House Oversight holds hearing on combating white supremacy

Channel: Fox Business
Published: 2 hours ago

Description
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform is holding a hearing on "Confronting White Supremacy (Part II): Adequacy of the Federal Response." The goal is to evaluate the measures that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security are taking to combat white supremac...



Transcript
[ music ]. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. We are convening the second in a series of hearings on confronting white supremacy, where we will focus on the adequacy of the federal response and i'm going to recognize myself now for five minutes to make an opening statement. I want to welcome all of the members witnesses. Many guests in the ...
udience to our second hearing on the deadly serious topic of the resurgence of violent white supremacy in america. Last month we held a hearing to help us understand the scope of the problem, and we heard from a number of witnesses about the consequences of the government. Not actingto meet the threat, including from susan bro, the mother of heather hire, who was the young woman killed by white supremacists in charlottesville two years ago. We heard also from former fbi and department of homeland security officials on what the agencies are doing today and not doing and should be doing in response. One message came through loud and clear at that hearing white supremacist today constituted the most significant threat of domestic terror. In the united states, but the federal government lacks a comprehensive and cohesive strategy for addressing the problem. Last month's hearing left me with three primary concerns. First, the fbi's data collection and reporting system at best drastically under reports, hate violence in theus and it worse deliberately obscures the scope of the threat.

Second, the fbi's allocation of anti-terrorism resources is skewed to international terrorism, despite data showing domestic terror to be the greater threat. Today and third, the department of homeland security appears to have no overall strategic plan for how to counter and prevent white supremacist violence. It'S my sincere hope that our friends at the fbi, fbi and homeland security who are here today are prepared to adequately address. All of these concerns today the fbi's data reporting on hate-motivated violence, both in the criminal investigative division in the counterterrorism division, is flawed. Every witness before the subcommittee, whether invited by majority or the minority agreed on one thingthe fbi's hate crime. Statistics are inaccurate and do not reflect the reality of hate-motivated violence in our country in numbers that are now familiar to us all. From 2013 to 2017, the fbi reported on average 7500 hate crimes annually. During that same time period. The bureau of justice statistics national crime, victimization survey, estimated on average 200,000 hate crimes annually, which means the fbi, is reporting one hate crime for more than 20 hate crimes that are reported in the national crime. Victimization survey. There are data leaks in almost every stage of the hate crimes, reporting process from the hesitation of victims to report hate crimes to the police, to the failure of local and state policeto report hate crimes to the fbi, to the fbi, not reporting hate crimes that they Are aware of and filling in for gaps in the record? What'S more, the fbi's data excludes incidents that any reasonable person would agree should have been included. Perhaps the most prominent example was the murder of heather hire herself in charlottesville in 2017.

Why was her murder not reported as a hate crime? The best that i can understand this baffling omission reflects a problem first at the local level, as local police did not report it as a hate crime, but it also betrays as a systemic feeling by the fbi, which apparently made little or no effort at all to Auditits own statistics to independently verify the accuracy of the data being submitted from around the country, so that is inexplicable and unacceptable, and i know we can do better and i hope we can hear from some other witnesses about how we can make improvements. Mr. shivers, i hope you're prepared today to lay out a detailed plan for how cid can improve the hate, crime, collection and reporting data. An entirely different issue appears to be plaguing the counterterrorism division, while cid lacks the information necessary to understand the scope of aid crimes. The cid has detailed data on domestic terror, but seems to herman to obscure the scope of white supremacist violence for at least a decadethe fbi employed the relatively straightforward counterterrorism term, white supremacist, extremist wsc, which is defined as groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts Of violence directed at the federal government, asmik minorities or jewish persons, in support of their belief that caucasians are intellectually and morally superior to other races. This official category from the fbi in department of homeland security's joint lexicon was accompanied by at least nine other specific categories, including anarchist extremists, animal rights, extremists, anti-abortion extremists, black supremacists extremists, environmental rights, extremists, homegrown violent extremist militia, extremists, sovereign citizen extremists and racist skinhead extremists. But now the fbi has collapsed these prior ten specific categories into four combined categories and now uses one raciallymotivated, violent extremism, which would be in which we have been told as an umbrella term that combines the prior subcategories for white and black racially motivated extremism. Two anti-government anti-authority extremism, three animal rights, environmental extremism and for abortion extremism. What was the purpose of these changes at? What level of detail? Is the fbi still tracking extremist activity? What proportion of racially motivated violent extremist extremism is actually perpetrated by white supremacists merging white supremacist extremists, who were responsible for 39 murders in 2018 with black supremacist extremists who are responsible for zero extremist murderers in 2018 into a single amalgamated category called racially motivated violent extremism. I think obscures the real threat, but i would love tohear our witnesses opine on that. Similarly, the transformation of the descriptive anti-abortion extremists category, which was in place for a decade into the misleading new category of abortion extremism is, it appears to me a ham-fisted for to disguise the nature of the real threat to women's health care clinics and doctors in nurses And staff who worked there, i know of no women's reproductive health workers, were pro-choice activists who are blowing up clinics or otherwise committing violence. We cannot play word games with domestic terror, nor can we afford to let hate crimes go drastically.

