Okay. The hearing will come to order once again. Id like to welcome our second panel. We are joined by mr. Garry reid, director for defense intelligence, office of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. And stephanie miller, director of expressions policy, office of the secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. Mr. Joe ethridge, chief criminal intelligence division, and mr. Christopher mcmahon, executive assistant director, National Security directorate the naval criminal Investigative Services, and finally, mr. Robert grabosky, u. S. Air force, office of special investigations. Mr. Reid, well begin with you. Thank you, madam chair and Ranking Member. On behalf of the entire team here, i would just like to convey our appreciation for your time and interest and for the committees support to the department in getting at this problem. If you would allow, madam chair, i represent the Background Investigation piece of this process, and in a logical order, i would like ms. Miller to begin, and then i will come back and do it because its the front end on the session x then well go through to the military departments. Thank you. Appropriate. Ms. Miller . [inaudible] good afternoon, madam chair, Ranking Member tully and members of the subcommittee. My name is stephanie miller, director under the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. I am pleased to provide testimony on this important issue, and i want to take a moment to thank the members of the first panel for their knowledge and expertise in this area which the department truly does value. I am responsible for the oversight of all matters pertaining to the recruitment of both officers and end listed personnel. I am responsible for establishing policy and recruitment matters, overseeing the establishment and adherence to enlistment standards, providing oversight of resources, managing the process and other matters relating to the general sustainment of the allvolunteer force each year the department recruits approximately 400,000 applicants for mill service of which approximately 2550,000 250,000 actually contract into the allvolunteer force. Representatives of the nation they will serve. And while todays economy has brought challenges, the department has been steadfast that the services should and will adhere to our established policies and only enlist officer and enlisted candidates that actually meet our high standards. The life cycle of military personnel from a sessions processing to separation is a complex process which is constantly involving based on best practices and newlylearned information. The beginning of the life cycle starts undergoing a though row screening process to insure that they meet the high standards. This multitiered screening process uses the tools available, and we believe we have been effective at screening for individuals that have exist ideologies extremist ideologies. For example, the department has recently launched a centralized screening capability that vets all to identify and resolve questions of allegiance. And its proven successful in identifying unique information not only available solely from the standardized Background Investigation form the sf8ing 6. Recruiters play a crucial role. Each applicant is interviewed by a recruiter to obtain as much information and documentation as possible about the individuals qualifications for military service. At our military entrance processing statements, applicants undergo background searches of Law Enforcement and other records. Applicants answer questions about any involvement with Law Enforcement agencies including arrests, charges, citations, parole or probation, detention and any other form of potentially adverse adjudication regardless of the outcome. Furthermore, all applicants provide a preliminary view of the history of any involvement with Law Enforcement including the federal bureau of investigation. Subsequent background checks screening recruits for extremist tries including criminal history terrorists and subversive activities checks and a ve you of the gang file. Upon entry into the armed services, the department of the military Services Expect individual share a responsibility to insure that members are afforded the opportunity to serve with dignity and respect in a very inclues weve environment. The departments overarching guidance is clear that military personnel must reject active participation supremacist or gang criminal doctrine, ideology or causes including those that advocate illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion,est misty or National Origin or those that advocate the use of force, violence for criminal activity or otherwise advance or deprive individuals of their Civil Liberties. The department continues to work with the services and other agencies to provide commanders and senior military leaders the tools that they need to keep informed about the activities it is or adverse behaviors of Service Members. Commanders, working with Key Stakeholders such as the Service Criminal investigative offices, are split to take appropriate action when warranted. We are gaining additional insight through Service Members through the deployment of new technologies and have explored additional testing and screening techniques that assess a range of dimensions to identify applicants who best fit with the militarys culture of treating all personnel with dignity and respect. In conjunction with more these tools can be utilized as part of a wholeperson screening process and tell us a great deal about the likelihood of successfully completing initial training and the ability of that individual to adapt to the rules, regulations and requirements of military culture. Dod remains committed to insuring that all personnel are treated with dignity and respect in an includes f environment free from