On book tv on cspan2. Next, officials from the defense department, army, navy, and air force on the incidence of White Supremacy in the military. This portion of the hearing is an hour. The hearing will come to order once again. Id like to welcome our second panel. We have joined this afternoon by mr. Gary reid who is a director for defense intelligence, obviously the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, stefanie miller, director of accessions policy, office of the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness and mr. Joe etheridge, chief criminal intelligence division, u. S. Army criminal investigation command and mr. Christopher mcmahon, National Security director, the naval criminal investigateive services, and mr. Robert grabolski of afsoi, u. S. Air force, office of special investigations. We will begin with you. Thank you, madam chair, and Ranking Member. On behalf of the entire team here, i would like to convey our appreciation for your time and interest and the committees support for the department. If you would allow, madam chair, i represent the Background Investigation piece of this process and i would like ms. Miller to begin and ill come back. Its the front end and then well go through the military departments. Thank you. Thats appropriate. Ms. Miller . Good afternoon, madam chair, Ranking Member kelly, and members of the subcommittee. Im stephanie miller. Im director under the secretary of defense. Im pleased to provide testimony on this important issue and i want to thank the members of the first panel for their knowledge and expertise. Which the department values. Im responsible for the oversight of all matters of pertaining to the recruitment of officers and enlisted personnel. Im responsible for policy and recruitment matters, providing oversight of resources, managing the process and other matters of the all volunteer force. Each year, we recruit approximately 400,000 applicants for military service. Approximate 250,000 actually contract into the all volunteer force. We remain committed the recruiting high quality applicant represents. While todays economy has brought challenges to military recruiting, the department has been steadfast that the services should adhere to our policies candidatesd list that actually meet our High Standard standards. The life cycle for military personnel is a complex process which is constantly evolving. Methods for improvement. For example, the department has launched a satellite screening capability that identifies indicators of questionable allegiance. This embedding progress process has proven successful, not only are available from the standardized background. Recruiters play a Critical Role in assessing the qualifications of the applicants. Each applicant is interviewed to obtain as much information as possible about the individualss qualifications for military service. During our processing stations, applicants undergo a physical by trained professionals and background searches. Applicants answer questions about arrests, charters, probation,parole, or regardless of the outcome. Applicants undergo a fingerprint check. Subsequent background checks screens for extreme with ties. Law Enforcement Agency checks, and a review of the violent gang file. Upon entry into the armed services, the department, the military services and individuals share a responsibility to ensure members are afforded the opportunity to serve with dignity and respect. The departments overreaching guidance is clear that military personnel must not advocate supremacist or gangaffiliated doctrines, including those that encourage discrimination based on race, creed, ethnicity, or national origin, or those that advocate the use of force, violence, or criminal activity. Beyond its guidance, the Department Works to provide commanders and senior military leaders the tools they need. To keep informed about activities or behaviors of Service Members. Commanders working with key stake holders are swift to take appropriate action when warranted. We are gaining additional insights on Service Members through the deployment of new technologies and have employed screening techniques that assess personality dimensions to identify applicants that fit with the militarys culture of treating all with dignity and respect. In conjunction with traditional qualifications these tools can , be utilized as a wholeperson applicant screening process and can tell us a great deal about the likelihood of completing an initial entry training, and the ability of that individual to adapt to the rules and regulations of military culture. D. O. D. Remains committed to ensuring all personnel are treated with dignity and respect in an inclusive environment. This is accomplished while keeping each persons Civil Liberties intact. While its not always easy, its critical to protect our Service Members and are those of those want to serve throughout the country. Madam chair woman, i look forward to answering your questions and appreciate you offering this opportunity to discuss this issue. Thank you, ms. Miller. Mr. Reid . Thank you, madam chair. Again, i thank you for the opportunity to testify on my oversight of personnel Security Policy and the steps we take in the department of defense to develop and sustain a workforce that embodies our values as americans. I will focus my opening remarks on Background Investigations, Insider Threat programs, and continuous evaluation, as these are the primary authorities and capabilities we employ to identify persons with extremist ideologies and deny them the opportunity to serve in the department of defense. Where indicated, we also ensure they are investigated for any policy violations or criminal behaviors and are held accountable for their actions. Once a person has been selected for military service, the Department Initiates a comprehensive Background Investigation. All applicants must complete the questionnaire for National Security positions, published by the office of Personnel Management as the sf86. All military applicants must pass a rigorous Background Investigation that exceeds the standards apply to many nonmilitary persons. This is a choice made by the department of defense in recognition that theres a high level of public trust in our military that necessitates a strong commitment to