Unreported. The fbi must collect and report accurate data on white supremacist violence and effectively measure. The real magnitude of the threatthe government cannot protect vulnerable communities without understanding understanding and defining the problem in accurate detail. Despite the obvious problems with the data, this much is clear: white supremacist terror is on the rise and far-right in white supremacists. Domestic terror is a far more lethal threat to americans in the united states today than is international islamic terror. But the fbi's resource allocations don't reflect this reality. According to the anti-defamation league, from 2009 to 18, far-right extremism, which the fbi classifies as a form of domestic terrorism, was responsible for 73 percent of extremist murders. Islamic extremism, which the fbi usually classifies as a form of international terrorism, was responsible for 23 percent of the fatalities during thatperiod. However, the fbi has testified. Bureau allocates its resources almost exactly backwards from what the problem would suggest. Devoting 80 percent of field agents to stopping international terrorism, including islamic extremism, in only 20 % to stopping domestic terrorism, including far-right and white supremacist extremism. This allocation of resources or miss allocation of resources has real-life consequences, as george salim testified.

At our last hearing, the university of maryland start center found that from september 11th 2001 through 2017, approximately 71 percent of islamist inspired extremists in the u. s. were interdicted. They were stopped in the planning phase of terror activity, but with far-right extremists. The inverses of the case and over 71 %, managed to successfully commit violent acts, theywere planning how many far-right extremist attacks could have been prevented if we had taken that threat as seriously as we had taken the threat of islamist fanatical extremism according to the anti-defamation league, The 50 domestic extremists murder is committed in america last year. Every perpetrator, every perpetrator, had ties to right-wing extremists and 78 percent of the murders, or 39 of them were committed by white supremacists. Meanwhile, there were zero killings in 2018 related to left-wing extremism, a category which includes crimes committed by anarchists in black nationalists. How many lives can we save if we strengthen and focus our response on white supremacist violence? Mr. mcgarity, i hope you are prepared to account for ctd, statisticalreporting and resource allocations. The fbi is not the only piece of the puzzle. We also need to give from the department of homeland homeland security. To answer a fundamental question: do we have an overall strategic plan to counter and prevent the threat of white supremacist violence? I fear the answer is no, but i'm very eager to hear from ms newman news reports indicate that this administration is actually dismantling dhs's threat prevention framework for domestic terror without a clear path forward to replace the existing framework.

Jorge salim, who testified at our last hearing was the was the homeland security director of countering violent extremism task force, and he testified that when he was at the officeof community partnerships, he oversaw the countering violent extremism task force. They had ten million dollars in grant funding to give away. They had 16 full-time employees and 25 contractors in a total budget of 21 million dollars to try to do proactive work to counter the spread of terror. Now, after the office has been renamed and reorganized to the office of targeted violence and terrorism prevention, there are only eight staff and a budget of 2. 6 million dollars so that staff has been cut in half and they've lost 80 to 90 percent of their funding. So this development appears to have been aimed well, it's not clear exactly why it happened, and i hope you can shedsome light on that for us, miss newman and in testimony prepared for today's hearing, a homeland security appears to lay out a plan for the path forward, But i think miss newman would agree that there are still more questions than answers at this point. What are the offices precise functions, who's in charge? How many personnel will be assigned to prevent white supremacy violence? What is the budget there's no clear answer, and it's very late in the game. For us, the massacre at the mother, emanuel ame church in charleston was in 2015. Hether hire died in 2017, where there were another 30 or 35 crimes committed during the those horrific events. In charlottesville the tree oflife massacre took place last year. Why are we now just getting around to establishing in office to address the threat? Why are we just now trying to articulate a nationwide strategy to prevent this threat to communities across the land? I i know that miss newman recognizes the enormity of the problem and the importance of getting it right, and i look forward to hearing her thoughts about a detailed strategic plan moving forward. President trump has called white supremacist, a small group of people that have very very serious problems, but real statistics from third party groups and his own law enforcement agencies demonstrate that it's actually a rather large group of people in the thousands and theyare causing very, very serious Problems not just for themselves, but for everybody else, and certainly for everybody who has died at the hands of white supremacists across the country in congress.

