The southern border. This is one hour and a half. The committee on Homeland Security subcommittee on counterterrorism Law Enforcement intelligence will come to order, without objection. The subcommittee may recess at any point and the purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight of the department of Homeland Securities Office of intelligence and analysis that will be referred to here from under secretary for ina mr kenneth wainstein. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Were holding this important hearing to examine and discuss the role of dhss office of ina that helps play a role in safeguarding our nation. United states faces a myriad of threats from state and nonstate actors. Were seeing authoritarian regimes such as china russia and iran expand their reach across the globe and challenge the sovereignty of the United States and our allies. Our adversaries are not only working to achieve these objectives through conventional military means but are also masterfully accomplishing these goals through cyberspace and by using asymmetric tactics that fall just below the threshold of traditional conflict. More commonly known as grey zone aggression, we have seen actors utilize stateowned companies and their technological products to spy on our nation and gather Sensitive Data that advances their strategic goals. Further the threats posed by violent extremist groups like isis, alshabab, alqaeda and others that continue to operate throughout subsaharan africa, the middle east and southeast asia. They present consistent challenges overall, the threats posed by state and nonstate actors paired with the departments failure to secure our borders have led our nation down a precarious path that presents a clear and present danger. Our nation has almost certainly not seen this level in of instability since world war ii and these threats will only continue if we dont do something about it and stop the aggression from our adversaries. I highlight the troubling developments because they show why now more than ever our nation needs an effective and efficient intelligence enterprise to keep the homeland safe secure and resilient while not abusing its authorities or violating the Constitutional Rights of americans. The men and women that work within ina are charged with disseminating intelligence to state, local, tribal and territorial enforcement agencies and other partners and develop intelligence from those partners for dhs and the ic to ensure our communities stay safe over the years. And across administrations ina has struggled at times to complete its mission to equip the Homeland Security enterprise with timely intelligence and information needed to keep the homeland safe systematic and documented failures as detailed by various reports by the dhs. Inspector generals have led to breakdowns and identifying specific threat streams or have undermined public trust. For instance, inas Overt Human Intelligence Collection Program has raised serious questions and concerns related to the departments overreach of its statutory mandate and to potential violations of the fundamental Civil Liberties of all americans. In fact, part of the program was paused after a number of dhs officials raised concern about its legality, these issues have led to high turnover, no clear leadership or effective oversight and a significant and significant training gaps for its employees. These incidents within dhs are unacceptable and erode trust in keeping our nation safe at a time when our country faces an elevated threat. It did not help when dhs unilaterally decided to establish a now disbanded Homeland Intelligence Expert Group an action that continued an action that continues to raise concerns about dhss impartiality and objectivity in furthering its Homeland Security mission amidst ever evolving threats. These concerns were further exacerbated when dhs then decided to rebrand the discredited an expert group as an Advisory Board claiming that the new board builds upon the Experts Group and will represent diverse perspectives without regard for political affiliation. In an effort to address some of these shortcomings within ina members of this committee have not only conducted oversight of inas operations, but also passed various bipartisan legislative measures designed to improve training and transparency of inas activities today ive asked under secretary weinstein to provide us with an update on the steps that the department has taken to address the longstanding issues associated with ina that cannot be fixed with surface level patches. Im encouraged to hear that ina has been undergoing an internal review and we thank mr. Wayin for doing that and a reorganization as well. But it simply cant be a reshuffling of leadership roles or just to give the appearance of progress. We have talked several times throughout the last year about some of these issues. Ive worked with the Ranking Member mr. Magazine. This subcommittee has worked on truly identifying and having a conversation that highlights some of the past, what i would call failures, but also looks forward to what can be done to keep our nation safe as we approach the anniversary of 9 11, the 23rd anniversary of 9 11, i think its important for all of us to keep in mind that in the days leading up to 9 11 the word the phrase the system was blinking red was brought up. That was part of the 911 commission. It was part of the findings and its part of what i want to frame. This subcommittee hearing today is that im fearful and concerned today that the system is blinking red in a number of ways and i think that even if our intention is to keep this country safe we have to look under the hood and get to an organization. And i appreciate you being here, doing that, so that if it is blinking red, which i think it is, that we can get the oversight done. Provide dhs with the appropriate resources to keep the country safe so that we dont have another incident like 911 again. And i appreciate you being here. I look forward to hearing your testimony and i now recognize the gentleman from rhode island, the Ranking Member mr. Magazine. Well, thank you chairman pfluger for calling todays hearing and also for the constructive conversations that weve been having around ways that we can support your efforts to reform and enhance the effectiveness of the office and thank you under secretary weinstein for joining us this afternoon. Todays conversation has to start with remembering why the office of intelligence and analysis was created, the terror attacks that took place on september 11th 2001, i remember that day vividly and im sure everyone else here does as well. And the failures that allowed it to happen were in large part due to the lack of coordination and information sharing at the time between intelligence agencies and Law Enforcement. Terrorism threats persist as does overseeing the integration of dhs. We are aware of challenges but i want to highlight work to keep americans safe. There are challenges that need to be addressed and im pleased the undersecretary has taken on a review but the work continues to ensure it complies with oversights. Collecting, analyzing and disseminating intelligence. The only Community Member tasked with this. The Critical Role is necessary because the u. S. Faces threats. Racially motivated violent extremists pose a threat, they commit Mass Shootings and other acts to advance their negated agendas. At the same time the secretary warned isis, al qaeda and others are again plotting attacks against americans at home and abroad. These require intelligence and Law Enforcement to Work Together to do their jobs on the ground. I look forward to hearing about the results and the steps taken to help regain their status and ensure the mission is carried out with respect to Civil Liberties. I think the chairman. Other members are invited Opening Statements may Opening Statements, made a witness please rise . Do you square swear the testimony will be the truth and nothing but the truth, so hope you god . Thank you, the witness answered in the affirmative and i would like to introduce undersecretary kenneth wainstein. He is responsible for providing components in private sector partners with information to keep the country resilient. Ina is a liaison and he serves at dhs and reports to the director of intelligence. He spent over 20 years as the federal prosecutor. He was confirmed as the First Assistant attorney general at department of justice. He led the new National Security division which consolidated Law Enforcement and intelligence operations. In 2008, he was named Homeland Security advisor. I know you love this country. I appreciate you being here and we recognize your opening testimony. Chairman