ensuring persons with criminal, extremist, or other undesirable characteristics are not allowed to serve in our ranks. Applicants are asked probing and detailed questions about personal conduct, job history, encounters with Law Enforcement, drug use, credit, foreign travel, and associations with organizations dedicated to terrorism, use of violence to overthrow the u. S. Government, and the commission of acts of force or violence to discourage others from exercising their constitutional rights. Background investigators supplement and enrich this data on the sf86 with information provided by former educators, employers, coworkers, and neighbors of the applicants. Investigators check federal and state Law Enforcement data history and review public records, credit reports, and other data sources. Investigators initiate additional checks. This information is aggregated in a reportive investigation. As certified to an adjudicator. Against the 13 federal adjudicated guidelines. Of the guidelines personal conduct, criminal conduct, and allegiance to the United States are the primary criteria used to vet personnel that exhibit any extremist behaviors. While cases with allegiance are uncommon, overall, the three guidelines combine for almost half of the denials for military personnel. Keeping in mind, the prior screening ms. Miller described happens in front of this. You have narrowed down to a more selected population by the time we run this. Applicants with favorable Background Investigation results are subject to two sets of monitoring procedures throughout their military service. Each of our military departments manage their own Insider Threat programs that serve as a conduit for reporting behaviors of concern that are observable in the workplace. All d. O. D. Personnel are mandated to report such behaviors that are similar, but not identical to the federal adjudicated guidelines. The d. O. D. Component provides reporting to a central Threat Center led by our defense Counter Intelligence and security agency. All dod personnel are covered by one of the 43 hubs distributed across the department and reporting of behavior is increasing. Suspicious behavior is increasing. Any behavior that crosses the threshold is assessed by Insider Threat hubs, the chain of command, or security managers. In addition to monitoring for Insider Threat behaviors, the Department Also conducts a Continuous Evaluation Program at the d. O. D. Level. Presently, 1. 9 million d. O. D. Personnel are enrolled in this system. The department has plans to enroll the full population by october 2021. Continuous evaluation provides data by outside the department with monitoring of commercial and public Data Services for indicators of behavior that violates the standard of conduct. When alerts indicate unacceptable behavior, an incident report is submitted that is reviewed by the chain of command and dod facility. If appropriate, the incident can be referred to Law Enforcement. If indicated, the subject can be removed from eligibility to hold a position and processed for separation from military service. Madam chair, ill close by highlighting that this is a dynamic process that is in the state of improvement. Know, thembers government is in a process of adding additional controls in the personal that in enterprise, moving to a continuous vetting model across the entire government. Everything i described will continue to be refined and enriched to where we have the greatest degree of awareness of where threats are across the department, including those posed by those with extremist attitudes. Thank you for your time. Thank you, mr. Reid. Mr. Ethridge . Good afternoon, chairwoman spear, Ranking Member kelly. Im joe ethridge. Chief of the criminal intelligence division, Army Criminal investigation command. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony on the important issue of racially motivated extremist threat. As the chief of cids intelligence division, i assist in developing courses of action to prevent or mitigate. The cid identifies soldiers suspected of participating in extremist activities to include chain of command reporting, socialolice, media, media searches, deadline reports, and fbi domestic terrorism investigative reporting. We evaluate these reports to identify supporting facts. The majority of the soldiers identified as participating to some extent in extreme it activities in extremist activities are not subjects of criminal investigations. The more common scenario is participation in an online forum that might be expressing some premises views. In these instances, cid notifies commanders by an information report for action in accordance with army policy. Commanders have the authority to counsel, train, and take disciplinary action to restore good order and discipline. Additionally, cid notifies the facility anded intelligence and security command for personnel security adjudication. The cid initiates investigations when indications or allegations of a crime are present. In early 2019, cid observed a small increase in criminal investigations initiated with soldier participation in extremist activities as a component. Specifically, there were 7 criminal investigations initiated with an extremist activity component in 2019 in comparison to an average of 2. 4 per year in 2014 to 2018 period. This includes soldiers from all components, active duty, national guard, and army reserve. During the same time period, the fbi notified cid of an increase in domestic terrorism investigations with soldiers or former soldiers as suspects. The fbi reporting clearly stated that extremist organizations were seeking veteran skills. In may 2019, the Provost Marshal general and i briefed the vice chief of staff of the army and members of the army staff on the cid on the fbi observe observations. The army chief of staff ordered a working group to review this. To prevent extremism in the ranks. The working group offered up several adjustments stated in chapter 412 of army regulation. The revision is scheduled for release in the Second Quarter of this year. Internally, cid expanded its liaison relationship with the fbi, traditionally centered on the National JointTerrorism Task force and the National Gang intelligence center, into the fbis domestic terrorism operations unit. In summary, over the past