We must ensure that the government step up immediately speak clearly about the nature of this threat and rapidly move to increase and improve law enforcement and public education efforts to protect our communities against the lethal perils of white supremacist violence. And with that, i'm delighted to turn it over to the distinguished ranking member of the committee. Mr. roy, i thank the chairman and i think the work of the chairman and his staff on pulling this hearing together and i think the witnesses are takingtime for being up here to join us to testify and for your all's service to our nation. Thank you. I am gratified that we are working on a bipartisan basis to conduct meaningful oversight of the work that fbi and dhs are doing to fight domestic terrorism and hate crimes. I believe and expect we will hear testimony today that prevention of targeted violence should be agnostic to ideology. I could not agree more as a former federal prosecutor. I think it's imperative that be our approach. I do reiterate my point from the first hearing that we be mindful of our language and avoid focus on identity, politics, which furthers the division that causes many of the hatefulacts by all bad actors. But if we're going to have a hearing related to domestic terrorism, i'd like to discuss the differing types of domestic terror threats that the country faces, like sovereign citizen terrorists in texas. I want to talk about environmental terrorism.

It may have a presence in other areas of the country, because the domestic terrorist threat we see in maryland may not be the same threats as we see in texas, which is why i've asked mr. benz been to be here in the second panel to give us That state and local perspective about what we saw on the ground when he worked in law enforcement and counterterrorism in texas. The fact is, thata crime is a crime and they should be prosecuted as such, but to have meaningful discussion with fbi and dhs. Today we should be focusing on y'all's holistic effort to stop all forms of terrorism and apryl violence. I also want to reiterate the importance of perspective last hearing, i discussed a statistic from the anti-defamation league. We discussed their classification of 18 of a 34 extremist murders in 2017 being tied to white supremacy, obviously all horrific and and crimes. We would like to stop. Of course, perspective here is important because there were 17,000 murders in the united states in 2017. We should also be cognizant of the reality that we designate foreign terrorist organizations as exactlythat, but we do not have a similar designation domestically. There are reasons for that things. You should continue to discuss and debate. There are fourth amendment concerns and other issues involved with how we focus in target american citizens outside traditional criminal laws and networks.

With those figures in mind. In that background, i hope today we can promote meaningful lawn met to rout out crime, regardless of how it's classified and be mindful of how we allocate our resources. It'S a difficult situation that we all have to do as we try to stop criminal activity nationwide, regardless, where it comes from or why it's perpetrated. My hope is that we can lay down our attempt to scorepolitical points and call out races for being a portent and figure out how to best support our federal law enforcement agencies, because we convened this hearing. Both dhs and fbi are hard at work out in the field protecting this country from terrorism and hate crimes, as we speak right now, it's going on, for example, earlier this year the fbi's joint terrorism task force in california worked diligently to prevent a terror attack planned In long beach, a jttf in ohio thwarted a couples plan to commit a mass murder at bar and toledo. I'Ve got a bunch of examples of fbi cases in texas. At former texas state university student, whom fbi agents claimed was plotting massviolence, who had embraced white supremacy. Jttf agents arrested a daca recipient sergio mapuche salazar, for alleged threats of bomb-making for the purpose of murdering ice agents. Texas based individual involved, an online militia group burned a victoria texas mosques, send a message: muslim community to members of sovereign citizen, religious sect living in a central texas compound robbed. A round rock texas, jewelry store, roger talbot, was arrested in march 2014 following an eight-month undercover investigation of his so-called american insurgent movement by the fbi, houston, domestic terrorism, joint terrorism task force. He was threatening to blow up government buildings. Another individual had five hundred thousand rounds of ammo and and was engaged in white supremacist activity in easttexas.

That was also thornton and i can go through the list. My point is that activity is going on. It'S important that we recognize how much law enforcement is working together at the federal state and local level to thwart these kinds of activities, regardless of their ideology, regardless, where they come from, regardless of the race, regardless of a focus on whether involved in international terrorism. And i think it's critical that we recognize and thank you all and those that are working in our law enforcement communities from federal state and local for their service. In doing so, i look forward to hearing from the witnesses from the fbi dhs about the efforts spanning the previous administrationand this one to combat crime, including domestic type terrorism. As i understand, there have been significant steps taken to improve it under this administration and learn and evolve what we've been doing and, in fact many steps that had not been taken as by the previous administration, not necessarily to a fault but because we learn and develop. I also look forward to hearing how the federal government can partner with state and local law enforcement agencies further to equip them with the right tools to root out domestic terrorism, as that is the best approach to law enforcement, as i can attest. As someone who worked as a former federal prosecutor within the department of justice as partof the project safe neighborhoods program in partnership with state and locals to prosecute gang drug and gun violence with that, i thank the chairman and yield back, such as i have any time Left to yield mr. royde. Thank you for that opening statement. Very much appreciate it and, let's see the first thing we need to do is to allow mr. malinowski and ms talib to participate in today's hearing wave on for the purpose of it.

