help us understand the scope of the problem. the threat including from susan broh, the mother of heather heyer, we also heard from officials on what the agencies are doing today and not doing and should be doing in response. white supremacists constitute the most significant threat, but the federal government has a cohesive strategy for addressing the problem. last month's hearing left me with three primary concerns. first the fbi data collection and reporting system. at best drastically underreports hate violence in the u.s., and at worse deliberately obscure the scope of the threat. second the fbi's allocation of resources is skewed do international terrorism despite data showing domestic terror to be the greatest threat, and third, the department of homeland security appears to have no overall strategic plan for how to counter and prevent white supremacist violence. it's night sincere hoping that the friends at the fbi and homeland security here today are prepared to adequately address all of these concerns today. the data reporting on hate-motivated violence in both the division in the counter-terrorism division is flawed. every witness before the subcommittee agreed on one thing, the fbi's hate crimes statistics are inaccurate and do knee reflect the reality of hate-motivated violence in our country. in numbers now family to us all, the fbi reported on average 7500 hate crimes annually. during the same a period of time, there was a survey that averaged 200,000 hate crimes average, which means the fbi is reporting one hate crime for more than 20 hate crimes reported in the national crime victimization survey. there are data leaks in almost every state of the hate crimes reporting process, from the hesitation of victims to report hate crimes to 9 police, so the failure of local and state police to report hate crimes to the fbi, to the fib not reporting hate crimes that they are aware of and filling in for gaps in the record. what's more, the fbi data excludes incidents that any reasonable person would great should have been included, perhaps the most prominent example was heather heyer. wise was her murder not reported as a hate crime. the baffling omission reflects a problem first at the local level as local police did not report it as a hate crime, but also betrays a systemic feeling by the fbi, which apparently made also or no effort at all to independently verify the accuracy of the data being submitted around the country. you i notice we can do better, and i hope to hear from witnesses. mr. shivers, i hope you are prepared to lay out a plan for how c.i.d. can improve the collection of data. what appears to be plaguing the counter- -- why c.i.d. lacks the information to understand the scope of hate crimes, c.i.d. has detailed information curb but seems determined to obscure the vote of white supremacist vile also. for at least a decade he employ the term "why supremacist extremist" described as groups or individuals who engage in acts of violence directed hi federal government, in support of their belief that caucasianse intellectually and morally superior to other races. this joint lexicon was accompanied by at least nine other specific categories, including an arcist extremist, black supremacist extremists, sovereign extremists and skin head extremists. now the fbi has collapsed these prior ten specific categories into four combined categories. and now uses one, racially motivated violent extremism, which we have been told is an umbrella term that combines the prior sub categories for white and black racially motivated extremism to anti-government anti authority extremism. three, animal rights extremism and four abortion extremism. what was the purpose of these changes? at what level of detail is the fbi still tracking extremist activity? what proportion of racially motivated violent extremism is actually perpetrated by white supremacists? merging white supremacist extremists who are responsible for 39 murders in 2018 with black supremacist extremists who were responsible for zero extremist murders in 2018 into a single amalgamated category called racially motivated violent extremism. i think obscure is the real threat, but i would love to hear our witnesses opine on that. similarly, the transformation of the descriptive anti-abortion extremist category, which was in place for a decade into the misleading new category of abortion extremism, is -- it appears to me a hand-fisted effort to disguise the nature of the real threat to women's health care clinics and doctors and nurses and staff who work there. i know of no women's reproductive health workers who are pro choice activists who are blowing up clinics or otherwise committing violence. we cannot play word games with domestic terror, nor can we afford to let hate crimes go drastically unreported. the fbi must collect and report accurate data on white supremacist violence and effectively measure the real magnitude of the threat. the government cannot protect vulnerable communities without understanding and defining the problem in accurate detail. this much is clear. white supremacist terror is on the rise, and far right and white supremacist domestic terror is a far more lethal threat to americans in the united states today than is international islamic terror. but the fbi resource allocations don't reflect this reality. according to the anti-defamation league, from 2009 to '18, far right extremism, which the fbi classifies as a form of domestic terrorism, was responsible for 73% of extremist murders. islamic extremism, which the fbi usually classifies as a form of international terrorism, was responsible for 23% of the fatalities during that period. however, the fbi has testified the bureau allocates its resources almost exactly backwards from what the problem would suggest. devoting 80% of field agents to stopping international terrorism, including islamic extremism, and only 20% to stopping domestic terrorism, including far right and white supremacist extremism. this allocation of resources or misallocations of resources, has real-life consequences. as george saleem testified at our last hearing, the university of maryland start center found that from september 11th, 2001 through 2017, approximately 71% of islamist inspired extremists were stopped in planning activity. but in over 71% managed to successfully commit violent acts they were planning. how many far right extremist attacks could have been prevented if we had taken that threat as seriously as we had taken the threat of islamist fanatical extremism? according to the anti-defamation league, of the 50 domestic extremist murders committed in america last year, every perpetrator -- every perpetrator had ties to right wing extremists. and 78% of the murders or 39 of them were committed by white supremacists. there were zero killings related to left wing extremism, which includes crimes committed by anarchists and black nationalists. how many lives can we save if we strengthen and focus our response on white supremacist violence? mr. mcgarity, i hope you are prepared to account for ctd's statistical reporting and resource allocations. the fbi is not the only piece of the puzzle. we also need to hear from the department of homeland security to answer a fundamental question. do we have an overall strategic plan to counter and prevent the threat of white supremacist violence? i fear the answer is no, but i'm very eager to hear from ms. newman. news reports indicate that this administration is actually dismantling dhs' threat prevention teamwork without a clear path forward to replace the existing framework. george saleem, who testified at our last hearing, was the homeland security director of countering violent task force, and he testified that when he was at the office of community partnerships, he oversaw the countering violent extremism task force. they had $10 million in grant funding to give away. they had 16 full-time employees and 25 contractors and a total budget of $21 million to try to do proactive work to counter the spread of terror. now after the office has been renamed and reorganized to the office of targeted violence and terrorism prevention, there are only eight staff and a budget of $2.6 million. so the staff has been cut in half and they have lost 80 to 90% of their funding. so this development appears to have been aimed -- well, it's not clear exactly why it happened, and i hope you can shed some light on that for us, ms. newman. in testimony prepared for today's hearing, a homeland security appears to lay out a path forward but i think ms. newman would agree, there are still more questions than answers at this point. what are the office's precise functions, who is in charge? how many personnel will be assigned to prevent white supremacist white supremacy violence? what is the budget? there is no clear answer. and it's very late in the game for us. the massacre at the mother emmanuel a.m.e. church in charleston was in 2015. heather heyer died in 2017, where there were another 30 or 35 crimes committed during those horrific events in charlottesville. the tree of life massacre took place last year. why are we now just getting around to establishing an office to address the threat? why are we trying to articulate a nationwide strategy to prevent this threat to communities across the land? i know that ms. newman recognizes the enormity of the problem and the importance of getting it right, and i look forward to hearing her thoughts about a detailed strategic plan moving forward. president trump has called white supremacists a small group of people that have very, very serious problems. but real statistics from third-party groups and his own law enforcement agencies demonstrate that it's actually a rather large group of people, in the thousands, and they are causing very, very serious problems, not just for themselves, but for everybody else. and certainly for everybody who has died at the hands of white supremacists across the country. in congress, we must ensure that the government step up immediately, speak clearly about the nature of this threat, and rapidly move to increase and improve law enforcement and public education efforts to protect our communities against the lethal perils of white supremacist violence. and with that, i'm delighted to turn it over to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, mr. roy. >> i thank the chairman. and i thank the work of the chairman and his staff on pulling this hearing together. a and i thank the witnesses for taking time to be here to join us and to testify and for your service to our nation. thank you. i am gratified that we are working on a bipartisan basis to conduct meaningful oversight of the work that fbi and dhs are doing to fight domestic terrorism and hate crimes. i believe and expect we will hear testimony today that prevention of targeted violence should be agnostic to ideology. i could not agree more. as a former federal prosecutor, i think it's imperative that be our approach. i do reiterate my point from the first hearing that we be mindful of our language and avoid focus on identity politics, which furthers the division and causes many of the hateful facts by all bad actors. but if we're going to have a hearing related to domestic terrorism, i'd like to discuss the differing types of domestic terror threats that the country faces. like sovereign citizen terrorists in texas. i want to talk about environmental terrorism that may have a presence in other areas of the country, because the domestic terrorist threat we see in maryland may not be the same threats we see in texas. which is why i've asked mr. benchman to be on the second panel to give us that state and local perspective about what we saw on the ground when he worked in law enforcement in counterterrorism in texas. the fact is, a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. we should be focusing on stopping all forms of terrorism and hateful violence. i also want to reiterate the importance perspective. last hearing i discussed the statistics from the anti-defamation league. 18 of 34 extremist murders in 2017 being tied to white supremacy. obviously, all horrific and crimes we would like to stop. of course, perspective is important, because there were 17,000 murders in the united states in 2017. we should also be cognizant of the reality we designate foreign terrorist organizations as exactly that. but we do not have a similar decimation domestically. there are reasons for that, things we should continue to discuss and debate. there are fourth amendment concerns with how we target american citizens outside traditional criminal laws and networks. with those figures in mind, and that background, i hope today we can promote meaningful law enforcement meant to root out crime and be mindful of how we allocate resourtss. it's a difficult situation we have to do as we try to stop criminal activity nationwide, regardless of where it comes from or why it's perpetrated. my hope is we can lay down our attempt to call out racism as abhorrent. if we convene this hearing, both dhs and fbi are protecting this country from terrorism and hate crimes. as we speak. right now. it's going on. for example, earlier this year, the fbi's joint terrorism task force in california worked diligently to prevent a terror attack planned in long beach. a jttf in ohio this warm fronted a couple's plan at a bar in toledo. i have a bunch of examples of fbi cases in texas. a former student whom fbi agents claimed was plotting mass violence. agents arrested a daca recipient. texas-based individual burned a victoria, texas, mosque. two members of sovereign citizen religious sect living in a central texas compound robbed a jewelry store. roger talbot was arrested in march 2014 following an undercover investigation of his so-called americanin surgient movement. he was threatening to blow up government buildings. another individual had 500,000 rounds of ammo and was engaged in white supremacist activity in east texas. that was also thwarted and i can go through the list. my point is, that activity is going on. it's important that we recognize how much law enforcement is working together at the federal, state and local level to thwart these kinds of activities, regardless of their ideology, regardless of where they come from, regardless of their race, regardless of a focus on whether it involved international terrorism. and i think it's critical we recognize and thank you all and those that are working in our law enforcement communities from federal, state and local for their service in doing so. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses from the fbi and dhs about the efforts spanning the previous administration, and this one, to combat crime, including domestic type terrorism. as i understand, there have been significant steps taken to improve it under this administration and learn and involve what we have been doing. in fact, many steps not taken necessarily by the previous administration, not necessarily to a fault, but because we learn and develop. i also look forward to hearing how the federal government can partner with state and local law enforcement agencies further to eyi quip them to root out domestic terrorism. as i can attest to someone who worked as a former federal prosecutor within department of justice, in partnership with state and locals to prosecute, gang, drug and violence. >> thank you for that opening statement. very much appreciate it. and let's see. the first thing we need to do is to allow mr. malinowski and ms. talib to participate in today's hearing. we're delighted to have them. without objection, i will grant them that status. and now i want to welcome our distinguished witnesses today. starting with michael mcgarity, who is the assistant director of the counterterrorism division of the fbi, of the federal bureau of investigation. welcome. we're delighted to have you. calvin shivers. mr. shivers, i've been pronouncing your name that way. i want to make sure that's correct. >> correct. >> a good guess. you are the deputy assistant director of the cid of the fbi, federal bureau of investigation. and ms. newman, threat prevention and security policy at the u.s. department of homeland security. so we have the key people in the country with us today. mr. mcgarity, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. >> and forgive me. i do need to swear you in. if all of you would please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. thank you very much. please be seated. the microphones are sensitive up here, so please speak directly into them so all of us can hear you. and without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record. and with that, mr. garrity, now you're recognized for a full five minutes to give an oral presentation. >> thank you, chairman. good afternoon, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. as the assistant director of the fbi's counterterrorism division, i will be providing an overview of the fbi's efforts to counter domestic terrorism by explaining what we do and how we do it. and i want to emphasize up front that preventing acts of terrorism in the homeland is the fbi's number one priority. this includes terrorism from any place and any actor. in this fight, the fbi's lead federal agency for investigating terrorism, the fbi categorizes investigations into two main programs. international terrorism and domestic terrorism. i.t. and dt. combined, these two programs are what make up the fbi's top priority. international terrorists include members of designated foreign terrorist organizations. we call them ftos. state sponsors of terrorism and homegrown extremists. domestic terrorists are individuals who commit violent, criminal acts in furtherance of ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as bias, racial bias and anti-government sentiment. despite the many similarities, the fbi distinguishes domestic terrorism extremists from home-ground extremists in that the latter are global jihad inspired while domestic terrorist inspiration emanates from racial bias or anti authority. the fbi seeks to disrupt domestic terrorist actors by leveraging the full arsenal investigative techniques. however, as this committee knows, no investigation can be open based solely on the first amendment protected activity. for example, the fbi does not investigate rallies or protests. unless there is a credible belief that violent criminal activity may be occurring. the fbi assesses domestic terrorists collectively, pose a persistent and evolving threat of violence and economic harm to the united states. in fact, there have been more arrests and deaths in the u.s. caused by domestic terrorists than international terrorists in recent years. individuals affiliated with racially motivated violent extremism are responsible for the most lethal and violent activity and are responsible for the majority of lethal attacks and fatalities perpetrated by domestic terrorists since 2000. racially motivated bomb extremism includes threats from bias related to race held by the actor against others or a given population group. the current threat, as we call it, is decentralized by lone actors, radicalized online who target minorities using easily accessible weapons. this assessment is in contrast to the fbi's past assessments of similar movements in the 1980s and early 2000s when the threat was composed of hierarchy instruction groups, nationally organized groups led by charismatic i'd logs. in recent years, lone offenders have committed the most lethal violence. these offenders primarily use firearms and often act without specific guidance from a group. radicalization of domestic terrorists, primarily occurs through self radicalization online which can sometimes present mitigation difficulties. it is a challenge for law enforcement. the internet and social media enables individuals to engage other domestic terrorists without face-to-face meetings. we've seen multiple devastating attacks committed by domestic terrorists in recent months. most recently in the u.s., include the shootings at the shabbat synagogue in poway, california, and pennsylvania. in 2018, domestic violent extremists conducted six lethal attacks, killing 17 victims. in 2017, domestic violent extremists conducted five lethal attacks, killing eight victims. central to our efforts to combat terror attacks is the joint terrorism task force or jttf model. we have worked hand-in-hand with federal and local agencies to effectively combat the threat. in fact, many arrests of the fbi domestic terrorism subjects are conducted by state and local partners in coordination with jttfs. we have jttfs throughout all 56 field offices which allow for regular and robust sharing of threat assessments, with our federal, state and local partners. in fact, approximately 50% of our domestic terrorism investigations are open based on information received from either the public or from referrals provided by our partners at the local, state and federal levels. in fiscal year 2018, fbi jttfs across the country proactively arrested approximately 115 subjects of fbi domestic terrorism investigations before they could mobilize to violence. so far in the first half of fiscal year 2019, our jttfs have disrupted approximately 66 subjects of fbi domestic terrorism investigations by arrest. these numbers are more than mere statistics. undoubtedly, they represent american lives saved in communities across the united states of the despite the successes that result from the hard work of the men and women of the fbi and our partners on the jttfs, domestic terrorism continues to pose a persistent threat. our commitment to you and to our fellow citizens is that we will continue to confront the threat posed by terrorism. whether the threat emanates from international terrorists or here in the homeland in the domestic sphere, we will follow our oaths. we will and are determined to protect the united states of america from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to uphold the constitution of the united states. