U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–903 PDF 2015

S. Hrg. 113–712 

CYBERSECURITY, TERRORISM, AND BEYOND: 

ADDRESSING EVOLVING THREATS TO THE 

HOMELAND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN. Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

HARLAN C. GEER, Senior Professional Staff Member 

STEPHEN R. VIN ̃ A, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM H.W. MCKENNA, Minority Investigative Counsel 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Minority Director of Homeland Security 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 18 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 20 

Senator Baldwin ............................................................................................... 22 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 25 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 28 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 35 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 37 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

Hon. Francis X. Taylor, Under Secretary, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Hon. Suzanne E. Spaulding, 

Under Secretary, National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security .......................................................................... 6 

Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Deputy Director, National Counterterrorism Center, 

Office of the Director of National Intelligence ................................................... 9 

Robert Anderson, Jr., Executive Assistant Director, Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice ..................................................................................................... 13 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Anderson, Robert Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Rasmussen, Nicholas J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Taylor, Hon. Francis X.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Joint prepared statement with Ms. Spaulding .............................................. 38 

APPENDIX 

Information submitted by Senator Baldwin .......................................................... 64 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. Taylor and Ms. Spaulding ........................................................................ 72 

Mr. Rasmussen ................................................................................................. 92 

(1) 

CYBERSECURITY, TERRORISM, AND BEYOND: 

ADDRESSING EVOLVING THREATS TO THE 

HOMELAND 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Baldwin, Coburn, McCain, Johnson, 

Portman, and Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. Good morning, everyone. Great to see you. 

Welcome, and we thank you for joining us and look forward to your 

testimonies. 

Almost every year, this Committee holds a hearing to review a 

multitude of threats to our homeland and examine how our government is working to counter those threats. We routinely hear from 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and we hear from the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) about how we can best keep Americans 

safe from those who would seek to carry out deadly attacks against 

our country and its people. We also hear about actors in cyberspace 

that want to drain our bank accounts, who want to shut down our 

financial systems, our electric grid, steal our individually identifiable information and our identities, as well as the Research and 

Development (R&D) that will enable American businesses and our 

military to remain pre-eminent in the world. 

Assessing these ever-changing, broad threats and making sure 

our government continues to hone its ability to stop them remains 

a top priority for this Committee, particularly as we approach another September 11, 2001 anniversary. This year, our hearing 

takes on an added significance as our Nation confronts a growing 

terrorist threat in Iraq and Syria. As we sit here today, our military is engaging in limited air strikes in Iraq in an effort to dislodge and repel that threat. Later this evening, President Obama 

will address our Nation. He is expected to share with us and the 

world the steps that he is recommending be taken in Iraq and in 

Syria to reverse the expansion of the Islamic State of Iraq and 
2 

Syria (ISIS) and to enable the people who live in those countries 

to reclaim their lives. 

Much of the world has been exposed to a steady stream of deeply 

disturbing images from those regions in recent weeks: brutal executions, human rights atrocities, repression of women, and a seemingly endless procession of masked militants defiantly waving the 

black flag of jihad in celebration of their brutality. 

Effectively addressing the threat from the newly proclaimed Islamic State will require a multifaceted strategy, and that strategy 

will need a military component and the development of a robust 

international coalition to execute it. Among the goals of that strategy is to ensure that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria does not 

establish a long-term safe haven from which it can launch attacks 

against either our allies or our homeland—much like we saw alQaeda do in the days before September 11, 2001. 

Today we will examine the steps that our Federal Government 

has already taken, along with the steps that we still need to take, 

to prevent this from happening. We will drill down on this threat 

and its impact on our homeland, both in this open hearing as well 

as in a classified briefing directly following. But that is not all we 

are going to do. In addition to examining the more conventional 

terrorist threats the instability in Iraq and Syria may pose, we will 

also closely examine another major threat that affects our homeland, and that is, daily cyber attacks. 

Every day nation states and their affiliates—criminals, terrorists, 

and hackers—launch cyber attacks against our government agencies, our businesses, and important parts of our daily lives such as 

utilities and financial networks. Some of these actors want to steal 

our sensitive information to sell it on the black market or to gain 

a competitive edge. Others are trying to make a political point. 

Some, however, would like to use a cyber attack to cause wide-scale 

economic damage or even physical harm. Many of them are good 

at it, and they are getting even better. We need to stay a step 

ahead of them. Today we will hear in the open portion of this hearing and also in the closed portion how we plan to do that, not unlike the steps we have taken to address terror threats in the wake 

of September 11, 2001. 

Congress clearly has a role to play here. Actually, several roles. 

One of them is an oversight role. It is one that we take very seriously. Another is a legislative role that involves developing legislation to help enable America to anticipate and repel the cyber attacks that we face on an almost daily, 24/7 basis today. In the last 

several months, this Committee has completed action and reported 

three separate cyber bills unanimously to the full Senate. One bill 

would significantly enhance the capabilities of the Department of 

Homeland Security’s cyber workforce. Another would better protect 

Federal agencies from cyber attack. And a third would codify the 

cyber center that the Department of Homeland Security uses to 

monitor and respond to attacks to strengthen its ability to do so. 

I am grateful to Dr. Coburn and his staff for working closely with 

us on each of those pieces of legislation. 

Yesterday in an op-ed in The Hill newspaper, Secretary Johnson 

recognized the bipartisan efforts of this Committee, and he talked 

about the critical need to pass cyber legislation this Congress. I 
3 

could not agree more. In closing, as we mark the anniversary of 

September 11, 2001 tomorrow, let us keep in mind one of the key 

lessons we learned since that fateful day some 13 years ago, and 

that is, the threat is always evolving. Not that long ago, crooks 

used to rob a bank to steal our money. Now they click a button on 

a distant computer and accomplish the same goal. Nation states 

and rival businesses used to employ corporate insiders or retirees 

to steal company secrets. Now they send a spear-phishing e-mail. 

And terrorists used to be a distant threat in the mountains in 

places like Afghanistan or Pakistan. Now an increasing number of 

them are homegrown. They may be using European, or even, American passports. 

So as the threat becomes more sophisticated, more elusive, and 

more diffuse, we need to remain ever vigilant to ensure that our 

government is nimble enough to keep up with tomorrow’s threats 

as they confront us. We have come a long way since September 11, 

2001. In many respects, we are more secure than we were on this 

day 13 years ago. But the world in which we live remains a dangerous place. There is always more work to do. When it comes to 

securing our homeland and anticipating the next threat, we owe it 

to the American people to strive for perfection. 

What does it say in the Preamble of the Constitution? ‘‘In order 

to form a more perfect union.’’ It was not the idea to form a perfect 

union, but to form a more perfect union. And our intent here is to 

try to approach perfection, even if we never achieve it, but get as 

close as we can in this regard. The consequences of failure are simply too high, and the costs are too severe. 

I am pleased that we have with us today a panel of witnesses 

who work together every day to tackle the terrorist and cyber 

threats that we face. We are grateful to each of you for what you 

do with your life and for your service to our country. 

Now I turn to my partner in all this, Dr. Coburn, for any remarks that he might wish to make. Dr. Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I concur with 

a lot of what you said. I want to thank each of our witnesses today 

for their testimony—one, for what you do; two, for your vigilance; 

and three, for the criticism you take that is actually not informed 

criticism. 

The Department of Homeland Security particularly had lots of 

problems. I am so thankful Jeh Johnson is there. General, I am 

thankful you are there, and, Suzanne, I am thankful for you there, 

plus the others that we put through the Committee. 

We have a long way to go. Where I would disagree with Senator 

Carper is I do not think we are any safer today. I think the threat 

to our country is just as great as it was pre-9/11 based on what is 

happening in the world; the absolute lack of control of our border, 

especially our Southern border, and the inability and the corruption on both sides in terms of law enforcement on the border. So 

I think we have a long way to go, but I know we have dedicated 

leadership now in all the areas that are concentrating on the same 

goal. 
4 

I think it is a shame that the leader of the Senate will not put 

a cybersecurity bill on the floor, one that creates true information 

sharing. Let the Senate debate it so we can actually start to really 

protect the cyber aspect of our government. And that requires all 

of us to work together in the cyber realm to ensure that we are not 

vulnerable. We are vulnerable today. We have seen both in Homeland Security and in the private sector significant breaches. Most 

of them are on nation state actors, China and Russia specifically. 

We should not fall back from talking about what they are doing 

and why they are trying to both steal our intellect and damage our 

economy. 

These are real issues. This is an important hearing for the American people to hear, in as much detail as possible, what is going 

on and where we need to improve. 

So, again, I would thank you all for your efforts, the FBI and 

NCTC, and valuable contributions. And having the privilege of sitting on both Intel and Homeland Security, I get to see as well as 

anybody what everybody is doing, and everybody is working in the 

right direction except the U.S. Senate. And my hope would be that 

we would start helping you rather than hurting you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CARPER. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Oklahoma. We need to move not just 

the three cyber bills that have been reported out of this Committee, 

I think unanimously, but also some version of the informationsharing bill. I think we can improve the bill that came out of the 

Intel Committee, and my hope is that we will and we will have a 

chance to do all four of them, at least those four, this year. That 

is my goal. If we can do more, God bless us. 

On behalf of all the Members of our Committee, thank you for 

joining us today. 

Our first witness is retired Brigadier General Francis Taylor. Mr. 

Taylor is the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis in the 

Department of Homeland Security. How long have you been in that 

job now, General? 

General TAYLOR. Four months, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. Four months, good. In this role he provides 

the Secretary, DHS leadership, DHS components, and State, local, 

tribal, and private sector partners with the homeland security intelligence and information they need to keep our country safe, secure, and resilient. General Taylor came to DHS with 31 years of 

service in the U.S. Air Force, 4 years in the State Department as 

Counterterrorism Coordinator and as the Assistant Secretary for 

Diplomatic Security, and 8 years as vice president at General Electric. 