year, cid has increased collection events and formed our leadership of observations, participated in the review and changes to army policy, expanded our relationship with Law Enforcement partners and made notification to commanders. Additionally, cid has formulated a request to the Army Inspector general to add unit implementation of extremist Activity Policy that is encapsulated as a focus area for the next inspection cycle for army wide Inspector General inspections. The army is postured to identify extremist behavior in the ranks. It has the leadership tools to prevent emergence as an issue. Madam chairwoman, im happy to answer any questions you or any members may have at this time. Thank you. Mr. Mcmann . Good afternoon chairwoman, Ranking Member and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on extremism in the military. I am the executive assistant director of the National Security director. I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to appear before you and provide testimony on this topic. As executive assistant director of the National Security director, i lead investigations confronting the intelligence and terrorism threats posed to the department of navy personnel, assets, research, and technologies. My team also addresses all force protection issues, to include force engagements, ship visits. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is investigating domestic terrorism investigations, including racially motivated extremism. These investigations receive immediate priority attention. Our highly skilled civilian Law Enforcement professionals use all available resources to address these matters working closely with the fbi and additional federal and local partners to address these threats. Over the course of fiscal year 2018, we experienced an increase in the number of domestic extremism related reports from the fbi involving department of defense affiliated personnel. In response to these referrals and to more accurately reflect the scope of these incidents, ncis established the case category of domestic terrorism for investigative reporting purposes. Ncis generally defines domestic terrorism as terrorism perpetrated by individuals in groups inspired by or associated with u. S. Based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, social, religious, racial, or environmental nature. We investigate crimes associated with domestic extremist organizations when theres a federal violation, violent ideology in an active Service Member or current civilian employee who has expressed an aspiration to further the violent ideology by threats, acts of violence, or other enabling criminal activity. For instances in which a crime is suspected, a general Crimes Investigation with an ncis is initiated. Ncis does not pursue investigations of department of the navy individuals who make statements they share the beliefs or a subset of the beliefs held by domestic Extremist Groups unless information exists indicating it meets this threshold. Investigations where crimes are not evident, information is passed to appropriate commands deemed appropriate. In conclusion, the predication for domestic terrorism investigations typically comes from command complaints, other Investigative Agency referrals , or tips. Ncis maintains form information sharing agreements with the fbi on terrorism matters. These same channels serve as the primary method of information sharing involving employees. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. All right, thank you. Mr. Gorowski . Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you. As the Department Director for Law Enforcement, air forces special investigation, i oversee policy, training, and resources necessary to guide major criminal investigations impacting department of the air force. Osi has agents assigned to over 250 locations around the world to include 22 locations with the joint Terrorism Task force engaged in efforts with other federal Law Enforcement offices on matters of mutual concern. Such as matters like domestic extremism. Pertaining to the topic of possible White Supremacists, were concerned with early identification and timely resolution of matters affecting good order and discipline. In fact, the department of the air force has the written policy pertaining specifically to participation in extremist activities. The policy States Military personnel must reject participation in criminal gangs and other organizations that advocate a supremacist, extremist, arcane doctrine ideology or causes. Military members who violate this policy are subject to disciplinary action under article 92 under the uniform code of military justice. Its important to note that the air force policy dictates mere membership in the organization is not prohibited. Osi has investigative responsibility to investigate these matters where members are subject to the code of justice are suspected of active participation in groups prohibited by the air force. Since september 30, 2019, osi received about nine reported incidents involving possible supplements he activity on the part of air force members. These incidents came to our attention in various ways. Out of the nine reported reports, we opened eight investigations and referred one to other forces for additional investigation. Out of the eight investigations, one involved act participation by the member. One incident was disproven and the remaining six were inappropriate or racially insensitive verbal postings. For the one active participation incident, there was a reduction of rank. As part of an and basic asian agency, osi does not make recommendations on administrative actions. It is also important to note osi conducted more than 2,500 criminal investigations in 2019. Most of these investigations involved some form of data exploitation, such as extraction of information from cell phones, other computer devices, or reviews of social media applications. Our Law Enforcement data activities over the past year of thousands of devices and social media accounts have not resulted in identifying extremist activity within our air and space forces. Even though the amount of extremist incidents remain small in the air force, we remain vigilant in identifying at resolving matters involving extremist activity affecting discipline within our air and space