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. This past april, the Intel Committee assessed racially motivated violent extremists and 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 langan, assistant director for counterterrorism at the bureau of investigation. We have questions about the gravity of the threat and your agencys role in responding to it. 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 spies or an 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 mission, as we all do. Ill turn to Ranking Member crawford on comments he wishes to make. Thank, mr. Chairman. Republican members of this committee have consistently raised concerns about the Intelligence Committee conducting a role in 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. Thank you. At this time, i want to recognize our distinguished chairman, chairman schiff. Thank you, chairman carson for convening this vital discussion. Im preezed 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 this threat is complex, coordinated and evolving, our response must be also. We must continue to improve our understanding and sharing of threat information, find ways to diffuse and deescalate recruitment for and incitement of violence, and confront the causes of and contributors to domestic terrorism. Including the extreme and violent ideologies often fomented online through disinformation and false narratives. We must also acknowledge the persistent role White Supremacy and White Nationalism have on the frequency and severity of these threats. It is an indisputable fact that a growing poportion of domestic terrorist threats arise from people driven by hatred and a stated dezar to harm people because of the color of their skin or their religious beliefs. This hatred based violence is heart breakingly not new in america. Our history has been marred by racially motivated threats against communities of color and other marginalized groups. But were seeing a sharpened edge to the threat and increasingly persistent and coordinated effort to terrorize based on these repugnant views. We need to 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 dhs response to unrest in portland, including by collecting intelligence on journalists. This committee will continue to prioritize oversight to insure appropriate reforms are instituted and fundamental 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 threat from domestic terrorism is heightened and has significantly increased in the last 18 months. 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 fbis discussion of domestic terrorism threats, we use words vile want extremism to define these threats because the underlying political and social positions and the advocacy of such beliefs are not prohibited by u. S. Law. The fbi cannot open an investigation based on First Amendment protected activity. As such, 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 extremism, and cybercitizen violent extremism. 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 racially or ethnically motivated extremists advocating for the superiority of the white race, specifically militia violent extremists present the most lethal threats with racially or ethnically motivated extremes most likely to conduct mass casualty events against civilians. 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 by 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 repeatedly 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. While again looking at the United States, while the specific motives behind the attacks vary, now this tells us many of the attackers share common behavioral characteristics. In particular they are angry, they feel sociologically disconnected. They spend significant time online and ultimately self connect with a cause or grievance to justify the use of they spent significant time online and ultimately some connect 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 so forth. The phrase you will often hear, we use in the community is not the ideology, its a 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 into traditional terrorism or extremism definition categories. Those who engage in violence often self connect with the common extremist beliefs and personal grievances. By the assistant director referenced a number for lethal attacks that are associated with domestic terrorism, i would argue the numbers of those killed are much higher. When we look at attacks like southern springs and texas, las vegas, other parts of the country. Its very often difficult to discern whether the motive behind the attack is an ideological belief system or personal grievance or a combination of both. Ne contenthis is a threat that s itself both and physical and indigenous false narratives, conspiracy theories. Spread by four nation states, International Terrorist groups, since extremist thought leaders feel 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 the stabilize our society. Individuals preparing to conduct attacks with acts of violence will often discuss their plans online both in private and public forms. Understanding all of this is critically important, because it provides context to what i am sure we will discuss later today with regard to have the department has structured itself to work with the fbi and others to address this issue. But if i may, focusing on another 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. Pre incident indicators may be apparent through public action or communications. Colored collection may often not be necessary to capture a valuable intelligence. Analysts need to be able to distinguish hush as repeatedly stated by mr. Crawford, distinguish between constitutional protected speech and threat related activities. Prevention. One of the tools that the u. S. Has used over the past 20 years to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, a terrorism and tax task forces. They are incredibly effective. They have saved lives. But in the current threat environment we have come to learn that there has to be other violent prevention activities that compliments the atfs. The jttfs may not be enough. Community based programs can address threats posed by highrisk individuals do not reach the investigative threshold necessary for terrorism related investigation. The department is expended a division of grant fund training, Technical