Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing On White Supremacy In The Military - Panel 1 20240713

That hopefully will get some important answers to. This issue could not be more urgent. Three weeks ago the New York Times article revealed that the fbi arrested Seven Members of an Organization Called the dangerous White Supremacist Group. Neonazis, the base is an acceleration list agonistic, and Arctic Antarctic group whose name speaks to the admiration for al qaeda and isis. They hate jews and africanamericans but they dont like President Trump or the United States either. Their goal is to use terrorism to start a race war and collapse the United States. Societal collapse, a sick fantasy but the reality is that domestic terror has claimed more lives than International Terror since 911. Lastly, fbi director, told the Judiciary Committee that he was elevated racially motivated and violent extremism, to a National Threats priority. That the same man with homegrown violent extremism and isis. Our enemies especially russia, exploit these racial tensions to divide and weaken American Society ahead of the debates lives in russia. They likely support the White Supremacist Groups in United States and europe and Russia Targets are servicemembers with disinformation. When our enemies take advantage of our vulnerabilities, our National Security is threatened and dependent on a sufficient response. The threat also has specific implications for personal subsidy. First, white supremacist terror group and communities value of military skills that would enable them to commit terrorism while fighting a race war. They recruit and retrain their members. And many members claim to have military experience. This doesnt make white supremacist terrorist groups unique. Al qaeda also recruited egyptian and saudi military. And second, there are several warning signs that individuals with White Nationalist and supremacist tendencies are in fact serving in our military. Recent type rifle profile examples include a marine attending 2017 charlottesville probably. An officer arrested with a cache of weapons and west point ground, and eight on social media. Last week, the military time survey showed that the number of troops have witnessed evidence of white supremacist and racial racialist ideology in the military increased from 22 to 3. By previous decades, as the supremacist activities archway events such as charlottesville have increased in recent years is likely increased in the military as well. And supremacist in the military, put servicemembers safety, recruitment, and retention, at risk. Third, i am concerned that it doesnt take the military, doesnt take this threat seriously enough. It has the tools it needs for decades sufficient resources to the threat. Our venting enterprise lumped white supremacist activity and with gang affiliations. Rather than treat it as a National Security issue on par with foreign terror. It lacks emergency and focused trickle down to commanders and enlisted leaders who dont appear to be sufficiently apprised of the stretch or taught had to do with it. Even if they arguing with it the military lacks the statistics to prevent and in part, because of the absence of a standalone use mj extremism particles. This raises hard questions about whether military Law Enforcement needs Additional Authority to combat this terror threat. Today we will be joined by two panels, the first will be experts of organizations that study and track and educate on extremism. On second will have officials responsible for the policy for the military counterintelligence and Law Enforcement security. In the military criminal investigations agencies. I would like to focus on three main concerns. What is the scope and magnitude of the threat. And what are its impacts and second, what is being done to prevent these individuals from entering the military and then find investigate and rescue them. Military leaders take this issue seriously enough. Many are suggested that they are administratively discharged. Nothing further is done about them. That is inconsistent with our need to make sure that the country is secure as well. What might we need to give the military to combat this threat. Before introduce the first huddle, and Ranking Member kelly and opening remarks. Thank you. I wish to welcome both of our panels to todays hearing. I have dealt with White Supremacy on the frontlines of the District Attorney. For murderers to reps to assault to intimidations. Two officer shootings and i have dealt with all of those things in my district in mississippi during my time is a prosecutor and District Attorney there. But it also served in the military for 34 years. No group is more diverse are culturally innovative in our United States military. None anywhere. We must keep it that way. It should be a cultural site where people can go to know what wright works or looks like. This is an important hearing to make sure that we keep us at the basis that we are pretty think extremist activities of any kind are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated in the military. Except to the very core of what the military was founded on pretty good order and discipline. George washington once wrote, discipline is the soul of an army. They make small numbers formidable and secure success to the week and esteem to all. The thought of extremist activities like White Supremacy providing military is in direct contrast to the foundation of what the military henceforth. As a former Brigade Commander and Battalion Commander in combat, i can tell you from experience that the soldiers must and do trust each other with their lights. Regardless of the backgrounds or the colors of the skin. Servicemembers are judged based on their ability to perform their job in the content of the character and any other distant joints and no play or in society. I am interested in understanding the true magnitude of these issues on todays witnesses. As i was preparing for this hearing i realized we dont have a lot of reliable data on this. Aside from recent newspaper hole on racist behavior in the military we have few solid statistics on extremist behavior in the military. The definitive data we do have comes from the department of defense where there have been 21 criminal cases involving White Supremacy over the last five years amongst all fork services and products. The deity is not tracking investigation into White Supremacy as well as other extremist activities and ensuring misinformation with the fbi. This is a step in the right direction on the Law Enforcement side. I think that is a huge key to unpacking the issue. I need to define the problem and get reliable data on how prevalent it is in the military. I fell in i would like to understand the magnitude of extremist and White Supremacy activity all across society and what that is being tracked outside of the military. Im also interested in your recommendation specifically as they pertain to training and Data Collection for the military. On penalty i like to hear about the departments screening processes and the ongoing monitoring of extremist activity in my understanding is a review gap in the porting of the noncriminal cases that have been handled by commanders that resulted in administrative discharge and the to understand deities information on this and whether we also need standardized training on across the services. I want to thank our witnesses in her chair woman and for being here today and i think you and i yelled back. Thank you. You will have five minutes to present your testimonies. I would also ask unanimous consent the non Committee Members be allowed to participate and ask questions after all of the Committee Members have had the opportunities to ask questions without objection. So ordered. Our first panel start with the doctor commanderinchief Strategy Officer of the Global Project against hate and extremism. Senior Research Fellow of the center on extremism at the antidefamation league. Ms. Alicia, she is transmission officer of the southern poverty law panel. Center. We will take a short recess and switch out to our second panel at the end of the first panel. Would you like to begin. I like to think the esteemed members for inviting me to testify today. It is a great honor. My name is heidi. Im a phd in Political Science from Purdue University enema cofounder of the newly established Global Project against hate and extremism. The last two decades, ive researched activity in the military and forwarding that information to military investigators. I also argued that as i went today the more practices or policies to root out extremist from rights. Nothing i send my remarks today should be taken to impugn the honorable men and women who serve in the armed forces. Whose efforts i applaud. Barring white supremacist from military is in the utmost importance. The problem is a serious and growing one. Many of us know former soldiers of the month to acts of terrorism. But this is an in an old problem. After the troops have been found to be involved in white supremacist interest possible for murderers and mystic terrorism and in some cases International Terrorism. In White Supremacy and the terrace associated with it is on the rise in fact marking the trim defining terror globally. We have going White Supremacist Movement both in the United States and abroad, some of these folks are turning White Supremacists and other countries and military case. This is a significant threat to our troops. The American Public and folks in other countries. The Armed Services on soldiers know why supremacy is a problem and have already been decided the military has been a full three years 0 inches between 14 and one and three soldiers are aware of having encountered White Nationalism a recent isms. In the arm forces. Here are my top level recommendations to deal with White Supremacy in the armed forces. It is very clear that these measures need strengthening. The military doesnt have a tattooed database for example that shows extreme tattoos. It doesnt have clear procedures to investigate social media accounts which is where you find most extremism nowadays. It might be wise to consider how the Online Activity of activeduty troops are monitored. The recent arrest of a coast guard lt. When all this kind of portable stuff online. It tells us what this could lead to if we are not paying attention. Military recruits to fill out questionnaires and asked whether theyve been a member of an organization dedicated to terrorism. This process provides are relies on Self Reporting. And how much of it is root verified. There is need for more enforcement procedures and data has already been mentioned by the Ranking Member. The regulations against racism and White Supremacy is generally strong but theyre not enforced, current regulations have penalties that are largely left up to commanders. There appears to be no process to track people. There is little data in the Public Domain and have know how serious this problem is. All of these are serious issues as well as it is unclear how information on extremism and one french that we shared with other branches, for the guard where the fdr. There needs to be mandatory reports every year about the levels of White Supremacy and military. It was house and met the intended ask questions about nationalism to military Climate Surveys that was dropped out of the act. I would suggest that this should be looked at again. The pentagon and investigatory taskforces in each branch should be looked at. How they look at it extremist networks and at what level Investigator Resources exist there. And the date it should be generated so that we know how serious the problem is rated there also loopholes in the regulations other kinds of extremist and one example our folks involved in the intake government militia movement. These are people who believe and work is the federal government are increasingly anti immigrant and muslim. Some of thesE Organizations and thousands of members and specifically try to recruit from the armed forces. So that is something i would suggest to be looked at. The military needs to report hate Crime Statistics to bpi. All need to be looked at. Its another piece of data that would be helpful for understanding these problems. There also is evidence that the existence of the extremist and the race is now contributing to worldwide terrorism. Emerson the most violent, have recruited veterans from the wars in iraq and afghanistan as well as active Duty Service Members in the military expertise is now being shared with white supremacist and other countries. I also want to say its very important that everybody in leadership speaks out against White Supremacy and the rights. This is a bipartisan issue. It has been for a long time. It should really be a nobrainer that this has to be done by everybody from a commanderinchief on down. So in closing, i want to just say that i agree with former joint chiefs chairman, there is no place for bigotry and racism in the u. S. Military or the United States as a whole. I hope the policy suggestions ive provided here and writing will bring us closer to eradicating these ideas from the ranks that are uncomfortable armed forces. It is been an honor to speak here. Thank you brenda. Thank you doctor. Next is another doctor. Good afternoon. Im a senior Research Fellow. It is an honor to appear before