pfluger, Ranking Member magaziner, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the current activities of the office of intelligence and analysis in the department of Homeland Security. In the hearing i previewed our plans for change and we put those plans in place and in action. This has been a rigorous assessment and preceded in three stages. The third stage we just announced. I would like to give you an overview because i can address your valid concern. The first stage was reorganization with the creation of new structures. We enhanced the work we do with partners, created an office of collections, created a Program Office to enhance coordination. We created a Transparency Office to enhance privacy and Civil Liberties. That was the first stage. Second was reprioritizing and producing a homeland intelligence framework. A list of topics that serves as the overarching strategic document to guide our intelligence. The third stage was functional stage involving the utility of various functions and we developed principles in consultation with partners including you all and it is important to take a minute to show the direction of the organization. First, while we serve many intelligence customers from the president down, our primary intelligence customers are our partners. Their intelligence needs are our primary concern. We serve those needs by providing strategic level Threat Intelligence to inform decisionmaking. Third, we focus on areas with operational advantages and we defer when we do not. Fourth we strive to build strong management for our culture. We are implementing 30 different initiatives and as one example, we passed service to customers for the first principle. We are restructuring to be responsible to those customers and we are starting a program that will embed representatives within the ranks of our organization. We are embedding open source to tether connection to each centers analytic efforts. To leverage one of our advantages, our relationships, we are embedding personnel to generate intelligence reports about the federal data in their systems. We are teaming up with personnel to conduct field interviews. Finally, to improve management support we created new training programs. These are just a few examples of changes underway. As i wind up, let me give kudos to the workforce. Change like this is not easy and our workforce has been stepping up. Openness to change is not everywhere in government, but it is here. One of the many reasons im proud to be counted among the dedicated professionals who do so much every day. Thank you for the opportunity and i look forward to answering any questions. Thank you, undersecretary. I thank you for your testimony and again for your service. Members may have additional questions and we will basically go sidebyside and ask additional questions. If we have additional questions, we will submit those in writing to you. I now recognize myself for opening questions. I will start with the southern border. As we have talked about a couple of times, the fact that we have had from the beginning of fiscal year 2021 through the present day over 300 60 individuals entering this country in some way, shape or form matching the terror watch list, what i want to start by asking is what are you doing and how is that being reorganized to better know those individuals and whether or not we are detaining them . The recent arrest or detainment of eight nationals with ties to isis frames this question. Walk us through what youre are doing in this situation. Thank you for the phone call. As we discussed that is a major focus of dhs, the border and who is coming across the border. We have at dhs a strong screening and vetting capability and the intent is to identify threats to the u. S. And prevent them from getting visas, coming across the border or if they are fear, we picked them up. And we neutralize the threat. We play an Important Role in generating intelligence, looking for threats and threat actors. We are involved in the screening and the vetting operation. We do a lot of support for the National Vetting center, the intermediary that makes sure that the information and National Security elements related to people on the border gets into the vetting process. We provide Technical Support and training and do other things that are focused on the border, such as we are involved in providing nominations for the top transnational organized crime watch list. There is a watchlist, as we have had for 20 some years. We nominate based on local partners and state partners. Individuals put out watch lists based on our work and in terms of proactive intelligence, we are focusing efforts on the border against the threat. How did the department on this issue these nationals came in in january. So it leads everyone to believe that 362 is a low number. If a people had been in the country for five or six months. How did the department miss that and then how did they catch that . What are we doing to make sure that never happens again . As you know, colleagues from dhs will give you a briefing after recess and most of this is sensitive and classified so i am limited in what i can say on the record, but it is clear that when those individuals came across the border or were encountered, there was no derogatory information that came to the attention of the people at the border. I can say without getting into specifics that i think you have heard there was unprecedented cooperation between dhs and the fbi on the situation. Beyond that, i have to defer to my colleagues who will give a classified briefing. It has been a joint effort between us and lawenforcement. When director wray testified, he talked about the threat level being high and used words to describe that he does not believe it has been higher. To think do you agree with that statement that he says . Is there a black swan event or some event that keeps you up at night that youre focused on trying to communicate, cooperate , and help between state, local, federal, all Different Levels . Let me start with the latter part of your question. We are involved in the terrorism fight and focused on terrorism threats. After the first part of your question, every time you look at it you think it is a unique threat but we are at a fraught time after october 7 because october 7 energized many threat actors with many different places and mobilized potential terrorists from a variety of perspectives. In addition to what was already a standing threat of terrorism, traditional and domestic violent extremism, the overlay of the sustained raised threat on october 7 on top of what we said was already a heightened threat makes this a precarious time in our nations history. My time has expired. I recognize the Ranking Member. I want to pick up, secretary, on the last point about domestic , violent extremism because i know dhs and the fbi flagged that as one of the top rats and we are talking about homegrown extremists motivated by racial or ethnic prejudice, extremism or antigovernment beliefs. Islam a phobia or antisemitism. It can be challenging to disrupt because we are talking about american citizens you have First Amendment rights so expand on fighting domestic terrorism, what can be done to strengthen dhss ability to counter and i will leave it open . Domestic extremism, youve heard from chris and the secretary and others that in terms of the numbers, it is it is the most lethal and dangerous threat in terms of the threat from individuals and small groups. October 7 exacerbated the threat and now you see a little bit of convergence, the terrorist threat and ideological rhetoric being picked up by some domestic extremists in the u. S. And that is fully energizing the threats. In terms of what we have to do to deal with that, you put your finger on the challenge because a lot of violent extremism rose out of ideology and a lot of it is politically based and political thought and rhetoric is the most centrally connected activity so if we are focusing our efforts on violence we are not focusing on extremist thought. You are allowed to be extremist, thats what we are all about, but one of the important things i highlight is im gratified about transparency and oversight in the success we have had. Really putting a program of oversight into operations because of the complex challenge, making sure we do not do any thing that shills Constitutional Rights. On the topic of domestic extremism, you failed to disseminate evidence prior to january 6 when extremists came to the Building Armed with weapons intending to commit violence. There was opensource communication that suggested this was not political opinions or extremism, but violence. Can you tell us the ability to find information has improved to prevent another