We'Re delighted to have them without objection. I will grant them that status and now i want to welcome our distinguished witnesses today, starting with michael mcgarity, who is the assistant director of the counterterrorism division of the fbi of thefederal bureau of investigation. Welcome mr. mcgarry we're delighted to have you calvin shivers, but i, mr. shivers i've been pronouncing your name. That way, i want to make sure that's correct, very good. Okay, it was a good guess. You you are the deputy assistant director of the criminal investigative division, the cid of the fbi of the federal bureau of investigation and ms newman elizabeth newman is the assistant secretary for threat prevention and security policy at the us department of homeland security. So we've got the key people in the country with us today. Mr. mcgarry, you are recognized for five minutes. Well, forgive me.

I do need to swear you in if all of you wouldplease rise and raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth so help you, god let the record show the Witnesses all answered in the affirmative. Thank you very much. Please be seated the micro's. The microphones are sensitive up here, so please speak directly into them. So all of us can hear you and without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record and with that mr. garrety now you're recognized for a full five minutes to give an oral presentation. Thank you, chairman good afternoon, chairman raskin ranking member roy and members of the committee. Thank youfor, the opportune to appear before you today. As the assistant director of the fbi's counterterrorism division. I will be providing an overview of the fbi's efforts to counter domestic terrorism by explaining what we do and how we do it, and i want to emphasize upfront that preventing acts of terrorism in the homeland is the fbi's number-one priority. This includes terrorism from any place in any actor in this fight. The fbi is the lead federal agency for investigating terrorism, the fbi categorizes investigations into two main programs, international terrorism and domestic terrorism.

I t and dt combined. These two programs are what make up the fbi's top priority. International terrorists include members of designated foreign terrorist organizationswe call them ftos, state sponsors of terrorism and homegrown violent extremists or hve s. Domestic terrorists are individuals who commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as bias, racial bias and anti-government sentiment. Despite the many similarities, the fbi distinguishes domestic terrorism, extremists from homegrown violent extremists, in that the latter our global jihad, inspired while domestic terrorists, inspiration emanates from domestic influence, influences like racial bias or anti authority. The fbi seeks to disrupt domestic terrorist actors by leveraging the full arsenal investigative techniques. However, as this committee knows, no investigation can be opened based solely on the first amendment protected activity. For example, the fbi does not investigate rallies orprotests unless there is a credible belief that violent criminal activities may be occurring. The fbi assesses domestic terrorists collectively pose a persistent and evolving threat of violence and economic harm to the united states. In fact, there have been more arrests and deaths in the u. s. caused by domestic terrorists than international terrorists.

In recent years, individuals affiliated with racially motivated vonn extremism are responsible for the most lethal and violent activity and are responsible for the majority of lethal attacks and fatalities perpetrated by domestic terrorists since 2000, racially motivated bond extreme extremism includes threats deriving from bias, relate to race, Held by the actor against others or a given population group, the current army threat as wecalled is decentralized and characterized by lone actors: radicalized online, who target minorities and soft targets using easily accessible weapons. This assessment is, in contrast to the fbi's past assessments of similar movements. In the 1980s, in the early 2000s, when the rmv threat was composed of hierarchy and structured groups, nationally organized groups led by charismatic ideologues in recent years, lone offenders have committed the most lethal domestic extremist violence. These offenders primarily use firearms and often act without specific guidance from a group. Radicalization of domestic terrorists primarily occurs through self-radicalization online, which can sometimes present mitigation difficulties. It is a challenge for law enforcement. The internet and social media enables individuals to engage others domestic terrorists, withoutface-to-face meetings, we've seen multiple devastating attacks committed by domestic terrorists in recent months, most recently in the u. s. These include the shootings at the shibata po, a synagogue in poway, california and the tree of life. Synagogue in pittsburgh, pennsylvania in 2018 domestic violent extremists conducted six lethal attacks, killing 17 victims in 2017, domestic violence, dreamers conducted five lethal attacks, killing eight victims. Central to our efforts to combat terror attacks is the joint terrorism task force our jttf model.

We work hand-in-hand with federal and local agencies to effectively combat the threat. In fact, many arrests of fbi, domestic terrorism subjects are conducted by state local partners in coordination with jttf s. We have jttf s throughoutall 56 field offices, which allow for regular and robust sharing of threat assessments with our federal state and local partners. In fact, approximately 50 % of our domestic terrorism investigations are open, based on information received from either the public or from referrals provided by our partners at the local state and federal levels. In fiscal year, 2018 fbi jttf across the country proactively arrested approximately 115 subjects of fbi, domestic terrorism investigations before they could mobilize to violence. So far, in the first half of fiscal year, nineteen rjt tfs have disrupted approximately 66 subjects of fbi, domestic terrorism investigations by arrests. These numbers are more than mere statistics. Undoubtedly they represent america live saved in communities across theunited states. Despite the successes that result from the hard work of the men and women of the fbi and our partners on the jttf, domestic terrorism continues to pose a persistent threat. Our commitment to you and to our fellow citizens is that we will continue to confront the threat posed by terrorism. What the threat emanates from international terrorists, or here in the homeland in the domestic sphere, we will follow our oaths. We will and are determined to protect the united states of america from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to uphold the constitution of the united states.

