and I said, ``Every one of you, take 15
    seconds and tell us what you think we should make as a
    priority. What should be our priority between now and, say,
    Christmas?'' And they basically had two answers: one was do not
    let the government shut down, come up with a reasonable budget
    that meets our Nation's needs in a fiscally responsible,
    sustainable way; and the other thing they said is
    cybersecurity. Cybersecurity. And we have the opportunity--we
    have worked very hard here under the leadership of our
    Chairman, a lot of folks on our Committee, to do just that, to
    make it possible the last Congress for DHS to have some of the
    tools that they need to do a better job--and you are doing a
    better job; we applaud you for that--but to also make sure that
    we focus on information sharing, do it in a smart way that
    incentivizes folks that are hackers or whatever it is share
    their information with the Federal Government and the Federal
    Government in real time--it comes through the DHS portal in
    real time, you share it with everybody else so there is no loss
    of time.
        So those are the kind of things--we are going to take
    EINSTEIN, build on EINSTEIN 1, 2, 3, EINSTEIN 3A, put it on
    steroids, and I think you are doing a lot of good things in
    your Department, Mr. Secretary, to help build on those tools.
        The last thing I want to say is this: A week ago, or 2
    weeks ago maybe, Senator Johnson and I were invited by you,
    along with Tom Ridge, former Secretary, your predecessor, a
    former Governor with whom I served as Governor, and you invited
    us to come to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It was a day I will
    never forget, and I just want to thank you again for that. It
    reminds us again of what can happen when bad people want bad
    things to happen in our country. We have to be on guard. We
    have to be ever vigilant. But it also reminds me of the
    strength and the course of the 40 people on that plane who
    refused to go down without a fight. Refused to go down without
    a fight. And I will always remember them, be grateful to them,
    and grateful to you for reminding us on that special day of
    what service is really about and what the values of this
    country are truly about.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper. I would also
    like to thank Secretary Jeh Johnson for inviting us. The moment
    that stuck out in my mind--and you gave a great speech;
    everybody did--was when they were describing what those
    passengers did. Almost their final act was they did something
    quintessentially American: They took a vote. So I would
    recommend to anybody who has not gone to Shanksville--most
    people probably have not--to go there. There is a powerful
    panel there where we have phones where you can listen to three
    amazing voice-mail messages from the people on that plane,
    concerned far more about their loved ones they were leaving
    behind than themselves. So, again, something quintessentially
    American.
        With that, it is the tradition of this Committee to swear
    witnesses in, so if you would all rise and raise your right
    hand? Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you. God?
        Secretary Johnson. I do.
        Mr. Comey. I do.
        Mr. Rasmussen. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you.
        Our first witness is Secretary Jeh Johnson. Secretary
    Johnson is the fourth Secretary of the Department of Homeland
    Security. Prior to leading DHS, Secretary Johnson served as
    General Counsel for the Department of Defense (DOD), General
    Counsel of the Department of the Air Force, and Assistant U.S.
    Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Secretary
    Johnson.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEH C. JOHNSON,\1\ SECRETARY, U.S.
                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you and
    Senator Carper noted, last month the three of us attended a
    sobering ceremony in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, for the 14th
    anniversary of 9/11. Today, 14 years after 9/11, it is still a
    dangerous world.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 44.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The events of 9/11 were the most prominent and devastating
    example of terrorist attacks by those who are recruited,
    trained, and directed overseas and exported to our homeland.
    The 9/11 hijackers were acting on orders from al-Qaeda's
    external operations chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was in
    turn carrying out the direction of Osama bin Laden.
        Likewise, the attempted ``Shoe Bomber'' in December 2001,
    the attempted ``Underwear Bomber'' in December 2009, the
    attempted Times Square car bombing in May 2010, and the
    attempted ``Package Bomb'' plot in October 2010 were all
    efforts to export terrorism to the United States, and they all
    appear to have been directed by a terrorist organization
    overseas.
        The response to these types of attacks and attempted
    attacks on our homeland was and is to take the fight directly
    to the terrorist organizations at locations overseas.
        But today the global terrorist threat is now more
    decentralized, more complex, and in many respects harder to
    detect. The new reality involves the potential for smaller-
    scale attacks by those who are either homegrown or home-based,
    not exported, and who are inspired by but not necessarily
    directed by a terrorist organization.
        Today it is no longer necessary for terrorist organizations
    to personally recruit, train, and direct operatives overseas
    and in secret and export them to the United States to commit a
    terrorist attack. Today, with new and skilled use of the
    Internet, terrorist organizations may publicly recruit and
    inspire individuals to conduct attacks within their own
    homelands. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula no longer hides
    the fact that it builds bombs; it publicizes its instruction
    manual in its magazine and publicly urges people to use it.
        Today we are also concerned about foreign terrorist
    fighters who are answering public calls to leave their home
    countries in Europe and elsewhere to travel to Iraq and Syria
    and take up the extremists' fight there. Many of these
    individuals will seek to return to their home countries with
    that same extremist motive.
        The recent wave of terrorist attacks and attempted attacks
    here and in Europe reflect this new reality. The Boston
    Marathon bombing in April 2013, the attack on the war memorial
    and the parliament building in Ottawa in October 2014, the
    attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris in January
    2015, the attempted attack in Garland City, Texas, in May 2015,
    and the attack that killed five U.S. servicemembers in
    Chattanooga, Tennessee in July 2015--what does this recent wave
    of attacks and attempted attacks have in common? They were all
    conducted by homegrown or home-based actors, and they all
    appear to have been inspired, and not directed by, al-Qaeda or
    the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
        We are concerned about domestic terrorism in the form of a
    ``lone wolf,'' which can include various aspects of domestic
    terrorism such as right-wing extremism as well. We devote
    substantial efforts to the study and understanding of these
    threats and will continue to further our understanding of the
    underpinnings of terrorist threats of all forms.
        What we are doing about it I hope to discuss in further
    detail during the Q&A. It is set forth in my prepared remarks,
    and I will not elaborate that here. What I will conclude by
    saying is basically two points:
        One, I applaud both the House and the Senate for the good
    work that has been done on cybersecurity legislation. I applaud
    the fact that it has been bipartisan. As Senator Carper noted,
    I believe that there is an urgent need for help from this
    Congress in the area of cybersecurity. The need for
    cybersecurity legislation has, in my judgment, been amply
    demonstrated just over the last 12 months with some of the
    things we have seen. So I hope that the House and Senate can
    come together, pass legislation, go to conference, and have
    that legislation become law.
        The last thing I will say is that homeland security is part
    of national security. It is the front line of national
    security. Our job is much more difficult to protect the
    American people if Congress does not repeal sequestration. We
    simply cannot deliver for the American people all of the
    homeland security that they need and want if we have to work
    with a sequestered budget. So I urge Congress, in as strong
    terms as I can, to consider repealing sequestration.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Johnson.
        I will say I continue to press leadership to bring
    cybersecurity onto the floor of the Senate. I think we have
    that commitment. I think you will see that hopefully within the
    next couple weeks. And the success of that will largely depend
    on us all working together, as we have in the past. It is
    amazing what you can accomplish if you concentrate on what you
    agree on, the things that unite us as opposed to exploit our
    division. So cybersecurity is certainly one of those things
    that we do agree on, and I am actually quite hopeful of it,
    again, with your help and with Senator Carper's and really
    everybody on this Committee.
        Our next witness is Director James Comey. Director Comey is
    the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
    Director Comey has also served as U.S. Attorney for the
    Southern District of New York, Deputy Attorney General (AG) for
    the Department of Justice (DOJ), and General Counsel for
    organizations in the private sector. Director Comey.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JAMES B. COMEY,\1\ DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
          BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Comey. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Senator Carper.
    Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee,
    especially with my two friends and colleagues here with whom we
    do so much work to try and protect the American people. I am
    grateful for their partnership.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Comey appears in the Appendix on
    page 54.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am not going to repeat what is in the written statement,
    which we have submitted for the record, and I think Jeh has
    captured well the challenge we face. His description of a new
    reality is dead on, and I simply want to amplify it because it
    bears stressing. A lot of us are still thinking about the
    terrorism threat through the paradigm of what I call ``your
    parents al-Qaeda.'' And I think it is very important that the
    American people understand how things have changed, and so I
    just want to spend a brief minute on that.
        ISIL has broken the core al-Qaeda paradigm by using social
    media to broadcast a twin-pronged call to thousands and
    thousands of followers around the world, including many people
    in the United States. They send two messages:
        First, come to the caliphate and participate in the final
    battle between good and evil on God's side and find meaning in
    your life.
        Second, if you cannot travel, kill where you are. Kill
    anyone. But especially if you could kill people in military
    uniform or law enforcement uniform and video it, that would be
    best of all.
        And it is a message that comes in an entirely new way,
    because it buzzes in the pockets of troubled souls, unmoored
    people all over this country all day long. Twitter is worth a
    lot of money because it is a great way to sell shoes or books
    or movies. It is a great way to crowdsource terrorism. And so
    ISIL started investing in this in the middle of 2014, and
    earlier this year we saw the payoff on the investment in
    hundreds of investigations in all 50 States of people who are
    on some path between consuming this poison and responding to it
    by either traveling to the so-called caliphate or killing where
    they are.
        And so the challenge we face, the folks at this table, is
    finding those needles in a nationwide haystack and assessing
    where are they on that spectrum between consuming poison to
    acting on poison and disrupting them before they act.
        And it gets harder still. It is not just a nationwide
    haystack where we are looking for needles. But what ISIL has
    been doing over the last year is when they find a live one,
    someone who might be willing to kill where they are, they will
    move them off of Twitter where, with lawful process, we can see
    the communications, and move them to an end-to-end mobile
    message app that is end-to-end encrypted. So the needle that we
    may have found disappears on us once it becomes most dangerous.
    And with a court order--which is the way we collect the content
    of communications in the United States; we get a court order.
    We cannot see what is being said between that ISIL recruiter
    and someone who would kill where they are.
        This is a big problem. It is an illustration of the problem
    that we call ``Going Dark.'' It illustrates to people the
    conflict that we are experiencing, this country, between two
    values we all hold dear: safety and security on the Internet,
    right? I can assure you Secretary Jeh Johnson and I are big
    fans of strong encryption. It protects what matters to us most.
    We must use strong encryption. But the other value that is in
    conflict is public safety. We must protect the people of the
    United States. We must find those needs and stop them before
    they kill. We must find child predators, we must find
    kidnappers, we must find drug dealers. Those two values we hold
    dear are crashing into each other.
        I do not know what the answer is, but I keep telling folks
    the FBI is not an alien force imposed on America from Mars. We
    belong to the American people. Our tools are only those tools
    the American people give us through you. And I think my job is
    to tell folks when one of the tools you are counting on us to
    use to protect you is not working so much anymore, we have to
    talk about that.
        And so there has been a lot of conversation, very
    productive. The administration has decided not to seek a
    legislative remedy now, but that it makes sense to continue the
    conversations that we are having that are very productive.
    Because here is the thing: people in industry are good folks.
    They share those same values, and they are working with us to
    figure out how could we solve this problem. And so we are
    talking to industry, we are talking to State and local law
    enforcement, we are talking to our foreign partners, because
    everybody who cares about these two values has to be involved
    in this conversation.
        There is no clear answer. An important start is to remove
    the venom and understand we share values. We care about
    protecting people. We care about safety and security on the
    Internet. How do we maximize both values? It is a really hard
    thing. But I think America does hard, especially when it
    implicates our most fundamental values.
        So I thank the Members of this Committee for their
    engagement on this issue and my partners here at the table, and
    we will continue the conversation with the American people.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Director.