january 6 . That is an ever present concern, january 6 or another variation, if you look at events, protests, marches, whatever, they are protected, but some there engage in terrorism and use that as a pretext. We have to make sure we address the second and not the first part. That is a challenge. In terms of capabilities we are focused on not having another situation where we have violence and do not get that information to our partners. In situations where weve had a crisis we have gotten intelligence out with our state and local partners. Ive done calls to say this is what we are seeing. Let me mention one thing. My statement was long and dry. Hard to read. One part is important. The government needs to review opensource and look for violence. Thats where those things were seen, it was there. This is open source. We are limited in our ability to access information because of the authority and resources that we have. The point is not say we should have those Book Congress should think about that. Someone needs to be under all the limitations protecting rights, looking for that threat in open source because that is where the next alert is going to be. I yelled back, im over time. I recognize myself. I beg your pardon. I was hearing you earlier and i wanted you to repeat, you identify a moment in time as giving rise to an increase in the risk of terrorism. Why do you point to that as a trigger of risk . For the homeland what we had was the threat that we issued our threat assessment two weeks before that. We determined there was a heightened threat and with october 7 we had a moss attacking israel, israels response and different parties reactions. That animated activity by everyone from hezbollah to the arabian government which engaged in clotting in the homeland. We have violent extremists. Talking about the homeland, i sort of get why violent domestic extremists, bill clinton always said you are going to always have trouble in the world. Its not a surprise to me that hamas wanted to do as much harm to israel as possible. Its interesting its funny, its interesting you pointed to that and you point to the issue of dves, but if we talked about that story about the eight tajiks who came in who you said you did not want to talk about much here. Now, they are not domestic violent extremists, they are here. And you said, i dont get one thing, see what you said about one statement. You said there was no and the secretary said there was no derogatory information about them when they crossed the border. I would think being on the terror watch list and being affiliated with an isis, with isisk, or suspected of affiliation, would be derogatory. Are you saying that information was not available to you when they come across . My understanding is that when they were encountered at the border and the responsible officials checked the data systems, the data systems did not have the derogatory information in there indicating. See, that concerns me gravely. Theres a new story about nbc news, the chairman said before he walked out that he hopes we dont see another story like that. But theres an nbc news story, dhs identifies over 400 migrants brought to the u. S. By an isis affiliated human Smuggling Network. Now, i understand maybe the secretary suggested some of what is in that article is not not accurate. What can you say about that . I think what i can say and im sure that my colleagues will be able to talk about this at greater length in the classified briefing. But that the, of those people who were smuggled in from that network, which according to the news reports has affiliation with isis, there is not information that suggests that those particular individuals are terrorist operatives. See, theres something you didnt say. You talked about october 7, you talked about domestic violent extremists. You did not say and its been curious to me as i have set sat on this podium for a while, nobody seems to want to say opening the doors on the border has exposed us tremendously. In november 2022, the director of the Counterterrorism Center was here with wray and the secretary and i asked her if her agency saw a significant threat of terrorism from the historic level of uncontrolled crossing at the southern border, particularly not got aways. She said we dont actually. Border security is really important. If we look at the nature of the threat and how it has evolved here in the United States homeland, it has been striking how the the evolution to lone actors actually reflects how much more difficult it is for terrorists to enter into the United States. We look historically at the kind of attacks we have experienced here in the homeland. None of them have been connected to major illegal crossings or otherwise from the southern border, southwest border. I think thats clueless. I see stories about quantico, people probing. I heard a vice admiral on fox news saying they are seeing probing, you know, visits a couple times a week. Are you prepared to say that opening the border has objected United States with an extravagantly increased risk of significant terrorism . I am prepared to say that we are hyper focused on the threat coming across the border and thats why ive detailed all the things that ina is focusing on. Im also prepared to say that cbp, as i understand it, issues publicly the number of watch listed individuals they encounter on the border. So we are not trying to sugarcoat or hide the fact that theres a threat there. In fact, i am being instructed by my secretary to focus like a laser beam on that threat. Hes late coming to the conclusion. I just think its inevitable we are going to see in coming years that that has been ignored to the exclusion of some other far less significant risk. My time has expired. I will now recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. Crane, for his five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Wainstein, for appearing today before the committee. How often do you meet with secretary mayorkas, sir . I meet with him pretty much every morning when we do the president s daily brief together. And your job is to give him intelligence, is that correct, regarding Home Security . To give him intelligence but also to give our partners intelligence and receive intelligence from them and making sure its integrated into our operations. Yes. Recently, director wray of the fbi has been warning that the lights are blinking red as far as terrorism threats to the u. S. Homeland. Would you agree with his assessment, mr. Wainstein . Sir, i would agree that we are in a very serious time that we have to be very careful. And director wray went through the 9 11 era with me together so he knows about threats. Mr. Wainstein, do you believe that this blinking red Terror Threat that we now have in this country is a selfmade, selfinflicted wound . Or do you believe that, you know, our actions and our policies have had really nothing to do with that . Well, i dont know that i sort of buy into either of those two prepositions. I would say that just like with 9 11, one of the interesting things about 9 11 is there were a lot of studies afterwards to sort of ascribe blame, which are really healthy. And you see that its always a combination of the bad actors, bad actions of our adversaries, but also our ability and willingness to try to head those off. Lets talk about that, sir. Lets talk about our ability and our willingness to head those off because thats been the problem that many of us have tried to be the canary in the coal mine about. And the American People see on a daily basis. They are not, the American People are not stupid. Right . They are busy, but they are not stupid. They see whats going on at our southern border. And as somebody whos spent a lot of time dealing with security threats, you got to be pretty concerned with whats going on at the southern border. And i think you know that thats a pretty big conduit thats leading into this blinking red light that now director wray is warning about. Would you agree with, sir . Yeah. As we were saying earlier today, the border is an area that we are focusing on because we are so concerned with the threat down there. You know, it threat from a variety of different areas, not just terrorism. Fentanyl as well. Very serious. Absolutely. Absolutely. Weve been talking about that, too. And some of us are wondering, is secretary mayorkas, is president joe biden, are they not getting the intel . Or are they just not willing to secure the border . Maybe you can help us answer the question, sir. I dont meet with President Biden but i meet with secretary mayorkas everyday and i can tell you that he spends a lot of time making sure that i am doing everything i can and that we are doing everything we can to