maltreatment. This effort is accomplished while keeping each persons Civil Liberties intact, and while this is not always an easy endeavor, it is critical to protect those Service Members who are sworn to protect the country. Madam chairwoman, i look forward to answering your questions and appreciate you offering this opportunity to discuss this very important everybody shoe. Thank you, ms. Miller. Mr. Reid . Thank you, madam chair, Ranking Member kelly. Again, i thank you for the opportunity to testify on my overright of possessor oversight of personnel Security Policy and the steps we take to develop and sustain a total work force 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 insure 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 balled investigation. Background investigation. All applicants must complete the questionnaire for National Security petitions published if by the office of Personnel Management as standard form 86 or the sf86. All military applicants, regardless of job code, must pass a rigorous Background Investigation. That significantly exceeds the basic standard applied to many nonmilitary persons that enter public service. This is a choice made by the department of defense in recognition that there is a high level of public trust in our military that necessitates a strong commitment to insuring persons with criminal, extremist or other undesirable characteristics are not allowed to serve in our ranks. Applicants are asked probing and detail questions about their detailed questions about their 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 if exercising their constitution from exercising their constitutional rights. Supplement and enrich the selfreporting data on the sf86 with information provided by former educators, employers, coworkers and neighbors of the applicants. Investigators check federal and state Law Enforcement databases for criminal history and review public records, credit reports and if other automated data sources. Where needed, investigators initiate additional checks including personal interviews. This information is aggregated in a proreport of investigation and submitted in a report of investigation and submitted to a certified add jude cater who assesses overall ability for military service. Against the 13 federal adjudicative guidelines. Of the guidelines, personnel conduct, criminal conduct and allegiance to the United States are the primary criteria used to vet personnel that exhibit any extreme behaviors. Finish while cases with allegiance are uncommon, overall these three guidelines combine for almost half of the denials for military personnel x. Keeping in mind the prior screening ms. Miller described happens in front of this. Youve already narrowed down to a more selective 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 dod personnel are mandated to report such behavior against reporting thresholds for Insider Threat that are similar but not identical to the federal adjudicative guidelines. The dod component Insider Threat hubs provide reporting to a central dod Insider Threat center led by our defense counterintelligence and security agency. Finish presently, all dod personnel are covered by at least one of the 43 Insider Threat hubs distributed across the department and reporting of suspicious or alerting behaviors is steadily increase aring. Any behavior that crosses an established threshold is assessed and acted upon by Insider Threat hubs, the chain of command or security managers within the owning component. In addition to monitoring for Insider Threat behaviors at the component level, the Department Also conducts a continue toous evaluation Continuous Evaluation Program at the dod level. Presently, 1. 9 people are enrolled in our continue toous evaluation system, and the department has plans to enroll the full population by october 2021. Continuous evaluation complements Insider Threat reporting by providing data from outside the department with automated monitoring of multiple government, commercial and public data sources for indicators of behavior that violate standards of conduct. When alerts from continuous Evaluation Data sources indicate unacceptable behavior, the responsible security manager submits an incident report that is reviewed by the chain of command and the dods central adjudication facility. If appropriate, it can be referred to a Law Enforcement or counterintelligence investigation. If indicated, the subject can be ultimately removed from eligibility to hold position and processed for separation from military service. Madam chair, ill just close by highlighting that this is a dynamic process that is always in a state of improvement. As some members know and weve briefed here and supported by congress, the government is in the process of adding additional controls in the, what we call the personnel vetting enterprise moving to a continuous vetting model across the entire government so everything ive described to you will continue to be refined and inare riched to where enriched to where we have the greatest degree of awareness of where where threats are across the department including those posed by those with extremist attitudes. Thank you for your time, and i look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Reid. Mr. Ethridge. Good afternoon, chairwoman speier, Ranking Member kelly and members of the subcommittee. I am 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 raciallymotivated extremist threat. As the chief of cids intelligence division, im responsible for identifying and assessing criminal threats confronting the army and assisting in developing courses of action to prevent or mitigate. The cid identifies soldiers suspected of participating in extremist activities in multiple ways to include chain of command reporting, local police, the media, publicfacing social media searches, tipline 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 this extremist activities are not subjects of criminal investigations. The more common scenario is participation in an online forum that might be expressing extremist or supremacist views. In these instances cid notifies commanders via information report for action in accordance with army policy. Commanders have the authority to counsel, train and take disciplinary action to preserve good order and discipline in the unit. Additionally, cid notifies that dod consolidated adjudication facility and the intelligence is is intelligence and security command or 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 seven criminal investigations initiate with an extremist activity component in 2019 in comparison to an average of 2. 