Thank you, mr. cheevers, for five minutes good afternoon, chairman raskin ranking member remer, roy and members ofthe subcommittee. Thank you for inviting us here today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how the fbi addresses hate crimes. My experience working in the fbi goes back nearly thirty years when i started my career as a special agent and the fbi is in new orleans division. Throughout my career, i've had an opportunity to investigate, lead and manage a number of important investigations and programs within the fbi. I'M both proud and honored to lead the branch of the fbi's criminal investigative division that oversees hate crime and civil rights programs, hate crimes, tear at the fabric of our communities and our country. So we must ensure the civil rights of all persons which are guaranteed bythe. Us constitution are protected hate crime laws. The united states are intended to protect our citizens against bias crimes motivated by animus against a protected class of persons. Current us statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, religion, disability, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity. Over time, the fbi's ability to investigate these crimes has expanded as new laws were passed.

For example, the civil rights act of 1968 permitted federal prosecution of crimes committed with the biased against race, color, religion or national origin in 2009, when the matthew, shepard and james byrd, jr hate crimes, prevention act was passed, federal, hate crime, law, expanded toapply to crimes motivated By a victims, gender perceived gender, sexual orientation or disability, in order for the fbi to initiate a hate crimes investigation, there are three key elements: we must look for or must suspect number one. There must be an act of violence, threatened, violence or conspiracy to do so. Number two: the perpetrator, must have acted, willfully or intentionally and number three. The perpetrators actions must have been motive, motivated by an actual or perceived statutorily, recognized bias. It is worth noting that hate crime investigations are often by their very nature reactive. That being said, when the fbi understand that we must also be proactive in trying to prevent hate crimes because hate crimes, anddomestic terrorism, can intersect the fbi's counterterrorism division also addresses hate crimes through domestic terrorism, investigation and some instances. We work parallel investigations by analyzing and sharing intelligence. We both hope to prevent hate crime incidents, but if hate crime does occur, we work diligently to hold those responsible accountable for their actions and seek justice for victims. Hate crimes are not only an attack on victims, but they often have a wide-ranging, harmful impact on communities. Thus investigating hate crimes is one of the fbi's highest priorities. Although the fbi is a primary us law enforcement agency that conducts civil rights investigations, we understand the importance of partnerships with federal state and local law enforcement as well as affectedcommunities. Community engagement, outreach, training and education are critical to our success in addressing hate crime.

The uniform crime report, our ucr, is a nationwide cooperative, statistical effort of nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies who voluntarily report data on crimes brought to their attention. The ucr program is being transitioned from a summary reporting system to the national incident based reporting system or neighbors. Neighbors collects crime data that is more comprehensive than the ucr, making it a more effective tool for law enforcement policy makers and analysts to truly understand crime and make informed decisions to address it. We believe nieghbors will capture data that helps us better understand the magnitude of the hate crime threat, the fbi hasbeen and will continue to be the lead law enforcement agency addressing hate crime matters. We are proud of our work and we look forward to continuing to be the agency that the american public continues to trust to serve in this role. I look forward to our dialogue and your questions. Thank you, mr. service. Thank you very much for your testimony and miss newman. You were recognized for five minutes. Thank you, chairman raskin ranking member roy and members of the subcommittee. I'M very grateful that you're holding this important hearing on combating violent white supremacy.

I want to make it clear at the outset unequivocally and without hesitation that violent white supremacy is abhorrent. I am gratefulthat, we have the opportunity to discuss the department's current capabilities and our plans for advancing the prevention mission. Please allow me to first, though, convey my deepest consultant condolences to the families of the victims of friday's targeted attack in virginia beach. Twelve lives were cut short for more in the hospital we have. Families grieving and shock and grief again are rippling through our country, whether it's an attack on a school, a nightclub, a synagogue, a mosque, a church or a public space and that government facility. It really needs to stop. We need to invest in prevention to bring that end into view. I have been working on prevention since it short since shortly after theattacks of september 11 2001, i served in the domestic counterterrorism directorate at the white house and worked on the policies and programs we needed to prevent another catastrophic attack. We designed measures to address the threat from al-qaeda, primarily a complex, coordinated attack with planning cycles ranging from months to years and attackers or facilitators that entered the u. s. from abroad. These prevention efforts were primarily the tools of law enforcement, intelligence and border security.