The second witness is Suzanne Spaulding, the Under Secretary 

for National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) at the 

Department of Homeland Security. As Under Secretary, one of her 

responsibilities is coordinating and overseeing policy and operation 

for the Department’s infrastructure protection activities, including 

cybersecurity. Ms. Spaulding has spent more than 25 years working on national security issues in Congress, in the Executive 

Branch, and in the private sector. This includes extensive experience working with many critical infrastructure sectors. Welcome. 
5 

Our next witness is Nick Rasmussen, Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Mr. Rasmussen has also served on the National 

Security Council where he was responsible for providing staff support to the President, the National Security Adviser, and the 

Homeland Security Adviser on counterterrorism policy and strategy. Prior to this he served in a variety of key positions for the Department of State where he provided support for the Arab-Israeli 

peace process, the U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework, and Persian Gulf security issues. Nick, welcome this morning. 

And our final witness is Robert Anderson, Executive Assistant 

Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch of 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In this position Mr. Anderson 

oversees all FBI criminal and cyber investigations worldwide, international operations, critical incident response, and victim assistance. During the 20 years that he has worked at the FBI, Mr. Anderson has served in the Hostage Rescue Team, Counterintelligence Division, and the Intelligence Division as well. 

What did you do before you were part of the FBI? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Sir, I was a Delaware State trooper for almost 

9 years. 

Chairman CARPER. No kidding. Were you any good? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I hope so. 

Chairman CARPER. Were you ever Trooper of the Year? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir, I was, in 1989. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. That is pretty good. We remember you 

fondly. 

Senator COBURN. Did you ever escort the former Governor of 

Delaware? 

Chairman CARPER. He pulled me over. [Laughter.] 

He pulled me over a time or two. And as I recall, one other time 

fired a warning shot. [Laughter.] 

No damage was done. Great to see you, and thanks for what you 

did for us back in Delaware and what you are doing for your country now. 

Thank you all for your service. Your entire testimonies will be 

made part of the record, and we would ask you to try to give your 

testimony in about 5 minutes. If you go way over that, we will pull 

you in. 

All right. General Taylor, feel like leading us off? 
6 

1The joint prepared statement of Mr. Taylor and Ms. Spaulding appears in the Appendix on 

page 38. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. FRANCIS X. TAYLOR,1 UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND HON. SUZANNE E. 

SPAULDING, UNDER SECRETARY, NATIONAL PROTECTION 

AND PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

General TAYLOR. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking 

Member Coburn, distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

threats to the homeland and the current threat environment. I am 

mindful that tomorrow is September 11, and I vividly remember 

where I was on that day 13 years ago, sitting at the State Department as the coordinator for counterterrorism. 

What has changed since 2001? Are we any safer now? These are 

questions that have been repeated countless times since that tragic 

day, and rightfully so. I come before the Committee today to outline the lessons we have learned since September 11, 2001, and 

how we are now postured to address evolving threats in ways that 

we were not on September 10, 2001. 

The lesson we have learned from September 11, 2001 is the need 

to develop an agile homeland security enterprise that constantly 

collaborates and shares information and intelligence, to identify 

threats and risks, and to adjust operations as necessary to address 

the range of challenges the Nation faces. 

The partners within the homeland security enterprise, whether 

they are first responders at the local level of decisionmakers in capital cities across America or here in our Nation’s capital, require 

predictive intelligence and analytical products that help them to 

make informed decisions to protect our citizens. 

The cornerstone of our mission at DHS has always been, and remains, protecting the Nation against terrorist attacks. In fact, Secretary Johnson just yesterday reiterated that counterterrorism is 

our most important mission at DHS. We are vigilant in detecting 

and preventing terrorist threats that may seek to penetrate the 

homeland from land, sea, or air. I will first address the current terrorist environment and then discuss threats to our efforts as they 

relate to each of the Secretary’s four priorities. And, Mr. Chairman, 

mindful of the time limit, I will submit other remarks for the 

record and summarize just a couple of things. 

First, on terrorism, Core al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and their affiliates remain a major concern for the 

Department of Homeland Security. Despite senior leadership 

deaths, the groups maintain the intent and capability to conduct 

attacks against U.S. citizens and facilities, and have demonstrated 

the ability to adjust their tactics, techniques, and procedures for 

targeting the West in innovative ways. 

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a terrorist 

group operating as if it were a military organization, and their experience and successes on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq have 

armed them with capabilities most terrorist groups do not possess. 

At present, DHS is unaware of any specific, credible threat to the 
7 

U.S. homeland from ISIL. However, we recognize that ISIL constitutes an active and serious threat within the region and could 

attempt attacks on U.S. targets overseas with little or no warning. 

ISIL exhibits a very sophisticated propaganda capability, disseminating high-quality media content on multiple online platforms, including social media, to enhance its appeal. Media accounts of the conflict, and the propaganda in particular, play a role 

in inspiring U.S. citizens to travel to Syria. We are aware that a 

number of persons—more than 100—have either made their way or 

tried to make their way to Syria over the past few years to join the 

international foreign fighters. 

I will conclude that AQAP has attempted three times to attack 

the U.S. homeland. The airliner plot of December 2009, an attempt 

against the U.S.-bound cargo planes in October 2010, and an airline plot in May 2012 demonstrate their efforts to adapt to aviation 

security procedures and underscore why aviation security is a priority area outlined by Secretary Johnson. 

In response to these recent threats, generally from overseas, over 

the past few months, DHS has taken steps to enhance aviation security at overseas airports with direct flights to the United States. 

And other nations have followed suit with similar enhancements. 

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks, and if you would, 

allow me to submit the rest of them for the record. 

Chairman CARPER. Without objection, your entire statement will 

be made part of the record. Thank you, General. 

Ms. Spaulding, great to see you. Please proceed. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member 

Coburn, distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

this opportunity to be here today. I am particularly pleased to be 

here today with my colleague, Under Secretary Taylor, and with 

our partners from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Counterterrorism Center. 

Under Secretary Taylor spoke with you about a range of threats 

that the Department is focused on, and I am going to amplify a bit 

with regard to the threat to cybersecurity and to discuss the actions that we are taking with our critical infrastructure partners 

to understand and address these threats, both physical and cyber, 

through information sharing and capability building. 

First, however, I also want to note, as we approach this 13th anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, three efforts that 

we have underway to heighten public vigilance and public awareness. This month, September, is National Preparedness Month. October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month in which we 

focus on enhancing the resilience of this Nation against cyber 

threats. And November is Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Month. All three of these are key mission areas for the Department, and all require daily collaboration with our stakeholders 

in the private sector and government at all levels. 

Growing cyber threats are an increasing risk to critical infrastructure, to our economy, and to our national security. DHS uses 

cybersecurity information to reduce risk, to detect and block cyber 

attacks on Federal civilian agencies, to help critical infrastructure 

entities improve their own protection, and also to use the information that we develop collaboratively to protect their customers; and 
8 

we maintain a trusted environment for the private sector partners 

to collaborate on cybersecurity threats and trends. This trust is 

based in large part on our commitment to privacy, civil rights, and 

civil liberties across all information-sharing programs, with a particular emphasis on safeguarding personally identifiable information. 

So far this year, DHS’ 24x7 cyber operations center, the National 

Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), 

has processed over 600,000 cyber incidents, issues more than 

10,000 actionable alerts, detected more than 55,000 vulnerabilities, 

and dispatched over 78 incident response teams for onsite technical 

assistance. 

Let me tell you about one recent success. Within the last few 

weeks, the United States Secret Service shared information on 

some malware with our Cybersecurity Ops Center for analysis. The 

results of that analysis formed the basis for an actionable alert 

that was distributed widely to our critical infrastructure owners 

and operators and led U.S. businesses to check their systems for 

this malware and identify and stop ongoing cyber intrusions, thereby protecting their customers’ data. 

While both the cybersecurity threat and the Nation’s dependence 

on cyber infrastructure has grown exponentially, the legal framework, particularly regarding the articulation of the Department’s 

authorities, has not kept pace. As the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member have noted, legislative action is vital. 

Both the House and the Senate have made real progress on 

cybersecurity legislation. I would like to personally thank this 

Committee for all of its hard work that has ensured progress on 

this front on a bipartisan basis. 

But we are not over the finish line yet. As Secretary Johnson 

wrote today, there are areas of legislation with strong consensus: 

codifying the cybersecurity responsibilities of the Department of 

Homeland Security, making it easier for DHS and the private sector to work together to mitigate cyber-related vulnerabilities, and 

enhancing the Department’s ability to recruit and retain that essential cybersecurity workforce. These authorities are vital to ensuring that the Department has the tools it needs to carry out its 

mission on behalf of the Nation. 

While deliberations continue on other elements of cybersecurity 

legislation, we should not wait to pass bipartisan and broadly supported bills. You have come so far, and the threat is so great. I 

urge Congress to pass what it can now, even as we continue to 

work hard on remaining provisions. 

Let me close by emphasizing that DHS’ mission to strengthen the 

security and resilience of critical infrastructure requires us to focus 

on physical risks to that infrastructure as well as cyber risks. Because the majority of the Nation’s critical infrastructure is owned 

and operated by the private sector, DHS works with those partners, primarily on a voluntary basis, to understand the range of 

threats and hazards, share information, and promote training and 

other capability building. 

DHS and the Department of Energy, along with other interagency partners, for example, provide classified and unclassified 

threat briefings—we do this on a regular basis—to energy Chief 
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Rasmussen appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

Executive Officers (CEOs) and industry executives on physical and 

cyber threats. 