        Our next witness is Director Nicholas Rasmussen. Director
    Rasmussen is the Director of the National Counterterrorism
    Center (NCTC). Director Rasmussen previously served as the
    Deputy Director of NCTC, in various functions on the National
    Security Council staff, and in several key positions within the
    Department of State. Director Rasmussen.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE NICHOLAS J. RASMUSSEN,\1\ DIRECTOR,
      NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
                         NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

        Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Senator
    Carper. Like Secretary Johnson and Director Comey, I welcome
    the opportunity today to have a good, thoughtful conversation
    with the Committee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Rasmussen appears in the Appendix
    on page 60.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Before getting into the threat picture in a little greater
    detail, I first want to stress just how well and how closely
    aligned we at NCTC are with my colleagues at DHS and FBI. We
    see the threat environment the same way. We share information.
    We collaborate in a very intense way every day to produce
    analysis to support our operations.
        I will start with the good news. From an analytic
    perspective, the chances of a spectacular large-scale attack
    here in the homeland carried out by an overseas terrorist
    group, along the lines of what my two colleagues described,
    that has been substantially reduced over the last several
    years, and we have collectively achieved that outcome through
    aggressive CT action in South Asia and other places around the
    world, but also through the creation of a robust homeland
    security and counterterrorism infrastructure here in the
    homeland that we have developed as a community over the last
    decade.
        And while we can look with some degree of satisfaction at
    the work done to reduce that threat of a large-scale mass
    casualty attack, there is still quite a bit to be concerned
    about in the threat landscape, as Secretary Jeh Johnson and
    Director James Comey mentioned, and that landscape is in some
    ways more challenging than ever.
        It is also clear that the terrorists' operating paradigm
    has shifted, and it has shifted in ways that are proving
    particularly challenging as we try to identify and disrupt
    threats to the homeland. Today there are more threats
    originating in more places and involving a more diffuse and
    disparate set of individuals than at any time previously. And
    let me spell out what I mean by that and highlight a couple of
    areas of greatest focus and concern. And as you would expect, I
    will start with ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
        In our judgment, ISIL has overtaken al-Qaeda as the leader
    of the global violent extremist movement, and the group does
    view itself as being in conflict with the West, and that
    conflict is being played out not just in Syria and Iraq now but
    also in a number of other locations around the world where ISIL
    has declared itself to have established a province. Those
    places include Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia,
    Afghanistan, Nigeria, the Caucusus Region, and even potentially
    in Southeast Asia as well--Indonesia and perhaps the
    Philippines. And that aggressive growth and expansionist agenda
    has implications for our homeland threat picture, and there are
    three especially concerning features of ISIL as a terrorist
    group that make me reach this conclusion.
        The first is ISIL's access to extensive resources, and that
    can be measured in terms of manpower, military materiel, and,
    of course, money.
        The second concerning feature of ISIL is the territorial
    control that ISIL exercises in large portions of Iraq and Syria
    as well as in some of those province areas that I mentioned a
    few minutes ago.
        And third is their access to a large pool of individuals
    from Western countries, both those who have traveled to Iraq
    and Syria and those who have remained in their home countries.
    And when we look as intelligence professionals for indicators
    of external operations capability in ISIL that could threaten
    our homeland, these are the key features that we would expect
    to see, and that is of concern.
        In his testimony, in his published testimony, Secretary Jeh
    Johnson alluded to how we are coming to view the threat from
    ISIL, and especially the homeland piece of that threat. We are
    seeing that threat as having ISIL involved in some ways along a
    spectrum of activity. At one end of that spectrum we see
    isolated individuals, as Director Comey mentioned, who draw
    inspiration from ISIL's prolific, spectacular use of
    sophisticated social media, and that is true even if ISIL is
    not actually directing or guiding their actions. And at the
    other end of the spectrum, we assess that there are, in fact,
    individuals who may, in fact, receive direct guidance and
    direction from ISIL members, including people who are leaders
    in the ISIL organization. This spectrum is very difficult for
    us to penetrate and understand because of the collection
    difficulties that Director Comey pointed to a minute ago.
        But more often than not, we see that individuals inside the
    homeland actually are operating somewhere between the two ends
    of that spectrum, and that creates a fluid picture that makes
    it even more challenging for us to get inside of.
        Beyond our intensive focus on ISIL and the threat it poses
    to the homeland, though, you would certainly expect that we are
    continuing to devote substantial attention to al-Qaeda, its
    affiliates and nodes around the world. And despite the
    unrelenting media attention that is focused on ISIL in current
    days, in no respect at all, would we downgrade our level of
    effort and attention on the al-Qaeda-related set of threats
    that we face as a Nation.
        And when I am asked often to identify what my No. 1
    terrorism concern is, I most often decline to answer because I
    would not want to suggest that our focus on ISIL comes at the
    expense of efforts focused on al-Qaeda and other terrorist
    organizations.
        Specifically with al-Qaeda, we are watching closely for
    signs that their attack capability is being restored ahead of
    the drawdown in Afghanistan. And while al-Qaeda's core leaders
    have certainly been degraded, we continue to track and
    investigate any indications that core al-Qaeda is engaged in
    plotting activity aimed at the homeland. We know that remains
    an ambition and their intent, so we stay on it constantly.
        In both their statements for the record, both Director
    Comey and Secretary Johnson highlighted al-Qaeda in the Arabian
    Peninsula (AQAP), and that is for good reason. The threat from
    AQAP remains at the top of our list of analytic priorities
    given the group's unrelenting focus on targeting U.S.
    interests, including potentially the homeland and potentially
    the aviation sector. Our work in this area is made all the more
    complicated by the difficult situation in Yemen at this time.
        Beyond Yemen, we are also watching al-Qaeda affiliate
    networks and individuals in Syria who may be looking to carry
    out external operations attacks. Our efforts to disrupt al-
    Qaeda plotting emanating from Syria have certainly been
    successful in the last several months, and some of the most
    important figures of concern have been taken off the map, but
    there is clearly more to be done in this regard. And in the
    meantime, we are looking very closely for any signs of
    intelligence that would give us a hint as to what they are
    planning.
        The third and final area of priority focus is the growing
    use of simple, opportunity-driven attacks by homegrown violent
    extremists (HVEs).'' If you go back to 2009, we were seeing on
    average less than two or three of these incidents a year. By
    last year, the number rose to a dozen, and to date this year,
    that number has already doubled. And, of course, we are not all
    the way through the year yet. And while it is difficult for us
    to put numbers on the precise population of homegrown violent
    extremists here in the United States, there is no question in
    my mind that this population has increased in size dramatically
    over the last 18 months. And you can certainly say that ISIL
    has injected new energy and life into the population of
    homegrown violent extremists.
        ISIL for its part knows that it can have an impact, as the
    Director said, by motivating individuals in their own locations
    to act in support of ISIL by carrying out individual attacks,
    even on a relatively modest scale.
        So as I conclude, I would just like to say that we stress
    again we continue to work to detect, defeat, and disrupt the
    full spectrum of threats we face as a country, focused heavily
    on ISIL and the set of associated threats, but just as
    ardently, just as committedly, the focus remains on al-Qaeda
    and all of its affiliates.
        I will stop there, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Director Rasmussen.
        Obviously, the purpose of this hearing is to highlight
    these threats so that as a public we face this new reality, as
    the Director and Secretary both mentioned. We obviously want to
    be very
    concerned about anything classified, but it is extremely
    important--Secretary Johnson, in your testimony you said, and
    let me repeat, ``But today the global terrorist threat is more
    decentralized, more complex, and in many respects harder to
    detect.''
        Director Rasmussen, your testimony: ``The array of
    extremist actors around the globe is broader, wider, and deeper
    than . . . at any time since 9/11.''
        Director Comey, we had a hearing called ``Jihad 2.0''
    really exploring and highlighting the problem of and the
    sophistication with which ISIL is utilizing social media. In
    that hearing, we had testimony that said that there were at the
    time somewhere between 46,000 and 90,000 overt ISIS support
    accounts.
        Now, I know Twitter has been taking some of those accounts
    down, but they just basically pop up with another name and
    another handle.
        You talked about the social media, those individuals
    following ISIS there, then being moved over into encrypted
    accounts. Can you give us some sense of the numbers of people
    that you are concerned about that have been engaged in social
    media? And I do want to talk about your inability to track, but
    how much information do we have just in terms of the number of
    people that have been inspired through the social media, the
    open media, where we can track into encrypted accounts?
        Mr. Comey. Probably the best number I can give in an open
    setting is dozens.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. I would also, as long as I am talking
    to you--and I know Secretary Johnson has also gone into the
    communities to try and engage the communities. And this is, I
    do not think, classified. I remember hearing in a briefing that
    the members of the communities themselves think that we have a
    complete handle on this, that we know who among their midst
    might be being inspired by ISIS, which that is completely
    false, correct? I mean, would you agree that that is sort of an
    assessment?
        Mr. Comey. I do. First of all, I agree with you, I think
    Jeh has been a leader on this, getting out there and talking to
    the good folks, no matter what their background, do not want
    their sons and daughters either going to caliphate, which is a
    nightmare, and dying there or killing people and surrendering
    their life to a long prison sentence here. The answer is it is
    a huge challenge because good people do what good people do,
    which is we tend to write an innocent narrative over troubling
    facts, so the hair stands up on the back of your neck, but you
    say, ``Well, I must be misunderstanding,'' or ``He must just be
    having a bad day,'' or ``I must not have heard him right.'' And
    what we are trying to get folks to do is, when the hair stands
    up on the back of your neck, just tell us. Tell any police
    officer, any deputy sheriff. We will check it out, in secret so
    no one gets smeared, and if it is nothing, it is nothing. But
    if it is something, you may have just saved your child's life
    and the life of innocent people. But given human nature, that
    is an enormous challenge for us.
        Chairman Johnson. There was a New York Times article that
    really described an FBI informant operative really having
    multiple, I think hundreds of conversations with the terrorist
    from Garland, Texas, and the FBI spent quite a few, I think
    hundreds of thousands of dollars for that FBI operative. Talk
    to me about the effectiveness of that. I am just putting myself
    in the position of a parent whose son, maybe a 20-year-old kid,
    is being engaged by the FBI, talked about different--the
    caliphate and all that type of thing, and then all of a sudden
    the FBI swoops in and says, ``Did you ever talk about traveling
    over to Syria?'' And the person is brought up on charges and
    convicted.
        I think that is a serious concern about is that the best
    way to engage a community. Based on that, have we rethought
    that at all?
        Mr. Comey. Well, we have not rethought--we all agree, I
    think, that it is very important that we try to understand
    where are folks from this consuming to acting, make an
    assessment, and then take it very seriously, especially if they
    are moving toward acts of violence. And so we are going to
    continue that work, but knowing that we have to do that work I
    hope should motivate the good parents of the United States. No
    one wants their children to go die in the nightmare that is the
    so-called caliphate or have to be locked up because they
    violated the antiterrorism laws of the United States. And so it
    is just another reason why good parents need to talk to us,
    need to know what their kids are doing.
        One of the challenges we all face as parents--I have five
    children--is a sense that you want to know where your child is
    going physically, you want to know if your kid is going to hang
    out at the mall, but you do not have such a sense of where they
    are online, which is the entire world. And so what we keep
    saying to people is when you see things that are troubling,
    help us engage and keep kids from getting to a place where they
    have to be locked up.
        We have done a lot of work, the three organizations at this
    table, to try and build capabilities--we call them ``off
    ramps''--so that if we can intervene early when a parent tells
    us about a kid, we can get that kid the help they need--
    sometimes it is substance abuse, sometimes it is counseling,
    sometimes it is religious guidance--so they do not have to
    become somebody we have to lock up. And so that is an ongoing
    conversation with the families of the United States. And we are
    making progress, but it is something we have to continue to
    push on.
