Committee. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. America subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. America is under threat. According to a joint dhs, fbi report mandated by this committee, 2019 was the most lethal year for Domestic Violence extremist attacks since 1995, the year of the Oklahoma City bombing. The majority of those killed in 2019 were killed by extremists advocating for the superiority of the white race by White Supremacists. One year ago the acting secretary of Homeland Security wrote that white supremacist violent extremists had been exceptionally lethal in their targeted attacks. Militia violent extremists including those who advocate for the superiority of the white race present the most lethal, domestic threat, and are most likely to conduct mass casualty attacks. Just a few weeks ago, assistant director testified that the fbi is tracking more than 2,700 domestic terrorism threats. We have seen the devastation of this threat firsthand in these very halls on january 6th, the capitol was attacked by insurrectionists, who attempted to use deadly force to prevent congress from counting electoral votes for a fair and free election for the First Time Since the civil war. America did not have a peaceful transfer of power. Five people died that day. Several Capitol Police officers took their lives in the traumatic after math. Many more were injured, and still suffer the effects of that assault. That affected me too in deeply personal ways. On january 6th, a man was arrested returning to his truck from the riot at the capitol. He was carrying two pistol. In his truck, according to the fbi, was a small arsenal. 11 molotov cocktails, a rifle, a shotgun, and two nine millimeter pistol and a 22 caliber pistol, both loaded as well as a cross bow, several machetes, a stun gun, along with smoke devices. That man had Something Else in his truck, he had a list, my name was on it. Next to my name was written one of two muslims in the house of representatives when in fact there are three. As someone who was directly targeted on january 6th, this issue is so personal to me, as a former police officer, as a black man, as a muslim, im deeply concerned but more importantly as an american, who fights for equity, for democracy, for freedom. I understand it, as we work to prevent future attacks, we must remember that domestic terrorism tears at the fabric of this country in ways that extend beyond the lives lost. Kenneth robinson, pastor of briar creek Road Baptist Church in charlotte, north carolina, told the Washington Post in april that his predominantly black church, one of several attacked in 2015, remains on edge to this day. Trauma is a way of life for us, he said. Trauma cannot, must not be a way of life for americans. Domestic terrorism is not new. It arises from hatred, and divisions as old as america. And we are all aware that its victims come disproportionately from minority and marginalized communities but it is evolving and expanding fueled by disinformation and amplified on social media. We too must evolve to meet this threat, and to effectively counter this threat, we have to name it. We have to understand it. We need to identify the drivers of domestic terrorism so that we can stop it. Equally important to stopping this threat is how we go about preventing it. Fighting terrorist violence is only one side of the ledger, one part of the balance that must be struck. We must ensure that, as we rise to meet the challenge of domestic terrorism, we do so in a way that protects civil rights and Civil Liberties of folks. This is a long standing challenge in counter terrorism, the need for balance between freedom and security, to maintain that balance the intel communitys domestic Terrorism Mission must remain narrow. And congresss oversight must be rigorous. Im glad, genuinely so to see my colleagues across the aisle embrace concerns for protecting civil rights, and Civil Liberties and counter terrorism, so that many of us can get some kind of resolve. To help the subcommittee better understand the domestic terrorism threat, we welcome john cohen, senior official performing the duties of the under secretary for intelligence and analysis at the department of Homeland Security, and timothy langen, we have questions about the gravity of the threat and your agencys role in responding to. We will ask you to help clarify for the American People the limited but vital role of the ic and its mission. When most americans hear intelligence, they think of a cia officer recruiting spice or nsa analyst listening to phone calls but collection on domestic terrorism is and must remain different. It consists largely of gathering publicly available information or information gathered in Law Enforcement investigation. Analysts then review it to better understand the threat and help policy makers mitigate it. So we ask you today how are you distinguishing from protected speech on these Online Platforms from conduct on the role of escalation and violence, and how are you working with the private sector and social Media Companies in particular to identify and share information about these threats while still protecting individual privacy rights on these platforms. Were grateful for your presence, i stand ready and eager to assist you in your mist as we all do. Ill turn to Ranking Member crawford on comments he wishes to make. Republican members on this committee have raised concerns about the Intelligence Committee conducting surveillance of u. S. Persons without a foreign nexus, executive order 12333, which every icl points to as the guiding principle for their authority clearly states that the role of the ic is to provide information on Foreign Security threats and the intentions of foreign powers organizations and persons and their agents. The lane for hipse is looking at foreign collection and any nexus between overseas individuals and groups with those in the United States that are plotting violence, but were not doing that today. This hearing has no classified portion, no opportunity to hear from the witnesses on ic collection of any foreign nexus to Domestic Violence extremist. Todays hearing is not the first event the house Intelligence Committee has held this year on domestic terrorism. I hope the intention of the majority is not to communicate that there is an interest in expanding the role of u. S. Intelligence entities, their resources or authorities to look inward at u. S. Citizens. These carefully authorized capabilities were never intended for domestic use, and we need to have a very clear boundary. The use of National Intelligence Program Funds and authorities should be for targeting foreign threats, not surveilling americans. Government action to counter domestic extremism is an area fraught with potential overreach that impacts Civil Liberties. Over the past few weeks, we have seen the danger of the federal government taking action for political purposes. The attorney generals memo directing the fbi to hold 94 meetings across the u. S. To look at allegations of threats towards School Officials without having any data and threats from state and local Law Enforcement points to significant government overreach motivated by politics and intended to intimidate american parents. I understand that the attorney general memo references violence and threats of violence, however general garland has testified several times that the driving force for his memo was a letter from the National School Board Association which refers to complaining parents as possible domestic violent extremists and the need to use the patriot act surveillance tools to monitor these threats. The fact that the attorney general allowed these complaints to drive Government Action demonstrates the need for vigilance about the role of the Intelligence Community in the domestic arena. Let me be clear, there is a need for strong Law Enforcement role in countering, investigating and prosecuting domestic terrorism. Anyone who threatens or commits acts of violence must face legal consequences, however, there must be a clear boundary between the appropriate role for Law Enforcement and the surveillance tools of the Intelligence Community. Moving forward, i hope this community will get back to focusing on foreign threats. This subcommittee needs critical attention, counter terrorism, collection short falls after the afghanistan withdrawal, Counter Intelligence threats from multiple foreign actors from all sectors of u. S. Society and the development of bioweapons and other wmds to name a few. I look forward to working with you on these critical issues, and i yield back the balance of my time. I want to recognize our