go after that threat. Oh, so he has tasked you with making sure you are doing everything you can . On the intel side, yes, sir. Well then, you are not getting it done, are you . I think we are doing really well. Really . You think you are getting it done . When you look at the numbers from individuals on the terror watch list for the last administration and this administration, what are they, sir . If you know those off the top of your head. We are part of a team and we have a certain lane and we are driving down that lane pretty aggressively right now. We still have a ways to go, as i discussed with the chair and Ranking Member, in terms of organizationally really maximizing our capabilities. We are putting them in place. Our people are stepping up and we are focused intently on the threat. I say what i say knowing that youre ultimately not in charge of the security of the homeland. That, unfortunately, that responsibility is above your pay grade and over your head. And you and i both know that. Your job is to provide intel. Is that correct . Yes. But you dont get to cancel executive orders that we are keeping the American People safe, do you, sir . I dont have anything to do with executive orders. No, you dont, do you . If you wanted to push and pass hr2, it probably wouldnt matter, would it . Yeah, but let me say one thing. I am responsible for National Security. Everyone of my team here and myself, we wake up in the morning and say we have a responsibility and its our job. And i appreciate that, as somebody who has served his country myself, i appreciate you taking ownership and accountability, you know, for wanting to secure our National Security. But we both know thats not getting done, which is why director wray himself is now saying, hey, the lights are blinking red. We have more threats than even before we did at 9 11. And its not a coincidence, sir. Its not a coincidence at all. Weve been foolish, weve been arrogant and weve put policies in place that not only have cost the lives of americans but are putting countless more at risk today. And i am, i cant even begin to tell you how disappointed and upset i am as somebody who has been sent here to try and conduct oversight and fix this problem. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Subcommittee will proceed to second round of questioning. And so, i recognize myself for an additional five minutes, mr. Wainstein. I want to sort of continue the same theme. And i appreciate your inclination to be accountable, mr. Wainstein. And i am not trying to suggest either that you are solely accountable. I guess the thing i wonder is how we have gotten here. I read you that quote that director abizaid gave in response to a question from me. And i was trying to get at the thing. It seemed to me, im a layperson. You are a security expert. But i think millions of americans have watched that we, you know, from the beginning, from 2021, from the runup to runup from the election from runup from the election from 2021, immediately to an historic level of Border Crossing and we were told all along that the numbers of got aways are significant, meaning there are a whole substantial number of people coming into the United States who are never encountering anyone, any of any government official. And to a point you just said thats kind of chilling, we got people who are, i dont know how the terrorist watchlist works or what exactly that looks like or how people get on and so forth. But its incomprehensible that such a thing exists. And that the vetting is so bad that those people do not get identified as they come across. I remember seeing the news article on that. What it indicated is they were arrested and then it listed the cities they were arrested in. And it was every major city in america it sounded like. And i dont, but then, you know, i sit up here as a layperson asking the questions that seem obvious to me. Candidly, sir, i dont that i remember you coming out and making a Public Statement that the administration is engaged in a reckless policy. I dont think youve done that. Frankly, chris wray has begun sounding increasingly alarmed in his rhetoric. But i read from you what the director of the Counterterrorism Center said. We dont really think thats a risk. And now its, i mean, the evidence is cropping up. So far, thanks to god, we have not seen a spectacular act of terrorism. But you are still sitting down here and the priorities you are identifying are changes in, you know, an october 7 attack on israel, which sounds like a makeweight to me. Its a tremendously horrific incident but its not a change in terms of the threat picture that has always existed in the middle east. And then you talk about domestic violent extremists. Mr. Magaziner asked you about risks like january 6. I know that it is a stock piece in some politics in the United States that january 6 was as bad as 9 11. I dont honestly remember it that way. And maybe, maybe some americans will disagree with me. Or Many Americans from mr. Magaziner might disagree. But what accounts for that . I mean, it sounds reckless to me. You did not, ms. Abizaid has not, other members have not come out and said this is dangerous to the homeland. I am accountable. And i am not going to sit in my position and see the risks you are bound to see that youre not able to tell me about in detail. Why keep quiet about a risk like that that we now see manifested in visits to quantico, a chechen conducting surveillance on an Army Special Forces colonel in carthage, North Carolina leading to a killing. And our eritrean in gates county, North Carolina leading to a standoff with police in a shooting. It just goes on and on. Its not domestic violent extremists. So what gives . A couple things, sir. Thank you for the question and i understand where youre coming from. If i could just clarify one thing. I did not finish sort of the chain of reasoning i talked about. I started on about gaza. You say that theres no change since october 7. I think if you were to talk to the Jewish Community, they would say quite otherwise. They are suffering. They are under threat in a way they were not before. And that is what i was talking about. The events overseas have energized threat actors of a variety of different types, foreign as well as domestic, and they are suffering from it. I agree with that. We put bulletins out about that jointly with the fbi. Weve been engaged fully with the Jewish Community because this is a seachange and its not coming, its not going to end here. Ive never imagined i would see what i see. Especially in the democratic party, frankly, in our country. But go ahead. Its horrendous. But in terms of the threat from foreign terrorism, you asked why i am not saying anything more about it. Ive spent every public moment talking about the terrorism threat, in particular, the threat from foreign terrorism, especially since october 7. And if you look at the tajik situation, thats, youll get briefed on that. But you know, its not lost on us that the people that killed over 150 russians in that theater were from the same part of the world. Ok, so, and i can tell you that director abizaid is working with my team and me on a daily basis. Im going to meet with her tomorrow and we are working on a daily basis on this very threat. And with the bureau. The amount of, and i mentioned this earlier, it really is unprecedented the level of cooperation between us and the bureau on these threats. And i say that with a little bit of perspective because i was in government in the National Security space up until Inauguration Day 2009. I left with the bush administration. And then stepped out of government and then stepped back in two years ago. And the amount of real operational coordination between dhs and fbi that i am seeing now, we did not have anything even close to that back then. So it is unprecedented. It is real. And we are taking it seriously. Thank you, sir. My time has expired. I recognize mr. Magaziner. I appreciate it. This started out as a good productive bipartisan hearing that i hoped it would be. An of course, now weve gone off the rails. I just want to correct the record on a few things. The antidefamation league, the adl, has reported a skyrocketing rate of antisemitic violence in this country after october 7. Weve also seen huge spikes in targeting of the Muslim Community in the United States. And often times, it is Foreign Terrorist Organizations who are online through propaganda and otherwise trying to incite people here in the United States and divide us against each other. The synagogue in my neighborhood received a bomb threat just in the week after october 7. That hadnt happened in years. Its not a coincidence. And so, we cannot minimize, we cannot diminish, we