        Chairman Johnson. Secretary Johnson, again, you have been a
    real leader and engaged in the communities, and I applaud you
    for that. And, again, I am a little concerned about numbers,
    but I will say I am surprised if it is only a couple dozen
    people who have been inspired on social media, then moved to
    encrypted accounts. Talk to me about your engagement with
    communities, but also about your assessment of that number.
        Secretary Johnson. Well, first of all, by the nature of the
    existing threat we face, we are concerned about a lot of people
    who self-radicalize, essentially, by reading things on social
    media without necessarily direct communications between
    somebody in the homeland and somebody overseas. And what we
    know suggests that before somebody in that situation turns to
    an act of violence, there are very few people who are in a
    position to know about it--the parents, perhaps a brother or a
    spouse, somebody that is living in the immediate home with that
    person. And so by the nature of the problem, we do not often
    have advance opportunity to interdict, to arrest, to prosecute,
    which is why I think the CVE engagements are so important, to
    build bridges, lower barriers of suspicion, and encourage
    people in communities, this is your homeland, too, help us help
    you with public safety.
        And so we have been out there doing this. I think we have
    seen a lot of good reaction, some criticism to our efforts,
    which I think means we know that our efforts are having an
    effect, but just heightening awareness and asking people for
    their help is fundamental given the nature of the current
    threat we have.
        Chairman Johnson. Just real quick with Director Rasmussen,
    Director Comey talked about the balance, the very delicate
    balance between civil liberties and security, and we are always
    concerned about that. You talked about the spectrum. Where are
    we today in that spectrum, in that fulcrum point between civil
    liberties and security? And where do we really need to be?
        Mr. Rasmussen. Boy, that is an incredibly complex question,
    and I am not sure there is a particular point that is a resting
    point on that spectrum. As Director Comey suggested, we know we
    are facing significant new challenges in the way we have
    traditionally collected intelligence to get at our terrorist
    adversaries. Simply put, the kinds of insight we used to have
    into some of the more complex al-Qaeda-linked plotting is just
    not available to us right now. And so, naturally, in that
    environment we are going to exhaust every opportunity we can--
    every avenue we can think of to try to develop new collection
    opportunities. Those will, of course, have to be balanced
    against all of the factors you describe, Mr. Chairman, and that
    is an ongoing process, which is why I do not think we are at
    some steady equilibrium along a spectrum, I think as the
    Director said, is also going to be a subject of an ongoing
    conservation with the private sector and the parts of industry
    that hold critical nodes of communication. And, unfortunately,
    many of these terrorist actors are exercising their craft on
    these platforms.
        I think the good news is that we have opened a
    conversation. There is a lot of ground to be covered in that
    conversation without the Federal Government dictating solutions
    or, as the Director said, choosing a legislative framework at
    this particular point. But we are at the front end of that
    conversation, and it has to play out over the period ahead.
        Chairman Johnson. I recognize it is complex. I did not
    expect a definitive answer, and your answer is exactly right.
    This is a conversation, this is a discussion we must have. It
    has to be an honest conversation, and we have to be looking at
    the new reality, the threats we are facing. They are not on the
    run. They are growing, and we need to be concerned about that.
    And we have to be discussing this in a very serious and honest
    fashion. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Let me preface my questions by again just
    emphasizing how much we appreciate your commitment to our
    country, your commitment to defending us, and the hard work
    that you and your team, the teams that you lead, are doing on
    our behalf.
        As my colleagues know, I like to talk about what is the
    secret to a long marriage between two people, and the best
    answer I ever heard: Communicate and compromise. I would add a
    third C to that: collaborate. And when I look at the three of
    you, I see the three C's--communicate, compromise,
    collaborate--embodied. So keep it up and thank you. You set a
    good example for us.
        Our Chairman and I and others on this Committee like to
    focus not just on addressing symptoms of problems. We are
    pretty good at that as a Nation. We do not always look at the
    underlying cause or the root cause. Senator Johnson and I are
    going to lead a Congressional Delegation (CODEL). I think
    Senator Peters is going to go down with us, I think Senator
    Heitkamp is going down with us, and maybe a couple of House
    colleagues are going to go down with uninsured, and we are
    going to go to Honduras, maybe Guatemala, and try to get a
    better handle on why tens of thousands of people would risk
    life and limb to go 1,500 miles through a terrible situation of
    getting through Mexico to get to our border to face an
    uncertain future. We have spent $1 trillion in the last decade
    or so trying to figure out how to stop people from getting in.
    We have spent less than 1 percent of that to try to figure out
    what the root causes are that are compelling people to come. So
    I am big root cause guy, and when I look at the cyber attacks
    that have been directed at our country in recent years, one of
    them is the Chinese. And they know what is going on. They
    pretend that they have not, but they know full well that there
    are entities within their country that are trying to steal our
    intellectual seed corn to be able to get economic shortcuts to
    prosperity at our expense, and we just pretty much underwrite
    the costs for them.
        I just want to commend Secretary Johnson and everybody else
    that was involved, the President and others that were involved
    in convincing the Chinese that it was time to change their
    ways, to mend their ways. And I am not sure what the prospects
    are for actually succeeding in this, but the agreement that has
    been struck is a very, very encouraging sign. I really did not
    think we would be able to get that, so I applaud you.
        There is a mechanism in place, Secretary Johnson, going
    forth, and I think it involves you, I think it involves the
    Attorney General, to build on what has been agreed to, to make
    sure that, it is not just that they are going to say this and
    do something else, but how do we make sure they do what they
    have committed to do and then for us to build on that.
        Would you just talk a minute about that, please?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes. When the Chinese were here, both
    for the President's visit and about 2 weeks before, we had very
    frank conversations about cybersecurity, about cyber norms that
    we believe nations should embrace, and there are a lot of good
    things on paper. The question now becomes whether the Chinese
    will do what they agreed to do on paper. And so the way forward
    will be putting them to the task of having ministerial-level
    conversations with us on a regular basis. We hope to have one
    before the end of this year, and we are now arranging dates to
    do that. So time will tell about whether or not the Chinese
    will live up to what they agreed to do.
        I am pleased with what is on the paper, but actions will
    speak louder than words in this context.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. I alluded earlier to
    actually the Pope's message, Pope Francis' message to us. When
    he was here, he spoke to our Joint Session of Congress a week
    or two ago, and his focus was on the Golden Rule and on Matthew
    25, the least of these. And one of the provisions in Matthew 25
    talks about, ``Where were you when I was a stranger in your
    land? Did you welcome me in?'' And we have, I think, a moral
    obligation to do that where we can and to look out for those
    that are in terrible situations. We have this need to make sure
    that as those 10,000 Syrian refugees come to agree that they
    are not embedded by a number of folks from ISIS who wish us
    harm.
        I would just like for us to talk about what we can do,
    ought to do, will do, to the extent you can in a public forum,
    to make sure that those threats are anticipated and
    appropriately addressed. And that could be for a number of
    you--Director Comey, Secretary Johnson, Nick.
        Secretary Johnson. Well, just to highlight one thing in
    particular, given the nature of how the terrorist threat has
    evolved, I think it is incumbent upon us at the Federal level
    to share as much intelligence as we can with State and local
    law enforcement. I think Jim's people do an excellent job at
    the Federal level of detecting, investigating, and interdicting
    terrorist threats almost on a weekly, if not daily basis. And I
    have been constantly impressed with how their methods have
    evolved to match the threat. But things like the Garland City,
    Texas, attempted attack highlight that it is also critical that
    we get information out to State and local law enforcement as
    well so that they are aware of what we are seeing.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Comey.
        Mr. Comey. With respect to the potential of Syrian asylees
    coming to the United States, it is----
        Senator Carper. There is a real tension here, as you know.
    We are trying to do the right thing, and at the same time, we
    are trying to do the other right thing.
        Mr. Comey. It is something that we have learned how to do
    better, screening people. The experience we had, we did not do
    it as well as we should have in the mid-2000s, the first
    decade, with Iraqi refugees. So we had to go back and redo it.
    We have learned a lot from that, so I think we are more
    effective as a law enforcement, intelligence, national security
    community at screening folks.
        That said, there is no such thing as a no-risk enterprise,
    and there are deficits that we face. I am not comfortable
    talking about them in an open setting.
        Senator Carper. I understand.
        Mr. Comey. I do not want the bad guys to know what we might
    not be able to----
        Senator Carper. I understand.
        Mr. Comey. But that is how I would sum it up.
        Senator Carper. All right. Fine. Thank you.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, if I could?
        Senator Carper. Please, yes.
        Secretary Johnson. With regard to Syrian refugees in
    particular, I agree totally with what Jim said. We should do
    the right thing by accepting more, but we have to be careful in
    doing it. We have improved the process for vetting from a
    security standpoint the refugees who are admitted in this
    country, and I am committed to making sure that we maintain
    that process.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thanks.
        Director Comey, you mentioned encryption, back-door ways to
    make sure we are trying to protect against terrible crime and
    criminals, and you mentioned conversations are under way. Can
    you tell us just a little bit more about that? Because I think
    this is real important, and I am sure you do, too.
        Mr. Comey. We are having increasingly productive, frank
    conversations with industry because I think in part the ISIL
    threat focused everybody's minds and understood that we are
    just not making this up, that there really is a conflict
    between values we all care about, safety and security and
    public safety. And so industry is not a monolith. There are
    lots of different services and products being provided, but
    what I have found is they are all people who care about the
    safety of America and also care about privacy and civil
    liberties. And so we are talking to each other about how could
    we accommodate both of those values. Again, this is about how
    could we get you in a position to comply with a court order. We
    are not looking for volunteers. We are not looking to sneak in
    anywhere. But how could we get to a place, technologically,
    legally, where we could get you to comply with court orders? So
    that is with the companies. But also really important
    conversations with our allies around the world who care both
    about the same values, the rule of law, and care about safety,
    public safety. And so we are having good conversations with a
    lot of our European allies, but how could we together come up
    with a framework that would make sense, embrace the rule of
    law, and maximize both of those values.
        And the last group, with State and local law enforcement.
    This is actually a problem that affects State and local law
    enforcement most of all, because child abuse cases, domestic
    violence cases, car crash cases, all of those things that cops
    and sheriffs and DAs have to work are affected by the fact that
    encryption has gone from an option available to sophisticated
    people, which has always been, to a default. And so cops and
    sheriffs trying to figure out where this child went are
    increasingly encountering devices they cannot open with a
    search warrant. And so we are engaging them in the
    conversation, too, because this affects every community in the
    United States.
        There is no simple answer, that is what I meant when I said
    the conversations are ongoing, and they have gotten healthier,
    because people have stripped out a lot of the venom. Folks are
    not questioning as much as they used to each other's motives
    because we are in a place where we recognize we care about the
    same stuff.
        Senator Carper. I will close with this quick note, if I
    can. We are always asking Secretary Johnson what we can do to
    help. He is always good to give us a to-do list. I would say to
    you this is an important issue, and if there are some things
    that we can be doing to help on the legislative side, please
    let us know.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        By the way, a quick comment or suggestion on the
    prioritization of the Syrian refugees we do let into this
    country. If we set as a No. 1 criteria family members and we
    can do DNA testing, that would certainly be, I think, helpful.
    Plus Syrian families, Syrian American families can also be
    financially responsible. So I think it is setting criteria for
    prioritization of who we actually let in, and I think it would
    be helpful. Senator Tester.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for your sobering testimony.
        I am going to start with you, Director Comey--and the
    Ranking Member touched on this--about folks being on Twitter
    and then they go dark. And you talked about technology and
    legality, and you talked about working with the private sector
    when you responded to the Ranking Member.
        The question I have is: Do you have adequate resources--
    this could go across the board, by the way, because I know you
    work on it, too, Jeh. But do you have adequate resources, do
    you have adequate manpower to be able to technologically stay
    ahead of these guys?