forces. I thank the committee to allow me to provide insight and i look forward to provide additional information. Thank you. Thank you. Let me start with you, mr. Mcmann. In your statement, you make the statement, ncis does not pursue investigations of the department of navy affiliated individuals who simply make statements indicating they share the beliefs of a subset of the beliefs held by domestic Extremist Groups. So, if i say im a racist, im not going to be investigated . Im not going to be evaluated whether or not i should be kicked out . Madam, that is so we, ncis, would not conduct an investigation. We would refer that back to the command of the member. We would refer that member back to the command, provide the command that information, the information we have gained, and then allow the command to take care of them in the appropriate manner. All right. Mr. Grobowski, you said specifically that mere membership in the organizations is not prohibited. But, if you had a tattoo of that organization, that would be actionable . Chairwoman, mere participation is not something that osi investigates. We investigate the active participation of a member. Theres many avenues within the military, including command or equal opportunity offices that conduct investigations of viewpoints of individuals. If it does not rise to the level of a felony investigation of active participation, we dont get involved. Youre missing my point. Youre saying active participation equals Something Like a tattoo, but active participation does not equal being a member of one of these extremist organizations. I find that astonishing. According to air force policy, active participation is attending rallies, fundraising, or being a part of the organization and actively involved in it. If youre a member, thats a level of activity. I think we need to look at that. Ms. Holland referenced an air force individual who was not dismissed or discharged. Can you explain to us why . The information was received to us of being part of an extremist organization. We opened an investigation. We produced a report, provided it to command and command took action. As i said, osi does not get involved in determining punishments. Thats in the legal realm of the United States air force and the Investigative Agency is not involved in that process of making a decision. And, in your experience, have you found that when you have completed your investigations and referred them back to the command, are you ever made aware of whether or not they take action . Yes. If it rises to the level of administrative action, we get an after action report that we have to update our files with. Do you convey that to the fbi . If it rises to the level for criminal indexing, yes. All our investigations are abide by criminal indexing of convictions. In this incident, i believe he received administrative punishment, which does not get reported to the fbi as a criminal conviction. Can you explain in this case, he remains in the military. He had nonjudicial punishment. Is that correct . I believe he received a letter of reprimand. It was a letter of reprimand . Correct, maam. No action taken regarding rank, pay, anything like that . He received an administrative reduction in rank by one rank in conjunction with the letter of reprimand. I am aware of that. Can you remind us again what he was actually engaged in . He was an active participant of identity europa. Hes an active participant he was fundraising. He was fundraising for this organization and hes still in the military . As i said, maam, thats decisions that are beyond i realize my disbelief is not something that should be registered to you, but to his command. But im astonished by it. I think the potential for placing our Service Members at risk is so great. In your in the cases that you have any of you can answer this that youve investigated , how many of them come to your attention because of a bystander . Another Service Member who alerts you to it. Maam, i cant give you a specific count. Majority . Tip line. I wouldnt say it was a majority, but a common way for us to receive complaints is through the tip line process. We have automated tip line normally that is the source of those tips is a fellow soldier or a family member. Is that the case for all of you . Mr. Mcmann . Maam, all of the 14 ongoing investigations were in the process of investigating right now have all come to us via the fbi. Were working in partnership with the fbi. At this time, we havent had one complaint come forward off our tip line regarding White Supremacy groups or raciallymotivated groups. Ive exceeded my time. I will come back for a second round. Ranking member kelly . Thank you, madam chair. I want to talk to you two because you were the guys who have the authority to do something. It amazes me i just completed a course last week. In this book great new work, it talks about the 1944 oss , the precursor of the cia, sabotage manual for germany written by will donovan. It say, insist on doing everything through channels. Never permit shortcuts to be taken. Make speeches. Talk as frequently as possible. Illustrate your point. When possible, refer all matters to committees. Make committees as large as possible. Irrelevant issues, haggle over wording and details. You are the department of defense. The Climate Survey we talked about we have a great secretary of defense. Secretary esper is outstanding. He is a business guy, he gets this. Why dont we write in the survey and ask the question we want. You dont need Congressional Authority. You can write into the entry exam the questions you want. You or one of your counterparts can write in the exact questions. It does not need to be just White Supremacy. We have to identify what it is in specific. If its White Supremacy, we cant use the word extremism. But if its something other than White Supremacy, we cant use the word extremism. We have to use the specific word. You can write into a climate the second thing is the actions these guys cant do anything. Theyre bound by they dont have the authority to prosecutor say this shall result in this. At the d. O. D. Level, at the Department Head level somewhere, you have the Authority WithoutCongressional Authority to say, if youre found as an active, passive, any other member in this organization or these