Assistance to local communities, Law Enforcement, health professionals, social services and groups that can Work Together to identify individuals who are at high risk, conducting violent attack and mitigate the risk posed by those individuals. This means being able to share at an unclassified level, and analysis regarding the threat to those entities at the local level so they can be a 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, its 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 ideological 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. That, ill lead thank you, mr. Cohen. With that i will leave with a question. Mr. Cohen, he testified previously about the dhss efforts, including through the office of security and the Human Capital office, now you made an open investigation into Domestic Violence, extremist behavior by government employees. Can you provide an update on these efforts and describe i. N. S. Current assessment of the steps that White Supremacists are taking to infiltrate your organization in Law Enforcement as well as military communities more generally . Thank, you mister chairman, for that question. Like you, mister chairman in a form of police officer. Im very proud of my profession and i have worked in Law Enforcement or Homeland Security related activities as i mentioned before 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 with ideological beliefs. And when it comes to those of us who are in the National Security or Law Enforcement profession, we have to be extra vigilant to ensure that ones personal belief systems, whether they be extremists are not, do not influence discriminatory actions by those who are interested to enforce our laws. The mayorkas has asked the office of chief security officer, our Human Resources office, all of our components as well 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 ensuring 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 and enforcing our laws, that they are doing so in a way that is nondiscriminatory and not informed by extremist belief systems. Thank you, sir. Director lyndon, 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 policing . 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 ensure 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, mister chairman. I would like to reiterate that i think this is entirely inappropriate that we have this hearing in and unsecure setting. I think this would have been better conducted i have a number of questions id like to direct to both of you. Ill do that under a more secure cover and you can reply in a more secure cover. Possibly will have an opportunity to conduct a hearing in the scif or we can talk about more Sensitive Information where its more relevant and appropriate for, setting. I would like to yield to doctor to allow him to make some comments. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you both for being here. As someone who want june 14th, 2017, survived which is only recently determined to be a domestic violent extremist act, id like to, you know, comment on some of that. As we frame the discussion today. On that particular day there were 136 rounds of fire. 136 rounds of fire. And if not for Steve Scalise being here the capital of police would not be here. And we wouldve had 20 to three members killed, easily because they were penned in the baseball field. God was on oversight that day for whatever reason. A lot of things we discovered as we went forward, we realized how lucky and fortunate we were. The gentleman who attacked this and heavily armed had a list of republicans i was not on that list. These lists are disturbing. When i see mr. Carson on a list here, someone who not only serves here in congress, but has served his community as a police officer, and as a very decent, good gentlemen. Its very disturbing and i am glad we are addressing these issues, because it has happened on many fronts. And mr. Langan to have that event on june 14th, 2017 turned as violence extremism as it is defined. Why did it take four years because it was a political stunt within the fbi starting at the head whos been fired. Americans are angry. They dont trust 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 at times. But everybody is responsible for others. We do need to address this. And 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 Violence and extremism, and to make sure that we are adhering to our Civil Liberties and to make sure that the intelligence communities is working within their legal lanes, and if we are to discuss tactics and procedures, i have to submit the questions that i have today for the record. The day of them answered and 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 it is our role on this committee, we need to do it in a classified setting. I yield back. Reat and understanding the th. Its important to understand the threat and understanding the warning of the threat so we could counter the threat to keep us all safe. Chairman schiff . Thank you, mister chairman. I just want to say at the outset, i appreciate that you are doing this hearing in an open session and we are having hearings on this and close classified session but its important for the public to understand with the predominant domestic terrorism its dramatically on the rise. And thats not something we can keep behind closed doors. Understanding the nature of the threat. I also think 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 ifs be i. I think have done a remarkable job throughout our history and who ive worked with since i was a prosecutor 30 years ago. So i appreciate the work that you do. The Intelligence 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 ditty space is merely providing products better understand the threat and a label policy makers to take steps to reduce it. These authorities, these narrow authorities within the Intelligence Community to look at domestic terrorism are not new authorities. To me, its a bit disturbing that there is no such an attraction attack on these authorities. When the predominant threat, domestic terrorism comes with nationalism it. Shouldnt matter where the predominant threat comes from in terms of the icus role. I see has an Important Role to play. Its not the dominant role but its an Important Role in a simulating this information and that is whether the threat comes from White