you today to impress the issue of White Supremacy in the u. S. Military. For decades and fight against hate and antisemitism and extremism in all forms by exposing extreme sports and individuals to spread hate and violence. Today adl is a foremost Governmental Authority and domestic terrorism, extremism, hate groups and hate crimes. The issue of extremism in the military is one extremism has had for years. We are the services about military members tied to exumas and provide assistance upon request to recruiters and investigators. And offer on extremism and related subjects. For example, adl provides annual training. In 2009, adl vote then secretary of defense, urging him to take measures to deal with whites from c c armed forces. The problem has only grown in urgency since then. And with this money would like to share in importance of context about the nature of extremism in the armed forces. Our active and reserve components are large enough, over 2 million men and women to reflect broader American Society and keyways. Including the presence. And each time point Supremacist Movement has surged in the u. S. And it is been mirrored by a increase within the armed forces. It happened during surgeries in the 1980s, the 1990s, and 2,822,011. Instead, it is happening again is the u. S. Is experiencing a surge in which the pharmacy propelled by the rise of the outright, we just brought many young newly radicalized white males into the whites of rumsey movement. This is aggravated by the spread of heat online. They charge the military anchors not only an increase in extremism, but also increases in crime and violence. Extreme is in the military have planned terrorist acts. Theyve engaged murders and crimes as stolen weapons and military equipment. They provided information to other extremist. The kind of search of the White Supremacy is no exception. Less than two weeks ago, coast guard and senate christopher was sentenced in federal court 13 years in prison in connection with the pods to commit domestic terrorism. Prosecutors described as inspired by racist murderers who intended to exact refereed duchenne on minorities and those to be considered traitors. Had Law Enforcement on him, we would now be counting the bodies of the defendants victims. Internet searches happen and they included where did congressman and senators when they were in dc. How to read the u. S. Of juice. And most liberal federal judges among others. And he wrote, i cant strike just a moment. I must find a way to deliver a blow that cannot be shaken up. Other extremism in the military in recent years have distributed information related to explosive of wmds, assault people during white supremacist that rallies and acquired bombs and expensive materials and use a firearm threatened members of obama. Even more have been exposed on white supremacist events joining you to miss groups distributing racist propaganda, and posting to white supremacist chat rooms and forums online. The prevalence of extremist and armed forces is dangerous to armed force. Full and harmful to the morale and effectiveness of our trips. It is a problem the military cannot afford to ignore. There experience is working with the services causes concern to policies and regulations and they are not always widely or uniformly implemented. Nor are key personnel always trained in a systematic fashion. We encourage you to work with the department of the services to ensure uniformity and clarity of regulation to provide proper training for those involved in recruitment, discipline and military justice on how to respond to evidence of extremism. We offer our expertise and experience to help the services tackle this issue including developing curricula, or training trainers events. Most importantly, we encourage all dod military leaders as well as you to speak out against hate. Setting an example is essential. We must protect the men and women who protect our nation. Thank you. Thank you doctor. Thank you chair woman. Thank you also much. My name is lisa rep. And the daughter a veteran of the korean war. Im the mother of a son who probably serves the u. S. Army for two tours. This issue is deeply personal to me. The White Nationalist movement in the United States is surging and presents a serious danger to our country and his institution. Including the u. S. Armed forces. Recent investigations have rebuilt dozens of veterans and activeduty service Service Members who are affiliated with White Nationalist activities. This is far from a new problem. In fact, they have been documenting White Nationalist and white supremacist infiltration of the military and urging officials to take action since 1986. In that year we wrote defense secretary when her and exposed that activeduty marines and cant were participating in military plan activities. In the summer of 2019, as mentioned was reported that the National Defense operation act was altered in u. S. Senate to remove the mention of White Nationalism and streaming process military and the seas. According to the 2019 holes was referenced by the military times 36 percent of activeduty active members who were surveyed reported seeing signs of wash nationalist recent in the u. S. Armed forces. In the same survey more than half of the servicemembers of color recorded experiencing racism or ideology. Number 55 White Nationalist have been reported pretty interested lt. Christopher paul payson for 49 yearold serving in the coast guard provide a recent example. They spent time in the marine corps and the Army National guard was recently sentenced to more than 13 years in prison. He explicitly identified as a White Nationalist and advocated for the establishment of a white ethnic state. Theyve identified dozens of former and active military personnel among the membership of some of the top dangerous White Supremacist Groups. They include the division. Members have allegedly responsible five murders since 2017. Brendan russell who launched in 2015, served in the florida Army National guard. After his roommate killed two other roommates were also members of this, police found exposing materials. A framed photo of army veteran and Oklahoma City bomber timothy mcveigh, which founded roughly was in his bedroom. He also possessed flyers the red, dont prepare for exams, prepare for resort. It appears russell joined in National Guard in order to receive the kind of things he would need to prepare for that potential went resort. Altogether investigation found Seven Members that served in the military. Because of their sophisticated weapons and expose of training, those members significantly increase the ribs potential to carry out deadly attacks. Russell has thats been sentenced to five years on charges related to the materials found in the department. In the prison, is attempted to send instructions for building explosives to another member of the neonazi group. Recent arrest of two trained soldiers run from the United States and one from the canada, along to a terrace White Nationalist group called the base, have heightened our fears there now for me military stuff. They have released a report highlighting the continuing presence of White Nationalism in the military and once again, reach out to as the department of defense to informant a zerotolerance policy on white super busy. And again in 2008 and into thousand nine, we wrote letters to the dod, urging investigations. Today they offer the following recommendations. One adopt and rigorously enforce zerotolerance policy on White Nationalist and across all branches of the military. Two requiring an reports the military leadership that includes an audit of all investigations and resolutions of White Nationalism. And white supremacist activities. Three, that once the region impacts the White Nationalism and some christmas is ideology for Offering Support Services that were to de radicalized activeDuty Service Members and veterans exposed to violent messages. We are to use the powers to fall from a strengths those that were marked the reputation and create work are dedicated u. S. Service members. Thank you. You must looks pretty thank you for your testimony. Its jarring to send a very list. It is very important wakeup call for all of us. Youve offered a number of recommendations. I would like to be be used lt. Hassan to the extent that we can that there is Public Information. Was that their social media. Maybe i should ask this to the next panel actually. Let me ask you this. We got the dark web. So individuals can write gravitate towards the dark web two engage in their social media if they are so inclined. How would you recommend this military do the kind of monitoring that is necessary. Doctor reed. Honestly, often times in social media accounts you dont have to go into a super secret. To find them. It is material that tends to be often times on everything from Facebook Accounts and twitter accounts or in places like searchable places. This process and that there arent areas of the web that are hidden. Hard to get to defines information. But people are shockingly open about their extremist views. It is a kind of material that should be easy for investigators or people talking to potential recruits, to verify. Especially their Self Reporting because are not involved in turns organizations are extremist organizations, you can find a lot of this material without too much difficulty worried i would advise that that seems like the first mechanism should be done. The workplace would do the same with employees. In this military signified lot. Anyone else. I agree with what my colleagues are saying. There is extremist material on the dark web but dark web is dark to extremists as well. It is easy for them to find other extremist materials. The regular internet. And partially there are many places in Conference Online from large mainstream social media platforms and other tech platforms to more obscure ones. When they can do that. A lot of this is actually accessible to people who want to investigate this. Or who want to monitor this. If theyre educated on where to look and what to look for. This is not necessarily a big problem. This is something that can be tackled to lease a certain degree. You each identified activeduty and former servicemembers in the ranks. Of extremist organizations. Are you able to distinguish how many are activeduty and how many are former. I dont have that listing. I could get that for you though. That would be helpful. Thank you. Anyone else have any comments on that. I was going to respond in the same way. It i can provide it for the record. It is also in my written testimony. In your estimation as you have sought to inform the military investigators of this information that you have uncovered, how have they responded. For the law center, this was one of my main areas of work rated i would say that starting in some of the time periods in 2006 and 2008, there was a reluctance on the part of the military to take these issues seriously. I remember at one point myself in some of my colleagues thought dozens and dozens of form pages of activeDuty Service Members from the website called neonazi website. And it showed that these people were praising hitler and using racial slurs and activeduty and something needed to be done in the military at the time, was a very responsive to argue about fire regulations only required members of the to greet be removed from the military was a change of 2009. The regulations were tightened up and strengthened. The question i think really this point, is thinks about loophole but like militia versus service. Anything that is sort of need to be blatantly racist toward versus hardcore and how it is enforced. Screening mechanisms enforcement and selective data. The public to know exactly what is happening. Thank you clooney of you like to respond. I would add continuous reporting. Not just an investigatory matter for something that happens consistently. But there is some way to monitor it regularly. You think there should be a by standard responsibility to report. I do. Our military is our shining star. We need to do everything that we can to ensure that it remains that way. I think that the health says that join mathilde military, it demands it. Yes. Thank you Ranking Member kelly. You can only swear to one cause. Youre either United States of america or whatever organization. Ive been the direct target of an assassination attempt by an extremist. Not for the same line but have been a direct target. But i tried to chew me from you to me. Turns to me in the chest other than he didnt like my political views and he did not know me. As a small issue, its easy. Unless you are the one that the small issue is over. Every Single Person who violates the oath, and allegiance to the United States of america into the military of america. They should be rooted out because they cant have an allegiance developed. I want to ask you what can we do in the current military to the train or change cultural ideas or issues to identify people for violating that oath and allegiance to our United States of america. What can we do to train them or change it. One of the axioms of finding extremism and terrorism is to if you see something, Say Something. So first we need to encourage people to Say Something when they see something. But the fact is we also have to get people educated eyes. We have to give them the training and the