4 per year in the fy2014 to 2018 period. This up colludes soldiers from all includes soldiers from all components, active duty, National Guard and the army reserve. During the same time period, the federal bureau of invest notified cid of an increase in domestic terrorism investigations with soldiers or former soldiers as suspects. The fbi reporting also clearly stated that extremist organizations were actively seeking veteran skills. In may 2019 the Provost Marshal general of the army and i briefed the vice chief of staff of the army and members of the army staff on the cid and fbi observations. The vice chief of staff of the army directed the formation of a working group to review current policies and proceed yours to prevent procedures to prevent and address extremism in the ranks, recommending several adjustments to the army policy for soldier or participation in extremist activities stipulated in Army Regulation 60020, thats army command policy. The revision of ar60020 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 GangIntelligence Center into the fbis domestic terrorism operations unit. In summary, over the past year cid has increased collection efforts, informed our leadership of our 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 in ar60020 as a focus area for the next inspection seeking for armywide inspector yen inspections. The army is postured to identify extremist activity in the ranks and has both policy and the leadership tools to prevent emergence as a pervasive issue. Madam chairwoman, i am happy to answer any questions you or the members of the subcommittee may have at this time. Thank you, mr. Ethridge. Mr. Mcmahon. 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 christopher mcmahon, the executive assistant director of the National Security directorate9 for the naval criminal investigative service, ncis. I am pleased to provide testimony on this topic. As executive assistant director of the National Security directorate, i lead our investigations and operations confronting the intelligence and terrorism threats posed to the department of navy personnel, assets and technologies. My team also addresses all force protection issues affecting the United States navy and the United States marine corps to include ship visits and static forces support. The Naval Investigative Services is currently conducting several investigations affecting the personnel in or associated with the department of the navy. These investigations receive immediate priority attention. Our highly skilled civilian federal Law Enforcement professional use all available resources to address these matters. Working with the military investigations experience an increase in the number of domestic extremismrelated reports from the federal bureau of investigation involving department of defense affiliated personnel. In response to these referrell ands to more accurately reflect the scope of these incidents, nciss has established the unique case category domestic terrorism for operational reporting purposes. Ncis generally defines domestic terrorism as perpetrated by individuals and groups inspired by or associated with primarily u. S. Based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial or environmental nature. Ncs investigates crimes associated with domestic extremist organizations when there is an apparent federal violation and an active Service Member or Current Department of the Navy Civilian employee who has expressed an aspiration to further the identified 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 the ncis for the crime is initiated. Ncis does not pursue investigations of the department of the navy affiliated individuals who simply make statements indicating they share the beliefs or a subset of beliefs held by domestic Extremist Groups unless information exists indicating their activities meet this threshold. An investigation, where it is determines crimed determined crimes are not evident, administrative action deemed appropriate by the command involved. In conclusion, the predication for domestic terrorism investigations typically comes from command complaints, other Investigative Agency referrals or tips. For example, ncis main takes formal informationsharing agreements with the fbi on there terrorism matters. These same well established channels involving act weve duty Service Members or Current Department of the navy employees. Thank you, and i look forward to your questions. All right, thank you. Mr. Bra boss sky. Grabosky. Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you on this topic. As the Deputy Director for Law EnforcementStrategic Programs and Requirements DivisionHeadquarters Air forces office of special investigations, i help oversee policy, training and resources necessary to guide major criminal investigations in the department of the air force. Ofi has agents assigned to over 250 locations around the world to include 22 locations with the joint Terrorism Task force e end gamed in collaborative efforts with other federal Law Enforcement partners on matters of mutual concern such as matters involving domestic extremism. Pertaining to the topic of possible White Supremacists within the ranks of the military, department of air force are very concerned with early yiftion identification, affecting good order and discipline within our air and pace forces. In fact space forces. In fact, theres a written punitive policy pertaining specifically to participation in extremist activities, stating personnel must reject activity in criminal gangs and other organizations that, among other things, advocate supremacists, extremists, gang doctrine ideology or causes. Military members who violation are subject to article 92 under the uniform code of military justice. It is 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 military members are suspected of active participation in extremist or supremacy groups prohibited by the air force instructions. Since september 30, 2019, osi received about nine reported incidents involving possible supremacy activity of air force members. These incidents came to our attention in various ways. Osi opened ought investigation and referred one incident to Security Forces for further investigation. Out of the eight osi investigations, only one involved act weve participation by the member active participation by the member. One incident was disproven, and the remaining since involved inappropriate or racially unsensitive the comments or online postings. For the one active participation incident, the accused command administer administrative action. And as an impartial independent Investigative Agency, osi does not make recommendations on punitive or administrative actions. Osi cannot do more than 2500 conducted more than 2500 criminal investigations in 2019, most involving some form of data exmoyation such as extraction of information from cell phones, other personal 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 additional activity within our air and space forces. Even though the amount of extremist incidents for department of the air force remain small, osi remains vigilant to identify and quickly resolve matters involving possible extremist activity affecting good order and discipline within our area. I thank you for the opportunity to provide insight, and i look forward to providing Additional Information as this hearing continues. Thank you. All right, thank you. Let me start with you, mr. Mcmahon. In your statement you make the statement ncis does not pursue investigations of department of navyaffiliated individuals who imply 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 invested, im not investigated, im not going to be evaluated to whether or not i should be kicked out . Madam, maam, that is so we, nci s, would not actually conduct an investigation. We would refer that back to the command of the member who is a member of of that command. So we would refer that member back to the command, provide the command that information that we have daneed and any gained in any sort of manner and allow the command to take care of them in the appropriate manner. All right. Mr. Grabosky, you said specifically that mere membership in the organizations is not prohibited. But if you have a tattoo of that organization, that would be actionable . Chairwoman speier, mere participation is not something that to osi actually investigates. We actually 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 do not get involved okay. Youre missing my point. Sorry. Youre saying active participation equals Something Like a tattoo, but active participation does not equal being a member of one of these extremist organizations. And i find that asson thishing. According to astonishing. According to air force policy right now, participation is attending rallies, fundraising for them or actually being part of the organization and actively involved in it. But if youre a member, thats a level of activity. I think we need to look at that. Ms. Holland had referenced an air force individual who was not dismissed or discharged. Can you explain to us why . The information received to us of being part of an extremist organization, we opened an investigation, we produced a report and we provided it to command, and command took action. As i said in my statement, osi does not get involved in determining punishments. That is in the legal realm o. United States Air Force and the invest e agency is not involved in that process of making a decision. Finish. 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 in. Yes. If it rises to level of administrative action, we get an afteraction report that we have to update our files with. And 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 ministry or in this incidence, i believe you with received a morive punishment which does not get reported to the fbi as a criminal conviction. Can you explain to us, so in this case he remains in the military. He add had nonjudicial punishment it sounds like, is that correct . I believe he received a letter of reprimand. It was a letter of reprimand. Correct, maam. So no action taken regarding rank, pay, anything like that . He received an administrative reduction in rank by one rank in conjunction with the her of reprimand letter of reprimand. I am ware of that. And you remind us again what he was actually engaged in . He was a active participant of [inaudible] is so hes an active participant in this he was fundraising. He was fundraising for this organization, and hes still in the military. In. As i a said, maam, thats decisions that are beyond the i realize that. My disbelief is not something that should be registered to you, but to his command. But im astonished by it. Because i think, i think the potential for macing our Service Members for placing our Service Members at risk is so great. In your, in the cases that you have any of you can answer this if you