        Mr. Comey. A tentative yes, and here is why it is a
    tentative yes. The answer yes depends upon a number of things:
    the FBI's ability to hire out of the hole we were left with
    from the impact of the last sequestration, almost 3,000
    vacancies. We are climbing out of that hole now. That is the
    first thing.
        And the second thing is I do not know whether what we faced
    this summer is the new normal; that is, this summer we were
    following dozens and dozens of people all over the United
    States
    24/7, and that is only easy on TV. And so to do that, we had to
    surge resources from our criminal cases to make sure we cover
    this so these folks did not go kill people, and we disrupted a
    lot of those people. And our great colleagues in the military
    have made some progress at degrading some of the capabilities
    of ISIL in their so-called caliphate. So I do not know whether
    what we experienced this summer will be the new normal. If it
    is, then I will have a resource mismatch, and I will be prudent
    about coming back and asking.
        Senator Tester. OK. Jeh, is your agency in the same boat?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, I agree with everything Jim said,
    and I also agree with his assessment of the ``Going Dark''
    problem. There are demonstrable cases where we have seen that
    our ability to track individuals of suspicion is hampered by
    the means of their communication.
        Senator Tester. And so I would just ask, can technology
    take that darkness to light?
        Secretary Johnson. With help from the private sector, yes.
        Senator Tester. OK. Collaboration and communication has
    been talked about. I think it was you, Nick, who talked about
    across the board you guys collaborate and communicate well. How
    is it working with State and local law enforcement? Are they
    brought up to speed? Are you concerned about information
    getting out that you do not want out so they are not brought up
    to speed? Give me the lay of the landscape. I do not care which
    one you want to talk about.
        Mr. Comey. I think it is in a very good place, and I think
    they would be the best people to check with on this. But I
    think our Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF), our Fusion
    Centers around the country are connected in ways they were not
    before, and chiefs and sheriffs understand that the new
    reality, as Jeh said, is not a Washington-focused or New York-
    focused. These troubled souls, these unmoored people, are
    everywhere, and so they get that and they are engaged. And I
    think they would tell you that they are hearing earlier and
    more completely from all of us at this table what they need to
    know.
        Senator Tester. So the channels are there to flow
    information down and back up.
        Mr. Comey. Yes.
        Senator Tester. OK. The Ranking Member also talked about,
    he said it takes more than military to reduce the terrorist
    threats. Would you guys agree with that statement?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, absolutely.
        Senator Tester. And your role in reducing the domestic
    threat, that is your primary responsibility, correct?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Tester. OK. So as Congress wraps up this year--and
    any one of you guys can answer this, but it would probably be
    you, Jeh--what would you prioritize Congress needs to do, two
    or three things, for you to be able to do your job----
        Secretary Johnson. Repeal sequestration----
        Senator Tester [continuing]. That we need to get done soon.
        Secretary Johnson. Repeal sequestration so that I can do
    all the things that the American public needs us to do for
    homeland security, whether it is cybersecurity, border
    security, aviation security. It is going to be very difficult
    to meet all of those priorities if we have to work with a
    sequestered budget.
        Senator Tester. Get rid of sequestration. Anything else?
        Secretary Johnson. That is one, two, and three.
        Senator Tester. That is one, two, and three. OK. Has there
    been any comparison with terrorist actions in this country and
    other countries in the world? Are we more targeted? Is it the
    same threats around the world? Go ahead, Nick.
        Mr. Rasmussen. The phenomenon that we have all described,
    these unmoored, untethered actors who potentially are
    connecting to ISIL by consuming their media and maybe seeking
    to act on their own, we have our concerning population of those
    individuals, as the Director described, as we have all
    described. Our European partners have a much larger population
    of those potential actors, several of them quite a bit larger
    than ours. And so by relative comparisons on scale, I think we
    are in a sense better off than some of our close European
    partners.
        That by no means makes me feel sanguine about our own
    efforts and the level of resources, as the Director indicated,
    to be able to follow and track all of the individuals who may
    turn out to be a concern from a terrorism perspective. But our
    European partners are in some ways are even more challenged
    because they bring to the table often considerably less
    capability than we do, not just in their FBI equivalent or
    their homeland security equivalent, their ministry of interior
    or their domestic security service, but their whole
    counterterrorism and homeland security enterprise is often
    considerably less well developed than ours, and they are often
    looking to us for help in trying to help figure that out.
        Senator Tester. And is that because they choose not to fund
    it?
        Mr. Rasmussen. Again, I think it is the rapid emergence of
    this new variant of the threat, I think they became--as would
    not be surprising--comfortable with their capability to deal
    with the kind of al-Qaeda threat and al-Qaeda affiliates as
    they understood it. The threat has changed in a pretty dramatic
    way as we have tried to outline, and it creates a new set of
    challenges, some of which are particularly resource intensive
    for law enforcement and intelligence organizations, especially
    in smaller countries.
        Senator Tester. This is not within your purview, but is
    there anybody--it seems to me what is going on in the Middle
    East now--and it extends far beyond that--is crazier than I
    have ever seen in my lifetime, and I do not think that is an
    imagination. I think there is just stuff going on that makes no
    sense. Is
    there--at least from my perspective it makes no sense. Is there
    anybody that is trying to find the root causes of why
    everything seems to be going upside down? You guys are dealing
    with the threat on this end. Is there anybody that is trying to
    ask the questions on why these guys are so effective? I know it
    is communication, the Internet and all that, but there has--
    maybe there does not. Is there a reason for this stuff? Is
    there something that is going on in the world that we could
    have some impacts on that would delegitimize these folks?
        Secretary Johnson. We could have a whole hearing on this.
    And you are right, it is not directly within the purview of the
    three of us. My immediate reaction to your question is that
    there needs to be more of a global message and a global theme
    to counter the ISIL message to the Muslim world about what the
    Islamic State supposedly represents. And so my judgment is that
    in order to try to counter what we are seeing, the volatility
    that we are seeing in the Middle East, particularly Iraq and
    Syria, is a more amplified global message about how in the
    Muslim world in particular their efforts and their energy
    should be directed toward younger people in a positive,
    constructive way.
        Senator Tester. Thank you all for the jobs you do.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Tester.
        By the way, Secretary Johnson, I agree with you,
    sequestration was a really stupid idea. But there is a way of
    solving this, and it is called ``prioritization of spending.''
    And I completely agree, defense of this Nation, defense of this
    homeland is a top priority, and we ought to treat it that
    way.Senator Ayotte.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE

        Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank all of
    you for being here and for what you do to keep the country safe
    and for your leadership.
        And I wanted to start with a question for you, Secretary
    Johnson. We in New Hampshire are facing a public health
    epidemic with opioid and heroin abuse, and we have had a
    situation where we have had a 60-percent increase in drug
    deaths. And recently, Mr. Secretary, I know that you--thank you
    for reviewing the transcript of the hearing that we had,
    Senator Shaheen and I had, in New Hampshire, of this Committee,
    which was where we had the Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    Commissioner Gill Kerlikowske there; we had the Drug
    Enforcement Administration (DEA) Acting Administrator Jack
    Riley there; and Director Botticelli from the Office of
    National Drug Control Policy.
        So they testified, but also we heard from the police chief
    of our largest city, Nick Willard, and Chief Willard said
    something that I think is really important that is right in
    your wheelhouse, which is they had an arrest recently--they
    responded to a shooting in Manchester, and they had officers
    ``go into an apartment unknown to us previously''--these are
    his words--``and we found it to be a drug house. And from that
    we did an investigation that led to Lawrence, Massachusetts,
    and from Lawrence, Massachusetts, directly to Mexico. So now we
    know that there is a Mexican drug cartel, the Sinaloa drug
    cartel, that is fueling heroin to the streets of Manchester,
    New Hampshire, and that is alarming.''
        I would agree with Chief Willard. We know this is coming
    over the Mexican border. It is really cheap on our streets
    right now, and obviously this is a very complex problem. There
    is some very strong, bipartisan legislation we are working on
    here across the aisle.
        But, Secretary Johnson, can you tell me what more we need
    to do to interdict more drugs, especially heroin, coming over
    from Mexico? And how are you working with Mexican authorities
    on this issue and also other departments, including the FBI,
    DEA? Because this really is a public health epidemic.
        Secretary Johnson. Well, first, Senator, thank you for
    conducting that field hearing. I found the testimony and your
    remarks from that enlightening, and you have put a spotlight on
    a serious problem in New Hampshire.
        From my perspective, interdiction is the key. Interdiction
    at the Southern Border is the key. And what we have done in my
    Department is devise our Southern Border Campaign Strategy,
    which is a consolidated, strategic effort to bring to bear all
    the resources of my Department on the single problem of border
    security, which includes people and narcotics. So that is not
    just CBP. It is also Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
    Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and we are generally
    moving in the direction of a more coordinated strategy, which
    includes the DEA and other elements of our law enforcement.
        Eventually, I would like to do the same thing on the
    northern border so that we are less stovepiped in our approach
    to both borders, and my hope is that at some point the Congress
    will codify our Southern Border Campaign Strategy into law and
    give us the additional resources we need to further work on
    this effort. But, obviously, interdiction is the key.
        Senator Ayotte. And, Director Comey, I wanted to ask you,
    one of the things that we know that the people who are
    addicted--law enforcement is telling us, rightly so, ``We
    cannot arrest our way out of this problem.'' But they want to
    focus on the kingpins. They want to focus on the cartels. We
    saw from Secretary Johnson what he just said, obviously the
    interdiction piece. But how is the FBI working to go after, for
    example, the kingpins of these enterprises that are really
    making the money off of it and getting more and more people
    addicted, unfortunately, in our country.
        Mr. Comey. The answer is working especially closely with
    DEA, our strategy is focused on what we call ``transnational
    organized crime,'' so the big syndicates and the cartels, to do
    just what you said, to drive up the cost for them, to lock up
    them and their lieutenants, to make it harder for them to try
    to get drugs in, the interdiction being a separate piece of the
    strategy. And we are working hard at that every single day, but
    it is an enormous problem because of the shift you talked
    about.
        Senator Ayotte. Can I ask you, one of the issues that the
    chief raised and we talked about with the DEA--I just wanted to
    see if you had any insight on this. Chicago has an organized
    crime drug enforcement task force (OCDETF) model that they are
    working on, and I do not know if--the FBI I understood was a
    part of that model, which really was bringing--so it has sort
    of a partnership, as I understand it, DOJ, FBI, DEA, and local
    authorities. And our authorities are interested in could we
    bring a similar model to work together along with the High-
    Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) task force in New
    Hampshire, and I just wanted to get your thoughts on that type
    of model.
        Mr. Comey. Yes, it is a model that we have--I cannot
    remember what the nearest OCDETF task force is to New
    Hampshire. There may be one in Boston. I cannot recall. But
    that is a huge feature of our work, because drugs is not the
    Bureau's specialty, but we have certain capabilities that we
    can bring to bear, so we tend to bring it to bear in those task
    forces, which is both--mostly OCDETF, actually, and also
    HIDTAs.
        Senator Ayotte. Well, I would ask you, because when I had
    Administrator Riley in New Hampshire, I would ask you, Director
    Comey, can you work with us on this, and Administrator Riley
    committed that from the DEA, too, to see--just to make sure--
    and I will say that Chief Willard said that he has been really
    pleased with the help he is getting from the FBI. But looking
    at are there better ways we can do this and make sure we are
    all working together in a cohesive fashion.
        Mr. Comey. Sure. Thank you.
        Senator Ayotte. I appreciate that.
