[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
   OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-76

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
         
         
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         
         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                              ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
49-703              WASHINGTON : 2022            
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

        AMY RUTKIN,  Majority Staff Director and Chief of Staff
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
               
                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, July 28, 2022

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     3

                               WITNESSES

The Honorable Matthew G. Olsen, Assistant Attorney General for 
  National Security, U.S. Department of Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     8

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

A document entitled, ``Public Statement on the Hunter Biden 
  Emails,'' October 19, 2020, submitted by the Honorable Andy 
  Biggs, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of Arizona, for the record...............................    22
Materials submitted by the Honorable David Cicilline, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Rhode Island, 
  for the record
  A joint message from the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division 
    & Counterterrorism Division, October 20, 2021................    36
  An article entitled, ``No, the federal government isn't using 
    the Patriot Act to treat parents like domestic terrorists,'' 
    Politifact...................................................    40
  An article entitled, ``McCarthy's false claim that Garland 
    called parents `terrorists,' '' The Washington Post..........    47
  An article entitled, ``Attorney General Never Called Concerned 
    Parents `Domestic Terrorists,' '' FactCheck.Org..............    51
  An article entitled, ``Fact check: Kevin McCarthy keeps 
    repeating false claim that attorney general called parents 
    `terrorists' for wanting to attend school board meetings,'' 
    CNN..........................................................    57
A letter from the National School Boards Association, September 
  29, 2021, submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Louisiana, for 
  the record.....................................................    76
An article entitled, ``School boards get death threats amid rage 
  over race, gender, mask policies,'' Reuters, submitted by the 
  Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California, for the record.........    90
An open letter from former Defense, Intelligence, Homeland 
  Security, and Cyber officials calling for national security 
  review of Congressional tech legislation, April 18, 2022, 
  submitted by the Honorable J. Louis Correa, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for 
  the record.....................................................   114
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the 
  record
  A document entitled, ``2021 Violence & Disruption Statistics,'' 
    National Abortion Federation.................................   126
  An article entitled, ``Biden balances anti-crime and reform 
    agendas in message to police,'' Reuters......................   140
  An article entitled, ``Biden pushes for police funding, more 
    social workers with New York City mayor Adams,'' Reuters.....   142
  An article entitled, ``FBI Reports an Increase in Hate Crimes 
    in 2019: Hate-Based Murders More than Doubled,'' Southern 
    Poverty Law Center...........................................   144
  A press release entitled, ``Texas Man Charged with Federal Hate 
    Crimes and Firearm Offenses Related to August 3, 2019, Mass-
    Shooting in El Paso,'' Department of Justice.................   148
  A press release entitled, ``Texas Man Sentenced to Almost 25 
    Years for Hate Crime in Burning Down Mosque in Victoria, 
    Texas,'' Department of Justice...............................   149

                                APPENDIX

Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the 
  record
  An article entitled, ``GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley alleges 
    widespread effort in FBI, Justice Dept to downplay negative 
    information about Hunter Biden,'' CBS News...................   168
  A letter from the Honorable Chuck Grassley, Senator from the 
    State of the Iowa, July 25, 2022.............................   171
  An article entitled, ``Joe Biden met with at least 14 of 
    Hunter's business associates while vice president,'' Fox News   175
  An article entitled, ``Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, 
    dozens of former intel officials say,'' Politico.............   190
  An article entitled, ``GOP seeks answers from 51 former intel 
    officials who discredited Hunter Biden's laptop,'' The 
    Washington Times.............................................   197
  A letter from the Republican members of the Subcommittee on 
    Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security to the Honorable 
    Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
    Terrorism, and Homeland Security, February 16, 2022..........   202
  An article entitled, ``LeDuff: Is this Venezuelan in Metro 
    Detroit an asylum seeker or suspected terrorist?,'' Deadline 
    Detroit......................................................   205
  An article entitled, ``Report: ICE Releases Border-Crossing 
    Terrorist Suspect from Venezuela Despite FBI 
    Recommendation,'' Center for Immigration Studies.............   208
  An article entitled, ``The Biden Admin Released A Suspected 
    Terrorist Into The United States After He Illegally Crossed 
    The Border,'' The Federalist.................................   212
  An article entitled, ``CBP Encounters 100 on Terrorist 
    Watchlist at Southwest Border, Half After Entering 
    Illegally,'' Center for Immigration Studies..................   219


   OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, July 28, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair 
of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson 
Lee, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Jeffries, Cicilline, Swalwell, 
Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, 
Stanton, Dean, Escobar, Jones, Ross, Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, 
Issa, Buck, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, 
Steube, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Bishop, Fischbach, Fitzgerald, 
Bentz, and Owens.
    Staff present: Aaron Hiller, Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff 
Director; John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff Director; 
Arya Hariharan, Chief Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, 
Senior Counsel; Moh Sharma, Director of Member Services and 
Outreach & Policy Advisor; Jacqui Kappler, Oversight Counsel; 
Roma Venkateswaran, Professional Staff Member/Legislative Aide; 
Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; Gabriel Barnett, Professional 
Staff Member; Casey Lee, Staff Assistant; Merrick Nelson, 
Digital Director; Stephen Castor, Minority General Counsel; 
Ella Yates, Minority Member Services Director; Caroline Nabity, 
Minority Senior Counsel; Michael Koren, Minority Senior 
Professional Staff Member; Andrea Woodard, Minority 
Professional Staff Member; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on Oversight 
of the Department of Justice National Security Division.
    Before we begin, I would like remind Members that we have 
established an email address and distribution list dedicated to 
circulating exhibits, motions, or other written materials that 
Members might want to offer as part of our hearing today. If 
you would like to submit materials, please send them to the 
email address that has been previously distributed to your 
offices and we will circulate the materials to Members and 
staff as quickly as we can.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    The National Security Division, or NSD, was established 
within the Department of Justice in 2006 with the purpose of 
creating a center for intelligence, national security, and 
counterterrorism that would streamline interactions between 
Federal prosecutors, Main Justice, and the intelligence 
community. The division operates on the front lines of major 
challenges facing our country including the rise of domestic 
terrorism, cyber espionage, and threats from foreign 
governments.
    Leading the division today is Assistant Attorney General 
Matthew Olsen. We are pleased to welcome you to the Committee, 
Mr. Olsen, and to hear your perspective on the difficult tasks 
ahead of you.
    NSD was created in the years after the September 11th 
attacks. It has its roots in what we used to call the United 
States Government's War on Terror. Indeed, the division is 
integral to the fight to keep our country safe from terrorist 
threats.
    Today, the NSD faces the incomparable necessity of internal 
transformation because the face of terrorism has changed. The 
greatest threat to American safety is no longer extremism in 
far-off lands and we can no longer dismiss the threat is coming 
from other people from other cultures. The threat today is from 
within. It is right at home in our communities and on our 
social media feeds. We even see it from time to time on our 
cable news networks. It has taken root in the rhetoric of 
certain political leaders and none of us can afford to turn a 
blind eye to the growing danger. The new face of domestic 
terrorism is far-right extremism which is growing exponentially 
in the United States.
    Attorney General Garland told our colleagues in the Senate 
just over a year ago that the greatest domestic threat facing 
the United States is from racially or ethnically motivated 
violent extremists ``specifically those who advocate for the 
superiority of the White Race.''
    White supremacists, extremist militia members, and other 
violent far-right extremists were responsible for 66 percent of 
all domestic terror plots in 2020. Of the 30 fatalities from 
terrorism in 2021, 28 were at the hands of radicalized far-
right attackers.
    If the numbers do not convince you, we can put the 
imminence of the threat in practical terms. One Republican 
candidate for Senate has aligned his campaign with the website 
that promoted the hateful screeds of the shooter at the Tree of 
Life Synagogue. His campaign advisors said that Jews are not 
welcome in their political movement and will not be welcome in 
a Christian nationalist country they hope to build.
    Across the country, anyone hoping to attend the turning 
Point USA Conference in Tampa first had to march past the well-
organized demonstration of neo-Nazis who also appeared to have 
a preferred candidate for office. With the easy availability of 
weapons of war in this country, the distance from xenophobic 
messaging to hateful thoughts and from hateful thoughts to 
terrorist actions has never been shorter.
    An 18-year-old radicalized over social media can walk into 
a pawn shop and leave with an AR-15 that same day. Far-right 
extremists and White supremacist terror groups present not only 
a significant threat to the lives of Americans, but also 
relatedly, an unprecedented challenge with the National 
Security Division.
    I applaud the Attorney General for the creation of DOJ's 
Domestic Terrorism Unit this past January which will be 
specifically dedicated to responding to the increasing threats 
posed by domestic terrorists. To be clear, the department 
already has the resources and structures in place to fight 
domestic terrorism.
    What I hope to hear from Mr. Olsen is how the department 
will focus these resources where they are needed most and the 
growing threat of violent White nationalism and far-right 
extremism. In addition to advancing the fight against domestic 
terrorism, there are also many other important challenges 
facing the National Security Division as it works to keep us 
safe. For example, I am interested in hearing how the division 
is navigating threats posed by hostile actors targeting our 
system of government. As this Committee recently learned, the 
Federal court system faced an incredibly significant and 
sophisticated cyber security breach, one which has since had 
lingering impact on the department and other agencies.
    While the concentration of national security matters within 
a single division ostensibly allows DOJ and the Executive 
Branch overall to respond more effectively to threats facing 
the United States, it also presents enhanced opportunities for 
abuse. That is why I am looking forward to hearing how the 
division is reforming the government's FISA processes to allay 
our long-standing concerns about the querying of the section 
702 database to acquire Americans' information.
    I am also interested to hear how the NSD is responding to 
the Inspector General's concerns regarding the division's 
compliance with the Woods Procedures which require agents to 
document support for all factual searches contained in FISA 
applications.
    NSD is at the epicenter of programs and policy areas that 
both engender intense debate and are where the Federal 
government has historically fallen short when it comes to 
protecting civil liberties. Ranging from the warrantless 
surveillance of American citizens to the unfair targeting of 
Black and Brown communities, to sweeping collection of private 
data and communications, the ill-conceived China Initiative, 
politically-motivated investigations of the press and Members 
of Congress, and much more, NSD has at times found itself on 
the wrong end of the battle between civil liberties and 
security.
    I hope that the division will commit to forging a new path 
and strikes a proper balance. Protecting our citizens from 
those seeking to do them harm is of paramount concern to the 
NSD. It is also a difficult task requiring those at the helm to 
balance our security with our liberty. This nuance speaks to 
the heart of the values that are essential to this Nation and 
it is your responsibility as the division's leader to protect 
the ideals along with the people.
    Thank you for being here today, Mr. Olsen, and I look 
forward to your testimony.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Olsen, welcome.
    In America, we shouldn't need to say that parents speaking 
out about their children's education aren't domestic terrorists 
or that those raising concerns about the radical direction the 
left is trying to take this country are not domestic terrorists 
or that Trump supporters aren't domestic terrorists, but 
apparently, we do because the Biden Administration is bound and 
determined to demonize anyone and everyone not in lockstep with 
their far-left agenda.
    Last September, the Biden White House colluded, colluded 
with the National School Boards Association to orchestrate a 
letter to President Biden that portrayed concerned parents, 
speaking out at school board meetings, as security threats. The 
letter urged the President to use the Patriot Act to go after 
America's moms and dads. Just five days later, the Attorney 
General issued a memorandum directing the FBI and U.S. 
Attorney's Office to address a ``disturbing spike in 
harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence at school 
board meetings.''
    If you remember, when we had the Attorney General in front 
of this Committee, we asked him about where did they get this--
where did they learn about this harassment, this disturbing 
spike in intimidation? Where did they learn about it? His 
response was from the school board letter that helped 
coordinate and put together to send to the White House.
    The press release that accompanied that memorandum said 
that Mr. Olsen's division, the National Security Division, 
would be involved in a department-wide effort to target 
parents. That is right. The division that is supposed to be 
prosecuting terrorists, protecting us from terrorists, the kind 
that want to hijack buildings, excuse me, hijack planes, and 
bring down buildings, decided that a priority of this division 
of the FBI is parents at school board meetings.
    Oh, guess what? We find out that this whole situation was 
coordinated. That is right. Like I said earlier, the NSBA 
letter was a pretext for the memorandum. The letter was 
instigated by the White House. Documents released by the 
National School Boards Association showed that the White House 
knew that the letter would urge the administration to invoke 
the Patriot Act and the White House raised no objections. In 
fact, the National School Boards Association admitted that 
President Biden telephoned the then NSBA President to say that 
he was appreciative of the letter.
    When this all came to light, and America's parents rightly 
became outraged, the National School Boards Association 
apologized for its action. The NSBA wrote to its members ``We 
regret and apologize for the letter.'' That is a lot more than 
the Attorney General or the Biden Administration has done 
because as far as we know, the memorandum is still in place. 
That is right. As far as we know, the Attorney General's 
directive to the National Security Division to target moms and 
dads remains in place. If this was it, if it was just a 
political stunt, that would be bad enough, but it is actually 
much worse.
    Because of whistleblowers who came forward, we know that 
the FBI created a threat tag specifically targeting parents, a 
designation specifically targeting moms and dads. We know that 
the FBI opened over two dozen investigations into parents 
merely because they stood up to speak on behalf of their 
children.
    We have sent countless letters to the DOJ trying to get 
answers, but have gotten virtually nothing back in response. I 
am sure we will have some pointed questions for Mr. Olsen today 
and I hope that he is prepared to give us answers on our--the 
answers our constituents deserve. We also hope he is prepared 
to talk about the Department of Justice's refusal to address 
people trying to intimidate Supreme Court Justices at their 
homes and their children's schools and we have great concern 
about the terrorist attacks targeting pro-life facilities and 
groups around the country. This year, there have been dozens of 
attacks on these facilities, but the Biden Administration seems 
preoccupied with other politically-charged investigations.
    We would also like to know why the DOJ is ignoring all the 
facts coming to light regarding the business dealings and 
illegal activities of Hunter Biden. In fact, a troubling 
pattern has come to light recently that indicates the Biden 
Justice Department seems more focused on politics than it is on 
fighting crime. Don't forget, this is the division of the 
Department of Justice that we entrust with immense surveillance 
powers. The Chair mentioned, his reference to FISA, within the 
National Security Division is the Office of Intelligence. This 
office is responsible for preparing and filing all applications 
pursuant to FISA, as well as appearing before the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court.
    Of course, we all know about the FISA visas over the past 
several years and how the Department of Justice and the FBI 
misused FISA to target the campaign of President Trump. Mr. 
Olsen has been entrusted with a great deal of responsibility. 
It is our hope that today he has come prepared to answer a 
great deal of questions this Committee has about the Department 
of Justice.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Without objection, all 
other opening statements will be included in the record.
    I will now introduce today's Witness. Matthew Olsen is the 
Assistant Attorney General for National Security. In that 
capacity, he leads the Department of Justice's mission to 
combat terrorism, espionage, cybercrime, and other threats to 
the national security. From 2011-2014, Mr. Olsen served as the 
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Prior to 
leading NCTC, he was the General Counsel for the National 
Security Agency.
    For 18 years, Mr. Olsen worked at the Department of Justice 
as a career attorney and in a number of leadership positions 
including as an Associate Deputy Attorney General for National 
Security and Special Counselor to the Attorney General.
    In 2006, he helped establish the National Security Division 
and served as the first career Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General for National Security. Mr. Olsen began his public 
service career as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division 
of the Department of Justice and later held positions as a 
Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
District of Columbia and Special Counsel to the Director of the 
FBI, supporting a post-9/11 transformation of the FBI.
    Previously, Mr. Olsen clerked for Judge Norma Holloway 
Johnson in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia. He graduated from Harvard Law School and the 
University of Virginia.
    We welcome our distinguished Witness. We thank him for 
participating today.
    I will begin by swearing you in. I ask that you rise and 
raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of 
perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and 
correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief 
so help you God?
    Mr. Olsen. I do.
    Chair Nadler. Let the record show that the Witness has 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated. 
Please note that your written statement will be entered into 
the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you 
summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay 
within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When 
the light switches from green to yellow, you have a minute to 
conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals 
your five minutes have expired.
    Mr. Olsen, you may begin.

                 STATEMENT OF MATTHEW G. OLSEN

    Mr. Olsen. Thank you, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, 
Members of the Committee. I very much appreciate the 
opportunity to be here today to testify about the important 
work of the Justice Department on national security.
    As you know, as you noted, Chair, Congress created the 
National Security Division in 2006. The goal was to unify and 
prioritize DOJ's national security efforts. The National 
Security Division has a wide range of responsibilities. You 
have touched on them. We prosecute terrorists and spies. We 
protect the Nation against cyber-attacks. We enforce export 
controls and sanctions laws. We provide legal and policy 
support to intelligence operations and oversight, and we review 
foreign investments in U.S. companies for national security 
risks.
    This morning, I would like to focus my opening statement on 
one of our top priorities and that is counterterrorism. The 
country faces a persistent and dynamic threat from terrorism. 
This threat encompasses both foreign terrorist groups that seek 
to carry out attacks against the United States, as well as 
domestic violent extremists who are often mobilized to violence 
by racism and antigovernment ideologies.
    International terrorism poses a continuing and evolving 
threat to the U.S. both at home and abroad. We keep an 
unwavering focus on violent jihadist groups, and we play an 
integral role in the broader all-of-government effort to defend 
against these threats.
    At the same time, the Department of Justice is committed to 
tackling the alarming threat at home from domestic violent 
extremism. Domestic violent extremists are individuals in the 
United States who seek to commit violent, criminal acts in 
furtherance of domestic social or political goals. For example, 
we have seen a growing threat from those who are motivated by 
racism. We also see an increase in threats from extremists who 
espouse antigovernment or anti-authority ideologies and who 
often target those who participate in civil life such as 
elected officials, police officers, and healthcare workers. 
There is no doubt that these threats are on the rise.
    The number of FBI investigations over the past two years 
has more than doubled of domestic violent extremists. The 
January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol stands apart. The 
department's investigation is the single largest domestic 
terrorism investigation in the nation's history. To date, that 
investigation has led to the arrest of more than 860 
individuals. Many of these defendants have been charged with 
very serious crimes. They include seditious conspiracy, 
obstruction of Congress, and assaults on police officers. We 
are committed to holding accountable those who engage in 
violence and other illegal acts and to bringing to justice 
anyone who unlawfully tried to overturn the election. We are 
upholding our oath to defend the Constitution against those who 
tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
    Our national security mission requires that we protect 
these fundamental pillars of our democracy. We work to protect 
not just our democratic institutions, but also our citizens and 
communities from the terrible costs inflicted by terrorism and 
violent extremism. Tragedies in Buffalo and Pittsburgh, El 
Paso, Charlottesville, and elsewhere are seared in our 
memories.
    We must be clear, that law enforcement faces very stark 
challenges when it comes to domestic extremism. Violent 
extremists are too often able to radicalize online quickly, 
easily acquire military grade weapons, and they target 
vulnerable locations such as public gatherings, places of 
worship, and shopping centers. These are places that are very 
difficult to defend.
    The National Security Division plays a critical role in 
countering these threats. We lead and support terrorism 
investigations and prosecutions working with our partners at 
the FBI and with U.S. Attorney's Offices around the country.
    We recently established, as you noted, a dedicated Domestic 
Terrorism Unit. The goal is to oversee and coordinate these 
cases across the department and around the country. Our 
Domestic Terrorism Unit works very closely with the Civil 
Rights Division in the Department of Justice which has 
prosecuted some of the most heinous terrorist attacks in recent 
years using our Federal hate crime statutes.
    Having spent 18 years myself as a career Department of 
Justice attorney and prosecutor, I know that our work force is 
committed to the Constitution and to ensuring equal and 
impartial justice. We prosecute the cases based on the facts 
and the law without regard to ideology and politics. Our 
national strength comes from our founding values. These include 
the rule of law, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. 
We will uphold these values as we safeguard the American people 
from threats to our safety and to our national security.
    I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today, 
and I look forward to answering the committee's questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Olsen follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
      