The threat morphed multiple times over the past 18 years, with one of the most concerning trends being the ability of isis to recruit and radicalize to violence in isolation via the internet and social media, and now domestic terrorist movements are borrowing fromthe, isis handbook using social media. To recruit radicalize inspire and mobilize americans to violence, though this latest evolution in terrorist threats occurs in relative isolation and involves a smaller window between radicalization and violent acts and together. These factors make it extremely difficult for law enforcement, including my partners at the fbi to detect and thwart potential attacks. Our post 9/11 prevention capabilities, as robust as they are, were not designed to deal with this type of threat, and while we have made progress in developing the tools necessary for this new threat, the solutions need to be scaled in order for them to be effective. For nearly 25 years, the secret services national threat assessment center, the intactconducted, evidence-based research on individuals that carried out acts of targeted violence. The intact research demonstrated that there are similar themes between the perpetrators of workplace, violence, domestic violence, school-based violence and terrorism. Likewise, research demonstrated demonstrates remarkable similarities among the attackers, regardless of the ideological motivation of the attack. So why does this matter? Because it allows us to identify behaviors and character, characteristics of individuals prone to violence and assist vulnerable individuals before they cross the criminal threshold and as mrs. burrow and all who testified so poignant. Lee during the hearing last month noted some of that assistance is best provided outside of the federal government. What'S needed is true, a true whole of society approach. Andthankfully a growing number of state and jurisdictions are adopting a multidisciplinary threat management prevention strategy for the past.

Several years dhs has worked with law enforcement, academia, mental health professionals, educators and faith leaders to develop prevention strategies through the cbe grant program. The national governors association is developing prevention strategies in virginia colorado, illinois and michigan. Another grant is allowing the major city chiefs association to develop a law enforcement implementation guide for prevention, and last week i saw firsthand how dhs investments and prevention's are yielding dividends in colorado. The combination of grants and a field deployed staff member have led to 24 interventions of individuals desiring to conduct acts of violence. 12 of those were motivatedby a white supremacist ideology. While there are excellent prevention efforts underway, a strategic approach to prevention has been lacking. That is why acting secretary mclean and created the office of targeted violence and terrorism prevention in april, the office will coordinate and expand the dhs terrorism prevention enterprise, while also harmonizing our efforts with our federal partners, who have important roles in the provision prevention mission space this Summer, we are developing the prevention framework that dhs will implement over the coming years. This is that comprehensive strategy. Mr. chairman, that you noted is needed drawing on lessons learned from the grants and from recent research that was funded by the department from our ffrdc rand and continuing stakeholderengagement. We plan to build out that framework in partnership with you all and and look forward to further discussing it with you over the summer. But in closing i want to say at the outset that dhs recognizes there's a lot of work to do, and it is unacceptable that anyone in the united states be made to feel afraid because of their race or religion.

We look forward to working with you on this critical mission and i look forward to answering your questions. Thank you all for your testimony and now we will begin our question portion of the proceedings. Each member will be given five minutes to question the panel i'll start. Just by recognizing myselfmr. mcgarry, let me start with you. We know that america has worked closely since 9/11, with our allies around the world to try to get on top of the problem of al-qaeda, terrorism, isis, terrorism. What are we doing to coordinate with law enforcement and police around the world to deal with the problem of white supremacist violence which exploded, for example, in christchurch in new zealand? You know: is this an international problem and are we dealing with it in an international way? Thank you, i would say yes, it's an international problem and, and partly that's due to the internet, the ability for someone to self radicalized or talk to someone chat with someone, email, someone halfwayaround the world or to see a post and image and be influenced by that. As far as what we, the fbi are doing we're doing a lot just within thursday and friday i met with my senior counterterrorism officials in our top five foreign leis on partners. We talked specifically about domestic terrorism. We talked specifically about social media so envision. The counterterrorism heads for those countries have my level we sat together for two days and talked about domestic terrorism. So it's very much at the forefront of our dialogue.

Then, as you go down, it's interesting actually because my counterparts in other parts that work are just coming on to the domestic terrorism program, not every portfolioof domestic terrorism, as we define it here in the u. s. racially motivated by an extremist. You can use the term white supremacy would necessarily be included in a foreign intelligence service or domestic law enforcement agency, federal law enforcement agency they're, starting to see that more and more every time we have a case that goes overseas. We share that information, for example in new zealand. During those the christchurch attacks, we sent people to new zealand. I sent a team over there, as did our other 5i partners from across the world. We did that i've received briefings back when we had the synagogue shooting in san diego. I made sure at my level i'm engaged with mycounterparts across we bring in, and that goes all the way down to the working level. As far as four engagements, both here within the us and fbi headquarters and with our foreign partners overseas, we have agents and analysts traveling. All the time to meet with our counterparts to work on cases to share leads when we do have a lead just like on the international terrorism side. We set that lead to a league at office overseas for action.