cannot sweep under the rug the very real threat of domestic extremism in this country, which is on the rise. By the way, even before october 7, more americans over the last five years have been killed by domestic violent extremists and than by Foreign Terrorist Organizations on the homeland. That does not mean that the foreign Terror Threats are not real. They always have been and they are heightened again after october 7. But we cannot minimize, we cannot diminish the very real threat from Domestic Violence extremism here in the United States. And its not just related to october 7 either. How many, 50 People Killed at pulse nightclub in orlando for no reason other than it was a gay bar. People killed in buffalo because they were africanamerican. People killed in el paso because they were immigrants by domestic violent extremists. The threat is real. And i think you, mr. Secretary, for your focus on it and for trying to keep americans safe. I will also note, january 6 was a big deal. And if you think it wasnt, talk to the family members of the Capitol Police officers who lost their lives in the days following that dark event. So lets not minimize, lets not diminish. And by the way, all of these threats are real. Foreign terrorist organizations, the challenges we are having at the border all real. But we are not going to get anywhere by minimizing or sweeping under the rug. We are trying to make this a partisan thing. Im sorry, the people chanting jews will not replace us at charlottesville, they were not democrats. Antisemitism knows no party in this country and i can tell you that from personal experience. Nick fuentes, the neonazi, having lunch in maralago is not a democrat. So Neither Party has a monopoly on antisemitism in this country. And lets not politicize that. Now with the remaining time that i have left, mr. Wainstein, i want to go back and give you a chance to actually have the time to respond a little bit and talk about particularly as it relates to the southern border the work that your office is doing to make sure that we minimize and intercept as many threats as possible. So can you please expand on the work that you are doing and the people under you are doing . Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments. I think i addressed a number of them but a couple of things i would like to mention. One is fentanyl. And the fentanyl threat is a huge crisis. We are losing 70,000 odd americans a year, untold damage to American Families and economy. And its unlike other drug threats, which you know, were laborintensive, sometimes difficult to secrete and send across the border. Fentanyl is easy to produce. There seems to be an endless stream of precursors coming over from china. Its small and compact, it can easily be secreted into a car or whatever and gotten across the border. Its really tough. And its, and now we have sort of knockoff follow on types of synthetic opioids. And so this is going to take in take an all of government effort and its going to require the executive branch and also congress. We are focusing on it, both in terms of we are generating increased amounts of reporting on fentanyl. We are working closely in person and in regular communication with our state and local partners who are focusing on that, especially the southwest border partners who have been very supportive of us along the border. We are, as i mentioned earlier, we are nominating people for the talk watch list, the transnational organized crime watch list, which is focusing on the border, often on Cartel Members. And the cartels, and you know, i dont need to educate you on what the cartels are doing, but they are having an outsized effect on our National Security because they are now going just beyond narcotics trafficking into human smuggling and all sorts of other illicit and illicit activities. And they are unbelievably wealthy based on the fentanyl. So we are generating these nominations for the talk watch list so that we can better stop Cartel Members and affiliates from coming across the border. Those are sort of areas that we are ramping up our activity. I thank you for the seriousness with which you are taking on this very big challenge and all of the challenges facing our homeland as it relates to the security threats. I thank you for that work. I yield back. The gentleman yields. I recognize mr. Desposito, the gentleman from new york, for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you sir for being here this afternoon. The department of Home Security grants clearances to state, local, tribal, territorial Law Enforcement officers. Once in receipt of an approved clearance nominations for sltt Law Enforcement officer who supports the dhs mission. The dhs office of the chief Security Officer or a dhs component with its own personal Security Unit will either grant the clearance or deny the clearance based on the Background Investigation. The committee has learned that there exists a serious backlog of issuing security clearances to these state, local, tribal, territorial Law Enforcement officers. In one department alone, they currently have nearly 20 members of service who are still waiting on the process of the security clearances and its been more than a year without any followup by your office for most of them. And theres actually a handful of them that are waiting two years. Obviously, resulting in a serious backlog in which Law Enforcement officials are unable attain, obtain the essential information that they need in order to conduct investigations. And its having a negative effect on their ability to receive and use that intelligence thats critical to not only doing their job, but keeping their communities and this country safe. So really, a yes or no question. Do you have a responsibility in providing sltt Law Enforcement officers access to intelligence product, including some at the classified level, as well as granting or denying security clearances to these lawenforcement officers based on their Background Investigation . Just yes or no. Yes. We are involved in the clearance process. Yes. Ok, so are you aware that there exists a serious backlog stemming from your office being able to provide these clearances . Yes. And ive been very focused on our role, our role as well as the Security Offices role. Ok, well, i mean, do you agree that if the sltt Law Enforcement officers are unable to obtain this information, its obviously going to result in a negative effect on their ability to receive and utilize or even obtain this information . Absolutely, sir. And look, you put your finger on a very important issue. And i wrestled with this when i was chief of staff of the fbi back in 2003 back when we were trying to expand the number of state and locals who had clearances. And you can only have them be fully engaged in something involving foreign terrorism in particular if a certain number of them have clearances. When i came in, we did have a backlog, we had a pretty significant backlog for resource and procedural reasons. At the end of last year, we put together a task force that zeroed in on the backlog and largely got rid of the backlog. Ok, so from last year to today, what was the backlog and where is the number at today . I dont have the exact numbers but i can tell you this. We largely got rid of the backlog. But then, since we got 100 applications from another state. Just respecting both of our time. So we are saying, we are agreeing that theres a backlog . Where we see that theres an issue. You are saying that when you came in, obviously, you put together a strategy in order to diminish that backlog. So if we could give, just take a round number guess, where it was at and where its at today. I mean, is there a significant change . Is there, you know, a few people that have been granted clearance . Are we making a difference thats actually giving Law Enforcement officers the intelligence that they need . Or are we not making a difference . So, sir, i dont have the exact numbers but i will get those to you promptly. But i will tell you that we largely got rid of the backlog. Its crept back up again. We now have more resources going into that so that we do not allow the backlog to get out of hand. So, do you agree its a priority to address the backlog and report regularly to congress on the progress . I mean, it seems like a commonsense reform. Absolutely. And my state and local partners are very energized about this issue so i hear about it a lot. So, will you commit that your office will address the serious backlog so that our state, local, tribal, territorial Law Enforcement officers obtain the necessary information to ensure the public and obviously their safety . Absolutely. And we will ask congress for the resources to make that permanent. My time is just about expired. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize mr. Crane from arizona for five minutes of questioning. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ia has consistently come under fire for its social collection targeting americans political views. You claim that you have safeguards for First Amendment protected speech. But by all accounts, they come with a huge loophole. If an ia officer says that collected protected speech somehow furthers one of your missions, he can collect that speech all day long. Ia has claimed a vague counterterrorism need to target americans talking about politics, covid, environmentalist issues, and so forth. Please explain your method for deciding which one to monitor to prevent terrorism, please. Thank you, sir. And that goes to the crux of the issue that i was raising earlier, which is how difficult it is to do this work in the homeland where the constitution obviously applies, applies strongly. And its sacred that we respect the constitutional right to free speech and political engagement. So, what we do in terms of collection, as well as turning it into analysis, is we can only do intelligence work as it relates to communications, political speech, if that political speech does relate to one of our missions. In other words, if that political speech is coupled, for example, with talking about coordinating violence in a protest, violence, actual violence. The type of thing that you were referring to, Ranking Member magaziner, prejanuary 6. Or in the context of any kind of protest. Thats an example. Or efforts discussing Cyber Efforts online to undermine the integrity of our critical infrastructure. And we are seeing that by people domestically. We are also seeing it by foreign adversaries who are trained to trying to get inside the systems of our critical infrastructure. We have to have a mission and we actually in order to do that collection or analysis and our transparency and oversight Program Office is doing something very important, which is we are putting in place a process to make sure that that collector or analyst identifies what that mission is before they take the step based on that mission, so we can go back and audit it and make sure that someone did not willynilly collect something without a verifiable basis for doing it. And thats one of the big things, big ticket items that our topo, transparency and oversight office, is putting together right now. So, sir, are you saying you are currently putting that process in place . Or do you already have that process written down and your agents are trained on that process . We have guidance in place. We have training that has been greatly improved over the last few years. And in terms of the accounting afterwards, the audit function, that is being built right now. And we have gotten some assistance from folks like the Inspector General and the gao. We also have the former Inspector General of dhs, john roth, on our staff as a special Government Employee helping us with these kinds of systems. Are you prepared and willing to share that process, the training with the Homeland Security . Absolutely. I am very proud to show it to you. Great. Thank you, sir. One thing that i wanted to touch on with the remainder of my time is i represent half of the tribes in arizona. What are you guys doing to work with the localities, Tribal Police to deal with some of the issues that they are experiencing, largely because of our open border, like the fentanyl deaths are skyrocketing on the reservation . Can you share with us what you guys are doing coordinate doing to coordinate and work with Tribal Police . Thank you, sir. And i know that they have particular challenges and particular threats. And we are working our Engagement Office that engages with the state and locals. And like i told you the beginning, one of the things weve done is weve elevated that whole function within the organization so that they report directly to me because its a huge priority. And we are meeting with our counterparts, state, local but also tribal partners on a regular basis, in particular those that are affected down by the border, by all the activity down there. I was down by the border for a week this last year in texas and to see the issues there. Obviously, the same issues that are playing out in the areas of the reservations of new mexico and arizona, so. Is this something your office is proactive in reaching out to the tribes . Or do you require them to come out to you for intelligence . We reach out to all of our partners. If its ok, sir, what i can do is get you a written or verbal brief about specifically what we are doing with the tribes. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentleman yields. Undersecretary, we will start our third and final round. Again, appreciate you being here. And if folks come in, then i will allow them to talk. But otherwise, it will be this group here. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Last year, politico reported, and i alluded to this in my opening statement, that dhss office of intelligence analysis has a virtually unknown program gathering Domestic Intelligence called the Overt Human Intelligence Collection Program. And the program has raised concerns even from within dhs from employees within dhs that the work that was being done could be illegal. And according to the politico report, one unnamed employee quoted in a an april 2021 document stated that inas office of regional intelligence is quote shady and quote runs like a corrupt government. I just want to get your take on not just that quote but just in general that program. And are you aware that some dhs ina employees share concern, widespread internal concerns about legally questionable tactics and political pressure . Thank you for that, sir. And in fact, you might remember we sent you and your fellow members a very lengthy letter that explained everything we were doing in that space. So just as a quick backdrop, the way this sort of became known is we put a pause on one aspect of our human interviewing program. And that was where people, ina people might go in and interview folks who are facing charges. And the reason for that, and remember, i am a longtime federal prosecutor so i am sort of sensitive to this. The reason for that is while it might be perfectly legal and constitutional, it could be seen as sort of invading the relationship between that person and the criminal attorney for their criminal case because they are facing charges. So, we put a pause on that. Thats what sort of got in the news and became an issue. And i am fine with that because our rules allowed for something that we should have been more careful about. We came to find out when we did an audit that we had actually never interviewed anybody in that situation, you know, where we actually after they had been arraigned and received counsel and had a sixth amendment right to counsel attached. But our procedures allowed for it. So that necessitated us going back and redoing, relooking at all the different guidance for our human intelligence program. And part of what i have laid out in detail in this statement for the record is all the work weve done in that space to redo that program. New guidance. New training. Limitations. And then some of the limitations that were imposed by Congress Last year, which we sort of work back and forth with congress in a very respectful way to come up with ndaa resolution that limited our ability to do that human intelligence collection. The last thing i would say is what i said earlier, which is a is we are taking those resources, taking that human intelligence focus and focusing it on the border now. So most of that work is going to be, you know, special interest migrants who were detained on the border working with our cbp colleagues trying to get information about the threat relating to the border. Thank you, undersecretary, and im glad you brought up products. I think there are a number of questions via letters and other correspondence that we have two we have to dhs and ina and just want to make sure that the department is tracking those but not only that, that in a timely manner that you will commit to responding to those. I will look into whatever is pending, sir. Thank you. Thank you. What is your biggest concern right now . Whats the priority for ina to keep the country safe in the threat environment that we previously discussed today . Well, to talk like a bureaucrat for a second, one priority for me is making sure that we can maximize the ability of ina to address these threats and thats why we have this review going on. Thats why i actually welcomed this because the more scrutiny, the more guidance and the more