organizations, you shall be removed from service or you shall be reduced in rank or you shall be criminally charged. We do have that authority. Sometimes i think we get a big bureaucracy. You ought to go read that oss field manual. Youll go holy cow that sounds like 90 of businesses today and all our government. Weve got to get away from that. I think you guys can do that. That being said, what recommendations can you make for us to root out White Supremacy or any other type of extremism . What can we do better to keep them out and to identify them and get them out . Yes, sir. I certainly appreciate your comments. The responsibility to incorporate the requirement into Climate Surveys is within the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. Im part of the personnel and readiness team. So i understand our colleagues who are experts with respect to our Climate Surveys are in the active effort to research and determine the best way to ask those questions to glean the most information possible. So they are actively engaged and we can provide an update on that work on their efforts. To the committee on their efforts. We have command Climate Surveys and workforce equal opportunity surveys, both at the active and reserve level, that ask questions about racism and Extremist Group experience they may be knowledgeable about or hate crime incidents. We collect data on that and have for a number of years. The data we have is slightly different than the results weve seen from the military times poll. We want to take into account the information they have collected, the information that the department has collected is more let me i understand that. What weve got to do is we know there are things we need to know right now. Yes, sir. We can get the perfect answer and the perfect wording or d. O. D. Can write a policy that asks the questions and get specific. Guess what, we do have you not have to read the question have you experienced any type of , terrorism, racism . Put it down there and say please write in. That may be a more effective way. Then we get what they think it is. We have to execute. I thinkwe have to execute. If not, were relying on outside data which is not scientific which is the best we have right now. You have the capability through command and control to ask the question that gets us the data so we can make specific decisions to get it better. My time is about run out. I thank you guys. I think were doing a lot of things right. I think you guys can get the but specifics without waiting for a Congressional Authority to do that. I would ask you please do that. Thank yall for what yall do. Especially my Law Enforcement guys. As a former da i appreciate you. I yield back. Ms. Davis . Thank you madam chair. I know that several of you in Investigative Services mentioned your work and the importance of having the terrorists and subversive checks. Can you give us some more understanding of what happens after youve picked up something that concerns you . You toss that over to the fbi or sounds like a lot of things come to you from the fbi. How does that work . What is it that really triggers concern and what doesnt . Maam, ill take the lead on this one. When the fbi refers something generally to us, thats kind of how it flows back. If theres a military member or somebody attached to the navy or marine marine corp. The fbi refers that back to ncis to work the investigation. Collaboratively what triggers that is either some Online Activity that basically they find somebody online and can actively identify that person is associated with the navy or marine corps. And that they have potentially talked about being able to procure weapons or take some sort of action. So they refer that back to us. We work that collaboratively with the fbi looking to, you know, continue the investigation, monitor the activity, not just online, but holistically during the investigation and look for any other ties they might have to other individuals within the military to make sure were rooting out any additional problems that might exist. Can you share is it more usual that there are a number of people involved or this is sort of a loner . In many cases, is it possible . Rep. Davis again, im going off limited data as we talked about earlier in the earlier panel. With the 14 investigations we have specifically focussed on domestic terrorism, its a little bit of a mixed bag. There are a few investigations that indicated one or two other members that are in communication. Quite often theyre involved in a group that other members are military, maybe have been Foreign Military or may have been former military, but currently theyre in communication with people espousing the same viewpoints. Did you want to comment on that . No. Thats fine. Thank you. Before the marines united scandal, its my understanding we didnt check peoples social media when they were being recruited, is that correct . Or were you looking at social media at that time . So i can answer that, maam. Right now social media checks are not a part of the recruiting process. Thats an element were working in collaboration with our colleagues in the Intelligence Community to determine how best to incorporate that requirement. I think when that happened, i was shocked that you didnt do that because certainly as members even within our offices that is something people talk about. Often people are very aware, we asked them to show us, with a mind sharing that information. So how do we if were not checking that at recruitment, isnt that a real gap . Right now the recruiting process is a multitiered approach starting with the recruiter who asks a number of questions during the interview. Pull local record checks and the check i mentioned before with the finger print check. Once we have that information and the individual appears to be suitable for military service, if theyre contracted, then they fill out the fs86 form that initiates the Background Investigation process. Intelligence takes it from there. They can do additional work beyond what we have done at an initial entry level. Once they sign that fs86, for the past three and its been half years its been written in , that form theyre granting consent to limited social media monitoring. It has to be publicly facing. We cant go behind passwords. We cant look in private