    Chair Nadler. Thank you for your testimony. We will now 
proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. I will 
recognize myself for five minutes.
    On January 6th, 2021, the Administrative Office of the 
Courts released a public statement about a cyber security 
breach dating back to early 2020 unrelated to SolarWinds. 
However, it was only in March of this year that the Committee 
first learned the startling breadth and scope of the Courts' 
document management system security failure. Perhaps even more 
concerning is the disturbing impact the security breach had on 
pending civil and criminal litigation, as well as on ongoing 
national security or intelligence matters.
    Understanding that this is an unclassified setting, what 
types of cases or investigations or U.S. Attorney's Offices 
were impacted the most by this breach and how many of those 
cases and investigations are within your division?
    Mr. Olsen. Mr. Chair, let me begin by just saying that the 
threat we face from cyber-enabled attacks, whether that is to 
the government and public sector including Congress and to the 
private sector, is one of the most significant threats we face 
as a country, to our national security.
    For the National Security Division, we are focused on 
nation-state attacks and those attacks can come from countries 
like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. While I can't speak 
directly to the nature of the on-going investigation of the 
types of threats that you have mentioned regarding the effort 
to compromise the public judicial dockets, this is, of course, 
a significant concern for us, given the nature of the 
information that is often held by the courts.
    Chair Nadler. Have any cases or investigations within the 
NSD been materially impacted, prolonged, or dismissed because 
of the Courts' breach?
    Mr. Olsen. I can't think of anything, in particular, that 
has been affected in the way that you describe, although I 
would want to double check on that. We are very concerned and 
we are working, I can assure you, based on my own personal 
experience, that we are working very closely with the Judicial 
Conference and judges around the country to address this issue.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Has the department or NSD audited 
your own systems to ensure that you were not compromised by the 
same three hostile foreign actors who attacked the document 
management system?
    Mr. Olsen. It is an on-going effort to ensure the 
protection of our systems for the exact same reason, but I 
would say that the challenge when it comes to the sophisticated 
nation-state type activity that we see in cyber, the challenge 
is significant and it is very difficult to ever be in a 
position to say that any system is 100 percent safe when it 
comes to sophisticated Nation states that seek to obtain 
persistent access to these systems.
    Chair Nadler. The department's 2022 comprehensive cyber 
review concluded that DOJ ``needs to consider carefully what 
data it collects, both the lawfulness of the sources and the 
veracity of the data itself.''
    As you heard last week during our Digital Dragnets hearing, 
unreliable or unverified data often purchased through 
commercially available third-party sources can lead to 
incorrect identification, wrongful arrests, and costly 
litigation for innocent parties. Under the Brady Rule, 
prosecutors have a constitutional duty to disclose potentially 
exculpatory evidence, but when prosecutors rely on information 
purchased by law enforcement this is often not the case.
    What is the department's policy on sharing exculpatory 
evidence with defendants when that information was acquired 
through purchases from data brokers, apps, social media 
platforms, or other third-party commercial sources?
    Mr. Olsen. Mr. Chair, as a former Federal prosecutor 
myself, I can assure you that the obligation of the 
Constitution to provide exculpatory evidence to the accused 
under the Brady Rule is one that is taken extremely seriously. 
It applies across the board to any information that the 
government has in its possession regardless of the source, so I 
would--while I haven't looked at that policy recently, I know 
that that general obligation applies across the board to 
Federal prosecutors.
    Chair Nadler. I assume you have promised to keep us updated 
on the investigation of the Courts' breach?
    Mr. Olsen. Absolutely, absolutely. We stand ready to come 
to Congress to talk about that at any time.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Biggs. 
Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Olsen, the Foreign 
Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which requires those 
representing foreign principals to register with DOJ is a law 
administered by your office, the National Security Division, is 
that fair?
    Mr. Olsen. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. I have behind me an email from 2016 from the 
Obama-Biden Administration between Hunter Biden and Miguel 
Aleman, the son of a Mexican billionaire and grandson of the 
former Mexican President. The first lines say, ``We are 
arriving late tonight on Air Force Two to Mexico City. We will 
be there for Thursday. I am attending a meeting with President 
N''' meaning President Nieto ``with dad.'' Highlighted are the 
comments:

        We have been talking about business deals and partnerships for 
        seven years. I have brought every single person you have ever 
        asked me to bring to the f'ing White House and the Vice 
        President's House and the Inauguration. I have delivered on 
        every single thing you have ever asked.

    In this email, Hunter Biden acknowledges his attendance at 
a meeting between Mexican President Nieto and then Vice 
President Biden, discusses business deals and partnerships with 
a wealthy and politically connected Mexican family, references 
access provided to Mexican businessmen at the White House and 
the Vice President's House. As states, he had already delivered 
on every single thing you have ever asked.
    Did this email or does this email raise concerns that 
Hunter Biden might have acted contrary to FARA since it appears 
he never registered to represent foreign principals?
    Mr. Olsen. I am not familiar with the email that you are 
referring to. What I can tell you is that it is a fundamental 
principle of the Justice Department and consistent with my 
almost 20-year career that we follow the facts and the law in 
every case without regard to politics or ideology.
    Mr. Biggs. You are not familiar with this email here.
    Mr. Olsen. I am not.
    Mr. Biggs. We have next up, we are going to show you a 
picture of Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, Miguel 
Aleman, his father, and Carlos Slim, one of the richest men in 
the world in 2015 while Joe Biden was Vice President. This 
picture seems to conflict with President Biden's statement that 
he has never met with his son's business associates. Much of 
the information regarding Hunter Biden's foreign business 
dealings has come from the laptop that was abandoned by Hunter 
Biden and labeled by the media as misinformation as well as by 
51 former intelligence officers in a weird letter dated October 
19, 2020, which I will submit for the record.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Biggs. This week we learned FBI whistleblowers have 
come forward and reported the FBI committed a widespread effort 
within the FBI to downplay or discredit negative information 
about Hunter Biden.
    Are you familiar with that reporting?
    Mr. Olsen. No, I am not.
    Mr. Biggs. Okay. So, has any investigation of Hunter Biden 
by your office been influenced by the work product or actions 
taken by FBI Agent Timothy Thibault?
    Mr. Olsen. I am not going to comment on any investigation 
that may or may not be ongoing. What I can assure you is that 
we follow the facts and evidence, and we apply the law and the 
principles of Federal prosecution in every single case without 
regard to ideology or politics.
    Mr. Biggs. So, you were unaware because you are unaware of 
the reporting it. So, you are unaware of any efforts within the 
Department of Justice to label derogatory information on Hunter 
Biden as disinformation?
    Mr. Olsen. I am not going to comment on any potential 
ongoing investigation.
    Mr. Biggs. Okay. According to reports, Border Patrol has 
apprehended at least 50 illegal aliens at the Southwest border 
in Fiscal Year 2022 and the Office of Field Operations has 
encountered at least 50 aliens on a terror watch list at ports 
of entry in the fiscal year.
    Does CBP consult with National Security Division when they 
encounter an illegal alien who is on a terrorist watch list?
    Mr. Olsen. The National Security Division was actually 
created to work with other agencies, whether that is the 
intelligence community or agencies including agencies in the 
Department of Homeland Security.
    Mr. Biggs. Okay, so this is a yes or no. This is not hard. 
Does CBP give you information when they find someone who is on 
the terrorist watch list when they encounter them at the 
border? Do they give that information to you?
    Mr. Olsen. I can't speak as I sit here today of any 
particular situation or circumstance, but I can tell you that 
the whole point of--
    Mr. Biggs. I am not asking about circumstances. Is the 
process being that they report to you? So, you have a hundred 
known encounters of people on the terrorist watch list. I 
assume one would think it is coming to you. I am asking about 
the process, not a specific case.
    Mr. Olsen. In general, Congressman, the way the system 
works is that the FBI investigates the crimes that we prosecute 
so it may well be that that information goes between CBP and 
the FBI, but I don't have specific information about that.
    Mr. Biggs. I reclaim my time. Are you familiar with the 
name Isan Basi?
    Mr. Olsen. I am sorry?
    Mr. Biggs. Are you familiar with the name Isan Basi?
    Mr. Olsen. No.
    Mr. Biggs. Okay, he is a Lebanese born Venezuela national, 
listed on the FBI's terror watch list who was released into the 
United States after crossing the border illegally. According to 
reports, the FBI recommended keeping him in custody, but ICE 
headquarters intervened and released him because of a concern 
that he might catch COVID-19 because he was overweight. So far, 
there has been more than 500,000 known gotaways in the country 
illegally.
    How many can you extrapolate are on the terrorist watch 
list? Have you done any assessment, according to the national 
security risk--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
Witness may answer the question.
    Mr. Olsen. I am not familiar with that, no.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to explore 
section 702 with you. As I am sure you are aware in his 
November 2020 recertification FISA Court Judge Boasberg found 
that the FBI employees had improperly searched Americans' 
emails that were collected without a warrant and were unrelated 
to foreign intelligence information and then in an ODNI annual 
statistical transparency report released in April of 2022 found 
that the FBI searched its 702 surveillance repository

         . . . using the identifiers of Americans like their names, 
        phone numbers, and addresses nearly 3.4 million times between 
        December 2020-November 2021. This is nearly triple the number 
        reported from 2020. Although the ODNI only reported 376 
        warrants issued through wire taps or physical searches of 
        individuals in 2021, it found 232,000 plus named targets of 
        FISA section 702 warrantless searches.