        I wanted to ask about this issue of--I know in your
    testimony, Director Comey, you talked about the estimate that
    250 Americans have traveled--I do not know if it is in
    Secretary Johnson's or your testimony--have traveled or
    attempted to travel to Syria to participate in, obviously, the
    conflict, and we are worried about, obviously, their
    participation in the jihad. And one thing I wanted to ask about
    is, I understand, Director Comey, that we have had an effort
    where we have been arresting people across this country very
    aggressively, and as I understand it, we have had maybe close
    to 50 arrests that are related to these issues. Maybe the
    person did not travel to Syria, but they have some connection
    where they are at least perhaps attempting to travel, a
    connection to ISIS. Could you tell us what is happening?
    Because I think it is important for the American people to
    understand that this is happening quite frequently. Your
    department is trying aggressively, working with Homeland
    Security, to arrest these individuals. But what have you been
    doing across the country in terms of arrests that are being
    made?
        Mr. Comey. Yes, we are trying to--the arrests are part of
    our strategy to do two things: to incapacitate people who might
    otherwise travel over to the so-called caliphate, and then
    become much more dangerous to us. I know some folks say, ``Why
    don't you just let them all go? Maybe they will get killed
    there.'' Well, maybe they will not. And when they have been----
        Senator Ayotte. We certainly do not want them coming back
    or going to hurt our partners in Europe.
        Mr. Comey. Right, and that is the future we are going to be
    talking about for the next 3 to 5 years. So we want to stop
    that.
        We also want to send a really scary message because what we
    see in the travelers is they are getting incrementally younger,
    and more females think that it is a great way to find a life.
    So we are trying to send a message, first of all, that it is a
    nightmare there, especially for a woman. But that if you play
    around with this, you are going to end up in jail for a long
    stretch to try and change that behavior.
        Senator Ayotte. Could you give us a sense--I know my time
    is up, but who are you arresting? Like what is the background
    of the individuals? You said more women. Are you encountering
    younger people? Is this just centered in one community or is
    this something we are seeing across the country?
        Mr. Comey. No, the challenge for us is it is not--there is
    no geographic center to it, and in part because of the
    crowdsourced way that the message is going out, and there are
    kids and adults who are seeking meaning in their life, trouble
    people all over the United States. And so it resonates with
    those groups.
        What I meant was we are seeing--there is not a particular
    demographic, either as to location or to age. The Syria
    travelers early on ranged from something like 18 to 63. But
    what we have noticed is--and it is early so this is not a high-
    confidence read--it seems to be drifting younger with more
    girls, and by girls I mean women under the age of 18, with whom
    this message on social media is resonating. And my hope is--and
    it is not just hope. I may see some early signs in the data
    that the message is getting out to families and to young
    people. First, it is a nightmare in Syria, do not go there
    thinking----
        Senator Ayotte. Of course, it is a nightmare. I mean, women
    are being raped, girls are being raped.
        Mr. Comey. Exactly.
        Senator Ayotte. It is horrific.
        Mr. Comey. It is hell on Earth. And this is not some
    joyride, that you will get in serious trouble if we get wind of
    it, and you will go to jail for a very long stretch. And we are
    doing--both of those things are important in driving the
    numbers down, but time will tell whether we are making progress
    there.
        Senator Ayotte. Well, thank you, and this is obviously
    something we are all very concerned about. I appreciate you all
    being here.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. And, again,
    thank you for your leadership on this heroin issue.
        If you remember, during testimony at one of our border
    security hearings, General McCaffrey said we are only
    interdicting 5 to 10 percent of illegal drugs coming in through
    the Southern Border, really indicating how unsecure our border
    is.
        I want to thank Secretary Johnson. By the way, we were
    talking about the border metrics bill. That report language
    will be done I think next week, so hopefully we can get that
    passed as a first step, and we have been working on helping you
    codify your strategy, so happy to ramp up those efforts and
    kind of work on those areas of agreement. So thank you for
    that. Senator Heitkamp.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP

        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So much to talk
    about and so little time.
        I want to thank you, Secretary Johnson, for mentioning the
    Northern Border. It is a big balloon. You press on one area, it
    is going to stress another area. Obviously, we have huge
    workforce challenges on the Northern Border, recruiting and
    retaining workforce. And so we have been working with the
    Office of Personnel Management (OPM), working with your office,
    and I want to thank you for the attention that you have
    focused. Senator Ayotte and I have a bill that has already
    passed here and will hopefully require a new look at the
    Northern Border. So I will leave it there.
        Director, I do not mean to pick on you, but I am going to.
    Have you ever been to Indian country personally?
        Mr. Comey. Yes.
        Senator Heitkamp. Where?
        Mr. Comey. I have been to Navajo, I have been to Acoma
    Pueblo, a couple other pueblos.
        Senator Heitkamp. OK. Have you ever been to a Great Plains
    reservation?
        Mr. Comey. I have not.
        Senator Heitkamp. Pine Ridge----
        Mr. Comey. My children go to Pine Ridge every summer, so--
    --
        Senator Heitkamp. I want to tell you, there is no place in
    the United States where you have more responsibility than
    Indian country. And there is no place where we do not have a
    cop on the beat. We can talk all we want about what is
    happening in places like New Hampshire. When Gil was the drug
    czar, he came out and he spent 4 hours listening to the
    challenges of Native American leaders in dealing with drugs,
    cartels, an easy place to hide because jurisdictionally it is a
    no-man's-land, and there is no cop on the beat. And a Native
    American woman said to him, ``We are an endangered species.''
        And we have huge and critical problems, and the FBI I think
    is failing in meeting the challenges, certainly in my part of
    the world, in protecting Native American people. We have record
    numbers of rapes of small children. We have a record amount of
    drugs. A tribal chairman told me that 40 percent of all the
    children born on one of my reservations is meth-addicted.
        And so I am begging you to help. I am begging you to seek
    an opportunity to participate and to bring Federal law
    enforcement and bring your counterparts at DEA and really start
    focusing, because as we talk about the structures of law
    enforcement--and, I spent 8 years, as North Dakota's Attorney
    General. When people said, where is it that the FBI gets along
    with the rest of the States, I would raise my hand. We have a
    terrific relationship with the FBI and local law enforcement.
    But we lose and we fail in Indian country. And you cannot
    protect a whole State when you have a huge amount of land and a
    huge opportunity for people who are peddling poison to
    basically go undetected, invisible, and not even, any threat at
    all of prosecution right there on the reservation. And people
    who can move are moving, and people who cannot move are being
    exploited.
        And so I am wondering if within the FBI and within the
    Department of Justice and your counter agencies whether there
    is an opportunity to really do more surge work in Indian
    country, especially in my part of the world.
        Mr. Comey. The answer is yes, and thank you for that. It is
    not picking on me because I agree with you totally. And I am so
    grateful for your passion because I have had a bunch of
    meetings on this as Director. My children--when I became FBI
    Director--had just returned from Red Shirt Table, and my two
    girls said to me, ``You have to do something. You would not
    believe what it is like.'' Well, I understand in a pretty good
    way what it is like, and I describe it as ``a crime scene
    without representation.'' No one speaks for these places. So to
    hear you speak for this, Senator, is a wonderful thing.
        So I have done some; not nearly enough. I have pushed
    additional resources to the Minneapolis Division, which covers
    you. I have changed the way we assign and recruit agents to
    Indian country to get more there and to get more talent there.
    But I have to do more, and so watch this space. But I would
    love to talk to you about it again.
        Senator Heitkamp. I would welcome the opportunity to talk
    about what we need to do, because a lot of people do not
    understand jurisdictional challenges. I spent a lot of time
    trying to get memorandums of understanding (MOUs) so that we
    could get drug task forces, and this was back when we were
    worried about far less influx of white powder heroin,
    methamphetamines is epidemic. And the challenges are not only
    in the public health arena, because Indian Health is not
    equipped to handle this, but there are certainly in the law
    enforcement. And we need a cop on the beat, and that is the
    Federal officials. You have primacy here.
        And so I look forward to working with you on those issues
    and making sure that this big part of my community, which is
    Native American people, has the same level of public protection
    as any other American. And right now, I have a huge land mass,
    one cop, and a big river in between, and no way to get across
    the river to protect people. And these challenges are in
    Alaska, they are, as you said, on the Navajo. And so I want to
    thank you for your willingness to have this conversation. I
    want to tell you we are passionate about it. Senator Tester and
    I have talked over and over about this. And we would welcome
    you in North Dakota.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Portman.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN

        Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
    for being here and for your service.
        On the issue of opioid abuse, particularly heroin, which is
    the growth area in my State of Ohio and around the country, we
    now have the alarming statistic that in Ohio it is the No. 1
    cause of death, greater than auto accidents, which is typically
    the case.
        I was able to speak at the rally on addiction that occurred
    on Sunday evening here and then spent the week with some of the
    individuals who came in from Ohio, and I do believe that this
    is an epidemic level at this point, particularly in certain
    parts of our State. And, by the way, the addiction rates in our
    rural communities are higher than in our urban or suburban
    communities now, according to the latest statistics that we
    have. And I focus more on the demand side and the treatment and
    recovery side, but law enforcement plays a critical role, and
    we need your help in Ohio. We do have some HIDTA programs that
    are working well. And I appreciate your commitment to that
    today.
        Switching gears for a second, Secretary Johnson, just over
    a week ago, you stated, ``The threat of foreign terrorist
    fighters requires the comprehensive efforts of all of our
    partner agencies and allied nations. We will continue to adapt
    to this evolving threat and take necessary action to protect
    the American public.''
        I would ask this morning, Director Rasmussen, if you could
    give us some information on these foreign fighters, and,
    specifically, my concern is, of course, these visa waiver
    countries. Can you tell us how many foreign fighters from visa
    waiver program countries have traveled to Syria to date?
        Mr. Rasmussen. I would have to get back to you with a
    breakdown by the visa waiver countries, as we understand it,
    Senator, but in aggregate, we assess that if you go back to the
    period when the conflict began, well over 3 years now, and look
    in aggregate, the population of individuals who we assess have
    traveled to the conflict zone is upwards of 28,000 right now.
    Now, that is an aggregate, so it does not mean that today as we
    speak there is a pool or a population inside Iraq and Syria.
    That captures and covers 3 years of activity. It also captures
    and covers activity in both directions, individuals who have
    died on the battlefield, individuals who have come and gone,
    individuals who have left and gone to other onward third
    locations. From the West--and that would largely capture the
    visa waiver countries that you are talking about, Senator--we
    assess that that population, that aggregate total, is somewhere
    in excess of 5,000, with the number of U.S. persons, as the
    Director indicated, being approximately 250.
        So that is the broad breakdown of the numbers as we have
    them. The greatest supply of countries come from the immediate
    front-line States in the region, as you would imagine, because
    travel is so easy. But then as you get into the next outer
    ring, which, of course, would include Southern and Western
    Europe, of course, the population numbers are significant there
    as well.
        Senator Portman. That is a shocking number, 5,000, and just
    so people understand what we are talking about here, these are
    countries that have a visa waiver program with the United
    States where they can come to the United States without going
    through the normal process to get a non-immigrant visa. These
    are countries that are sending foreign fighters into Syria. The
    concern is they would then go back to their country of origin
    and then be able to come to the United States under a visa
    waiver. And 5,000 is obviously a huge number and a huge
    concern.
        If you would not mind, what I would like to do is ask you
    to get back to me on a more specific number from the visa
    waiver countries, and, specifically, I have a concern about the
    lack of information sharing. We have programs with some of
    these countries where we try to share information, but the
    passenger name recognition data, as I understand it, leaves us
    vulnerable to some of these countries sending us some of these
    foreign fighters.
        Can you tell us a little about that, or anybody else on the
    panel, how that program is working and what else can be done to
    get better data on these people?