would like 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, but majority . Tipline, i wouldnt, i wouldnt say it was a majority, but a common way for us to receive complaint complaints is through the tipline process. We have an automated tip line. Normally that is the source of those tips is a, is a fellow soldier or a family member. Is that the case for all of you . Mr. Mcmahon . Maam, all of the 14 ongoing investigations we are doing, we are in the process of investigating right now have all come to us via the fbi. So were working in partnership with the fbi. At this time we havent had one complaint come forward off of our tips line regarding raciallymotivated groups. I have exceeded my time, so ill 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. And it amazes me, i just completed a course last week x theres a book great new work, we had to read that. But in it it talks about the 1934 oss which is the precursor of the cia sabotage manual for germany written by william donovan, and it was the field manual. It said 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, perhaps more than five. Bring up irrelevant are issues as frequently as possible, haggle over wording and details. You guys are department of defense, okay in the Climate Survey that weve talked about, weve got a great secretary of defense. Secretary esper is outstanding, and hes a business guy, he gets this. Why dont we write in the Climate Survey and and the question that we want . You dont need Congressional Authority to do that, i dont think. I think you can write in the exact questions that you want. I think you can put in how you or one of your counterparts, can written in the exact questions. And it doesnt just need to be White Supremacy, because we have to identify what it is. In specifics. If its White Supremacy or we cant use the word extreme em. But if its something other than white principle city, we cant use the word extreme em. We have to use the is specific word. So you can write into a Climate Survey to find out what it is. The second thing is, is the actions these guys cant do anything. They are bound by, they dont have the authority to prosecute or to say this shall result in this. But at the dod level, at the Department Head level somewhere to have the Authority WithoutCongressional Authority to say if youre found as an active, pass i, any other member in this passoff, any other member in this organization, you shall be removed from service, or you shall be reduced in rank, or you shall be criminally charged. I just ask that sometimes i think we get a big bureaucracy. You ought to go read that oss hill manual. And youll go, holy cow, that sounds 90 of businesses today and our government and organizations. If weve got to get away from that. Ask i think you guys can to that. So that being said, what recommendations can you make for us to root out white principle is city or any other type of extremism . What can we do better to cope em out and to identify em and get em out . Yes, sir. And i certainly appreciate your comments. The responsibility to incorporate the requirement boo Climate Surveys is within the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. I am part of the personnel and raeness team, and so i understand that our colleagues who are experts with respect to our Climate Surveys are in the active effort right now research and determine the best way to ask those questions to glean the most information possible. And so they are actively engaged, and we can provide an update on that work to the committee on they are efforts in that regard. We do have, certainly, surveys and, of course, work force opportunity surveys that do ask questions about a racist and Extremist Group experience that they may be knowledgeable about or hate crime incidents. And we do have collect day on that and have done for a number of years. The data we have is slightly different from the military times poll, and so we want to take into account the information that they have collected . Let me, i mean, i understand that. But what weve got to do is we know things we need to know right now. We can get the answer in the perfect wording or they can write a policy which answers the question and get specific. And, guess what . We dont have to put have you experienced any type of terrorism, racism and put it down there and say please write in. That may be a more effective way because then we get that they really think it is. I think we have to execute, because if not, were relying on outside data which is the best that we have right now. But 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. And my times about to run out, but i thank you guys. I think were doing a lot of things right, but i think you can get the specifics without waiting for Congressional Authority. Thank you all for what you do and for being here. And especially my Law Enforcement guys, former dia, i yield back. Ms. Dais. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. And i know that several of you as an northbound traffickive services Investigative Services mentioned your work and the importance really of having, of having the terrorists and subversive checks. But im wondering, can you give us some, some more understanding of what happens after youve picked up something that concerns you, you toss that over to the fbi . Or it sounds like a lot of things come to you from the fbi. So how does that work . What is it that really triggers concern and what doesnt . Maam, ill take the lead on this up one. This one. When the fbi refers manager generally to us, thats kind of how it flows back. If theres somebody attached specifically for myself the navy or the marine corps, the fbi referred that back to ncis to work the investigation collaboratively. At that point in time, usually what triggers that is either some Online Activity that basically