    Now, during your confirmation hearing before the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, you told the Senators that restoring 
and maintaining trust in the FISA process was a critical 
priority for you and I was glad to hear that.
    Since you have assumed your role as Assistant Attorney 
General, what have you done to prevent warrantless, improper 
backdoor searches of Americans' data conducted under section 
702?
    Mr. Olsen. Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to 
talk about FISA and particularly section 702.
    As you noted, when I was confirmed last year, I indicated 
that a priority for the Department of Justice and for me at the 
National Security Division was to ensure that Congress and the 
American people have confidence in our use of intelligence 
tools such as FISA.
    FISA was passed first in 1978. As you know, it has proven 
to be an indispensable tool to go after spies and terrorists 
and hackers, and it remains so. In fact, section 702, part of 
FISA, was designed to collect information about non-U.S. 
persons, non-U.S. citizens and persons who are outside the 
United States. It has proven to be essential to protecting our 
national security since it was first passed in 2008.
    The issues that you cite are ones that are of concern, the 
compliance of the FBI, in particular, with the way in which it 
searches through the section 70-702 data that is lawfully 
collected. The FBI with the Department of Justice has 
undertaken a series of steps over the past year to improve 
compliance through a system of systems changes and trainings. I 
have been part of that effort, to answer your question 
directly, in my eight months in office.
    We are looking forward to improving the compliance record 
of the Department of Justice and the FBI when it comes to 
section 702, but I can assure you that it remains a priority 
and it is part of the broader really comprehensive system of 
oversight that takes place when it comes to foreign 
intelligence collection. That includes Congress, the Executive 
Branch, and the Judiciary.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, if I may just follow up, we have had 
reassurances over the years and yet the performance continues 
to be poor, and it has been poor under both Democratic and 
Republican Administrations. So, we have considered imposing a 
warrant requirement for queries of known Americans. I guess I 
am thinking that this is probably a necessity, unless we can 
get some further definitive control of the warrantless search 
of Americans using the 702 databases. This is a misuse.
    We agree. We want to catch the spies and the foreign bad 
actors, but to use that database for warrantless searches of 
Americans is simply improper and yet it continues. How can we 
get assurances and when will we get our next report from you 
about the controls that you have discussed?
    Mr. Olsen. As you know, section 702 expires at the end of 
next year. We are engaged in a concerted effort to be prepared 
to brief Congress at any time, brief you, your staff about the 
controls that are in place.
    The way that section 702 works, if I may, it is information 
collected targeting non-U.S. persons overseas. It is lawfully 
collected. What the FBI has been able to do is search that data 
to find connections. So, it's not a warrantless search of 
Americans; it is a search of data that was collected targeting 
people who are outside the United States who are not U.S. 
citizens.
    Ms. Lofgren. If I may, sir, that is contrary to the report 
that we got from ODNI and from the FISA Court. So, I think my 
time is expired, but we need to get to the bottom of this.
    Mr. Chair, [inaudible].
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentlewoman's time is expired. Thank you.
    Mr. Massie is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Massie. I yield to my friend from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
    Mr. Gaetz. Is Hunter Biden a national security threat?
    Mr. Olsen. That's not a question that would come up before 
me, Congressman.
    Mr. Gaetz. You are the head of the National Security 
Division, so it seems sort of on the nose.
    Mr. Olsen. It's not in my practice or experience to 
identify individuals and--
    Mr. Gaetz. Not in my purview. We have heard that before.
    Mr. Olsen. --and to label any individual, an American 
citizen, or any individual as a national security threat.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, you would certainly concede that if the 
adult offspring of the President of the United States or the 
Vice President were compromised that would be a national 
security threat, right?
    Mr. Olsen. We speak through our filings in court, and we 
speak through our actions in an open court. So, I would remain 
in that position.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. Well speak to this: Where is the laptop? 
Do you know where Hunter Biden's laptop is?
    Mr. Olsen. Again, I'm not going to talk about any potential 
ongoing investigation as I sit here.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you know where it is?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to talk about any ongoing 
investigation as I sit here.
    Mr. Gaetz. You come here and you tell us you follow the 
facts and the law, but you can't even follow a laptop that you 
guys have had for three years.
    Mr. Olsen. We follow the facts and the law, and we speak in 
open court about our cases.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, but you aren't speaking about this, but you 
know who is speaking about it? The whistleblowers from the FBI 
who have gone to Senator Grassley and said that you guys 
purposely take any information that is derogatory about Hunter 
Biden, and you go and rat-hole it so that you never have to 
speak about it in any circumstance. The good news is you are 
not the only ones with that laptop.
    So, Patrick Ho was convicted of bribing government 
officials in Africa and he gave a million bucks to Hunter 
Biden. Are you familiar with that?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to speak about any ongoing 
investigation.
    Mr. Gaetz. Is that an ongoing--
    Mr. Olsen. I can assure you that--
    Mr. Gaetz. Is that an ongoing investigation?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to speak about any potential 
ongoing investigation.
    Mr. Gaetz. The Patrick Ho bribe?
    Well, don't you see that this degrades the country's belief 
in you guys when you have whistleblowers saying that you are 
purposely rat-holing this information and then you come here 
and say you won't talk about it?
    Inside Hunter Biden's multimillion-dollar deals with a 
Chinese energy company, Washington Post, Matt Viser. Chinese 
Elite Paid $31 million to Hunter and the Bidens, Peter 
Schweizer in the New York Post. Hunter Biden's business partner 
called Joe Biden the Big Guy in panicked messages.
    Do you guys call Joe Biden the Big Guy at the Department of 
Justice?
    Mr. Olsen. I think it's important to understand why we 
don't speak about cases outside of courtroom. We do that--
    Mr. Gaetz. Wait. By the way--by the way--
    Mr. Olsen. We do that--if I may, sir--
    Mr. Gaetz. --I already know why.
    Mr. Olsen. --if I may answer the question?
    Mr. Gaetz. You know why you don't speak about it?
    Mr. Olsen. May I answer the question?
    Mr. Gaetz. Because it is about Hunter Biden. You guys have 
no problem leaking about other stuff, right? Like you got no 
problem going out and tagging parents at school board meetings 
as a national security threat, but when all the facts and all 
the law are before you regarding the corruption of Hunter 
Biden, you don't want to speak to that at all. It is precisely 
why you have got folks that are talking to Senator Grassley 
about it.
    Bohai Harvest. So, 10 days after Vice President Biden takes 
Hunter Biden to China, 10 days after this long toiling venture 
of Hunter Biden that can't get off the ground, 10 days after 
they go, he automatically gets approved for a deal in China 
with Bohai Harvest. Have like you guys looked into that?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to talk about any ongoing 
investigations.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, you know who else is talking? Tony 
Bobulinski. Tony Bobulinski told the world that Joe Biden was 
cut in on a CCP Energy deal that was orchestrated by Hunter 
Biden. Like have you guys talked to Tony Bobulinski?
    Mr. Olsen. Again, we don't talk about ongoing 
investigations in settings such as this.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, okay. How about this? Will you commit to a 
Class 5 briefings on these matters?
    Mr. Olsen. I'd certainly be happy to talk to you or any 
Member of the Committee about matters of national security.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. Well, is this a matter of national 
security?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't talk about--we don't not talk outside of 
courtrooms about ongoing investigations.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, is there an ongoing investigation of the 
annual fund dinner that happened where Joe Biden was Vice 
President of the United States and Hunter Biden holds his 
fund's annual dinner at the Chinese embassy? To do that, to get 
the Chinese embassy to roll out the red carpet for Hunter Biden 
and to raise money for his fund he had to go to the embassy 30 
minutes before and have a one-on-one meeting with the Chinese 
ambassador. Do you think it is possible that that meeting might 
have jeopardized national security?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to comment about any potential or 
ongoing investigation.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, here is the thing: It is pretty easy to 
see that Hunter Biden is compromised. I think every American 
knows that is a threat to national security. I think we are 
watching a crime spree in progress that Hunter Biden is 
orchestrating. One has to wonder like what are the Chinese 
getting for the tens of millions of dollars that they are 
cutting the Biden family in on? What is the Chinese Communist 
Party getting as a result of cutting in 10 percent for the Big 
Guy?
    I just happened to notice that like you guys canceled the 
China Initiative that President Trump put in place where you 
have focused talent on those things. Jim Biden said to Tony 
Bobulinski that the reason they are able to get away with this 
corruption is plausible deniability. That is precisely the 
plausible deniability that you are animating and exemplifying 
today.
    You know what? Winter is coming, we are going to be in the 
majority, and then you are going to have to answer these 
questions for the country. I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time is expired.
    For what purpose does Mr. Cicilline seek recognition?
    Mr. Cicilline. Madam Chair?
    I have several unanimous consent requests.
    My first unanimous consent request is the Ranking Member 
made reference to a Department of Justice whistleblower memo 
and grossly mischaracterizes content. So, I would ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to read the memo into the record.
    Ms. Scanlon. So, ordered.
    Mr. Gohmert. Object.
    Mr. Cicilline. You object to--
    Mr. Gohmert. You have your own five minutes.
    Mr. Cicilline. You object to reading into the record the 
memo that was--okay.
    Mr. Bishop. Not if you do it on your time.
    Mr. Cicilline. Then I ask unanimous consent--
    Ms. Scanlon. [Inaudible].
    Mr. Cicilline. Then I ask unanimous consent that the 
document that the Republicans are afraid to have been read 
aloud be introduced into the record.
    Ms. Scanlon. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                      MR. CICILLINE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Cicilline. I have a unanimous consent request that a 
document, a Politifact head--with a heading: ``No, the Federal 
Government Isn't Using the Patriot Act to Treat Parents Like 
Domestic Terrorists'' be introduced into the record.
    Mr. Issa. Madam Chair? Madam Chair, point of order. 
Unanimous consent is limited to describing the document--
    Mr. Cicilline. Which I am doing right now.
    Mr. Issa. --[inaudible] put in.
    Mr. Cicilline. Madam Chair, I have the floor.
    Mr. Issa. Nobody is objecting to documents.
    Ms. Scanlon. All right. All right. Hold on, guys. Okay. The 
gentleman can describe it.
    Mr. Cicilline. I am asking unanimous consent that the 
document entitled: ``No, the Federal Government Isn't Using the 
Patriot Act to Treat Parents Like Domestic Terrorists'' be made 
a part of the record.
    I have a unanimous consent request that a document 
entitled: ``McCarthy's False Claims that Garland Called Parents 
`Terrorists' '' be made a part of the record.
    A document entitled: ``Attorney General Never Called 
Concerned Parents `Domestic Terrorists' '' be made a part of 
the record.
    Finally a fact check that reads: ``Kevin McCarthy Keeps 
Repeating False Claim that Attorney General Called Parents 
`Terrorists' for Wanting to Attend School Board Meetings'' be 
made part of the record.
    Ms. Scanlon. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                      MR. CICILLINE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Cicilline. I would ask unanimous consent that my 