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, let me start. I agree with you
    about the concern of foreign fighters coming from countries for
    which we do not require a visa, which is why last year we
    required additional information, data fields in the electronic
    system travel authorization (ESTA) database, those who want to
    come here, and then in August of this year, we identified a
    number of security enhancements that we could obtain from
    countries in the program so that we have a much better idea of
    who is coming here from those countries. They include, for
    example, the requirement that these countries make better use
    of API and PNR data, that they use the Interpol database for
    stolen passports on a more regular basis, that we increase the
    use of Federal air marshals on flights coming from these
    countries. There are a whole series of security enhancements
    that we identified that we could obtain and we are obtaining
    from these countries for exactly this reason.
        Senator Portman. And what more do you need? What more can
    we help you with? Is there anything legislatively we can do or
    a codification of any of that or other ways to ensure we do not
    have these foreign fighters slipping into this country?
        Secretary Johnson. Well, HSPD-6, which is a Presidential
    directive, gives us a lot of authority in this area, and if
    countries want to be in this program, they should agree to
    these security enhancements. So that has been the mechanism for
    our seeking greater assurances on that. But this is a concern
    of mine, and I am always asking my staff that exact question:
    Is there any legislative authority that we could use----
        Senator Portman. Well, let us know, and on the passenger
    name recognition data, my understanding is there are some
    concerns there. Is there more we can do to tighten that up as
    well? And maybe you can get back to us with a specific answer
    on that issue.
        On the Syrian refugees in general, as you know, Secretary
    Johnson, I have spent some time focusing on this issue of
    special immigrant visas for interpreters who served with our
    troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have had a real hard time
    being able to go through the security clearance for these
    interpreters, who had already gone through a clearance process.
    And so I have to tell you, I am very skeptical of what I hear
    today about 10,000 Syrians coming into this country and having
    some sort of an expedited process to screen them, having gone
    through the experience of these interpreters. So I guess I
    would ask you today, and, Director Comey, also, you expressed
    concerns about this as well, I have noted, in the public media.
    How are we going to deal with this? Sixteen hundred Syrians by
    the end of fiscal year (FY) 2015 are going to be admitted.
    Don't you think that also creates a threat to the homeland?
    And, if you do think that--from, again, your comments that I
    have seen in the public media, you have a concern about that--
    what are we going to do about it?
        Mr. Comey. Well, yes, Senator, there is risk associated
    with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from
    a conflict zone like that. From the intelligence community's
    (IC) perspective, as I said, I think we have developed an
    effective way to touch all of our databases and resources to
    figure out what we know about individuals. And so that is my
    piece of it. I do not think that is a cumbersome process. My
    concern there is that there are certain gaps that I do not want
    to talk about publicly in the data available to us. But I
    cannot speak to the rest of the processing that may be part of
    what you are talking about.
        Senator Portman. Well, I think there is a significant gap
    because our intelligence in Syria is so bad. Right? I mean, we
    really do not have the information that we need to be able to
    process these folks. I think we need to figure this out
    quickly, given the fact we have made this commitment. But I do
    not know. Director Rasmussen, do you have more to add to that?
        Mr. Rasmussen. You have certainly highlighted, as a matter
    of comparison, the intelligence picture we have of this
    particular conflict zone is not as rich as we would like it to
    be so that would give us--obviously, when you screen and vet,
    you screen and vet against available intelligence holdings. The
    more you have, the more likely you are to be able to catch
    derogatory information that would cause you to review a
    potential case more closely.
        So I think the Director is absolutely right. We have a much
    more streamlined and effective system to make sure that all of
    our intelligence holdings are brought to bear as these
    decisions are made. But you can only review against what you
    have, and that is--and, again, we are actually building that
    fact into the way our analysts look at the picture as well so
    that at least we can identify where more questions need to be
    asked, even if intelligence is not available.
        Senator Portman. Well, my time has expired. I appreciate
    it, Mr. Chairman. But I think this is a huge issue, and before
    making these commitments, I hope that there is some dialogue
    with certainly you three gentlemen and your organizations, and
    I hope that we can come up with a screening process that is
    better than the one we have had on these interpreters I talked
    about, and particularly with even less intelligence, as you
    say, from the ground.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Gentlemen, thank you for your work to
    protect the Nation. It is extremely important. And I want you
    to hear from the folks in Oklahoma. We appreciate the work that
    you do, and it is incredibly valuable. We understand very
    well--as Jeh Johnson was in Oklahoma not long ago, Director
    Comey was in Oklahoma not long ago, we understand extremely
    well the threats that we face. So I just wanted you to hear
    from us again that we are grateful for what you are doing.
        I wanted to ask you, Secretary Johnson, you mentioned
    before about the cybersecurity bill. Can you explain to this
    Committee the why on the cybersecurity bill, why that is so
    important right now? Not the threats that are out there, but
    the specific language and what you need on the cybersecurity
    bill.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir. Two principal things come to
    mind immediately.
        One, explicit congressional authorization for DHS'S ability
    to monitor, identify, and block unwanted intrusions in other
    Federal agencies through our EINSTEIN system. The virtue of the
    EINSTEIN system is that it has the ability to block intrusions,
    and it is a platform for greater and better technology in the
    future. So----
        Senator Lankford. And that is in the Federal systems, not
    private systems, correct?
        Secretary Johnson. Correct.
        Senator Lankford. OK.
        Secretary Johnson. No. 2, greater incentives through law
    for the private sector to share information with the Federal
    Government when it comes to cyber threat indicators. And so
    that is something that is in the pending legislation now before
    the Senate, and I think that is a very good thing.
        So those are the two principal areas. There is always the
    data breach notification requirement and enhanced penalties,
    but those are the two principal things we need.
        Senator Lankford. Voluntary cooperation or mandatory
    cooperation with the private sector?
        Secretary Johnson. We believe that encouraging voluntary
    cooperation with the private sector is the way to go.
        Senator Lankford. OK. That is a key aspect; I would agree
    on that. And I think the private sector and that cooperation,
    as Jim Comey mentioned earlier, the FBI does not come from
    Mars. We are all American citizens here, and finding ways for
    us to be able to work together on this I think is extremely
    important.
        I want us to be able to shift a little bit to what some
    other folks have talked about. We talk about the threat from
    ISIS. It is spectacular. And we talk about a couple of dozen
    folks that are here that are major concerns. Last year, we had
    over 10,000 deaths by heroin on the streets of the United
    States. Hotel rooms, houses, on the streets, people quietly
    dying from heroin and from narcoterrorists moving into our
    borders and distributing this incredibly toxic substance across
    our Nation. So whether it is heroin, whether it is cocaine,
    whether it is marijuana, whether it is methamphetamines, it is
    a very strategic move that is happening, and it is extremely
    aggressive and seems to be accelerating at a pace we have not
    seen before in many areas of certain types. We seem to have new
    locations that these drugs are coming from as well.
        So can you help me understand the coordinated strategy not
    only dealing with ISIS and those threats on American soil, but
    the threats that are coming in from narcoterrorists around the
    world as well, both their distribution networks, the
    interdiction, and if we are dealing with new locations and new
    groups to bring it in? How are we coordinating that among the
    agencies to take that on?
        Mr. Comey. Senator, I can start from the enforcement
    perspective. Your description is completely accurate, and I
    actually worry that our country is not getting it the way you
    described it. Recently, the Acting Administrator of the DEA,
    who is a great leader, sent over his team to brief me on their
    current view of the threat, and it is breathtaking. Cocaine use
    has gone down since 2006. That is good news. All the rest, it
    is not just bad news. It is awful.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Mr. Comey. And so the strategy from the enforcement
    perspective is try to disrupt the traffickers, try to lock them
    up, both the kingpins in Mexico, which is where this is coming
    from, and to disrupt the gangs and organized criminals they are
    using to distribute it in the United States, the goal being to
    try to drive up the price, to be honest. What is happening is
    heroin is so cheap and so pure that it is a tidal wave washing
    over children and killing them because they do not know how
    pure it is. And so that is the strategy from the law
    enforcement perspective: Drive up the cost by locking up as
    many of these people as we can.
        And I cannot speak to, obviously, the international piece
    as well as maybe others could.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, on the interdiction front, I
    think the key is a good working relationship with the
    Government of Mexico. My Department and I personally spend a
    lot of time with my Mexican counterparts. I plan to go there
    next week. This will be a topic. We have our joint task forces
    here, but working with the Government of Mexico is obviously
    key, and I agree with you that we need to do a better job in
    this respect because the problem is getting worse.
        Senator Lankford. Yes, it is accelerating. We seem to have
    supply coming from new areas as well. Are you seeing new
    players internationally that are trying to actually get supply
    to the United States? I mean, Mexico is obviously a very close
    neighbor. They are pushing it all the way through North America
    all the way to Canada. Are there other locations that you have
    seen on the horizon that you would say this is a new region
    that we have not dealt with as much but they are trying to
    transport to the United States?
        Mr. Comey. The big focus is Mexico, because what has
    happened is the Mexican traffickers have figured out that they
    can do better by, instead of bringing Colombian heroin or
    heroin from some other place than the United States and
    transport to the United States, they are growing it in southern
    Mexico. They are growing the poppies. They are refining it
    themselves. So it is just a business. They just shorten their
    transportation routes. They have dropped their cost so they can
    sell it at a lower cost and a higher purity. And so it is that
    domination.
        And then the other piece, which is a plague in the West, is
    methamphetamine.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Mr. Comey. They are making it in huge factories in Mexico.
    Again, they are not bringing it in from Colombia or any other
    place anymore. So the center ground zero for this plague across
    the drugs is Mexico.
        Secretary Johnson. Let me give you a little bit of good
    news. The United States Coast Guard (USCG), we sent the
    national security cutter, the USS Stratton, on a 4-month
    mission down to Central America. While they were out for 4
    months, they interdicted $1 billion worth of cocaine, including
    large seizures off of submersibles that the cartels manufacture
    and run in the high seas between South America and Central
    America. So we want to continue those kinds of missions.
        Senator Lankford. OK. What is needed to be able to continue
    that kind of interdiction? Because as has already been
    mentioned, it is not coming from Central America. They will
    produce it in Mexico. And so trying to find those locations--
    methamphetamine production, I believe, is going down in the
    United States, but it is rising rapidly in Mexico. So we have
    found effective ways to be able to limit the production in the
    United States. But now it is just being pushed out. So how are
    we handling trying to limit production there and to be able to
    work through the process? As you mentioned, visiting with your
    Mexican counterparts is a good step, but the fields continue to
    grow that are there both with poppies and marijuana. And the
    production, and the locations to be able to pick up the basic
    supplies to be able to do methamphetamine, and the
    international connections for those. How can we help?
        Secretary Johnson. Greater coordinated law enforcement
    between our two governments. That is the key. And we do that on
    a regular basis, but we need to do more.
        Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you for all your work on that.
    I would tell you keep your eye on the ball on that, because
    that is something that we deal with on our streets across the
    entire country all the time. You all know that very well. The
    focus cannot be off, obviously, international terrorism, which
    happened with ISIL and their plans and their intentional focus
    to try to penetrate the United States, but we know the
    narcoterrorists are penetrating us every single day, and to be
    able to find a way to be able to go through that.
        One other quick side note, if I can, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Johnson, your Department has been very good working
    with the State of Oklahoma and dealing with the REAL ID. We are
    trying to work through all the final details. You have been
    good on a waiver on that with us. We are addressing that as a
    State, and I appreciate your waiver for us as we try to work
    through the final process to get up to speed on it. So I
    appreciate that.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you. The thing I would emphasize
    there is that we are progressing in our efforts to enforce this
    law, and there will come a point where we have to set some real
    deadlines. So I am pleased at the progress that we have been
    making in working with State officials in Oklahoma.