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. shivers. for five minutes. >> good afternoon, chairman raskin, ranking member roy and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting us here today. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss how the fbi addresses hate crimes. my experience working in the fbi goes back nearly 30 years when i started my career as a special agent in the fbi's new orleans division. throughout my career, i've had an opportunity to investigate, lead and manage a number of important investigations and programs within the fbi. i'm both proud and honored to lead the branch of the division that oversees hate crime and civil rights programs. hate crimes tear at the fabric of our communities and our country. so we must ensure the civil rights of all persons, which are guaranteed by the u.s. constitution are protected. hate crime laws in the united states are intended to protect our citizens against bias crimes, motivated by animus against a protected class of persons. current u.s. statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, disability, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity. over time, the fbi's ability to investigate these crimes has expanded as new laws were passed. for example, the civil rights act of 1968 permitted federal prosecution of crimes committed with the bias against race, color, religion or national origin. in 2009, when the matthew shepard and james byrd jr. hate crimes prevention act was passed, federal hate crime law expanded to apply to crimes motivated by a victim's gender, perceived gender, sexual orientation or disability. in order for the fbi to initiate a hate crimes investigation, there are three key elements we must look for or must suspect. number one, there must be an act of violence, threatened violence or a conspiracy to do so. number two, the perpetrator must have acted willfully or intentionally. and number three, the perpetrator's actions must have been motivated by an actual or perceived statutorily recognized bias. it is worth noting that hate crime investigations are often by their very nature reactive. that being said, when the fbi understand we must also be proactive in trying to prevent hate crimes. because hate crimes and domestic terrorism can intersect, the fbi's counterterrorism division also addresses hate crimes through domestic terrorism investigation. in some instances, we work parallel investigations. by analyzing and sharing intelligence, we both hope to prevent hate crime incidents. but if a hate crime does occur, we work diligently to hold those responsible accountable for their actions and seek justice for victims. hate crimes are not only an attack on victims, but they often have a wide ranging, harmful impact on communities. thus, investigating hate crimes is one of the fbi's highest priorities. although the fbi's a primary u.s. law enforcement agency that conducts civil rights investigations, we understand the importance of partnerships with federal, state and local law enforcement, as well as affected communities. community engagement, outreach, training and education are critical to our success in addressing hate crimes. the uniformed crime report or ucr is a nationwide cooperative statistical effort of nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies who voluntarily report data on crimes brought to their attention. the ucr program is being transitioned from a summary reporting system to the national incident-based reporting system or nibrs. it collects crime data that is more comprehensive than the ucr, making it a more effective tool for law enforcement, policymakers and analysts to truly understand crime and make informed decisions to address it. we believe niners will capture data that helps us better understand the magnitude of the hate crime threat. the fbi has been and will continue to be the lead law enforcement agency addressing hate crime matters. we are proud of our work and look forward to continuing to be the agency that the american public continues to trust to serve in this role. i look forward to our dialogue and your questions. thank you. >> mr. shivers, thank you very much for your testimony. and ms. newman, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman raskin. ranking member roy and members of the subcommittee, i'm very grateful you're holding this important hearing on combatting violent white supremacy. i want to make it clear at the outset, unequivocally and without hesitation that violent white supremacy is abhorrent. i am grateful we have the opportunity to discuss the department's current capabilities and plans for advancing the prevention mission. please allow me to first, though, convey my deepest condolences to the families of the victims of friday's targeted attack in virginia beach. 12 lives were cut short. four more are in the hospital. we have families grieving and shock and grief again are rippling through our country. whether it's an attack on a school, a nightclub, a synagogue, a mosque, a church, or a public space in a government facility, it really needs to stop. we need to invest in prevention that bring that end into view. i have been working on prevention since shortly after the attacks of september 11th, 2001. i served in the domestic counterterrorism direct i can't tell at the white house and worked on the policies and programs we needed to prevent another catastrophic attack. we designed measures to address the threat from al qaeda, primarily a complex coordinated attack with planning cycles ranging from months to years, and attackers or filters that entered the u.s. from abroad. these prevention efforts were primarily the tools of law enforcement intelligence and border security. the threat morphed multiple times over the past 18 years, with one of the most concerning trends being the ability of isis to recruit and radicalize to violence in isolation via the internet and social media. and now domestic terrorist movements are borrowing from the isis handbook using social media to recruit, radicalize, inspire and mobilize americans to violence. this latest evolution in terrorist threats occurs in relative isolation and involves a smaller window between radicalization and violent acts. and together these factors make it extremely difficult for law enforcement, including my partners at the fbi, to detect and thwart potential attacks. our post 9/11 prevention capabilities, as robust as they are, were not designed to deal with this type of threat. and while we have made progress in developing the tools necessary for this new threat, the solutions need to be scaled in order for them to be effective. for nearly 25 years, the secret service's national threat assessment center conducted evidence-based research on individuals that carried out acts of targeted violence. the research demonstrated that there are similar themes between the perpetrators of workplace violence, domestic violence, school-based violence and terrorism. likewise, research demonstrates remarkable similarities among the attackers, regardless of the ideological motivation of the attack. so why does this matter? because it allows us to identify behaviors and characteristics of individuals prone to violence and assist vulnerable individuals before they cross the criminal threshold. and as mrs. bro and all who testified so poignantly during the hearing last month noted, some of that assistance is best provided outside of the federal government. what's needed is a true whole of society approach, and thankfully, a growing number of state and local jurisdictions are adopting a multidisciplinary threat management prevention strategy. for the past several years, dhs has worked with law enforcement, academia, mental health professionals, educators and faith leaders to develop prevention strategies. through the cve grant program, the national governor's association is developing prevention strategies in virginia, colorado, illinois and michigan. another grant is allowing the major city chief's association to develop a law enforcement implementation guide for prevention. and last week i saw firsthand how dhs investments and preventions are yielding dividends. in colorado, the combination of grants and a field-deployed staff member have led to 24 interventions of individuals desiring to conduct acts of violence. 12 of those were motivated by a white supremacist ideology. while there are excellent prevention efforts under way, a strategic approach to prevention has been lacking. that is why acting secretary maclean created the office of targeted violence and terrorism prevention in april. the office will coordinate and expand the dhs terrorism prevention enterprise while also harmonizing our efforts with our federal partners who have important roles in the prevention mission space. this summer, we are developing the prevention framework that dhs will implement over the coming years. this is that comprehensive strategy, mr. chairman, that you noted is needed. drawing on lessons learned from the grants and from recent research that was funded by the department from our ffrdc brand, and continuing stakeholder engagement, we plan to build out that framework in partnership with you all, and look forward to further discussing it with you over the summer. in closing, i want to say at the outset that dhs recognizes there's a lot of work to do, and it is unacceptable that anyone in the united states be made to feel afraid because of their race or religion. we look forward to working with you on this critical mission, and i look forward to answering your questions. . >> thank you all for your testimony. and now we will begin our question portion of the proceedings. each member will be given five minutes to question the panel. i'll start just by recognizing myself. mr. mcgarity, let me start with you. we know that america has worked closely since 9/11 with our allies around the world to try to get on top of the problem of al qaeda terrorism, isis terrorism. what are we doing to coordinate with law enforcement and police around the world to deal with the problem of white supremacist violence, which exploded, for example, in christ church in new zealand? is this an international problem, and are we dealing with it in an international way? >> thank you, chairman. i would say, yes, it's an international problem. and part of that is due to the internet. the ability for someone to self radicalize or talk to someone, chat with someone, email someone, halfway around the world or to see a post, an image and be influenced by that. as far as what we, the fbi, are doing, we're doing a lot. just within thursday and friday, i met with my senior counterterrorism officials in our top five fortunately a son partners. we talked specifically about domestic terrorism. we talked specifically about social media. so envision the counterterrorism heads for those countries at my level. we sat together for two days and talked about domestic terrorism. so it's very much at the forefront of our dialogue. then as you go down, it's interesting, actually. because my counterparts and other parts of the world are just coming on to the domestic terrorism program. not every portfolio of domestic terrorism as we define it here in the u.s., racially motivated violent ex timist -- you can use the term white supremacist, would necessarily be included in a foreign intelligence service or domestic law enforcement agency, federal law enforcement agency. they're starting to see that more and more. every time we have a case that goes overseas, we share that information. for example, in new zealand during the christ church attacks, we sent people to new zealand. a sent a team over there, as did our other five partners from across the world. we did that. i've received briefings back. when we had the synagogue shooting in san diego, i made sure at my level i'm engaged with my counterparts across. we bring in -- and that goes all the way down to the working level as far as foreign engagements, both here within the u.s. and fbi headquarters and with our foreign partners overseas. we have agents and analysts traveling all of the time to meet with our counterparts to work on cases to share leads. when we do have a lead, just like on the international terrorism side, we send that overseas for action. we have stopped terrorist threats, domestic terrorism threats, overseas. and we do it just like we do on international terrorism. i think what you're seeing over the last couple of years is what we have seen with the home-grown violent extremist threat. with the internet, we are seeing individuals, self radicalized online in both the international terrorism and domestic terrorism, and they are engaging and radicalizing and mobilizing to violence fairly quickly. and they don't necessarily have to be part of a group and they can talk to someone halfway around the world to do that. >> that's a very helpful answer. let me just clarify one thing. i think a lot of our listeners are tuning in for the first time, will be a little puzzled at the formulation. we have stopped domestic terrorism overseas. and that goes to the kind of curious nomenclature involved in this field. explain what that means. what is domestic terrorism, what is international terrorism, and why don't we just call it all terrorism? can you explain that? [ inaudible ] >> can you just put your mic on, please? >> at the state department designates, that is in a different bucket, because there are different authorities that come with that, that we can use that we cannot use on the domestic terrorism side. >> but when you say, you know, we've worked to stop domestic terrorism overseas, you're referring there to white supremacist activities. >> i'm referring to threats overseas on racially motivated violent extremists who advocate for the supremacy of the white race. what we have received here in the united states to our foreign partners. >> gotcha. mr. shivers, let me ask you, one of the themes running through all of the testimony there was that we may be in a different phase now of trying to counterterrorism because of the internet and some of the people who go out and shoot up churches like the mother emmanuel church or synagogues like tree of life are kind of lone wolves. they're people who get radicalized or indoctrinated online but are not part of a hierarchical organization, necessarily, where they could be identified as a group. what can be done about that, if anything? what are the efforts that you're involving the fbi to address that threat? >> i'll start to answer the we did question, but i'll also go back to mr. mcgarity. one of the things about working out hate crimes and domestic terrorism, they're not mutually exclusive. there are times where an incident may occur and the fbi is not sure. is it purely a hate crime or act of domestic terrorism. so when responding, you have representatives from the civil rights squad as well as the domestic terrorism squad. and so our main priority is addressing the investigation. and so one of the things that we try to do is to be proactive, and what we do is not only collaborate on the investigation, but ensure that we share intelligence. because one of the things, to your point, it may be a lone actor. but at the same time, there may be communications with other individuals or groups that we would necessarily need to try to shed a little bit of light on. i'll go back to mr. mcgarity. >> sure. we work it just like any other -- whether it's international terrorism or gangs. we work our sources, undercover operations, other collection we can do through court, authorize wiretaps. i think what -- chairman, what you have to understand is, we're not playing with the numbers here. we armor domestic terrorism subjects left of attack in the united states than we do on international terrorism. and we have done that for the last couple years. so more domestic terrorism subjects that we have open investigations on, we are arresting left of attack. and that's more than we do on the international terrorism side. >> you mean before the attack takes place. >> yes. >> so that was not the information i got at the last hearing. i would love to see that. >> can i address that? >> please. >> i don't know who you -- i think i know who you're talking to. if you're talking to an fbi agent who has been out for 15 years, that's like talking to someone who works -- people who rob banks before the internet, right? i mean, the threat has changed with the internet. these people are self radicalizing online and can ac s and get a weapon. that's the difference. we are doing the same thing on the domestic terrorism side with our undercovers, both in the virtual space, because i'll be honest with you, that's where a lot is happening. more than the physical space. we do that, and you see them time and time again in the press releases from