    [Senate Hearing 115-573]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-573

                            THREATS TO THE HOMELAND

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

                                    HEARING

                                  BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

                                   __________

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

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    29-657 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                KAMALA D. HARRIS, California

                      Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                    Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
                        Daniel P. Lips, Policy Director
                       Michael J. Lueptow, Senior Counsel
            Elizabeth E. McWhorter, Senior Professional Staff Member
                   M. Scott Austin, U.S. Coast Guard Detailee
                   Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
               Julie G. Klein, Minority Professional Staff Member
              Hannah M. Berner, Minority Professional Staff Member
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Bonni E. Dinerstein, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator McCaskill............................................     2
        Senator Portman..............................................    12
        Senator Lankford.............................................    14
        Senator Heitkamp.............................................    16
        Senator Hassan...............................................    18
        Senator Peters...............................................    19
        Senator Carper...............................................    21
        Senator Harris...............................................    23
        Senator Hoeven...............................................    26
        Senator Tester...............................................    28
        Senator Daines...............................................    29
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    45
        Senator McCaskill............................................    46

                                   WITNESSES
                          Thursday, September 27, 2017

    Honorable Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of
      Homeland Security..............................................     4
    Honorable Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of
      Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice......................     6
    Honorable Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National
      Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National
      Intelligence...................................................     7

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Duke, Hon. Elaine C.:
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Rasmussen, Hon. Nicholas J.:
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    67
    Wray, Hon. Christopher A.:
        Testimony....................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    59

                                    APPENDIX

    Countering Violent Extremism document............................    74
    IG report........................................................    75
    Letter from Alejandro Garcia Padilla.............................   160
    DACA information.................................................   161
    Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
        Ms. Duke.....................................................   195
        Mr. Wray (non-response)......................................   316
        Mr. Rasmussen................................................   324

                            THREATS TO THE HOMELAND

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Hoeven,
    Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan,
    and Harris.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing of the
    Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) is
    called to order.
        This is our annual ``Threats to the Homeland'' hearing. I
    want to welcome our witnesses. I would like to start, though,
    by acknowledging the victims of the hurricanes in Houston,
    Texas, in Florida, and throughout the Caribbean, but in
    particular Puerto Rico. I am sure we will be discussing that
    quite a bit. Maybe it was not contemplated when we first set
    this up and scheduled this hearing on the other enormous
    threats, but there are real threats to human life occurring now
    throughout our Nation, and we will certainly acknowledge that.
    All those individuals are in our thoughts and prayers. I am
    sure everybody on this Committee joins me in that.
        We are pleased to welcome the Acting Secretary of the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Elaine Duke; the
    Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
    Christopher Wray; and the Director of the National
    Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Nicholas Rasmussen. We want to
    thank all of you for your service. These are perilous times.
    The threats that face our homeland are growing, they are
    evolving, they are metastasizing. I do not envy any of you your
    task. These are serious responsibilities, and we are all
    grateful that you stepped up to the plate and we have quality
    individuals with real talent that are accepting that
    responsibility.
        The mission statement of this Committee is pretty simple:
    To enhance the economic and national security of America and to
    promote more efficient, effective, accountable government. Very
    similar, I would imagine, to some of the mission statements of
    your own Departments and Agencies.
        I do not want to spend a whole lot of time because we have
    a number of Members here, but, again, I just want to
    acknowledge your service to this Nation, the sacrifice you and
    your families are undertaking to serve this Nation.
        And, with that, I will turn it over to Senator McCaskill.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\1\

        Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 46.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Directors Wray and Rasmussen, thank you for being here
    today. Secretary Duke, I welcome you to the Committee for the
    first time as the Department's Acting Secretary. I want to let
    you know that I appreciate the efforts that you and the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are making to assist the
    victims of hurricanes in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. I
    will have to say, though, we are very concerned about what we
    are seeing in Puerto Rico. I know there have been logistical
    challenges because of the devastation in Puerto Rico, but I am
    looking forward to the briefing that we are going to receive
    today from FEMA about what is actually occurring on the ground.
    And, those Americans are very deserving of whatever it takes
    for us to address the crisis, the humanitarian crisis that is
    impacting 3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico as we
    speak today.
        The hearing today is about threats to the homeland.
    Heartbreakingly, just last month, we suffered a terrorist
    attack here at home. The violence perpetrated by white
    supremacists and neo-Nazis at the Charlottesville rally was
    tragic, vile, and evil. It stunned many of us who thought the
    chants of ``Blood and Soil'' belonged in film footage from a
    Nuremberg rally, not a 21st Century American college. The
    boldness and the outspokenness of something that is so evil,
    proudly marching under a Nazi flag, is something that I think
    many of us did not think we would see in this country, but now
    we have seen it.
        I direct your attention to a document\2\ that is on the
    easel. I do not think many Americans understand the level of
    threat that we have in this county from white supremacists,
    anti-government, and other violent extremists. If you look at
    the comparison--and this data comes from the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO); this is not from a think tank,
    this is not from anybody who has bias, this is from the
    government auditors--we have had 62 incidents since September
    11, 2001 (9/11) and 106 fatalities by the white supremacists,
    anti-government, and other violent extremists. Compare that to
    23 acts of violence by Islamic violent extremists. The
    fatalities are almost equal. And so, one of my goals at this
    hearing today is to get specific responses as to whether or not
    the level of investigation and response matches the level of
    threat as it relates to these two types of terrorists that want
    to do harm to American citizens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The document referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 74.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am worried that we have--and this Committee is a good
    example. We have had multiple hearings on the threat of Islamic
    State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as it relates to homeland
    security. We have had zero hearings about the threat of
    domestic terrorists and the threat they pose in our country and
    our response to it.
        We also face the threats from foreign terrorist
    organizations like ISIS and those inspired by them. We only
    need to look overseas over the past 4 months to see what our
    allies have suffered. The suicide bomber in Manchester,
    England, in June; the pedestrians on the London Bridge in
    August; a van in Barcelona, Spain; and just this month a bucket
    bomb on a London subway. We know these organizations are not
    just targeting Europe.
        We know that, in addition to domestic terrorists, there are
    also foreign terrorists who want to kill Americans and who want
    to, importantly, radicalize Americans here at home to do so.
        That is why we depend on you, the men and women of the DHS,
    the FBI, and the NCTC. We rely on you to identify threats,
    prevent attacks, and keep America safe.
        That is why I am so concerned about some of the budget
    choices made by this Administration. For instance, mass transit
    locations and other ``soft targets'' where large groups of
    people gather have served as prime targets. In addition to
    aviation security, the Transporation Security Administration
    (TSA) helps secure mass transit, passenger rail, freight rail,
    highways, buses, pipelines, and seaports. According to the TSA,
    more than 10 billion passenger trips are taken on mass transit
    systems each year.
        Yet the President's budget plans to cut critical TSA
    programs at a time that we cannot afford to let up when it
    comes to security measures. A large portion of this cut is
    taken from the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response
    (VIPR) teams. The VIPR teams deploy all across the country to
    provide critical assistance with securing airports, subways,
    and bus terminals. And, by the way, they also deployed to
    Houston to assist with recovery. But, the President's budget
    would cut them by $43 million, reducing VIPR teams from 31 down
    to just 8 teams to cover the entire country.
        The President's budget would also slash other DHS programs
    that provide critical security to our transportation systems.
    In July, DHS announced 29 awards through the Complex
    Coordinated Terrorist Attacks (CCTA) Grant Program, including
    one that would help Kansas City preparedness plans and enhance
    communications systems, and another that would allow St. Louis
    to build an integrated response structure among first
    responders. This is the type of assistance we should be
    providing our cities in the face of threats like London,
    Barcelona, and Manchester. But, the President's budget will
    eliminate all of these grant programs for next year.
        There unfortunately is not enough time to discuss in 7
    minutes or even a single hearing all the threats our country
    faces. We face cyber ransomware attacks. We have Russia trying
    to hack our elections. This month, DHS ordered Agencies to
    remove cybersecurity software from Federal computer systems
    because of its manufacturer's ties to Russian intelligence. We
    have border security issues. We even have potential threats to
    agriculture. Just last month I had a roundtable in Kansas City
    to learn what agro-terrorism could do to the Nation's
    confidence in its food supply.
        So, I am glad you are all here today to talk about what the
    greatest threats are that America faces, what we are doing
    about them, and, most importantly, what we can do to help you
    in your most important work.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
        I would ask consent that my written opening statement be
    entered in the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
    witnesses, so if you will all stand 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?
        Ms. Duke. I do.
        Mr. Wray. I do.
        Mr. Rasmussen. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
        Our first witness is the Honorable Elaine Duke. Elaine Duke
    is the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
    She became the Acting Secretary on July 31st. She has served as
    Deputy Secretary since April. Her previous decades of Federal
    service include 2 years as the Department's Under Secretary for
    Management. Acting Secretary Duke.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ELAINE C. DUKE,\2\ ACTING SECRETARY,
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Ms. Duke. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
    Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is
    my honor to testify this morning on behalf of the men and women
    of DHS who shield our Nation from threats of terror each and
    every single day.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The prepared statement of Ms. Duke appears in the Appendix on
    page 48.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Last night, we learned of a U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection (CBP) agent that was shot and is critically ill in
    Jacksonville, Florida, and each week I send out condolence
    letters for law enforcement officers, and it is on behalf of
    them that I testify today and came back to service.
        In recent weeks, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Maria
    have placed a spotlight on natural disasters. With FEMA's
    leadership, our Department and the whole Federal Government
    have come together to respond to these crises, and I am
    impressed with the professionalism I have witnessed.
        But the challenges in places like Puerto Rico are evidence
    that there is a long road ahead. To those that have been caught
    up in the disasters, let me say this: I promise to do
    everything in my power to bring relief, and we will stand with
    you side by side in the weeks, months, and years to come.
        But natural disasters are not the only threats we face as a
    Nation. Right now, the terror threat to our country equals and
    in many ways exceeds that in the period around 9/11. We are
    seeing a surge in terrorist activity because the fundamentals
    of terrorism have changed. Our enemies are crowdsourcing their
    violence online, promoting a do-it-yourself approach that
    involves using any weapons their followers can get their hands
    on easily.
        The primary international terror threat facing our country
    is from global jihadist groups. However, the Department is also
    focused on the threat of domestic terrorism. Ideologically
    motivated extremists here in the United States are a threat to
    our Nation, our people, and our values. I condemn this hate and
    violence, and my Department is focused on countering it. DHS
    will not stand on the sidelines as these threats spread, and we
    will not allow pervasive terrorism to become the new normal.
        We are tackling the dangers ahead in two ways:
        First, we are rethinking homeland security for a new age.
    There is no longer a home game and an away game. The line is
    blurred, and the threats are connected across borders. That is
    why DHS is moving toward a more integrated approach, bringing
    together intelligence, operations, interagency engagement, and
    international action like never before.
        Second, we are raising the baseline of our security posture
    across the board. We are looking at everything from traveler
    screening to information sharing. Higher threat levels mean we
    need higher standards.
        For example, we are now requiring all foreign governments
    to share critical data with us on terrorists and criminals and
    to help us confidently identify their nationals. We must know
    who is coming into our country and make sure that they do not
    pose a threat. That is why I recommended and the President
    approved tough but tailored restrictions against countries who
    do not cooperate with us on immigration screening and vetting.
    This will protect America and hold foreign governments
    accountable.
        Similarly, we are elevating aviation security standards.
    Our ongoing Global Aviation Security Plan, which we began this
    summer, is making U.S.-bound flights more secure, and it is
    raising the baseline of aviation security worldwide.
        We are also making historic moves to keep dangerous
    individuals and goods from entering America illegally. That
    includes building a wall on the Southwest border and cracking
    down on transnational criminal organizations (TCO) that bring
    drugs, violence, and other threats across our borders.
        Within our borders, we are rededicating ourselves to
    terrorism prevention to keep extremists from radicalizing our
    people. As part of this effort, we are prioritizing education
    and community awareness. We are redoubling our efforts to stop
    terrorist recruitment, and we are emphasizing the importance of
    early warning to make sure communities report suspicious
    activity before it is too late.
        Americans are also alarmed by the spike in cyber attacks.
    Our adversaries continue to develop advanced capabilities
    online. They seek to undermine our critical infrastructure,
    target our livelihoods and our secrets, and threaten our
    democracy.
        On behalf of the entire Department, I appreciate the
    critical role this Committee plays in helping us execute our
    mission. I also respectfully ask the Committee to focus on
    reauthorizing our Department as quickly as possible.
        Thank you for letting me appear today, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Duke.
        Our next witness is Christopher Wray. Christopher Wray is
    the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On August
    2, 2017, Mr. Wray was sworn in as the eighth FBI Director. He
    previously served as Assistant Attorney General (AG) at the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) in charge of the Criminal Division.
    Director Wray.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY,\1\ DIRECTOR,
      FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Wray. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
    McCaskill, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to
    talk to you today about the threats here in the homeland and
    the tremendous work being done by the people at the FBI to
    confront those challenges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wray appears in the Appendix on
    page 59.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From my earlier years in law enforcement and national
    security, I already knew how outstanding the men and women of
    the Bureau are, but to see it, I must say, over the last few
    weeks from this position makes me feel even more honored, if
    that is possible, to be their Director. They are mission-
    focused; they are passionate; they are determined to be the
    very best at protecting the American people and upholding the
    rule of law.
        Having been away from government for a number of years,
    some of the changes that I have now seen in the first few weeks
    upon getting back have struck me in particular: the evolution
    of the threats, the expertise developed, and the capabilities
    that have been built. Changes in technology have dramatically
    transformed the nature of the threats we face and challenged
    our ability to confront those threats.
        In the terrorism arena, my prior experience was primarily
    with large structured terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda,
    and to be clear, we still very much confront threats from large
    structured organizations like al-Qaeda planning large-scale,
    sophisticated attacks over long periods of time. But now added
    to that list, we also face groups like Islamic State of Iraq
    and the Levant (ISIL) who use social media to recruit and
    spread their propaganda and to inspire people to take to the
    streets with crude but effective weapons, like hatchets and car
    bombs. These are smaller in scale but greater in volume, and
    these organizations often move from plotting to action in a
    very short period of time, with very little planning and using
    low-tech and widely available attack methods.
        These terrorists' use of social media and encryption
    technology has made it harder to find the messages of hate and
    destruction they are spreading and harder to pinpoint who these
    messages are gaining traction with here in the homeland.
        The same can be said of domestic extremist movements that
    collectively pose a steady threat of violence and economic harm
    to the United States, in that instance primarily through lone
    offenders.
        In the cyber arena, the threats are not only increasing in
    scope and scale; they are also becoming increasingly difficult
    to investigate. Cyber criminals have increased the
    sophistication of their schemes, which are now harder to detect
    and more resilient. What was once a comparatively minor threat,
    somebody hacking for fun and bragging rights and trying to
    prove a point just that he could do it, has now turned into
    full-blown nation-state manipulation and a multi-million-dollar
    business.
        And, in the counterintelligence arena, foreign governments
    pose a rising threat to the United States, and that threat also
    is more complex and more varied than it has been at any time in
    the FBI's history. Historically, as the Committee may know,
    counterintelligence focused on protecting U.S. Government
    secrets from foreign intelligence services. But today, in
    addition, we face threats from nation-states targeting not just
    our national security secrets but our ideas and our innovation.
    And, we now see threats not just from traditional intelligence
    officers but from less traditional spies posing as business
    people or students or scientists.
        All those threats are amplified by the growing challenge
    that we in the law enforcement community refer to as ``going
    dark.'' It affects the spectrum of our work. The exploitation
    of encrypted platforms presents serious challenges to law
    enforcement's ability to identify, investigate, and disrupt
    threats, whether it is--and I want to add to that that,
    obviously, we all understand that whether it is instance
    messages, texts, old-fashioned letters, citizens have the right
    to communicate with each other without unauthorized government
    surveillance, and the free flow of information is critical to
    democracy.
        But the benefits of our increasingly digital lives have
    been accompanied by new dangers, and we have been forced to
    wrestle with how criminals and terrorists might use advances in
    technology to their advantage. Even with unquestionably lawful
    authority, the reality is we are all too often flying blind,
    and we need to work together to find thoughtful but quick and
    effective solutions.
        The news is not all bad, not by a long shot. There are
    great strides being made. Intelligence is being far better
    integrated into our mission. The quality of our partnerships,
    both across Agencies, State and local, foreign, are at a whole
    new level. But while great progress has been made, we need to
    keep improving. I think the changes in technology are one of
    the primary concerns that we have, and I look forward to
    answering the Committee's questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Director.
        Our final witness is Nicholas Rasmussen. Mr. Rasmussen is
    the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. On
    December 18, 2014, Mr. Rasmussen was sworn in as the fifth
    Director of the NCTC. He previously served as the NCTC's Deputy
    Director since June 2012. Director Rasmussen.