In the wake of the terrorist attack on the shopping mall in 

Nairobi, Kenya, DHS and the FBI engaged more than 400 major 

malls across the United States to facilitate tabletop exercises based 

on a similar attack involving active shooters and the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Working collaboratively with our 

partners in the private sector, we are advancing our core mission 

of strengthening the security and resilience of our Nation’s critical 

infrastructure against cyber and physical threats. 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, thank you for this 

opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to taking your 

questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Suzanne. 

We look forward to asking a few of them, too. 

Mr. Rasmussen, welcome aboard. Please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS J. RASMUSSEN,1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER, OFFICE OF 

THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Thank you, Chairman Carper, thank you, Ranking Member Coburn, and the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify here today. 

NCTC Director Matt Olsen and I do not often testify in open 

hearings, and so today is an important opportunity, we believe, to 

share our understanding of what we see as an evolving, dynamic 

terrorist threat, and to share that understanding with the Committee and with the American public. Indeed, earlier in the summer, the 9/11 Commissioners challenged national security leaders 

to communicate more regularly with the American public about the 

threat, and we hope to do just that. 

As I begin this morning, I would like to frame this evolving 

threat in broad terms that are generally applicable across the 

broad sweep of groups, of individual groups and terrorist networks. 

The threat from terrorist groups that we see today is geographically diffuse, from a diverse array of actors, and it is proving over 

time to be both resilient and adaptive to the counterterrorism pressure we are putting on it. 

The global jihadist movement continues to increasingly decentralize itself, both in terms of geography and in terms of command 

and control. Geographically speaking, it is no longer generally confined to the Afghanistan-Pakistan-South Asia region. It now covers 

a broad swath of territory from the Indian subcontinent, across the 

whole entire Middle East and the Levant, and throughout northern 

Africa and western Africa as well. 

Of greatest concern are the terrorist groups such as ISIL that 

have taken a foothold in areas where governance is lax, where governments are unable to govern, and where lax security has allowed 

groups to coalesce, train, and plot. 

In terms of command and control, we also see a trend of decentralization, with the emir of an al-Qaeda affiliate, AQAP, now serving as the general deputy to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. 
10 

Additionally, that al-Qaeda Core is increasingly encouraging 

groups and individuals to act independently in support of the global movement, with no longer holding an expectation that regional 

affiliates will discuss or clear their operational plans with al-Qaeda 

senior leadership prior to execution. And this evolution is the result 

of an adaptive enemy. 

Our counterterrorism operations continue to degrade al-Qaeda’s 

core ability to lead the global terrorist movement and to plan sophisticated attacks from its place in the Fatah. But as a result of 

leaks and disclosures, including those attributable to Edward 

Snowden, terrorists now understand the scope and scale of Western 

collection capabilities, and they are changing the way they communicate. They are adopting encryption technologies. They are shifting accounts or avoiding altogether the use of electronic communications, all of which frustrate our counterterrorism efforts. In 

short, we cannot connect the dots if we cannot collect the dots that 

matter the most, and our collection is challenged in this new environment. 

In the remaining time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus on 

three specific areas: the threat from ISIL, the threat of AQAP, and 

the threat we face from homegrown violent extremists (HVE). 

Starting with ISIL, the greatest threat from ISIL to the United 

States and its interests is inside Iraq right now, which, combined 

with Syria, constitutes ISIL’s power center. As we move further 

from that base of strength, ISIL’s ability at present to develop and 

execute significant, large-scale, sophisticated attacks diminishes. 

This is not to say it does not pose a threat outside the region. It 

certainly does. Indeed, the arrest in France of an individual and 

the subsequent discovery of explosive devices in his possession, as 

well as the killing of four individuals as a Jewish museum in Belgium provide clear evidence and indication of ISIL’s ambition to operate outside the Middle East. Both of the responsible individuals, 

apprehended in Europe, who are in custody, reportedly fought 

alongside ISIL elements in the Middle East. 

However, these examples also demonstrate that right now ISIL’s 

ability to carry out complex, large-scale attacks in the West is currently limited. Left unchecked, however, that capability is likely to 

grow and present a much more direct threat to the homeland. 

And with over 2,000 Westerners now believed to be fighting in 

Syria and Iraq, we assess that the threat to Europe is perhaps 

even more immediate. But, nevertheless, the United States is not 

immune, as both the Chairman and the Ranking Member noted. 

Over 100 persons from a variety of backgrounds and from all 

across the country have traveled or attempted to travel or somehow 

indicated intent to travel to the region, including some who have 

looked to engage with ISIL. Most of these individuals are known 

or believed to have Western travel documentation that would ease 

their re-entry into the United States or into other countries, which 

is why identifying them is a top priority for the United States and 

our partners. 

That is why it is so important that the international community 

challenge ISIL’s regional ambitions now, degrade their capabilities, 

and over time work together to defeat and destroy ISIL. Left unchecked, ISIL poses an increasing threat to all governments it con-
11 

siders apostate, not just to the United States or European nations, 

but also Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African nations as well. 

Let me quickly turn to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. We 

continue to assess that AQAP remains the al-Qaeda affiliate most 

likely to attempt transnational attacks against the United States. 

The group’s repeated efforts to conceal explosive devices to destroy 

aircraft demonstrate its continued pursuit of high-profile attacks 

against the West, its increasing awareness of Western security procedures, and their efforts to adapt to those procedures that we 

adopt. 

The group also continues to present a high threat to U.S. personnel and facilities inside Yemen and Saudi Arabia, and at any 

one time we are tracking several plots to our interests inside 

Yemen and inside the Arabian Peninsula hatched by al-Qaeda in 

the Arabian Peninsula. 

The group also continues, as the Committee well knows, its efforts to radicalize and mobilize individuals outside Yemen through 

the use of Inspire Magazine, their English language publication. 

The most recent issue, its 12th issue of Inspire, was released back 

in March, and it continued to encourage lone wolf or lone offender 

attacks on the West, citing specific targets in the United States, 

the U.K., and France. 

Let me also say a few quick words about homegrown violent extremists. The boundless online virtual environment we see today 

combined with terrorists’ increasingly sophisticated use of social 

media makes it increasingly difficult for us to protect our youth 

from messaging that is designed to radicalize and motivate to action homegrown violent extremists. We at NCTC are working very 

closely with our partners at DHS, at FBI, and the Department of 

Justice to inform and equip families, communities, local governments, and local institutions, all of whom provide the best offense 

and have the greatest ability to counter the narrative of violent extremism in their communities. 

Despite our efforts, however, HVEs remain the most likely immediate threat to the homeland, individual action by individual HVEs. 

We expect the overall level of HVE activity to remain about the 

same as what we have seen in recent years over the course of the 

next year, and by that I mean we would expect to see a handful 

of uncoordinated and mostly unsophisticated plots emanating from 

a pool of HVEs that amounts up to a few hundred individuals. 

Last year’s Boston bombing certainly underscored the threat 

from HVEs who were motivated, often with little or no warning, to 

act violently by themselves or in small groups. And as we have discussed with this Committee, these lone actors who act autonomously are the most difficult to detect or disrupt. 

Mr. Chairman, during your April 30 hearing, you noted that 

identifying and deterring terrorist plots by lone wolves was extremely challenging to the counterterrorism and homeland security 

community, and I think everybody here would agree with that assessment. 

Last, let me take one moment to talk about just one of our efforts 

at NCTC to counter the array of threats I have just outlined, and 

that is through identifying it more precisely, by putting a face and 

a name to that threat whenever possible. As you know, under the 
12 

law, NCTC is charged with maintaining the United States Government’s central and shared knowledge bank of known and suspected 

terrorists as well as their contacts and their support networks. 

NCTC’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), is 

our database of known and suspected international terrorists, and 

it helps us ensure that all relevant information collected by the 

government about identified individuals, including individuals who 

we have identified as Syrian foreign fighters. All that information 

is shared with appropriate intelligence, law enforcement, and 

screening agencies. We are absolutely relentless in the efforts to 

ensure that the data in TIDE is as accurate as possible, that it is 

entered accurately, and that our records are as comprehensive as 

they can possibly be. And we are mindful of privacy and civil liberties concerns, particularly with respect to U.S. persons. 

In the case of U.S. persons, any nomination to TIDE goes 

through at least four layers of review, including a legal level of review, to ensure that the underlying derogatory information is sufficient and meets established legal standards. 

Our management at NCTC of this unique consolidation of terrorist identities has created a valuable forum for identifying and 

sharing information with our partners in the community, and it 

has better integrated our collective efforts to identify, enhance, and 

expedite the nomination of individuals we assess to be Syrian foreign fighters and get their names and their identities into the 

screening system. And this work greatly increases the chances that 

we will be able to disrupt potential terrorist activity by individuals 

as they seek to return from Syria. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we 

face an evolving, decentralized threat from a diffuse set of actors 

who are adapting constantly to our countermeasures. That is why 

NCTC and our partners within the intelligence community (IC) 

must ourselves continue to adapt to this threat, operating within 

the bounds of our existing authorities and resources. We certainly 

appreciate the Committee’s continued strong support in these efforts, and I would encourage Senators to visit NCTC to see firsthand the breadth of the work we are doing with our counterterrorism partners. 

Mr. Chairman, we had the honor of hosting you and several of 

the Committee staff in recent weeks out at NCTC to talk in great 

detail about some of those threats, and it was very gratifying to see 

your interest in the work we are doing, along with the FBI and 

DHS. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. And can I mention that Dr. 

Coburn and I not only enjoyed being with you and having a chance 

to personally meet many of the folks who work there, but to thank 

them for their service. It was informative for me and, frankly, quite 

encouraging. So thanks for that. 

Mr. Anderson, it is great to see you. Welcome. Please proceed. 
13 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ANDERSON, JR.,1 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL, CYBER, RESPONSE, AND SERVICES BRANCH, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dr. 