department of justice for those arrests. both on the international terrorism side and the domestic terrorism side. so we're in the virtual space with domestic terrorism and we're in the physical space. >> thank you. that's useful. my time is up and i'm going to recognize mr. hice for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. newman, in your opening statement, you made reference to rand. and it's my understanding at the administration's request, they did an exhaustive study on terrorism prevention. and among other things, found that prevention works. but at the same time, found that the effort and energy that goes into terrorism prevention is minuscule compared to that that goes into other law enforcement and counterterrorism type programs. so can you kind of explain the difference between the two? what are we talking about in reference to terrorism prevention versus counterterrorism? >> thank you for the question, mr. hice. absolutely. the rand study -- we asked them specifically to assess the amount that's being spent on prevention and in particular, we asked to compare that to our international counterparts. those who are similarly equipped to be able to do things through law enforcement and other counterterrorism means. and the results did indicate that we are spending less than many of our european partners. that could be because of the challenges that they have faced with isis recently are much more significant than we have faced. not that our challenges aren't still great. but the numbers kind of speak for themselves. they found that fbi and their law enforcement activities -- their assessments, their investigations, about 165 million a year. and to give you a snapshot, costs about $1 million for -- from assessment to post release supervision for each individual with a 15-year sentence. on the federal prevention side, we're spending about 12 to $13 million annually. that's an estimate. and their recommendation, based on our -- based on the threat that we're facing, was 20 to $50 million, is what we should be spending. and according to the population that we have here in the united states, maybe something like 150 to $450 million. so that gives us a bit of a range as we're starting to build out a prevention framework and put together budgets and have conversations with congress. gives us a sense of what we should be doing. i think the other thing i would mention is the -- the practical side of this, the cost of cleaning up a terrorist attack can range anywhere from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. i believe the boston marathon bombing was in the $330 million range. that doesn't even account for the lives that are lost or permanently changed and all of the grief and emotional toil that the families go through. for the cost of a field representative, which when you add benefits and travel costs, let's say $200,000, and a small grant that might be a quarter of a million to a million dollars to a state or to a police department or -- whatever -- however the state decides to structure their prevention efforts, that might save us, you know -- so you're talking just a little under $1 million. in the state of colorado, we had 24 interventions in less than a two-year period. if just one of those individuals had been successful in committing an attack, we would be cleaning things up for tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars. so the return on investment is definitely documented in the rand study. it was very helpful. >> so would you consider that then the biggest take-away in that study? >> there are a number of things. it's a 300-page report. they identified best practices, areas, lines of effort that the federal government should do. it told us very clearly that -- the concept of terrorism prevention is not our state and local partner's top priority. their top priority is -- >> i've only got less than a minute left. should it be a top priority? obviously, it works. so it sounds like a pretty -- >> i think by opening the aperture to target violence prevention, it helps our state and local partners with what they care about, which is all violence, as opposed to a particular type of ideology. >> should terrorism prevention be part of the counterterrorism strategy? >> it is. it is in the national strategy and we're actually working on the dhs counterterrorism strategy. that's what this prevention framework will be nested in, and we hope to release it in the fall. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman yields back. thank you, mr. hice. i now recognize ms. maloney for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and ranking member for calling this important hearing and all the participants. and i'd like to ask mr. shivers about the fbi hate crimes statistics. all the reports i've seen indicate that the fbi's official uniform crime reporting hate crimes statistics are deeply, deeply flawed and severely under reported. the actual numbers of hate crimes and incidents in our country. for example, in 2017, the fbi reported over 7,000 hate crime incidents. but the bureau of justice statistics crime victimization survey estimates 200,000 hate crimes each year on average. and mr. shivers, is that consistent with your understanding? >> no, ma'am. a couple of things i would like to point out. >> okay. >> so the reporting to the ucr with state and local law enforcement agencies is voluntary. and so one of the things that the fbi has done over the last couple of years -- >> excuse me. why is it voluntary? hate crimes should be reported. they should be required. why is it voluntary? >> so reporting to the ucr in general is voluntary. and so one of the things that we have done is, we have tried to take a proactive stance in going out to train state and local law enforcement agencies relative to hate crimes. so they have an opportunity to recognize hate crimes. >> but my question was, the fbi's statistics was 7,000. and the bureau of justice statistics was 200,000. >> yes, ma'am. >> so is that true? that's the point i want to make. >> so i am not aware of where the 200,000 came from. but the only reason -- >> can you check that? because i know about your training efforts. and it seems like there's a problem with accuracy. and at our last hearing, it was pointed out when susan bro, the mother of heather heyer, who was killed in charlottesville, argued passionately about the need to improve the accuracy of hate crime reporting. and she said, and i quote, a doctor cannot diagnose a patient without knowing the full set of symptoms. i don't see how we are expecting you as congress members to know how to prescribe allocations of personnel and money without knowing the full set of symptoms. end quote. and so mr. shivers, would you agree with mrs. bro about that statement? >> well, ma'am, the reason i brought up the ucr was to talk about the transition to nibrs. one of the reasons it's coming online is to provide more accurate reporting. >> but i have a specific question. heather heyer's death, i am told, and the other assaults -- the horrific assaults committed in -- by white supremacists in charlottesville, did not even appear in the 2017 fbi hate crimes statistics report. is that true? >> yes, ma'am. and the reason is -- >> can you explain, how in the world did that happen? this was a graphic, terrible, terrible assault and death all over the papers, everywhere. everybody knew about it. how did it not end up in your statistics? if that didn't end up in your statistics, it points out something is really being underreported in our country. wouldn't you say? >> what i was trying to explain is, the transition from the ucr to nibrs. ucr uses the summary reporting system, the most egregious offense is reported. so the example would be if you had an armed robbery and homicide, it's only the homicide that's reported in the ucr. so with nibrs, you will have more granularity, where you're able to see now all of the associated crimes committed. so that's one of the reasons we're transitioning from the ucr to nibrs. >> well, i think you better transition pretty fast, because your statistics are not accurate. and does the fbi have a overall strategic plan of how to improve your -- the reporting of your hate crimes? i find the fact that different reporting systems are so different, the fact that probably the most horrific hate crime in the whole country did not even make it into the -- into your reporting system, is showing that it's terribly flawed. and then i read also that alabama reported there were no -- only one hate crime in the whole year in alabama. now people are alleging that that was very under reported. any comments on that? >> again, we will have more accurate reporting when we can move from the summary reporting system which has the hierarchy rule. >> so when are you going to move to the other system? >> that process is ongoing right now. >> well, can you send us a report exactly how it's happening, and why is this going to improve it? and i think that -- the fact that the crime in charlottesville did not even make it into your hate crimes statistics shows how flawed it is, and how can we have good policies if we don't have good data? my time is up. thank you, very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ms. maloney. the gentle lady from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you all for being here today. i know your agencies are on the front line in combatting domestic terrorism, racism and hate crimes. as well as providing critical support for our first responders. this role is critical. and we must ensure that we're empowering our federal agencies in their efforts to stop hate and to keep americans safe. people who commit these crimes and hold such hate in their heart have absolutely no place in our saturday. we must stop and condemn these actions at every level. mr. mcgarity and mr. shivers, question a little similar to the last ones. a few weeks ago, this subcommittee held a hearing on this issue, and we heard from our witnesses there are many current shortfall that exist in data collection for hate crimes and domestic terrorism. i was wondering if you might be able to elaborate on this topic, from the agency perspective? >> from the domestic terrorism perspective, we don't have a domestic terrorism statute for terrorism. so when a prosecutor charges something, he's going to -- oregony is going to use other title 18 u.s. code violations, maybe possession of a weapon. 50% of our subjects are arrested on state and local charges. so right there, the narrative as far as some of the subjects -- now, these are open subjects under investigation by the fbi joint terrorism task forces, are arrested by state local crime or by other federal crimes that do not have the word terrorism in them. so right now the narrative and american public would not necessarily see that. what we do is push out to our joint terrorism task force for updates on those cases. where we can, we would like to use domestic terrorism in the -- at a point of the case in the charging document. we will do that. seen that more recently in a case in baltimore with a u.s. coast guard lieutenant drugged with a chug charge and weapon of a memo. so that i think is partner of the issue. we brief the house homeland committee and come and brief what the threat is. so we're constantly doing that to your staffers as well as to different committees here on the hill. what we also do -- really, it's our state and local partners who are most important. >> the major cities, sheriffs, i've been briefing on both commitments. >> thank you, mr. shivers. do you have anything? >> just to further address some of the issues and the discrepancies. in relation to the charlottesville case, that case was actually prosecuted as a hate crime. and also, i would like to draw a distinction between a hate incident and a hate crime. obviously, if someone yells a racial slur at someone, you know, they're protected by the first amendment. and what happens is in many instances, those incidents may be thought of by the victim to be a hate crime when it's more of a hate incident. a hate crime occurs if you have that similar incident, but it evolves into a criminal act directed at a victim based on his or her protected characteristics. and so when we talk about statistics, one has to make that distinction between a hate crime and a hate incident. >> that's good. what changes would you make to improve the data collection? >> well, again, i believe that the transition to nibrs will give greater clarity. because in the case that was cited earlier, it was the homicide and not the hate crime that was captured. under nibrs, you have the ability to capture a number of criminal acts pertaining to one specific arrest. so if there is an assault, if there is a hate crime or some other crime that's committed, all those crimes would now be captured in nibrs. where historically with the hierarchy rule, only the most egregious crime was captured. so we are in the process of continuing to roll out nibrs. the rollout has been under way since 2015, but some of the challenges are providing our state and local partners with the hardware and software, where they need to map their criminal violations to nibrs. and then also go through the training and become certified. so, again, we anticipate nibrs completely being ruled out by 2021. but it's an ongoing process. and there are roughly 40 or 45% of the law enforcement agencies that report to the ucr have all transitioned to nibrs. >> how have you seen domestic terrorism and its threat to the country overall over time. >> sure on the domestic terrorism side and international terrorism side, i've seen an evolving threat with self actors. self radicalized online. seeing them mobilized on the internet. and radicalized by themselves on the internet and mobilize to violence in shorter periods of time than we have seen in the past. i've been in this since 9/11, literally, that day. and you have in the u.s. our threat both on the domestic terrorism side and international terrorism side, is a lone actor. what you saw after 9/11 of who we arrested here in the united states, different conspiracies that you saw. we're seeing less and less of those types of conspiracies. larger groups, five to seven. and more single actors. so of those 100, approximately 115 arrests on the domestic terrorism side. most of them are not conspiratorial. those are single defendant subjects. and the same on the international terrorism side. so right there an evolving threat. it's the internet. it's your ability to communicate with someone anywhere in the world and find a justification, whatever that justification is, whatever that ideology is. it's almost irrelevant. to justify the violence you want to commit. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay. >> thank you, madam chair. let me share what the panel -- some of my thoughts and concerns. the fbi's black identity extremist designation could potentially categorize and criminalize black activists in support of organizations and people seeking to hold police accountable for unconstitutional policing practices. we should all oppose terrorism in every form, but the fbi's decision to use the color of someone's skin as a tool to identify terrorists takes our country back to dark days. as the name suggests, the unique feature of this contrived threat is the color of a person's skin. while the fbi should be redoubling its efforts to combat violence inspired by white supremacists, the concerns expressed by members of the congressional black caucus who met with the fbi in 2018, is that the bureau may end up targeting those seeking to defend the rights of racial minorities, not those who are actually engaged in terrorism. just this morning, i heard from constituents about the uptick in the hate crimes in missouri. and these crimes were not relative to any black extremist. so i suggest the fbi review the allocation of funds, personnel, attract planning and grant programs. the dollars must follow the emerging threat. in contributifiction, the fbi w potential consequences of white supremacist groups infiltrating law enforcement, indicating it was a significant threat to our national security. the bulletin indicated, this infiltration would lead to the disruption of the investigations, and the recruitment of fellow white supremacist followers. a recent study by the plain view project examined the social media accountses of current and retired police officers. officers had public posts reflecting bias, applauding violence, disregarding process or dehumanizing language. in my own congressional district in st. louis, over 400 races, bigoted posts by metropolitan police were also revealed. let me ask you, mr. mcgarity, that fbi bulletin was issued? 2006. would you agree that recent data in public social media coasts indicates that infinration by a threat. >> you used the term black identity extremists and then white supremacist. >> yeah. >> the very fact that we're focused on the violence. we're not focused on the skin of anyone. that's what focus on. that allows us to predicate a case. so when that black identity extre extremist. but you're not hearing me say white supremacist as a group. i'm focused on the violence. so there is a first amendment issue of us looking at different posts from people. we can't do that. >> is it a problem? >> is it a problem if it's infiltrated by white supremacists and carrying out justice? >> that would be a problem if they're looking to use that ideology for violence. i would be ki would be subject . >> mr. shivers, does the fbi provide statements to help them identify and prevent infiltration by these groups of local and state law enforcement? >> so the training that we provide to our state and local partners is comprehensive. it's not designed to at any particular group. again, we're concerned that our law enforcement partners have a good understanding and ability to recognize hate crimes, and one of the things we hope is that through the training and education that now we -- as we had discussions about the accuracy reporting, be there may be incidents that state and locals may not have thought was a hate crime, but they have to ability now to recognize some of those and potentially arrest. >> almost 25% posted lawsuitful things on social media. that tells me there is a culture problem. i yield back. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes ms. adderm adderman schultz. >> on april 19th, 2019, there was the establishment of a new office for targeted terrorism prevention. we have few details. under the obama administration, its press secretary managed $10 million in grand funding to communities to prevent terrorism. that office was replaced by the office of terrorism partnerships, which had a reduced budget of $99 until. so i'd like to to to some detail. why you explain why dhs decided do make cuts? where would it be moved, for what purpose were those funds refunded? have there been additional cuts? who is the best of this office? who do they report to in the change of command. >> we, i think about. in fw '16, the office of community partnerships had approximately $3 million. there was separately i was -- n uncountering the grant program. it was a two-year grand program. still under way. the grand program will he said this summer. and then there was a second prepraming of $8 million for the office and that's how you end up to the $21 until. the $3 million number for the office has stayed relatively scattic for the last fewer years. the current office, if i may, the three-branding was in part -- there was a general recognition by both -- by all sides that encountering violent extremism moniker had become dated. there was a dialogue about perhaps changing that. >> let me drill on your question. >> sure. >> it very much seems like -- you certainly spoke poignantly, about your -- actions speak louder than words. i'm a show me person, not a tell me person. so the actions that this administration has spoken by shifting resources elsewhere, by reducing the budget that was previously appropriated and spent for combatting domestic terrorism sends a signal that you don't care about it as much. and you're not making as much of an effort to combat it. further evidenced by the details and facts that my colleagues have asked before me. so where did the money that was previously being spent for this office to fight domestic terrorism, where is it being spent now. who is in charge of the office? what's the current total budget, and how much staff does this have? >> the $3 million has stayed the same. so we're only talking about the $8 million done by reprogramming. it wasn't in a standard budget process. so the -- you asked -- >> i'm an appropriateer, so i'm very familiar. >> i am not. you're correct that the administration did not request for the grant to be renewed in fy '17 or '18, in part because we were looking to see the results of the grant. it was fairly controversial at the time that it was awarded. there were critics that prevention shouldn't be funded because it didn't work. i think we have proven that it does work. the grant program is still being evaluated, but we have enough anecdotes and good statistics -- >> didn't ask for it in '19, either. what about '20? >> so we got these results, i would say, late fall. we missed the fy-'20 budget cycle. the secretary is very committed to working with the congress and working through our budget processes to get this addressed. >> who is the head of the office? >> the head of the office is an acting director, david gerstein -- >> is there anyone in the department of homeland security that isn't acting? there's a lot of acting. >> i am not acting, ma'am. >> okay, well, then i'm glad you're here. because at least there is some permanence with someone who is answering questions. who does the head of this office report to in the chain of command? >> mr. gerstein reports to my deputy, nate blumenthal, who reports to me. i report to the under secretary for policy who reports to the secretary. >> okay. unfortunately, that's a fairly low prioritization in terms of the chain of command, as far as the significant commitment of combatting domestic terrorism requires. i have other questions, but like i said, i think the evidence demonstrated by answers to my questions show that actions are not matching the words. and it would be nice if there was a convergence between your verbal commitments and the administration's verbal commitments and the actual actions that you propose and implement. i yield back. >> thank you. as chairwoman, i'll recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. we had a hearing a few weeks ago. first in the series on white supremacy and its growing role in the united states right now. and we discovered through expert witness testimony not all were treated with similar consistency. but we've also heard from experts that whether the fbi classifies extremist violence as, quote, domestic terrorism, or a hate crime, has major implications on resource allocation and prioritization within the bureau. mr. mcgarity, the fbi considers preventing terrorism its number one priority, isn't that right? >> that is correct. >> and mr. shivers, what about civil rights violations? such as hate crimes? how do they rank among the fbi priorities? >> within the civil rights program, it is the number one priority. >> so within the civil rights program. but the fbi overall, doesn't it seem that fbi agents would have more of an incentive to pursue domestic terrorism cases over hate crime cases? >> again, sometimes those cases overlap. and so in a number of instances, you may have a civil rights investigation and a domestic terrorism investigation open. >> and i do see here that the civil rights program policy instructs agents to open parallel terrorism investigations whenever a suspect of a hate crime has any nexus to a white supremacist group, correct? >> correct. >> we have seen white supremacist attacks that were clearly domestic terrorism. experts, in fact -- the acting ag, jeff sessions, even called some of these incidents domestic terrorism incidents. the emmanuel a.m.e. church shooting of black americans in charlottesville and the tree of life synagogue shooting in pittsburgh of jewish people, that -- those were only designated and charged as hate crimes. not domestic terrorist incidents. mr. mcgarity, why did the fbi not believe that these incidents were domestic terrorism incidents? >> that's not correct. i don't know who told you that we didn't. but we certainly had cases open on them. in both those cases. and i wasn't here for the dylann roof case, but it certainly, in our own department of justice civil rights about three, four weeks ago. and their testimony actually stated it was a domestic terrorism event, charged through the civil rights division for a hate crime. i was here for the tree of life. i will tell you i remember that day distinctly. it was worked as a domestic terrorism case and a hate crimes case and still worked that way. >> so you are disputing that the a.m.e. -- you're saying that a.m.e. was charged with domestic terrorism, dylann roof. >> you're using the word "charge." as i said before, there is no domestic terrorism charge like 18 usc 29 abcde for a foreign terrorist organization. so what we do, both on the international terrorism side with the home-grown extremists and domestic terrorists, we'll use any tool in the tool kit to arrest them. should it be after -- it's a good federal charge for us to use. >> and the tree of life -- >> it shouldn't be stated it's not domestic terrorism. in fact, on the record, it's stated it's domestic terrorism. >> and the same with the synagogue shooting? >> yes. >> okay. so we have two conflicting testimonies. >> well, i mean, i can go back to may 8th, 2019, from department of justice on the record, that statement. called it a domestic terrorism cases involving civil rights charges including some of the most serious attacks in recent years. dylann roof. james field at the unite the right rally in virginia. and then also robert bower. >> so that's the statement -- >> prevents domestic terrorism. >> but the actual charge. was the actual charge domestic terrorism? >> you're not going to find an actual charge of domestic terrorism out there. if you look at title 18 -- >> well, it says here -- but at the san bernardino shooting or the orlando pulse nightclub shooting, they were designated and charged as domestic terrorist incidents. >> they were charged -- i'd have to go back and look. they were charged likely with -- if there was a connection to a foreign terrorist organization, it would fall under 18 usc 23 a or b. >> so because -- because the perpetrator was muslim, they are -- doesn't it seem that because the perpetrator is muslim -- >> that's not correct. >> -- that the designation would say it's a foreign organization? >> no, that's not correct. if you -- that is not correct. >> okay. can you explain? >> yeah. >> why? >> home-grown violent extremists -- most of the people we arrest in the united states, home-grown violent extremists, self-radicalized, born in the u.s., doesn't matter the religion -- >> but the orlando pulse nightclub shooter meets those qualifications. >> he was following under the definition -- >> but he was home-grown and self radicalized. >> how we work home-grown violent extremist cases under the global jihad, we work under international terrorism, that is correct. >> is white supremacy not a global issue? >> it is a global issue. >> so why are they not charged with foreign -- >> because the united states congress doesn't have a statute for us for domestic terrorism like we do in a foreign terrorist organization like isis, al qaeda, al shabaab. >> could you see how this could create issues and discrepancies with how violent extremism by muslim perpetrators, could -- even if it's unintentional, there are -- there are holes, and there are gaps here. not through your fault or anyone specific person's fault. it could be our fault as congress. but could you see how one could see how the way that we are pursuing and charging white supremacy, particularly if they tend to be charged with hate crimes and where that same type of violence committed by a muslim extremist could be charged with domestic terrorism. hate crimes and domestic terrorism are treated and charged -- they're different crimes and could be pursued differently with different resource allocations. could you see how people would say that these are being treated differently? >> some of the definitions we're using, i think, we're talking past each other. but i will tell you, from the domestic terrorism side and on the international terrorism side, on domestic terrorism side, we don't charge of those 115 -- approximately 115 arrests we did last year, not all of them were hate crime charges. >> okay. >> we're going to charge someone left of attack with any charge we have under title 18 in the u.s. code or state and local charge. so predominantly, i would say i would have to go back and look. most are not hate crime charges on the domestic terrorism side. >> okay. thank you very much. i will now move to recognize the gentle lady from illinois, ms. kelly. >> thank you, madam chair. the dhs office of intelligence and analysts is the only office in the u.s. intelligence community statutorily charged with delivering intelligence to state and local, tribal, territorial and private sector partners. during a dhs briefing for the committee, it was noted that an ina unit focused exclusively on the threat from homegrown violent extremists and domestic terrorists was disbanded by the administration and moved to the national counterterrorism center. additionally, some field agents were reassigned to the fbi where they would allegedly be better suited to work on this issue. ms. newman, how important was the work of this intelligence -- this ani unit in preventing white supremacists terrorism? >> thank you for the question, ms. kelly. my office is distinct from the office of intelligence and analysis. we're customers of ina. the office you're referring to is in the process of working to -- towards a mission center model approach, which is an approach that's been recognized in the office of the director of national intelligence as the best practice. as part of that, they are forward deploying analysts to places where they can better collect intelligence. and including the fbi is the predominant place. since we don't collect intelligence the way we do foreign intelligence, it's their cases that tell us the most -- within the federal government about the environment within the domestic terrorist various movements. so that -- it's my understanding that's the intent there. they are still doing the work. they're still producing intelligence products. i read a few of them last week. so i don't know if that answers your question, but that's my level of knowledge about the in a's decision. >> is this why the staff was reassigned, because it was felt that this would be a better way to get information and do their jobs? >> yes. >> more efficiently? >> if it's helpful, i can go back and ask i.n.a. to provide an answer in writing for the record. >> okay. >> i know they have testified on this recently, and -- but yes, in general, it's to be able to get closer to where the good data is, yes. >> do you believe collaboration and information-sharing between federal agencies and state and local law enforcement agencies is crucial to preventing domestic terrorism? >> yes, ma'am. >> what is dhs currently doing to coordinate with state and local law enforcement information-sharing and how does this work without funding? >> i'm sorry. the last part of your question? >> how does it work without funding? >> without funding. so the department has a number of mechanisms in place to share information. most of the formal intelligence products that are shared, particularly around domestic terrorism, are going to be done in partnership with the gentleman at this table. so i'll defer to them here in a moment on aspects of how those products are produced and when they're pushed out. the department supports state and local fusion centers. we have agents or analysts in fusion centers. we provide training. we provide access to classified equipment. and when -- on the funding piece, all of that takes funding. so the information-sharing, infrastructure which i -- in my previous group -- part of my career, i was part of designing and implementing, is very -- is very robust. we have worked on it for 18 years. i think it's solid pipes to be able to flow the information. >> on may 8th, 2019, during the house homeland security committee's hearing on domestic terrorism, dhs principle deputy undersecretary brian murphy for the office of i.n.a. testified there has been no reallocation of resources. just a reevaluation within the agency to eliminate any duplication of efforts. ms. newman, was dhs, i.n.a., domestic terrorism unit supposedly disbanded because it was duplicative? >> again, my understanding is that it's not a disbanding, and that it's moving people to where they can get better access to data. but i'm happy to go back and get clarification. >> would you agree that redundancy and intelligence and law enforcement is a good thing? >> yes, when there are resources, you look for red teaming and alternative analysis. >> do you know how many employees were part of this unit? >> i do not. >> do you not believe the urgency of this threat warrants these additional employees? >> again, i don't know what their current resourcing is. and i will tell you that secretary maclean -- yes, ma'am. >> mr. mcgarity, are these employees still with the fbi, and how is -- the employees we're talking about, are these employees still with the fbi? >> which employees are you talking about specifically? >> i'm talking about the employees that were disbanded but then supposedly went -- some -- they were assigned to different units. >> detailed. >> we the domestic terrorism section. >> they're still with you. >> i would have to go back to the numbers, but i have talked to brian murphy who was here when we testified a couple weeks ago. we have some and might even be getting more. >> so this change has worked. >> we have a very good relationship with dhs. i'll tell you, when we put out -- i think what you're getting at, is what are we doing to put the intelligence out to the state locals -- law enforcement partners. so we do it through adjoining intelligence bulletin. every adjoining intelligence bulletin we put out on any type of terrorism we do jointly with dhs, i.n.a. so we have actually had a significant increase. so far in fiscal year 2019, we have surpassed already what we did in fiscal year 2018 for domestic terrorism joint intelligence bulletins and go directly to the state and locals. we also go through the executive committees and our task force partners to push that information out. >> my time is way over. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. kelly. i yield to mr. roy for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. and i apologize to the witnesses i had to step out for a bit to go to another hearing. such is the state of the way things operate here sometimes when we have competing hearings. ms. newman, a quick question with respect to funding. do i understand correctly that the funding levels that are currently being allocated for purposes of combatting domestic terrorism broadly are relatively similar to what they were previously, but there were some different buckets that kind of conflate those numbers? could you expand on that really quickly? >> sure. thank you for the question. yes. the amount of money that was associated with the office that is now called targeted violence and terrorism prevention has remained relatively the same. we have the $10 million grant program that was a two-year period of performance coming to a conclusion. we're evaluating it, and assessing internally about future requests for funding associated with that. and there was an additional $8 million reprogramming request for -- to provide contractors in the field. again, we were evaluating whether the concept of field staff worked and if so, if a contractor model was the way we wanted to go. that is one of the things that the rand study also looked at for us, was field staff and we still have more internal deliberations to consider. but i don't think we're going to be looking to contractors to be doing this kind of prevention work in the future. >> and is it true that the previous administration had a fairly significant focus, appropriately, on foreign terrorist efforts, including isis and otherwise and how that connected back to those that are home-grown? >> yes, sir. the encountering violent extremism in general was focused on if you go back to 2008, al qaeda and then with the rise of the home-grown violent extremist with isis, it shifted to focus on the lone individual radicalizing to violence. so, yes, appropriately the obama administration was focused on designing prevention programs to address that threat. around 2017, it was secretary kelly that noted -- you may remember, there was a series of incidents at jewish cemeteries in march of 2017. and he directed, since we were reviewing the grant program, that to make sure that the grants could be -- the grantees, potential grantees, were using their funds for more than one ideology to try to be as broad as possible. so that opened the aperture to address domestic terrorism, and many of our grantees do that now. >> to be clear -- by the way no, criticism at all in the previous administration, there was some focus with respect to foreign terrorist organizations and the networks here in the united states. but then the current administration secretary kelly looked to some of the threats we are now looking at and now made a change to address that. true? >> yes. >> in addition, we talked a little bit about the rand study, and it is true that the trump administration requested the rand study on the terrorism prevention and is now implementing the results of that study to have an objective third-party view? >> yes. >> and then in addition, with respect to maybe -- it might be better for mr. mcgarity. with some of the questioning of my colleague from new york a moment ago, it is true, right, there is not a united states code, fill in the blank, domestic terrorism statute to prosecute crimes in the united states under, correct? >> yeah. there's a statute, but it defines what domestic terrorism is. it's not something you could charge 2339. >> correct. so that's why you were describing there were no charges under it. because there was nothing to charge. >> right. so it's not out there. >> however, there are numerous crimes in which you can -- under which you can charge people who are engaged in criminal activity, and that happens all of the time, whether it's hate crimes or other crimes, right? engaged in criminal activity, federal, state and local, correct? >> yes. >> and that happens all of the time on a daily basis. >> we use 2332, weapons of mass destruction, against the federal building. we use a variety of gun charges, drug charges, whatever it is to arrest the person prior to the actual attack. >> and along those lines, with respect to those kind of criminal charges, is it safe to say there is a distinction when we're talking about foreign terrorist organizations, and if you're talking about the concept of a domestic terrorist organization or entity, that there are some constitutional questions that arise, right, that are distinct between focusing on our intelligence gathering and efforts in criminal activities and focusing on foreign terrorist organizations, communications they have with american citizens, how we surveil that information, what we do with that information. versus targeting domestic-only american citizens or at least those who have permanent legal status. the distinction that complicates how we set up a criminal structure to target, quote, unquote, domestic terrorism. is that a fair statement? >> yes. >> and one last question along those lines for ms. newman again. is there anything that you would like to add with respect to what you think the positive steps that have been taken under this administration, under what you've seen and acted upon to advance the ball with respect to domestic terrorism? thank you. >> thank you for the question. i'd like to point out that this administration's ct strategy is the first strategy that incorporated domestic terrorism into it. the previous strategies were focused on international terrorism. there's a recognition in the ct strategy. there's a pillar that's called countering radicalization and recruitment. and it point blank says, we're just not doing enough. so there is an acknowledgment by ct practitioners, by prevention experts. i mean, you had an entire hearing a month ago on this topic. we know we're not doing enough. part of the reason we haven't done enough is because things have not -- it's bureaucratic, it's boring. things haven't been institutionalized. in order for government to work, you have to institutionalize it, authorize it through congress or you need to get it in executive order or national security presidential memoranda. that was never done in the previous administration. and now we're working to figure out how do we do that? so that the budget process can work and we can get proper funding for prevention efforts moving forward. . >> thank you very much. the gentleman yields back. thank you for your candor. refreshing to hear it. i yield now to the gentle lady from massachusetts, ms. pressley. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to pick up on my line of questioning from the last hearing and also the comments from representative clay. so since 1995, black americans have been victims of 66% of all racially motivated hate crimes. and, again, i'm sure that's, you know under reported. in 2017 alone, black americans were targeted in more than half of all hate crimes reported. so that's what we know. so what we know is that the numbers don't lie. and black americans continue to find themselves at the greatest risk, which is why this designation of black identity extremism seems particularly absurd. we had a former fbi official on the record who said that black identity extremists pose no threat to our public safety. would you agree with that, mr. mcgarity? >> i would pose any extremist who wants to commit violence as a threat to society. whether it's white or black. i wasn't here when the black identity extremist assessment was written, but it was written back in 2016 during a horrific time of july 2016, july 7th and july 17th. two events on july 7th, targeting a police officer. >> excuse me, i'm so sorry. but claiming my time. i'm aware of that incident. and i think that the designation was created in the wake of six isolated and unrelated incidents of violence. the only common denominator there is that they were black. is that correct? >> yes. and so -- very similar to the racially motivated -- >> reclaiming my time. so those were six unrelated incidents wehere the only commo denominator was race. so in order to be a credible threat, how many hate-related incidents need to take place? is there a number? how many hate-related incidents need to take place in order for a group to be designated as extremist and a credible threat? because this was six, right? and the adl, anti-defamation league, i just met with them, they count 32 white supremacist extremists who murdered individuals in the u.s. since 2016. i just want to make sure that our investment and our surveillance is comeris rat with those that are actually disproportionately most being victimized. and we're not creating categories as another excuse to target and racially profile one of the most vulnerable communities. so what is the criteria that determines a group as a credible threat? this was six incidents. and i'm just -- >> so to be clear, from my last testimony, we don't work groups. we don't work ideologies. we don't work movements. what we work are those individuals who have an ideology or using an ideology to commit violence. >> okay. so how -- >> if we have six individuals who are looking to commit violence and they are together, we will have six cases. >> reclaiming my time. they were unrelated. so how many extremist killings has the fbi linked to black lives matter or similar black activist groups? >> we don't work black lives matter. it's a movement, it's an ideology. we don't work that. >> okay. so the answer is none. so can you just say that for the record? there's been no extreme -- there's been no killing that the fbi could link to black lives matter or similar black activist groups. to your knowledge. >> to my knowledge, i'd have to go back, but to my knowledge, right now, no. >> none. okay. so, again, going back to what created this absurd designation, these were six incidents and i don't want to look at those tragedies lightly. but they were unrelated. so there was nothing organized there. you said that you are intentionally not using, until clay brought it up, the term black identity extremist. so you're not using the term, but we still have the designation. correct? >> no, i've been in this job 17 months. we don't have that designation. >> the designation no longer exists. >> hasn't existed since i've been here for 17 months. >> okay. so no one is being surveyed or monitored under the category of black identity extremist. >> no. >> okay. great. thank you. i just want to make sure, because, again, we have some conflicting information here. i know there are a number of organizations, including the national organization of black law enforcement executives, which have asked that this category be rolled back. so i just want to make sure, again, on the record, we're clear. that this no longer exists. there is not a black identity extremist category and there is no surveillance happening based on that designation. >> i can tell you, there's no surveillance on that activity, because we don't work that as a group. and i can also tell you, i had a phone conversation myself with noble about that months ago. so i don't know where the information is coming from. i've been here 17 months. we are not using black identity extremist as a term or for a group. >> and was this announced publicly or was this the first time you're saying this on the record? >> no, i said it a couple weeks ago when i testified up on the hill, as well. >> okay. i yield. >> the gentle lady yields. thank you very much, ms. pressley. come now to the gentle lady from the district of columbia, representative norton, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> mr. mcgarity. i'm curious, between the mid 1980s and 2005, the fbi published something which he called terrorism in the united states. this was an unclassified annual report summarizing terrorist -- what it said -- activities in this country. do you believe that that report, terrorism in the united states, provided valuable information that -- to be shared with the public? >> i was not aware of it at that time. i was still a field agent. but i've spoken to chairman thompson, i believe who has been asking for that. we do a monthly rollup of both domestic terrorism and international terrorism arrests, the numbers, back to his committee, the house homeland committee. i've looked at that. we'll look to where we can take those monthly reports and see how we can summarize them for some type of national product. >> so you're trying to recreate what you were doing in -- >> back in 2005. >> those years? >> we're already doing that. on a monthly basis. for the house homeland committee. >> so that's -- is that being published as i speak? or as you speak? >> of we have given him at least one monthly report. i think we owe him another one coming upper our discussions with him. >> would you say that this report is available to the chair of the subcommittee? >> i would be careful -- one of the things i think is important for everyone to understand on international terrorism and domestic terrorism, when we say we're arresting individuals, they're subjects of the most of the time it may not come up in the international terrorism this person was even a subject of the fbi. because we're arresting them on a gun charge. because that's the charge that's available to us at the time to stop the threat. you might see joint terrorism task force on the arrest. you might see in the complaint or the charging document some reference to terrorism. but you may not. so certainly on some of these cases, and cognizant of labeling people terrorists, we want to make sure that we're charging them with crimes under title 18, because those are the charges available that we need at that time to stop that person from acting. >> all right. i'm trying to make sure that what was new -- this new -- not report, this new document you're coming up with, will be accessible to the public. this report i indicated between the mid '80s and 2005, was accessible to the public. it was unclassified. this will be unclassified, anybody can pick it up. >> i would still have to determine that. what the dissemination of that report would look like. >> oh, this is very important. because if you're giving it to the committee, this committee or the committee, the department of homeland -- or which committee are you giving this to? >> house homeland. >> homeland. are you telling them not to make this available, either to other -- >> i'd have to go back and look at the classified -- certainly, representative norton -- and i think you've seen that in the last couple months. we are pushing more information, more statistics out on both international terrorism and domestic terrorism. and i think you've seen an increase in that through our briefings up here on the hill. >> we just heard about this report for the first time. this monthly report. >> it's only -- i think it's -- going into our second month iteration on it. >> so i'm -- >> but i'm committed to doing a monthly report for the house homeland. >> and making it public. that's what you did before. that's what the fbi did before. that's why i'm trying to establish whether or not this is a report that's classified -- remember, i said unclassified. that's what i'm trying to establish. >> and point well taken. and we'll look to see what that would be, whether it's classified or unclassified. but i -- i agree with you. we do need to give the american public -- >> would there be any reason to classify -- you didn't classify any such thing when you had a report that was regularly published, terrorism in the united states. why in the world should there be any doubt, given the history of generating unclassified reports? what in the world would lead this to possibly be classified? give me a reason. >> i could say -- in some cases, and in today's world, that there could be a actor that is arrested here from the joint terrorism task force who is related to a state-sponsored terrorism that at that point in our strategy for disruption, we may not want -- >> mr. mcgarity, i must say to you, i believe that would have been the case in the report that i just indicated. >> that's why i'm saying, we have to work through those things. and certainly i want to be more proactive in giving information. so -- >> all i can say is, nobody wanted to interfere with an ongoing investigation. and i'm sure that the report that for decades -- the fbi did publish made sure that that didn't occur. and, again, i'm going to ask the subcommittee chair. >> congresswoman norton, thank you very much for that line of questions. and mr. mcgarity, i want to echo the representative from the district of columbia. certainly, we would like a copy of that report if you're producing it for congress. and we would encourage you to think about making it public. if not, we can continue that dialogue elsewhere. but at the very least, we would like to be able to look at it. >> before i yield back, i would like to say, if you're giving it to one committee in the house, it seems to me automatic it should come to another committee. and i ask that that be provided as soon as possible to the chair of this subcommittee. particularly since you already are providing it to congress. we're all on equal footing here, sir. >> the gentle lady yields back. and i now recognize the gentle lady from michigan, representative talib, who is with us today. >> thank you for allowing me to be here. this is pretty complex, the more i hear about this. and as an attorney as well, i'm always constantly looking at specific actions and words and some of the other circumstantial evidence in regards to whether or not -- and it's very intriguing, mr. shivers, that you talked about hate incident versus hate crime and so forth. i believe that the government's priorities and resource allocation should be accordance with the nature of the violent extremism threat in the united states. do you all agree with that? >> with one caveat. i would say risk is how we evaluate application of resources. we take into account threat, vulnerability and consequence. . >> do you all agree? >> yeah, and we go through a threat review process, both the headquarters in the field to do that. to make sure our resources are properly aligned against our threats. >> and i just want you to know, many of my next questions, i know that you don't get to make these decisions. but i'm trying to educate the public but also put in congressional record. so mr. mcgarity, the fbi has indicated that approximately 20% of the fbi's pending counterterrorism cases are characterized as so-called domestic terrorism investigations. which roughly parallels resource allocations of counterterrorism, special agents and field offices working on domestic terrorism. is that correct? >> yes. >> how many pending domestic terrorism cases does the fbi have currently? >> approximately -- and, again, it's a point in time. approximately a month ago is approximately 850. >> that's the number i have. thank you. and white supremacist extremism cases would all fall under so-called domestic terrorism, correct? >> yes. >> my understanding is that the remaining 80% of fbi's pending counterterrorism cases would be characterized as what you called -- i hate these labels, by the way -- as a muslim, i just hate them. because it automatically makes me feel like people atargeting those of different agents and colors and so forth. hve cases? 80% left from the budget, the resources are going -- no? >> no. >> okay. >> so we have approximately 4,500 to 5,000 terrorism cases. >> okay. >> of that, approximately 850 domestic terrorism cases. so take the rest -- those are international terrorism cases. >> okay. so -- >> so we have approximately 1,000 home-grown violent extremist cases. approximately 1,000 cases -- >> those folks are falling under this -- >> international terrorism. >> so one of the things that came up is -- and it's a good question to you, or anybody else who would like to answer. do you think we should have a domestic terrorism statute? >> i will say as a former prosecutor, as a former investigator, i want every tool in the tool box, and i want options. >> mr. mcgarity -- >> i would say i want another tool in the tool box, but i'll work with department of justice. >> of course. so the tools are not enough? if somebody is threatening to kill people based on their faith? to kill people based on their beliefs and -- or just, you know, that kind of sort of -- you know, i loved how you said any violence to threat to society. any form of violence. and i appreciate that. but there is not enough right now to give you all power? so i'm going give you an example. so i've been in office for about six months. and when you get at something like this attention congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, i was pleased when i heard that 49 muslims from kill were killed and -- many more were wounded in new zealand. this is a great start. let's hope and pray that it continues here in the good old usa. the only good muslim is a dead one. how is that enough -- not enough to fall under domestic terrorism if they're targeting solely based on my faith and others in saying that a good muslim is a dead one, obviously directed to me. by the way, they copied in this thread to my office, they copied the u.s. department of justice, the president, the department of homeland security and so forth. and we get so many of them, and i keep asking, what happens? what happens to these individuals? are they -- you know, i want -- i'm being sincere. i'm not trying to -- i'm really sincere. i'm a mother, so i want to go home to my two boys. >> so first, my empathy. i'm in charge of domestic terrorism and international terrorism. i don't differentiate either one when the threat comes in, nor does the fbi. we work them both the same. >> i appreciate that. and i hear that throughout your testimony. it's very consistent, mr. mcgarity. but how come we don't have enough tools right now to pull these people in? because this is a form -- and you can see there is a pattern. >> well, there's two parts to that. so i can tell you, the fbi, the joint terrorism task force, we are working hard, as i said earlier. we are working hard. if there is another statute you think is needed, come talk to the department of justice. absolutely. i mean, i think they have said that during the last testimony back in may. those types of charges, as you're explaining that, i want to arrest that person before they do something. >> that's great. >> i have to, right? >> right. >> what am i going to do? i'm going to look at any charge i can do. probably in that case, if it gets a little more specific with the violatoence, i'm going to u 18 usc 1875, interstate communication threat. that's what i'm going to do. and we do that every day. and we actually do it more. and i'm not trying to be argumentive here, either. i'm just telling you, men and women of the fbi are out here working this threat hard. and we arrest more of our subjects on domestic terrorism than international terrorism. >> we don't have enough resources i think being spent on that. and mr. shivers made a great point. i am for, and i my colleagues to know, i have my coffee hours, i have people protest -- i absolutely welcome freedom of speech. i welcome anybody that has an opinion -- even about my faith -- but to get to the