ability to be able to recognize signs whether they are online, those signs are from in the real world, manifestations. And of this sort of extremism. Military recruiters need initial entry trainers, administrators, Company Grade officers and noncommissioned officers need this training. Do folks need this training. So he established a foundation for people educated and what to look for, the signs and then our expectations clear regulations as well as expectations on how to report and how to investigating how to deal with problems that emerge then you are allowing people to see things and say things and do things. I join the military in the 80s. So ive seen significant culture change from the 80s and to today. Thirtyfour years and its gotten better every day. But there are places that its gotten worse and better. But i think what can we do like when someone exists excess jokes, it can lead to sexualharassment which can lead to such. Because it creates a culture that is okay. In the same thing when someone makes a racist joke or comment, it can lead to racism which leads to the extremist where you take that out in violent acts and all of those things. So my question is, how we better screen potential applicants how do we identify those in the ranks to get them out before they become to the extremist level. I just wanted to add this in social media issue is important training. Its absolutely important to set standards from the get go principle he comes into the military about what is expected and what is not. But i do think in addition to everything, there is the issue of how big or how dedicated the investigatory mechanisms are. In the military to look for exactly these problems. Especially when the escalate pretty training can be dealt with. You want to stop that immediately. Want to set standards but to find hardcore extremist, it is going to be a little more difficult. They may try to hide but they are up to. Its hard to know. And some of the press reports ive been reading about, in the past few weeks indicate that perhaps there are the investigatory mechanisms entering event information at the level of criminal Investigative Services across the agency that needs to be there. I would suggest that the done. A few more seconds left. I think, im talking to all dod and cross in all of the leaders from the t level into the four stars and commands of largE Organizations. We must not allow any of these things to take place when we see it wrong, we got it corrected on the spot. We have got to let people know that we wont tolerate this racism sexism or anything throughout the military. Thank you guys for being here today testifying on this very important matter. Thank you. Thank you. I come from a district of a large hispanic appellation makes up 40 percent of my constituents. This diversity is what makes our community rich i will continue to fight for all groups to have equal access to opportunities the right to serve and dignified environment. Lemme be clear, hateful ideology of any kind have no place in our military. This works, this past august Media Outlets reported the Master Sergeant in the air force was an active member of identity. One of the most visible neonazi and White Supremacist Organization in colorado. The air force released a statement saying the racism bigotry hatred and discrimination and a place in the air force. The Sergeant Reid remained in the air force. Only recently after facing intense pressure, did the air force decide to begin the process of removing him from the military. And that is a concern to me. Wouldnt you agree that this Diversity Initiative as well as morale and unit cohesion and could you elaborate. Think is much for the question youre absolutely right. It goes against what the armed forces are about. Let me say a little bit about identity. Youre very noxious group of White Nationalists that spread the very disinformation that we are talking about earlier. And its just far as Education Campaign to the things that we need to do to address these issues is to challenge this misinformation. White nationalists advocate for white ethnic state. They put forth conspiracy theories with respect to white genocide. The great replacement. It is nothing to be played with. If we allow this kind of noxious beliefs to continue as our diversity continues across the country, this is what were dealing with. He spoke to the diversity in your area in your district. The u. S. Is experiencing and a great demographic shift. And that is not playing well with a lot of white folk and so they are putting forward is false narrative that there is a white genocide. It is important and extremely important that we address this headon. Because it does undermine everything the military is all about. Thank you. Based on your expertise, i think one of the answer to this. Would you say the Service Issue should adopt this policy for personnel that are involved. Yes maam. First recommendation is that we adopt and rigorously of flight 80 tolerance policy. You can on the one hand, say that we dont stand for racism. Most and for it of any kind and then allow numbers to remain in the armed forces. Thank you pretty manager, i yield back. Pinky was holland partied. Thank you all for being here. I just wanted to turn to you first for a second. I think they do a tremendous amount of tracking and research. Have yall been sharing our how long has the relationship with the military been going on. Do you see it having changed over the past few years. The comment is sometimes made that the military just and take it seriously enough. Talk to us a little bit more about that. The military and the department of defense in particular has been very receptive as ive mentioned in my oral testimony is documented in that written testimony pretty goes back to 1986. And then secretary of defense weinberger was very receptive made a strong statement against white supremacist in the military. It sometimes shift over time. We recall secretary of defense, who thought the report was alarmist. The defense on who is in office. But we want to give up sharing the information that we have. Sharing the research because it is not important. Is an ongoing thing. Yes its an ongoing relationship. And with Law Enforcement, the research that we do with respect to hate and extremism. We do it so we can share with folks on the ground. The Law Enforcement on the ground. With our military leaders, leadership of any kind. We want to put a stop to this. We share it with people who can put a stop to this. Thats why we are so grateful to the subcommittee for holding the steering. We implore you in the congress to do something with the research that we have provided in addition to what the doctors have provided. The fact that i am talking about the research now and the doctor, you can trust it. Thank you. Im not sure if you mentioned this, one of you. Just talking about wanting the ideology. It was mentioned and there were support services to do that. What are we looking at. I didnt mention that. Currently no support services. Because the spread of White Supremacy or white supremacist ideology is so initiates. And people are so susceptible to these messages, we want to not only support people through it. We want to offer a way for people to recover from the hateful messages and violent messages that they might receive and believe. Often times were dealing with young recruits. Theyre just susceptible. We dont want to just throw people out, we want ways to like them. People, it takes a little bit of work to convince people this etiology. And it will take a little work to commence them is not true. In terms of having Trained Personnel who can deal with this. In an ongoing way. Suet i think the resources are there. I think there are resources within the armed forces to find the people who can help the military. I know that. Thank you. Also want to ask you little bit about what you see from our military leaders. There is young man who used graffiti and it turned out it wasnt quite what people thought. The superintendent of the academy use some very strong words to say if youre going to do this, get out of our military. And remember a number years ago around sexual assault, there happened to be an australian, i believe it was australian general who made similar comments and at that time, we thought that maybe our leaders arent given some of the goahead to make strong statements like that. Would you like to address that. Whether you think our military leaders are able to say things that are pretty strong. To tell people to get out of her military if this louisville. I would be happy to address that. I think the example that you brought up as an example of a leader who exhibited leadership and spoke up very forcefully on an issue that came up under his purview. We have seen that over the years with the military and issues related to this that leaders leave and one of the reasons is after world war ii, it occurred far more smoothly the loan people expected because from the top down, leaders lead in the spoke out in the lead expectations and under no certain terms they let people know whats going to happen. Some officers didnt like that. And they left the military. In a joint White Supremacist Groups and spoke out against segregation. They didnt do it in the military. Weve had examples of leadership in this regard recently related to this issue as well too. But the chief of staff spoke out after charlottesville. White supremacist event there. The death of the young activists there. Spoke out forcefully against peyton weiss primacy in extremism. Those are voices that we need to encourage and those of the voices we need more. Her military leadership is capable of being the voice. Thank you to the panel for being here to discuss this important issue today. You mentioned in your testimony recent military time revealed more than one third of respondents and more than half a minority responses semi personally witnessed examples of White Nationalism were ideologically driven racism within the ranks in the recent months. From the time of the poll was taken. We read that the dod policies regarding white supremacist and extremism activities must be clear and transparent. I will tear this dod policy. Its dated 2009 with revisions from 2012. This rapidly evolving in the use of social media and a means for spreading information rated their specific needs to two policy being almost a decade old. That you think merit updating or revisions by deity. To make this policy in fort enforceable or relevant. Yes. I think you also referenced herein testimony from the survey of military. I think you bring up a key issue that extremism constantly evolves. They must take to deal with it from the military side. A regulation, dates back to 1960s. Anywhere appended in the 80s and 90s and again when you mentioned it. But there are some specific things that we may want to look at. For example, White Supremacy today group in part because of the internet, you can be very active in the White Supremacist Movement without necessarily belonging to a specific group. If you look at our regulations, one of them refers to specific specifically to organize groups rather than abroad. It may be something that needs to be addressed. May also want to take a look at those regulations more comprehensively and holistically to see what from the start finish maybe you need to be rewritten to deal with modern circumstances rather than modifying whats in there. Thank you for the question. I would encourage military leaders to listen to their troops. The military time survey was about 1600 people they interviewed surveyed people in the military. They themselves said that they saw the whole surge of White Nationalism, White Supremacy being more are a greater threat to the homeland than foreign terrorism. Or immigration and combined. I would also point out that you referred to the incidents where servicemembers of color experience racist incidents and i think it is important to point out that they saw swastikas on military bases. They saw individuals so learning and using the salute with one another. There were kind of graffiti things that we find in that we wouldnt expect to find in the military. I completely agree with mcculloch that started late regulations need to be updated two. The important thing is that we take a serious standard. The desegregation of the armed forces, it was from the top to every Single Person in the military. They were saying or being on the same page. The needs to happen again when we are talking about White Supremacy and White Nationalism. There can be nothing else. Did you have anything further to out of the topic. One edition. I agree with taking a look at these constantly appended regulations. The fact of the matter is if they are not supplied, it is pointless. In this case in colorado where a person at acted duty service. It would be event based on the 1985 relation that weinberger put in place. So he was demoted a rank not removed from military service. If you dont follow through the whole process, is pointless. And so i would suggest not be looked at very seriously rated. Thank you. Thank you. I am very grateful that were having this discussion into our panelists, thank you very much for being here for sharing this Important Information with us. Jessica panel, i hope that everyone has an open mind. I represent El Paso Texas which was targeted last