Coburn, and Members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to be here today to talk to you about the cyber and terrorism 

threats to our Nation and how we are working together with our 

partners to prevent and combat them. 

In my role as the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI, as the 

Chairman said, I manage multiple divisions within the FBI, but 

the two I am going to concentrate on the most today is the criminal 

and the cyber program. 

As the Committee knows, the number of sophisticated cyber attacks against our Nation’s network have increased dramatically 

over the recent years. We truly expect them to continue to climb 

and grow. I could break down the threats to our country in four 

broad categories from cyber: spies, transnational organized criminals, terrorists, and hactivist groups. 

The bottom line is we are losing a lot of data, money, ideas, and 

innovation to a wide range of cyber adversaries. FBI Director 

Comey has recognized this, and the severity of the threat has made 

cyber one of the No. 1 top priorities in the FBI. Under his leadership, the FBI is continuing to strengthen our cyber capabilities in 

the same way we enhanced our intelligence and national security 

capabilities in the wake of September 11, 2001. 

Today’s FBI is a national security and law enforcement organization that uses intelligence to prevent and respond to all types of 

threats. We constantly seek to understand the threats we face in 

each of our offices, both here and abroad, what is out there, what 

we see, and what we might be missing. 

We know that to effectively combat the cyber threat, we must 

continue to expand our partnerships both in government and in the 

private sector. In fact, we expect Director Comey and DHS Secretary Johnson will soon sign a new cyber unified message for 

State and local law enforcement. This message makes clear that 

Federal agencies are working together to ensure that a call to one 

is a call to all when law enforcement partners report information 

on a cyber attack or incident. 

Also, for our law enforcement partners, we launched the Cyber 

Shield Alliance, an online, one-stop shop to provide cyber training 

as well as the ability to report cyber incidents to the FBI. 

Earlier this month, we deployed a malware repository and analysis system known as Malware Investigator. It allows our intelligence and law enforcement partners to submit malware directly 

to the FBI, and we share with our partners for triage and analysis 

of what is going on in cyber. 

We are also significantly enhancing our collaboration with the 

private sector. In the past, industry has provided us information 

about attacks. We have investigated them, but we really did not 

share or provide that information back. Now we are. 
14 

As part of our enhanced outreach, we have provided nearly 40 

classified sector-specific threat briefings to private companies over 

the past year alone. Over the past several months, the FBI and the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), along with many partners both at 

this table and abroad, have announced a series of indictments of 

cyber criminals. Just to name a few: Encore Performance, which 

was obviously the indictment of the five People’s Liberation Army 

(PLA) Chinese hackers; Blackshades, a remote access computer 

software that could steal and infect hundreds of thousands of computers around the world. We are calling these indictments ‘‘the new 

normal’’ because we expect them to continue on a regular basis. 

While the cyber threat is one of the FBI’s highest priorities, combating terrorism continues to be the No. 1 priority in the FBI. As 

conflict zones continue to emerge throughout many parts of our 

world, we expect terrorist groups to use this instability to recruit 

and incite acts of violence. 

Syria remains a major concern as the ongoing conflict shows no 

sign of subsiding. Due to the prolonged nature and the high visibility of the Syrian conflict, we are concerned that U.S. persons 

with an interest in committing jihad will be drawn to that region 

of the world. We can address these issues much more fulsomely in 

the closed session that follows this session, and we look forward to 

doing that. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, to counter the threats we face, we 

are engaging in an unprecedented level of collaboration within the 

U.S. Government and with our private sectors around the world 

and with the international law enforcement organizations that we 

each at this table talk to every day. We look forward to continuing 

to expand these partnerships and to work with the Committee to 

defeat our cyber and terrorist adversaries. 

Thank you again very much for the opportunity to be here today. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you or the Committee 

may have. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Anderson, thanks so much. Great to see 

you. Thanks so much for joining us today. 

The first question from me would be for perhaps Mr. Rasmussen 

or General Taylor. One of the recurring themes in my life is find 

out what works and do more of that. And I just want to play off 

of that for a moment. 

Go back about 7 years ago, Iraq, Sunni Awakening, and the predecessor to ISIS was rolling along pretty well, and then not so much. 

And under the enlightened leadership of General Petraeus, I think 

the good work done by the fellow who has just become the new 

Prime Minister of Iraq, working with the Sunni tribal leaders, alQaeda in Iraq, the progress just stopped and was greatly diminished, pushed back. 

What can we gain from that lesson? Is there anything there that 

can inform what we do today? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Mr. Chairman, one of the things we have tried 

to do as we have tried to think about the problem and the threat 

posed by ISIL is to think of potential vulnerabilities that the group 

has and to think of ways in which the progress that they have 

made can be addressed. And you point to some of the lessons that 

we may be able to learn from previous efforts against al-Qaeda in 
15 

Iraq, and there I think we did learn that the group very much 

struggled to gain legitimacy across the broader population of Iraq 

when that population in Iraq saw in Baghdad a representative government that was responsive to their needs. And so the ongoing 

transition in Baghdad that you are seeing right now that you just 

alluded to I think is an important step in potentially giving the 

Sunni population in Iraq a signal that they do not have to turn or 

align or ally with ISIL in order to have their issues addressed, to 

feel that they are represented, that their interests are protected inside Iraq. 

So that is an important lesson learned. I think it is one where 

we have seen progress in the last few weeks. But only over time 

will we see if that kind of political transition actually has that effect that we are looking to see. I do not know that we can say yet 

how quickly that will happen, but it is something that I think was 

a necessary precondition to any strategy against ISIL. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks very much. 

General Taylor and maybe for you, Nick, one or both of you mentioned that the ability for ISIS to mount an effective attack against 

our homeland is limited, but it is not time for us to sit back and 

just assume it is not going to come, but for us to prepare and be 

ready for it. What are some ways that we can do, are doing, or 

should be doing to prepare for that eventuality and be better prepared for what should come? That would be for both of you. General Taylor, why don’t you lead it off, and then we will give Nick 

some time as well, please. 

General TAYLOR. Certainly, sir. As I mentioned, we assessed the 

threat from ISIL primarily to be in the region. Nonetheless, with 

the number of Europeans and Americans that have gone to fight 

in Syria, that threat can manifest itself back either in Europe or 

in the United States. I think we have begun with the aviation security changes that we have made since July to make it more difficult 

for people to try to get explosives onto aircraft, to bring those aircraft down that could be traveling to the United States. We have 

increased our intelligence cooperation with our partners across the 

world in attempting to identify people who have gone to serve or 

to fight in Syria, because intelligence is the one thing that helps 

us identify these individuals before they are able to act, and using 

our intelligence systems to learn who they are makes us much 

more effective in interdicting them. 

And, third, I think the focus on Countering violent extremists 

(CVE), homegrown violent extremist, getting our communities 

aware of the risks—— 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

General TAYLOR. As Nick mentioned, probably the most immediate threat comes from a homegrown violent extremist who listens 

to the propaganda, reads it, and decides that he or she is going to 

answer the call and take up arms here in the United States. And 

so community awareness, resilience around these issues with our 

law enforcement partners in the field so that they understand what 

those elements are and to look for them as they encounter folks in 

communities I think is a big step toward helping communities 

learn about this early so we can respond. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks. Nick. 
16 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. The only thing I would add, Mr. Chairman, are 

two things—one related to offense and one related to defense. I 

think if you are going to get ahead of ISIL’s effort to over time develop a homeland threat capability, we have to over time shrink 

the safe haven and attack the safe haven inside Iraq. And that is 

something I know the President and the Secretary of State have already spoken about in talking to our foreign partners overseas, because absent that, the ability to bring additional Western potential 

operatives into Iraq or Syria into that safe haven and potentially 

train, equip, and deploy them back out to Europe and the United 

States will remain a threat. 

The more defensive piece of business that I think we are engaged 

in right now already and I think we are making good progress on 

is just aggressive information sharing with all of our foreign partners who face a similar problem. This is an issue we have been engaged in with them for going on 18 months now, engaging with our 

European partners, many of whom face this problem even more 

acutely than we do in terms of their citizens having an easier route 

and certainly easier path to travel to Syria and Iraq. 

Unlike a lot of situations where it is difficult to talk with partners about information sharing about individuals, this is a case 

where we are actually getting very little pushback. They share the 

same sense of threat, and so the information that we are able to 

share about individuals who have traveled to Syria or Iraq can be 

used to potentially add to our watchlisting and screening systems 

and give us a significant leg up in our effort to disrupt travel when 

those individuals seek to leave Syria and Iraq. 

That is not a fail-safe. It is by no means the only pillar of a defensive effort, but it is an important pillar, and it is one that is not 

always very easy to get our partners to work with us on. But in 

that case, that sense of shared threat is so widely shared at all levels in the governments that we typically work with in Europe that 

it is making that level of interchange much more robust than it 

often is. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks very much. My time has expired. 

When we come back, either for a next round or maybe in our closed 

session, Ms. Spaulding and Mr. Anderson, I want to visit the issue 

of information sharing and the sequencing of Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act (FISA) reauthorization information sharing, either 

in the open session or the closed session. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Well, thank you. I hope the media that is here 

today actually listened to what you had to say, Nick, a very cogent, 

open assessment of where we are—not on the basis to scare people 

but on the basis to inform them of where we really are. I think the 

other thing that I would comment on is I am really happy to see 

the FBI being aggressive on deterrence because for so long we 

thought we could build a higher and higher wall that people cannot 

climb over. They are going to climb over every wall on cyber that 

we have. And we have to have both efforts. We have to have the 

wall, but we also have to have the prosecutorial deterrence that 

says you come at us, it is going to be painful. 

And so I am very thankful for that attitude coming from the FBI. 