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

        Mr. Rasmussen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    McCaskill, and Members of the Committee, and I am pleased to be
    here with my colleagues and close partners Secretary Duke and
    Director Wray.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Rasmussen appears in the Appendix
    on page 67.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As we passed the 16-year mark since 9/11 earlier this
    month, the array of terrorist actors we are confronting around
    the globe is broader, wider, and deeper than it has been at any
    time since that day. And, as we sit here today, the discipline
    of terrorism prevention I would argue is evolving and changing
    beneath our feet every day as well and requires that we respond
    with extraordinary agility.
        I will just briefly discuss two areas to complement what my
    colleagues have already said.
        First, I will quickly share what we have seen by way of
    changes or shift in priority in the terrorism landscape since I
    was sitting before the Committee a year ago.
        Second, I will say just a few words about areas where we
    can do a better job tackling the threat of those who are
    mobilized to extremist violence here at home.
        So let us begin with what has changed or is new since this
    time last year. We see those developments in three principal
    areas: the coalition's success in shrinking the territory that
    ISIS controls in Iraq and Syria as compared to a year ago; the
    significant uptick in attacks inspired by ISIS that we have
    seen against Western interests across the globe in the last
    year as compared to the number of attacks directed by the ISIS
    group from its headquarters in Iraq and Syria; and, finally,
    the third new threat development I would point to for this year
    is the resurgence of aviation threats, reaching a level of
    concern that we in the intelligence community (IC) have not
    faced since al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's printer package
    plot in 2010.
        So, to start with, ISIS losses on the battlefield. Since I
    spoke with this Committee last year, ISIS has lost a number of
    senior leaders, been expelled from key cities in Iraq and
    Syria, and suffered other significant defeats in the heart of
    its so-called caliphate. As ISIS copes with this loss of
    territory, the group will look to preserve its capabilities by
    operating as a covert terrorist organization and insurgency. In
    some ways, ISIS is reverting to its roots with tactics we saw
    in the period 2004 to 2008, when it operated as an insurgency
    called al-Qaeda in Iraq.
        However, these territorial losses have unfortunately not
    translated into a corresponding reduction in the group's
    ability to inspire attacks. While progress has been made in
    shrinking the size of the territory that ISIS controls, this
    has not diminished their ability to inspire attacks far beyond
    the conflict zone. Over the last year, those attacks have taken
    place in places like the United Kingdom (U.K.) and other
    countries in Europe. This highlights the diffuse nature of the
    global threat. And, the number of arrests and disruptions we
    have seen around the globe, while that is a testament to really
    effective and strong law enforcement and intelligence work, it
    also tells us that ISIS' ability to reach globally is still
    largely intact.
        This uptick in inspired attacks is in contrast to the
    pattern of Western attacks directed and enabled by the group's
    headquarters in Syria that we saw in 2015 and 2016. All of this
    underscores our belief that there is not, in fact, a direct
    link between ISIS' battlefield position in Iraq and Syria and
    the group's capacity to inspire external attacks. And, it makes
    clear that battlefield losses alone are insufficient to
    mitigate the threat that we face from ISIS.
        Winning on the battlefield in places like Mosul and Raqqa
    is a necessary but insufficient step in the process of
    eliminating the ISIS threat to our interests. As a result, we
    need to be patient in terms of expecting return on the
    investment we are making with our campaign against ISIS. It is
    simply going to take longer than we would like to translate
    victory on the battlefield into genuine threat reduction.
        It is also worth me saying, as focused as we are in
    addressing ISIS, al-Qaeda has never stopped being a primary
    counterterrorism priority for the counter terrorism community
    here in the United States. The various al-Qaeda groups have
    also managed to sustain recruitment, maintain relationships,
    and derive sufficient resources to enable their operations.
    This is a strikingly resilient organization, and we are well
    aware of that.
        I will touch quickly now on the third development that has
    stood out over the last year: the threat to civil aviation. As
    you are well aware, terrorists see attacking aviation as a way
    to garner global media attention and inflict serious economic
    harm. Aviation has taken center stage over the last year as
    evidenced by the Australian authorities' disruption of a plot
    by terrorists to bring explosives aboard an aircraft. Both
    ISIS-and al-Qaeda-aligned groups have demonstrated a continued
    capability to conduct aviation attacks. All of these attacks,
    both ones that succeeded and ones that failed, demonstrate
    several things.
        First, they show the persistent focus on terrorists on
    targets of Western aviation.
        Second, it shows that terrorists are aware of security
    procedures. They watch what we do, and they try to learn from
    it.
        And, third, it suggests that the bad guys have an ability
    to adapt their tactics in an attempt to defeat the airport
    security measures that we engage in.
        It is for these reasons that aviation-related threats have
    long been and will remain at or near the top of the list of
    things we worry about.
        Why don't I stop there, Mr. Chairman? I have some words to
    say about terrorism prevention and our efforts to deal with
    homegrown extremism here in the United States, but I would
    rather reserve that for questions. I will stop there, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you all for your testimony.
        I appreciate the attendance here by fellow members. It has
    been requested that we have two rounds, which I am happy to
    accommodate, but we will limit questioning to 5 minutes. And, I
    would ask the witnesses as well, there is a pretty tried and
    true technique of asking a question with, 2 seconds remaining.
    Respond, but respond quickly. We need to keep this thing going
    to respect everybody's time.
        Oftentimes in these situations I will defer questioning,
    but in light of the events in Puerto Rico, I would like to just
    give Secretary Duke the opportunity to just kind of describe,
    first of all, the challenge, how FEMA and the Department have
    risen to the challenge in Houston, Florida, and what we face in
    Puerto Rico.
        Ms. Duke. Puerto Rico has some unique challenges. The
    capacity of the Puerto Rican government is severely diminished,
    both because of Hurricane Irma, their prior existing financial
    situation, and the devastation wreaked by the direct hit of
    Maria. Maria was one mile shy of being a Category 5 hurricane,
    so the devastation is complete.
        So, what we are doing is we are standing strong with the
    Governor. We are attacking the areas of the diminished
    capacity. So, there is food and water on the island. There is
    gasoline on the island. What we are focused on today, now that
    search and rescue is very much complete, is distribution
    channels. We have asked the Defense Logistics Agency to augment
    the local National Guard and distribution channels so we can
    get goods and gasoline out more quickly. That is what we are
    focused on today.
        The second thing we are focused on is communications. Right
    now, we are primarily dependent on satellite phones, which is
    ineffective, but it helps with emergencies, but it is not
    helping people find their loved ones. So, we are increasing the
    number of satellite phones. And, we have AT&T on the island
    now. We are supporting them with getting their people and
    equipment there. They have agreed that they will restore any
    tower, even if it is not their cell phone tower, and they are
    providing services to any person of Puerto Rico, regardless of
    their carrier. So, we are working on that cell phone coverage.
        The electrical grid is more of a challenge. We are doing
    the assessment. It is completely devastated in terms of point
    of delivery, and the distribution system and the whole power
    system from start to finish is virtually gone. So, that is
    going to be a long-term recovery. We are working with the
    Department of Energy, private industry, and working on that.
    So, that is where we are there.
        The Governor is still standing strong. We have Department
    of Defense (DOD) troops supporting the National Guard, the
    National Guard providing security, and we are in a full-court
    press.
        Additionally, we have Texas and Florida that were
    predominantly hit by the first two hurricanes. In Texas, last
    week we were able to sign a housing plan that really is going
    to bring people back into their communities quickly. It is a
    type of housing recovery program that has never been done
    before, and we are very proud that Texas is with us on that and
    wants to lead their housing recovery.
        In Florida, the electrical grid is restored predominantly.
    Key West still has challenges. The predominance of people on
    Key West had mobile homes destroyed, and that is going to be a
    challenge of how we recover that housing situation. Do we just
    restore with new mobile homes, or do we try to provide
    something more resilient for those Floridians as they recover?
        So, that is a summary. I am happy to answer your questions
    as we go forward.
        Chairman Johnson. I have two other questions to clarify.
    First of all, in my memory, I cannot remember three major
    disasters like that just back to back Houston, Florida, and now
    Puerto Rico. Can you give us some sense of the number of
    Federal employees, including FEMA, that are kind of on station
    at these three zones? And then, also just talk about the
    significance of what President Trump has done in terms of 100
    percent funding in Puerto Rico and why that was necessary.
        Ms. Duke. Right. We have over 10,000 Federal employees
    onsite right now. One of the things that President Trump has
    done for both Irma and Maria is--and Harvey, is declared
    declarations early. That has allowed our response to get ahead
    of the disaster. That has been hugely helpful.
        Additionally, in Puerto Rico, he yesterday gave 100 percent
    cost share, which means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico does
    not have to contribute in the first 180 days. That has been
    hugely important in us getting industry there. The electrical
    industry and others did not want to go there unless they knew
    they were going to get paid, and this has allowed us to
    mobilize industry to move forward, and that has been helpful.
        Additionally, I cannot stop answering that question without
    thanking the other Cabinet members. The Cabinet has really come
    together. We have the Small Business Administration (SBA),
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of
    Energy (DOE), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department
    of Labor (DOL). Everybody has come together with their assets
    in support of DHS and FEMA and the Governors in their response.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Secretary. Senator McCaskill.
        Senator McCaskill. Well, it is good to hear that brief. I
    will look forward to the detailed brief, and I know some of my
    colleagues are also very interested in the specifics on the
    ground in Puerto Rico. It seems to me we should have known 100-
    percent match before the hurricane even hit. Clearly, from the
    financial status of the island, they were going to be in no
    position to make the match. So, it is unfortunate that we had
    to wait this long to make that identification of the 100-
    percent match.
        I want to talk about what I mentioned in my opening
    statement. I do not think most Americans realize that the
    number of incidents by white supremacist, militant, anti-
    government organizations are almost triple the number of
    attacks of those who identify with a jihadist movement
    internationally in this country.
        Can you, Director Wray, talk about how many dedicated
    agents do you have full-time to investigating international
    terrorism versus the type of terrorism that has been
    responsible for almost as many deaths as the international
    terrorism, that is, the white supremacist, anti-government,
    militant right in this country?
        Mr. Wray. Senator, first let me say I agree with you that
    the domestic terrorism threat is a very serious one indeed and
    something that we spend a lot of our time focused on. I do not
    have, sitting here right now, the allocation of agents, that
    number. What I can tell you on this particular subject is that
    we have about 1,000 open domestic terrorism investigations as
    we speak, and that over the past 11 to 12 months I think we
    have had 176 arrests of domestic terrorism subjects during that
    period of time. And, I have now been starting just in my first
    few weeks on the job getting out to some of the field offices,
    and there are significant numbers of agents who are working
    very hard on that subject. So, I can assure you that it is a
    top priority for us.
        Senator McCaskill. I would really appreciate if you would
    provide to the Committee for the record some kind of breakdown
    of the resources that are being allocated in these various
    areas. I think that the threat is one that--if you asked most
    Americans, they would assume that the threat from ISIS
    influence is much greater, and in reality, the facts do not
    support that. And so, I would like to get a better sense of the
    balance of resources in this area, if you would.
        Let us talk about counterterrorism budget cuts. The
    President's budget calls for elimination of almost half a
    billion dollars in cuts for counterterrorism, while the same
    budget says that we need to build a wall that even Border
    Patrol agents say is not their top priority for border
    security.
        Can you talk about the substantial cuts and how that would
    impact the current counterterrorism efforts and security in a
    way that is possible for you to talk about, either Director
    Rasmussen or any of the three of you?
        Mr. Rasmussen. It is kind of difficult for me to comment
    because the intelligence portion of the budget is, I do not
    think, exactly what you have got your fingers on with your
    question you are asking; and in terms of the resources I have
    available to me at the National Counterterrorism Center, I am
    comfortable that we have the resources necessary to carry out
    the various missions we have, particularly some of the extra
    additional work we are doing in the areas of screening and
    vetting to support Secretary Duke and her team at DHS.
        We are a very tiny slice, and so I do not want to--I am
    not----
        Senator McCaskill. Right.
        Mr. Rasmussen [continuing]. In any way evading your
    question. I am just saying that the resources I have available
    have not been significantly reduced, and I am in a position to
    carry out my missions effectively.
        Senator McCaskill. Secretary Duke, what about the--I mean,
    I think everybody would agree the VIPR teams have been very
    effective as they have worked around the country. Reducing the
    VIPR teams down to eight, are you going to try to advocate to
    reverse that as we move forward? I am hoping the appropriators
    will.
        Ms. Duke. We have to do a risk-based approach, and we value
    the VIPR teams. They have had a significant mission, and we
    funded those that we could within the constraints of balancing
    the risks with the demonstrated and measurable value of the
    teams.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look at that. I
    finished before 5 minutes.
        Chairman Johnson. I hope everybody follows the Ranking
    Member's----
        Senator McCaskill. It is a bad example I set.
        Chairman Johnson [continuing]. Excellent example. Senator
    Portman.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN

        Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, welcome to
    all three witnesses. Ms. Duke, you are here for the first time
    as Acting Secretary, and, Director Wray, you are here for the
    first time before the Committee. We are glad that you are still
    here, Nick. We need you.
        Look, this has been just a horrible hurricane season, and
    our hearts go out to the victims in the wake of the
    devastation. As you said, three storms, that probably makes
    this the worst hurricane season that we have experienced, and
    our thanks go out to the first responders and to the
    volunteers, some from my State, and all the States represented
    here who have lent a hand to their fellow citizens. But our
    citizens today in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico I think
    are in a particularly difficult situation, and I understand
    that in Texas and Florida, we have also got a tough situation.
    But we have the capability to be able to handle that better at
    the State level.
        You talked a little about what you are starting to do,
    Secretary Duke, and I guess my question really is about what
    more can be done, one, by DOD, because as I understand it--and
    you mentioned distribution. Yes, there is gas on the island.
    Yes, there is food and water. But it is not getting out to the
    locations that need it or to many of the locations that need
    it. And, it seems to me that infrastructure is going to have to
    be provided by the Federal Government.
        So, what can you tell us about DOD cooperation in that?
    Because it seems like you are not going to just need FEMA
    folks; you are going to actually need bodies and vehicles and
    other infrastructure, communications infrastructure. What is
    DOD doing? What could they do more of? And then, finally, what
    more can we do? I know you are going to come to us for
    additional appropriations later this fall, but what could this
    Congress be doing right now?
        Ms. Duke. So, DOD is providing tremendous support. We have
    about 16 ships in the area between DOD and Coast Guard, with
    additional on the way, including Mercy Ship, a hospital ship.
        One of the things DOD is doing that is critically important
    is assessing the ports and the airports. If we can get the
    ports and the airports to full operation, that is going to be
    huge. We were able to reactivate the closed air force base,
    Roosevelt Roads, so now we are flying our supplies through that
    airport and have been able to open Puerto Rico to commercial
    flights to allow persons to come back to the United States that
    want to come back.
        So, I think what DOD is doing is helping us get the
    supplies there, but also helping us open the access roads. They
    also are leading the debris removal, which is huge. We still
    have areas that we cannot access by roads.
        We did send more troops down yesterday, including a general
    that will be in charge of coordinating on the ground. So, we do
    have a general onsite now that I think is going to help speed
    things around and put decisionmaking on the ground. I think
    that was a big step forward.
        In terms of Congress, there is funding. We did ask
    yesterday in a congressional call to hold off congressional
    visits because of the limited airspace, space in between
    flights, and we thank you all for doing that. I know many of
    you want to get there and see it, and we thank you for
    postponing until at least next week congressional visits so
    that we can use every minute of airspace and time for those
    that have survived this terrible event.
        Senator Portman. Well, thank you. It is an urgent
    situation. I think a different response is needed, and I am
    glad to hear that our military resources are being used because
    I think it is required.
        I would ask you to change subjects for a second, and I want
    to talk about fentanyl, carfentanil, and really biochem issues.
    As you know, we have an opioid crisis in this country, and, in
    fact, more people are dying every day in my State of Ohio, your
    home State, and all of our States than last year. It is not
    getting better; it is getting worse. More deaths from overdoses
    from heroin, synthetic heroins like fentanyl and carfentanil,
    than car accidents. It is the number one cause of death now in
    my State and in our country.
        By the way, 58 percent of the deaths in Ohio over the last
    year came from fentanyl, not from heroin. And, this fentanyl is
    coming into our country by the U.S. Mail system, primarily from
    China. So, this is a threat that is an external threat coming
    in, and I am frustrated because we cannot get our Postal
    Service to provide law enforcement, including your people at
    Customs and Border Protection, the information they need to be
    able to identify these packages and stop this poison from
    coming into our communities.
        I know you are aware of the issue. Can you tell us what
    progress you are making to be able to stop this? And, do you
    support our legislation, the STOP Act? There are a number of
    Members of this Committee who are cosponsors of that
    legislation. It is very simple. It just says that the post
    office has to provide advance information to law enforcement to
    be able to identify these packages and stop this threat.
        Ms. Duke. Absolutely, and I think that the work of this
    Committee has helped. I am meeting with the Postmaster General
    next week. We have gotten visibility into a certain percentage
    of packages, but it absolutely has to increase.
        Additionally, we are seeing the routing change, so as we
    address China, the routing is changing to some stops. So, we
    are definitely focused on that, and I feel confident the
    Postmaster General is at the table now.
        Senator Portman. Well, we would like your support on this
    legislation, because it needs a change in law to require the
    post office to do what all the other private carriers have to
    do. And, the traffickers know, as was said by Mr. Rasmussen
    earlier, they know how to take advantage of our weaknesses, and
    this is a weakness right now in our current system.
        And, by the way, this product is also being weaponized, so
    carfentanil in particular, Director Wray, I hope you all will
    focus on that as well. And, I have a concern about terrorist
    groups and State actors using this as a biological weapon, a
    chemical weapon as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of
    you for being here and the testimony that you are bringing.
        Ms. Duke, thank you for stepping up. You came to be able to
    serve with General Kelly, and then he ran off to a different
    job, so you had to step up to be able to take this. Thank you
    for stepping up and being able to take that. I know we have a
    visit scheduled in my office, I believe, to be able to go
    through several of the details. I will skip through some of
    those until we get to it.
        Let me ask you some specific questions, first about Puerto
    Rico. A waiver was requested, a Jones Act waiver, for Puerto
    Rico. That was denied. That waiver was given to Houston, it was
    given to Florida. Obviously, the Virgin Islands, they are
    waived from the Jones Act entirely all the time, so they
    constantly have ships coming back and forth. Puerto Rico in
    good times thinks that the Jones Act costs them about $1.5
    billion in economic activity a year, but they especially need
    it now in just getting vessels in.
        Can you help me understand why and where the conversation
    is on the Jones Act for Puerto Rico?
        Ms. Duke. First of all, we do not know of fuel shortages on
    the island of Puerto Rico. The challenge for us today is
    getting it distributed.
        In terms of the Jones Act waiver, we have researched this.
    I read it in the news clips this morning. We have no known
    Jones Act waiver request. We did receive a congressional letter
    today. We are double-checking to make sure that is not true. If
    there are fuel shortages we are looking at Jones Act. Like you
    said, we will use it appropriately. There are two issues with
    Puerto Rico. One is the potential shortage of carriers, U.S.-
    flagged carriers. The second is tariffs and other things that
    make the fuel cost high in Puerto Rico, and that is what we are
    hearing, too, is that people are suffering from the tariffs.
        Senator Lankford. I would say if we could proactively
    engage in that, it would help them. Obviously, it is a week to
    be able to get a vessel to them. So, the longer it takes to be
    able to get that waiver done, then vessels cannot even start
    getting there that are non-U.S.-flagged vessels to be able to
    get to it. So, that would be very helpful.
        Another interesting point that we can talk about later on
    is dealing with FEMA and the decision about nonprofits.
    Congress years ago said that nonprofits were included in
    disaster relief aid. Previous administrations have defined
    nonprofits as excluding churches. I am still trying to get a
    definition for that because often the churches are the ones
    that are the community location where food and everything is
    distributed from there, but then they cannot also get disaster
    relief, but the museum or the library or whatever else around
    them can. And so, that is one I think the administration
    already has the authority to make the decision. Congress has
    already spoken to that. Just previous administrations have
    defined nonprofits as everything but a church, but a church is
    also nonprofit. So, whether you are synagogue, a mosque, or a
    church, I think it should not apply on that. Again, we can talk
    about that later on some other things.
        I do want to talk to you a little bit about election
    security as well and some of the things that are going on as we
    deal with countering violent extremism (CVE) and what is
    happening and destabilizing us. We watched even this weekend
    the Russians and their troll farms and their Internet folks
    start hashtagging out ``Take a knee'' and also hashtagging out
    ``Boycott National Football League (NFL).'' They were taking
    both side of the argument this past weekend and pushing them
    out from their troll farms as much as they could to try to just
    raise the noise level in America and to make a big issue seem
    like an even bigger issue as they are trying to push
    divisiveness in the country. We have continued to be able to
    see that. We will see that again in our election time.
        My question for you is: You have the responsibility to
    oversee elections nationwide and to be able to work with our
    States that organize all their elections within the State. Does
    DHS have the resources it needs to do onsite assessments for
    all the States that request it between now and the 2018
    elections?
        Ms. Duke. We do have the resources to do it. Not all States
    have requested it, and I think there is still an issue with
    some States on whether they want that Federal involvement. But
    we do have the resources.
        Senator Lankford. OK. We will follow up on that in greater
    detail in another conversation.
        I have visited with DHS folks on the design of the border
    wall and trying to work through the border security for the
    Southern border. Several Members of this Committee were also
    involved in some of those conversations. We are still waiting
    on details, descriptions, design, cost. The cost per mile of
    the border wall done 10 years ago was about $3.5 million. The
    initial request was about $20 million per mile. So, we are
    waiting for not only why that dramatic increase in cost, what
    the final design will look like, but also the long-term view of
    this, not to just look at the 77 miles that is requested
    currently, but where do we go, in what order, and how do we do
    it, and some simple things that can be cheaper. For instance,
    getting rid of the very actively growing cane that is on the
    river banks where individuals hide drugs and be able to move
    products into the United States illegally, that cane
    eradication would be exceptionally important as well.
        So, any comments you can make about the future of the wall
    and where we are going?
        Ms. Duke. Sure. I am looking at the plan next week, and we
    will have it to Congress shortly after. And, as I committed in
    my confirmation hearing, it will not--the Southern border
    strategy does not include just the wall. It includes
    infrastructure, technology, and other co-securing mechanisms.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you. We will follow up.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP

        Chairman Johnson. Senator Heitkamp.
        Senator Heitkamp. Just on follow up to that, you are
    working on both the Northern border and the Southern border
    strategy. What is the timeline on those, Secretary?
        Ms. Duke. We will have the Northern border strategy by the
    end of the calendar year. We will have the Southern border
    strategy within the next month.
        Senator Heitkamp. That is critically important as we go
    through decisionmaking, and as we look at cane eradication,
    another eradication, mesquite, clearly in Arizona and in--it is
    an invasive species there, easy to hide, needs to be eradicated
    so that we have a better chance of catching border crossers
    that first mile in.
        So, I want to talk about cybersecurity, and I do not have a
    lot of time, so I am going to do this quickly. Two questions.
    How do you grade our current vulnerability in this country, A
    being impenetrable, F being we are in big trouble? And, how do
    you grade--this is for all of you. How do you grade our current
    collaboration and coordination across Executive Branch
    agencies, including DOD? And, we will start with you,
    Secretary.
        Ms. Duke. Coordination across Federal Agencies has gotten
    very high. I would probably give it a B because I never think
    we are done. And, we know the threat is significant.
        In terms of grades, it would depend on the critical
    infrastructure sector. Right now we are focused on energy and
    critical infrastructure and the attacks on that. That is
    probably our highest threat right now. So because of its
    importance and the focus on that, I would give that the lowest
    grade.
        Senator Heitkamp. OK. Director.
        Mr. Wray. Senator, I would agree with Secretary Duke that
    on the cooperation side I think there has been dramatic
    advances and dramatic progress in the wake of Presidential
    Policy Directive (PPD-41) and a number of other things, much
    better coordination. So, like Secretary Duke I tend to be
    dissatisfied with our efforts, so, B, B-minus maybe on that
    front.
        On the threats, I am still trying to get my arms around a
    lot of them just a few weeks into the job. So, I guess I would
    call that incomplete.
        Senator Heitkamp. OK.
        Mr. Rasmussen. Nothing really to add, Senator.
        Senator Heitkamp. I think, we always hear there is
    coordination, and then an event happens, and it seems like no
    one really seems to know what--the right hand does not know
    what the left hand is doing, and so I would be very careful to
    give too high marks to coordination, because I am not sure that
    we in the Congress understand who is doing what and how it is
    being coordinated and what we need to do. I mean, we have these
    one-offs, whether it is election challenges, and then we look
    at what happened at the Securities and Exchange Commission
    (SEC), what has happened at, obviously the Equifax penetration.
    And, these have all created incredible challenges. And, one of
    the things we know about cyber is that it is critical that we
    engage in a dialogue with the American public about
    cybersecurity and cyber hygiene.
        And so, which agency is taking that on to really begin that
    process? Like you have, ``See something, say something.'' Who
    is doing the actual education of the American public on how
    they can be part of a cybersecurity network?
        Ms. Duke. That is our responsibility at Homeland Security.
    We have started it. We are working on trying to resensitize
    Americans to that need. There is much more to do.
        Senator Heitkamp. And, I think we are woefully short. I
    think, you ask anyone who has been that person who has been
    trying to train their kids on how they can protect themselves.
    It is incredibly vulnerable, because it is as strong as the
    weakest link. And so, I am deeply concerned that we do not
    really have a handle on what we are doing in cybersecurity, and
    that at the end of the day we will spend all of our time and
    our resources looking at all these other threats and completely
    miss one of the most serious threats that could be pursuing
    this country.
        Director Wray, obviously very concerned about what is
    happening in Indian country. Pretty hard on your predecessor in
    terms of the role that the FBI plays in reservations in my
    State. Missing women across the board. I know you and I had a
    discussion in the back room. You are working on it. I just want
    to encourage you to personally, in spite of everything else
    that is going on, personally engage, because you are the only
    cop on the beat for many of my communities who are suffering
    from record amounts of drug addiction and drug abuse, people
    who are suffering violent crime at much higher rates, and now a
    continuation of maybe third-party or third-country involvement
    from law enforcement. So, please, pay attention to this.
        Mr. Wray. Just a quick response?
        Chairman Johnson. Sure.
        Mr. Wray. Senator, I have not forgotten our conversation
    when we met a few weeks ago, and it is something that I have
    specifically raised with my leadership team. We do have the
    Safe Trails Task Forces that we are committed to, but I am well
    aware that in many ways we are the only game in town in that
    space, and so I am looking forward to learning more about how
    we can be more effective.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    McCaskill. I do have several questions today regarding
    terrorist threats to our Nation that I would like to discuss
    with the witnesses. But, I also would like to address the
    crisis in Puerto Rico and our fellow citizens' pleas for
    Federal resources.
        As a former Governor, I know how important those resources
    are, and it is why I am very concerned to hear from my friend,
    former Governor of Puerto Rico, Alejandro Garcia Padilla, that
    relief efforts to this point have failed to make its way to
    those most in need. He and I served together as Governors until
    the end of 2016, and I know him to be a very steady hand amid
    the challenges that his island faces. So, that is why the email
    I got from him last night is so concerning, and I want to read
    an excerpt of it and would ask unanimous consent (UC) for the
    full email to be entered into the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The email submitted by Senator Hassan appears in the Appendix
    on page 160.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you.
        Here is what he says: ``The situation is critical. There is
    no electricity anywhere on the island, and only 40 percent of
    customers have running water. Hospitals are on the verge of
    collapse, and many have had to transfer all their patients to
    other overstrained facilities because they have run out of gas
    or diesel for their generators. Patients are dying in their
    homes because they cannot fill their prescriptions, do not have
    access to ice to keep their insulin cool, or cannot reach in
    time a dialysis center that has electricity. There are entire
    communities that the government has been unable to reach due to
    widespread landslides and debris. This is happening in America
    today. Unless we see a dramatic increase in assistance and
    personnel reaching the island soon, many thousands could die.''
        So, Secretary Duke, I would like to ask you to respond to
    Governor Garcia's email and also in your response talk to us
    about what kind of planning about assets being deployed to
    Puerto Rico was made before the storm hit. We knew the storm
    was coming. We knew they had been glanced by Hurricane Irma and
    not hit as badly as some others by Hurricane Irma. But, here we
    are with a really dire situation, and my friend, the former
    Governor, says, ``We need the Army and the National Guard
    deployed throughout the island now, today. This cannot wait
    another day. Despite Federal Agencies coordinating in San Juan,
    there is very limited presence of military personnel assisting
    people in the streets and throughout our communities.''
        So, Secretary?
        Ms. Duke. The President, Vice President, and I talked with
    the Governor yesterday, and that was about 1 o'clock, and he
    had no unmet needs at that point. So I will followup with him
    again, but I have offered to him, you know, to reach out to me
    directly in addition to our FEMA Administrator.
        There are challenges in getting to the outer parts of the
    island because the debris removal, the landslides are so
    strong. What we have done that is significant in addressing
    those specific concerns, we are using the DOD to now help with
    distribution. That generally is something that the Commonwealth
    would do itself, but we have heard stories of shortages. We
    have also heard stories of extortion. And so, to avoid that and
    make sure that the critical resources get to where they need
    to, we are using DOD for that as of yesterday afternoon.
        Senator Hassan. Well, thank you for that response, but I
    have to tell you that I know others have been in contact with
    the current Governor of Puerto Rico as well, and they are not
    hearing that all their needs have been met. And so, we have
    American lives at stake here, and I would urge you and the
    Department to do everything you can. And, I am concerned about
    why there were not more assets on their way to Puerto Rico as
    soon as the storm hit. We are almost a week out now.
        Ms. Duke. Absolutely. And, we have been air-dropping. It is
    a challenge, and we will never stop and we will never be
    satisfied. So, I agree with you, Senator.
        Senator Hassan. Well, thank you. I have a number of
    questions on homeland security, but given my time, I will yield
    back the remainder and wait for the second round. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator. Senator Peters.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    our witnesses for being here today.
        I think that some actions by the administration, such as
    the travel ban as well as some very divisive rhetoric that we
    have heard coming out of the administration, have consequences,
    and sometimes very significant consequences. Beginning at the
    end of last year, we have seen a spike in anti-Muslim incidents
    in my home State of Michigan. We have seen a rash of bomb
    threats against Jewish community centers in Michigan as well,
    as well as across the country. That is why my colleague on this
    Committee Senator Portman and I wrote a letter together calling
    for the DHS and the DOJ to address these incidents and to
    provide the communities with the resources that they need to
    deal with these incidents.
        The letter was signed by all 100 Senators. Every one of the
    colleagues of the Senate believed that this is something that
    we have to address. And, make no mistake, I think that some of
    the darkest elements in our society have become emboldened, and
    we need to look no further than the white supremacy protests in
    Charlottesville as well as other activities across the country
    to bring this to our attention.
        So, I want to follow up on a question by Ranking Member
    McCaskill to Mr. Wray. I know the question was how many agents
    do we have related to domestic terrorism versus international
    terrorism, but maybe I will ask a broader question. What are
    the resources, what are your budgets? I will start with you,
    Secretary Duke. What is the budget in your Department for
    domestic terrorism versus international terrorism?
        Ms. Duke. We have no specific delineation in the budget for
    domestic terrorism versus international terrorism. We do
    believe that homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) who are
    persons in this country with an international nexus or
    motivation are our biggest threat, but we are looking at both
    the homegrown violent extremists and the domestic terrorists,
    but no specific delineation.
        Senator Peters. Director Wray.
        Mr. Wray. Senator, my answer is similar. We do not have in
    our budget allocations between specific types of terrorism. We
    do have allocations of agents and other resources to
    counterterrorism, and we tend to move agents and other analysts
    sort of seamlessly between squads depending on the particular
    time period, the particular field office, depending on the
    threat assessment in that community.
        Senator Peters. In your response to Senator McCaskill's
    question, you can provide that information to us so we can get
    a sense of how those allocations are occurring?
        Mr. Wray. Let me see what information we can provide to be
    helpful, yes.
        Senator Peters. I would appreciate it. Mr. Rasmussen.
        Mr. Rasmussen. I have no responsibility for domestic
    terrorism. The legislation that created NCTC specifically made
    clear that we were not to engage in tracking or analyzing
    threats related to domestic terrorism.
        Senator Peters. All right. Thank you.
        It is also my understanding that, unlike international
    terrorism, we currently do not have any domestic terrorism
    legislation or statute. Do you think this legislation may be
    something we should consider, Director Wray?
        Mr. Wray. Senator, I am aware of ongoing discussions about
    the possibility of a domestic terrorism statute. As you
    correctly note, there is not a domestic terrorism crime as
    such. We in the FBI refer to domestic terrorism as a category,
    but it is really more of a way in which we allocate, which
    agents, which squad is going to work on it.
        I will say that in the domestic terrorism context, just
    like the international terrorism context, we take very much the
    approach that we are going to use all the tools at our
    disposal. So, a lot of the domestic terrorism cases that we
    bring, we are able to charge under gun charges, explosive
    charges, all manner of other crimes. We also work a lot with
    State and local law enforcement who can sometimes bring very
    straightforward, easy-to-make cases, homicide cases, things
    like that.
        So, we have a lot of tools. We can always use more tools,
    and it is something that I am looking forward to learning more
    about.
        Senator Peters. Secretary Duke.
        Ms. Duke. Yes, we take both seriously, and oftentimes when
    we encounter an act of violence, we do not know if it is
    internationally motivated or domestically motivated. So, we
    take every threat and every act of terrorism, every act of
    violence with a motivation very seriously. They have a
    commonality in hate. It is just where their motivation comes
    from, an external international terrorist organization or
    internally. But, as was correctly said, the occurrences are
    stronger. We are trying to do it both from law enforcement
    through the FBI, but also through education programs to try to
    help communities be able to respond to it and be able to
    counter it.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Are you ready? Senator Carper.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. How is it going? We are glad you are here.
    Thank you. Thank you very much for your service and for joining
    us today.
        I do not know that this has been covered. My guess is it
    probably has not been, although we have covered what I am about
    to ask many times. But, Ms. Duke, I am going to ask maybe for
    you to start off.
        The President has indicated a willingness to find common
    ground on legislation involving legalizing the status of
    Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) students in this
    country. He is interested in our doing some more work on border
    security. And, he has had an ongoing interest in a wall. But, I
    have had the opportunity to travel to the border with some of
    my colleagues, a number of my colleagues, with your
    predecessor, the Secretary, now the President's Chief of Staff,
    with former Secretary Johnson and others. And, I believe there
    are some places where a wall actually makes sense, but if you
    think about all the distance between the Pacific Ocean and the
    Gulf of Mexico, it does not make sense in a whole lot of
    places, and I think you know that.
        There are places where fences make a lot of sense. There
    are places where roads make a lot of sense, roads especially
    along walls or fences.
        There are places where boats make sense. There are places
    where boat ramps make sense.
        There is a fair amount of use of helicopters, fixed-wing
    aircraft, drones tethered to aerostats, dirigibles, stationary
    towers, mobile towers where they make sense.
        I used to be a naval flight officer (NFO) for many years,
    P-3 aircraft mission commander, and we did surface
    surveillance, subsurface surveillance, but we also on occasion
    would be tasked to do search and rescue. And, we put 13 guys in
    an airplane, fixed-wing aircraft, a couple thousand feet off
    the water, with binoculars to look for a life raft, and we were
    not often very successful. So, the idea of putting whether it
    is fixed-wing or helicopters or drones out there without--or
    towers or tethered dirigibles out there without really
    sophisticated surveillance technology to enable us to see at
    night, during bad weather, and for long distances into Mexico,
    if we do not have the surveillance technology on board, that
    does not make much sense.
        I have seen places on the border where horses make sense
    and you have really high grass and you get the Border Patrol
    agents up on a horse, and they actually do their job better.
    There are places where intelligence, better intelligence,
    information sharing makes sense.
        The other thing that we have heard about here and in a
    number of hearings is that old story, needle in the haystack.
    It is hard to find those needles. You can make the needles
    bigger. If you have the right kind of surveillance equipment,
    you can actually make the needles bigger. But, it is also
    helpful if you make the haystack smaller, and that might be by
    making sure that fewer people come, feel the need to flee
    Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to come to our country,
    and that would make the haystack smaller.
        The last administration has been a strong proponent--and it
    has gotten bipartisan support in Congress--to actually address
    root causes of folks in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador
    trying to get out of their countries, flee the murder and
    mayhem that threatens their lives and safety too often. And,
    the idea to find out what works, use something that has worked
    in the past, Plan Colombia, which we worked on for 20 years,
    has helped transform Colombia. They have had to do most of the
    work. We have helped. I like to say it is like at Home Depot:
    ``You can do it. We can help.''
        That is a menu of options, if you will, to help secure our
    borders, and I just want you to direct at some of those--do any
    of those make sense to you as our Acting Secretary?
        Ms. Duke. Yes, they all make sense, to be honest, Senator
    Carper. We are looking at not only in between the points of
    entry but at the points of entry, through information sharing
    and vetting and credentialing. Our goal is to keep bad people
    out and to keep the illicit movement of goods so that we are
    not funding transnational criminal organizations, and that is
    the goal. And, how that happens, we are open to doing that. I
    offered to talk about reform bills with any member and let you
    know how operationally we think it would play out, and I
    reaffirm that offer.
        In terms of the Northern Triangle and Mexico, I am in
    dialogue with all of them and working through some
    international banks to also look at that. How can we make it so
    people want to stay in their countries, which is the ultimate
    goal? And, those discussions are ongoing. In fact, we had a
    meeting on it this week and looking at setting up a forum. So
    all of them.
        Senator Carper. Any quick comments, Mr. Wray? Nick, any
    quick comments before--my time has expired, but just very
    briefly.
        Mr. Wray. Well, I would just share Secretary Duke's view
    that we have to have a multidisciplinary approach which I think
    is built into, I think, your well-taken question.
        Senator Carper. All right. Nick.
        Mr. Rasmussen. Again, the responsibility of the
    intelligence community is to provide the best possible service
    to those who actually carry out the screening and vetting of
    individuals trying to come into the country. We take that
    responsibility very seriously. We have made business process
    improvements in how we do that, but there is more work to be
    done for sure.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you all.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS

        Senator Harris. Secretary Duke, in response to Senator
    Lankford's question about the Jones Act, you indicated you were
    not aware of any requests, that you were informed because you
    read it in the clips this morning. That troubles me. I am
    informed that there have been at least two requests: one from
    eight House Members led by Congressman Velazquez and another by
    Senator McCain. So, I am troubled because if you are unaware of
    those requests, it suggests that there is not a sufficient
    priority for Puerto Rico in your agency.
        Is there someone under you other than the FEMA Director who
    is responsible to reporting directly to you the status of your
    agency's work in Puerto Rico? And if so, can you give me the
    name of that person?
        Ms. Duke. We have the request from Congress, so if I
    misspoke, I apologize. We have the letters from Congress. Those
    go to Customs and Border Protection. We do not have any
    requests from industry, which is where they typically come
    from.
        Senator Harris. Is there a person under you who is
    responsible for reporting directly to you about the status of
    your agency's work in Puerto Rico in addition to the FEMA
    Director?
        Ms. Duke. No.
        Senator Harris. Can you please put somebody in place that
    can be responsible for responding to requests from Congress
    about your activities as it relates to the Jones Act or any
    other work in Puerto Rico?
        Ms. Duke. Yes.
        Senator Harris. And, you will follow up and give us a name?
        Ms. Duke. Yes.
        Senator Harris. And then, on the issue that Senator
    McCaskill raised, I was troubled to hear, Director Wray, but
    thankfully you are on top of it, that your agency has 1,000
    open investigations on domestic terrorism, 176 arrests for
    domestic terrorism. The FBI and DHS issued a joint intelligence
    bulletin in May of this year where you indicated, ``White
    supremacist extremists will likely continue to pose a threat of
    lethal violence over the next year.''
        So, Mr. Chairman, I am requesting that we open an
    investigation, a congressional investigation into this issue.
    According to the joint bulletin, the FBI and DHS define white
    supremacist extremists as ``individuals who seek, wholly or in
    part, through unlawful acts of force or violence, to support
    their belief in the intellectual and moral superiority of the
    white race over other races.'' I believe that this Committee
    has done a great job of conducting congressional investigations
    when we have found that there are Americans who are at risk of
    harm and violence, and so on this matter, I would ask that we
    do a similar investigation.
        Chairman Johnson. Request noted.
        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        On the issue of DACA, Secretary Duke, on September 5th you
    issued a memo rescinding the original June 15, 2012, memo which
    established DACA. And. to rescind DACA, you indicated that
    recipients will have some period of time in order to apply.
        I am told by folks who are working with renewal on the
    ground that they have seen a slowdown in DACA recipients
    reapplying. Are you prepared to extend the amount of time that
    they will have?
        Ms. Duke. We have had no requests. I did talk to one
    Senator about a potential need for an extension, but we have
    had no indication from DACA recipients that they are having
    trouble. We did check the system to make sure it is an easy
    system to reapply, and they do not have to reproduce their
    documents.
        Senator Harris. Have you convened or had a meeting at all
    and input from the community folks who are working on the
    ground to get information from them? And if not, I would
    request that you do that so you can get a complete picture of
    what is actually happening on the ground. But, I will tell you
    from the perspective of California, these young people are
    terrified. They are terrified. They were told by your agency
    that if they submitted this comprehensive information about
    their background and their status to apply for DACA, that that
    information would not be shared with Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE). I have asked you, I asked the former
    Secretary: Are you willing to keep America's promise to these
    young people and not share their information with ICE?
        Can you answer that question finally? It has not been
    answered the many times I have asked.
        Ms. Duke. I cannot unequivocally promise that, no, but I do
    know that----
        Senator Harris. So we will not keep our promise to these
    children and these young people?
        Ms. Duke. I am not familiar with the promise that was made
    to these children, but I do know that having them on 2-year
    non-renewable suspensions is not the right answer, and I look
    forward to working with the Congress in coming up with a better
    solution.
        Senator Harris. OK. And, I will submit for the record\1\--
    and I will give you a copy of the document--where the U.S.
    Government told these young people when they applied for DACA
    status that we would not share their information with ICE. You
    have not seen this document?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information submitted by Senator Harris appears in the
    Appendix on page 161.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ms. Duke. No, I have not.
        Senator Harris. OK. I will give a copy to you. I have it
    here, and I will give you a copy. I think I presented it to
    you, and certainly the person that received it before.
        Ms. Duke. OK, and I will get you an answer.
        Senator Harris. And I would like that answer before the end
    of the week, please.
        You also indicated when you last testified before us that,
    in terms of the seven new enforcement priorities, they were in
    descending level of priority. Following your testimony before
    this Committee, the former Secretary said that there was no
    priority in terms of that list. So, which is the policy of your
    agency? And, how have you instructed the people on the ground
    about what are the enforcement priorities of your agency?
        Ms. Duke. Those are enforcement priorities; however, an ICE
    agent is not restricted from apprehending anyone who is in
    violation of law.
        Senator Harris. There are seven enforcement priorities.
    Have you instructed the agents on the ground about which are
    the highest enforcement priorities versus the lowest, given
    that with all Agencies, and certainly yours, you have limited
    resources?
        Ms. Duke. Yes.
        Senator Harris. Can you give that information to me,
    please?
        Ms. Duke. Yes.
        Senator Harris. Now?
        Ms. Duke. Oh, now?
        Senator Harris. Yes.
        Ms. Duke. We have the DHS policy, and then we have the ICE
    policy. And, they all say that these are the priorities for
    enforcement. If there is any targeted enforcement, they are
    against the priorities. However, if an ICE agent encounters
    someone that is not a priority but is still an illegal
    immigrant, then they would be apprehended also using the
    discretion of the ICE agent.
        Senator Harris. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. I will
    resume this in the second round. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you. And, just real quick,
    following up on your request in terms of an investigation on
    white supremacists and domestic terrorists, I met with Director
    Wray prior to this meeting, prior to this hearing, and just
    confirm this. You said you had about 1,000 active
    investigations on basically white supremacist domestic
    terrorists, about 1,000 ISIS-related. Just kind of confirm that
    that was accurate. But, also, do you take the threat of white
    supremacist terrorists or violent extremists any less seriously
    than you do those perpetrated potentially by ISIS?
        Mr. Wray. No, we do not. We take both of them very
    seriously. Our focus is on violence and threats of violence
    against the people of this country, and that is our concern. It
    is not ideology or anything else. It is the danger and the
    violence of the threats toward people in this country.
        On the number, the other part of your question, it is also
    true that we have about 1,000 open ISIS-related investigations
    at this time as well. So, we are very busy.
        Chairman Johnson. And, except for the difference in the
    nexus to foreign fighters and the international connection
    there, is there any difference in your investigation
    techniques, your prosecution techniques, what you charge white
    supremacist violent extremists with ISIS-related violent
    extremists? Is there any difference in that approach?
        Mr. Wray. I would say in most ways they are similar.
    Probably the biggest difference is the one that Senator Peters
    elicited, which is that there is not a domestic terrorism
    offense as such like there is a material support to foreign
    terrorism provision. And then, of course, there are certain
    tools, investigative tools, like Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act (FISA) that is only available for foreign
    offenses.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you. Senator Hoeven.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN

        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    thank all the witnesses for being here today and start with
    Secretary Duke.
        Secretary Duke, in your testimony you noted that DHS lacks
    authority to counter threats from unmanned aerial systems
    (UAS). In my State we are very involved with UAS, also with
    Customs and Border Protection using UAS on the border. We have
    one of the six test sites there for development of unmanned
    aircraft. So, talk to me about--can you describe in some
    greater detail the domestic threat of unmanned aircraft and
    what authorities you do not have, what authorities you should
    have, and what we can do?
        Ms. Duke. We are seeing an increased use of drones. They
    could be for surveillance, they could be for bringing illicit
    materials, or they could be for acting violence.
        What we lack are some of the signals--the ability to
    interdict, if you will, the signals so that we can try to
    determine if this is a friendly or foe-type drone. And so, we
    are not the only ones lacking that ability. I think because it
    is a new threat, the specific authorities to monitor these
    drones does not exist generally.
        Senator Hoeven. Would it be possible for you to get me
    something that would give me some, I guess, direction in terms
    of what would be helpful to you to understand how you could
    better try to monitor those drones, again, with reasonable
    protections for civil liberties and those kind of things, but
    maybe some information that you could provide us----
        Ms. Duke. OK.
        Senator Hoeven [continuing]. In determining how we could
    craft authorities that might be helpful in that regard. And,
    are you talking primarily on the border, or are you talking
    other locations as well?
        Ms. Duke. It could be other locations as well, but they
    would be primarily in the border for us. Other agencies have
    different types of problems, but we would be looking primarily
    from the border States, across the border States.
        Senator Hoeven. OK. And, Director Wray, same kind of
    question to you. What are you doing in this area? Again, we
    have a test site where we are developing these capabilities,
    and this may be something that we can work on on the test site.
    So, from the FBI's perspective, can you address drones and the
    threat they present?
        Mr. Wray. Senator, I welcome the question. It is a topic
    that we have been discussing a lot lately. I think we do know
    that terrorist organizations have an interest in using drones.
    We have seen that overseas already with some growing frequency,
    and I think the expectation is it is coming here imminently. I
    think they are relatively easy to acquire, relatively easy to
    operate, and quite difficult to disrupt and monitor. So, that
    is something that I would welcome working with the Congress as
    well as with the other Agencies to try to figure out a
    solution.
        Senator Hoeven. Do you have a group of any kind that is
    working on this issue right now? Or what are you doing in
    regard to unmanned aircraft and the threat they present?
        Mr. Rasmussen. I can jump in there, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven. Sure.
        Mr. Rasmussen. I know starting with the intelligence that
    Director Wray talked about where we saw ISIS and other groups
    using these capabilities overseas on the battlefield in Iraq
    and Syria, we brought the community of intelligence
    professionals together in Washington to try to present a clear
    picture that we can then share with State and local partners
    around the country and begin to explain at least the tactics
    and techniques that individuals might use to try to bring harm
    to communities. That can be dropping small explosives the size
    of a grenade. It could be dispersal of toxins potentially. So,
    sharing that information is a first step.
        The next step is to begin to think about true defensive
    measures that either we employ as a Federal Government or
    recommend to State and local governments that they could employ
    at manageable cost, and that is a process, I think, that is
    underway. There is a community of experts that has emerged
    inside the Federal Government that is focused on this pretty
    full-time. Two years ago this was not a problem. A year ago
    this was an emerging problem. Now it is a real problem, and so
    we are quickly trying to up our game on this.
        Senator Hoeven. I might ask then, Director, who is taking
    the lead? Are you taking the lead in that effort? Is there some
    coordinating mechanism across law enforcement agencies to
    develop a strategy and implement it?
        Mr. Rasmussen. I do not know yet that we have designated a
    single agency lead. We are trying to simply right now catalogue
    who all has capability to bring to bear against the problem,
    because it will not just be the law enforcement community. It
    will, of course, be the broader community involved with
    aviation that will have equities here as well.
        So, what I am talking about is trying to do a better job of
    convening everybody in the Federal Government who has a stake
    in this and a capability to bring to bear. That work is
    underway.
        Senator Hoeven. Are you doing that?
        Mr. Rasmussen. I am participating in that. I am not leading
    the----
        Senator Hoeven. I am trying to understand who will be the
    lead.
        Mr. Rasmussen. I will get you an answer on that because I
    do not know who is the true belly button on this.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes, and I am just trying to find out who
    you all think would be a good lead person for us to interface
    with to try to do this in the best way. It is just getting your
    recommendation, not trying to trip you up or indicate you have
    not done something. I am just trying to find out what you all
    think would be the best place to get a lead to work on it.
        Mr. Rasmussen. Well, I will certainly come back with a more
    thoughtful answer on where the best place to plug in with a
    lead is.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
        Any other thoughts?
        Ms. Duke. I was just going to say that we have started
    talking about this with the National and Homeland Security
    Council. This is an interagency process, and I think that would
    be the best process to come up with a Federal position.
        Senator Hoeven. And, we will follow up with both of you, as
    well as Director Wray, and just try to find a good lead and
    make sure we are helping in the effort.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Tester.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    the members of the panel for being here. I apologize. I have a
    committee, a committee, and a committee today.
        Guys, I appreciate your service, but I am not going to ask
    you any questions. They are all going to go to Ms. Duke. Do not
    hold that against me.
        Elaine, during the omnibus, 2017 omnibus, we put language
    in that to require a report to be sent back to Congress by
    August 4th talking about the most effective solutions for the
    Southern border. We have yet to receive that.
        First of all, do you know about that, number one? And,
    number two, can you give me a timeline when it is going to be
    here? Because, funding season, actually we are beyond it. We
    may be dealing with that funding bill next week, so it is
    really important that we know that. As Lamar Alexander said, we
    are not going to cut you a blank check, so we need to know what
    that plan is.
        Ms. Duke. I do know about it. I am supposed to receive it
    next week, and earlier I said within the next month. If you
    have any specific needs as you deal with the funding bill, then
    we can work with you on that.
        Senator Tester. I am glad you brought that up. I mean, it
    is supposed to be a comprehensive report. That means that you
    are going to look for the most cost-effective ways to make that
    Southern border secure. That means that the politics of a wall
    should not be in the picture. It should be about what you guys
    believe are the best options to make that border secure. And,
    we should not be backing into anything. We should be looking
    forward and giving us ideas on what you want and what the
    potential cost is. And so, that is what I need, and not on 80
    miles of the border but on the border. And so, are we on the
    same page?
        Ms. Duke. Yes, absolutely. What the Border Patrol needs to
    secure the border is what we are focused on.
        Senator Tester. Yes, well, I think it is just really
    critically important. I do not think there is anybody in
    Congress that does not want secure borders. But, the last
    proposal that came in on an informal meeting was $24 million a
    mile for a wall, and I am one that does not--I do not think the
    wall is the most effective way. We have technology out there.
    It does not have stranded costs of land on the other side of a
    potential wall. And, by the way, you can tweak technology to
    make it work more and more effectively.
        So, I just hope we get a good, comprehensive look on what
    is needed. You guys are the pros. You guys are the folks that
    are on the ground. We need an unbiased political opinion on
    what is best for this country, because it is a lot of dough.
    So, thank you for that.
        Earlier this year the President's budget sought to
    eliminate the TSA law enforcement in our airports, over 300
    nationwide. I do not understand what went into that thought
    process, and I am certainly not blaming you because it was
    drafted long before you were in this position. But, airports
    large and small would have fewer people on the ground, and it
    would burden airports with an unfunded mandate, which, by the
    way, I do not believe they have the resources to be able to
    fund.
        We have seen plenty of tragedies that have emanated from
    airports around the world and in this country. What is your
    position on this? You know what answer I want, but I want to
    know what is in your head. Do you believe that funding TSA in
    our airports is a critical component? And, what has been your
    conversation with the folks--and I know you are Acting--above
    you on this issue?
        Ms. Duke. DHS' position is that we try to look at what
    expenditure of funds brings the most value to aviation
    security. Some of the reductions that were put in the budget
    like having someone posted at the exit, those type of things,
    behavioral recognition as a stand-alone function, were ones
    where we either do not have evidence that they are successful
    or that we feel like they are lower risk than other types of
    protection.
        We believe in TSA. We have to be more efficient. We are
    looking at technologies to do that so it is not just human-
    intensive. But, it is an ongoing process, and we have to
    continue to refine it.
        Senator Tester. I appreciate that. I will just tell you
    that the reimbursement program is really critical. And, by the
    way, I cannot thank you enough to look at where you get the
    most bang for the buck. But, security costs money. I think you
    would agree on that.
        Ms. Duke. Yes.
        Senator Tester. We have just got to figure out how to do it
    better, and I just think that this could be the epitome of
    shooting oneself in the foot.
        Thank you all very much. Thank you for your service.
    Christopher, next time around we will do some good stuff. Same
    thing with you, Mr. Rasmussen. So, thank you all very much.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Daines.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Johnson.
        Director Wray, cyber terrorism is an emerging threat that
    has become all too real in Montana. In fact, just 2 weeks ago,
    the Columbia Falls School District received cyber threats
    promising harm and demanding ransom. This forced the closure of
    more than 30 schools across multiple school districts, affected
    over 15,000 Montana children. It is unprecedented. We have not
    seen that before in my home State of Montana. The culprit has
    been identified as the ``Dark Overlord,'' an overseas criminal
    organization.
        Mr. Wray, are you aware of these cyber threats? And, is the
    FBI investigating?
        Mr. Wray. Yes, Senator, we are actively involved in the
    matter that you are referring to in Montana. I want to be
    careful not to discuss an ongoing investigation, but I will
    tell you that I could not agree more that this concept of
    ransomware, cyber terrorism, the various variants of it that
    are hitting, and I think the example in your State illustrates
    that it is everywhere now. It is no longer just ransomware to,
    a big Fortune 500 company. It is hospitals; it is schools in
    your case.
        So, it is a threat that is growing. We have a lot of
    matters ongoing related to it. In some cases we have indicted
    ransomware authors. In other cases we have what is called
    ``sinkholed'' them, which is redirect them essentially into the
    hands of law enforcement. But, make no mistake, it is a very
    serious threat, and it is growing.
        Senator Daines. So, I understand it is an active
    investigation, and you are limited in providing details.
    However, looking back at the big picture, what is the FBI doing
    to attribute these cyber crimes and help bring these criminals
    to justice?
        Mr. Wray. There are a variety of technological things we
    can do. We are also working with partners to try to exchange
    information to help identify sort of telltale signs that may
    help us link back to particular organizations.
        I think one of the things we are seeing more and more in
    this area as much as any other is how the stuff transcends
    boundaries, and so some of the same organizations are targeting
    victims in other countries as well. And so, we are really
    working more and more with our partners to try to see if we can
    have their two plus our two to get more than four, to get five
    and six so that we can really deal with these otherwise very
    elusive foes.
        Senator Daines. Ms. Duke, as you mentioned, General Kelly
    in his short time at the helm drove down illegal immigration
    and boosted Department morale. I think one of the underreported
    stories in this country is what you have seen in terms of the
    apprehensions and the decline of crossings coming across our
    Southwest border. General Kelly sat right where you all are
    sitting awhile back and shared some of these remarkable
    improvements, quantifiable reductions of 60 or 70 percent. And,
    I have confidence that you will continue on that trajectory.
        These recent cyber threats that I described here with the
    Director have Montanans shocked. They are nervous. It hits
    right at the core of who we are, our children. But, as you
    mentioned in your testimony, Americans will not be intimidated
    or coerced.
        You also briefly touched on identifying and punishing those
    who exploit cyberspace. What efforts has DHS taken to improve
    attribution capabilities?
        Ms. Duke. If I could real quickly, we went up six points in
    the employee survey this year, also, so that was another good-
    news story, a tremendous amount of work----
        Senator Daines. I know they greatly respect and appreciate
    the emphasis on enforcing the law and law and order, so thank
    you.
        Ms. Duke. Thank you. So, we are working a lot with the
    critical infrastructure. Cybersecurity has to start with those
    that own the systems, and so what we are working on is, through
    our monitoring and our diagnostics, protecting not only the
    Federal systems but alerting and keeping the critical
    infrastructure, the private sector aware of threats that might
    come out. So, we do information bulletins. We do those types of
    things.
        Recently, one of the more severe actions was a binding
    operation directive on specifically a significant threat in
    terms of the Kaspersky software. So, it depends on the
    situation. We work closely, we sit with the FBI, so there is a
    seamless--from just countering it as just a bug to it being a
    criminal activity.
        Senator Daines. OK. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Director Rasmussen, last year, prior to your testimony,
    Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Brennan testified
    before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and his basic quote
    on ISIS was that, ``All our efforts have not reduced the
    group's terrorism capability and global reach. ISIS remains a
    formidable, resilient, and largely cohesive enemy.''
        A month or two later, in your testimony before this
    Committee, you said, ``Despite this progress, ISIS' ability to
    carry out terrorist attacks in Syria, Iraq, and abroad has not
    to date been significantly diminished, and the tempo of ISIL-
    linked terrorist activity is a reminder of the group's
    continued global reach.''
        To paraphrase your oral testimony today, you basically said
    that the capacity or capability of ISIS has not been mitigated,
    they remain resilient.
        Is that pretty much your feeling, that even though we are
    making great gains--and we have been--I mean, we really are
    denying that territory, destroying that caliphate. Is their
    global reach undiminished?
        Mr. Rasmussen. Their global reach remains profound. I would
    make one distinction, though, and one thing that I think that I
    pointed to this year that was not on the table last year is we
    have seen a reduction in the ability of ISIS to be able to
    actually direct and command and control attacks from their safe
    haven in Iraq and Syria. That is the good news.
        The bad news is that they have shown an expanded ability to
    be able to inspire individuals to take the kinds of actions
    that we have seen in places across Europe and potentially even
    inside the homeland here.
        There is a good news/bad news element to that. Obviously,
    attacks that are driven by an organization under a command-and-
    control structure involving all the resources of that
    organization can be larger and more complex and more lethal.
    But, that is not to minimize the lethality that comes with a
    lone individual who may have acquired a firearm or developed an
    explosive device. So, I do not want to overstate the degree to
    which our threat condition is significantly mitigated by having
    these inspired plots as opposed to these directed plots.
        But, the underlying point in my testimony was it is going
    to take a longer period of time than we would like to mitigate
    the threat condition posed by ISIS. Battlefield success is