summer on august 3rd, we had a domestic terrorist who confessed to driving over 600 miles in ten hours because he said he wanted to essentially slaughter mexicans and immigrants and the hispanic invasion. And these are words that he repeated that we have heard from some of the most powerful leaders in the land. The same language used to describe members of my community by some of our elected officials. So this is i think a very important discussion and i think something that was mentioned earlier, we have to call this out. When we dont house, we essentially give it cover. And we give it cover, we give it life and power. And there is no greater testament to that than what happened in a passive texas on august 3rd. I want to and im going to open up this question to all three of our panelists. I want to first acknowledge that military leaders have to take steps to publicize their oppositions to the hatred and extremism this man displayed events like the 2017 unite the right rally ensures charlottesville, virginia. I applaud our military leaders are saying that those are not our values. However, i was deeply disappointed to see an individual nominated for the top personnel job at the department who had said dangerous and radical tolerance for multiculturalism in market would just essentially the foundation of who we are at the as a country. The patterson was a president ial appointment which he previously served as a Principal Deputy under secretary. Should we be concerned that someone who obviously was a president ial nominee but he was within the department of defense for many years and rose to through the ranks. What is the tell us that someone is able to ascend in this manner with these kinds of views about minorities and about america. I will just say that i think it is completely unacceptable. You cannot have somebody working in the department of defense involved with the pentagon who doesnt believe the bedrock principles about quality. And that is been sent from top generals and other officials for a very long time in the states regulations. So it just are not be the case if somebody who disagrees with that mission of our society, and how it is reflected in armed forces should be in any position of power. I would just like to say i share the grief that you felt it el paso. I grew up there. My family still lives in owosso. They started my bike to the place of the shooting occurred. And i think rep. Kelly made an excellent point when it talked about military being is diverse. 40 percent of our military personnel, are a minority racially. More than 50 percent of the services in our military recognizes over 200 religious faiths. We need leaders and civilian military leaders alike, appreciate and acknowledge in a support that diversity. Im adding my condolences as well. And to you. I think it shows us and reminds us that one person and i think the Ranking Member mentioned it, one person can do so much damage. That is why its so important for each of us to call it out each and every time. With that very limited time that i have, you mentioned screening mechanisms. It could you give us an example of one of those days that we can do tangible. I think one of the most important things is what happens with recruits when they come into this estate selfreport with their accurate activities have been. It is not very detailed. Have you been part of a Domestic Terrorist Organization or something along those lines. I think the question should be deeper. There should be more about peoples racial views. Religion and ethnicit and peoplg into the military report with your social media accounts look like in the be verified. Whether its intervened at that point or to simply say this is not acceptable situation. So those of the kind of things that i would look at. And military climates should include climates or questions about these issues as proposed for the house in this last Defense Authorization act and the downright operated apples now three years in a row, which of these horrifying numbers and how many people have seen White Nationalism extremism in the military are standing for that. In the military should be collecting that information. With a 2017 military times poll, if the numbers are accurate, the full amount of activeduty troops was about one point 3m, 325,000 people in the armed forces had seen White Nationalism or aces him. Thats a pretty extraordinary number and getting the numbers as they just pointed out, the whole of minority troops, trips of color who are suffering under the situation and frankly it would be a hostile Work Environment if it were in the civilian world. Its a serious matter and data is needed. And then data it needs to be addressed. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you madame chairwoman. Thanks to our panel for being here today. How can the Department Better prepare Service Members princes of White Nationalists groups attempting to recruit them. Could they benefit from Something Like Counter Intelligence training. I know you had mentioned a lot of that is done over the internet now. Another big love there and how do we train troops. Is there a way of training them to recognize when theyre being recruited to the specific groups and how do we prevent that. I think that is it really interesting question. I think we formed our military personnel but the number of different dangers and issues including bills online. The services all have social media policies that warn them about scams and ulcers of dangerous that they might encounter online. It is possible to warn them to look for some of the signs that maybe they have been targeted by Industry Group that is providing them with false narratives or trying to indoctrinate them. Trying to radicalized them. I mean, its not as though there arent primers out there about the symbols of White Nationalism, some of the main groups. This is all information that can be shared that commanders could be trained on. You know, ive found that there are just some missing issues, that theres no tattoo database in the military used to identify these things, and as a result, investigators or arent trained on what these symbols are. In the case of this group that had an active duty guardsman in it, he had a that the too of his very scary neoa nazi E Organization on his arm, and nobody knew what it was about. So i think theres a whole lot of investigation on the investigatory level, on the recruitment level and then on the troops in general, on signs to hook out for white to look out for, because White Supremacists are absolutely trying to recruit them. And i completely agree. I would add that we really all need to talk about it. It needs to be okay to talk about it. I would imagine that conversations happened, again, referencing the desegregation of the armed forces, people talked about how to manage it and handle peoples concerns and anxieties, and we need to approach this, i think, in the same way. Once we to that and weve established some do that and weve established some mechanisms to train and educate9 folks, then we can demand a zero tolerance policy and offer support services to those who are not able to meet the mission. According to an article in propublica in 2018, a violent neonazi group tied to a bomb plot, at least some of their members were serving in the u. S. Armed forces, and you just stated that, how high is the focus of military leadership on eliminating White Supremacy from our military ranks . My other question too is why havent we put these groups in the ucmj, outlawing them in the ucmj . Well, its a very good question, and its hard to know how to answer what youre saying. The only data that i could find is that about 25 troops, not all of them White Supremacists, were removed in a fifeyear fiveyear period for extremist ties. I think those numbers are ridiculously low. Just in the testimonies that we have written for you all here, all of us, weve documented more than that in the last year. So i think that theres a big problem here in trying to figure out how many investigations go on of this, who is identifying extremists, how is this being reported. There is supposedly a report the pentagon does every year on White Supremacy in the military. Is that happening . Its very hard to answer your question because theres no transa parent city and no data. Transparency and no data. Go ahead, sir. I would just like to agree that without being alarmist about the nature of the problem, there is a problem about White Supremacy in the military, but our military leadership may not realize the full extent of it simply because the data and the transparency is not there. All right. With that, im out of time. Thank you very much and i yield back. I thank the gentleman. Now we will hear from the gentleman from maryland. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to weigh in on the committee today, thank the members of the subcommittee for your work. You wrestle with some of the thorniest issues that Face Congress in the house Armed Services committee. Ms. Brooks, i think youre right, we should listen to our soldiers. There are a lot of ways that the military can, commanders in the chain of command, officers, inspector generals, jag officers, chaplains and also Climate Surveys. And there, you mentioned in your and, doctor, you mentioned in your testimony about the watering down of a to vision in the nda that was offered by the house. I was the lead author and joined by a number of my colleagues. These hearings are often an opportunity for us to really establish the record that supports what were trying to accomplish in the nda. And that amendment, it was very specific. It said that the secretary of defense will include or shall include in the workplace an equal opportunity command if climate add med by the administered [inaudible] questions regarding whether responsibilities, if ever, experienced or witnessed in the workplace supremacist activity, extremist activity or racism. It probably also should include antisemitism and whether you reported activity described in paragraph one. It was watered down to include extremist activities. And i think, ms. Brooks, in your written testimony you pointed out how in the screening procedures that too is worded down. Somewhere between the house and coming through conference, someone, somebody, somE Organization is, has an aversion to the use of either White Supremacy or supremacist activity in the ndaa, and it gets watered down. So could you please make the strongest argument why whether its in screening or whether its in the survey we have to be specific . Well, let me just say aside from the danger to the troops themselves, especially troops of color and thank you for pursuing this issue, because i think its critically important the biggest problem is that White Supremacy is distinct from other forms of extremism, and it is deadly to the United States. Weve had far too many former soldiers Timothy Mcveighs best known, but eric rudolph, who bombed the olympics in 96, and many other soldiers who have been involved in serious domestic terrorist attacks were people who shared that particular point of view are. And those people then are coming out of the military and joining up with groups like the base that was mentioned here, autumn [inaudible] and theyre a threat to the American Public, and theyre a threat to people overseas. Anywhere White Supremacy is functioning, anywhere our troops are if theyre involved in these these issues. And White Supremacy is a distinct problem. Its also ending now to the United States. I dont think we shouldfect this, right . Its born and bred out of our history, and it needs to be tackled. The armed forces have been a shining light in calling this out, so we should be specific. We need to know are people around you have white supremacist views, White Nationalist ideas, what are you seeing . This is really critical information to stop domestic terrorism, hate crimes, all kinds of violence. Thank you so much, i appreciate your effort as well. I would point to your colleagues in congress back to the joint resolution that was passed unanimously postcharlottesville. And in there they rejected and they named it, White Nationalism, white principle city, neonaziism. Its hateful expressions of intolerance that are a contradiction to the values that define the people of the United States. If we we cannot just say these things postcrisis or postmassacre. We have to be about trying to thwart these attempts every day. Because as d. Beirich said, its a clear and present danger. Our history shows it, and we will continue to repeat it until we face it head on. White principle city is just that serious. [inaudible] id like to just can one last question. The base as an organization had an intention to derail some trains, kill some people, poison some water supplies. What do you know about the base . And do we have representatives here in the United States that associate with that organization . I know the leader appears to be in russia, but what do we know about well, from the arrest that you mentioned in your opening remarks, we know that we have members of the base here in the United States which i should just point out the name itself is a translation of alqaeda. So it shows you that theres this symbiosis in terms of dangerous, dangerous threats. And, yes, they have a violent, violent the list of what theyve billion arrested for