distinguished chairman, chairman schiff. Thank you, chairman carson for convening this vital discussion. Im please to join in welcoming the witnesses today. As our president confirmed, domestic terrorism is one of the gravest threats to our values, our democracy and our security. It is imperative that this committee and the American People understands scope and complexity of the domestic Terror Threat and ensure we equip our Intelligence Community with the resources needed to counter. Because there response must be also. We must continue to improve our understanding and sharing of threat information, find ways to defuse and deescalate causes of violence, including the extreme and violent ideologies offer fomented online. We must also acknowledge that the persistent role White Supremacy and White Nationalism have on these threats. Its an indisputable fact that the growing proportion of domestic terrorist threats are driven by people driven by hatred wanting to harm people because of the color of their skin or their religious beliefs. This is not new in america. Our history has long been marred by racially motivated threats against communities of color and other marginalized groups. But we are seeing a sharpened edge to the threat and increasingly persistent and coordinated effort to terrorize based on these repugnant views. In short, it is imperative we proactively identify these threats, break the online radicalization cycle, and bolster the resources necessary to keep america safe. This is not an effort undertaken solely or even primarily by the Intelligence Community. It will require close coordination among federal, state, and local Law Enforcement as well as collaboration with private sector partners, particularly in the online space. Mr. Cohen, im encouraged by your public commitment to work with the private sector on identifying patterns of violence amplified online. While we must insure that appropriate ic agencies are able to contribute to the mission of combatting domestic terrorism, it is equally important that this committee continues its sustained rigorous oversight of any instance where those efforts could impact americans civil rights and Civil Liberties. Last year, the committee launched an investigation following serious allegations that the department of Homeland Securitys intelligence and Analysis Office may have played a role in violating First Amendment rights during dhss response to unrest in portland, including by collecting intelligence on journalists. This committee will continue to prioritize over sight to make sure reforms are instituted and civil rights and Civil Liberties remain protected for all americans. Im grateful for the witnesses testimony today and look forward to our discussion, and with that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. With that, we will start our hearing. Assistant director langan, the floor is yours. Good morning chairman schiff, chairman carson, Ranking Member crawford, and members of the subcommittee. Im honored to be here today representing the dedicated men and women of the fbis Counterterrorism Division and i appreciate the opportunity to be with you to discuss the threat picture. It goes without saying that the flet from domestic terrorism is heightened and has significantly increased in the last 18 month. Today, i want to take an opportunity to highlight the fbis investigative and analytical resources that are being used to combat this threat. First and foremost, the United States faces a complex Threat Landscape driven by a broad set of violent extremist ideologies. Investigations into violent extremists have more than doubled over the last year and were currently conducting 2700 investigations on domestic violent extremists. In the fists discussion of threats, we use words violent extremism to define these threats because the underlying political or social positions and the advocacy of such beliefs are not prohibited by the law. The fbi cannot open an investigation based on First Amendment protected activity. The fbi divides the domestic terrorism threat into five broad categories. One, racially or ethnically motivated extremist. Two, antigovernment or antiauthority violent extremist which has three subcategories. Militia violent extremism, anarchist violent extremist, and citizen violent extremist. Number three, animal rights, four, abortion related violent extremism, and five, all other domestic threats which consist of domestic violent extremists with blended or personalized ideologies not otherwise defined under one of the previous categories i mentioned. We assess that extremists advocating for the superiority of the white race, specifically militia violent extremists, present the most lethal threats with racially or ethnically motivated extremists most likely to conduct mass casualty events against civilians and militia violent extremists targeting Law Enforcement and government personnel and facilities. From 2010 through 2020, racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists have killed have committed 18 lethal attacks in the United States, killing 70 people. Including those in charleston, charlottesville, pittsburgh, and el paso. They typically targeted large public gatherings and houses of worship. Its important to remember that preventing acts of terrorism is the fbis number one priority. The greatest terrorism threat faced in our homeland is that posed pie lone actors and small cells who typically radicalize online, look to use easily accessible weapons to attack soft targets. We see this threat within both homegrown violent extremists or hves who are inspired primarily by foreign counterterrorists and domestic violent extremists. We want to assure the subcommittee and the American People that the fbi focuses its efforts on all threats of terrorist and continues to shift resources to remain commensurate with this ever evolving threat. In conclusion, consistent with our mission, the fbi holds sacred the rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights. Regardless of ideology, the fbi aggressively pursues those who seek to hijack legitimate First Amendment protected activity by engaging in violent criminal activity such as the destruction of property and violent assaults on Law Enforcement officers that we witnessed on january 6th and during the protests throughout the u. S. During the summer of 2020. The fbi will actively pursue the opening of investigations when an individual uses, threatens use of force, violence, or coercion in violation of federal law and in furtherance of social or political goals. I look forward to answering your questions. Chairman carson, Ranking Member crawford, members of the committee, thank you for asking the department to appear before you today. It truly is a pleasure. I have found since returning to the department in january that the opportunity to have open and public discussion with members of congress on threat related issues has been incredibly valuable. This is an important conversation. I have spent over 35 years in working in Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, National Security, and i have to say that the period of threat that were in today is one of the most complex, volatile, and dynamic that i have experienced in my career. And while we are here today talking about domestic terrorism, i am mindful of the fact that at the same time we at the department are working closely with the fbi, with our state and local partners, with our foreign counterparts to deal with a broad range of threats including an evolving threat by terrorist groups, Violent Crime that is in the midst of a multiyear increase in cities across the country, efforts by foreign intelligence agencies to collect Sensitive Information, and engaging in covert operations in the United States. Which includes the use of influence operations and disinformation campaigns intended to sow discord, undermine confidence in our government, in our government institutions, destabilize society, inspire acts of violence, and even undermine our relationship with our key allies. Were dealing with a range of Cyber Threats as well as an evolving migration situation along the southern border. We have a lot on our plate. But as the assistant director indicated, when we look at the issue of lethal threats facing the United States today, the primary terrorism threat facing the u. S. Comes from lone offenders and individual and small groups of individuals who are motivated by extremist ideologies. I would like to build on the assistant directors Opening Statement and go a little more into detail on the dynamics of the threat were seeing based on our analysis at the department. This is a threat thats both