point where they pass it towards a threatening life, and really -- i mean, to me, that is enough. sometimes i -- you know, the protected speech, and that's something we have to be very careful and tread very carefully. very, very carefully with that. but to that point where this person -- where i feel like if it came from somebody of different -- and no matter what, as we try to proceed, we say that's not true. but i feel like if they were muslim or black, they would be handled differently. even the threat that we had in florida, they released him on a tether. i had to go to florida the same weekend. i couldn't believe they released him on a tether. and i've been on the other end. you know, defending many people that were wrongfully accused and wanting to -- i couldn't get them on bail for the smallest incident of, you know, attempted assault and so forth, right? serious offenses, i believe. but in many ways, these kinds of incidents, when it comes to threats of life towards other people, based on, you know, somebody of jewish faith, muslim, being black in america, this anti blackness movement that we have. when do we take those so seriously as a movement that is obviously pushing violence? i mean, when do -- when -- i mean, at this point, you're letting the person out on a tether. i know you're not -- i know you're not, mr. mcgarity. and what scares me about you're kind of not requesting but saying do you think we should have domestic terrorism statute. what scares me about that, is we're pending -- and i'm sorry, mr. chairman, that we're going to allow this big balloon of then -- we're still going to be leaving people out. i feel like if they're threatening the life of someone else, that alone should be just enough for us to get them on it, if it's based on -- and it's based on hate, because they're mentioning a faith. if it's based on color and so forth. sexual orientation. that should be enough. and i mean, i commend you all in trying to keep our country safe. but i feel like -- almost like we need to be proceeding in a way that we're spending enough resources, money, with the people that are here now. that are threatening lives of a fellow american. >> thank you. >> i yield. >> thank you, ms. talib. i was so mesmerized by your statement, i lost track of time there. so that was my fault. come now to mr. malinowski. i yield to you for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and let me just say, in my congressional district, virtually every synagogue now has armed security. every mosque, when i go for friday prayers, there's state police outside. and thankfully, law enforcement is doing everything it can. but this is an ever-present fear for everybody who is worshipping. in new jersey. and so these questions about resource allocation are absolutely legitimate. let me begin with actually where the chairman started at the beginning. the question of cooperation with our allies around the world. mr. mcgarity, you talked about this as yes, a transnational threat in the sense that these people are communicating online. but isn't it more than that? they're traveling. they're meeting each other. the shooter in australia, new zealand, traveled to europe and met people in similar groups. we have americans going to ukraine to fight for militias there, coming back with military training, joining neo nazi groups. my question to you, much more specific, if we can drill down on this intelligence-sharing, is do you feel like you have the authorities with respect to sharing intelligence with our allies on members of neo nazi white supremacist organizations, so-called domestic terrorists, that you have if, for example, an american citizen is chatting online with al qaeda and yemen and getting on a plane to europe in terms of contacting your counterparts and those law enforcement agencies so they can surveil, so they can contribute to our work? >> if i have an open case on someone, it doesn't matter whether it's international terrorism, domestic terrorism or criminal. i can -- >> open case, yes. but you don't necessarily have an open case if someone hasn't done anything yet, right? and -- >> no, no. of course, we do. >> okay. >> yes. so if we have an open case where someone is looking, whether -- international terrorism, domestic terrorism, looking to do violence, right? looking to do something. so what the congresswoman said, plus looking to do violence. not just hate, but targeted hate. and i can open a case, i can share that information and work with my foreign counterparts, and we do that every day. >> so despite the fact that we don't designate domestic groups, and i'm not suggesting we do, but -- >> i can share that information. >> are you suggesting that -- essentially the same authorities. >> sure, yes. we work an investigation and we would do a lead with that legal attache to share with the counterparts. we may not get the same response. >> understood. ms. newman, mr. mcgarity said at one point -- well, several times, that he is focused on violence, not ideology. and i think that's probably the right answer from the fbi's point of view. but in terms of a national strategy for dealing with this threat, if violence is animated by ideology, isn't it important that we understand it, that we counter it and above all, that nobody in a position of authority legitimize or echo that ideology? >> sir, studies done by the national institute of justice, by the secret services, ntac, have identified that ideology is certainly one of about five components of an individual that's going to radicalize, but it is not significant enough that you have to know it in order to be able to see those behaviors and indicators of somebody on a pathway to committing an act of targeted violence. meaning you usually don't even discover what that ideology is or that motivation is before you might have clued in that somebody was trying to do something. >> okay. but -- >> specific to -- >> there are motivations here. >> yes. >> and with regard to the white supremacist individuals and groups, there is a belief that is driving those actions, a belief that white people are being replaced, that they are being threatened by something. and, you know, looking at the recent cases, isn't it fair to say that one of the common threads is that these people are animated by a conspiracy theory with regard to immigrants to america? i mean, they're all talking about it. is that fair? >> so i think that the current rise of white supremacy that we're seeing is abhorrent. i'm very sorry, ms. talib, at what you have endured. i believe that the prevention tools that we're trying to put in place will help identify those individuals as they're on their radicalization process. but that does not take away from the fact that we need to have a better understanding of every ideology that is posing a threat. that said, that's not my office's job. that's where -- >> i understand. i'm saying based on your expertise. the guy -- the shooter in pittsburgh said explicitly he acted because immigrants were invading america. and he blamed jewish-americans for abetting that, because of hebrew immigrant society. the shooter said immigrants were invading western countries. this is a common thread. so let me ask all of you, from the perspective of people charged with dealing with this threat, is it helpful if, in our public discourse in america, authoritative figures are themselves talking about immigrants invading the united states of america? threatening our way of life. threatening our culture. does that not create -- contribute to an environment in which these people who spout these conspiracy theories feel legitimized? >> the gentleman's time is up. but did anyone want to take a shot at answering this question? mr. mcgarity? >> i'll take a shot. so it's usually -- it's never one sole issue. but there are certainly many. and with the internet, you can find whatever ideology you want to justify your action. i'm going to leave it at that. >> and -- >> and that's because we're seeing cross-ideologies. in other words, there could be someone who is racially motivated, violent extremist, but also the ideology might be anti immigration. and everyone has a little different -- we're seeing that more and more over the last couple years than we did in years' past, which were more stove pipe ideologies -- more organized. >> but you wouldn't want me echoing that ideology, would you? >> ms. newman, did you want to answer that question? >> what i was going to suggest is that the fact that we live in a 24/7 news cycle now. the fact that the way that we get attention is through retweets and clicks, it leads us to more passionate rhetoric. and as government officials, our job is not to worry about the rhetoric or police the rhetoric. it does make our job harder. but the focus is on identifying the individual before they commit that act of violence. and getting them the help they need and hopefully being able to get them out -- hopefully to avoid the fbi having to investigate, because we've gotten them the help they need to be able to see things clearly. >> all right. we very much appreciate all of your contributions today. we will continue the dialogue, and we'll continue to work with you. ms. newman, mr. shivers, mr. mcgarity, thank you all. and we're going to bring up our second panel now. you are all dismissed. [ indiscriminate conversation ] [ indiscriminate conversation ] can all of our witnesses please come forward? okay. [ banging gavel ] okay. the subcommittee is called back to order. i want to again thank the first panel of witnesses for their testimony. and they should be aware there may be questions for the hearing record. we will now swear in our first -- rather our second panel of witnesses. and we're still waiting for ms. brooks. here she comes. so the second panel is tony mcaleer, co founder of life after hate. lisa brooks, from the southern poverty law center. brett steele, the director from the mccain institute for international leadership at arizona state university, and todd bentzman, former manager of counterterrorism intelligence at the texas department of public safety in the intelligence and counterterrorism division. welcome to you all. if you would stand and raise your right hand, i'll swear you in. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? great. let the record show the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you. please be seated. please speak directly into the microphone so we can micron to krp all your remarks. without objection your written statements will be made part of the record. i'm going to recognize each much you for five minutes. and there will be active questions by the distinguished members of the panel so you have an opportunity to expand further. with that, mr. ph leer you are recognized first. and it's good to see you again and you are recognized for five minutes. thank you. >> chairman rafiq in. ranking members roy, members of the committee thank you for the tune to appear before you today. life after hate was founded in the summer of 2011 by former members of white supremacist groups. our goal is to help people caught up in the destructive cycle of hate from which we were able to free ourselves. within a year of our founding a former u.s. army zwer with ties to white supremacist and neonazi groups killed six innocent people and injure injured four others at sik temple in oak creek, wisconsin. a little less than three years later in 2015 another white supremacist walked into the ame churn in charleston, south carolina, with the same goal. he was armed and primed for murder and killed nine people on that day. that same year life after hate answer add call from a troubled veteran. he had done tours to iraq and afghanants and became preoccupied with the local muslim community. thankfully he reached out to us tp within 24 hours tau of our team members were on a flit to meet with him, spending the next 72 hours together culminating in a powerful meeting with the imam from the local muslim center. to this day that vet is still engaged with his local muslim community. a community that is safer as a result. our time prides itself in our ability to assess and where necessary respond quickly to situations where delays prove costly. fast forward five years to august 2017. a white supremacy rally draws the whose who is violent extremist groups to charlottesville, virginia. attended by the kkk, white nationalists and neonazis, the subsequent violence claimed the young woman's life and broadcast to a national television audience. we saw it gwen in october of 2010. at the tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh with nine more people being senselessly murdered. in april of in year at the shabed of poway, california we saw another innocent person murdered by a violent white supremacist. thankfully his gun jammed. the expert team at life after hate are often referred to as formers. meaning former violent extremists. just as important as our unique firsthand experience within violent extremist groups is our collective professional training and experience. collectively the life after hate team has worked with hundreds of men and women who are able to successfully exit the white power movement appear build more positive lives. our founding group has undergone extensive personal and professional development and today the life after hate team has three decades of professional counseling experience between them. there is no other organization that's able to perform in unique work that life after hate does and that has the credibility to encourage members of violent extremist groups to reach out to them. as just as importantly, to work at scale. life after hate has has built a successful model that combines our unique experiences, professional training and evidence-based practices. we are now teaching this model. in in person training empowers local professional, law enforcement, mental health and social services to recognize emerging threats within their community and to effectively engage with that person or group. the outcome of this first contact from local professionals can define the success or failure. so it's vitally important that they receive in specialized training. since charlottesville, life after hate has received more than 240 requests for help from individuals and families. this is almost two and a half times the number of people that we helped in the six years prior. in the last three months alone we have opened 45 new cases. the life after hate is committed to continuing our work and to sharing the unique understanding and knowledge that we have developed in this assisting nearly 400 members of white supremacist groups to leave that movement. i come before you today to urge the government to recognize that if left unchecked white supremacist ideology inevitably expresses itself in murder. this ideology is deadly and fueled by social media. the threat to society is growing exponentially. thank you. >> thank you very much. ms. brooks you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman rascon thank you committee member roys committee members for being here. there is an escalation without questions unending hatred and violence. they are no longer isolated incidents there are no lone wolves. we are past the point of cautionary tales .each senseless act is intertwined and connected bigotry sinewp. on the past nova 19-year-old student murdered lori k inside a synagogue in poway. in a manifesto online easily located by anyone with a passing familiarity with the internet, the killer cite the as his role models, adoll of hit letter and two other men. one in pittsburgh and one in christchurch, newsland. in march mosques were attacked killed 51 people with -- another 50 injured process. one of the worshippers was killed as he charged at the assailant. five months prior to poway, the other man in pittsburgh murdered 11 people at the tree of life synagogue, including brothers david and cecil rosenthal. the city as top fbi official crawled it the most horrific scene he had seen in 22 years on the job .s. i want not a coincidence that these are carried out in-houses of worship. this is deliberate. in june 2015 as was mention add 21-year-old white supremacist posing in pictures with hongs and the confederate flg murdered nine worshippers as at the episcopal church during their prayer group meeting. these killers want to attack people when they are at their most vulerable. practicing religion. laying burdens before their god. these killings are not happening in a vacuum. white supremacy and white nationalism are allowed to grow unchecked. they remain understandpoint estimated by law enforcement and unnamed in the mtd because we as a society are not able to properly identify them or are just too scared to say them aloud. the falsehood of white again ds preinnovates i was petition share a fear of the supremacy of white in the u.s. just as easily heard on the evening cable news a as seen on fliers defacing college kfrpzs across the country. in radical and racist idea is now the animating principal of many in our elected leadership anded guiding light of the current administration. we have seen in idea become mainstreams for three reasons. one in the mid-198077% of the u.s. population was white. it's roughly now 60%. in 30 years it will be under 50%. this kind of change creates an existential anxiety that after being fed a steady media dooit of xenophobia and fear turns to hate. two, the briton is a highly effective tool for spreading propaganda and indon trination. it would be impossible to overstate the sheer volume of misinformation that ferments extremism available to all of us on our smartphones. and three, the president of the united states is actively stoking these anxieties. demon sizing immigrants, spreading conspiracy theories and lying every day about the cause of societies challenges. the southern poverty law center offers the following recommendations. first, support a bill culled the cosmetic terrorism data act. this bill would help to determine what resources are actually being applied to this threat and would improve interagency coordination and domestic terrorism. second, support the chal jab pachlt r and heather higher hate crime reporting act which would help reporting the hate crimes and data collection. and congress must also compel tech and social media companies to more adequately address hate on their platforms. to date they have demonstrated an insufficient and irresponsible lack of understanding and the vast scope of the precip their inaction suggests they are not up to the task por lack the will to do so. finally, in order to help communities deal with the impact of hate inspired violence we urge congress to fully fund the community relations service within the justice department. the administration's proposed 2020 budget recommends that the program be eliminated. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. the southern poverty law center remains ready and willing to work with you to address white nationalism and white supremacy in our country. >> ms. brooks thanks for joining us. ms. steele you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman rascon, rang ranking member roy and members of the subcommittee thank you for testify on the adequacy of federal responses to violent white supremacy. i am brett steele, director of prevention and national security at the kmaun the institute at arizona state university and honored to appear before you today. when a proves pro processed white supremacist intentionally drive his can card flew peaceful protesters in west virginia. senator juan mccain aloud called on all americans. my testimony today outlines three contreat steps to address hates crimes. establish parity in domestic terrorism charges. first, the united states homicide's office of targeted strienls and terrorism prevention faces dual pressure pressures of expanding mandates and shrinking resources as acknowledged early yerl tennessee and george sahleem testified the predecessor office managed a budgets of, sr. 21 including $10 million in grant funding. two years and two reoergss later the total budget is $2.6 million. and the department expanded the office's mission to include not only terrorism but school shootings and workplace violence, among others. this budget is woefully inact to meet the expanded mission. we position the mccain institute to filling gaps in the federal infrastructure. for example, the federal government launched the peer to peer challenging extremism problem to empower university students to katina extremism a tlup and tliet through the deployment of dynamic campaigns. since the spring of 2017, the federal government has failed to fund universities here in the united states to participate in this program. the mccain institute pan arizona state university will relaunch in program? january 2020 as the peace mavericks. peer to peer challenge. the mccain institute also plans to bltd a national network of practitioners sharing promising practices for preventing hate and targeted violence. through the initiatives, the mccain institute hopes to realize senator mccain's vision and build the capacity of local non-profits to work together to prevent hatred and bigotry. despite the expanding role of civil society in protectiving hate and terrorism the federal government remains best positioned to fund scaleable programs and coordinate technical assistance. congress should require an interagency strategy and implementle aches plan to prevent tarring the vienlts including white supremacy and codify a office with establishing a grant program for locally led initiatives to prevent targeted violence. two, funding independent academic evaluation of representative grant projects. and three expanding technical assistance to local community-led initiatives to ensure that programs are evidence informed and protective of price privacy and civil liberties pewaush the skrilt functions require line item you had funding and shouldn't be left to discretion of department leader. ship. the second point was improving hate crime reporting. even with the expanded investment in targeted violence prevention unaddressed hate will continue to fester into hate crimes. the government should, one, encourage hate crimes reporting of all citizens. two, train local law enforcement and three, consider mandatory hate crime reporting. my third point was creating a domestic terrorism charge. finally, individuals who commit violence acts that violate criminal laws with an intent to intimate or coerce civilian populations should qualify for a charge of terrorism regardless of which violent ideology nirptss them. the american people deserve parity in rhetoric or resources and our response. and arbor congress should take the first step toward parity by creating a criminal post office for domestic terrorism. congress must invest in scaling up local efforts to prevent targeted violence, improve reporting of hate crimes and establish parity in terrorism charges. thank you for affording me the opportunity to discuss these important concrete steps that the federal government and congress must undertake in order to effectively confront and defeat the ongoing threat impose posed buy eby violent sprem ipy subpoenacy look forward to any questions. >> you're recognized mr. benjamin you're recognized for for for five mindset. >> chairman rascon ranking member roy and subcommittee members thank you for inviting me to discuss this important issue. i served in texas department of public safety's intelligence and counterterrorism division for a decade. countering domestic extremism. i helped build and manage a counter counterproechls unit for for one of the degrees moecht musculature fusion centers. we worked with as one time with the fbi, dh sflt and intelligence and analysis officers and other federal agencies. texas certainly has its share of racially motivated extremists. and we worked hard to learn criminal intentions. neither fbi more dps ever dismissed the domestic extremist threat or violent white supremacists as some suggested. but face them at every durn o turn during my decades long experience. i personally sured analysts were dedicated to the threat. we worked hand in glove with the fbi's five joint terrorism task forces in texas, each of which maintained its own domestic terrorism squad. fors a idea of how closely we worked, texas dps investigators were anded to all five jttfs usually the domestic terrorism squads. information flowed both ways in our system. what i can tell you from my experience is that our collaborative arrangements remained in place after the 2016 election at the line level we created intelligence, passed information to the fbi on they are e-guardian system or in person and filled the requests for their case needs. good things happened as a result. for a number of years after 2010 dhs intelligence and analysis was not as helpful due to an order under secretary napolitano to stand town. this was due to controversy over elite 2009 paper that returning military veterans might joint extremist groups. in recent years dhsina did begin to provide value. the number of racially motivated criminal events is now higher than in the past. a pivot is necessary to reverse the trend. but any effort must account for the fact that not all dangerous domestic extremists are motivated by motivated por religious and mouse. in texas anti-government extremists not amount animated by racism threaten public safety too. as evidenced which black nationalist extremists in one term, who have murdered and wounded 25 police officers since 2016 including five in one hosk dallas ambush. it would be a mistake not to recognize this fact. we certainly worked on cases on races involving racial motivations like the adam wathan division, neonazis who think violence will ignite a race war to establish national socialism in the united states some have been implicated in murders building a dirt bomb and swanting to destroy infrastructure and some of that groups national leaders are based in texas. we worked on others not squarely in the white supremacist rubric such as sovereign citizen movement which features anti-government, anti-tax extremists who largely renlt government authority. anti-government militias, texas residents have been linked to anti-federalists carrying out the 2014 bundy ranch stan off in nevada and the 2016 wildlife refuge standoff in rgen. and arkist extremists sometimes known as antifa movement from november 2014 throughet 10i6 through 2017. masked and arkist extremis can continually assaulted troopers and peaceful demonstrators at the texas state capital the harassed businesses in jent tri fies neighborhoods. trained in assault tacts appearen oh troesh watch lists and some are fighting with communist kurdish groups in iraq. appears fpbi pivots to meet up cycling extreme imist it should be remembered that national fusion center with well oiled collaborative practices put in place as a result of 9/11 -- i recommend that the homicide enterprises mobilize the nation's 78 fusion centers to focus them on increased support to fbi jttfs on this problem set, can conduct a national risk assessment bias motivated criminality to build knowledge of the problem set. requires presidents policies report thes bias crimes to the -- illustrate voluntary right now and it's not reliable enough to be effective. require military services to collect and share disciplinary case information and suspicious behaviors as a potential early warning. service is a common background for certain extremists. and with that i'll yield and be available for questioning. thank you. >> mr. benesman thank you for your testimony. i'm going to go to mr. roy first for the first round of questions. process so near if i may. then i will stafrt then with miss kelly. >> thank you, mr. chair. i wanting to to the air area of education and stult. the fbi found 25% of all hate crimes occurred at schools or colleges. according to the correct me if i'm wrongicle of higher education data from the department of education hate crime incident -- hate incidence crimes on college campuses increased by 25% from 2010 to 2006 and incidence of hate still on the rise as i think you said. s miss steele in your written testimony you mention the department of education must be part of the conversation to prevent the rise of violent white supremacy. what role should the department of education play in addressing this threat? >> thank you for that question. i agree -- as i said in my testimony that the department of education should absolutely play a role in developing a comprehensive strategy as well as implementation plan. any played a role on the counter violent extreme ichls task force in that exists in name only but my pleasure to be deputy director of. their role dsh dpsh. >> did they dismantle the task force. >> the task force was not dismantled but no longer has dedicated full-time personnel. >> might as well be dismantled. okay. so the role of the department of education is in advising on policies in providing support to oftentimes teachers, zplrs asking for guidance what to do. they issue guidance in the base face of bullying incidents on campus for example. to provide that support to the education -- educators around this country who are looking for guidance on how to respond to this growing threat, not just on college campuses with you on high school camps as well. >> sounds like more needs to be done in that arena. you also wrote that the department of health and human services should be working to counter the violent white supremacy. again what role should hhs lay in addressing this threat? to your knowledge what are they doing. >> so the department of health and human services was also a member of the countering violent extremism task force. some of the most helpful programs out of the department of health and human servicess comes from the center for disease control which take the public health approach to violence vefgs. in re literature has helpful in informing -- we see common risk factors across targeted violence, violent white premcy and other forms of strienls that the center for disease control works to prevent. so guidance on public health approaches to violence prevention. >> and let's move to the department of labor. what role should they play and what role are they playing? >> so the department of labor also sat on the countering violent extremism task force you see a theme here. >> yes, i am. >> and their role historically, for example, when there was employment programs, summer sbrernment programs that the department of labor was rolling out that could be part of ha holistic, wrap around service approach to prevention i made sure that united states attorneys were aware of those programs in in re districts that, again, could be leveraged for preventative approaches to violence generally. >> it doesn't sound like anyone is doing much now from what you are reporting. i know you all sat on something. but that's not functioning anymore. >> i left the department in january and left the countering violent extremism task force in 2017 i can't speak to current affairs. >> what should congress do to make sure the departments of education, labor and hhs are doing their part. >>? >> i think we need to start with a strategy and implementation plan that clearly spells out the roles for each department and agency. we need to be mindful of not creating unfunded mandates that any responsibilities assigned to the departments and agencies also come with associated funding so they can be faithfully executed >> so just ending, you do believe that there is a role for agencies outside of law enforcement that it really as they say is going to take a village. >> absolutery. i think it's essential. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you very much. i yield to myself for five minutes. mr. mcaleer. we spent billions of dollars in counterterror operations around the world, military and intelligence operations. if you had a billion dollars to try to deal with the threat of terror in america, violent white supremacy domestic terror, what would you do with it? >> that's a great -- that's a great question. i think you know, we have to recognize that this is a whole of society problem that requires a whole of society solution. and i think i would begin to empower local communities that are trying to grapple with in problem. that including you know, helping law enforcement, mental health, social services and those types of things to understand and recognize what the problem is and to be able to interviews with it better, primarily in the precriminal space. i think that's where the work is prevention is done. that's where life after hate works. but i know that there is large number of communities that -- that just lack the resources to be able to respond in an effective way. >> so would the investment be generally of the kinds of things that bolster communities like job training, education, and after school work, and mental health counseling and helping young people are alienated or marginal, or would it explicitly try to address the idea willing eologies of the group. are we learning from that the ideology is really secondary to just sort of sense of social isolation and marginalization that certain young people are experiencing and therefore makes them vulnerable and susceptible though to these kinds of groups. >> in life after hate's persons when we peel away labels we find vulnerables human beings. and they are human beings. and when we talk about hate crimes in schools we're talking about children too. i think we just -- we need to take a comprehensive approach to address those things and in an effective way. >> and can you give us one good ample of somebody who actually was in one of the groups was committed to violent white supremacy, hurt people but got out and -- i mean, in other words, is there some reason to hope that the people who are in it can come through it? >> absolutely. and i would use myself as that example. i aspen 15 years in the white supremacist movement. i was a skin head. i was a neonazi. ilt eventually moved to a suit and tie and was involved in the white arian resistance. i exited a lot of violence -- a lot of violence that i have a lot of shame for, a lot of healthy shame. part of the work i can is the accountable holding myself accountable for the hobl deeds i've done. but it was other people that reached out that gave me a way back in. i think we have to keep the door open. as much as it's important to call people out when they do this stuff. we also must be in a position to call people in. >> so the position you take now is that it's important to have muscular strong law enforcement as you at the same time try to remember the humanity of the people that they are kbrs impress impressionable young people that got pulled in and try to find a pathway out for them. >> we are not saying we are the only solution we are part of a greater holistic solution. compassion is an extremely powerful tool. but it has to be married with healthy boundaries and consequences. and that's kind of the role of law enforcement. we we have to have both together, otherwise it's invitation for further abuse. >> ms. brooks let me turn to you and ask the same question. if you -- you know, a big sum of money to try to spend to make progress on in so we don't see repeat of tree of life or the mother emmanuel church, or any of these episodes of explosions of gun violence with a white supremacist motivation behind it, what would you do? >> thank you. i think that i -- i agree with my fellow panelist we need wrap around services. i guess i would point out that it is in some cases in some instances vulnerable populations. people who are living on the margins. but i'd also point out that especially as it relates to white nationalists who call themselves alt right on college campuses these are well to do young men in their 30s. so some people are purposely joining that movement. and so i am just reminded of the conversation that you all were having in the earlier panel. and i was struck by people's hesitancy to talk about whiteness and race, and if we don't have those kinds of conversations then we won't address the problem fully. the fact of the matter is that what animates it most- thisfer of a white genocide. is a demographic shifts. as i have worked with young white kids with no one to talk to about what it means to be white and what it means to becoming a minority in their own country. this is a real issue. but if we're not talking -- -- if we're not talking with o about race explicitly then we can't get to it, right. so i think that it's very important for us to acknowledge that education around diversity, equity and inclusion, including kind of a -- a very intentional race equity lens, that this happens at the elementary school level. this happens k through 12. i have had occasion to work with many college age students who are literally lost on college campuses. this is why you see a lot of pushback and alt-right presence on college campuses because the young white men feel they're not part of it, not a part of the diversity on campus and then break up into their own little group. these things are real. so if we don't -- if we don't address them in a more holistic fashion we'll just continue down this path. >> whip and i want to thank you for making the powerful point. it's important we wrestle with that serious issue but also as you observe, take care to notice that there are real racist movements around the world, especially in europe with political presence and influence. and so you know, maybe we can prevent some young people from using their lives in this way. but we also have to confront it at the level of politics and ideology. >> if i could just add, i would add lit ray soocy around the use of the internet. we need to educate young people from an early age how to use it as a tool. >> vrgtd, i am coming to miss pressley for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to all of our witnesses. you reiterate and remind us that hate begats hate and violence bee gats violence and there is too much in the wrl. and the more silent we are about it, the more complicit we are in it and can't work on it if we can't talk about it. thank you all for being here. and thank you, mr. chairman, for kwon veening this hearing on this important subject to discuss the unique perspectives on the growing dangers of white terrorism. miss brooks according to the organization websites, there are more than one thousand terrorist groups operating across the united states. i represent the massachusetts seventh and the commonwealth of the massachusetts in 2018 there were 14 trophy groups. can you just speak to, you know, how these strends have changed canadian from recent years and why. >> thank you, congresswoman. the trends are -- have been going up sense the year 2000. we mark a 55% increase