    necessary. It is coming. It is happening. It just is not going
    to produce the results we want from a threat perspective as
    quickly as we would like.
        Chairman Johnson. Also last year, Director Comey testified
    that ISIS, ``They will not all die on the battlefield in Syria
    and Iraq. There will be a diaspora sometime in the next 2 to 3
    years unlike we have ever seen before.''
        About a month or so ago, you had a different assessment on
    that. Can you talk a little bit about that? Are we not seeing
    that spreading?
        Mr. Rasmussen. I think we have come up with a more nuanced
    assessment just based on what we have seen with data over the
    past couple of years, and that is, more of these individuals
    who have gone to fight in Iraq and Syria are deciding to stay
    in the conflict zone to fight and ultimately in most cases die
    fighting to preserve their self-declared caliphate.
        What we expected when we saw that large inflow of foreign
    fighters was at some point to deal with a large outflow. That
    outflow is coming. It is, in fact, in some ways already
    happening, but it is not nearly as large in volume as perhaps
    we anticipated. That is a good thing that we are not going to
    have to deal with thousands and thousands of foreign fighters
    departing the conflict zone.
        I would say, though, quality matters here. Quality matters
    in some ways more than quantity. The wrong set of individuals
    who escape from the conflict zone in Iraq and Syria, if they
    have a particularly specialized set of skills or a particularly
    full Rolodex or deep connections into an extremist community in
    Europe or even potentially here inside the United States, they
    could pose a significant threat to us. But, volume is not what
    we expected it to be.
        Chairman Johnson. And, if they have safe havens. I mean,
    are we seeing them move to Libya, to Afghanistan, where, again,
    they have safe havens?
        Mr. Rasmussen. In some cases, yes, but, again, not in large
    volumes. But, there are other conflict zones where some of
    these fighters are looking to move.
        Chairman Johnson. Director Wray.
        Mr. Wray. Mr. Chairman, I would just add one related point,
    which is I think we are starting to see some of the people who
    we previously thought would have traveled to fight over there
    being encouraged, because of the way things are going on the
    battlefield, to stay put in their respective countries. So, it
    is a variation on what I think Director Comey was referring to.
        Chairman Johnson. In my office earlier, Director Wray, we
    were talking about how our priority as a Committee is border
    security, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure. We talked
    about cybersecurity almost being above everything else. I mean,
    it is infiltrating and fueling all these other threats.
        The other thing we talked about--and this is a concern,
    too--is because that cyber capability, because of the Internet
    connecting everybody, for good and for ill--let us talk about
    the ill. The cooperation between potentially terrorist
    organizations, drug cartels, transnational criminal
    organizations, can you just describe how we are seeing that
    witch's brew being developed because of the Internet?
        Mr. Wray. I think what we are seeing, Mr. Chairman, is a
    blurring between different kinds of threats, so we are seeing
    in the counterintelligence arena nation-states enlisting the
    help of hackers for hire, for example. We are seeing
    transnational criminal organizations veering more into what
    would previously have been thought of as cyber crime. And,
    throughout all of the different types of threats we are facing,
    because more and more of it is online, encrypted platforms,
    etc, the modality of the threat is changing across all of them.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Senator McCaskill.
        Senator McCaskill. We used to have a joke about the FBI
    when I was the District Attorney (D.A.) in Kansas City, and
    that was, if you wanted to get information out of them, you
    better make sure you had something they needed, because
    sometimes it was very difficult to open up the lines of
    communication, even among everyone who is doing the same work.
    So, when I read the Inspectors General reports\1\ in March that
    reviewed the ability of the intelligence community, DHS, and
    Department of Justice in terms of how well they are sharing
    information and really indicted all three parts of our
    government that are responsible for going after
    counterterrorism, that you are not doing a very good job of
    sharing information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The report referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 75.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I understand the nature of this problem because you want to
    hold on to stuff that you do not want people to know that could
    misuse it or leak it, but I think it is really important. We
    have been talking about sharing information since the fires
    were still burning in those Twin Towers and how we are going to
    do it better and more effectively. And, this is not even the
    age-old problem of local versus Federal sharing of information.
    This is Federal to Federal.
        Can you address what the three of you are doing right now
    to look at the recommendation made by these Inspectors General
    from the three parts of the government that should be working
    together hand in hand?
        Mr. Wray. I will go first. So, Senator, I would say first
    as to the Inspector General, he is somebody I have known and
    worked with for a long time. I had a one-on-one meeting with
    him early, I think within the first week of my arrival on the
    job, to try to learn what issues I needed to be focused on.
    And, I am continuing to try to evaluate that recommendation as
    well as a number of others.
        I will say on the information-sharing front that to me, as
    somebody who was in Government on 9/11, around for all the
    discussion of information sharing that you are referring to,
    that while we clearly have a long way to go, I have a little
    bit of the perspective, having gone and come back, and I will
    tell you it is so much better now than it was before. I mean,
    it is light years. Walking around going into field offices,
    seeing people from DHS collocated with people from the FBI,
    people from the CIA collocated with the FBI, every meeting all
    my folks want to talk about is the great relationships they now
    have with this agency, that agency.
        So, can we get better? Absolutely. But, I do want to
    reassure you that great progress has been made on this front.
        Senator McCaskill. That is terrific. Do we have a specific
    plan on implementing the recommendations? Secretary Duke.
        Ms. Duke. We are focused--there has artificially--I agree
    with Director Wray that it has improved. There was an
    artificial separation between law enforcement and the
    intelligence communities that we have had to overcome.
        One of the major areas we are very close to overcoming is
    on vetting, and we have come up with a model that should be
    finalized very soon that will allow absolute clear sharing of
    information when it comes to vetting of persons, which is one
    of the most important areas to us, and that is what we have
    been focused on.
        Senator McCaskill. I have been worried about how long it
    has taken us to notify the States about the potential efforts
    to scan voter registration files in their States. I am even
    more concerned, once I realized that one State was notified--I
    believe your State was notified--that this had occurred, and
    then the next day there was another callback to say, well, no,
    it did not occur.
        I assume that you all agree that we are still at risk--just
    speak up if you disagree that we are still at risk from Russia
    trying to interfere in our elections and election processes.
    And, if you all do agree with that, what is our strategy going
    forward? How are we going to do what needs to be done to notify
    the American public if this is going on and prevent it from
    actually happening in all of these various ways that Russia
    played around in our democracy? They do not even understand
    what a democracy is in Russia. And, it is pretty nervy for them
    to do this, try to break the backbone of democracy. And, they
    are doing it in a variety of ways. I just want to make sure
    that you all are preparing for this next year and have a plan.
        Ms. Duke. Yes, in terms of the notification, we notified
    the States back when the intrusion occurred. What we learned
    from that and what we are correcting is that we notified the
    system's owners, and that did not necessarily notify the right
    senior officials that need to take action. So, that is
    corrected. And, I know that our counterparts here are working
    on the identification and attribution pieces.
        Senator McCaskill. Are you ready for next year?
        Mr. Wray. Senator, we are spending an enormous amount of
    time talking about this very subject. We are surging more
    resources specifically focused on the upcoming elections. We
    are collecting more intelligence.
        One of the things we know is that the Russians and other
    State actors are trying to influence other elections in other
    countries as well. So, that is one of the places where those
    partnerships have become so important because we can exchange
    information about tradecraft, methods, capabilities.
        We are also in the FBI looking at this as a
    multidisciplinary effort not just across agencies but even
    within the FBI multidisciplinary. So our counterintelligence
    and our cyber people are working together on it. Those are a
    few examples.
        Senator McCaskill. I know I am over time, but just--and if
    you need to take this for the record, just one more. Is
    somebody looking at the dark money that is going into these
    political campaigns? We have the ability of people to give
    money and never be identified publicly to influence campaigns,
    millions and millions of dollars. Is somebody at the FBI going
    through all of these so-called super Political Action Committee
    (PACs) that can take money without attribution to the public
    and seeing where their money is coming from?
        Mr. Wray. Senator, let me see if there is something I can
    provide you in writing after the hearing.
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, because, the notion that nobody in
    public ever gets to know where this money is coming from, that
    is like tailor-made for Russia, and that is where the majority
    of the money is being spent in our elections right now, sadly,
    as a result of Citizens United.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you.
        Director Wray, let me ask a question and just read
    something that comes off the FBI website. It says, ``Hate
    itself is not a crime, and the FBI is mindful of protecting
    freedom of speech and other civil liberties.''
        So, what I am trying to figure out is a trend and a
    direction. I hear a lot about hate groups now, and we have
    always talked about hate crimes. So, what I am trying to figure
    out is: Is the FBI maintaining a list of hate groups that are
    under greater scrutiny? And if so, how is that list developed?
        Mr. Wray. Senator, we do a couple different things. Our
    focus is not on--we do not track movements or ideologies or
    groups that have specific beliefs. We focus on situations
    where--so from a terrorism angle, there are two different
    pieces of that. There is a domestic terrorism angle, for
    example, and a hate crime angle, and we do both. We focus on
    the threat of violence, and so there has to be proper
    predication for us to start an investigation. The FBI has a
    history that we try to be very sensitive to about not
    investigating people for their beliefs in this country.
        Senator Lankford. And, that is entirely appropriate and
    protected in the United States to have whatever belief you want
    to have, even if it is wrong. It is entirely appropriate. My
    question is: Are you tracking--does the FBI keep a list of hate
    groups, or do you outsource that to some other group? If I
    called the FBI and said, ``Who is on your list of hate
    groups?'' would there be a list?
        Mr. Wray. We have, I would say, networks of people that are
    working together, and then we have--so that is groups in that
    sense. I do not know that we would call them ``hate groups.''
    But then, we also have certain--I think we have nine designated
    movements that we use as sort of identifiers for particular
    types of--it is just a way of categorizing investigations.
        Senator Lankford. But, it is a list the FBI has created, no
    outside group is creating that for you and sending it to you?
        Mr. Wray. Correct, absolutely.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you.
        Ms. Duke, let me ask you about entry-exit visas, and we
    have talked about it before as well on it. The report came out
    in May listing out people who have overstayed their visa from
    last year. We have 600,000 people in the country that have
    overstayed a visa, and we do not know where they are. So let me
    ask you a question from the 9/11 Commission, from something
    that is a decade and a half in the making here.
        There was a requirement to put in place entry-exit visa
    verification. If they come into the country, we know who they
    are. When they are leaving, we should be able to track and know
    when they leave and if they leave; and if they do not leave, to
    be able to go find them and to figure out why they are still
    here. How is that going? There is a pilot program that is
    underway. I want to know how that is advancing, if everything
    is on schedule.
        Ms. Duke. Yes, the pilot program that uses photos and
    biometrics is doing very well. Our next phase, which we are
    implementing now, is integrating it into TSA. It was only being
    used by CBP. And to date, that is the way we intend to
    progress. The pilot has proved itself successful so far in its
    limited application.
        Senator Lankford. OK. Full rollout will be by when?
        Ms. Duke. I would have to get back to you with a date on
    that, Senator.
        Senator Lankford. OK. That would be very helpful just to be
    able to get a feeling of when we are rolling out and how long
    this is going to take. This has been a request for a very long
    time of Congress, and I know you are walking into this and
    trying to help finish a project that is ongoing. But, it is one
    that is exceptionally important and continues to grow in
    importance.
        Ms. Duke. Agree.
        Senator Lankford. Let me ask a little bit about elections
    again. I had asked you before about any State request for
    onsite assessments, and you felt like any State that wants to
    get it, that you are prepared to be able to do it. I would tell
    you I have had this conversation before with DHS folks, and
    their statement to me was, ``If we had more than just a few
    States ask us, we are not personnel ready to be able to
    actually go help them in time for the 2018 elections.''
        So, what I would like to do is have a longer conversation
    with you where we can walk through and see what you are going
    to need to be able to be at that point, because it has been my
    understanding in the past that DHS is currently not prepared to
    be able to fulfill requests as they are coming in. And, maybe
    requests are not there yet, but if 10 States all made the
    request at the same time, we could not make it in time for the
    2018 election, and we have a lot more than 10 States that may
    make that request and try to figure out how we can get you
    ready for that.
        The other one is trying to get States--and what I am
    interested in is your perception, where States are right now in
    understanding the risk, as the notifications have gone back out
    again to individuals, and thank you for correcting who gets
    notified in States. That does make a difference in getting the
    message out. But, as that is going out, do States understand
    the significance of the cyber threats they face on their
    network, from their voter data lists, from the equipment that
    is there? Are they prepared to do an audit? And, again, I am
    not asking for the Federal Government to take over the States'
    elections. That is theirs. But, are they prepared to be able to
    do an audit where they can verify with paper and with
    electronic, if they use electronic, to be able to even audit
    after the election whether their machines have been hacked or
    affected at all?
        Ms. Duke. We have seen some more interest. There still are
    people, I think, artificially delineating between voter
    databases and election. And so, I would like to see more sense
    of urgency, but the cyber threats are at the forefront of us
    every day.
        Senator Lankford. All right. Well, if they get into a voter
    database and they delete people or they add people, you lose
    the integrity of the election at that point and people lose
    trust, because they show up and they are not registered to vote
    and they used to be, and now suddenly they are gone from a list
    because someone reached in and changed it. So, that does
    affect, again, just the sense of trust in the election, and we
    want to be able to maintain that and to be able to push back on
    the Russians or anyone that may try it next time, and to say
    not on our system, not ever.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, just to echo
    Senator Lankford's point, one observation I have is that DHS
    often has very good relationships with homeland security
    personnel and emergency preparedness folks in the States. The
    outreach to folks who run elections in the States is kind of a
    new thing for DHS, and I would urge you to marshal the
    resources that you have good relationships with in the States
    to try to foster that bridge to the election officials, because
    we all share this sense of urgency about 2018.
        I wanted to follow up on Chairman Johnson's very important
    question on the ISIS diaspora. Not all ISIS members are going
    to die on the battlefield, as you have all pointed out, and we
    are going to need a robust strategy for dealing with ISIS
    foreign fighters once the so-called caliphate truly fails.
        So that end, Secretary Duke, I want to ask you about ISIS
    teams of Homeland Security Investigation Officers that are now
    deployed to 30 U.S. embassies and consulates. These teams of