they find somebody online they can actually identify that that person is associated with the navy or the marine corps and that they have potentially talked about being able to procure weapons or take some sort of action. And so they refer that back to us, and we work that chabra tufly with the fbi looking to, you know, continue the investigation,ing monitor the activity. Not just online, but holistically during the investigation. And then also look for any other sort of ties they might have to other vims within the military to make sure were kind of rooting out any additional problems that might exist. Can you share our is it more usual that there are a number of people involved, or this is sort of a loaner . Is it possible to . Again, im going off limited data, as was talked about in the earlier panel, with the 14 investigations that we have specifically focus on domestic terrorism, its a little bit of a mixed bag. There are, there are a few investigations that have indicated one or two other members that are in communication. But quite often theyre involved in a group that the other members are not current military, potentially maybe foreign military. Currently a lot of times theyre just in communication with people that are espousing the same viewpoints. Mr. Ethridge, did you want to comment on that . Okay, thats fine. Thank you. Before the marines united scandal, its my understanding we certainly 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. So right now social media checks are not a part of the recruiting process. That is an element that we are working in collaboration with our colleagues in the Intelligence Community to determine how best to potentially incorporate that requirement are. When that happened, i was shocked, actually, that you didnt do that. Because certainly as members, you know, even within our offices, thats something that people talk about. Often people are very are aware that, you know, we can them to show us some of, you know, to show us, would they 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 cans a number of questions during the asks a number of questions. We also do the fbi check that i had mentioned before with the fingerprint check. And then we, once we have that information and the individual appears to be suitable for military service if theyred, then they fill out that sf86 form that initiates the background process. And then intelligence then takes it from there, and they can to additional work beyond what we have done beyond an internal entry level. And and once they sign that sf86 for the past three and a half years its been written in that form that they are granting consent to limited, say limited social media p monitoring. It has to be publiclyfacing. We cannot go behind passwords, we cannot look in private chat rooms, etc. Finish we dont do that on stale for every welcomed investigation right now. Background investigate 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 too manies. Theres pit palfalls here. Theres false information online. We understand theres use of handles and avatars. But earlier on you mentioned our work with the people in the office of analytic, the Personnel Research center. Were in the midst of yet another pilot to figure out how to do this. There is great returns on personal conduct and some on allegiance making disparaging remarks with youre in private. And so we see prom there. Our promise there. Our investigate i friends can to this when we have heeds and things we really 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 . I dont think so. I knew you would ask [laughter] we have well, no, youve given us the authority. And Insider Threat, by the way, you know, for the last three ndaa weve gained more scope of Insider Threat. Its a great tool. The things that i describe we do in background invests, those are federal guidelines. Those are set by the dni for security and the director of opm for suitability. We dont get wiggle room to do our own because theres a reciprocity factor. Insider threat is a much more flexible framework. We have, as i mentioned, programs in every one of our come pones. Theyre building, concern components. And for my military organization colleagues, theyre enforcing u. S. Cold. Those things, and it was mentioned in all the panels today, these behaviors fall below u. S. Personnel code. Separating someone from the service administratively sometimes takes time, and sometimes we dont rush to do it because we want to reserve the ability to take full action. But if an individual exhibits behaviors each though theyre below a criminal investigative charge, its very likely going to make them unsuitable for security clearance, and every member of the u. S. Military has to qualify for a secret clearance. Thats the bar that i described. So its very likely without getting into any specific case that when you follow through on the administrative side, you an individual loses their eligibility to serve, and they get separated. It takes a little time sometimes. Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, madam chairwoman. And thank you all for being here today. Ms. Miller, i believe it was you who commented about the background checks, and you look at the gang file if. But a lot of these white supremacist groups, these altright groups that are committing some of these atrocities arent on the gang file. Theyre not classified as gangs. A lot of these International White supremacist groups that are becoming more Popular Online and that people are joining arent classified as terrorist groups. So when youre doing these background checks, these groups arent popping up, its not going up there, what are we looking for then to kind of classify them if they might be part of these groups . Thats an excellent question, sir, thank you. I mentioned the multilayered approach that we take, and that really does start with the recruiter who does the interview with the applicant. And they ask about a number of qualifying factors. The traditional ones of citizenship and aging, level of education and age, level of education, any past criminal record, medical history, drug use. And then they also can about tattoos, and tattoos, as we have learned, is one of the best ways to help identify whether an individual has had a current or past history of engagement with any sort of extremist or gang activity. And our colleagues in the first panel mentioned the importance ott and the value of knowing those tattoos. For many years the recruiters in our processing stations had multiple, you know, files, large binders with copies and images of tattoos to try to help educate them and help identify tattoos. What weve elevenned is that the landscape of learned is that the landscape evolved so rapidly, and its difficult to maintain currency on those sort of stat isic resources and references static resources and references. We agree that having is access to timely information about tattoos and branding is very important. And so one of the requirements that we now include is for any sort of concerning or questionable banked or tattoo there is branding or tattoo, there is a requirement to take images as appropriate of those mark, and to engage local Law Enforcement and to engage the fbi and to actually ascertain more information about those markings. And thats a is very important step, a part of what we do. And then 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, and is so they get to know what are only of the prevalent concerning indicatorses in those communities. They talk to school counselors, School Resource officers, they talk to local police. And so they will get a sense of who this individual is and the company he or she may keep. And so that is some of the preliminary work that a we do before we hand it over to more formal channels and more formal investigative channelings. Channels. Now, mr. Reid, you said, you know, the investigative officers, theyre enforcing u. S. Code, right . But the military the department of defense has policy. We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to drugs. Why dont we have a zero tolerancing party when it comes to White Supremacy . Mr. Gras boss can sky had stated that being a member of this organization isnt illegal or its not against the policy, only if youre about i have. You know, would we let a member of alqaeda or a member of isis into our military if we said, they said, well im a member but im not active . Why arent we doing the same for these white supremacist groups . The guideline speaks to the behavior that denies others their basic constitutional rights. Any involvement with the group of those views in membership involvement with the Group Although maybe below the level of a criminal code violation would be a disqualifier for decision by an adjudicator on the continue eligibility of the individual. So somebody is a member of the group, one of the white supremacist groups are not eligible to serve. They can be disqualified based on their participation, the front and questioner asked questions are you a member of those groups, if they withhold information, they falsified the form which is a criminal federal offense but also goes to royalty and honesty which are guidelines. Theres 13 guidelines and they crisscross in many instances where i mentioned, criminal conduct, legions are the main categories, theres other categories, terrorism categories alignment with any of those activities would be an element of an investigative file. I know youre running out of time, were going to this evaluation, were already doing it, we dont wait until the reinvestigation anymore, these are occurring every day, we are public background checks, other checks were if this comes to light, Insider Threats, it somebody mentions anything to an Insider Threat, chain of command, security manager, Insider Threat hub and they will pull the strings on that and find out what is going on and if its there they will take action. Madame carew, i just want to say this, this is a bigger problem in our country and its something that we need to work on not only a military problem, its something that they need to be classified as domestic terrorist groups of gangs and we need to recognize what they are, the International Organizations or terrorist organizations, with the yield back. Mr. Reed, ms. Miller, we have worked together on a number of issues i have a high regard for you, but im really surprised of what ive heard today. Whom was policy it says the active participation in gangs organization is prohibited so if its prohibited and we have an air force servicemember who is actively fundraising for this despicable organization, why is he still in the military . Maam we will 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 rally, recruiting, training to distribute material, wearing gang colors into your point tattoos. Or other branding. For so therefore, those are the type of indicators that need to be evaluated when determining whether theres been a violation of this policy which could therefore lead to certainly ministry of separation and other actions against the individual. As it pertains to that case and as he indicated earlier, the services were very deliberately through the process, there is an element of due process consideration which sometimes it does take time but we will have to refer to the specific detail. Here is the problem, if all of these cases that you worked very hard to investigate are then referred to the command and their total discretion within the command, there is not equal thdue process, or pursing out a punishment. If we do not have a standard. If im a member of the sierra club i espouse all their values, if im a member of an organization