I hope to see more and more and more, both domestically and 

internationally, because of the costs. 
17 

General Taylor, let me just ask you a couple of questions. Has 

Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) produced any intelligence product 

examining the vulnerabilities in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE’s) student exchange and visitors program, the visa 

program, and whether it poses a threat to national security? 

General TAYLOR. Yes, sir, we have. We have published several 

threat pieces to support the student visa program and the risk that 

comes from that particular program, working with ICE and with 

the Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

Senator COBURN. And are those public, or are those classified? 

General TAYLOR. I believe they are classified, Senator Coburn, 

but I will check and get back to you. 

Senator COBURN. I will ask more questions about them in the 

closed hearing. 

It is reported that millions of people are living here on visa 

overstays. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found 

that DHS is really struggling to track this population. We understand that. Has I&A prepared any assessment of the threat from 

the population of visa overstays? Do you have anything that you 

have done on that? 

General TAYLOR. We have, sir. We have helped ICE to prioritize 

its focus on the visa overstays from a threat perspective and certainly can share that with you in the closed session. 

Senator COBURN. All right. CBP has been very cooperative, by 

the way. When we review the documents, what we see today is approximately 700 miles of our Southern border that are not secure. 

That is looking at the documents that you all give us. Can you all 

prepare a current assessment of the coverage of the border and the 

threat to national security posed by adversaries that potentially 

might transcend that border? 

General TAYLOR. Sir, if I understand your question, you are asking can we—or have we? 

Senator COBURN. I am asking you can you, given the basis of 

where we stand? 

General TAYLOR. Absolutely, yes, sir. I would also add, sir, that 

the Secretary has directed a comprehensive Southern border security strategy which will have an intelligence annex to it that will 

address what you have just described, the risks to the border and 

how we can better focus our efforts at securing those gaps that we 

identify exist. 

Senator COBURN. Do you have a timeline on that? 

General TAYLOR. He just approved it, at least the concept, and 

we are beginning to put meat on the bones. I cannot give you an 

exact date, but I will certainly have the staff check and get back 

with you. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Anderson, does the FBI monitor cyber attacks against the 

Federal Government? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir, we work to not only monitor cyber attacks around the world with the Federal Government but also the 

private sector. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Can you tell me which departments, major 

departments of the Federal Government, that have not been 

hacked? 
18 

Mr. ANDERSON. I do not know if I could tell you that off the top 

of my head, sir. I would probably have to go back and look. I would 

say—and I think I agree with our current Director—that if they 

have not been hacked—I do not know if they have not been hacked 

or we have not realized that—— 

Senator COBURN. They have all been hacked, yes. If you could go 

back and give us a list of what your records show? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Sure. 

Senator COBURN. And you can do that either in the secured setting or in an open session, but I would like to see what you all see 

on that. I mentioned the deterrence. I am really pleased with that 

because I think you have to have both sides of the sword working. 

The rest of my questions, I think, Mr. Chairman, are for the classified setting, so I will wait and ask those of Nick and Suzanne and 

others in the classified session. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. And the order of joining us at the 

hearing: Senator Johnson, Senator McCain, Senator Baldwin, Senator Portman, and Senator Ayotte. Senator Johnson, you are recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to associate myself with Senator Coburn’s comments about the need for 

us to face this reality, the need for the American people to be informed. It is not about scaring people. It is about facing reality. 

General Taylor, we started the hearing asking, Are we safer? I 

want to break that question down to two parts, because I think 

there are two parts to it. One is: Do we have greater defensive capability to keep us safe? But, then, has the threat grown? 

I just want your assessment of both of those. What is your assessment over the last 13 years in terms of our defensive capabilities? And, by the way, what is hampering our efforts? And then 

really your assessment of the growing threat. 

General TAYLOR. Thank you, Senator. As I mentioned, I was 

State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism on September 

11, 2001, and was party to our efforts then and have watched the 

government change its approach to this. Indeed, I think our capacity to share information, to work together, is as good as it has ever 

been in the history of our country. We work every day with the 

FBI, with the NCTC, in gathering information and sharing data. 

So in that sense, I think our capacity is much more effective than 

it was 13 years ago. There is always room for improvement and 

change, but I think the leadership of the counterterrorism (CT) 

community of our government understands that if we do not cooperate, bad things will happen. 

I think the nature of the threat is—I think Nick probably characterized it best. On September 11, 2001, we were focused on alQaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Today al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda adherents, and other jihadists are essentially global. They are operating in North Africa. They are operating in the Middle East. They 

are operating in South Asia. So much more diverse. Nonetheless, 

they still see us as the enemy and, therefore, a threat to the United 

States and our operations around the world. 
19 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Rasmussen, I believe the threat is growing. I think it is more grave. You had mentioned the effect of Edward Snowden’s disclosures. Has that degraded our ability to protect ourselves? Has that degraded our intelligence-gathering capabilities? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I would argue yes. I can talk in greater detail 

in a closed session about some of the specific information or indicators we have seen that would lead me to that conclusion. But I 

think it is inarguable that the collection environment we are in— 

and we rely on collection to be able to try to get ahead of terrorist 

plots. It is inarguable that that collection environment is more 

challenging today than it was if we had not been dealing with 

these disclosures. 

Senator JOHNSON. In a Foreign Relations Committee hearing, we 

had Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk, and I 

asked him directly: What threat does ISIS directly pose to the 

United States? He talked about the 30 to 50 suicide bombers funneling into Iraq that week. We had an Australian and a German 

suicide bomber set themselves off, I believe in Baghdad. We have 

seen the first American suicide bomber. I am concerned, the talk 

coming out of this Administration that this may take 3 years. 

First, let me ask you: Do you believe ISIS is something that can 

be contained or managed versus destroyed? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I think of this in phases. I think in the near 

term, in the immediate term, you can take steps to degrade and 

disrupt their ability to carry out attacks. But to prevent yourself 

from having to deal with that in perpetuity, you have to go beyond 

that and look to destroy or defeat the organization, and that is 

what the Administration, the President, and the Secretary of State 

have talked about over a long period of time. That objective is not 

as easy to put a specific time horizon to. 

Senator JOHNSON. I understand, but I am concerned, kind of like 

having a hornet’s nest in your backyard. You identify the threat; 

you want to get rid of it as quickly as possible. You do not want 

to poke it with a stick for 3 years. So, again, what I want to see 

is a clearly articulated goal of destroying ISIS as quickly as possible so that we can then maintain our defenses against the other 

threats that are metastasizing around the world. Would you basically agree with that assessment? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I certainly share that goal. I think the talk 

about the phasing is just simply a recognition that in order to build 

the intelligence basis necessary to attack and pull apart an organization and defeat it takes time. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I understand. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. But while you are doing that, you try to put 

great pressure on the organization so that it cannot punch you in 

the process while you are going through that longer process. 

Senator JOHNSON. I think one thing we always have to guard 

against is always fighting the last war, only concentrating on past 

threats. To what extent is the intelligence community using our 

imagination in terms of looking at what other possibilities just 

might be out there? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. We certainly are devoting time and attention to 

that. Again, pressures of the day often lead you to focus on what 
20 

is the wolf closest to the door. And yet we also challenge our analysts and our intelligence community partners to look around the 

corner and see not only where the next groups might come from, 

where the next theaters of concern might be, but also what tactics 

and techniques and opportunities for innovation might exist in the 

terrorism community as well. That is harder and you are not often 

relying on much intelligence in that setting. You are often, as you 

say, using your imagination. But it is important work, and it helps 

us over time to target our collection to try to get ahead of those 

particular threats. 

Cyber is one of those areas where we have not seen terrorists 

necessarily develop great capability to date, but they certainly understand the economic impact that intervention in the cyber world 

causes. And so we assess that over time that is a capability terrorist groups—— 

Senator JOHNSON. I want to cover that and explore that in the 

secured briefing a little bit. 

Secretary Spaulding, you talked about critical infrastructure. 

You talked about what our physical and cyber threats are. I want 

to talk about something that I have been now briefed on, the threat 

of Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP), both in terms of a high-altitude 

nuclear blast, which is kind of what I always knew existed out 

there, and I guess kind of hoping that nobody has the capability 

or would not be stupid enough to do it, but now also aware of the 

fact that a massive solar flare also represents a real threat. That 

is something that you are certainly aware of. Is that something we 

are looking to harden our electrical grid against? 

Ms. SPAULDING. Absolutely, Senator, and thank you for the question. It is certainly something that we have been focused on and 

working with our colleagues in the electric sector to find ways to 

address. 

I was recently in the U.K. at an international conference, an energy infrastructure security summit, where EMPs were a clear 

focus of those discussions. This is something very much on our 

radar screen and that we are working with them to address. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. We will cover more of that. Just real 

quick, in terms of the—for Mr. Anderson, the attack at the Metcalf 

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) substation, do we have any further information you can share in open session in terms of have we 

tracked down the perpetrators, have we come up with theories in 

terms of what that was all about? 

Mr. ANDERSON. We are heavily engaged in that investigation, 

Senator, and it would be easier to describe to you everything that 

we are doing inside the closed session. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the 

witnesses. 

Mr. Taylor or Mr. Rasmussen, haven’t there been recent reports 

on Twitter and Facebook of messages that would urge infiltration 

into the United States across our Southwestern border? 
21 

General TAYLOR. Yes, sir, there have been Twitter social media 

exchanges among ISIL adherents across the globe speaking about 

that as a possibility. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would you view it as a threat? 

General TAYLOR. Certainly any infiltration across our border 

would be a threat, but in the course of our border security—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Are you satisfied that we have sufficient border 

security to prevent that? 

General TAYLOR. Sir, I am satisfied that we are trying to build 

a border security capability that would address that—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Are you satisfied that we now have the capability to prevent that? 