engagement from congress, the better we are going to be able to improve and progress. What is inas competitive advantage in the ic . Our breadandbutter, and just to step back a second, you both spoke about challenges that inas has had. If you go back and look at the founding documents of the legislation for ina, it is not clear what the core mandate for ina is. But when you sort of look at what gap it was intended to fill post 9 11, so you refer to the 9 11 commission report, which is a brilliant piece of writing, by the way. You see that one of the concerns that was raised is the disconnect between the hundreds of thousands of state and local, territorial and tribal, and private sector partners who have security interests and knowledge, and the federal intelligence and Law Enforcement communities. Our job is to be that connection, to be that bridge, to share information about the threats facing the homeland with those partners in making sure we are getting the information from them that feeds into our intelligence system. I mentioned that we do talk nominations for talk watch listing. A lot of that comes from state and local partners who tell us, hey, Ken Wainstein, heres the information that shows Ken Wainstein as a cartel member, we then take that and get it into the talk watch list. Thats the kind of information we need from state and local partners. When we talked about the guiding principles, our guiding principle, first one is our main focus is providing intelligence to the sltt partners. Its not necessarily getting the pbd. Its important to inform our federal decisionmakers but the gap that we fill at the intelligence enterprise is connecting with those sltt partners. My time has expired. I recognize the Ranking Member. Thank you i know you have taken steps to improve training and developing the workforce at ina. I will just plug that i have a bill, the department of Homeland Security intelligence and analysis training act that would require standardizing entrylevel basic intelligence training for all new ina employees. Could you just take a moment to explain some of the reforms you are making in addressing training of the workforce at ina . We have improved training. This predates me. A lot of the progress i am talking about here, by the way, started well before me so i dont want to take any personal credit for all of it, in particular the training area. Some of the things put in place after, for example, the portland situation in 2020, the january 6 situation was a recognition that the guidance was not sufficient in some areas and the training on that guidance was not sufficient. We have ramped up the training, the frequency and substance and quality of training. Intelligence Training Academy is much better equipped now to handle these trainings internally, as well as with external partners. And then, we are also, in terms of guidance, obviously, we have the transparency oversight Program Office, which is making sure that the guidance is put out as we need it. And dealing with Current Events and then it gets integrated into training. With campus protests, we put guidance out because thats a very sensitive, delicate situation. We put guidance out to our people quickly once that sort of came up, written guidance, and then follow that up with in person, actual training to make sure they understood. Theres a lot happening. I am happy to give you a written or verbal briefing on that. Terrific. As i read through the, sort of the third phase report that you put out as part of the review, there was a lot in there. But the part that interested me the most really into collection activities was the attempt to basically embed open Source Intelligence collectors within the Analytics Centers and with sort of your partner offices. I thought that made a lot of sense. You know, we talk about breaking down silos, and oversiloing that allowed 9 11 to happen. Can you talk a little bit more about how thats going . How its going implementation wise . And what you think the enhanced abilities of ina will be as a result of that . Thank you for asking that. That is sort of a good example of some of the thought process that has gone on here, largely by the team behind me. Our open source people were sort of in one place separate from the rest of our workforce, actually over saint elizabeths, where the rest of us are at the nebraska avenue center. They were sitting by themselves and they were not physically, sufficiently, operationally integrated with our analysts. The collectors are supposed to be serving the analyst, and vice versa. Collection is supposed to feed off of analysis, and vice versa. We made the decision we should move them over. For those reasons, also just management reasons. It was going to be better to have them sort of with everybody else. And then we wanted to, we decided, i think i alluded to this earlier, that we really need to have them fill this on strategic collection. Not just lawenforcement collection about the threat of the moment. But to the point we made earlier, our main purpose is helping that police chief, sitting mayor, governor or tribal official understand the threat thats going to come to his or her jurisdiction today and then down the road so that they can make resource and policy decisions. We can only do that if we have our open source collectors looking at it through the strategic length. Thats only going to happen if they are working with analysts who are doing strategic products. That was the thinking. As a former bureaucrat when i was state treasurer in rhode island, thats the kind of nuanced thinking that i think and actually create really good results. I thank you and your team for that, among the other actions that you are taking to enhance the organization. And with that, i yield back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Bishop. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Wainstein, thank you again for this opportunity. You know, early on in your testimony when we were having the firstround i think, you were talking about events antisemitic protests and the like around the country. Do you guys have any information or indication whether any of that is a product of foreign, malign influence . That is to say, we are all aware weve had fairly controversial Foreign Influence Task force in the fbi, the issue with the foreign, malign influence allegedly spread, well, spread through social media, and what the fbi has done to curtail that. We have the murthy versus mystery case, in which they said there is no standing for people who feel like theyre speech was suppressed to challenge that in the United States in court. What about the protests . What i meant when i said earlier about the october 17, i was just stunned to watch palestinian flags, 300,000 people marching through the streets. I just did not know that was the nature of the politics we had in the United States, even at this point. Weve seen all of the protests, some of them involving significant vandalism, tent settlements, a lot of building vandalism at universities across the country. Is there foreign, malign influence in that . You put your finger on a very critical issue. Obviously, if there were, if i was aware of anything, that would be based on intelligence sources and methods. I couldnt speak about it in an unclassified context. But let me just say that that is an issue that we in the Intelligence Committee focus on, not just with this round of protests, but with all protests. We are seeing thats one of the entries in our adversaries menu. Try to foment agitation within the United States, sow discord. One of the ways they are doing that is try to sow disorder on the streets. Are there programs, are there Government Resources that are available to deal with that in any way . The Foreign Influence Task force, thats a publicly known thing, they say they are working to counter foreign, malign influence on social media. Are there programs . I guess if you cannot really speak to it, can you talk about whether there are resources devoted to trying to address that in any way . Sure. I am answering as to sort of any foreign malign influence, put aside whether it relates to any particular protests. Absolutely, foreign malign influence centers up and running and focused on that. The fbi obviously, that is a counterintelligence threat. So a foreign nation state or Foreign Terrorist Organization is trying to foment discord with any groups in the United States, that is by definition a counterintelligence threat, and it is subject to something that the fbi can investigate. That is the kind of matter that i do investigate. I want to revisit this same topic a couple times that i tried to address a couple times. I read from director abizaids response in november 