chat rooms et cetera. We dont do that on scale for every Background Investigation right now. We have the ability to do it if there are investigative leads that come through the process i described. We would like to do it on scale for everybody all of the time. We are still developing the right tools. Theres pitfalls here. Theres false information of course online. Theres identity resolution. Theres use of handles and avatars that you dont know what you have. Earlier you mentioned our work with the office of people analytics. The personal Security Research great partners of ours. Center great partners of ours. Were in the midst of another , pilot to figure out how to do this. Theres great returns on personal conduct and some on allegiance making disparaging remarks where you think youre in private. It is associated with an antigovernment attitude. So we see promise there. Our investigative friends can do this when we have leads and things we need to get into in terms of a screening protocol. We havent found the right Success Model yet, but we have the ability to do it if we need to. Do you need help from congress to do that better . I dont think so. I knew you would ask. Well, no, youve given us the we have authority. And Insider Threat, for the last three ndaas weve gained , more scope on Insider Threats. Insider threat is a great tool. The things i described, those are federal guidelines. Theyre set by the dni for security and the director of opm we dont get wiggle room as an for suitability. We dont get wiggle room as an agency to do our own. Because there is a reciprocity factor. Insider threat is a much more flexible framework. We have, as i mentioned, programs in everyone of our components. They are building and the reporting is building. For my military investigative colleagues theyre enforcing , u. S. Code. These behaviors fall below u. S. Criminal code. But we have policies. We have military policies. Separating someone from the service administratively sometimes takes time and sometimes we dont rush to do it. We want to reserve the ability to take for action. If an individual exhibits but behaviors below a criminal investigative charge, its going to make them unsuitable for a security clearance. And every member of the u. S. Military has to qualify for a secret clearance other they have access to secret information or not. Thats the bar i described. Its very likely without getting into any specific case that when you follow through on the administrative side, an individual loses their eligibility to serve and they get separated. It takes time sometimes. Thank you. Mr. Cesnaros . Rep. Cisneros thank you madam chair woman. You commented on the background checks and part of that they do you look at the gang file. But a lot of these White Supremacists groups, these alt altright groups that are committing some of the violent activity like what happened in chancellorsville arent on the gang files. Arent on the gang files. , theyre not classified as gangs. A lot of these International White supremacist groups arent classified as terrorist groups. Theyre becoming more Popular Online and people are joining. When youre doing background checks, these groups arent popping up. It is not going up there. What are we looking for to classify them that they might be part of these groups . Thats an excellent question. Thank you. I mentioned the multilayered approach we take. That really with the recruiter does start who does the interview with the applicant. They ask about a number of qualifying factors. The traditional ones of citizen at age, level of education, criminal records medical history and drug use. ,they also ask about tattoos. Tattoos is one of the best ways we have learned to identify whether an individual has had a current or past history of engagement with any sort of extremist or gang activity. Our colleagues in the first panel mentioned the importance and value of knowing those tattoos. For many years the recruiters and our military entrance processing stations had multiple files, large binders with copies and images of tattoos to try to help educate them and help identify tattoos. What we learned is that the landscape of tattoos evolves so rapidly and its very difficult to maintain currency on those static resources and references. So we agree with our colleagues in the first panel that having access to timely information about tattoos and branding is very important. So one of the requirements that we now include is for any sort of concerning or questionable branding or tattoo there is a requirement to take images as appropriate of those markings and to engage local Law Enforcement and to engage the fbi and to actually ascertain more information about those markings. Thats a very important step, a part of what we do. We also the recruiters do a lot of work in terms of working with family members. They spend an incredible amount of time in their community. So they get to know the prevalent concerning indicators in their communities. They talk to school counselors, resource officers and police. School resource officers and police. They get a sense of who the individual is. And the company he or she may keep. So that is some of the preliminary work that we do before we hand it over to more formal channels and more formal investigative channels. Now, mr. Reid, you said the investigative officers theyre enforcing u. S. Code. The department of defense has but the militarythe department of defense has policy. , we have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to drugs. Why dont we have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to White Supremacy . Mr. Grabowski had stated that being a member of the organization is not illegal, but only if youre active. Would we let a member of al qaeda or a member of isis into our military if theyre not active . Why arent we doing this with white supremacist grooupups . Groups . I believe we do have a policy. Your eligibility for services hinged to the federal adjudicative guidelines. One of the guidelines speaks to engaging in behavior that denies other others their basic constitutional rights. So any involvement with a group , that espoused those views and membership and involvement with that group, although may be below the level of a criminal code violation, would be a disqualifier for a