in the number of active hate groups since 2000 to 2018. over the last couple years i would say it's been a 5 to 6% increase. i think it's important for us that are convened today to note there is a 50% increase in the number of white nationalist hate groups. and it's important to note that as someone mentioned earlier we have -- we note an increase in hate groups but we also note increase in activity by individuals. so, again, going back to the internet and how these -- these messages of hate are spread, they're not solely confined to just groups. but i would say in answer to your question that it's been on the increase since 2014 at least. >> okay. all right. and then just picking up on congresswoman kelly's line of questioning around schools. miss brooks your organization recently released a report entitled hate at school which expose the surge of racist examine xenophobiaic appear anti-islamic following the 2016 elections. mr. chairman, i would like to request unanimous consent to have this report included in the record. >> without objection. >> the report lengths this phenomenon to a quote unquote trump effect. can you explain in trump effect and the impact it has had both on children and educators at schools across our country? >> thank you so much. as we all know, the 2016 presidential campaign was you gory. it was just ugly. the rhetoric that went -- went out from then candidate trump was -- was echoed in our nation's schools. and that's just a fact. our research bears it out. so when on the presidential campaign trail the when things are said about immigrants and i believe candidate -- i know candidate trump entered the campaign villifying immigrants and mexicans in particular. and so the -- the language and the rhetoric that's used in the public square was then echoed on school kafrpdss. teachers reported to us. and we must have researched about 10,000 teachers at least that reported to us without attribute to any candidate that they had never seen anything like it before. so there was an increase in anti-immigrant rhetoric. increase in anti-muslimrightic. increase in anti-lgbt. and i'm a former fifth grade teacher. schools had done a lot to pushback against bullying and harassment on school campuses but it just all flipped during the presidential campaign. and teachers as i say didn't know how to handle it because they didn't want to -- to offend the parents. so we see this trend kind of -- well continuing the southern poverty law center through the teaching tolerance program sent out resources that would help teachers address hate and bias on campus. we always want to be able to help educate teachers and make a -- create a safe place for students. >> thank you. >> um-hum. >> thank you for the research and for the rourts. before my time ends, miss brooks in in your opinion how might designations like black identity extreme imt reinforce racial stereotypes and perpetuate racial tensions. >> a few months into the president's administration, then attorney general sessions who as you know was the senator in alabama, identified -- identifies as the biggest threat to our country domestically was black identity extremists. the research at the southern poverty law center adl, any other group maintaining records and keeps up with and tracks the around and monitors hates extremism will tell you that's not true. there is no organized threat from black extremists or black identity groups or anything of the sort. the -- the reference that the panelists made to the murders in texas, the southern poverty law center tags that ideology to sovereign citizens. it's interesting that when a black person is the perpetuator they they become a black identity extremist and not allowed to hold a sovereign citizen identity as if it were a white person. so a white person that -- that is tagged with a sovereign citizen ideology gets to remain just that. they don't then become a white supremacist. do you know what i mean. >> i do. so injury it's -- i think it's unfortunate we tried to push back against it. the southern poverty raw center two years ago on the website -- i wanted to be clear that the black lives matter movement was not -- we did not identify black lives matter as a hate group and were not -- our information about black extremist groups -- because we do identify black nationalist groups. we do. that they were not to be kuchzed or conflated with the fbi's list at all. >> all right. >> thank you for clarifying. >> thank you so much ms. pressley and ms. dlab. you are recognized five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so maximum brooks thank you. thank you all so much for being here. i got a little text message from my sff ms. brooks speaks to my soul. i appreciate wlad you were talking about -- probably some people know who that was. the one thing that i heard from the previous panel, ms. brooks is they talked about one of my colleagues brought up the ideology and then someone from homicide said well there was five components so so-called terrorism. and ideology is only one part of that. do you know what the other -- like how do they come and decide okay this is a group that we need to maybe put out a list or target or so forth? >> i have no idea what they do. i can tell what you we do. ideology drives or animates participation in the movement, right. people are for the -- they don't align themselves with the alt-right movement unless they adopt a white nationalist or white supremacist ideology. to adopt that ideology kind of brings you down a rabbit hole of extremism that has toney mentioned can lead to real violence. and i want to point out that i just think it's important to -- to speak to the truth of what happens to individuals shall did dsh because if we don't any will end up creating -- acting out violent racial -- any will act out, you know, violently. sorry. i just feel so strongly about it we just -- you can't erase the ideology from who these folks are. they wouldn't be involved in any of this. it's easy for us to assign ideology across the groups. i'll bring it up again in terms of people of color. but twhe comes to saying that some young white men are adopt a white supremacist ideology we seem to want to stop. i don't do it to attack white man. i do it because i want to help them. this is what they are believing. what they are fed and what is animating their actions. if we don't recognize it we cannot help them. >> now, thank you so much and mr. mcaleer i appreciate your courage in coming forward. it -- it i just -- i'm o i have a tremendous amount of respect for you to do that. i love what you talked about regarding compassion. i always talk about you talk about leading with compassion even as a member of congress approaching people wsh -- many -- i want to say i think close to 60% of american haves never met a person of muslim faith before and from that school of that the. you don't have to share this is a public setting but when was that moment? when was the moment where you said i have to change? >> it was a moment that started a process. it wasn't a moment where it all happened but it started in the delivery room with the birth of my daughter. and i had a soon 15 months later. at that point in my life -- that point in the movement i was completery disconnected from who i came into the world to be, as little tony. and i had become numb chltd. >> their infection ut us and it's safe to love a child. the reason we shut down and the reason we get disconnected is because we learn somewhere along our lives that it's not safe to be open. and they provided a place -- a splaef place to be able to that you and allow -- allow my heart to become connected to my heart again. >> it's very beautiful thank you so much for providing that. mr. benesman. i'm glad you mentioned this in your testimony about there is the groups that are just anti-government. you know, i see that as anti-democracy, trying to push forward and not wanting everyone to be able to participate, wanting -- and one of the things that i'm worried about, though, is when you do that there are people that are, you know expressing in re first amendment right, the freedom of speech and wanting to, look i don't like this form of government. but when do you decide when it turns into more of a -- is does it turn into some sort of like hate versus -- because i know that are like i don't want to vote, don't want to participate. i think this whole system -- you know, whatever broken, whatever. i mean i've participated in actual college campus protects where it's not until we are truly free will i -- when do you decide when anti-government kind of groups are, you know, past that line and lead into some sort of violent group? curious. >> well, sure, to start with, just coming from a purely law enforcement perspective, one of the earlier panelists made this point, that protected speech includes hate speech. so speech and speech that references a desire to change the government, so hate speech is protected speech. but from a law enforcement perspective, we are governed by federal rules and our own internal policy psak cfr part 23 i don't know if you heard that. but that restricts us from monitoring groups without im predicate. so we are very limited in what we can do in terms of even opening up a facebook page, okay. so what we look for from law enforcement is some sort of a predicate that looks like -- that would rice to reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur or has occurred. and at that point we can get involved. so it has to cross a line of criminality. so if we're looking at somebody who is saying something like, i think you were reading from your -- an email. i didn't hear the predicate in that. if the email would have said, i am going to kill you tomorrow at noon, then of course everybody would be -- you'd have s.w.a.t. teams on that guy's house something like that. but if they just sort of generally say. >> we don't want new zealand to happen here. >> well, that's expressing a general aspiration. >> to kill muslims. >> right. but what law enforcement is looking for in that circumstance is i'm going to do it. and everybody else should do it on this such and such a date. now, we saw that sort of thing ahead of the garland terror attack in a few years ago when the two guys drove to dsh from phoenix to garland, texas, to attack the, draw the moment cartoon. there were a lot of social media postings that were very specific about murder. and it was inciting violence. and you can't incite violence. that would cross the predicate line. i don't know if that that gets at the answer. that's how we look it abthe cross the line. >> gentlelady's thank you for the supplicationation of the constitution standard. which is the brandenberg standard to inkriemtment lawless action. mr. roy recognize you the for the five five minutes. >> i appreciate it and appreciate the questions here today. and thank you all for your patience. it's been a long afternoon with two panels and for your commitment to public service and in whatever walk of life you each are in. so i appreciate it. a couple of quick questions. mr. benesman, you -- you kwon vaed some information about some of the ---en a i alluded to this them my opening statement earlier on about some of the cases the fisher dealt with in texas. you shared some information. i wanted to see if you could expand on that a little bit because one of the things i want to make clear out of today is -- i think everybody is in agreement here, right i want to make sure it's clear that there are issues here we're trying to address and figure out. everybody i think everybody habs consistent that point and trying to figure out how we can pivot from a focus on one particular kind of terrorist threat and use resources figure out to you li how to allocate them and deal with the different threats and all of that isening aing but that law enforcement communities are working within the resources they have to go stop a lot of booed bad actors. can you just go -- maybe 30 seconds or a minute and just summarize a few of the ones i know you are aware of in texas. >> sure. there is one that just wrapped up recently. that's the case of former texas state university student i think you mentioned that earlier. this is a young man who made online postings messaging that he wanted to commit mass murder and kill minorities. that -- that individual also had some other crime problems so they used to get him off the street right away. but he has pled guilty. that's benjamin bo guard of new bjorn fills. and then we had a student, a daca recipient who made threats to kill i.c.e. agents. he is now deported into mexico. he chose deportation rather than standing trial. we have had a number of -- i would say sovereign citizen cases. we've got sovereigns all over texas of different varieties. two members that are living in a compound in central texas. i think that case may be going on. so i can't much about it. but some of it broke into the public record. and there are police reports they committed armed robberies of a jewelry store in furtherance of their ideology and their enterprise. >> well, let me ask you one more question. in your experience as a law enforcement -- in law enforcement, resources are always an issue, right. i mean, in erms it of trying to figure out how we go after bad actors. there is more than enough to go around, right. and we're just constantly trying to figure out how to stop bad actors ahead of time. and/or deal with crime after the crime has been committed. so really this is extraordinarily a resource allocation between federal, state and local is that a fair statement. >> absolutely. >> and so without objection i'm going to introduce into the record a detailed description of the case mrs. benesman alluded to. >> without objection. >> and the thing i end and i want to make it positive and not negative because we're wlapg up the day and it's been a long long day. something ms. brooks you alluded to caught my ear. and that is the question about demonizing immigrants, for example. because this is getting to the heart of, for me when you get into hate speech and when you get into what people are kind of you know dpuning somebody's motivate he is not the specifics about willing a you the president did so something along that on without get floog that game or ooifgt specific tweets or statements. i've been a fairly outspoken critic of our current grimgts policy and border policy. and i think my question is is what is the line, right? because you know, when somebody someone says that we're demonizing immigrants, is it, too often i find that people are saying you're demonizing immigrants because up believe border laws ought to be enforced, that you believe that's actually better for migrants seeking to come here so they're not held in stash houses in houston. not abused by cartels, not little girls abused on the journey through mexico so cartel aren't making $2 billion like in 2018 and if you stand up and say i think the border ought to be secure it's better for the country, better for migrants, that somehow that's demonizing immigrants rb are the right? how does that then translate to what we are talking about in terms of hate? which i think gets to the heart of you know from a civil libertiarian standpoint and not wanting to have the government, you know policing every statement you make, so the my question is is what would institute dmonzing immigrants relative to saying i just want a secure border? >> that's fine. i believe that we need to have a conversation about comprehensive immigration reform. i don't want people sleeping under a bridge on the border either. i think when you call people subhuman, when you refer -- when you -- when you lose your humanity for a person, when you start identifying them as just -- as drug dealers, when you don't see people as people or just calling them out of their name that's not necessary. it's not necessary at all. to have -- to engage intellectual discourse about immigration in our country. we don't have to resort to name calling. and it has an effect, sir. it does. because as i mention children will pick that up and the next thing you know there is bullying happening on school campuses. and hate incidents do lead to hate crimes. they just do. >> well, my only point -- i'm over my five five minutes i do want to wrap it up. i would say this it is also true that the southern poverty law center has suggested that c.i.s. which mr. benesman works is a hate group. and i know mark and i know todd and some of the folks there trying to fight for a secure border. i would suggest to you that that designation heightens the tension quite a bit about groups trying to i think work hard to come to consensus on ka a strong border excoriate burt he yield back. >> ip i understand we can all do better. thank you, sir. >> well i want to thank you all four of you for your superb presentations and for a very civil productive andment enlightening exchange of views and ideas today. and we will collect everything that we did in this set of hearings and move forward in the legislative process with it i want to thank you you guys for being part. and mr. roy i want to thank you for holding up that side of the dias and ms. tlaib for joining us even though you are a member of the general oversight committee being part of the subcommittee today. thank you for coming. meeting is adjourned. [ inaudible conversations ] [ in] prime time tonight on c-span three, the health affairs committee on global help holds a council on medical advances and lessons learned from previous outbreaks at 8 p.m. eastern. the national league of cities releases its annual report on the state of u.s. cities followed by discussion with a handful of mayors from ross the country. >> once tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs and then in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c- span open the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, giving you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since the landscape has changed, there is no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting and youtube stars are thing but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. no government so bunny money support c-span and its nonpartisan coverage is by cable or satellite providers on on television and online, c-span is your view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> the house homeland security committee is investigating tsa screening policies and allegations of racial profiling , testifying at the hearing the government accountability office is in homeland security acting director, along with leaders from the coalition and the naacp education fund. >> the committee of homeland security will come to order. the committee is meeting today to receive testimony on perspectives of tsa's process to prevent un

Related Keywords

Charlottesville , Virginia , United States , New York , Emmanuel Church , Massachusetts , Australia , Alabama , United Kingdom , Missouri , Texas , Florida , Boston , Illinois , California , Wisconsin , San Diego , Togo , Michigan , West Virginia , Mexico , Iraq , New Zealand , New Jersey , Colorado , Pennsylvania , Houston , Maryland , Ohio , Poway , Americans , Mexicans , America , Briton , American , James Byrd Jr , Cecil Rosenthal , Al Shabaab , Al Qaeda , Nate Blumenthal , Juan Mccain , George Saleem , Roger Talbot , Robert Bower , Sik Temple , Brian Murphy , Benjamin Bo , Heather Heyer , Brett Steele ,