Nationalism or other sources. And so let me ask you. There is a push by someone on the committee to limit those authorities. I want to ask you about with the consequence of that would be and its proposed that the icy and none of its elements should have a role in domestic terrorism, only when there is a foreign nexus to that threat. Let me ask you about a hypothetical. Lets say that was an explosion on the mall that killed dozens of people. And in the hours after it is unclear who planted the bomber with the motivation should be. Can you both describe before us what role dhs, i any 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 are prohibited from doing that investigation or analysis work until a foreign nexus could be identified . Thank you chairman for the question. So, unfortunately, in this scenario, not necessarily exactly there, but it has been played out before. Initially, it is difficult to determine the nature and the motive of an attack that happens throughout the country. Initially, the response from the government usually, local Law Enforcement, fbi, dhs, other government agencies, will quickly try to Work Together to first determine the existence of the continuation of the threat they might have seen from an initial action. Then, trying to determine the individuals involved, motives, and the planning that went into such. As such, the analysis that occurs in the information that is glean from that investigation, is crucial to determine what caused that that incident. So, as far as, if you are referring to the analytical nature of intelligence, the fbi is of course a two dual headed agency. We are a criminal organization, criminal investigative organization. And were also Domestic Intelligence service for the United States. As such, we have combined those two missions. We combine gathering information and intelligence to be used and criminal prosecutions along with National Security missions. And we have very distinct lines between how those views interact. The initial reaction, the initial response, there will be a large combined effort to determine the extent of the purpose of that attack, the extent of those involved in what planning was involved in that attack. And how would it inhibit your work, mr. Cohen, if you couldnt undertake analysis until there was already a conclusion about a foreign link to it . Mister chairman, thank you for that question. It would impede our ability to gather and analyze information provided by state and local authorities on the private sector that may be relevant to the attack. It would preclude our ability to conduct and engage with cbp and others within the department to do travel paternal assist to see if we can determine any type of causal or operational links between individuals who may have been identified as being associated with the attack and others in the United States. It wouldve peter ability to look at online activities to see if there are indicators that were associated with the attack that might 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 mister chairman, i yield back. Chairman yields back. Mr. Stewart. Thank you mister chairman. And to the witnesses, thank you for being here. I want you to know that i appreciate that you have served our nation. And i have no doubt in my mind that you are patriots and 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 if i could. I think we have seen in the last few years a breakdown in faith in basic institutions, which my friend dr. Wind strip has talked about. Including Law Enforcement and justice institutions. And after, for example, last three, four, five years, i think the reputation of the fbi and the department of justice has been tighter tired in some ways. There is no question. We know there were efforts to deceive the visa courts. They worked in tandem, some of the leadership within the fbi particularly, but the department of justice worked in tandem with Political Parties and political candidates to put forward a false narrative that i think a seven year old could view it and say it cant possibly be true. And yet they presented as if it were true. You have the use of federal Law Enforcement to target parents now who simply want their kids to have a good education. They love their kids and for them to not be indoctrinated in schools. We had months and months of writing. 22 billion dollars 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. There is this effort. And this is where our concern lies. We have this effort to use elements of the icy, the Intelligence Community, to potentially survey or monitor, or evaluate u. S. Persons when there is no foreign nexus. In other words, when the u. S. Person has 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 we are walking down that road. That is my fear. That is my concern. That if you allow any of the organizations to team with the ic, and the awesome powers that they have, the nsa for example, incredible ability to surveil, we know that. They should never turn that awesome surveillance power on a if there is no foreign to any organization, they should not be under surveillance or under the eye of any of these ics. Thats why, i and surely you, do share that concern. If there is no foreign nexus, then it is a Law Enforcement then its not under the purview of this committee. Because we are 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, we could do it in a secure environment. One final thought if i could. I want you to know we have no interest to all in curtailing any of the appropriate authorities. We understand that you have a role to play. And that it is 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 these authorities as ive 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, mister chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back, mr. Welch. Adam thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Cohen, first of all, i want to say that my understanding is, you dont seek to be doing surveillance and manners that mr. Stewart and i think all of a subject to. Is that correct . Yes congressman, that is correct. In fact, there are significant restrictions on the use of Intelligence Community question platforms within the optimistic environment. So were not talking about using the awesome power of the nsa against u. S. Persons while they are in the United States as we engage in identifying the