        Senator Lankford. It has been good. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
        Director Rasmussen, in your previous testimony, you talked
    about the fact that we have taken a number of these terrorists
    off the map, and I guess I want to get your assessment of the
    unfortunate reality, you take them off the map and they are
    replaced. Both the leadership as well as the flow of foreign
    fighters seems to continue largely unabated. Can you just give
    me your sense of how effectively the people we are killing are
    being replaced?
        Mr. Rasmussen. I will do the best I can in open testimony,
    Senator, Mr. Chairman. One of the ways we look at this as an
    intelligence community is try to identify who brings unique
    capability to the terrorist enterprise, whether that is from a
    leadership level, a high-value leadership target, someone who
    may have a very specific set of skills perhaps, in the weapons
    of mass destruction field or use of explosives, someone who has
    shown ability to organize and orchestrate significant large-
    scale plotting activities. Those kinds of individuals will be
    worthy of, focused intelligence collection and whatever
    disruption capabilities we can bring to bear.
        I will probably want to leave it there. Now, that is an
    ongoing----
        Chairman Johnson. What about the flow of foreign fighters?
        Mr. Rasmussen. The flow of foreign fighters, there is
    nobody who is satisfied that we have yet turned the tide in
    terms of getting that flow to have crested. I will say, though,
    if there is a good-news story somewhere embedded in this
    foreign fighter story, it is that the level of information
    sharing, some of which Secretary Johnson was talking about a
    few minutes ago, particularly with our European partners, is
    much more robust than it would have been if we had entered--at
    the point we entered this crisis 2 years ago.
        Chairman Johnson. Again, the purpose of this hearing is
    laying out the reality, and so the reality is we have not
    stemmed the flow the way we want to.
        Talk a little bit about the significance of the caliphate
    and the territory. There was an excellent article written by
    Graeme Wood\1\ that really was pretty eye-opening, I think, for
    many people in Washington. We talked about that, Director
    Comey. Can you talk about that significance, again, lay out
    that reality and why part of our strategy has to be to deny
    them that territory to really end this caliphate?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The article referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 64.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Rasmussen. There are a couple of different features of
    ISIL's declaration of the caliphate that make it particularly
    concerning. One is, as you yourself suggested, Mr. Chairman, it
    becomes almost a magnet to attract individuals who are seeking
    meaning, who are seeking to participate in a global jihadist
    enterprise, and that is, unlike al-Qaeda, who is often running
    their enterprise as a clandestine movement with a very, very
    rigorous vetting process before allowing individuals inside the
    fold, ISIL is issuing an open invitation on social media for
    people to come to the caliphate and join.
        So simply in terms of size and scale, the declaration of
    the caliphate gives us concern because it provides that magnet.
    But beyond that kind of somewhat amorphous effect, the creation
    of a caliphate and the control of physical space, as I
    mentioned in my testimony, gives the terrorist organization the
    opportunity to gather resources, to operate potentially in a
    safe haven environment. And while they are managing other
    priorities, it gives them the time and space to pursue more
    aggressive, ambitious external operations, again, maybe of the
    sort even that al-Qaeda did traditionally.
        So that is I guess what I would say: The part of the
    caliphate that gives me the greatest concern is that physical
    space in Iraq and Syria that you yourself pointed to with your
    question.
        Chairman Johnson. So the goal of our strategy with that in
    mind really needs to be to deny them that territory. I mean, if
    you are going to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS, you have
    to deny them that territory.
        Mr. Rasmussen. I would agree, Senator.
        Chairman Johnson. Director Comey, just a quick suggestion.
    I did meet with this young Yazidi woman, ``Bazi,'' who had the
    courage to come forward and tell her story in terms of
    combating on social media these young women who are actually
    inspired to go to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. That would be a
    pretty powerful way of doing it. Just a comment.
        Secretary Johnson, we have held eight hearings on border
    security now. We are going to hold our ninth. In a couple
    weeks, we will issue the majority report on our conclusions
    from those hearings. I think we are in agreement that--because
    we have talked about this repeatedly. I am a manufacturer. I am
    always looking for the root cause. And I think we agree,
    Senator Carper, that the root cause of our unsecured border is
    literally our insatiable demand for drugs, and it has been
    insatiable for decades, which has given rise to the drug
    cartels, who are beginning to combine with transnational
    criminal organizations, potentially terrorist organizations,
    and so that is what we need to address. It is one of the
    reasons I pointed out the fact that General McCaffrey said we
    are only interdicting 5 to 10 percent of the drugs coming to
    the southern border, which shows you how unsecure our border
    is. So, again, we have to lay out that ugly and harsh reality.
        I would like to give you, Secretary Johnson, the
    opportunity--you have talked about the strategy that you are
    trying to employ that you would want this Congress--and, quite
    honestly, a lot of this would come through this Committee--to
    help you codify. So can you just describe what your strategy is
    in kind of summary detail here. And, again, I am completely
    committed to work very closely with you and your Department to
    codify this in a step-by-step approach, which is, I think, the
    way we can actually accomplish it. Let us find the areas of
    agreement that unite us.
        But can you kind of lay that out and give me the priorities
    of the components? Again, we started with you need information
    to solve a problem, so the border security metrics bill we are
    going to try and move that and get that passed and on the
    President's desk as soon as possible. But then what are the
    next steps? And what is your strategy?
        Secretary Johnson. In terms of pure border security,
    Senator, more technology, more surveillance, to pursue a risk-
    based strategy so that we go after the threats where they know
    they exist. More surveillance, more technology, which is
    reflected in our fiscal year 2016 budget submission. We need
    help in terms of speeding the process of deportations and
    asylum applications in the immigration courts, more resources
    to accomplish that so that the time it takes to litigate is not
    as long as it is.
        But, frankly, given--you mentioned the root causes in this
    country. I want to mention the root causes that exist in
    Central America. The last time I was on the border, I talked to
    a 7-year-old girl who came all the way from Central America all
    by herself to Texas, and more surveillance is not going to
    deter a 7-year-old who is fleeing poverty and violence in
    Central America from coming up here.
        So my judgment is that we have to address the underlying
    causes in those countries. We talk about addressing the
    underlying causes for refugees in Syria. We have to do the same
    in Central America as well. And so the administration has asked
    for $1 billion to invest in Central America, and I hope the
    Congress seriously considers that. As long as the conditions in
    those countries are as bad as they are, we are going to have
    the types of numbers that we have coming from Central America.
        And so I want to invest in a smart, efficient border
    strategy which includes surveillance and technology on our
    border, but we have to address the underlying causes, too.
        Chairman Johnson. But if we do survey and detect and we
    apprehend and we process and then we distribute and disperse
    around America, that sends a pretty powerful signal, too, to
    Central America that if you get to America, regardless of what
    our laws say, if you get to America and we do not send people
    home, that is going to increase the flow. I mean, it is the
    problem right now with Syria. And we just had the President of
    Germany in. The more Europe accepts of the refugees from the
    compassion that we are as people, to address that humanitarian
    crisis, the more they accept in, the more of the 4 million that
    are displaced outside will flow into Europe, the more the 7.6
    million are displaced within Syria will flow--will become
    refugees and flow into Europe.
        So we have a capacity in our country to take people. We are
    a Nation of immigrants. But at the same time, we have to
    recognize what incentives we are creating for illegal
    immigration. We also have to assess--and we are going to be
    going down to Central America--are there governing structures,
    are there leaders like we had in Colombia, are there leaders
    that will actually take that money and use it properly to
    improve conditions? Or are we just basically wasting that money
    as well? Those are legitimate questions. But I think we really
    do have to address this as part of our border security
    strategy, again, assessing the fact of our insatiable demand
    for drugs, also look at every incentive that we have created
    within our law for illegal immigration. We have talked about
    this. The No. 1 is work. So let us have a functioning guest
    worker program.
        There is a host of issues, but really we can control things
    here. I do not know how much we can control in Central America.
    We are compassionate. We want to help, and that would be great.
    I am not sure how much we can do. But we can do things here,
    and so let us make sure we are addressing all those incentives
    within our law, within our adjudication process, that are
    incentivizing people to come into this country and end those
    incentives.
        Secretary Johnson. I do not disagree with what you are
    saying, but I do believe, having spent my 22 months as
    Secretary of Homeland Security intensely focused on this
    problem, that a large part of the solution is addressing the
    conditions in Central America. It is not simply as a matter of
    compassion.
        Chairman Johnson. Again, if we can make those economically
    prosperous zones, not havens for drugs and corruption, I would
    agree with you. I am not sure we can. Short term, there are
    some things we can do short term inside this country ourselves.
    Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. As our Chairman has heard me say, and I
    think you, Mr. Secretary, have heard me say many times, find
    out what works, do more of that. And if we go back and look at
    Colombia 20 years ago, a failed nation, Plan Colombia, which we
    supported, funded, they had good leadership. They had a lot of
    leadership from the private sector as well, and bit by bit they
    have turned things around there. So somebody has done this
    before. We were involved in that, and so were other folks.
        And I would say with respect to Central America and the
    movement of all these folks up to our country, especially last
    year--not as much this year--there is a root cause, and you
    have nailed it, Mr. Secretary. But what the Chairman says,
    there is a lot of wisdom in that as well. It is not a choice of
    doing one or the other. Actually, we need to do both. And the
    question is: Can we walk and chew gum at the same time? I think
    we can, and I think we must.
        Nick, I have taken it easy on you today, and I am going to
    get you into the game here for a little bit. Does the name
    Jessica Stern mean anything to you?
        Mr. Rasmussen. Yes, sir. She is a terrorism expert, I
    think, in the academic world right now, but she has former
    government service.
        Senator Carper. And her husband does, too. Her husband,
    Chet Atkins, was a former colleague of several of us in the
    House of
    Representatives for a number of years, and I had the good
    fortune--she actually testified here, I think at our hearing on
    Jihad 2.0 earlier, and I had a chance to meet with her and her
    husband a couple of months ago. And she was good enough to give
    me a couple of her books, one called ``ISIS: The State of
    Terror,'' and that is a recent book; and then another one that
    she had written, gosh, more than a decade ago, and her older
    book focused on what is it that is causing estranged, alienated
    men, largely, to create in this country faith-based
    organizations in many cases that are really designed--that are
    morphing into terror organizations. And she grew that into
    visits all over the world, Palestine, if you will, Afghanistan,
    Iraq, all kinds of places. And what she was trying to do is
    drill down on root causes. What is it that is causing these
    mostly guys to leave their countries and go off in many cases
    and form an outfit or join an outfit like ISIS? And she
    concluded is this. She said these are mostly men without much
    meaning in their life. These are people who are--they do not
    like this country. They think of us as a Great Satan, a lot of
    immorality. The prospect of adventure, of real meaning in their
    life, the prospect of when they die they go to heaven, before
    they die they have all these wives, and for people that there
    is not much happening in their life, there is not much
    prospect, she said they are ripe for the plucking.
        Does she have it right there? Again, thinking about root
    causes, part of the root causes, why are all these people, when
    they come from all over the world, to join up with ISIS?
        Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, sir. I think she certainly has
    part of it right, and the words you are using on her behalf or
    as part of her academic work echo some of the same analysis
    that our analysts across the community are engaged in.
        But I meant to add this when one of your colleagues on the
    Committee asked earlier about underlying conditions or
    underlying causes. If you look at each and every one of the
    conflict zones around the world that are particularly fraught
    right now or where ISIL seems to be able to take hold in some
    form or fashion, another recurring theme that runs through it
    is sectarian conflict. And so when there are in those locations
    significant unresolved sectarian issues--and I do not need to
    go into the details on how that plays out in Iraq and Syria and
    across the Levant between the Sunni and Shia communities, that
    just creates a much more fertile ground for the ISIL narrative
    to take hold. So that, as you develop--as you consider
    mitigating strategies, that adds a layer of complexity to what
    you are trying to do, because you are not simply setting up a
    condition where you are good against evil or good guys against
    bad guys. If your terrorist population of concern is also
    enmeshed in a sectarian conflict in which the answers are not
    easy, or if they were easy, they would have been seized upon by
    previous Iraqi and Syrian Governments, all I am saying is that
    adds a layer of complexity to a somewhat more simple narrative
    of personal alienation. And, again, I am not saying ``simple''
    in a derogatory way. That is just one level of the problem.