General TAYLOR. I am satisfied that we have the intelligence and 

the capability at our border that would prevent that activity. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, it is interesting, because an American reporter named James O’Keefe dressed as Osama bin Laden walked 

across the border, the Rio Grande River, undetected. Does something like that concern you? 

General TAYLOR. Actually, sir, he was not undetected. He was 

known to the border security agencies who saw him walk across. 

Senator MCCAIN. Then why didn’t they stop him when he came 

across? 

General TAYLOR. Sir, I cannot answer that question—— 

Senator MCCAIN. No, you cannot answer it because they were 

not there to stop him, and that is a matter of being on record. 

The fact is that there are thousands of people who are coming 

across our border who are undetected, who are not identified. And 

for you to sit there and tell me that we have the capability or now 

have the proper protections of our Southwestern border, particularly in light of the urgings over Facebook and Twitter for people 

to come across our Southwestern border, is of great concern to the 

citizens of my State. I would like to hear your response to that. 

General TAYLOR. Sir, the security at the Southwest border is of 

great concern to the Department, and certainly I understand the 

concerns of the citizens of your State. If I gave you the impression 

that I thought the border security was what it needed to be to protect against all the risks coming across the State, that is not what 

I intended to say. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could you give to the Committee for the record 

what is required to achieve 90 percent effectiveness control of the 

border and prevent this threat from materializing? Because I do 

not think there is any doubt—I do not see when you look at ISIS 

and the growth and the influence of ISIS that it would be logical, 

as they are saying on Facebook and Twitter, to come across our 

Southwest border, because they can get across. And the flow of 

drugs across our Southwest border has not been decreased by any 

significant measure. Would you agree to that? 

General TAYLOR. The flow of drugs continues to be significant, 

yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, those of us who strongly supported comprehensive immigration reform are deeply disappointed in our lack 

of devotion of assets and funds and capabilities to secure our 

Southwestern border, which has then created a credibility problem 

in our States and across this country that we can guarantee people, 
22 

if we enacted comprehensive immigration reform, that there would 

not be another flow of refugees or illegal immigration into this 

country. Now we have this phenomenon or, I guess, occurrence of 

thousands of young children showing up at our border, not trying 

to sneak across but just showing up at our border. It has tailed off 

some, but it is still by the thousands. And isn’t this diverting the 

assets and the capabilities of our Border Patrol by having to handle 

this incredible influx of children, diverting them from other duties 

like trying to interdict drug smugglers and others? And isn’t it 

true, could I say to you—and it is really astonishing to me how our 

friends on the left and those who are ‘‘pro-immigration’’ ignore the 

fact that the brutalities that are inflicted on these young people, 

particularly young women, as they are brought across by these 

coyotes is absolutely abhorrent and unspeakable. Would you agree 

with that? 

General TAYLOR. Absolutely, Senator, I would agree with it. And 

to your earlier question, we not only assess, we believe the Border 

Patrol has done an absolutely remarkable job in handling the unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crisis, and—— 

Senator MCCAIN. But they have been diverted, right? 

General TAYLOR. It has been a priority, given the number of people at our border, to focus on that issue, and certainly with the resources as they are, resources are shifted to priorities. 

Senator MCCAIN. So it has always been a national security issue, 

but I believe that in light of the growth of ISIS and the aggressiveness of ISIS and the information that they have been able to recruit in the United States of America—we know that because 

Americans have been killed over there—that it seems to me it dramatically heightens our requirement to have a secure Southern and 

Northern border. Would you agree with that? 

General TAYLOR. I absolutely agree with it, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. And finally, Mr. Rasmussen, it is 

entertaining to me that it is like it all just happened with ISIS, another wolf at the door. We have known about ISIS for 4 years. People like me and Lindsey Graham and many others have known 

about it and warned about it and talked about it, while we have 

done nothing to really stem the tide and the growth of ISIS and 

the chaos that we now see pervading Iraq and Syria. Some of us 

are hopeful that the President of the United States will finally recognize that threat and outline to the American people some actions 

that need to be taken. But many of us predicted this, many saw 

it coming, and it comes as no surprise. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. You are welcome. We thank you as well. 

Senator Baldwin, and then Senator Portman, and Senator 

Ayotte. Senator Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Rasmussen, I want to talk a little bit more 

about the estimated more than 100 U.S. persons who have left to 

join the fight in Syria. I think that is how it was phrased. And I 

just want to get a sense of, is this an estimate or do we have a 

sense of actually who these 100-plus people are, names, where they 
23 

are from, et cetera? How much detail do we have? Or are we basically just estimating that it is about 100? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I will take a stab at that, Senator. That number 

is actually meant to capture a number of categories of individuals 

who have shown an intent to travel and that travel has not happened, individuals who have traveled, individuals who have traveled and come back, individuals who have traveled and perhaps 

been killed in the fighting over there. And so that number is somewhat all encompassing and does not necessarily reflect an estimate 

of who is exactly there right now today. 

There is more we can say with greater precision in the closed 

session, but I think I can reassure you there is some significant detail behind that broad number. 

Senator BALDWIN. Great. I am going to try to ask a couple more 

questions in open session on this topic. We will see how far we can 

get. 

With regard to that number, is there differentiation, very specific 

differentiation, between those who are actually joining ISIL and 

those, for example—I traveled to Turkey now over a year ago, but 

there were certainly American citizens of Syrian descent who were 

there trying to provide humanitarian relief in the fight or trying 

to do what they could to help the moderate rebels, the moderate 

elements, try to participate in battle there. Are we differentiating 

between those when we talk about these rough numbers? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Yes, we are. As I said, we are—— 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. And in some cases, we know of individuals who 

have indicated intent or have traveled to Syria who go over not 

necessarily knowing who they will affiliate with when they get 

there. They simply look to join the fight from an extremist or 

jihadist perspective, and where they actually end up affiliating 

plays out over time, and we may or may not have intelligence on 

that. But you are right, the number of individuals who have traveled to Syria can capture people who engage in a wide variety of 

activities there. 

Senator BALDWIN. But that 100 or whatever we are tossing 

around, over 100, you believe are engaged in the battle with the 

ISIL extremists? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. With extremist elements. I want to be careful 

and not pin it—— 

Senator BALDWIN. I understand. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN [continuing]. Strictly to ISIL because, as you 

know, there are a number of organizations—— 

Senator BALDWIN. Right. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN [continuing]. Over there, al-Nusra Front—— 

Senator BALDWIN. And I am getting there, too. Before I get to 

that second point, do we have a sense that, in particular, our European allies have as granular information on their citizens who have 

traveled to Syria as we do on ours? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I think it is not a constant picture across the 

whole of Europe. I think in some cases, with some of our partners 

with whom we work the most closely, the answer is absolutely yes. 

They have a very detailed understanding of individuals, and, in 

fact, they have done a great deal of work talking to in many cases 
24 

individuals who have come back from Syria in order to try to understand both the appeal and the draw, but also the experiences 

those individuals had and how they may play—what contribution 

to the threat picture back in their homes that they may present. 

And I know that a significant amount of law enforcement effort in 

the United Kingdom, for example, is devoted to just that effort. 

But I would not argue that this is constant across the whole of 

Europe. In many of the particularly Southern and Eastern European partners which are closer to the front line of travel to Turkey 

and Syria, their capabilities just simply are not as well developed, 

they are not as well resourced to handle a large national security 

challenge like this in the way that some of our more traditional 

partners are. 

But as I pointed out in my statement, there is a bit of a goodnews story in that the willingness to at least lock arms with us and 

share information is something we have seen pretty constantly 

across the board. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Baldwin, just to interrupt for a second, Senator Coburn as a member of the Intel Committee just 

shared with me a cautionary note. You will have a good feeling for 

what is appropriate to say in an open setting and what is more appropriate to say in a closed setting, again, if you ask questions that 

you think should be deferred to the next part of our hearing, please 

do that. Go right ahead. 

Senator BALDWIN. So do we have a sense of how many U.S. nationals are engaged with al-Qaeda globally, and obviously there is 

a much greater fragmentation and even in particular al-Qaeda in 

the Arabian Peninsula? Do we have that same sort of granular information there? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Again, I think it varies depending on which alQaeda affiliate group you are talking about, and we can certainly 

talk about specific cases involving specific known individuals in another setting. 

Senator BALDWIN. OK. And then can you describe in open session 

for the Committee what we know, what our intelligence has said 

about the relationship between ISIL and al-Qaeda? Is it a rivalry? 

Is it cooperative? Are they rooting each other on? What do we know 

at this point about their relationship? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Well, one of the things that I think has been a 

development that we have spent a great deal of time trying to understand and assess is the degree of conflict intention between ISIL 

and Core al-Qaeda leadership, as I said, resident in the Fatah. And 

I think what you could argue now you are seeing, in a sense, a contest or a competition for primacy in that overall effort to lead the 

global jihad, with ISIL increasingly posturing itself as the legitimate follow-on or heir to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda vision. And what that is also doing is causing, I would argue, intellectual ferment in that broader jihadist community around the 

world—we see this in other al-Qaeda affiliates—as they seek to decide for themselves, Do we align with ISIL or do we maintain fidelity to our traditional bonds of loyalty to al-Qaeda Core? 

I think one thing we can observe pretty obviously is that success 

breeds success, and so that when ISIL has had success on the battlefield in taking over large swaths of territory in Iraq, that has 
25 

served as a draw not only to foreign fighters who might want to 

choose where to bring their capabilities, but also to individuals who 

may be affiliated with other al-Qaeda groups who decide, ‘‘I would 

like to go where the jihad is the most hot and where my ability to 

impact global jihad can be felt most acutely.’’ And there is no doubt 

that at the level of individual al-Qaeda-affiliated individuals, that 

draw is out there. And it is something that we will see that will 

play out over time, whether ISIL would supplant al-Qaeda Core in 

terms of overall leadership of the global jihad. But it is clear if 

things trended in this direction for a long period of time, one could 

make that argument. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. 