We have stopped terrorist threats, domestic terrorism, threats overseas, and we do it just like we do on international terrorism. I think what you're seeing over the last couple years is what we've seen with the homegrown bond extremistthreat with the internet. We are seeing individuals self radicalized online in both the international terrorism and domestic terrorism, and they are engaging and radicalizing and mobilizing to violence fairly quickly, and they don't necessarily have to be part of a group, and they can talk to someone halfway around the world. To do that, that's a very helpful answer. Let me just clarify one thing. I think a lot of our listeners are tuning in, for the first time, we'll be a little puzzled at the formulation. We'Ve stopped domestic terrorism overseas, and that goes to the the the kind of curious nomenclature. That'S evolved in this field. Explain what that means. What is domestic terrorism, what is internationalterrorism and why don't we just call it all terrorism? Can you explain that yeah, okay, you just put your mic on please yup - that the state department designates that is in a different bucket, because there are different authorities that come with that that we can use that. We cannot use on the domestic terrorism side, but but when you you say you know, we've worked to stop domestic terrorism overseas you're, referring there to white supremacist that i'm referring to threats overseas on racially motivated, violent extremists, who advocate for the supremacy of the white race Overseas we given threat information that we have received here in the united states to our foreign play gotcha. Mr.

shivers letme ask you, i think one of the themes running through all of the testimony there was that that we may be in a different phase. Now of trying to counter terrorism because of the internet and some of the people who go out and shoot up, churches like the mother, emanuel, church or synagogue, the tree of life are kind of lone wolves, they're people who get radicalized or indoctrinated online, but they're, not Part of a hierarchical organization, necessarily where they could be identified as a group. What can be done about that? If anything, what are the efforts that you're evolving an fbi to address that threat? I'Ll start answer the question, but i will also goback to mr. mcgarity one of the things to understand about working hate crimes and domestic terrorism is they're, not mutually exclusive, and so there are times where an incident may occur and the fbi is not sure. Is it purely a hate crime or is it an act of domestic terrorism? So when responding, you have representatives from the civil rights squad, as well as the domestic terrorism squad, and so our main priorities addressing the investigation. And so one of the things that we try to do is to be proactive. And what we do is not only collaborate on the investigation but ensure that we share intelligence, because one of the things to your point - it maybe a lone actor. But at the same time there may be communications with other individuals or groups that we would necessarily need to try to shed a little bit of light on i'll go back to mr. mcgarity sure we work it just like any other, whether it's international terrorism or criminal Gangs, we work our sources, we work our undercover operations, we work other collection that we can do through court or authorized wiretaps. I think what chairman, what you have to understand is we're not playing with the numbers here. We arrest more domestic terrorism, subjects left of attack in the united states than we do international terrorism so, and we've done that for the last coupleyears. So more domestic terrorism subjects that we have open investigations on.

We are arresting left of attack and that's more than we do on the international terrorism you mean before the attack. Yes, okay, yes, so that was not the information that i got at the last hearing. So i would love to say: can i address them? Please? I don't know who you i think i know who you're talking to, but if you're talking to an fbi agent, who's been out for 15 years, that's like talking to someone who works people who rob banks before the internet. Right i mean the threat has changed with the internet. These people are self-radicalized online and connect andcan go get a weapon. So that's the difference we are. We are doing the same thing on the domestic terrorism side, with our undercovers, both in the virtual space, because, i'll be honest, we did that's where a lots happening more than the visible space. We do that and you see them time and time again it in the press releases from the department of justice for those arrests, let down the international terrorism side and the domestic terrorism side, so we're in the virtual space with domestic terrorism and we're in the physical Space, thank you that's useful. My time is up and i'm going to recognize mr. heiss for five minutes. Thank you very much. Mr.

chairmanmiss newman. In your opening statement, you you made reference to rand and, as my understanding at the administration's request, they did an exhaustive study on terrorism, prevention and, among other things, found that prevention works, but at the same time found that the effort and energy that goes into terrorism. Prevention is miniscule compared to that that goes into other law enforcement and counterterrorism type programs. So can you kind of explain the difference between the two? What are we talking about in reference to terrorism, prevention versus counterterrorism? Thank you for the question. Mr. heiss. Absolutely the rand study we asked them specifically to assess the amount that's being spent on prevention and in particular, we asked tocompare that to our international counterparts, those who are similarly equipped to be able to do things through law enforcement and other counterterrorism means and the this. The results did indicate that we are spending less than many of our european partners. That could be because of the the challenges that they have faced with. Isis recently are much more significant than we have faced, not that our challenges aren't still great, but the the numbers are, i kind of kind of speak for themselves. They found that fbi and their law enforcement activities that their assessments, their investigations about 165 million a year and to give you a snapshot, costs about 1 million dollars for the from assessment, topost-release supervision for each individual with a 15 year sentence on the federal prevention side. We'Re spending about 12 to 13 million annually.