threats of violence. Okay, you have different authorities go ahead. Yes, i concur with that as well. All right, let me just ask mr. Cohen. And september 18th, there are radical rights gathered at the capitol and you testified that there were similar traffic on public facing websites to what was seen before january 6th. But there was no similar level of violence. Why do was says there was less violence at that event . That is 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 online in online communities and platforms, commonly used by violence, domestic extremists, we saw discussions that focused on an event 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 began to see woven into the 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 counter protesters to come to d. C. And engage in violent acts. When we began seeing a nexus with violent activity, that is when we began working closely with the fbi. We began additional at analysis, we worked with state and locals, and we issued public statements referring to the potential threats and to some degree what we have come to believe is that our focus on these events and the security measures that are put in place to respond to them actually serve as a deterrent to the effects of violence. Thank you. And what about the process of sharing information with partnerships with state and local governments, where we get a database of what these threats are . Can you address the need to do that, to have better and more reliable statistics. Ill defer to the assistant director to talk about it. But as i mentioned in my Opening Statement, there are examples where acts of violence, acts of targeted violence, where then 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 threats. Have an understanding of the behavioural indicators associate with the threats, so they can recognize those behaviors so they be president in the community. Evelso would it be helpful to institutionalize a reporting at the state and local level so 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. As far as sharing and disseminating information currently found, foundation of which we use it which we have over 200 throughout the country. And then in addition to producing intelligence products, to a much wider distributed audience as well. 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 i will start with you, mr. Cohen. What are the agencies doing to ensure, to ensure that individuals civil rights and liberties are protected . My analyst and the individuals who engage in information gathering, they have to receive training on so that they are able to distinguish between constitutionally protected activity and an act that might be threats related. We have extensive oversight that involves our lawyers from the intelligence law division, our Intelligence Community oversight officer and privacy and civil rights and Civil Liberties officers. I say this and and i mean this as somebody who, again, i have been a police officer, ive 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 in the civil rights and Civil Liberties officer. Even the perception that we are infringing on peoples constitutional and protected rights will undermine the credible the credibility of our efforts to protect communities from violence. Thank you very. Much i yield. Back thank you. Gentlemen gentlemen yields. Back mr. Lewis. Thank you mister 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 the hearing today. And ill have to submit some questions in a secure format. Having said that, mr. Cohen, you talked both of the importance of local Law Enforcement and working together. And how impactful that is on your investigation in the work that you do on both levels when it comes to Domestic Violence. In a prior life, i spent time as a federal prosecutor and headed up a jttf and that experience with the local Law Enforcement sheriffs department, local police department, state troopers, obviously is a foundation of much of what you guys do. Having said that, as i look at the 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 can comment on that. Thank you congressman. This wont be a surprise to anybody who knows me. I believe Law Enforcement is important, its an important part of our society. There are men and women who work in Law Enforcement each and every day who are focused 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 should not be discriminatory. Enforcement action 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 and legal, non discriminatory manners. Having said that, im happy the last time we saw a rejection in minneapolis of replacing and defunding the police in minneapolis. I think that speaks volumes and, hopefully, we put an end to that. But to that point, i cant tell you how many Police Officers that ive talked to, whether its in chicago, or much of my district, that the morale is lower than ive ever seen before. Because of this movement to defund the police. So i just mention that because as you do your work, and working at the local level, this is something that we have to address and work to remedy. Changing subjects, mr. Landon, you talked a little bit about online information and disinformation, and how that is been used to exploit many of these cases that youve talked about in social media. In terms of, 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 product technician for Online Platforms and what to do from there. How do we hold these Tech Companies accountable . How do we bring them . Up but 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 . Thank you, sir. Theres three distinct lines that the fbi files. One, first off that we are very much encourage citizens individuals to come forward when they have information and see information of extreme literate and violence discussed online. Thats one potential avenue for when to come to us. In the past reporting things when things when people are concerned about things. The second level is direct engagement whether its a private sector, 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 instances of violence, individuals that are concerned reporting them to us, to the fbi let me interrupt their. So having said that 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 wean gauge with training with them, to want to look for, our concerns, theres been several cases where weve worked together to disrupt violent acts before they happen. 