organizational and individual in its structure. Yes, we have groups of people who will coalesce around extremist idealogical beliefs and even engage in violence and destructive behavior in furtherance of those beliefs. But when we look at lethal attacks that have been conducted in this country over the last several years, it is a very individualized threat. So what do i mean by that . As repeat lade assessed by dhs and the fbi, the threat primarily comes from lone offenders who engage in violent activity inspired by extremist beliefs and or personal grievances, typically cultivated through the consumption of online content. We have experienced attacks in this country over the last several years that have been motivated by beliefs associated with racial superiority, hatred of immigrants or others due to their religious beliefs, their gender, their sexual orientation, an individual or group of individuals distrust of government or government institutions. Or even the belief that we shouldnt have a government and we should live in an anarchist type environment. This is a trend as i mentioned before that didnt just appear over the last year. This is something we began to observe going back to 20132014 time period. And while again looking at lethal attacks in the United States, while the specific motives behind these attacks vary, analysis tells us that many of the attackers share common behavioral characteristics. In particular, they are angry, they feel socially disconnected, theyre seeking a sense of life meaning, they spend significant time online, and ultimately selfconnect with a cause or grievance to justify the use of violence as a way to express their anger and achieve a sense of social connection and selfworth. A phrase youll often hear, we will use in the analytic community, its not the ideology, its the psychology. Thats a reference to the fact that a major part of the threat environment today is based on the anger that is so prevalent across our society. And the belief that violence is an appropriate way to express that anger by a growing number of people within our society. This is a threat that does not fit neatly into traditional terrorism or extremist related definitional categories. Those who engage in violence often selfconnect with a combination of extremist beliefs or a blend of extremist beliefs and personal grievances. While the assistant director referenced a number for lethal attacks associated with domestic terrorism, i would argue the numbers of those who have been killed are much higher. When we look at attacks like Sutherland Springs in texas or in las vegas or in other parts of the country, its very often difficult to discern whether the motive behind the attack is an idealogical belief system or a personal grievance or a combination of both. This is a threat that manifests itself both in the physical and digital environments. Online content, disinformation, false narratives, conspiracy theories. Spread by foreign nation states, International Terrorist groups, extremist thought leaders fuel much of the violence were experiencing. This is a really important point that was referenced by chairman schiff, mr. Carson, and others recently. Domestic and foreign threat actors purposely seek to exploit the fractures in our society, the anger and discord associated with our political discourse, to sow discord, inspire violence, and destabilize our society. Individuals preparing to conduct attacks of acts of violence will often discuss their plans online, both in private and public forums. Understanding all of this is critically important because it provides context to what im sure we will discuss later today with regard to how the department has structured itself to work with the fbi and others to address this issue. But if i may focus on a couple sort of key issues. One, we need to think differently about intelligence. This threat requires we think differently about how we look at information. Preincident indicators may be apparent through public action or indications. Covert collection may often not be necessary to capture valuable intelligence. But analysts need to be able to distinguish as was repeatedly stated by mr. Crawford, have to be able to distinguish between constitutionally protected speech and threat related activity. Prevention. One of the tools that the u. S. Has used over the past 20 years to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States or joint Terrorism Task forces. They are incredibly effective. They have saved lives. But in the current threat environment, we have come to learn that there have to be other violent prevention activities that complement the jttfs. Jttfs may not be enough. Community based prevention programs can address the threat posed by highrisk individuals who do not reach the investigative threshold necessary for a terrorism related investigation. The department has expanded the provision of grant funding, training, Technical Assistance to local communities so Law Enforcement Mental Health services, educators, Community Groups can Work Together to identify those individuals who are high risk of conducting a violent attack and mitigate the risk posed by those individuals. This means being able to share at an unclassified Level Analysis regarding the threat to those entities at the local level so they can be a part of be part of violence prevention activities. Let me conclude by making a point very strongly because i agree with the comments that have been made today about the need for a Law Enforcement and intelligence assets not to be leveraged to address constitutionally protected behavior. We do not at the Department Police thought. It is not our job to engage in activities intended to target individuals because of their political beliefs, their social views, their beliefs on race and religion. It is our job to prevent acts of violence. And regardless of the idealogical belief or personal grievances that motivate that violence, it is our job to protect our communities and work to protect the nation. Thank you, i look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Cohen. With that, ill lead with a question. Mr. Cohen, you have testified previously about dhss efforts, including through the office of security and the Human Capital office to evaluate an open investigations into domestic violent extremist behavior by government employees. Can you, sir, provide an update on these efforts and describe inas Current Assessment of the steps White Supremacists are taking to infiltrate your organization and Law Enforcement as well as military communities more generally . Thank you, mr. Chairman, for that question. Like you, i am a former police officer. Im very proud of my profession. I have worked in Law Enforcement or Homeland Security related activities, as i mentioned, for multiple decades. Unfortunately, there are those in our community who are susceptible to the same forces that are serving to inspire other members of our society to adopt or selfconnect with idealogical beliefs. When it comes to those of us in the National Security or Law Enforcement professions, we have to be extra vigilant to insure that ones personal belief systems, whether they be extremist or not, do not influence discriminatory actions by those who are entrusted to enforce our laws. The secretary mayorkas has asked the office of the chief of security officer, our Human Resources office, all of our components to look at open investigations that may be in place regarding individuals who may potentially be engaged in illegal or inappropriate behavior based on their holding or connecting with extremist belief systems. We are also insuring that as we look to evaluate new hires, and as we seek to evaluate the behavior of our employees, particularly those who are on the front line in enforcing our laws, they are doing so in a way that is nondiscriminatory and not informed by extremist belief systems. Thank you, sir. And director langan, do you share my view that active involvement in a White Supremacist Organization or failing to act against extremist harassment and intimidation is incompatible with effective policing . Definitely, sir. I think, to echo yes, of course. To echo the statements of mr. Cohen, the appropriate vetting and thorough vetting of individuals that are in positions of trust is paramount in this country to insure that we have people that uphold the values of the constitution and of the people of the country. Thank you, sir. Ranking member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to reiterate that i think this is entirely inappropriate that we have this hearing in an unsecure setting. I think this would have been better conducted down in the scif. I have a number of questions i would like to direct to both of you. Ill do that under more secure cover and you can reply under secure cover or possibly well have an opportunity to conduct a hearing in the scif or we can talk about more Sensitive Information where thats more relevant and appropriate format and appropriate setting. I would like to yield to dr. Wenstrup to allow him to make some comments. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here. You know, as someone who on june 14th, 2017, survived what is only recently determined to be a domestic violent extremist act, id like to comment on some of that, as we frame the discussion here today. On that particular day, there were 136 rounds fired. 136 rounds fired. And if not for Steve Scalise being there, the Capitol Police wouldnt have been there. And we would have had 20 to 30 members of congress killed, easily, because they were penned in within the baseball field. God was on our side that day for a lot of reasons. A lot of things we discovered as we went forward and realized how lucky we were and fortunate we were that day. The gentleman who attacked us came heavily armed and he had a list of republicans in his pocket. I wasnt on that list. But any of these lists obviously are very disturbing, and when i see mr. Carson on a list, heres someone who not only serves here in congress but has served his community as a police officer. And is a very decent, good gentleman. Its very disturbing. And im glad were addressing these issues. As it has happened on many fronts. And mr. Langan, i mean no offense to you personally, but the fact that it took four years and a new director to have that event on june 14th, 2017, termed as domestic violent extremism as it is defined, why did it take four years . Because it was a political stunt within the fbi starting at the head who has been fired. And you look at that and fisa abuse, and yes, americans are angry. They dont have trust in many portions of their government. Those are just a couple of examples. We all have a responsibility here. We all have a responsibility for people to not have a reason to be angry. We bear some responsibility in that at times. But everybodys responsible for their actions. And we do need to address this. In light of what mr. Crawford said, and i would agree with him, if we want to understand the threat and the complexity of domestic violent extremism, and to make sure that were adhering to our Civil Liberties and to make sure that the Intelligence Community is working within their legal lanes, and if were to discuss tactics and procedures, i have to submit the come questions that i have today for the record and to have them answered in a classified setting. I think that is the appropriate place. Im glad were having this discussion. But i think if we really want to get things done, as our role on this committee, we need to do it in a classified setting. And i yield back. Thank you. I think dr. Winstrips comments show the important of understanding the threat and the warning of the threat so we can counter the threat and keep us all safe. Chairman schiff. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i just want to say at the outset, i appreciate youre doing this hearing in open session. We are having hearings on this in closed, classified session, but its important for the public to understand what the predominant domestic terrorist threat is and the fact that domestic terrorism is dramatically on the rise. And thats not something that we can keep behind closed doors. The public needs to understand the nature of the threat. I also think that a big part of the reason why theres diminished confidence in Law Enforcement is the propagation of deep state conspiracy theories about the fbi, which i think are a disservice to the men and women of the fbi who i think have done a remarkable job throughout our history and who i have worked with since i was a prosecutor 30 years ago. I appreciate the work you do. The Intelligent Community plays an Important Role in the federal governments larger approach to domestic terrorism. That role is purposely narrow. The fbi, ina, and National Counterterrorism center are tasked with providing comprehensive analysis of the domestic terrorism threats as well as its drivers. In essence, as our report makes clear, intelligence analysis in the dt space is merely writing products to better understand the threat and enabling policymakers to reduce it. These narrow authorities within the Intelligence Community are not new authorities, and to me, its a bit disturbing that there is now such an attack on these authorities when the predominant threat of domestic terrorism comes from White Nationalism. It shouldnt matter where the predomnnltd threat comes from in terms of the ics role. The ic has an Important Role to play. Its not the dominant role, but it is an Important Role in assimilating this information, and that is true whether the predominant threat comes from White Nationalism or some other source. And so let me ask you, theres a push by some on the committee to now limit those authorities. And i want to ask you about what the consequence of that would be and its proposed that the ic and none of its elements should have a role in domestic terrorism. Only when theres a foreign nexus to that threat. So let me ask you about a hypothetical. Lets say there was an explosion on the mall that killed dozens of people. And in the hours after the explosion, it wasnt clear who planted the bomb or what their motivation should be. Can you both describe for us what role dhs, ina would play, what role the bureau would play in trying to determine who is responsible for that and how it might inhibit your work if you were prohibited from doing that investigative or analysis work until a foreign nexus could be identified . Thank you, chairman frrx the question. So unfortunately, thats an area not necessarily exactly there, but it has been played out before. Initially, it is very difficult to determine the nature and the motive of an attack that happens throughout the country. So initially, the response from the government usually local Law Enforcement, the fbi, dhs, other Government Agencies would quickly try to Work Together to first determine the existence of the continuation of the threat that may have stemmed from that initial action. Then trying to determine the individuals involved, motives, and the planning that went into such. So as such, the analysis that occurs and the information that is gleaned from that investigation is crucial to determine what caused that, that incident. So as far as if youre referring to the analytical nature of intelligence, the fbi is of course a two dual hatted agency. Were also the Domestic Intelligence service for the United States. As such, we combine those two missions. We combine gathering information and intelligence to be used in criminal prosecutions along with National Security mission. We have very distinct lines between how those are used, but on the initial reaction of the investigation, the initial response, there would be a large combined effort to determine the extent of the purpose of that attack, the extent of those involved, and what planning was involved in that attack. And how would it inhibit your work, mr. Cohen, if you couldnt undertake the analysis until there was already a conclusion about a foreign link to it . Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. It would impede our ability to gather and analyze information provided by state and local authorities and the private sector that may be relevant to the attack. It would preclude our ability to conduct and engage with cbp and others in the department to do travel pattern analysis to see if we could determine any type of causal link or operational link between individuals who may have been identified as being associated with the attack and others in the United States. It would impede our ability to look at Online Activity, see if there were indicators that were associated with the attack to give us more insight into what were doing. It would essentially preclude our ability to engage and support the activities associated with investigating that operation until such time that a foreign nexus was determined. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman yields back. Mr. Stewart. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And to the witnesses, thank you for being here. I want you to know that i appreciate that you have served your nation. And i have no doubt in my mind that you are patriots and that you are protecting and seek to protect american interests and american lives. This hearing, though, does cause me some concern. And i want to explain that, if i could. I think we have seen in the last few years a breakdown in faith in basic institutions, which my friend dr. Wenstrup had talked about, including Law Enforcement and justice institutions. After, for example, the last three or four, five years, i think the reputation of the fbi and department of justice has been tattered in many ways. Theres no question, we know now there were efforts to deceive the fisa courts. They worked in tandem, some of the leadership within the fbi particularly, but the department of justice as well worked in tandem with Political Parties and candidates to put forward a false narrative that i think a 7yearold would view it and think that cant possibly be true, yet they presented it as if it were true. You used the Law Enforcement to target parents now who are simply want to have their kids have a good education. They love their kids, and for them not to be indoctrinated in schools. We had months and months of writing, 22 billion of damage, 27 or 28 people killed, hundreds and hundreds of Law Enforcement injured. With seemingly no ability to stop it. And i think the list goes on. Theres more that i could mention, but now we have this effort, and this is where our concern lies. We have this effort to use elements of the ic, Intelligence Community, to potentially surveil or monitor or analyze or evaluate u. S. Persons when there is no foreign nexus. In other words, when that u. S. Person has no, virtually no association or any support of any Foreign Government or group. And if you want to continue to have people be skeptical of Law Enforcement, then walk down that road. Or create the impression that were walking down that road. And that is my fear. That is my concern. That if you allow any of your organizations to team with the ic, and the awesome powers that they have, the nsa, for example, incredible ability to surveil. We all know that. They should never turn that awesome surveillance power on any u. S. Person when there is no foreign nexus. Neither should the cia. Neither should the dia or any other the elements in the ic. If there is no foreign nexus, if there is no tie to any Foreign Group or organization, that person should not be under the surveillance or under the eye of any of these ics, and thats why i think, and i think you do as well. Surely share that concern. If its if theres no foreign nexus, then its a Law Enforcement matter. Which means therefore its not under the purview of this committee. Because were not a Law Enforcement committee. I do have some questions, but because of the nature of the questions, you wont be able to answer them. So i will hold them and submit them in writing for your response. Again, that we could do in a secure environment. One final thought if i could. I want you to know we have no interest at all in curtailing any of the appropriate authorities. We understand that you have a role to play and that its difficult and you need to use the tools available to you. All we want is transparency and honesty in how those authorities are employed. And to not expand those authorities as i have expressed my concern here today. So again, we do have some comments and some additional questions. Ill submit those in writing and hopefully we can get a response in the appropriate setting. With that, ill yield back. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Cohen, first of all, i want to say that my understanding is that you dont seek to be doing surveillance in a manner that mr. Stewart and i think all of us object to. Is that correct . Yes, congressman, that is correct. In fact, there are significant restrictions on the use of Intelligence Community collection platforms within the domestic environment. So were not talking about using the awesome power of the nsa against u. S. Persons while theyre in the United States as we engage in identifying threats of violence. Okay, mr. Langan, same thing. We do have different authorities go ahead. Yes, i concur with that as well. Let me just ask mr. Cohen about in september 18, there were radical rightwing supporters of the january 6th insurrection gathered at the capitol. You testified there was similar traffic on public facing websites to what was seen before january 6th. But there was no similar level of violence. Why do you assess there was less violence at that event . So thats a really interesting question, congressman. And i think it provides a good illustration of what we are doing and what were not doing. As we were evaluating activity on online in online communities and platforms commonly used by violent domestic extremists, we saw discussions that focused on an event to be held in washington, d. C. On september 18th. Initially, we did not see any references to violence, so we did not collect information, we did not disseminate information, until we befan to see woven into those conversations specific calls for violent and illegal acts. The kidnapping of a member of congress, the attack of liberal churches, attacks against jewish facilities. We began seeing calls by counterprotesters to come to d. C. And engage in violent act. When we began seeing a nexus with violent activity, that is when we began working closely with the fbi. We began additional analysis, we worked with state and locals and we issued public statements referring to the potential threat and to some degree, what we have come to belief is that our focus on these events and the security measures that are put in place in response acchaev serves as a deterrent act to acts of violence. Thank you. What about just the process of sharing information in partnership with state and local governments where we get a database of what these threats are . Can you address the need to do that . Have better and more reliable statistics . Ill defer to the assistant director to talk about it from an investigative perspective. As i mentioned in my Opening Statement, there are examples where acts of violence, acts of targeted violence had been prevented by Threat Management strategies employed at the local level. So it is critical that local authorities, whether it be Law Enforcement or others, have an understanding of the threat, have an understanding of the behavioral indicators associated with a threat, so they can recognize those behaviors and those indicators should they be present in their community. So would it be helpful to basically institutionalize a reporting requirement at the state and local level so that that information is available and not just sometimes made available . I believe it would be. Anything to add . No, i think that could be useful, sir. Again, as far as sharing and disseminating information currently, a foundation of which we use our jjtfs which we have over 200 throughout the country, and then in addition, producing intelligence products that go out to a much wider distributed audience as well. You know, i share the concern expressed by my republican colleagues about individual rights and Civil Liberties. And let me we dont have that much time, so ill start with you, mr. Cohen. What are the agencies doing to insure, to insure that individuals civil rights and Civil Liberties are protected . My analysts and the individuals who engage in information gathering, they have to receive training on so that theyre able to distinguish between constitutionally protected activity and that that may be threat related. We have extensive oversight that involves our lawyers from the intelligence law division, our Intelligence Community oversight officer, and also our privacy and our civil rights and Civil Liberties officers. I say this and i mean this as somebody who, again, i have been a police officer, i have arrested a lot of people, im very focused on conducting operations to protect the country, my two closest partners in the Department Today is the privacy officer and the civil rights and Civil Liberties officers. Even the perception that we are infringingome peoples rights will undermine the credibility of our efforts to protect our communities from violence. Thank you very much, i yield back as im out of time. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Lahood. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for your service to the country. And i share the comments of mr. Crawford. I wish we were in a classified setting for much of this hearing today. And ill have some questions that ill submit in a secure format. Having said that, mr. Cohen, you talked, both of you talked about the importance of local Law Enforcement in working together and how impactful that is on your investigations in the work you do on both levels, when it comes to Domestic Violence. In a prior life, i spent time as a federal prosecutor and actually headed up a jjtf. That experience of working with local Law Enforcement, whether its a sheriffs department, local police department, state troopers, is obviously, the foundation of much of what you guys do. Having said that, as i look at this movement to defund police, get rid of departments, i cant think of anything that would be more disruptive and more problematic to the work that you do at the local level to disrupt than that. Im wondering if you could comment on that. Thank you, congressman. This wont be a surprise to anybody who knows me. I believe that Law Enforcement is an important part of our society. There are men and women who work in Law Enforcement each and every day who are foexed on safeguarding the community, who go to work each day, put their lives at risk, so that they can help the country be a better place. Policing or Law Enforcement in our country has to be nondiscriminatory. Enforcement actions should not be carried out, driven by implicit or overt bias. We should do everything we can to make sure Law Enforcement engages in their daytoday activities in a legal, nondiscriminatory manner. Having said that, im happy last night we saw rejection in minneapolis of replacing and demunding the police in minneapolis. I think that speaks volumes and hopefully we have put an end to that. To that point, i cant tell you how many Police Officers i talked to, whether its in chicago or in much of my district that the morale is lower than i have ever seen it before, because of this movement to defund police, and so i just mentioned that because as you do your work, and working in the local level, this is something that we have to address and work to remedy. Changing subjects, mr. Langan, you talked a little bit about online information and disinformation. And how that has been used to exploit many of these cases you talked about, and social media. In terms of, i mean, we have been grappling on capitol hill about what to do about social media. A lot of suggestions out there, everything from, you know, section 230 Liability Protection for Online Platforms and what we do there, how do we hold these Tech Companies accountable, how do we break them up, what we need to do. As you look at the work and how the role of social media plays in many of these lone rangers, as you describe them, what should we be doing to help remedy that problem . Well, thank you, sir. So theres three distinct lines that the fbi follows. One, first off, that we very much encourage citizens, individuals, to come forward when they have information, when they see information of extreme rhetoric, of violence being discussed online. That is one potential avenue for it to come to us. Like in the past, reporting things when things when people have concerns about things. The second level is direct engagement with companies in the private sector. Whether it is a tech company or any other private sector, but the bureau heavily engages with members of the Tech Industry along with other private sectors to talk about how they can be responsible in reporting incidents of violence, individuals that are concerned reporting them to us at the fbi or let me interrupt there. So having said that, i mean, have you seen positive changes that have been implemented along those lines that have been productive to the work that you do . We have seen oftentimes when companies have come to us with information that will help us or concerns, and we engage with training with them in what to look for, our concerns. Theres been several cases that we have worked together to disrupt violent acts before they happened. But there is a massive amount of information out there and a massive amount of rhetoric and speech that could lead to potentially violent acts. The third level and the third tier that we look towards is increasing our own source base of information, of individuals that will provide us information about ongoings of individuals that would like to commit acts of violence. In addition to that, we continue to try to attempt to close the gap on warrantproof encryption. So people, especially criminals that are using techniques and platforms and applications that have endtoend encryption that are outside the ability for rightful warrant pursued information that we continue to look for ways to help with that. Thank you. Im out of time. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman carson, for calling this important hearing. The rise of White Nationalist extremism is something we have seen directly in texas, as you all know. Two years ago, over 20 people were killed by a man who said he wanted to, quote, kill mexicans. He ended up killing a bunch of americans. It was the deadliest attack on latino americans in modern history. In the last few weeks, san antonio and austin have suffered a series of antisemitic attacks, with the local Jewish Community being intimidated. We have seen White Nationalists openly wearing nazi clothing rallying outside the Holocaust Museum and deny the holocaust. I want to ask you, mr. Langan, what will the fbi do to investigate these incidents in south texas and others like them . Thank you, sir. So for one, the fbi is engaged with local Law Enforcement extensively in identifying crimes, whether its a hate crime or whether it is part of a group that follows the promotion of a white supremacist advocates for supremacy of the white race. We have elevated the racially motivated violent extremists to one of our highest level of threats in the Counterterrorism Division. Within that, racially motivated violent extremism is at the top, equal to that of the threat of Foreign Terrorists such as isis. So we focus a great deal of resources, focus on trying to disrupt and stop that activity and identify those individuals that may be responsible for them. We take it very seriously. Thank you. Well, taking on White Nationalist extremism is something that im glad this administration is committed to doing. But we have to ask ourselves what happens when those holding these views are part of nations Law Enforcement arms. A report last month found cbp agents who posted offensive and racist messages on facebook chats against Agency Policy were found to have engaged in misconduct while the discipline review board recommended certain punishment, ultimately, the officers faced far reduced penalties. Quoting the report, quote, a Border Patrol agent who posted a sexually explicit image about a member of congress had his discipline reduces from a removal to a 60day suspension and was awarded backpay. An adviser who posted a video of a migrant falling off a cliff to their death as well as an explicit and offensive comment about a member of congress had their discipline reduced from a removal to a 30day suspension. And there are many other examples cited in the report. How is dhs able to effectively take on White Nationalist extremist groups when dhs employees who echo such views are barely punished . Thats a fair question, congressman. That is why at the direction of the secretary, we have instituted a serious effort to look at the rules that govern dis the hiring of personnel, the disciplinary actions taken against personnel, the retention of personnel so these types of situations can be addressed in a consistent manner across the department, and your point is well taken. If one is entrusted to enforce the laws of this country, even the perception this persons actions are being influenced by racist or other extremist beliefs undermines the credibility of the organization. So its something be take very seriously at department. As a followup, if dhs is looking for an expanded role in tackling extremism in the United States, how can you insure us the officers with those responsibilities will do that work in an unbiased way . I think it goes to what i described earlier. But it also is a part of the leadership of the department. Leadership has to send a strong message to our workforce that racist or inappropriately influenced activities will not be tolerated. And it needs to be taken seriously, and allegations need to be investigated. And when warranted, action needs to be taken. I made a comment to director wray at the close to the beginning of the term that i hope that extremism, White Nationalism within Law Enforcement will be seriously scrutinized because in american society, we give Law Enforcement officers a lot of benefit of the doubt. And its hard to prosecute Law Enforcement officers, especially to prosecute them successfully, and any of their actions are motivated by racism or hate or extremism, that becomes especially deadly to the american public. So thank you for your efforts. Thank you. Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The American People are deeply concerned about the politicization of domestic terrorism. This issue has been at the forefront over the past month in response to an order from the attorney general for the fbi to convene meetings across the United States in response to constitutionally protected speech at school board events. In september, the National School Boards Association released a public letter to President Biden requesting federal assistance to address alleged violence targeting children, School Board Members, and educators. The letter references increased threats of violence due to frustration over mask mandates and the teaching of Critical Race Theory and requested, quote, the federal government investigate, intercept, and prevent the threats and acts of violence against public School Officials through existing statutes, executive authorities, and other extraordinary measures. The letter went on to state that, quote, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism, and it requested the administration review all applicable laws and policies including the patriot act, to relevant enforcement acts. We know from relevant emails that the school board coordinated this letter with the white house prior to this release. Five days after the release of the School Board Association letter, the attorney general released a memo directing the fbi to meet with leaders to discuss strategies for addressing threats against School Administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. In testimony before the house judiciary committee, attorney general garland confirmed that this letter was the relevant factor in the creation of the memo that was sent out by the department of justice. This is the politicization at the department of Justice Without facts to support the alleged growing threat and need for federal investigation, specifically targeting parents and parental groups. We now know that the letter that the School Board Association released a statement to its member rescinding the letter saying they, quote, regret and apologize, yet the attorney general has not retracted this memo. I have a few yes or no questions. Has the fbi held any of these meetings directed by attorney general garland . Yes or no. I dont know that. They were led by the u. S. Attorneys offices. I would think its best directed in conjunction with the fbi. I do not have that number. So they have held meetings. Whats the number . I do not know, maam. We can look into. It was led by in conjunction with the fbi. Yes, maam. Well get you that number. But i do not have that information because it was the day was supposed to be today, and its being coordinated by the 94 different jurisdictions. But invited was the fbi to attend. Correct. Does the fbi consider parents domestic terrorists . No. Do parents who oppose crt, are they considered domestic terrorists . No. To my knowledge. No to your knowledge. As long as the individuals are not committed federal violations, force or violence, or in promotion of an ideology, they would not be. Are parents who oppose mask mandates considered domestic terrorists. No. Let me ask you this. What are your thoughts because the attorney general garland memo was based upon the School Boards association letter, which has now been rescinded, why has the department not resibded the garland memo . You would have to refer that to the department of justice. Do you think it should be rescinded . Im not going to speak on behalf of the attorney general, maam. Do you have any thoughts to add. I would only add that in addition to the letter that was submitted, there were actual calls for violence directed at teachers, school board administrators, and others in the educational environment on extremist platforms. We did reach out to state and local Law Enforcement. There have been some sporadic incidents of violence at School Board Meetings and in educational facilities. However, the information we received is that state and local Law Enforcement were not seeing widespread action so were continue to work with state and locals to maintain awareness of the environment. If there are threats directed at anybody. They were not just focused on School Administrators and the information that we were analyzing, but it also included threats against Law Enforcement and Public Health officials who were giving vaccines and involved in other Public Health relates activities associated with covid. Its something we continue to evaluate. But you are away the attorney general said under oath when he testified that the relevant factor in the garland memo was the School Boards association letter. Youre aware of that . I did not watch thats what he said. Youre answering very differently here today. He said that was the reason for the memo that was put out by the department of justice and obviously voters spoke loudly and clearly in virginia last night. With that i yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Is membership in a White Supremacist Organization disqualifying for people applying to the fbi or work at the fbi, mr. Langan . Yes. Isnt membership in that type of organization in effect Law Enforcement . Yes. How is the fbi coordinating with local and state Law Enforcement about incoming threats and information about White Supremacists and other dbes . I know having worked at the fusion center, there was an analyst assigned there as well as you guys built a scif there, but there was always tension with local Law Enforcement as you know and the fbi because there was a sentiment that local Law Enforcement does the work and the fbi comes in at the last minute and the press shows up. I think in many cases thats unfair, but have those coordinating efforts improved over time . You know, sir, i have been in Law Enforcement for 28 years and served for the gump for 31 years. I have not found that that often. Theres definitely rivalries and frictions that occur on an individual basis, but i found the coordination between local state officials and the fbi to be very wholesome. Of course, theres at times prosecutorial differences on if the case should be worked at a state level or a federal level, but again, ill refer back to the foundation of what our sharing is and those 200 joint Terrorism Task forces with almost 4500 agents and officers working hand in hand together so when information reaches their departments, that potentially contains a federal violation, idelology, the concern of the jjtf, that information is forwarded from that Task Force Officer into the jttf, they can review it and determine if theres enough to move forward with a potential investigation. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cohen, its no secret that the ic failed to adequately warn of the insurrection that occurred on january 6th. Sir, can you explain what specific procedures have changed and what reforms have been instituted postjanuary 6th. Thank you, i think there are lot of lessons we in law enforce sxment the intelligent analytics learned from january 6th. To the point i made in my Opening Statement, the understanding that indications regarding an emerging threat may be available through Public Information that is analyzed by analysis. What we have done since january 6th at the department is we have redoubled our efforts to coordinate the sharing of threat related information that we acquire or that comes to us through our relationships with state and local private sector, with the fbi. And others in the federal community. We have become much more forward leaning as it relates to the analyzing of Online Activity. And evaluating activity from the perspective of the potential risk of violence. We have, i would say that we are probably much more cognizant and mindful about incorporating that threat related information into operational planning, and i think a very good sort of example of the difference is that exists today versus on january 6th would be to simply look at what happened on Inauguration Day. After january 6th, the analysis of Online Activity did not reflect that those who were here on january 6th viewed it as a victory and as the end point of their efforts. They saw it as a starting point. And there were calls online for additional acts of violence to be committed both in the district of columbia and in state capitals around the country. On Inauguration Day or in and around Inauguration Day. The response by Law Enforcement was very different. The response here in washington included physical security measures in and around the capitol. A highly visible presence of national guard, of Law Enforcement, a very overt and Public Security presence in and around district of columbia state capitals around the country. What did we see reflected on social media and extremist platforms . A cog zns of those security measures and a reluctance to come to washington because those who were planning acts of violence viewed it as a trap being set for their arrest or viewed it as not the right time to come and engage because of the security presence. Theres a lesson in that. So our analysis has focused much more on understanding when there may be a potential act of violence and then taking steps, sometimes very visible steps, and public steps, to create physical security measures that serve as a deterrent. Chairman schiff. Ranking member crawford. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I actually would have some questions about recent open source reporting about an october 29th isis threat to detect unidentified mall in northern virginia. Ill save those for a secure setting but i would like to ask you, director langan, which fbi headquarters element has the lead on implementing the mandates the attorney generals october 4th memo regarding school board threats . That would be a combination of the criminal Investigative Division along with the Counterterrorism Division. How many requested additional assistance with the issue . I dont know, they most likely would have reached out to their local field offices. Are any participants meeting with these associated with the attorney generals memo . I dont have that information now. It was being formatted and led by the u. S. Attorneys offices but well find out and get back to you who attended and what programs from the field offices. It would be up to the field offices to determine who they might send to a meeting. For any of these activities, is the fbi utilizing any National Intelligence Program Resources fbi utilizing any National Resource programs or authorities . No. We could be using analytical resources, all analysts in the fbi, whether organized crime, cyber crime, all of them come from the National Intelligence bucket. So analytically, if were reviewing a problem, some of those resources could be reviewed if were trying to ascertain whether a potential threat exists. Im certain now, based on my colleagues comments, youre aware the National SchoolBoard Association apologized and recalled their letter to the president which was the catalyst for the memo. Since then, has the fbi received any intelligence on canceling the mandate for the meetings on candid and open lines of threat reporting . Not that im aware. Thank you. Yields back. Chairman. I just want to fall back on a couple issues. First of all, are you seeing a rise in Death Threats against schoolboard members . I cant necessarily quantify it, mr. Chairman, but we are definitely seeing Online Activity which specifically calls for acts of violence being directed at teachers, School Administrators and School Board Members. And those threats of violence are against those School Personnel for, example, against the health of the children in those schools. Yes, its included in a narrative weve seen continue which focuses on public of Public Health and other restrictions associated with covid and having to do with vaccines as well. Now, i know a lot of us on this podium have been the subject of Death Threats. When we are, those are investigated by capital police, sometimes by federal Law Enforcement. We certainly want them investigated. You would agree, Death Threats against School Board Members should be investigated similarly. Yes, mr. Chairman, its a fundamental part of our responsibility is to make sure we take seriously threats of violence and until we can determine that those threats are not valid or credible to maintain and be vigilant to prevent acts of violence. And these acts of violence, these Death Threats, are designed to force a change in policy. Are they not . The narratives that we have examined, that i have looked at, have specifically called for acts of violence as a result of policies that are being instituted in schools. Im not sure im comfortable saying what the intent of the poster is. But the content has complained about, the provisions, and have called on people to threaten or to engage in violence against those School Administrators, School Board Members, Law Enforcement, and healthcare professionals. Were also seeing threats of violence against election officials. Are we not . Yes, we have seen threats against election officials. We saw that in the 2020 election and continue to see it. I raise this, because i think theres been a proliferation of threats of violence, politicallymotivated violence, and to a, a astonishing and dangerous degree, a rationalization of violence or threats of violence to bring about political change acceptance of political violence. And i would just point to the executive summary by the odni of the domestic violent extremist threat, which reads, in part, newer sociopolitical developments such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the breach of the u. S. Capitol, the pandemic and its conspiracy theories promoting violence will almost assuredly influence some to commit Domestic Violence this year. Those pushing the big lie underpinning our democracy are emboldening new violence in our view. Those who are downplaying the significance of the attack on january 6th, or trying to make political heros of those who assaulted Police Officers on that day or breached the capitol, in my view, are encouraging further violence. When we propagate a falsehood about the election, when we diminish Public Confidence in our elections, if people dont think they can rely on our elections to decide who should governor, its an invitation to violence. And i think its far worse when that invitation to violence comes from congress than anyone else, because the members of Congress Know the big lie is a big lie and i think its shameful. When we are informed by our intelligence agencies that an attack is emboldening others to commit other acts of violence and when the false narratives of fraud in the election are an encouragement to further violence that members continue to engage in that and i want to put that on the record. With that, i yield back. Thank you chairman, thank you both for your attendance and participation. While what you do is very congresswoman stephani. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i want to get on the record, mr. Langan, you talked about the u. S. Attorneys leading this, are you aware the october 4th memo states, quote, to this end i am directic the federal bureau of investigation working with each attorney to convene meetings. So the fbi is directing this . The fbi was not directing it, it was the u. S. Attorneys office that, to my understanding, would direct the meetings format and decide how the meetings would transpire. So the memo from the attorney general is not accurate. I dont know if its an interpretation difference. Just reading what it says, specifically. This was my understanding from the department of justice, it would be led by the u. S. Attorneys office. And you are aware in a Senate Judiciary hearing last week the attorney general stated under oath they would provide issue relating to the memo by october 1, are you aware why they missed that deadline . Have you participated in the creation or formation of that memo . No, i was involved in a brief discussion, related to this memo what was the discussion. That a letter came in from the School Board Association and the department was looking to put out some messaging. What was the messaging. I did not have the messaging. You said you were on the emails. Basically, just that. And we can find whatever i need to get you the full extent of the emails but just that there would be something coming out, but that was all the statement just that this was going to come out. So you will provide all the emails relating to the issuing of the garland memo as well as any planning for messaging, as well as any can compilation for the response to the senators who requested information . Youll provide those emails . Whatever i can provide you, legally so you will provide those . Whatever i can provide you. Ill have to check with the Legal Counsel office. Yields back. Thank you both for your participation today. Thank you for your service. To our country. Its oftentimes thankless, Ranking Member, crawford, and thank you the entire committee for their commitment to accountability, oversight and keeping our country safe. So thank you all, this meeting is adjourned. A new mobile video app from cspan, cspan now. Download today. Next, a look at 5g technology, wireless innovation and broad band access, with fcc commissioners brendan carr and nathan simington. Okay