2022 and november 20 33 and i have the same issue. Whether the numbers of sheer volume across Border Crossing presents a significant risk of terrorism. She said at 1. I appreciate the question. We absolutely recognize the kind of vulnerabilities associated with the Border Security across all our ports of entry across southwest border or otherwise. But i would maintain and i talked to my analyst about this on a regular basis that as we look at the global terrorism environment, as we look at Foreign Terrorist Organization intentions to try to seed operatives into the United States, we dont have indications that are credible or corroborated that those terrorist organizations are trying to do that at this time. Do you join in that opinion at this time . Well, let me answer that in a couple of ways. That was obviously an answer at that point in time, november 2022. This was 23 actually. November 23. That was at that point in time. In terms of, you know, what the terrorism threat there is whether there are any particular the threat that particular threat actors particular threat actors, i would have to divert to the fbi and my colleagues. You cannot really answer the question whether that still question . I cannot tell you what the intelligence picture is in an open sitting setting. It seems like the tajik story, the nbc story i related earlier, it seems like the vice admiral on fox news saying we are receiving probing visits a couple times a week at military installations in the United States. I did a hearing to recently in a subcommittee on the sheer, on the 1100 increase in Chinese National migration. She was prepared to say that, and you cannot say one way or the other today . No. Keep in mind, i am answering the question with the intelligence picture, i am telling you i just cannot do it publicly. I can say this. We see that as an area that we need to focus on and we are spending a lot of time focusing on it and we are redirecting resources to focus on the border and ive explained why and what we are doing. In terms of the seriousness with which we take that concern, we are taking it very seriously. Thank you, mr. Wainstein. I yield back. Chair now recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. Crane. I want to read a headline that was posted about 30 minutes ago on fox news. And a little bit of the article and how do you respond to it, sir . Biden dhs reveals 50 migrants still at large as isis affiliated Smuggling Network brings hundreds to the u. S. The department of Home Security has identified over 400 individuals brought to the u. S. From Eastern European and Central Asian countries by an isis affiliated Smuggling Network in the past several months, a dh senior official confirmed to fox news on wednesday. Officials have arrested over 150 so far that, have either been removed placed in removal proceedings or are currently receiving additional screening. They would not confirm of how many matched the terror watch list. Of the remaining 50 individuals at large, they acknowledge that a small number may match the terror watch list. Can you respond to that article, sir . So, i will give generally the same response i get before, which is subject to the classified briefing that you receive on this, which i know has already been scheduled. Which is that my understanding is that, while there was a Smuggling Network and there are a certain number of individuals who came in Smuggling Network. Isis affiliated smuggling elk. Smuggling network with isis affiliation, theres not been any evidence put forward the any of those individual were terrorist operatives. Why is this still being allowed to happen, sir . Why is the Smuggling Network being allowed to happen . Yeah, why are we consistently sing stories like this . I can tell you we are very focused on smuggling. Networks are colleagues are zeroing in on his network send a lot of what weve done at dhs is work with the fbi to get a clear understanding of the networks out there. We spent a lot of time helping to clarify the picture of what the networks are so we can anticipate whether any of those networks are involved in terrorism. I appreciate that you guys are doing that but wouldnt you say, sir, that you can have all the intelligence in the world but if you dont have leaders who are willing to execute on that intelligence, it does not really matter, does it . What you do need also, and this is one thing i think is important, and you asked about what i need or we need, we could use more resources to the border. Both dhs but also ina. The more people we have down there interviewing folks along the border, the more likely we are going to find out about that actors coming across. You say that because you know your leadership will not actually change any policies, right . I say that because thats a truism, that right now we are operating with relatively scant resources. Let me ask you this then. Would we need to surge more people to the border, the same exact southern border that weve had now, if your administration was actually doing its job in protecting the American People . I am not going to get into sort of one or the other, other than to say we are going to go where we see the intelligence to be. Your colleagues from texas asked me about the border and i said based on what i know, as a private citizen outside, thats an area where we need to focus our intelligence efforts. That has not changed since i got in so we are going to continue to focus their. Let me shift real quick. To the Advisory Board. According to a may 172024 Department Press release, dhs decided to rebrand its Experts Group as the homeland intelligence Advisory Board. The 19 members of the disbanded Experts Group have simply been reconstituted as members of the board. This is troublesome on a given that it appears dhs is attempting to Mislead Congress and the American Public by simply renaming a controversial Advisory Committee. We have also learned that dhs has exempted this board from Public Notice reporting an open meeting provisions that are normally required by the federal Advisory Committee act. Why is this, sir . Let me just clarify one thing. Because whenever i hear a question with the word mislead, i feel ive got to respond to that. There was no misleading done at all. If you look at the public Settlement Agreement at the end of the litigation that led to us disbanding the original group, we said we have the right to constitute a new group under the law. We said that in blackandwhite. The other party, the litigation accepted, the judge accepted it. Is it true that mr. Brennan and mr. Klapper are on this Advisory Group . They were on the original Experts Group. And as we announced, we will be didnt both of those gentlemen say that the hunter biden laptop was russian disinformation . My question, sir, is why would you want guys that are putting out a false information publicly to the American People . Why would you want them on your Advisory Committee . I want people that can help us do what i am talking about, which is transform our organization. To transform an intelligence organization. Is telling the truth a part of helping . Can i answer. Go ahead. There is one person in the world who has a reason we transformed an intelligence agency, the cia, john brennan. I dont care about his politics. I care that hes honest with us, brings his perspective and donates his time with us. Trams formed it for good or bad . Thats for others to assess. Exactly. Jim klapper, once again, i dont care what his politics are but he was the director of national intelligence. I dont care what his politics are, as long as he does not weaponized them, but clearly he has. Thats why i ask you didnt both of these guys say that the hunter biden laptop was disinformation . And these are intelligence guys. Everybody knew that that laptop was legitimate. I you back. Missed i guild back. The gentleman yields back. The Ranking Members recognized. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letter that the gentleman from arizona is referring to, which outlines why for a dozen intelligence officials who signed it believe based on the available information at the time that the emails can the Ranking Member state the title of the article . Its the letter that the gentleman from arizona was referring to that was signed by multiple intelligence officials. I think the witness, as far as testimony, verifiable testimony today, i think the members, or the questions, the members like i mentioned at the beginning, may have further questions, written questions for the witness and we ask that you respond to these in writing, pursuant to Committee Role 7d, the hearing record will be open for the next 10 days. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [gavel smash]