That'S an estimate and their recommendation, based on our based on the threat that we're facing was 20 to 50 million, is what we should be spending and, according to the population that we have here in the united states, may be something like 150 to 450 million, so That gives us a bit of a range as we're starting to build out a prevention framework and put together budgets and have conversations with congress gives us a sense of what we should be doing. I think the other thing i would i would mention is youknow the the practical side of this. The cost of cleaning up a terrorist attack can range anywhere from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe the boston marathon bombing was in the 330 million dollar range that that doesn't even account for the the lives that are lost or permanently changed, and all of the grief and emotional toil that that the families go through for the cost of a field representative Which, when you add benefits and travel costs, let's say two hundred thousand dollars and a small grant that might be a quarter of a million to a million dollars to a state or to a police department or the whatever. However, thestate decides to structure their prevention efforts that that might save us. You know so you're talking just a little under a million dollars in the state of colorado. We had 24 interventions and a lesson a two year period. If just one of those individuals had been successful in committing an attack, we would be cleaning things up for tens, tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, so the return on investment is definitely documented in the rand study. It was very helpful, so is it? Would you consider that then, the biggest takeaway in that study? I there are a number of things. It'S a three hundred page report. They identified best practices, areas, lines ofeffort, that the federal government should do. It told us very clearly that the concept of terrorism prevention is not our state and local partners top priority.

Their top priority is only got about just listen to me at less left, but should it be a top priority and obviously it works? It sounds like a pretty, i think, by opening the aperture to address targeted violence and terrorism prevention. It helps our state local partners with what they care about, which is all violence, as opposed to a particular type of ideology. Should the terrorism prevention be a part of the counterterrorism strategy, it is, it is in the national strategy and we're actually working on the dhs counterterrorismstrategy. That'S what this prevention framework will be nested in and we hope to release it in the fall. Ok. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mister gentleman yields back. Thank you. Mr. heiss, and i now recognize means maloney for five minutes. I thank the chairman and ranking member for calling this important hearing and all the participants and i'd like to ask mister mister shrivers about the the fbi, hate crime statistics.

All the reports. I'Ve seen indicate that the fbi's official uniform crime reporting hate crime statistics are deeply deeply flawed and severely under reported the actual numbers of of hate crimes and incidents in our country. For example, in 2017 the fbi reported over 7,000 hatecrime incidents, but the bureau of justice statistics, crime, victimization survey, estimates 200,000, hate crimes each year on average and and mr. stryver's. Is that consistent with your understanding? No man a couple of things? I'D like to point out? Okay, so the reporting to the ucr with state and local law enforcement agencies is voluntary, and so one of the things that the fbi has done over the last couple of years, excuse me: why is it voluntary this hate crime should be reported? They should be required. Why is it a voluntary, so reporting to the ucr in general yeah as a voluntary, and so one of the things that we done is we have tried to takea, proactive stance and going out to train state and local law enforcement agencies relative to hate crime, so They have an opportunity to recognize hate crime, but but my question was the fbi's statistics was 7,000 and the bureau of justice statistics was 200,000, yes ma'am. So is that true, that's my point that i want to make. So i am not aware of where the 200,000 came from, but they're only can you check that because i know about your training efforts and - and it seems like there's a problem with accuracy and at our last hearing it was pointed out when susan bro, the mother Of heather hire, who was killed in charlottesville, argued passionately about theneed to improve the accuracy of hate crime reporting, and she said my quote: a doctor cannot diagnose a patient without knowing the full set of symptoms. I don't see how we're expecting you as congress members to know how to prescribe allocations of personnel and money without knowing the full set of symptoms, in quote, and so, mr chivers, would you agree with mrs. brow about that statement? Well, ma'am. The reason i brought up the ucr was to talk about the transition to nieghbors, so one of the reasons that nieghbors is coming online is to provide more accurate reporting, but i have a specific question: heather hires death, i am told, and the other assault so thehorrific Assaults that were committed in by white supremist in charlottesville did not even appear in the 2017 fbi hate crimes to statistics report. Is that true, yes, ma'am and the reason is, can you explain how in the world did that happen? This was a graphic, terrible, terrible assault and death all over the papers.

Everywhere everybody knew about it. How did it not end up in your statistics?.


Watch Next

Loading...