decision by an adjudicator on the eligibility of that individual. The continued eligibility of that individual. If somebody is a member of so youre saying that that group, one of these white supremacist groups, theyre not eligible to certain in the u. S. Military . They could be disqualified based on their participation. The front end questionnaire asks questions are you a member of any of those groups. If they withhold information, they falsified the form which is a criminal offense. It also goes to loyal and honesty which are adjudicative guidelines. There are 13 guidelines. They crisscross in many instances, personal conduct, criminal conduct, allegiance are the main categories. Their other category, terrorism categories. Alignment with any of those activities would be an element of an investigative file. Keep this in mind, were going through this continuous evaluation. We are already doing it. We dont wait for the next reinvestigation. These are occurring every day. We have public records checks and other checks where if this comes to light, someone mentions anything to an Insider Threat, its going to a security manager officer, chain of command, and to an Insider Threat hub and , theyll pull the string on that and find out whats going on. And if it is there theyre going to take action. Madam chair woman, this is a bigger problem in our country. Its something we need to work on. Its not only a military problem. It is something that we need these groups they need to be classified as domestic terrorist groups, as gangs. We need to recognize what they are, theyre terrorist organizations. These International Organizations are terrorist organizations. With that i yield back. Thank you, mr. Cisneros. Mr. Reis, ms. Miller ms. Miller, we worked together on a number of high issues. I have a high regard for you. Im flummoxed by what i heard today. In this policy it says that any of these active participation in gangs or organizations is prohibited. So if its prohibited and we have an air force Service Member who is actively fundraising for this despicable organization, why is he still in the military . Maam, well have to refer you to the air force to gain more details on that specific case. To your point, yes, the policy does say it prohibits active participation which includes fundraising, demonstrating, rallying, recruiting, distributing material, wearing recruiting, leading members, distributing material, wearing gang colors and to your point tattoos or other brandings. So, therefore, those are the types of indicators that need to be evaluated when determining whether there was a violation of this policy which then could lead to, you know, certainly administrative separation and other actions against the individual. As it pertains to that case and as mr. Reid indicated, the Services Work very deliberately through that process. Theres an element of due process consideration. And so sometimes that takes time. We will have to refer you to the air force to garner specific details about that specific individual. Heres the problem, if all of these cases that you work very hard to investigate are referred to the command and theres total discretion within command, theres not equal due process. There is not equal parsing out of punishment if we dont have a standard. We have to if im a member of the sierra club, i espouse all of their values. If im a member of an organization that is specifically interested in doing harm to the United States, i believe i will be supportive of that. So i have a real problem with , our with the vagueness of these policies and the distinction between active participation and membership and i think these policies have to be updated. Theyre woefully inadequate for what we know today is a very serious domestic terrorism problem. So were going to hopefully be working with you to try to develop, you know, clearer outlines. One last question i have and ill turn it over to mr. Kelly. What training is being provided to commanders now about White Supremacy specifically, the accelerationist community and a number of these organizations we referenced here today . Maam, my capacity here today is a session as i mentioned. Im not an expert on what training Commanding Officers receive. The policy requires training. It requires training at the entry level. It requires routine and regular training all the way up to Commanding Officer level. Well have to take that question so back and make sure the , committee gets a full answer. One point that is very helpful is that each command has an equal opportunity adviser. An equal opportunity adviser is a very important asset and they do receive training specifically on extremism and White Supremacy. Actually largely pulling from information from the adl and the Southern Poverty Law Center to help educate them to look for concerning signs and indicators within their command and to advise their Commanding Officers on what to recognize. I would like to associate myself with ms. Davis comments, any job application today requires the review that takes place looks at social media. So our reluctance or timidity and wanting to do that at the front end makes no sense. This is the 21st century and that is how people communicate. If we cant look at that, then were not necessarily doing this fulsome review as we have individuals become members of the military. I will now turn it over to mr. Kelly. I just ask that you guys please look at requiring that when you do administrative action or ucmj, that you make them report that to d. O. D. So we can collect the data. Without that, we dont know whats happening below. If you require that, number one, people are usually more accountable on things they have to report. We know that from almost anything. I think thats an easy fix. Now im going to ask you guys what can chair woman spear and myself, what authorities do you need to better do your job to not just White Supremacy is what were talking about today. Whether its other organizations, it doesnt matter to me. Theyre all bad to the order and discipline to the military. What authorities do you need from us to make your job easier . What can we do to give you authorities . Mr. Reid answered that similar question. I will i believe the department echo his sentiments. I believe the department has the authorities that we need to work