[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,
[email protected].
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]