Republican colleagues read these documents and stop making a 
false claim.
    Ms. Scanlon. Good luck with that.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman just impugned our integrity. I 
would demand that his words be taken down. He is not allowed 
under the rules to impugn false statements by this side. As far 
as Politifact and some of those, they couldn't find the truth 
with both hands.
    Ms. Scanlon. That is a separate allegation.
    Mr. Issa. I would like the gentlelady's words to be taken 
down.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, I would ask that the words be taken 
down.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentlelady from Texas--
    Mr. Issa. No, no. No, no, your words need to be taken down, 
Madam Chair.
    Mr. Gohmert. You can't highlight the rules like that.
    Ms. Scanlon. The Committee will suspend.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, in response to Mr. Cicilline's comments 
the gentlelady said ``Good luck with that.'' I think that 
impugns the Republican side. I think that is actually totally 
inappropriate. If we are going to start letting people out of 
order, just throw in documents, man, I have got about 20 
sitting right here.
    Ms. Scanlon. I will withdraw the comment.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon. Now, we would like to recognize Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, we have got to have a ruling on my 
request that the gentleman's words be taken down where he said 
we made false statements.
    Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair?
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes, Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. As I understand it, the gentleman's point, he 
said that the gentleman from Rhode Island had impugned his 
false statements and perhaps the gentleman from Rhode Island 
would just say he does not impugn his false statements.
    Mr. Cicilline. I don't think Mr. Gohmert made any 
statements. I think the report were repeating--or reporting to 
this Committee the headlines of five documents that said those 
claims are false. Those are what the documents say. I am not 
going to change the words of the documents. I am not impugning 
them. I am simply putting into the record those documents that 
in fact refute the claim.
    Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman said that the Ranking Member 
grossly mischaracterized the statements and--
    Mr. Cicilline. That is not a breach of decorum. I think it 
is an accurate statement.
    Mr. Gohmert. Yes, it is. Well, it is not an accurate 
statement.
    Mr. Cicilline. In my opinion it grossly mischaracterized 
the contents of the DOJ memo. That is absolutely appropriate.
    Mr. Gohmert. It impugns intention--
    Mr. Cicilline. No, it does not impugn. It doesn't say 
anything about his intention.
    Mr. Gohmert. You have gotten so used to making statements 
that are outside the rules of decorum that you don't even 
recognize when you do. You can't just constantly malign people 
on this side of the aisle.
    Mr. Issa. Madam Chair, are you prepared to rule?
    Ms. Scanlon. Can the gentleman from Rhode Island rephrase 
to make clear that this is a difference of opinion with respect 
to--
    Mr. Cicilline. Well, I certainly--to the extent that they 
thought that my words were impugning them, they were responding 
to statements made and they rejected those statements to the 
written documents, not impugning any declarant in this hearing. 
I don't think that our rules require me to accept assertions 
without challenging them. That is exactly what a Committee 
process is about. I am not going to limit my right to challenge 
claims that are made appropriately, which I believe I did.
    Mr. Gohmert. That is outside the bounds for any Member to 
just take over time and start impugning other people making 
false statements--
    Mr. Cicilline. I don't think there was anybody impugning 
anybody. I think we were challenging the claims that were made.
    Mr. Gohmert. The unanimous consent request allows a request 
for unanimous consent. It doesn't allow you to start 
mischaract-
erizing what you allege are mischaracterizations.
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes, Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Well, let's just get to the facts. The facts 
are the White House coordinated with the School Board 
Association [inaudible]--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Cicilline. If we are having an argument about the 
facts, I welcome that, Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. Oh, well, he stated something that is just not 
accurate. I got the letter right here.
    Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Jordan, you are not [inaudible].
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Scanlon. All right. Fine.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Scanlon. In the opinion of the Chair, the words did not 
impugn the Members on the other side.
    Mr. Jordan. Madam Chair? Are you going to appeal that 
ruling?
    Mr. Gohmert. Appeal the ruling.
    Mr. Jordan. Motion to table.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Motion tabled.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. We will get the clerk. The clerk will 
call the roll.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Nadler?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Scanlon. Just so everyone is clear, after the exchanges 
this is a vote on the motion to table.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Cohen?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Johnson votes aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes aye.
    Mr. Deutch?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Bass?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Jeffries?
    Mr. Jeffries. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Jeffries votes aye.
    Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
    Mr. Lieu?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Swalwell. Swalwell is aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Swalwell votes--
    Mr. Swalwell. I think you skipped Swalwell.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Swalwell votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Jayapal?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Demings votes aye.
    Mr. Correa?
    Mr. Correa. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Correa votes aye.
    Ms. Scanlon?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Scanlon votes aye.
    Ms. Garcia?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Neguse?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. McBath?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Stanton votes aye.
    Ms. Dean?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Escobar?
    Ms. Escobar?
    Ms. Escobar. How did the Chair vote?
    Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
    Ms. Escobar. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Escobar votes aye.
    Mr. Jones?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Ross?
    Ms. Ross. Ross votes aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Ross votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Jordan votes no.
    Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Gohmert votes no.
    Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Issa votes no.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Issa votes no.
    Mr. Buck?
    Mr. Buck. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Buck votes no.
    Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Gaetz votes no.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. McClintock votes no.
    Mr. Steube?
    Mr. Steube. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Steube votes no.
    Mr. Tiffany?
    Mr. Tiffany. Tiffany. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Tiffany votes no.
    Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Massie votes no.
    Mr. Roy?
    Mr. Roy. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Roy votes no.
    Mr. Bishop?
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Bishop votes no.
    Ms. Fischbach?
    Ms. Fischbach. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Fischbach votes no.
    Ms. Spartz?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Fitzgerald?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Fitzgerald votes no.
    Mr. Bentz?
    Mr. Bentz. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Bentz votes no.
    Mr. Owens?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Lofgren. How is Lofgren recorded?
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Lofgren, you are not recorded.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    Ms. Garcia. Madam Chair, how am I recorded?
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Ms. Garcia, you are not recorded.
    Ms. Garcia. Garcia votes aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Garcia votes aye.
    Ms. Dean. How am I recorded? Dean.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Dean, you are not recorded?
    Mr. Lieu. Madam Chair, how am I recorded?
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Dean votes aye.
    Mr. Lieu, you are not recorded.
    Ms. Lieu. Lieu votes aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Lieu votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot. Chabot. How am I recorded?
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Chabot you are not recorded.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Chabot votes no.
    Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chair, how am I recorded?
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Deutch, you are not recorded.
    Mr. Deutch. Aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
    Ms. Scanlon. Has Ms. Jayapal been recorded?
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Jayapal is not recorded.
    Ms. Jayapal. Jayapal votes aye.
    Ms. Fontenot. Ms. Jayapal votes aye.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Madam Chair, how am I recorded?
    Ms. Fontenot. Mr. Johnson, you are recorded as aye.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon. The clerk will report.
    Ms. Fontenot. Madam Chair, there are 18 ayes and 17 noes.
    Ms. Scanlon. The motion to table is agreed to.
    The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Welcome. This may be another long hearing. 
I don't know what your time frame is, but let me first indicate 
that this idea of national security should be a bipartisan. I 
knew as I woke up this morning that the family member of the 
President would be center point. I wonder why the insurrection 
on January 6 is not center point. Let me have my line of 
questioning in specific areas.
    First, I want to say that I would be interested, and I 
think it is going to be very important for us to know how many 
cases have been impacted by the Federal court's breach. I don't 
pose that as a question. I pose that as a serious concern that 
this Committee needs to have. I would expect your preparation 
and for us to be able to get that information as quickly as 
possible in a setting that would be appropriate. This is a 
dangerous set of circumstances. It has now been publicly 
announced and we need to know how many and how many were 
dismissed. So, I wanted to get that on the record.
    Then I wanted to make sure that we pose a question: Nearly 
3.4 million warrantless searches for American identifiers is an 
astronomical number. Are you confident that none of these 
queries were as Judge Boasberg described designed to retrieve 
evidence of crime that is not foreign intelligence information? 
This relates to obviously our FISA concerns. I was here for the 
Patriot Act. Here for its reform. The Judiciary Committee did 
it. If you can give brief answers because I have a series of 
other questions. Thank you.
    Mr. Olsen. Sure. If I may very briefly just to remark that 
in my experience having served under a number of different 
administrations national security is a bipartisan concern.
    Now, on the number of queries that you referenced, that was 
a significant jump over the prior year. We've looked closely at 
that number of three million queries. The more than half of 
that number I believe is attributable to one search involving a 
cyber incident where we were looking for potential victims of a 
cyber incident.
    So, I'm happy to come back and give you more details on 
that in a classified setting, but that's the basic answer to 
that question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, you know how concerning it is that 
Americans would be subjected to that kind of invasion. I want 
to go on record for opposing it. We will need to get a briefing 
as quickly as possible.
    Let me also pursue this issue dealing with Incel and the 
rise, the horrific rise of domestic terrorism in this country. 
For me it is overwhelming, but it is true.
    In January 2022, DOJ announced the creation of a Domestic 
Terrorism Unit to fight homegrown extremism. What quickly does 
this new unit demonstrate about DOJ's strategy for countering 
White supremacy and can you briefly talk about the threat from 
far-right extremists who also misrepresent the truth? I think 