Senator Portman, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 

the testimony today and the opportunity to ask followup questions 

in another session. 

There is so much to go over, but I want to talk a little about 

what you have said today and what some of my colleagues have 

asked about in terms of Iraq and ISIL and how we got in this situation that we are in. Because I think it is important not only to 

determine what we do now in Iraq but also to look to Afghanistan 

and what we are doing or not doing there to ensure that we do not 

have a similar situation. 

With regard to Afghanistan, how do you assess the security 

forces there, the Afghan security forces, as compared to the Iraqi 

security forces, Mr. Rasmussen? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I would want to come back—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Specifically their capability to conduct 

counterterrorism operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda partners. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I believe we have made a substantial amount 

of progress in bringing the Afghan National Security Force up to 

the level where they can carry out counterterrorist operations 

against known terrorist targets inside Afghanistan. What we will 

not know until we see over time is whether the Afghan Government is able to sustain that capability, invest and resource and 

sustain that capability over time so that they are able to do this 

as they encounter threats—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you think they have greater capabilities 

than the Iraqi security forces, assuming that, as was the case over 

the last few years, there is no U.S. support? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I am reluctant to put it in comparative terms 

because I am not sure I have the right expertise or knowledge to 

do that, and I would be happy to get you an answer to that 

from—— 

Senator PORTMAN. I think it would be interesting. I mean, here 

is my feeling from some of your reports which were made public 

and other assessments, is that, in fact, the Iraqi security forces 

were further along at the time at which we chose to pull out. And 

if we decide to do the same thing in Afghanistan and that the 

President has said that he has plans to have no more troops in Af-
26 

ghanistan by the end of 2016, that we may have a similar and I 

would say worse situation given the assessment of their capability 

to be able to have an effective counterterrorism operation. 

So I would just make the obvious point that we need your help 

in terms of learning lessons from Iraq and hopefully taking those 

lessons to Afghanistan. 

There has been a lot of attention recently to President Obama’s 

comments last January about regional terrorist groups being like 

JV teams in relation to ISIL’s seizing of Fallujah. I am sure you 

have followed that back and forth. And, Mr. Taylor, General Taylor, and Mr. Rasmussen, I am not going to ask you if you shared 

that assessment at the time because the President indicated that 

was an assessment that he had. But I will say, given all the bloodshed and resources expended in the two attempts to take Fallujah 

in 2004—and I was privileged to go there at one point in the 2004– 

05 time period, and those years of toil by our marines and soldiers 

in Anbar that followed to make it a peaceful place, those comments 

are particularly disconcerting. As you all know, we took serious 

losses. In one 6-month period in 2005, Ohio’s reserve marine infantry battalion lost 46 marines; 22 were killed from one rifle company 

in Columbus. So obviously the struggle affects a lot of our communities, including back home in Ohio. 

I would ask you, Mr. Rasmussen, in 2013, did the intelligence 

community identify that al-Qaeda-associated groups in Syria had 

expressed interest in external operations? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Yes, and we can talk about that more in closed 

session. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. But yes. 

Senator PORTMAN. In 2013, did the intelligence community assess that a threat existed to Western Europe and the homeland 

from the flow of foreign fighters to and from Syria and Iraq? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Absolutely. 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you assess that the Iraqi security forces 

who earlier this year had been operating without U.S. troops by 

their side for 2 years took any successful actions to wrest control 

of Fallujah from ISIL after they seized it in January 2014, earlier 

this year? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. I would like to get an answer for the record for 

you on that, because I am certainly aware of Iraqi security force 

counterterrorism actions, but I want to be specifically responsive—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, let me ask a more general question. 

Were they successful in wresting control back? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Not in wresting control back of the areas you 

describe, as I understand it. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. I just think, again, we should learn some 

lessons from this. Finally, I would say do you assess that over the 

last 2 years that ISIL exploited access to fighters and resources in 

Syria as well as inconsistent counterterrorism operations or pressure from the Iraqis in Iraq to escalate their operations? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. It is certainly true that they have escalated 

their operations and they have taken advantage of the lack of a 

real border between Iraq and Syria, which has allowed them to 
27 

move resources back and forth to escape counterterrorism pressure, 

whether it comes from the Iraqi security forces or other elements 

inside Syria who are fighting. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, I think your answers to these questions 

are helpful in terms of us understanding what we should be doing 

in Iraq, but also, again, looking forward to Afghanistan, being sure 

that we are prepared to take the steps to avoid a repeat of this. 

Let me change topics, if I could, and this has to do with the 

Ebola crisis. General Taylor, I am interested to hear what work 

your office is doing to monitor the spread of Ebola in Africa. We 

now have over 2,300 people who have died. The World Health Organization (WHO) tells us today they expect 20,000 people to die 

relatively soon. There are other groups that have much higher estimates. As you know, we had another U.S. citizen infected this 

week. 

If you could tell me, how are you monitoring this situation in Africa? What are you all doing? 

General TAYLOR. Sir, I&A, my office, works with our Office of 

Health Affairs who is leading the effort of the Department in an 

interagency response to the Ebola virus and its consequences potentially to the United States as well as in the Africa region. There 

are daily interagency meetings on that issue and trying to get aid 

to those countries to stem the spread of the virus, which has 

been—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Do you feel we have an effective interagency 

and intergovernmental coordination? 

General TAYLOR. I think we have effective U.S. interagency and 

intergovernmental coordination, but this is a global problem, and 

it is going to take a global solution to solve it. And the nations in 

the region are less capable in certain cases of handling the kind of 

infection that they are seeing, so it will require a global effort to 

stem this particular issue. 

Senator PORTMAN. General Taylor, I understand Health Affairs 

is taking the lead here, but have you had the opportunity to look 

at what the U.S. Government did in relationship to malaria in the 

Malaria Initiative, the intergovernmental and in that case interagency process that we use? 

General TAYLOR. I have not personally looked at it, sir. I am just 

only aware of the efforts. My most recent experience has been with 

H1N1, which I think we had a very effective interagency coordination on that, but not the malaria. 

Senator PORTMAN. I am concerned that we are, again, not being 

as aggressive as we could be, and I would just hope that the agency 

would take a look at what we have done in the past, and we have 

been relatively successful, not just with AIDS but also with the 

specific steps that we are taking on the Malaria Initiative to try 

to get more countries engaged and deal with the issue. 

One final question. Do you have any insights on how you see the 

spread of Ebola developing and what we should be doing here in 

this country? I noticed that, Ms. Spaulding, you talked about the 

National Preparedness Month, and one of my concerns is, based on 

some recent reports, we are not prepared. We have, unfortunately, 

a situation where if a pandemic were to occur, there are some 
28 

shortfalls, including expirations on some of the medical response 

that will be necessary. Do you have thoughts about that? 

General TAYLOR. Sir, I would prefer to respond in a more holistic 

way in consultation with my colleagues, so if I could take that—— 

Senator PORTMAN. We would appreciate you getting back to the 

Committee on that. 

General TAYLOR. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Thanks for those questions, especially the last one. Senator Ayotte, after you have spoken, asked 

questions, I am going to give Mr. Anderson an opportunity—we 

have not picked on you enough. I will just give you one opportunity 

for any point that you want to make or share with us in the open 

session before we go to the closed session. You will have that opportunity, OK? 

For now, Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

for holding this important hearing. I want to thank our witnesses 

for what they do to keep the country safe. 

Secretary Taylor, I wanted to followup on some of the questions 

that Senator Baldwin had asked, and I would ask all of you to give 

me some insight on a comment that I heard from our FBI Director. 

I think it is important that the American people understand what 

we are dealing with in terms of not only Americans but Westerners 

who have potentially traveled to Syria or have interest in traveling 

to Syria and joining with one of these extremist groups, including 

ISIL. 

So you had testified that more than 100 U.S. persons you are 

tracking, and you have identified those as those who have intended 

to go, those who have gone, and some of whom have been actually 

engaged and killed in this conflict. 

I note that the FBI Director Comey said in August, ‘‘When I give 

you the number of 100 Americans, I cannot tell you with high confidence that it is 100 or 200, that it is 100 or 500, that it is 100 

or 1,000 more, because it is so hard to track.’’ Here is a very important question that I think people need to know, and that is, do we 

really know? And how many of these do we really have track of? 

And how many don’t we have track of? 

General TAYLOR. Senator, I would share Director Comey’s comments in terms of we do not know what we do not know, and I 

think that is the context in which he was making those comments. 

I think we have very high confidence on the number that we do 

know, and we have systems that help us identify more day in and 

day out. So I could sit here today and give the number of over 100, 

and tomorrow it may be that, based upon our intelligence investigation with the FBI, we would have more identities that we did 

not know about before. 

Senator AYOTTE. But is the reality that while we have confidence 

in the 100, we really do not know how many more may be part of 

this? 

General TAYLOR. I think that is a fair statement. 
29 

Senator AYOTTE. I assume that is why Director Comey, who I 

certainly have a lot of respect for, made that statement when he 

was specifically asked about how confident we are in the number 

of 100. 

General TAYLOR. Well, given homegrown violent extremism, 

given the nature of how people radicalize, given the nature of the 

data on the Internet, it is very difficult to say with any degree of 

certainty that we know all that could be wanting to join this particular effort. 

Senator AYOTTE. So we know that it may be more than the 100 

that we are talking about. With respect to the 100 that we do 

know, do we have track of all of them? 

General TAYLOR. Yes, ma’am, I would defer to my colleagues at 

the FBI who lead the joint task force looking at this issue for our 

government. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Senator, if I could address that, so I agree with 

General Taylor wholeheartedly. I could tell you any individual— 

and they definitely fit into the three categories that Mr. Rasmussen 

had talked about. Any individual that we can predicate an investigation on, the FBI has an open case on that individual, whether 

they are abroad or in the United States. We also dedicate an immense amount of resources to covering the individuals that we 

know about. I cannot actually get into all those in this session, but 

we will in detail in the next session. 