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. Third level and the third that we look towards his increase our own source pace of information. Of individuals that will provide us information about ongoing individuals that would like to commit acts of violence. In addition to that we continue to try to attempt to close the gap on big war proof in quid shun. Companies that are using techniques, platforms and applications and encryption that are outside the ability for rightful warrant pursued information egg that we continue to look for ways to help with that. Thank you. Im out of time. I yield back. Bob gentleman yields back. Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman carson for calling this important hearing. The rise of White Nationalist extremism is something weve 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. The deadliest attack on latino americans in modern history, in fact. In the last few weeks, san antonio and austin have suffered a series of antisemitic attacks with businesses swastikas and jewish communities being intimidated. Nazi clothing rally outside the San Antonio Holocaust Museum and deny the holocaust. I want to ask you big, will the fbi do to instigate these investigate these incidences in texas and other areas . For one, the fbi is engaged with local Law Enforcement extensively in identifying whether its a hate crime or whether it is part of a group that follows the promotion of a white supremacist advocate for the supremacy of the white race. We have elevated the racially motivated nonextremists to one of our highest level of threats. Counterterrorism remains the highest priority of the fbi. And within that racially mueller motivated violent extremism is at the top. Equal to that is the threat of Foreign Terrorists such as isis. So we focus a great deal of resources, focused 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. While taking on White Nationalist extremism is something im glad to see administration is committed to doing, but we have to ask ourselves what happens when those holding those use are part of the nations Law Enforcement. A report last month by the Oversight Reform Committee found that cbp agents who posted offensive and racist messages on facebook chats against Agency Policies were found to have engaged in misconduct. While the discipline review board recommended certain punishment, ultimately the officers faced for reduced penalties. Quoting the report, quote, a Border Patrol agent who posted a sexually explicit doctored image and derogatory comments about a member of congress had his discipline reduced from a removal to a 60 day suspension and was awarded back pay. A Border Patrol supervisor who improperly posted an internal cbp video of a migrate 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. So i want to ask you, mr. Cohen, how is dhs able to effectively take on White Nationalist extremist groups when dhs employees who echo such views are barely punished . That is a fair question, congressman. That is why the direction of the secretary we have instituted a serious effort to look at the rules that govern disciplinary actions taken against personnel, the rules that govern retention of personnel, the hiring of personnel. So that these types of situations can be addressed in a consistent manner across the department, and your point is well taken. If one is interested to enforce the laws of this country, even the perception that this persons actions are being influenced by racist or other extremist beliefs, undermines the credibility of the organization, so its something we take very seriously at the department were working to address it. Sure, and as a followup if dhs is looking for an expanded role in tackling extremism in the United States, how can you assure us that the dhs officers with those responsibilities will do their work in an unbiased way . I think it goes to, you know, when i described earlier, but it also a part of the leadership of the department. Leadership has to send a strong message to our work forced 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 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 it is hard to prosecute Law Enforcement officers, especially to prosecute them successfully, and if any of their actions are motivated by racism or hate or extremism, and that becomes especially deadly to the american public. So thank you for your efforts. Thank you mr. Stuff miss stefanik. The American People are deeply concerned about the politicization of domestic terrorism. This issue has been at the forefront over the past month and in response to an order from the attorney general for the fbi to convene meetings across the u. S. In response to constitutionally protected speech and assembly at school board events. Particularly in virginia. In september, the National School Board Association released a public letter to President Biden requesting federal assistance to address alleged violence targeting children, School Board Members and educators. Illiterate referenced 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 current threats and acts of violence against public School Officials through existing statutes, executive authority, inter agency and inter Governmental Task forces, 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 that the administration review all applicable laws and policies including the patriot act to relevant enforcement options due to the threat. We know, according to emails, obtained by the Group Parents defending education, 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. Nd confirmin testimony, before e 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. And yet the attorney general has not retracted this mumble. 