that is an important point and that draws in recruits. Would 
you comment briefly, please, on that unit and that recruiting 
concept of telling an untruth and getting people to join you?
    Mr. Olsen. Well, the Domestic Terrorism Unit that we 
announced in January and stood up officially in May consists of 
a number of prosecutors as well as policy-oriented attorneys to 
make sure that we're taking a consistent approach across the 
country when it comes to domestic violence extremism and cases 
involving domestic terrorism, which run the gamut.
    We follow the evidence and the law and we take on the issue 
of domestic terrorism without regard to politics or ideology. 
We have seen a rise particularly in lethal attacks by 
individuals motivated by racism as well as individuals 
motivated by antigovernment or anti-authority ideology.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. What does the unit do?
    Mr. Olsen. The unit is within our broader Counterterrorism 
Section. It oversees and coordinates domestic terrorism 
prosecutions and investigations that are typically carried out 
by U.S. attorneys' offices around the country. The goal is to 
make sure that we're handling these cases on a consistent 
basis. It also is charged with ensuring that we are looking at 
violence and acts of violence and not looking at protected 
speech.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Obviously. Let me move quickly to Incel. 
This is egregious, horrific, deadly. The perpetrators of the 
crime in Uvalde, Oxford, Michigan, and UC Santa Barbara were 
Incel proponents, and that is the hatred of women, gender, 
misogyny, extremism mixed in with the toxicity of race. This 
National Treat Assessment Center released a study on the 
growing terrorism threat from men who call themselves 
antifeminist or involuntary celibates and draw motivation for 
violence from the inability to develop relationships with 
women. The study highlighted the specific threat.
    So, my question is, if you can finish the question, which 
is your focus on that.
    Mr. Olsen. We're focused on all manners of ideologically-
focused or directed violence. Certainly, the instances you 
mentioned, some of them are under investigation. Obviously, I 
can't talk about ongoing investigations. The challenge 
generally is that individuals with a mix of ideologies are 
easily radicalized online and have access to significant and 
powerful weapons.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Olsen, the 22 years that I have sat down there and now 
up here on the dais I saw the creation of your organization, 
the creation of suborganizations. Like a few of us at the top 
of the dais, I remember why you were formed. Because of 9/11 
created the mandate. We were concerned about domestic 
activities leading to attacks on the United States, but 
primarily foreign-motivated.
    It does seem to me, just a commentary, that we are straying 
further and further from your mission. I do think that it is 
important that you follow the facts where they lead and that 
you go after terrorists. I, myself, had an attempt to bomb my 
office which was an act of domestic terrorism. Members of this 
body on both sides have been shot and nearly killed by people 
who objected to our positions.
    So, I am not saying to get rid of them, but I am concerned 
that what we fund, what we promote, and what your 
responsibility is to keep the homeland safe. Disproportionately 
that is based on foreign actors linked to U.S. actors. To that 
extent I have a question today that is of deep concern.
    On June 6, a Venezuelan flagged plane landed in Buenos 
Aires. It had five Iranians and 14 Venezuelan crew. They were 
in fact IRGC officials. Other crew members had ties to 
terrorism. The plane was owned by a designated, U.S.-designated 
airline that had, in fact, been seen and proven to be ferrying 
weapons into Syria from Iran. It was designated to be connected 
to Hezbollah. All this is undeniable.
    The plane itself, its tail number is designated by the 
United States in the past.
    As a result, six weeks ago a Federal judge in Argentina 
referred an MLAT to your organization and to date has not had a 
response. This is normally a 24-hour turnaround because to hold 
these people, to have the information, to fight the war on 
terror and terrorism they need your cooperation. Are you 
familiar with this case?
    Mr. Olsen. I am generally familiar with the case, yes, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Issa. Can you explain why both myself and a U.S. 
Senator do not have an answer along with the Argentineans, 
which should have come in 24 hours?
    Mr. Olsen. This is an ongoing matter; I can't talk about 
the specifics. I am happy to take this question back and get 
back to you with any information I can further provide.
    Mr. Issa. Myself, Senator Ernst, and others would 
appreciate that, but let me just say that we find it 
conspicuous that Iran seems not to be getting the kind of 
scrutiny particularly considering the connection to Hezbollah, 
considering the threat to Israel, the threat to the United 
States, the threat to our allies in South and Central America 
that this should have been a high priority. Yes, I would like 
an answer, but I would like to know here today in the remaining 
time what you believe the appropriate turnaround time is for 
this kind of a request, particularly with proven terrorist 
activities in the hands of a friendly foreign government.
    Mr. Olsen. I will tell you that we take very seriously the 
threat from Iran, the Quds Force, the IRCG, and--
    Mr. Issa. No, no. Wait a second. If I can pause you for a 
moment. We took it seriously under the Trump Administration. We 
took it seriously when we were fighting Iran. Currently, there 
are negotiations to essentially normalize relations with Iran 
going on at the highest level of this government. So, the 
scrutiny I have now is why is it taking beyond the 24 hours? 
Tell me it is serious. Tell me why it is not 24 hours, and what 
are you going to do to get back to the historic turnaround time 
to work with our allies when confronted with terrorists?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I simply can't speak to the particulars of 
that request.
    Mr. Issa. I will take every other case. Are we going to get 
24-hour turnaround time in other cases or are we going to 
consistently not get it when there are policy issues at the 
very top that would seem to have you not want to go after the 
IRGC for their conducting of terrorist activities that endanger 
us, Israel, and our other allies?
    Mr. Olsen. I can absolutely assure you that political 
considerations do not affect how we enforce our national 
security laws.
    Mr. Issa. You can assure me, Mr. Olsen. You haven't done it 
here today.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia is recognized.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you 
to this Witness for your appearance today.
    Sir, I would like to ask you, does the FBI target parents 
at school board meetings who are protesting against mask 
mandates, critical race theory, or any other subject, and they 
do not threaten violence? Does the FBI have a system where it 
investigates these parents who are lawfully exercising their 
First Amendments rights?
    Mr. Olsen. So, the answer is no. The FBI, the Department of 
Justice investigates crimes, violence, and threats of violence. 
It does not, in fact, it is prohibited from opening 
investigations based solely on First Amendment protected 
activities. So, there is no targeting of anyone for exercising 
their First Amendment rights. In fact, that was made clear by 
the Attorney General and is consistent with my experience over 
20 years at the Justice Department.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Has the FBI seen a rise in threats 
against local school board officials that are threatening 
violence?
    Mr. Olsen. So, my understanding is that there has been a 
general rise in threats against individuals who serve in 
positions such as school boards, but also other local and State 
elected officials, as well as law enforcement, and that this 
concern about the rise in threats of violence, criminal 
activity, involving people who serve in positions of civic life 
is a growing concern for the Department of Justice, as it is 
for State and local police departments and prosecutors around 
the country.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Does the FBI and the Justice 
Department coordinate with local and State governments when 
there are threats of violence against school board officials?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes. In fact, that partnership between Federal 
law enforcement and Federal prosecutors, but particularly on 
the law enforcement side, between the Federal side and the 
State and locals is at the heart of the effort to ensure that 
people who serve in positions of public trust at every level 
are not subject to threats of violence, and at the same time, 
that individuals who seek to speak out at open hearings, 
whether in a school board or a city council hearing, that those 
rights are protected as well.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Do you find that the 
United States, excuse me, has been targeted with disinformation 
from both foreign and domestic sources and that this 
disinformation affects parents at local school board meetings, 
it affects Members of Congress with respect to disinformation 
about Hunter Biden, should there be any? Do you find that 
disinformation has caused people to react in ways that are 
problematic?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I can't speak to particular instances of 
disin-
formation or misinformation and how it may affect individuals 
in particular matters.
    What I can tell you is that the intelligence community for 
the United States does believe and has assessed that the spread 
of information, particularly over social media, has increased 
the reach and the speed of that reach of violent content, and 
it has increased the speed at which individuals may become 
radicalized and mobilized to violence. That is where we are 
focused, is where individuals are moved to commit acts of 
violence or threats of violence, criminal acts, that we, 
therefore, can then investigate and prosecute.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Has this disinformation been a 
factor in the rise of the terrorist threat from far-right 
nationalists, domestic far-right nationalists, who are also 
racists?
    Mr. Olsen. In my view, Congressman, the challenge of 
disinfor-
mation and misinformation is agnostic. We saw this challenge 
when it came to the use by ISIS of propaganda to try to recruit
and mobilize people to violence in the United States. It is 
true when it comes to domestic violent extremists as well, who 
may be moved to become radicalized based on misinformation and 
disinformation that they may consume over social media from 
other sources.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. I thank you for being 
diligent in the protecting of the security of the American 
people. With that, I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Mr. Jordan of Ohio is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Olsen, are you 
juicing the numbers?
    Mr. Olsen. I am not sure what you are referring to.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you talked all about, your opening about 
the number of domestic terrorism threats. We have had multiple 
whistleblowers come to our office and tell us that they are 
being pressured to categorize cases as domestic terrorist 
threats that aren't. I am just wondering, because it was the 
opening of your statement. Most of your statement you talked 
about this new office you field. Are you juicing the numbers?
    Mr. Olsen. I am not aware of the references you are making 
to the whistleblowers. What I can tell you is--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, we are aware of them. Who is--
    Mr. Olsen. --that the intelligence community has assessed 
that the threat we face from domestic violent extremism is 
elevated, and that is consistent with what I--
    Mr. Jordan. Who is Timothy Thibault?
    Mr. Olsen. I am sorry. I don't know that name.
    Mr. Jordan. You don't know that name? Mr. Grassley does. 
Mr. Grassley cited him in his letter. Mr. Gaetz brought him up 
in his five minutes of questioning. Mr. Thibault is a guy who 
suppressed information that was verifiable about Hunter Biden 
in 2020. You don't know who this individual is?
    Mr. Olsen. I am sorry. I don't know who that is.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you know what is also interesting about 
this individual? He is the guy that the whistleblowers told us 
is pressuring them to recategorize the cases as domestic 
terrorism cases. You don't know anything about him.
    Mr. Olsen. I do not.
    Mr. Jordan. All right. Well, I guess that maybe stands to 
reason. I find that interesting. How many more parents has the 
Department of Justice investigated?
    Mr. Olsen. The Justice Department and the FBI investigate 
individuals who commit acts of violence or threats of violence 
or Federal crimes.
    Mr. Jordan. I am talking--and relative to the school board 
issue, how many more parents have you--we know of 20-some, over 
two dozen, because, again, we have had other whistleblowers 