after this issue. Certainly the continued evolution and development of additional tools and capabilities particularly as it comes to social media will very social media scraping will very informative. Especially during the accession process. There are some initial challenges and hurdles we need to work through before we can implement that on a largescale. Now the really hard question. For you two guys its more im not ignoring yall. These are the Decision Makers or at least you influence the Decision Makers. I would ask whats one thing you , can do with your current authorities that immediately make a difference in either identifying members of organizations that are adverse, White Supremacists, any other group that are adverse to the United States government and also or that punishes them or makes the punishment even. Someone who is in an organization like that lets be , for real. If theyre a member, doesnt matter if you catch them being active. Theyre not passive. They did not join it to be passive. So if what can you do or there is anything what can you do or, influence your superior to do to make that to keep them out or get them out . I apologize, sir. I didnt exactly hear the question. What under the authorities i asked what authorities you need from us. You said none. So in your current job, what can you do what one simple thing can , you do to keep people out, identify them or get them out of the d. O. D. . I think you hit on a good one. Thats if we could find a way to extend our reach of the things we do in Background Investigations, as i indicated, we cannot apply those at the federal level until an individual has been placed on contract and files a consent form. Signs a consent form. That space that exists prior to that is a difficult space for us to operate in. Among other things, especially when you talk about social media, any time im going to go check any of that, im going to get other information. We run into a lot of obstacles with privacy concerns, civil liberty concerns and eo12333 concerns. About thirdparty information. Any american chatting with other people is probably chatting with other americans that are not part of my sphere. Its a complex thing. If you could help us figure i get all that. You would be surprised of what you can find out with a simple google of an individual, which is Public Information they have put out. Thank you. Real quickly, if you can answer, please ms. Miller. , tell us what we can do to get you the authorities. One of the things were working on is to expand our scope of engagement with the fbi, the domestic criminal task task force and the criminal gang files. We do a level of work with local Law Enforcement and the local gang activities. The Information Available at the fbi is limited to Law Enforcement, and so thats not necessarily information that we can provide to 20,000 recruiters across the country. So we have a working group right now to determine how best to share that information and at what level so that we can continue to update them realtime on emerging patterns and tattoos and markings. So thats work that were doing right now, and i think it will be very helpful. And i want to end with, guys, you are setting the standard for america. Thank you. You are doing an outstanding job, so i dont want but i still want to get better. Say good get better and better get best. I believe in that in everything we do. Please look at the Climate Survey. I dont think you need our authority to ask the right questions to identify issue. S. I would ask influence or do that. With that i yield back, chair woman. All right. Lots of food for thought here. We look forward to working with you. This is a serious issue. I think you recognize that were taking it very seriously. So we thank you for your contributions today and your work that you do every day. With that we stand adjourned. Follow campaign 202010 this weekend. They, live at 5 00 p. M. Eastern, joe biden, Pete Buttigieg senator amy klobuchar, and tom steyer speak in a form on infrastructure. Live coverage on cspan peered watch on cspan peered watch ondemand at cspan. Org and listen on the go on the cspan radio app. With the iowa and New Hampshire primary behind them heres a look at important Upcoming Events for the remaining democratic president of candidates. The nevada caucus often called the first in the west is saturday, fabry 22nd. Nevada sends 36 pledged delegates to the convention. South carolinas primary is saturday, february 29. An open primary with 50 four pledged delegates. Super tuesday, where 15 states and one territory allocate one third of all the democratic pledged delegates, is march 3. Monday, president s day, on book tv. Discussions on u. S. China relations, reforming journalism, and startups in San Francisco. Starting at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, formertech or terry secretary of state Condoleezza Rice discusses u. S. China relations in the 21st century. There were adults who believed that by the integration of china in the International Economy we would see that liberalization of chinese politics. You said earlier the expectation had been cooperation with china. Actually the x dictation was integration with china. And now the expectation was integration with china. Now you see frustration with that. Marvin on his. Book on reforming journalism. We do not want to make ourselves the apparent font of wisdom. We would like to go out and report. Is followed into rare circumstances these days. Theyre so much opinion journalism theres very little reporting, people listening, paying attention, watching a describing. At 6 45 p. M. , Technology Reporter anna weinert looks at San Francisco starter startups. In her book uncanny valley. Some people say who or could not exist if we did not have this crazy culture and my westerns should it exist . If you dont have that culture and the company does not happen, maybe that is fine. Uber could not. Next, president ial candidate speaks at the Virginia Democratic Party dinner in virginia, their largest dinner of the air. 2020 democratic president ial candidate Mike Bloomberg spoke at the Democratic Party of virginias 2020 blue commonwealth gala, in the state capital of richmond. Guests, democratic candidate for president former mayor of new york city, michael bloomberg. [applause]