that is specifically interested in doing harm to the United States, i believe in will be supportive of that. I have a real problem with the vagueness of the 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. We will hopefully be working with you to develop clear outlines. One last question, and then ill turn over to mr. Kelly, what training is being provided to commanders about white supremacist specifically, the acceleration Nest Community and a number of these organizations that we reference here today. As i mentioned, i am not an expert per se on the level of training that Commanding Officers may receive. But the policy requires training. It requires training at the entrylevel training and it requires routine in regular training and up to Commanding Officer level. We will have to take the question back and make sure the committee gets an answer to the responsible for that. One point that is helpful, each demand has an equal opportunity advisor. An equal opportunity advisor is very important asset and that command triad, they do receive training on specifically extremism and wipers him as he. To help educate them for concerning signs and indicators within the command and advisor Commanding Officers on what to recognize. I do think thats a valuable asset. I will finally say i would like to associate myself with ms. Davis comments, any job application today requires that the review that takes place looks at social media, our reluctance and wanting to do that at the front end makes no sense. This is the 21st century, that is how people communicate. If we cannot look at that then we are not necessarily doing this review as we have individuals have become in the military. I ask that you please look up requiring when you do a ministry of action or uc mj, when these guys do the hard work that you make them the report that we can correct that data. Without that we dont know what is happening below. So if you would require, number one, people are more accountable on things that they have to report, we know that from almost anything. I think thats an easy fix, now i will ask, what can chairwoman and myself, what authorities do you need to do better do your job, whether other organizatio organizations, it does not matter to me, they are all bad to be disciplined of the military. What authorities do you need from us to make your job easier, what can we do. I know mr. Reed already answered the similar question, i will echo that, i believe the department has the authorities that we need to work at this issue, certainly the continued evolution and development of tools and capabilities as they come to social media. I believe will be informative during the inception process. There will be some initial challenges and hurdles we need to work through before we can implement that. The really hard question, for you two guys, i am not ignoring you all, but these are the decisionmakers or at least you influence the decisionmakers. I would ask, one thing that you can do with your Current Authority that immediately incrementally and identifying members of organization that are white supremacist that are adverse to the United States government and then also punishes them or makes a punishment, someone who isnt it organization like that, a memb member, it does not member if you catch them being active, they are not passive, they did not join it to be passive. If there is anything, what can you do to influence your superior today to make that immediately to keep them out or get them out . I apologize, i did not exactly hear the question. What under the authorities, in your current job, what can you do, what one simple thing can you do to make it easier to keep people out, identify them or get them out of the dod . I think you hit on a good one, if we can find a way to extend our reach of the things we do and back on investigation, as i indicated we cannot apply those of the federal level until an individual has been placed on contract and sign the consent form. That space that exist prior to that is a difficult space for us to operate among other things when you talk about social media, anytime i will check any of that i will get u. S. Person information, we run into a lot of obstacles with privacy, concerns, civil liberty concerns about thirdparty information, any american chatting with other people is probably chatting with other americans that are not part of my interest. Its a complex thing, if you could help us figure now. You would be surprised what you can find out with a simple individual which is Public Information that they put out, thank you. Rowe quickly, if you can answer, tell us what we can do to get you to the authority. One thing we are working on now is to expand our scope of invade country engagement with the fbi and the task force, we do a level of work with Law Enforcement in the local gang activity, the information that is available is amended to Law Enforcement so its not necessarily information we can provide to 20000 recruiters across the country. So we have a working group right now to determine how best to share the information and what level so we can continue to update them realtime on emerging patterns in tattoos and markings and thats what were doing right now and will be very helpful. You are setting the standard for america. Thank you, youre doing an outstanding job. But i still want to get better, go get better and better get back. I believe in everything that we do. Please look at the Climate Survey, i dont think you need our authority to ask right questions to identify issues. I would ask influencer do that and without the yield back. Lots of food for thought, we look forward to working with you, this is a serious issue in the think you record days were taken very seriously. So we thank you for your contribution in your work that you do every day, and without we stand adjourn