come forward and tell us about that. The number--it is almost 
like it is a well-worn trail of FBI agents coming as 
whistleblowers to our office because so many things that they 
are concerned about going on at the Justice Department. So, we 
know of over two dozen. I want to know how many more have you 
done since we sent that letter two months ago to the Justice 
Department.
    Mr. Olsen. We don't investigate anyone based on their 
status as a parent or not a parent. We would investigate and 
prosecute--
    Mr. Jordan. You would investigate them based on the threat 
tag EDUOFFICIALS, the designation. How many more than the 20-
some we know about already, how many more have been 
investigated because they have that threat tag associated with 
their name?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't believe that anyone has been 
investigated because they have a threat tag. I can't speak to 
that--
    Mr. Jordan. How else are you going to identify them? That 
was the FBI memo, threat tag on their name, EDUOFFICIALS, and 
they have been investigated. Again, we know of over two dozen 
of them.
    Mr. Olsen. I don't have specific information about that.
    Mr. Jordan. All right. You were on the press release when 
the Attorney General issued his memorandum on October 4, 2021. 
The National Security Division was mentioned on this press 
release that went out that day. Here is what the press release 
says. According to the Attorney General's memorandum, the 
Justice Department will launch a series of additional efforts, 
to include the creation of a task force.
    Has that task force been created?
    Mr. Olsen. I believe that it has, yes.
    Mr. Jordan. You believe or has it?
    Mr. Olsen. I believe that it has, yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Who is on it?
    Mr. Olsen. So, a number of components across the Justice 
Department.
    Mr. Jordan. No. Who is on the task force?
    Mr. Olsen. A number of components are represented on the 
task force from the Criminal Division to the Civil Division--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, components don't serve on task force. 
People do. Who are the people on the task force?
    Mr. Olsen. A number of representatives of those components 
serve on the task force.
    Mr. Jordan. Do you serve on it?
    Mr. Olsen. I am not a member of the task force. I have not 
been doing any meetings. So, there are a number of 
representatives across the department who form that task force.
    Mr. Jordan. Who from the NSD is on the task force?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I don't have any information about who, 
particularly, is on the task force from my division.
    Mr. Jordan. This was a big press release. This was the 
biggest story in the news last fall. The National Security 
Division is one of the components on the task force. You have 
never been to a task force meeting? You don't know who from 
your division is?
    Mr. Olsen. Correct.
    Mr. Jordan. Are you guys embarrassed about this whole 
looking into the school boards, going after moms and dads? Is 
this an--the National School Boards Association has pulled back 
their letter. They said they apologize for it. They regret that 
they did it. A bunch of States have pulled out of the 
organization. I am just wondering if that is the same attitude 
you guys now have. Frankly, that would be good if you did.
    Mr. Olsen. I think we take very seriously that anyone who 
serves in civic life deserves to be safe. Anyone who serves on 
a school board, on a city council, in any position of public 
trust, they should not be the subject of threats of violence or 
violence. That is the point of this effort is to work with 
particularly--
    Mr. Jordan. Yeah, and parents should be, should feel safe 
that they can speak their mind about their kids' education and 
not be harassed for doing so. We have sent you a 103 letters, 
584 specific requests over the last nine months. I have a whole 
stack of them here. Have you collected any of the information 
we have asked for? Have you collected that information?
    Mr. Olsen. I am aware that there have been requests. I 
don't know the status of the response of those requests. I am 
certainly willing to take--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, we know the status of the response. You 
have basically given us the finger and said we are not going to 
give you anything. We received two letters with a half a 
paragraph on each letter. I just want to know if you have 
actually collected the information. We know you are not going 
to give it to us because we would be seeing that over the last 
nine months. Have you collected any of it?
    Mr. Olsen. I am not sure what, sir, I am not sure what you 
mean by collected any of the information. I am certainly 
willing to--
    Mr. Jordan. Five hundred and eighty-four specific requests 
about correspondence, emails, communications between the 
Justice Department, the White House, and the Department of 
Education. We have asked for the information. I am just asking 
if you even started to collect it?
    Mr. Olsen. I am certainly willing to take that question 
back to our Office of--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, I think it is interesting you don't know 
the answer to it. So, it tells me you probably haven't.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I want to thank you, Assistant 
Attorney General Olsen, for being here today.
    One of the more dire threats we are seeing to our national 
security is coming from within our borders. In recent years, we 
have seen a rise in domestic terrorism and hate crimes across 
the country. In fact, an analysis by the Center for Strategic 
and International Studies showed that domestic terrorism in 
2020 was at the highest level in nearly three decades.
    Since 2005, right-wing extremists have been involved in 267 
domestic terror plots or attacks and responsible for 91 deaths 
according to the Center. This has included countless racially 
motivated attacks, mass shootings and killings, including 
earlier this year in Buffalo, New York, and El Paso, Texas, in 
2019 and at the Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018, and too many 
other places to name, instilling great fear and even insecurity 
among the American people.
    The National Security Division and your work is incredibly 
important to the defense of the homeland, not only from foreign 
threats but from domestic ones as well, which brings me to my 
first question. Attorney General Garland and Secretary of 
Homeland Security Mayorkas have both testified that the 
greatest domestic threat facing the United States comes from 
racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, 
specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the 
White race.
    How has the DOJ modified its intelligence and prosecution 
apparatus since the beginning of the Biden Administration to 
prioritize terrorist activity by White supremacists, White 
nationalists, and antigovernment groups in the United States 
responsible for the kind of violence I just described?
    Mr. Olsen. Sure. Look, we are threat driven at the National 
Security Division and across the Justice Department. So, we 
respond to the nature of the threats that we see and the way 
the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community 
characterizes those threats. They include threats from 
international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, but 
increasingly we have become concerned about groups that are 
based in the United States. Those groups run the gamut in terms 
of ideology and mix of ideology.
    Mr. Cicilline. I guess my question is, why has the DOJ 
struggled to investigate and prosecute these threats.
    Mr. Olsen. So, what I would say, for our part, what we did 
in the National Security Division was to establish a 
specialized unit within our counterterrorism section this year 
to focus on domestic terrorist threats and domestic violent 
extremists to make sure that we have the right data, because 
that is a challenge to understand the nature of the threat, to 
make sure that we have prosecutors dedicated to that effort, 
and also to make sure that we are focusing on violence and not 
First Amendment protected activities, because, of course, one 
of the concerns is that an individual may espouse hateful 
rhetoric, racist rhetoric, antigovernment rhetoric, but that is 
protected by the First Amendment. Our concern is when that, 
those views cross over into criminal acts, such as acts of 
violence.
    Mr. Cicilline. I want to ask you a question about a piece 
of legislation, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. 
This is bipartisan legislation that promotes competition, 
innovation, and consumer choice online.
    In its letter of support, a very strong letter of support, 
the Department of Justice explained that the gatekeeper power 
of dominant platforms threatens our economic leadership and 
resiliency and that by reining in this power our legislation 
will help promote America's dynamism and competitiveness.
    Some opponents of the bill have falsely claimed it could 
harm our national security or that the legislation has not been 
properly vetted for national security considerations. Isn't it 
true that the Justice Department's support of this bill 
reflects the entire department's views, including those of the 
National Security Division? As head of the National Security 
Division, do you have any national security concerns about the 
legislation?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes, I am certainly aware of the legislation and 
also that we have, at the department, have submitted a views 
letter in support of the bill, and that views letter reflects 
the input of my division, the National Security Division.
    I also know that the bill contains a number of provisions 
that are designed to address the types of concerns that were 
raised about and are being raised about national security. I 
look forward to working, if there are additional changes that 
need to be made, to address any additional national security 
concerns.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Finally, terrorism in the form of 
mass shootings has become increasingly prevalent in the United 
States. In 2021, we saw nearly 700 mass shootings, the most 
since the Gun Violence Archive began tracking them in 2014.
    Does the DOJ view these attacks as part of a broader 
domestic extremist terrorism problem? How does the DOJ 
incorporate the prevention of mass shooting into its national 
security work, if it does at all?
    Mr. Olsen. So, the challenge of mass shootings, tragic as 
we have seen, spans across the Department of Justice, right, at 
the Criminal Division, the Civil Rights Division, and the 
National Security Division. When we have instances of a mass 
shooting that is motivated by political views or ideology that 
falls into the category of domestic terrorism, that might be 
something, that would be something then that the National 
Security Division works on. We often work in coordination with 
the Civil Rights Division, because it has the jurisdiction over 
hate crime statutes, and many of these cases are prosecuted 
through hate crimes.
    What I can say, which I think is obvious, is that easy 
access to military grade weapons increases the likelihood that 
individuals who are extremists and hold extremist views and 
seek to carry out acts of violence are able to do so on a more 
significant scale.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time--
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Mr. Olsen, over here. 
It is ironic to hear my colleagues today talk about 
disinformation, because there is a lot of it being shared from 
the other side of the aisle. Let me reset the table here on the 
documented facts of what exactly we know about this whole 
school boards issue.
    As activist groups on the left continued to push their 
agenda on America's children last year, parents across the 
country began to speak out. They came to school board meetings. 
They expressed their views on critical race theory, mask 
mandates, and controversial curricula. That is their First 
Amendment right.
    As more parents spoke out, the National School Boards 
Association and the Biden Administration colluded, that is a 
specifically used term for a reason, to create a justification 
to use Federal law enforcement tools to silence those parents 
who were becoming a real problem for the agenda. As part of 
this collusion, the NSBA, the school board association, sent a 
now-famous letter to the White House dated September 29, 2021 
urging the Biden Administration to use the heavy hand of 
Federal law enforcement, including the PATRIOT Act, to target 
those moms and dads and chill their protected First Amendment 
rights.
    The White House not only colluded with the NSBA to craft 
the substance of that letter, but following the letter, 
President Biden called the then SBA President to say he was 
``appreciative'' of their letter and invited her to visit the 
Oval Office.
    The NSBA letter stated, ``malice, violence, and threats 
against school officials,'' quoting, ``could be the equivalent 
of a form of domestic terrorism or hate crimes.'' We didn't 
make that up. This is all documented.
    [The information follows:]