is very scary including murdering people. And there are, you know, probably certain dozens of members of this organization in the United States and also abroad. What was interesting in that case was there was a member of the Canadian Military who was also arrested. So it shows that this is an international problem, and its run out of russia, right . Which is a red flag as well. So its a serious, its a serious matter. All right, thank you. Any other comments . Dr. Pitcavage . I think one thing thats worth pointing out about the base is that it is part of a new wave of White Supremacist Group that are called accelerationist groups. And accelerationists are extreme in a very unique way. They believe that there arent simply that present society is not redeemable. They cant shape it into the whitedominated or whiteonly society that they soak. That the only that they seek. The only thing they can do is actually destroy our society and then build something new from the ashes. And so accelerationists believe that any sort of violence, anything that will destabilize the system, even senseless violence is, you know, is actually good if itll help bring down the system that they so want to destroy and replace. And, you know, groups like that, that, you know, are particularly dangerous and are particularly liable to engage in violent acts. Anything further in all right. Any finish. No, maam. I want to, again, thank you all for your testimony this afternoon. It was very enlightening. Well now take a short recess and switch out to our second panel. More from the hearing on white principle city incidents in the military supremacy innocents in the military. Okay. The hearing will come to order once again. Id like to welcome our second panel. We are joined by mr. Garry reid, director for defense intelligence, office of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. And stephanie miller, director of expressions policy, office of the secretary of defense for personnel and readiness. Mr. Joe ethridge, chief criminal intelligence division, and mr. Christopher mcmahon, executive assistant director, National Security directorate the naval criminal Investigative Services, and finally, mr. Robert grabosky, u. S. Air force, office of special investigations. Mr. Reid, well begin with you. Thank you, madam chair and Ranking Member. On behalf of the entire team here, i would just like to convey our appreciation for your time and interest and for the committees support to the department in getting at this problem. If you would allow, madam chair, i represent the Background Investigation piece of this process, and in a logical order, i would like ms. Miller to begin, and then i will come back and do it because its the front end on the session x then well go through to the military departments. Thank you. Appropriate. Ms. Miller . [inaudible] good afternoon, madam chair, Ranking Member tully and members of the subcommittee. My name is stephanie miller, director under the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. I am pleased to provide testimony on this important issue, and i want to take a moment to thank the members of the first panel for their knowledge and expertise in this area which the department truly does value. I am responsible for the oversight of all matters pertaining to the recruitment of both officers and end listed personnel. I am responsible for establishing policy and recruitment matters, overseeing the establishment and adherence to enlistment standards, providing oversight of resources, managing the process and other matters relating to the general sustainment of the allvolunteer force each year the department recruits approximately 400,000 applicants for mill service of which approximately 2550,000 250,000 actually contract into the allvolunteer force. Representatives of the nation they will serve. And while todays economy has brought challenges, the department has been steadfast that the services should and will adhere to our established policies and only enlist officer and enlisted candidates that actually meet our high standards. The life cycle of military personnel from a sessions processing to separation is a complex process which is constantly involving based on best practices and newlylearned information. The beginning of the life cycle starts undergoing a though row screening process to insure that they meet the high standards. This multitiered screening process uses the tools available, and we believe we have been effective at screening for individuals that have exist ideologies extremist ideologies. For example, the department has recently launched a centralized screening capability that vets all to identify and resolve questions of allegiance. And its proven successful in identifying unique information not only available solely from the standardized Background Investigation form the sf8ing 6. Recruiters play a crucial role. Each applicant is interviewed by a recruiter to obtain as much information and documentation as possible about the individuals qualifications for military service. At our military entrance processing statements, applicants undergo background searches of Law Enforcement and other records. Applicants answer questions about any involvement with Law Enforcement agencies including arrests, charges, citations, parole or probation, detention and any other form of potentially adverse adjudication regardless of the outcome. Furthermore, all applicants provide a preliminary view of the history of any involvement with Law Enforcement including the federal bureau of investigation. Subsequent background checks screening recruits for extremist tries including criminal history terrorists and subversive activities checks and a ve you of the gang file. Upon entry into the Armed Services, the department of the military Services Expect individual share a responsibility to insure that members are afforded the opportunity to serve with dignity and respect in a very inclues weve environment. The departments overarching guidance is clear that military personnel must reject active participation supremacist or gang criminal doctrine, ideology or causes including those that advocate illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion,est misty or National Origin or those that advocate the use of force, violence for criminal activity or otherwise advance or deprive individuals of their Civil Liberties. The department continues to work with the services and other agencies to provide commanders and senior military leaders the tools that they need to keep informed about the activities it is or adverse behaviors of Service Members. Commanders, working with Key Stakeholders such as the Service Criminal investigative offices, are split to take appropriate action when warranted. We are gaining additional insight through Service Members through the deployment of new technologies and have explored additional testing and screening techniques that assess a range of dimensions to identify applicants who best fit with the militarys culture of treating all personnel with dignity and respect. In conjunction with more these tools can be utilized as part of a wholeperson screening process and tell us a great deal about the likelihood of successfully completing initial training and the ability of that individual to adapt to the rules, regulations and requirements of military culture. Dod remains committed to insuring that all personnel are treated with dignity and respect in an includes f environment free from maltreatment. This effort is accomplished while keeping each persons Civil Liberties intact, and while this is not always an easy endeavor, it is critical to protect those Service Members who are sworn to protect the country. Madam chairwoman, i look forward to answering your questions and appreciate you offering this opportunity to discuss this very important everybody shoe. Thank you, ms. Miller. Mr. Reid . Thank you, madam chair, Ranking Member kelly. Again, i thank you for the opportunity to testify on my overright of possessor oversight of personnel Security Policy and the steps we take to develop and sustain a total work force that embodies our values as americans. I will focus my opening remarks on Background Investigations, Insider Threat programs and continuous evaluation as these are the primary authorities and capabilities we employ to identify persons with extremist ideologies and deny them the opportunity to serve in the department of defense. Where indicated, we also insure they are investigated for any policy violations or criminal behaviors and are held accountable for their actions. Once a person has been selected for military service, the Department Initiates a comprehensive balled investigation. Background investigation. All applicants must complete the questionnaire for National Security petitions published if by the office of Personnel Management as standard form 86 or the sf86. All military applicants, regardless of job code, must pass a rigorous Background Investigation. That significantly exceeds the basic standard applied to many nonmilitary persons that enter public service. This is a choice made by the department of defense in recognition that there is a high level of public trust in our military that necessitates a strong commitment to insuring persons with criminal, extremist or other undesirable characteristics are not allowed to serve in our ranks. Applicants are asked probing and detail questions about their detailed questions about their personal conduct, job history, encounters with Law Enforcement, drug use, credit, foreign travel and associations with organizations dedicated to terrorism, use of violence to overthrow the u. S. Government and the commission of acts of force or violence to discourage others if exercising their constitution from exercising their constitutional rights. Supplement and enrich the selfreporting data on the sf86 with information provided by former educators, employers, coworkers and neighbors of the applicants. Investigators check federal and state Law Enforcement databases for criminal history and review public records, credit reports and if other automated data sources. Where needed, investigators initiate additional checks including personal interviews. This information is aggregated in a proreport of investigation and submitted in a report of investigation and submitted to a certified add jude cater who assesses overall ability for military service. Against the 13 federal adjudicative guidelines. Of the guidelines, personnel conduct, criminal conduct and allegiance to the United States are the primary criteria used to vet personnel that exhibit any extreme behaviors. Finish while cases with allegiance are uncommon, overall these three guidelines combine for almost half of the denials for military personnel x. Keeping in mind the prior screening ms. Miller described happens in front of this. Youve already narrowed down to a more selective population by the time we run this. Applicants with favorable Background Investigation results are subject to two sets of monitoring procedures throughout their military service. Each of our military departments manage their own Insider Threat programs that serve as a conduit for reporting behaviors of concern that are observable in the workplace. All dod personnel are mandated to report such behavior against reporting thresholds for Insider Threat that are similar but not identical to the federal adjudicative guidelines. The dod component Insider Threat hubs provide reporting to a central dod Insider Threat center led by our defense counterintelligence and security agency. Finish presently, all dod personnel are covered by at least one of the 43 Insider Threat hubs distributed across the department and reporting of suspicious or alerting behaviors is steadily increase aring. Any behavior that crosses an established threshold is assessed and acted upon by Insider Threat hubs, the chain of command or security managers within the owning component. In addition to monitoring for Insider Threat behaviors at the component level, the Department Also conducts a continue toous evaluation Continuous Evaluation Program at the dod level. Presently, 1. 9 people are enrolled in our continue toous evaluation system, and the department has plans to enroll the full population by october 2021. Continuous evaluation complements Insider Threat reporting by providing data from outside the department with automated monitoring of multiple government, commercial and public data sources for indicators of behavior that violate standards of conduct. When alerts from continuous Evaluation Data sources indicate unacceptable behavior, the responsible security manager submits an incident report that is reviewed by the chain of command and the dods central adjudication facility. If appropriate, it can be referred to a Law Enforcement or counterintelligence investigation. If indicated, the subject can be ultimately removed from eligibility to hold position and processed for separation from military service. Madam chair, ill just close by highlighting that this is a dynamic process that is always in a state of improvement. As some members know and weve briefed here and supported by congress, the government is in the process of adding additional controls in the, what we call the personnel vetting enterprise moving to a continuous vetting model across the entire government so everything ive described to you will continue to be refined and inare riched to where enriched to where we have the greatest degree of awareness of where where threats are across the department including those posed by those with extremist attitudes. Thank you for your time, and i look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Reid. Mr. Ethridge. Good afternoon, chairwoman speier, Ranking Member kelly and members of the subcommittee. I am chief of the criminal intelligence division, Army Criminal investigation command. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony on the important issue of raciallymotivated extremist threat. As the chief of cids intelligence division, im responsible for identifying and assessing criminal threats confronting the army and assisting in developing courses of action to prevent or mitigate. The cid identifies soldiers suspected of participating in extremist activities in multiple ways to include chain of command reporting, local police, the media, publicfacing social media searches, tipline reports and fbi domestic terrorism investigative reporting. We evaluate these reports to identify supporting facts. The majority of the soldiers identified as participating to some extent this extremist activities are not subjects of criminal investigations. The more common scenario is participation in an online forum that might be expressing extremist or supremacist views. In these instances cid notifies commanders via information report for action in accordance with army policy. Commanders have the authority to counsel, train and take disciplinary action to preserve good order and discipline in the unit. Additionally, cid notifies that dod consolidated adjudication facility and the intelligence is is intelligence and security command or personnel security adjudication. The cid initiates investigations when indications or allegations of a crime are present. In early 2019, cid observed a small increase in criminal investigations initiated with soldier participation in extremist activities as a component. Specifically, there were seven criminal investigations initiate with an extremist activity component in 2019 in comparison to an average of 2. 4 per year in the fy2014 to 2018 period. This up colludes soldiers from all includes soldiers from all components, active duty, National Guard and the army reserve. During the same time period, the federal bureau of invest notified cid of an increase in domestic terrorism investigations with soldiers or former soldiers as suspects. The fbi reporting also clearly stated that extremist organizations were actively seeking veteran skills. In may 2019 the Provost Marshal general of the army and i briefed the vice chief of staff of the army and members of the army staff on the cid and fbi observations. The vice chief of staff of the army directed the formation of a working group to review current policies and proceed yours to prevent procedures to prevent and address extremism in the ranks, recommending several adjustments to the army policy for soldier or participation in extremist activities stipulated in Army Regulation 60020, thats army command policy. The revision of ar60020 is scheduled for release in the Second Quarter of this year. Internally, cid expanded its liaison relationship with the fbi traditionally centered on the National Joint Terrorism Task force and the National Gang Intelligence Center into the fbis domestic terrorism operations unit. In summary, over the past year cid has increased collection efforts, informed our leadership of our observations, participated in the review and changes to army policy, expanded our relationship with Law Enforcement partners and made notification to commanders. Additionally, cid has formulated a request to the Army Inspector general to add unit implementation of extremist Activity Policy that is encapsulated in ar60020 as a focus area for the next inspection seeking for armywide inspector yen inspections. The army is postured to identify extremist activity in the ranks and has both policy and the leadership tools to prevent emergence as a pervasive issue. Madam chairwoman, i am happy to answer any questions you or the members of the subcommittee may have at this time. Thank you, mr. Ethridge. Mr. Mcmahon. Good afternoon, chairwoman, Ranking Member and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on extremism in the military. I am christopher mcmahon, the executive assistant director of the National Security directorate9 for the naval criminal investigative service, ncis. I am pleased to provide testimony on this topic. As executive assistant director of the National Security directorate, i lead our investigations and operations confronting the intelligence and terrorism threats posed to the department of navy personnel, assets and technologies. My team also addresses all force protection issues affecting the United States navy and the United States marine corps to include ship visits and static forces support. The naval Investigative Services is currently conducting several investigations affecting the personnel in or associated with the department of the navy. These investigations receive immediate priority attention. Our highly skilled civilian federal Law Enforcement professional use all available resources to address these matters. Working with the military investigations experience an increase in the number of domestic extremismrelated reports from the federal bureau of investigation involving department of defense affiliated personnel. In response to these referrell ands to more accurately reflect the scope of these incidents, nciss has established the unique case category domestic terrorism for operational reporting purposes. Ncis generally defines domestic terrorism as perpetrated by individuals and groups inspired by or associated with primarily u. S. Based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial or environmental nature. Ncs investigates crimes associated with domestic extremist organizations when there is an apparent federal violation and an active Service Member or Current Department of the Navy Civilian employee who has expressed an aspiration to further the identified violent ideology by threats, acts of violence or other enabling criminal activity. For instances in which a crime is suspected, a general Crimes Investigation with the ncis for the crime is initiated. Ncis does not pursue investigations of the department of the navy affiliated individuals who simply make statements indicating they share the beliefs or a subset of beliefs held by domestic Extremist Groups unless information exists indicating their activities meet this threshold. An investigation, where it is determines crimed determined crimes are not evident, administrative action deemed appropriate by the command involved. In conclusion, the predication for domestic terrorism investigations typically comes from command complaints, other Investigative Agency referrals or tips. For example, ncis main takes formal informationsharing agreements with the fbi on there terrorism matters. These same well established channels involving act weve Duty Service Members or Current Department of the navy employees. Thank you, and i look forward to your questions. All right, thank you. Mr. Bra boss sky. Grabosky. Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you on this topic. As the Deputy Director for Law Enforcement Strategic Programs and Requirements Division Headquarters Air forces office of special investigations, i help oversee policy, training and resources necessary to guide major criminal investigations in the department of the air force. Ofi has agents assigned to over 250 locations around the world to include 22 locations with the joint Terrorism Task force e end gamed in collaborative efforts with other federal Law Enforcement partners on matters of mutual concern such as matters involving domestic extremism. Pertaining to the topic of possible White Supremacists within the ranks of the military, department of air force are very concerned with early yiftion identification, affecting good order and discipline within our air and pace forces. In fact space forces. In fact, theres a written punitive policy pertaining specifically to participation in extremist activities, stating personnel must reject activity in criminal gangs and other organizations that, among other things, advocate supremacists, extremists, gang doctrine ideology or causes. Military members who violation are subject to article 92 under the uniform code of military justice. It is important to note that the air force policy dictates mere membership in thE Organization is not prohibited. Osi has investigative responsibility to investigate these matters where military members are suspected of active participation in extremist or supremacy groups prohibited by the air force instructions. Since september 30, 2019, osi received about nine reported incidents involving possible supremacy activity of air force members. These incidents came to our attention in various ways. Osi opened ought investigation and referred one incident to Security Forces for further investigation. Out of the eight osi investigations, only one involved act weve participation by the member active participation by the member. One incident was disproven, and the remaining since involved inappropriate or racially unsensitive the comments or online postings. For the one active participation incident, the accused command administer administrative action. And as an impartial independent Investigative Agency, osi does not make recommendations on punitive or administrative actions. Osi cannot do more than 2500 conducted more than 2500 criminal investigations in 2019, most involving some form of data exmoyation such as extraction of information from cell phones, other personal computer devices or reviews of social media applications. Our Law Enforcement data activities over the past year of thousands of devices and social media accounts have not resulted in identifying additional activity within our air and space forces. Even though the amount of extremist incidents for department of the air force remain small, osi remains vigilant to identify and quickly resolve matters involving possible extremist activity affecting good order and discipline within our area. I thank you for the opportunity to provide insight, and i look forward to providing Additional Information as this hearing continues. Thank you. All right, thank you. Let me start with you, mr. Mcmahon. In your statement you make the statement ncis does not pursue investigations of department of navyaffiliated individuals who imply make statements indicating they share the beliefs of a subset of the beliefs held by domestic Extremist Groups. So if i say im a racist, im not going to be invested, im not investigated, im not going to be evaluated to whether or not i should be kicked out . Madam, maam, that is so we, nci s, would not actually conduct an investigation. We would refer that back to the command of the member who is a member of of that command. So we would refer that member back to the command, provide the command that information that we have daneed and any gained in any sort of manner and allow the command to take care of them in the appropriate manner. All right. Mr. Grabosky, you said specifically that mere membership in thE Organizations is not prohibited. But if you have a tattoo of that organization, that would be actionable . Chairwoman speier, mere participation is not something that to osi actually investigates. We actually investigate the active participation of a member. Theres many avenues within the military including command or equal opportunity offices that conduct investigations of viewpoints of individuals. If it does not rise to the level of a felony investigation of active participation, we do not get involved okay. Youre missing my point. Sorry. Youre saying active participation equals Something Like a tattoo, but active participation does not equal being a member of one of these extremist organizations. And i find that asson thishing. According to astonishing. According to air force policy right now, participation is attending rallies, fundraising for them or actually being part of thE Organization and actively involved in it. But if youre a member, thats a level of activity. I think we need to look at that. Ms. Holland had referenced an air force individual who was not dismissed or discharged. Can you explain to us why . The information received to us of being part of an extremist organization, we opened an investigation, we produced a report and we provided it to command, and command took action. As i said in my statement, osi does not get involved in determining punishments. That is in the legal realm o. United States Air Force and the invest e agency is not involved in that process of making a decision. Finish. And in your experience, have you found that when you have completed your investigations and referred them back to the command, are you ever made aware of whether or not they take action in. Yes. If it rises to level of administrative action, we get an afteraction report that we have to update our files with. And do you convey that to the fbi . If it rises to the level for criminal indexing, yes. All our investigations are, abide by criminal indexing of convictions. In this ministry or in this incidence, i believe