        Senator Carper. It seems that none of the people who are
    coming are going to join in the fight with ISIS. Some of them
    are coming from--they do not have much in terms of earning
    power. They do not have a lot of money in their lives. And one
    of the things that I hear that may attract them is being paid,
    to get some money out of this.
        Could you just take a minute and give us an unclassified
    assessment of ISIS' finances? Are they running a deficit? Are
    they having trouble paying their bills? What are some of the
    factors--how do these factors impact their ability to be
    successful?
        Mr. Rasmussen. That is a very good question. At a gross
    aggregate level, we believe ISIS is a well-financed, well-
    resourced organization right now. At the early stages of the
    conflict, we assessed that some of the resource base on which
    they were relying was not necessarily going to be replenishable
    or a recurring base. You can rob a bank or the central bank in
    Iraq once, but you cannot rob it again and again and again. So
    I think we had hoped that over time ISIL's ability to generate
    additional resources would go down more dramatically than it
    has. What they have shown is an ability to muster ways to use
    the natural resources present in the territory they control,
    principally oil, and exploit that for financial gain and
    actually develop their own manufacturing capability, and in a
    sense run an organization like a State.
        And so I think unlike the al-Qaeda financial picture which
    we were dealing with for a number of years where you were
    worried about specific fundraising activities in certain far-
    flung capitals around the world and money flowing to, Pakistan
    to fund terrorist activity, this is much more self-generation
    by ISIL as it functions like a State, including using taxation
    but also extortion, also criminal means as well.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. One last quick question,
    if I could, Mr. Chairman, and this is one for Secretary
    Johnson.
        I understand you have established a new Office of Violent
    Extremism. Could you just take a moment and share with us how
    this office will do things maybe differently from DHS' existing
    efforts to counter violent extremism?
        Secretary Johnson. A couple of things.
        One, this office and this Director will report directly to
    me.
        Two, I am consolidating all the personnel within the
    Department in headquarters who work on CVE in that one office
    under the supervision of that one Director.
        And, three, we want to eventually use this office to extend
    its reach out into the field so that we have more reach in the
    field, because when you embed people in the communities, you
    get some good results.
        And I want this office to focus on taking our efforts,
    along with the FBI and other agencies, to the next level, which
    is giving the counter-message a larger platform and encouraging
    leaders in those communities along with the tech sector to get
    together and do that, encourage philanthropies, and develop
    some of our own grantmaking in this specific area.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. Our thanks to each one of you.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Carper. It is pretty good timing.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
        I want to thank all three of you for your service. I was
    here for your testimony. As you know, I had to step out. And so
    at the risk of getting into some of the territory that has been
    covered in my absence, I apologize for that.
        I want to dovetail on some of the questions that Senator
    Carper asked in his first round relating to the Syrian refugee
    crisis and, in particular, the waiting process. A number of you
    testified that we are getting better at the vetting process
    over time, but we are not 100 percent error-proof yet. Also,
    Chairman Johnson talked a little bit about prioritization in
    terms of family members of Syrian Americans.
        In this public setting, if you can outline how we make this
    process more efficient and swift without sacrificing the
    thoroughness and quality. And if you can talk a little bit,
    Secretary Johnson, about the prioritization process, to the
    degree that it exists, that deals with family members. I would
    assume that the vetting for a child is different than the
    vetting for an adult and others with ties to the United States.
    Recognizing that we are currently in a public setting, please
    tell me as much as you can.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes. There are several agencies involved
    in the process--United States Citizenship and Immigration
    Services (USCIS), State Department--and when a refugee is
    referred to us, they are referred to us by United Nations High
    Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). So UNHCR will have done some
    of its own vetting, not necessarily the security vetting that
    we would conduct, and in referring a refugee to the United
    States in particular, it is my understanding they do so because
    there are family connections to the United States versus some
    other countries. So by the time they come to us, UNHCR has
    adjudged them to be a good candidate for resettlement in the
    United States.
        Once they are with us, the State Department meets with the
    individual. My understanding is that somebody from USCIS will
    personally interview the refugee. There is a pretty extensive
    background check now that includes vetting against a lot of
    other databases and agencies, including law enforcement and
    intelligence. It is better than it used to be, and the good
    news here is that UNHCR has already identified a number of
    refugees that they believe would be appropriate for
    resettlement in the United States. So we are not starting from
    scratch. We are waiting for people to pick up and leave Syria.
    UNHCR has already identified a number that are suitable for
    resettlement in the United States, and that is where we start.
        There was a reference made to 1,600 resettled this year. I
    think we will finish out this fiscal year--the last fiscal year
    closer to around 2,000. So we will have gotten through the ones
    that we were focused on in fiscal year 2015. But I do want to
    be--and I have told our people we should be--very careful in
    the security reviews for each of these. I agree with the
    assessments that have been expressed here earlier that this is
    a population of people that we are not going to know a whole
    lot about necessarily coming from Syria. So we are going to
    meet our commitments with the resources we have, but we will do
    so carefully.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Mr. Rasmussen in your written
    testimony, you described the increasing competition and
    conflict between the Taliban, ISIL, and al-Qaeda as a dynamic
    that you are working to understand more thoroughly. You also
    mentioned that the conflicts between these groups may in some
    respect distract from their Western targets.
        You said you do not have all the answers. What are the
    questions that you are asking? I have always worried that
    conflict between these groups could lead to a competition to be
    more spectacular than each other and that, of course, gives us
    great concern.
        Mr. Rasmussen. The conflict plays out at a number of
    levels. First of all, there is kind of at an ideological level
    conflict and competition taking place between al-Qaeda and the
    affiliated groups that still remain affiliated to al-Qaeda in
    Yemen, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, for example, other al-Qaeda-
    affiliated organizations, competition between them and ISIL for
    preeminence in the marketplace of ideas among global
    extremists. So that is at a very--at a high altitude.
        But on the ground in certain locations, there is actually
    much more on-the-ground physical conflict between ISIL or ISIL-
    related groups with the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example,
    where actually there you have individuals who in other
    circumstances might even be comrades in arms, but in this
    circumstance are actually engaged in fighting and killing each
    other on the battlefield, even as Afghan National Security
    Forces and U.S. Coalition Forces are also present in the
    theater as well.
        So I take your point that you certainly do not want to
    create a competition for ever greater levels of spectacular
    violence, but the one thing that internal conflict,
    particularly that conflict on the battlefield in a place like
    Afghanistan does, is it does tend to be pretty all-consuming
    for a terrorist organization to fight a ground war against
    other extremist adversaries in a place like Afghanistan.
        So we are watching very carefully to see if the ISIL
    province in Afghanistan turns its attention from that effort to
    gain on the ground against the Taliban, turns from that project
    to something that would be aimed at us, particularly something
    with an external focus, something looking at the West akin to
    al-Qaeda over the last dozen years.
        So I do not necessarily want to call it good news or that
    we are heartened, but what we do as a matter of assessment is
    realize that terrorist organizations often have finite
    capabilities, and so they do not necessarily have the ability
    to prioritize everything equally. The more they are engaged in
    that kind of effort on the ground that is often very resource-
    intensive, the less capacity they have to carry out the more
    kind of complex plotting.
        Senator Baldwin. In your verbal testimony this morning, you
    talked about ISIL having overtaken al-Qaeda, and you pointed to
    access to resources territorial control, and control over
    people. Is there still a very sharp distinction between ISIL
    and al-Qaeda with regard to their aspirations to control
    territory? And how does that relate to the risk that the
    organizations pose to our homeland?
        Mr. Rasmussen. From al-Qaeda's perspective, ISIL's
    declaration of the caliphate is illegitimate and premature, and
    so they differ fundamentally on a central premise of the ISIL
    agenda.
        At the same time, I would not draw some huge distinction
    between the two groups as they look at the legitimacy or virtue
    of attacking the West in whatever way that they can find the
    capacity to do so. Now, they are not making Common Cause with
    each other in that effort because of the philosophical and
    leadership cleavages. But at the same time, we worry and watch
    for individuals who might migrate across organizational lines
    to cooperate with each other for specific purpose-driven
    efforts. Just because someone is ISIL or al-Qaeda one day does
    not mean that that is--laminated badge from the organization
    may not last very long. You may find yourself changing teams,
    changing sides. And that is why I say what I said in the
    testimony about ISIL gaining preeminence. Success breeds
    success, and more individuals have flowed in the direction of
    ISIS/ISIL for that reason.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I note that I have exceeded my time already.
    I have one other question that I wanted to ask the witnesses. I
    would ask unanimous consent to submit it for the record.
        Chairman Johnson. That is fine, and we will keep the record
    open for questions for the record.
        Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
        It is another tradition of this Committee, at least since
    Senator Carper was Chairman, to give the witnesses a chance to
    just make kind of a closing comment, things that you would want
    to remark after the questioning. So I will start with you,
    Director Comey.
        Mr. Comey. I do not think I have anything. I think we have
    covered a complex set of topics in a pretty good way. I am not
    sitting here thinking there is something lingering.
        Chairman Johnson. Good. I appreciate that. Secretary
    Johnson.
        Secretary Johnson. Chairman, Senator Carper, I have
    appreciated our very constructive working relationship. I
    appreciate the tone that you have set at these hearings, and I
    appreciate your friendship.
        Chairman Johnson. Director Rasmussen?
        Mr. Rasmussen. The only thing----
        Mr. Comey. You can have more time. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Johnson. Sing our praises.
        Mr. Rasmussen. The only thing I would add, Mr. Chairman, is
    on the Governmental Affairs side of your Committee's hat, I
    think you would be pleased, I think as Senator Carper said,
    with how well and how closely our organizations are working
    together. As many of you know, NCTC is an organization that
    relies on contributions from other organizations. Our
    lifeblood, in addition to our permanent employees, is found in
    the contributions of other organizations. And just a couple of
    weeks ago, I had the opportunity to host Director Comey as he
    spoke to 60 or so FBI detailees assigned to NCTC who are doing
    terrific work on behalf of us all.
        So just to say there is always room for improvement in the
    way we work together, we are constantly striving to get better
    at what we do, but I am tremendously proud of my workforce, but
    also the workforces that I get support from at DHS and FBI.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Director. We talked earlier
    about the cooperation between your agencies and State and local
    governments as well, and I am sure Senator Baldwin would agree
    with me. As I talk to individuals in Wisconsin tasked with your
    mission, keeping Wisconsin but also this Nation safe, they also
    are very pleased with the cooperation. So we are moving in the
    right direction, and that is kind of good news. So I appreciate
    that.
        Again, I want to thank you for your service to this Nation,
    all three of you. I think America is incredibly fortunate to
    have men of your caliber and of your dedication and of your
    integrity serving in your capacity. I realize this is not a 9-
    to-5 job 5 days a week. This is 24/7/365 days a year, and all
    three of you are working hard to keep this Nation safe. So,
    truly, I think I speak for all of us when I thank you for your
    patriotism and for your service to this Nation.
        Senator Carper. I am Tom Carper, and I approve this
    message. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Johnson. Again, there is an awful lot we agree on,
    and we are trying to find those areas that unify us.
        So this hearing record will remain open for 15 days until
    October 23 at 5 p.m.--so you have some time, Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson [continuing]. For submission of statements
    and questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. Thank
    you all.
        [Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]