    law enforcement officers, which we call ``visa security
    teams,'' are trained counterterrorism professionals who aid the
    State Department's consular offices as they make decisions
    about whether to grant U.S. visas to foreign nationals.
        Given the chance that many ISIS foreign fighters will
    return to their home countries, it is going to be even more
    important that we have these visa security teams at more than
    30 U.S. diplomatic posts where they are currently deployed. Can
    you commit to expanding the number of posts at which visa
    security teams are located? I should note that my staff is
    working with the Chairman's and Ranking Member's staff to do
    that, but is that something the Department can commit to us on?
        Ms. Duke. We are reviewing that right now, so I do not know
    if more--additionally, we are increasing vetting overall. But,
    that has been very useful to us.
        Senator Hassan. Well, we would look forward to working with
    you on that because I think there are a number of us that think
    that 30 is not enough, and we want to do everything we can to
    partner with you on that.
        I also wanted to touch on the issue of white supremacist
    and neo-Nazi threats. I want to echo my colleague from
    California's concerns. Mr. Chair, I think we need an absolutely
    thorough oversight effort in this regard focused specifically
    on the threats posed by white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
        I want to turn to you, Director Wray, because there are
    some complexities that go to domestic terrorism versus
    international terrorism. From an initial review, the FBI's
    ability to prevent and address acts of international terrorism
    appears to be very different from their ability to prevent and
    address domestic terrorism. For one, while domestic terrorism
    and international terrorism are defined in statute, as you
    pointed out, there is no criminal offense or charge, as I
    understand it, of domestic terrorism, although there is an
    international terrorism offense and charge on the books.
        Neal Katyal, the former Acting Solicitor General, said in a
    media interview that if the Charlottesville attacker had
    emerged from his car and announced that he carried out the
    attack in the name of ISIS, then he could have been charged
    with international terrorism.
        Is that true? And, would that be the case even though the
    attacker was American?
        Mr. Wray. We can charge ISIS supporters, whether they are
    American or foreign, under the various material support
    statutes and things like that. I will say, Senator, I just want
    to make sure that I am not confusing the Committee in some way
    about our effectiveness in the domestic terrorism space. Our
    approach in the terrorism arena in both international terrorism
    and domestic terrorism--and this is a product of the immediate
    post-9/11 era--is to look for every possible tool we have, and
    a lot of times the best charge may not--even in the
    international terrorism arena where we have a statute, may not
    be the terrorism charge. There may be reasons why it is
    simpler, easier, quicker, less resource intensive, and you can
    still get a long sentence with some of the other offenses.
        And so, that is really the approach we have been taking on
    the domestic terrorism front where a lot of times there are
    good, effective, very serious charges we can bring. And so,
    even though you may not see them from your end as a domestic
    terrorism charge, they are very much domestic terrorism cases
    that are just being brought under other criminal offenses.
        Senator Hassan. No, I do understand that, but I also am
    concerned about making sure that we are doing everything we can
    to go after these domestic terrorism groups who promote
    violence. So, I have just been trying to think through--let us
    say we had a case of neo-Nazism terrorism. As I understand it,
    the defining factor for a charge of international terrorism can
    be whether the ideology that is being espoused comes from
    outside of the United States. So, there is nothing American or
    inherently domestic about Nazis. So, if a neo-Nazi carries out
    a mass murder while yelling, ``Heil Hitler,'' that would
    certainly appear to be an ideology that originated from outside
    of America's borders. So, could they be considered
    international terrorists?
        Mr. Wray. Senator, I would have to think about that one a
    little bit. I am not sure that we would call that international
    terrorism, but we have brought neo-Nazi cases. We are going to
    continue to bring them when we have the proper predication and
    the elements of the offense. And, I have not been hearing from
    my folks that they feel hamstrung in that space. But, as I said
    to Senator Peters, we can always use more tools in the toolbox
    to try to be as effective as possible.
        Senator Hassan. Well, I thank you for that, and I think it
    just goes to the point that there are some real complexities
    here, and we want to make sure that we are giving you
    appropriate tools, recognizing the complexity of the domestic
    situation but also the real danger of these terrorist groups.
        With that, I thank all of you for your service very much
    and for being here today.
        Mr. Wray. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. I apologize for being in and
    out. We have a bunch of hearings going on, and we also are on
    different committees, as you know. I am pleased to be able to
    participate, at least intermittently.
        My first question is not really a question. I just want to
    say something, and so I will just go ahead and say it. I had a
    good conversation with Admiral Peter Neffenger, who was our
    leader at TSA until earlier this year. A great leader. A great
    leader in the Coast Guard for years, as you know. But, I think
    it was on 9/11 this month, I think GAO released a report that
    found that TSA needs to take action to evaluate costs and
    effectiveness across its security countermeasures. The report
    from GAO found that TSA lacks some basic information to assess
    whether its programs are effective in deterring or detecting
    potential attacks on our aviation system.
        Under the previous administration, under Admiral
    Neffenger's watch, he and others worked to institute reforms at
    TSA. I thought they made a lot of progress, but they tried to
    institute reforms at TSA in order to improve detection
    capabilities, to improve training and workforce morale, speed
    screening, and partner with airlines and other private sector
    companies to invest in the 21st Century screening technologies.
        I understand that as his successor, Admiral Pekoske, who is
    also, I think, a very able leader--how lucky we could be to
    have two guys that qualified and that good as leaders. But, I
    was pleased to vote to confirm him with my other colleagues
    earlier this year.
        So, here is what I want to ask. I am just sort of asking as
    a favor, Ms. Duke, and that would be to ask you to work with
    Admiral Pekoske to take a look at the GAO report. You may have
    seen it already. Take a look at it and try to make sure that
    the needed training in acquisition reforms continue in order to
    ensure the continued security of our aviation system. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Duke. Absolutely. We are both committed to that.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
        And, now just one question on the revised travel ban for
    each of our witnesses. I think it was just last Sunday
    President Trump issued yet another Executive Order (EO)
    limiting travel from, I think, eight countries. This new travel
    ban is indefinite in length. The nationals from these countries
    will not be able to travel to the United States until such a
    time as the President sees fit to remove them from the list.
    None of the countries listed in the original travel ban or the
    new one have been associated with deadly terrorist attacks in
    the United States Some of them are currently suffering from
    humanitarian crises. And, in addition to imposing a new travel
    ban, it has been reported that President Trump intends to cut
    refugee admissions to some of the lowest levels in history.
    And, I have to think that some of these actions--the ban, the
    cut in refugee admissions--may have an adverse impact on our
    national security.
        So, I would just ask you, Ms. Duke, if I could, could you
    share with us any analyses that the Department has conducted to
    determine the cost and benefit of imposing a new ban? That
    would be my question of you. Can you share with us any analyses
    that the Department has conducted to determine the cost and
    benefit of imposing a new ban? And, to Mr. Wray, and to Nick,
    in terms of priority, would this travel ban be in your top,
    say, I do not know, five action items to take to prevent terror
    attacks on the homeland?
        First, Ms. Duke. Thank you.
        Ms. Duke. What we need is we need better identity
    management, better vetting of persons, and that is what this
    review was. We did a very thorough review of all the countries.
    We have not done a cost analysis because I do not think you
    could put a cost on letting a terrorist into the country.
    However, we have structured it, as you saw in the proclamation,
    that as soon as a country gives us the information, starts
    doing the information sharing under the three criteria, we do
    not want people to be on a travel restriction. It is not in the
    best interest. And so, we are hoping that this will give
    incentives for them to work with us.
        Additionally, I want to point out that refugees are not
    subject to the ban of any country.
        Senator Carper. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Wray, Nick, the second question. In terms of priority,
    would this travel ban be, say, in your top five action items to
    take to prevent terror attacks on our homeland?
        Mr. Wray. Senator, I do not know that I have my priorities
    in that space into the list, but I would say that getting
    sufficient information from foreign countries to allow us to
    prioritize targets of interest is a very high priority for us
    because, as you probably know, the name of the game in this
    space is trying to make very difficult judgment calls under
    sometimes very tight time constraints about which subject is
    the highest-priority investigation, and we cannot do that
    without sufficient information from the countries of origin.
        Senator Carper. Nick.
        Mr. Rasmussen. The only thing I would add is, again, I do
    not know that I have a prioritization schema in mind that would
    rank our particular activities. As I said in response to one of
    the other Senators' questions earlier, our particular piece of
    this is to provide the best possible intelligence input into
    what is, as Director Wray said, a very complex decision and to
    make sure that we can do that in a repeatable, in a consistent,
    in a predictable way so that the State Department and
    Department of Homeland Security who end up owning these
    responsibilities can count on the best possible input from the
    intelligence community.
        We are going to forever be limited by the amount of
    information we have available to us, and so we are going to be
    in a constant effort to try to increase the pile of information
    that we are relying on to provide that input.
        Senator Carper. All right. And, I would just say in
    conclusion, thank you for your responses, but it seems peculiar
    to me--interesting, at least--that countries that have never
    apparently posed a threat to us in terms of a threat on the
    homeland, we are going to say, ``For whatever purpose you
    cannot come here. We are not going to allow you to travel to
    our Nation for school or for other reasons.'' And yet, there
    are other countries that have posed a real danger, and still
    do, and they are free to come and go. It just seems peculiar.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris.
        Senator Harris. Secretary Duke, actually I asked one of my
    team members to just go quickly to the U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services website to make sure it was still there,
    and it is, on page 6 of 27 of the frequently asked question
    (FAQs)--``Will the information I share''--this is the DACA
    applicant. ``Will the information I share in my request for
    consideration of DACA be used for immigration enforcement
    purposes?'' And, they are told in the answer in this document,
    ``Individuals whose cases are deferred pursuant to DACA will
    not be referred to ICE.''
        I also have a two-page letter signed by Jeh Johnson on
    December 30, 2016, where he indicated, ``Since DACA was
    announced in 2012, DHS has consistently made clear that the
    information provided by applicants would be safeguarded from
    other immigration-related purposes.''
        So, I would ask you to familiarize yourself with these
    documents, because we are talking about 700,000 young people in
    this country right now who are in utter fear about their
    future, about their lives right now, their families are, their
    employers are, their friends are. And, you have a
    responsibility to be clear about what your agency is doing as
    it relates to keeping a promise to these young people and
    thinking about their situation right now and their future.
        I would also point out to you that I asked you 6 months ago
    during your confirmation hearing about this document, which was
    a memo, Homeland Security, indicating there were seven new
    priority enforcement areas, and the seventh, which reads, ``In
    the judgment of an immigration officer''--``They may have
    enforcement responsibilities if in their judgment that person
    poses a risk to public safety or national security.'' I asked
    you then what are the factors for consideration and how are you
    training your agents on how they should exercise that judgment,
    knowing that you have limited resources, and there are
    potentially a lot of people that could fall in that category.
    You indicated to me you would get back to me on how those
    agents are being trained, and you have not done that.
        On a separate matter, you have indicated on September 5th
    that DACA would be rescinded and that these individuals would
    have until October 5th to reapply; otherwise, they would fall
    out of status. And, my question to you is: Did your agency
    directly notify the DACA recipients that they will be eligible
    to renew their applicants? Did you notify them directly, or was
    it just through the press?
        Ms. Duke. No, we have not contacted each individual
    directly.
        Senator Harris. And, you have given them a month from the
    time that that word went out--one month only--to apply to renew
    their status, which requires them to submit many forms and fill
    out the information in those forms. It requires them by October
    5th to also provide a $495 application fee. Within 1 month it
    requires them to supply two passport photographs. Passport
    photographs cost between about $15 and $20. The last time I
    looked, Federal minimum wage is about $7.25 an hour. So, my
    question to you is: Given the responsibilities that they are
    required to meet to apply before October 5th, given also--and
    we have talked about it in this hearing--the impact of
    Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, will you consider extending
    the deadline beyond October 5th for these kids to apply?
        Ms. Duke. I am just as passionate as you are about doing
    the right thing by people in America, and I commit to working
    with Congress to do the right thing. An unconstitutional
    program that only keeps them in 2-year limbo status is not the
    right answer for these----
        Senator Harris. So, are you willing to extend the deadline
    that you have already set given the circumstances of these
    natural disasters that have also occurred in the interim?
        Ms. Duke. We have not been notified by anyone that natural
    disasters have affected--I have looked into the process. There
    is a money issue, I agree with you there. But, the process
    itself is very simple. So, we will do what is right. It is an
    unconstitutional program, so that is constraining, and I hope
    that we can come up with a better solution through Congress.
        Senator Harris. Are 700,000 young people supposed to suffer
    because you did not figure out how to implement this program
    properly? Are 700,000 young people supposed to be terrified
    because they cannot come up with a lot of money within 1 month?
        Ms. Duke. It is not my position to come up with a statute.
    That would be Congress' responsibility.
        Senator Harris. Who came up with the decision that they
    would be given 1 month from September 5th to October 5th?
        Ms. Duke. That is something that we came up with to end the
    program in a compassionate manner.
        Senator Harris. I would ask you to consider extending that
    deadline.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Harris. I would just
    point out again that one of the reasons many of us asked
    President Obama not to use his Executive authority, what we
    believe is unconstitutional, is because it would create these
    types of issues. So, you know, certainly from my standpoint, I
    want to do everything I can to solve this problem in a very
    humane fashion. I am happy to work with you and any member on
    the other side of the aisle, together with my Republican
    colleagues, to fix this. We have 6 months to do it. Let us
    really work together in a bipartisan fashion to humanely----
        Senator Harris. I agree.
        Chairman Johnson [continuing]. Resolve this issue.
        Senator Harris. Let us pass the DREAM Act. I agree. A clean
    DREAM Act. I agree with you. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. That is not exactly the best way of doing
    it bipartisan. So, again, hopefully there will be some give and
    take here and we can actually do things to secure our border as
    well.
        With that, again, I want to thank all of our witnesses, not
    only for your testimony, written and oral, and the time you
    have taken, but literally just the commitment you have made to
    this Nation. It is a 24/7 job. Every last one of your positions
    here, it is an enormous responsibility. And, this Committee
    thanks you sincerely for doing that.
        With this, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days
    until October 12th at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements
    and questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]