you with received a morive punishment which does not get reported to the fbi as a criminal conviction. Can you explain to us, so in this case he remains in the military. He add had nonjudicial punishment it sounds like, is that correct . I believe he received a letter of reprimand. It was a letter of reprimand. Correct, maam. So no action taken regarding rank, pay, anything like that . He received an administrative reduction in rank by one rank in conjunction with the her of reprimand letter of reprimand. I am ware of that. And you remind us again what he was actually engaged in . He was a active participant of [inaudible] is so hes an active participant in this he was fundraising. He was fundraising for this organization, and hes still in the military. In. As i a said, maam, thats decisions that are beyond the i realize that. My disbelief is not something that should be registered to you, but to his command. But im astonished by it. Because i think, i think the potential for macing our Service Members for placing our Service Members at risk is so great. In your, in the cases that you have any of you can answer this if you would like that youve investigated, how many of them come to your attention because of a bystander . Another Service Member who alerts you to it. Maam, i cant give you a specific count, but majority . Tipline, i wouldnt, i wouldnt say it was a majority, but a common way for us to receive complaint complaints is through the tipline process. We have an automated tip line. Normally that is the source of those tips is a, is a fellow soldier or a family member. Is that the case for all of you . Mr. Mcmahon . Maam, all of the 14 ongoing investigations we are doing, we are in the process of investigating right now have all come to us via the fbi. So were working in partnership with the fbi. At this time we havent had one complaint come forward off of our tips line regarding raciallymotivated groups. I have exceeded my time, so ill come back for a second round. Ranking member kelly. Thank you, madam chair. I want to talk to you two, because you were the guys who have the authority to do something. And it amazes me, i just completed a course last week x theres a book great new work, we had to read that. But in it it talks about the 1934 oss which is the precursor of the cia sabotage manual for germany written by william donovan, and it was the field manual. It said insist on doing everything through channels, never permit shortcuts to be taken, make speeches, talk as frequently as possible, illustrate your point. When possible, refer all matters to committees, make committees as large as possible, perhaps more than five. Bring up irrelevant are issues as frequently as possible, haggle over wording and details. You guys are department of defense, okay in the Climate Survey that weve talked about, weve got a great secretary of defense. Secretary esper is outstanding, and hes a business guy, he gets this. Why dont we write in the Climate Survey and and the question that we want . You dont need Congressional Authority to do that, i dont think. I think you can write in the exact questions that you want. I think you can put in how you or one of your counterparts, can written in the exact questions. And it doesnt just need to be White Supremacy, because we have to identify what it is. In specifics. If its White Supremacy or we cant use the word extreme em. But if its something other than white principle city, we cant use the word extreme em. We have to use the is specific word. So you can write into a Climate Survey to find out what it is. The second thing is, is the actions these guys cant do anything. They are bound by, they dont have the authority to prosecute or to say this shall result in this. But at the dod level, at the Department Head level somewhere to have the Authority Without Congressional Authority to say if youre found as an active, pass i, any other member in this passoff, any other member in this organization, you shall be removed from service, or you shall be reduced in rank, or you shall be criminally charged. I just ask that sometimes i think we get a big bureaucracy. You ought to go read that oss hill manual. And youll go, holy cow, that sounds 90 of businesses today and our government and organizations. If weve got to get away from that. Ask i think you guys can to that. So that being said, what recommendations can you make for us to root out white principle is city or any other type of extremism . What can we do better to cope em out and to identify em and get em out . Yes, sir. And i certainly appreciate your comments. The responsibility to incorporate the requirement boo Climate Surveys is within the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. I am part of the personnel and raeness team, and so i understand that our colleagues who are experts with respect to our Climate Surveys are in the active effort right now research and determine the best way to ask those questions to glean the most information possible. And so they are actively engaged, and we can provide an update on that work to the committee on they are efforts in that regard. We do have, certainly, surveys and, of course, work force opportunity surveys that do ask questions about a racist and Extremist Group experience that they may be knowledgeable about or hate crime incidents. And we do have collect day on that and have done for a number of years. The data we have is slightly different from the military times poll, and so we want to take into account the information that they have collected . Let me, i mean, i understand that. But what weve got to do is we know things we need to know right now. We can get the answer in the perfect wording or they can write a policy which answers the question and get specific. And, guess what . We dont have to put have you experienced any type of terrorism, racism and put it down there and say please write in. That may be a more effective way because then we get that they really think it is. I think we have to execute, because if not, were relying on outside data which is the best that we have right now. But you have the capability through command and control to ask the question that gets us the data so we can make specific decisions to get it better. And my times about to run out, but i thank you guys. I think were doing a lot of things right, but i think you can get the specifics without waiting for Congressional Authority. Thank you all for what you do and for being here. And especially my Law Enforcement guys, former dia, i yield back. Ms. Dais. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. And i know that several of you as an northbound traffickive services Investigative Services mentioned your work and the importance really of having, of having the terrorists and subversive checks. But im wondering, can you give us some, some more understanding of what happens after youve picked up something that concerns you, you toss that over to the fbi . Or it sounds like a lot of things come to you from the fbi. So how does that work . What is it that really triggers concern and what doesnt . Maam, ill take the lead on this up one. This one. When the fbi refers manager generally to us, thats kind of how it flows back. If theres somebody attached specifically for myself the navy or the marine corps, the fbi referred that back to ncis to work the investigation collaboratively. At that point in time, usually what triggers that is either some Online Activity that basically they find somebody online they can actually identify that that person is associated with the navy or the marine corps and that they have potentially talked about being able to procure weapons or take some sort of action. And so they refer that back to us, and we work that chabra tufly with the fbi looking to, you know, continue the investigation,ing monitor the activity. Not just online, but holistically during the investigation. And then also look for any other sort of ties they might have to other vims within the military to make sure were kind of rooting out any additional problems that might exist. Can you share our is it more usual that there are a number of people involved, or this is sort of a loaner . Is it possible to . Again, im going off limited data, as was talked about in the earlier panel, with the 14 investigations that we have specifically focus on domestic terrorism, its a little bit of a mixed bag. There are, there are a few investigations that have indicated one or two other members that are in communication. But quite often theyre involved in a group that the other members are not current military, potentially maybe foreign military. Currently a lot of times theyre just in communication with people that are espousing the same viewpoints. Mr. Ethridge, did you want to comment on that . Okay, thats fine. Thank you. Before the marines united scandal, its my understanding we certainly didnt check peoples social media when they were being recruited, is that correct . Or were you looking at social media at that time . So i can answer that, maam. So right now social media checks are not a part of the recruiting process. That is an element that we are working in collaboration with our colleagues in the Intelligence Community to determine how best to potentially incorporate that requirement are. When that happened, i was shocked, actually, that you didnt do that. Because certainly as members, you know, even within our offices, thats something that people talk about. Often people are very are aware that, you know, we can them to show us some of, you know, to show us, would they mind sharing that information. So how do we, if were not checking that at recruitment, isnt that a real gap . Right now the recruiting process is a multitiered approach starting with the recruiter who cans a number of questions during the asks a number of questions. We also do the fbi check that i had mentioned before with the fingerprint check. And then we, once we have that information and the individual appears to be suitable for military service if theyred, then they fill out that sf86 form that initiates the background process. And then intelligence then takes it from there, and they can to additional work beyond what we have done beyond an internal entry level. And and once they sign that sf86 for the past three and a half years its been written in that form that they are granting consent to limited, say limited social media p monitoring. It has to be publiclyfacing. We cannot go behind passwords, we cannot look in private chat rooms, etc. Finish we dont do that on stale for every welcomed investigation right now. Background investigate right now. We have the ability to do it if there are investigative leads that come through the process i described. We would like to do it on scale for everybody all of the time. We are still developing the right too manies. Theres pit palfalls here. Theres false information online. We understand theres use of handles and avatars. But earlier on you mentioned our work with the people in the office of analytic, the Personnel Research center. Were in the midst of yet another pilot to figure out how to do this. There is great returns on personal conduct and some on allegiance making disparaging remarks with youre in private. And so we see prom there. Our promise there. Our investigate i friends can to this when we have heeds and things we really need to get into in terms of a screening protocol. We havent found the right Success Model yet, but we have the ability to do it if we need to. Do you need help from congress to do that . I dont think so. I knew you would ask [laughter] we have well, no, youve given us the authority. And Insider Threat, by the way, you know, for the last three ndaa weve gained more scope of Insider Threat. Its a great tool. The things that i describe we do in background invests, those are federal guidelines. Those are set by the dni for security and the director of opm for suitability. We dont get wiggle room to do our own because theres a reciprocity factor. Insider threat is a much more flexible framework. We have, as i mentioned, programs in every one of our come pones. Theyre building, concern components. And for my military organization colleagues, theyre enforcing u. S. Cold. Those things, and it was mentioned in all the panels today, these behaviors fall below u. S. Personnel code. Separating someone from the service administratively sometimes takes time, and sometimes we dont rush to do it because we want to reserve the ability to take full action. But if an individual exhibits behaviors each though theyre below a criminal investigative charge, its very likely going to make them unsuitable for security clearance, and every member of the u. S. Military has to qualify for a secret clearance. Thats the bar that i described. So its very likely without getting into any specific case that when you follow through on the administrative side, you an individual loses their eligibility to serve, and they get separated. It takes a little time sometimes. Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, madam chairwoman. And thank you all for being here today. Ms. Miller, i believe it was you who commented about the background checks, and you look at the gang file if. But a lot of these White Supremacist Groups, these altright groups that are committing some of these atrocities arent on the gang file. Theyre not classified as gangs. A lot of these international White Supremacist Groups that are becoming more Popular Online and that people are joining arent classified as terrorist groups. So when youre doing these background checks, these groups arent popping up, its not going up there, what are we looking for then to kind of classify them if they might be part of these groups . Thats an excellent question, sir, thank you. I mentioned the multilayered approach that we take, and that really does start with the recruiter who does the interview with the applicant. And they ask about a number of qualifying factors. The traditional ones of citizenship and aging, level of education and age, level of education, any past criminal record, medical history, drug use. And then they also can about tattoos, and tattoos, as we have learned, is one of the best ways to help identify whether an individual has had a current or past history of engagement with any sort of extremist or gang activity. And our colleagues in the first panel mentioned the importance ott and the value of knowing those tattoos. For many years the recruiters in our processing stations had multiple, you know, files, large binders with copies and images of tattoos to try to help educate them and help identify tattoos. What weve elevenned is that the landscape of learned is that the landscape evolved so rapidly, and its difficult to maintain currency on those sort of stat isic resources and references static resources and references. We agree that having is access to timely information about tattoos and branding is very important. And so one of the requirements that we now include is for any sort of concerning or questionable banked or tattoo there is branding or tattoo, there is a requirement to take images as appropriate of those mark, and to engage local Law Enforcement and to engage the fbi and to actually ascertain more information about those markings. And thats a is very important step, a part of what we do. And then we also the recruiters do a lot of work in terms of working with family members, they spend an incredible amount of time in their community, and is so they get to know what are only of the prevalent concerning indicatorses in those communities. They talk to school counselors, School Resource officers, they talk to local police. And so they will get a sense of who this individual is and the company he or she may keep. And so that is some of the preliminary work that a we do before we hand it over to more formal channels and more formal investigative channelings. Channels. Now, mr. Reid, you said, you know, the investigative officers, theyre enforcing u. S. Code, right . But the military the department of defense has policy. We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to drugs. Why dont we have a zero tolerancing party when it comes to White Supremacy . Mr. Gras boss can sky had stated that being a member of this organization isnt illegal or its not against the policy, only if youre about i have. You know, would we let a member of alqaeda or a member of isis into our military if we said, they said, well im a member but im not active . Why arent we doing the same for these White Supremacist Groups . The guideline speaks to the behavior that denies others their basic constitutional rights. Any involvement with the group of those views in membership involvement with the Group Although maybe below the level of a criminal code violation would be a disqualifier for decision by an adjudicator on the continue eligibility of the individual. So somebody is a member of the group, one of the White Supremacist Groups are not eligible to serve. They can be disqualified based on their participation, the front and questioner asked questions are you a member of those groups, if they withhold information, they falsified the form which is a criminal federal offense but also goes to royalty and honesty which are guidelines. Theres 13 guidelines and they crisscross in many instances where i mentioned, criminal conduct, legions are the main categories, theres other categories, terrorism categories alignment with any of those activities would be an element of an investigative file. I know youre running out of time, were going to this evaluation, were already doing it, we dont wait until the reinvestigation anymore, these are occurring every day, we are public background checks, other checks were if this comes to light, Insider Threats, it somebody mentions anything to an Insider Threat, chain of command, security manager, Insider Threat hub and they will pull the strings on that and find out what is going on and if its there they will take action. Madame carew, i just want to say this, this is a bigger problem in our country and its something that we need to work on not only a military problem, its something that they need to be classified as domestic terrorist groups of gangs and we need to recognize what they are, the International Organizations or terrorist organizations, with the yield back. Mr. Reed, ms. Miller, we have worked together on a number of issues i have a high regard for you, but im really surprised of what ive heard today. Whom was policy it says the active participation in gangs organization is prohibited so if its prohibited and we have an air force servicemember who is actively fundraising for this despicablE Organization, why is he still in the military . Maam we will have to refer you to the air force to gain more details on that specific case, to your point, yes the policy does say it prohibits active participation which includes fundraising, demonstrating rally, recruiting, training to distribute material, wearing gang colors into your point tattoos. Or other branding. For so therefore, those are the type of indicators that need to be evaluated when determining whether theres been a violation of this policy which could therefore lead to certainly ministry of separation and other actions against the individual. As it pertains to that case and as he indicated earlier, the services were very deliberately through the process, there is an element of due process consideration which sometimes it does take time but we will have to refer to the specific detail. Here is the problem, if all of these cases that you worked very hard to investigate are then referred to the command and their total discretion within the command, there is not equal thdue process, or pursing out a punishment. If we do not have a standard. If im a member of the sierra club i espouse all their values, if im a member of an organization that is specifically interested in doing harm to the United States, i believe in will be supportive of that. I have a real problem with the vagueness of the policies and the distinction between active participation and membership and i think these policies have to be updated. Theyre woefully inadequate for what we know today is a very serious domestic terrorism problem. We will hopefully be working with you to develop clear outlines. One last question, and then ill turn over to mr. Kelly, what training is being provided to commanders about white supremacist specifically, the acceleration Nest Community and a number of thesE Organizations that we reference here today. As i mentioned, i am not an expert per se on the level of training that Commanding Officers may receive. But the policy requires training. It requires training at the entrylevel training and it requires routine in regular training and up to Commanding Officer level. We will have to take the question back and make sure the committee gets an answer to the responsible for that. One point that is helpful, each demand has an equal opportunity advisor. An equal opportunity advisor is very important asset and that command triad, they do receive training on specifically extremism and wipers him as he. To help educate them for concerning signs and indicators within the command and advisor Commanding Officers on what to recognize. I do think thats a valuable asset. I will finally say i would like to associate myself with ms. Davis comments, any job application today requires that the review that takes place looks at social media, our reluctance and wanting to do that at the front end makes no sense. This is the 21st century, that is how people communicate. If we cannot look at that then we are not necessarily doing this review as we have individuals have become in the military. I ask that you please look up requiring when you do a ministry of action or uc mj, when these guys do the hard work that you make them the report that we can correct that data. Without that we dont know what is happening below. So if you would require, number one, people are more accountable on things that they have to report, we know that from almost anything. I think thats an easy fix, now i will ask, what can chairwoman and myself, what authorities do you need to do better do your job, whether other organizatio organizations, it does not matter to me, they are all bad to be disciplined of the military. What authorities do you need from us to make your job easier, what can we do. I know mr. Reed already answered the similar question, i will echo that, i believe the department has the authorities that we need to work at this issue, certainly the continued evolution and development of tools and capabilities as they come to social media. I believe will be informative during the inception process. There will be some initial challenges and hurdles we need to work through before we can implement that. The really hard question, for you two guys, i am not ignoring you all, but these are the decisionmakers or at least you influence the decisionmakers. I would ask, one thing that you can do with your Current Authority that immediately incrementally and identifying members of organization that are white supremacist that are adverse to the United States government and then also punishes them or makes a punishment, someone who isnt it organization like that, a memb member, it does not member if you catch them being active, they are not passive, they did not join it to be passive. If there is anything, what can you do to influence your superior today to make that immediately to keep them out or get them out . I apologize, i did not exactly hear the question. What under the authorities, in your current job, what can you do, what one simple thing can you do to make it easier to keep people out, identify them or get them out of the dod . I think you hit on a good one, if we can find a way to extend our reach of the things we do and back on investigation, as i indicated we cannot apply those of the federal level until an individual has been placed on contract and sign the consent form. That space that exist prior to that is a difficult space for us to operate among other things when you talk about social media, anytime i will check any of that i will get u. S. Person information, we run into a lot of obstacles with privacy, concerns, civil liberty concerns about thirdparty information, any american chatting with other people is probably chatting with other americans that are not part of my interest. Its a complex thing, if you could help us figure now. You would be surprised what you can find out with a simple individual which is Public Information that they put out, thank you. Rowe quickly, if you can answer, tell us what we can do to get you to the authority. One thing we are working on now is to expand our scope of invade country engagement with the fbi and the task force, we do a level of work with Law Enforcement in the local gang activity, the information that is available is amended to Law Enforcement so its not necessarily information we can provide to 20000 recruiters across the country. So we have a working group right now to determine how best to share the information and what level so we can continue to update them realtime on emerging patterns in tattoos and markings and thats what were doing right now and will be very helpful. You are setting the standard for america. Thank you, youre doing an outstanding job. But i still want to get better, go get better and better get back. I believe in everything that we do. Please look at the Climate Survey, i dont think you need our authority to ask right questions to identify issues. I would ask influencer do that and without the yield back. Lots of food for thought, we look forward to working with you, this is a serious issue in the think you record days were taken very seriously. So we thank you for your contribution in your work that you do every day, and without we stand adjourn. [inaudible conversations] sunday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on after words, sally pipes makes the argument against medicare for all in her latest book false premise, false promise. Just in december there were over 4 million on a waiting list to get treatment in the Cancer Treatment is not supposed to be delayed, general practitioner more than 62 days, they have not met in the uk that standard for over five years and more important under the World Health Organization study britt are the bottom of the most industrialized countries. Watch after words sunday night on 9 00 p. M. Eastern booktv on cspan2. Ncaa officials and former student athletes spoke with lawmakers about College Athletes ability to earn money from endorsements. They spoke at a subcommittee hearingt. Good morning, everyone, the committee will come to