Senator AYOTTE. Let me ask you, the 100 that we know about, 

what authorities do we have to revoke their passports? In other 

words, you are a United States citizen. Obviously you are entitled 

to certain rights. But what can we do to make sure that they cannot get back in the community if we believe that they have joined, 

for example, an extremist group like ISIL who has brutally and 

horrifically murdered two American journalists? 

General TAYLOR. Senator, it is a very complicated question in 

terms of taking away an American’s passport. There are judicial 

means to do that. I am not an expert in that, but we can get you 

the answer of what are the authorities that would allow for that 

to happen. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I think that is really important because 

we need to understand. We certainly do not want a situation where 

you all talk to someone, you do not have the authority to detain 

them, we are in a position where they have to appear before a judicial authority, but in the interim they are not detained and they 

have open access in America. So I would like a followup to know 

what those processes are, what tools you have at your hands when 

there is obviously evidence that an American is involved with a 

group like ISIL so that we can understand whether those authorities are sufficient. So I would appreciate a follow-up on that. 

I also wanted to ask, what I understand from hearing your testimony today is that you said that the threat of ISIL is really regionally focused, meaning the region of where they are operating in 

Iraq and Syria and the surrounding regions. What kind of access 

do they have to financing? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. That has been one of our great concerns as ISIL 

has surged in Iraq, is that they have had the ability to draw on 
30 

a wider array of sources for financing, including kidnap for ransom, 

simply occupying and taking over Federal Reserve holdings—— 

Senator AYOTTE. I saw an estimate of they are making at least $1 million a day. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. That is a fair estimate. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. And as I understand, they have safe havens in Syria, correct? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. And they are obviously taking over more territory in Iraq, correct? That is their design and one of the concerns 

we have with regard to what is happening in Iraq right now? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. That is their ambition. In Iraq in recent weeks, 

Iraqi security force action in combination with United States military action has stemmed the ability of ISIL to gain more territory. 

Senator AYOTTE. But they have some territory right now, you 

would agree with me. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. They have territory in Syria; they have territory 

in Iraq. They have a means to make money. And when we think 

about this threat on the passport issue, it is not just about Americans, right? I know, Secretary Taylor, in your testimony there are 

about 2,000 Westerners, but I have also seen estimates of 7,500 potential foreign fighters from all different countries that have joined 

this conflict, starting in Syria. I do not know how many of those 

have joined ISIL, but this threat goes beyond thinking about Americans. 

I know you talked about a good news story about more communication between other countries with regard to these individuals 

who have joined these extremist groups. But we also have a visa 

waiver program with countries like the United Kingdom and 

France, and so how good is our intelligence and ability to track 

those individuals? We talked about the 100, so we are worried 

about our people. But thinking about the individuals that do not 

need a visa to come travel to the United States of America, and as 

I understand it, there are actually thousands—the numbers that 

Great Britain is facing is much greater even than the United 

States. Can you give us a good assessment of how good a track we 

have on them and what ability we have to stop them from coming 

to the United States or to know exactly where they are so that we 

do not face a situation where someone is—the James Foley video, 

that individual who committed that barbaric murder, he was clearly from Great Britain. You could tell from his accent. So an individual like that coming to the United States and then participating 

in an action here. 

So can you give us a little more insight on that? Because I think 

it is important for people to understand. 

General TAYLOR. Yes, ma’am. I would defer to Nick to talk about 

the intelligence cooperation that we have, which is significant, with 

our European partners and daily we exchange information. More 

importantly, a visa waiver does not mean people come to this country without screening. Every passenger coming to the United 

States from outside the United States is screened through our terrorist screening system, and if there is derogatory data, they are 

not allowed to come to the United States. So—— 
31 

Senator AYOTTE. But that assumes we have the data, correct? 

General TAYLOR. Well, that assumes we have the data, and that 

is what intelligence collaboration and cooperation is all about, is 

making sure that, with our partners in Europe and other places, 

we are getting that data and getting it in a consistent fashion. 

Senator AYOTTE. So I think this is all obviously a very important 

issue as well as knowing and tracking who these individuals are, 

if we do not have the data, we may just allow them in our country 

without being able to stop them from coming. 

My time is up, but I just want to say one thing that concerns me. 

I know we have talked today about believing that the focus on the 

threat of ISIL is a regional threat, but here we have a sophisticated terrorist organization which our own Secretary of Defense 

has said is beyond anything that we have seen. And, in fact, we 

have a situation where, Secretary Dempsey described this group as 

‘‘an imminent threat,’’ and combined with the fact that they have 

financial means to make money. They have territory and some safe 

havens. We know that in January their leader basically threatened 

the United States of America. We have seen through their actions 

with the brutal murders of these two journalists that obviously the 

threat that they face—the type of barbaric actions they are willing 

to take against Americans. And then we know that if these people 

who join this, if we are not quite sure how many there are and who 

could return to the United States. I am concerned that it is an understatement to say that this is a regional threat in terms of what 

it might present to us in our homeland. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Mr. Chairman, can I respond to just one—— 

Chairman CARPER. Yes, just briefly. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. By using the word ‘‘regional’’ in my remarks at 

the beginning, I by no means meant to imply not directed at the 

United States or U.S. citizens, because certainly today, currently, 

ISIL has the capability to threaten U.S. persons and interests not 

just in Iraq proper but in surrounding regional States. So our embassies, our personnel, our diplomats, and even non-official Americans are certainly—— 

Senator AYOTTE. But what about here? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. As I said, if allowed over time to utilize the safe 

haven that they currently are enjoying—— 

Senator AYOTTE. So right now you do not think they have that 

capacity. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Right now we assess that they do not have active, ongoing plots aimed at the United States homeland. 

Senator AYOTTE. So that is a different question of whether they 

have the capacity. We do not know of any active, ongoing threats 

or plots, but—— 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. And we do not assess right now that they have 

the capability to mount an effective, large-scale plot inside the 

United States. 

Senator AYOTTE. Large scale, correct? 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Another piece of this that you cannot necessarily account for are individuals that we talked about under the 

category of homegrown violent extremists who may self-identify as 

acting in sympathy with or in support of ISIL, maybe perhaps not 

even ever having touched ISIL leadership in any kind of command 
32 

and control way, but in the aftermath of a potential attack, even 

here in the homeland, might self-affiliate and describe—so I do not 

mean by any means to minimize the threat to ISIL. That is not my 

intent. I was simply trying to describe in, kind of in a sense, concentric rings the levels of concern that we have at present versus 

what we see developing more over time. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Mr. RASMUSSEN. There is no doubt that what you have described 

with the foreign fighters is what gives them the capability to 

threaten the homeland over the longer term. 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. I would just add one point. You have to take, 

in fact, the exhortation of various members of ISIL to come across 

our Southern border. It is out there. It is in the social media. So 

I know you all are looking at that, but the fact is that is pretty 

scary because you talk about what we do not know. We do not 

know the people who are coming across our border, what their 

threat is to us. We do not know. 

Chairman CARPER. I said, Mr. Anderson, we would give you an 

opportunity to have a closing thought, please. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could, I would 

just make a closing remark and turn back to cyber for a second. 

The one thing that I think the Committee needs to know—and 

they probably do—is when it comes to cyber, I have never seen 

more cooperation in my entire law enforcement career than I have 

in the last year or so. The people at this table, DHS, Secret Service, 

a large variety of our intelligence partners, we all get it. We get 

that this is something that is going to go through from now to the 

next several years in our government. This is a deep concern of 

ours, to work together and work toward a fix. 

When we talked a little while ago about a number of Federal departments within our government possibly could be hacked, or if 

they were hacked and they just did not know about it. I think one 

of the things that I know we are all working on and I know the 

legislature up here is also, we are trying to figure out how we 

share real-time information with our private sector partners. I 

think that is absolutely imperative, Mr. Chairman, and I think my 

colleagues here would echo that. And one of the main reasons is 

because everyone knows a lot of our classified and very sensitive 

technologies are developed, designed, and then built out in the private sector way before they are ever classified. Our adversaries 

know this, whether it is counterintelligence, counterespionage, economic espionage, counterterrorism. I have had the pleasure over 

the years to testify as the Assistant Director of Counterintelligence 

to Chairman Feinstein, also Dr. Coburn many times regarding this 

kind of scare for us. And I would tell you that the one thing that 

I see is the whole of government coming together as one on this 

threat and really working toward a positive fix. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. And I would just add to that, the threat of 

ISIS and these other terrorist groups, are they a threat? Sure they 

are, and we have to be eternally vigilant. And this is not any time 

to pat ourselves on the back and become complacent. If anything, 

it is time to be more vigilant. We will see what the President has 
33 

to say tonight. I hope he will be very strong. I hope he will lay out 

a game plan that will enable us, working with an armada of other 

nations around the world, to destroy this threat. And that is what 

I am looking for, and hopefully that is what we will get. 

I would also say just one last word. I always come back to underlying causes, root causes. And, Nick, when I visited, we talked 

about underlying and root causes. And I would just say a couple 

of them. 

One underlying cause, al-Qaeda in Iraq was on their back, they 

were almost done about 7 years ago. And the policies of the Iraqi 

Government actually helped them get off the mat and back into the 

game and to be the threat that they are today. And my hope is that 

the new prime minister, the new government that is being stood 

up in Iraq will be part of the solution to help us accomplish what 

we did 7 years ago and to do it again, and only this time for good. 

All right. You have been great to be here with us. I appreciate 

our colleagues being here as well. We are going to move to a secured setting, and with that, this portion of the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other 

business.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

Æ