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 think it is best directed in conjunction with the fbi . I do not have that number. Have they held meetings . Whats the number . I do not know. We can look into it though. I believe that by today was led by the u. S. Attorneys office. In conjunction with the fbi . Yes, maam. We will get you that number. But i do not have that information, because it was the date was supposed to be today and it is being coordinated by the 94 different jurisdictions, but the invited was the fbi to attend. Correct. Does the fbi consider parents domestic terrorists . No. Do parents who oppose security, are they considered domestic terrorists . No. To my knowledge. No to your knowledge . No. As long as the individuals are not committing federal violations or force of violence or in promotion of an ideology they would not be. Our parents who oppose mask mandates consider domestic terrorists . No. Let me ask you this. What are your thoughts . Because the general attorney general garland memo is based upon the School Boards association letter, which has not been rescinded, why has the department not rescinded the garland memo . You have to defer that question 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 other 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 that 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 continuing to work with state and locals to maintain awareness of the environment if they are threats of violence directed at anybody. The threats 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 are giving vaccines, and involved other Public Health related activities. So its just something we continue to evaluate. But you are aware that the attorney general said under oath when he testified that the relevant factor in the garland memo was the School Boards association letter. You are aware that . I did not watch the attorney generals well thats what he said. And you are answering very differently here today. He said that 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. Gentlelady yields back. s membership and White Supremacist Organization disqualified for people applying to the fbi or work at the fbi, mr. Lankin . Yes. Is the membership that type of organization can inconsistent with the effect of Law Enforcement . Yes. How is the fbi coordinating with local and state Law Enforcement about incoming threats and information about White Supremacists and other i know having worked at the center there was an analyst assigned there as well as you guys build a skiff there, but there was always intel it with a local Law Enforcement issue in the fbi, because it was a sentiment that local Law Enforcement does the work in the fbi comes in at the last minute at the threshold. I think in many cases thats unfair. But has those coordinated efforts improved overtime . You know sir, ive been in Law Enforcement over 20 years and served for the government for 31 years. Actually have not found that that often. Theres definitely rivalries, theres definitely 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, there is a times prosecutorial differences on the case whether it should be worked at a state or federal level. But again ill refer back to the foundation of what our sharing is and those 200 joint Terrorism Task forces, almost 4500 agents and officers working hand in hand together, so when information reaches their department that potentially contains a federal violation ideology, the concern of the gta and that information is forwarded from that Task Force Officer into the jttfs and it can review that information and determine if theres enough predication to move forward with a potential investigation. Mr. Cohen its no secret that the ioc failed to adequately warn of the insurrection that occurred on january 6th. Can you explain with specific procedures have changed and white reforms have been instituted post january 6th . Thank you, mister chairman. I think there are a lot of lessons that we in Law Enforcement and the intelligence, analytical world, learned from january 6th, both events of that day and the weeks leading up 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 six that the department is we have to 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 sectors with the fbi. And others in the federal community, we have become much more forwardleaning 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. I think a very good sort of example of the differences that exist today versus on january 6th would be one just 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 actually sought as a starting point and there were calls online for additional acts of violence to be committed and both the district of columbia and 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 capital and other locations, a highly visible presence of national guard. Highly visible president s of Law Enforcement. A very overt and Public Security presence in and around the district of columbia and state capitals around the country. Why did you see reflected on social media and extremist platforms, a cognizance of those security measures and a reluctance to come to washington because those who are planning acts of violence viewed it as a trump being set for their arrest or viewed it as not the right time to come and engage, because of the security presence . There is a lesson in that. So our analysis has focused much more on understanding when there may be a potential active violence, and then taking steps, sometimes very visible steps and public steps to create public physical security measures that serve as a deterrent. Chairman schiff. Thank you, mister chairman. Actually i would have questions about recent open source reporting about october 29th isis threat and identify an unidentified mall in northern virginia. Ill save those for a secure sitting. They would like to ask you director land, in which fbi headquarters element has a lead on implementing the mandates attorney generals toby fourth memo regarding schoolboy threats . That would combination of the criminal Investigative Division how many state and local Law Enforcement jurisdictions have reached out to the fbi requesting additional assistance . I dont know, the most likely would have reached out to their local field office. Are any participants in jttfs participating in these meetings, training or any other activities associated with the attorney generals memo . I dont have that information out. It was being formatted and led by the local u. S. Attorneys offices. But we will find out and get back with you. Who attended and from what programs. Okay. From the field offices. It would be up to the field offices to determine who they might send to a meeting if it was led by the u. S. Attorneys office. I appreciate the followup on. That for any of these activities in the fbi eu utilizing any National Intelligence Program Resources or authorities . No. We possibly could be using analytical resources, which all analysts in the fbi, whether they or organized crime or whether they work cybercrime, or terrorism related matters, all of them come from the National Intelligence program bucket. And so, analytically, if we were reviewing the problem, some of those resources could be reviewed if we were trying to ascertain whether or not a potential threat exists. Im certain now, based on my colleagues comments that you are aware of the National School Board Association apologized and recalled their september 29th letter to the president , which was a catalyst for the attorney generals memo. Since then, has the fbi received any updated guidance from the department of justice on canceling the mandate for fbi lead meetings, training and dedicated open lines of threat reporting . Not that i am aware of. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chairman schiff . Thank you. I just want to follow up on a couple of issues. First of all, are you seeing a rise in Death Threats against School Board Members . I cant necessarily quantify it, mister 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 over, for example, decisions they are making about the health of the children in those schools . Yes. It is included in a narrative that we have seen continue, which focuses on 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 Capitol Police, sometimes by federal Law Enforcement. We certainly want them investigated. You would agree, i assume, that Death Threats against School Board Members should be investigated similarly . Yes, mister chairman. It is a fundamental part of our responsibilities to make sure that 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. These threats of violence, these Death Threats are designed to try 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 with 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 health care professionals. We are 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 we continue to see that today. I raise this because i think theres been a proliferation of threats of violence, politically motivated violence, and two an astonishing and dangerous degree, a rationalization of violence or threats of violence to bring about political change and 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, your social Political Development emboldening impact of the violent breach of the u. S. Capital, conditions related to the covid19 pandemic and the conspiracy theories promoting violence will almost certainly spur some Domestic Violence extremists to try to engage in violence this year. Those who are pushing the big lie, undermining our democracy are emboldening impact they are emboldening new violence in my view. Those who are downplaying the significance of the attack of january 6th or trying to make political heroes of those who assaulted Police Officers on that day or breached the capitol, my view are encouraging further violence. When we propagate a falsehood about the election, when we diminish Public Confidence in our elections, people dont think they can rely on elections to decide who should govern. Its an invitation of violence. It is no better and for worse when that invitation violence comes from members of congress than anyone else. Because the members of Congress Know that the big lie is a big lie. And i think its shameful. When we are informed by our intelligence agencies that that attack is emboldening others to commit other acts of violence and when those false narratives of fraud in the election are also encouragement to further violence that members continue to engage in the, and i wanted to put that on the record. With that, mister chairman, i yield back. Thank you, chairman. Thank you both for your attendance and participation. While what you do is very oh, all right. Congresswoman stefanik. Thank you so much, mister chairman. I just want to get on the record mr. Langston, you talked about the u. S. Attorneys leading this. Are you aware that the october 4th memo states quote, to this and i am directing the federal bureau of investigation working with each u. S. Attorney to convene meetings . Yes, maam. So the fbi is directing this . The fbi is not directing it. It was the u. S. Attorneys office that to my understanding was going to direct the meetings and for the meetings and decide how the meetings with transpire and we would the memo from the attorney general is not accurate . Was not followed . I dont know if that is an interpretation difference but yes maam. Just reading what it says. That was my understanding from the department of justice that it would be led by the u. S. Attorneys office. And you are aware that in the sub Judiciary Committee last week, the attorney general stated under oath they would provide information that led to the issuing of the member by november 1st. Are you aware of any reason why they have missed that deadline . I cant speak on behalf of the department. Have you participated in the formulation or presentation of that memo . No. I have exchanged some emails. The weekend before when the initial discussion was brought up about this memo that came out. That it was very brief. What was the discussion . What was the topic . The letter came in from the School Board Association and that 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. Yes just basically. That stating that. Whatever i need to get you the full extent of the emails, but just that there was something coming out. It was engaged at a different level, a lower level than me. That was all the statement. 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 the messaging as well as any compilation of whats the response to the senators who requested information youll provide those emails . Whatever i can provide you legally, i will. So you will provide those . Whatever i can provide you, maam. Ill have to check with our legal counsels office. Great, i yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you both for your participation today. Thank you for your service to our country. Its very rewarding work. Its oftentimes thankless. I want to thank chairman schiff for his great presence and Ranking Member crawford, and my colleagues and the entire committee for their commitment to accountability, oversight and keeping americans safe. Thank you all. This hearing is adjourned. Topics include wireless innovation and broadband access. This is an hour. Ok,