      

                        MR. JOHNSON OF LOUISIANA

                             FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The NSBA on May 20th of this year 
released a report. It had to commission a report because 20 of 
its organizations, its State school board associations, pulled 
out and disavowed the NSBA over all this nonsense. So, they 
commissioned a report to examine the events surrounding that 
September 29th letter to President Biden.
    The report offered all us and all the American people who 
were paying attention new evidence of exactly how the Justice 
Department coordinated with the White House to target parents. 
The report found that the first communications between the NSBA 
and the White House occurred on September 9th, almost a month 
prior to all this, and that the Biden White House closely 
coordinated with the NSBA on its letter to President Biden. 
This is the NSBA's information, not Republicans in Congress.
    Contrary to Attorney General Garland's sworn testimony to 
this Committee, sir, whistleblower information now shows that 
the Justice Department and its components quickly 
operationalized his directive. On October 20th, the day before 
AG Garland's congressional testimony, the FBI's Assistant 
Director for Counterterrorism Division sent an email 
referencing Garland's October 4th directive and notifying FBI 
personnel about a new threat tag created to apply to school 
board investigations. We know the threat tag is EDUOFFICIALS.
    We are not making this up, sir. The whistleblowers have 
confirmed it all. That threat tag has been used in almost every 
region of the country relating to all types of educational 
settings.
    I don't want to misquote you, but you are under oath. I 
believe that just a few moments ago you testified, ``no one has 
been investigated because of the EDUOFFICIALS threat tag.'' Did 
I misquote you?
    Mr. Olsen. No one has been investigated solely because of a 
threat tag. I will tell you that people are investigated 
because of acts of violence or threats of violence. That is why 
people are investigated.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. All right. So, it is your 
testimony today that parents, moms and dads, who went to school 
boards, engaged in violence sufficient to trigger 
investigations?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't have specific information on the number 
of cases.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Of course, you don't. Of course, 
you don't.
    Mr. Olsen. What I--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You don't know the number? You 
can't tell us the number of cases? Why is that sensitive?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't know the number of cases. What I can 
tell you is that--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Hold on. Wait a minute. You are 
the director. How do you not know the number of cases? Isn't 
this an important thing? You have testified here how important 
this is. You don't know the number?
    Mr. Olsen. If I may, so the National Security Division 
would only handle a matter if it were a matter that falls 
within the crimes that we are responsible for prosecuting. 
There may be cases that are being handled by other divisions--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay. How many is your division 
handling?
    Mr. Olsen. I am not aware of any that the National Security 
Division is handling.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Tell me about the threat tag 
EDUOFFICIALS. What was its purpose?
    Mr. Olsen. I would suggest directing that question to the 
FBI.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is so convenient, because 
when they are here, they point the finger elsewhere. Let me 
just say this. Look, moms and dads voicing their concerns at 
school board meetings are not domestic terrorists. For the 
White House to suggest as much or collude with anybody who does 
is absolutely outrageous. It is one of the glaring examples and 
the reasons why millions of American people now believe that 
the U.S. Department of Justice has been weaponized for 
political purposes.
    You and I both know the real threat to that is the rapid 
erosion of faith that our citizens have in our system of 
justice itself, in our institutions. It is at record lows right 
now. We cannot maintain a constitutional republic if people 
don't trust the system of justice and the fairness of the 
system. Targeting citizens for expressing their outrage over 
curricula is not an appropriate use of your resources.
    We are going to get down to the bottom of this when we get 
the majority here in a few months. We need you back under oath, 
because I think there is a lot more answers you are going to 
have to provide. I yield back.
    Mr. Olsen. If I may respond?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Sure.
    Mr. Olsen. I absolutely agree. It is essential that we 
maintain the trust of the American people and that they 
understand that we follow the rule of law and that we 
investigate crimes without regard to politics and ideology. 
Allegations that the FBI is silencing parents is reckless and 
false.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is not what the facts show. 
That is not what the whistleblowers say.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Madam Chair. To be clear, the 
Department of Justice has not been weaponized. What has been 
weaponized is a radical, right-wing, runaway, illegitimate 
Supreme Court majority taking away long-held freedoms from the 
American people. That is what has been weaponized.
    Mr. Olsen, Attorney General Garland testified that the 
greatest domestic threat facing the United States comes from 
racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists. Do you 
agree with that statement?
    Mr. Olsen. Look, I agree that the--I can't say which type 
of ideology, because there is a mix of ideologies that often 
form the domestic terrorism threat. I do think that the rise in 
domestic terrorism from a range of ideologies is a significant 
concern.
    Mr. Jeffries. So, in recent years, we have seen a 
significant uptick in violent attacks, in many cases 
perpetrated by White supremacists. According to a 2020 report 
by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, White 
supremacists conducted 67 percent of terrorist plots and 
attacks in the United States. Is that figure consistent with 
what you have seen in terms of the rise of domestic terrorist 
attacks?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't know that exact report. I do know that 
our intelligence community has said that the most significant 
number of attacks come from two sets of ideologies, racially 
motivated and antigovernment. Those are the two that are most 
likely result in lethal attacks.
    Mr. Jeffries. Has there been any understanding as to why we 
have seen sort of a rise in organized, racially motivated 
domestic terrorist activity?
    Mr. Olsen. I think there are studies to look at the 
potentially many factors that give rise to this threat. I would 
note that it is not new. It goes back, obviously, to the 
beginning of the country. In fact, the Department of Justice 
was founded in part to take on the KKK. So, it is not a new 
challenge, but it is one that has increased in recent years.
    Mr. Jeffries. It is not a new challenge certainly, but it 
is newly resonant. It is a very troubling development. What 
role does social media play in the ability to sort of 
radicalize potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions, 
of Americans with respect to this violent extremism that we are 
seeing increase in its resonance?
    Mr. Olsen. I think it is a significant challenge, 
Congressman. I think the intelligence agencies that look at 
this have assessed that the way social media works it can 
accelerate an individual's move from being radicalized to even 
mobilizing to violence because of the exposure to online 
content that can happen at such a quick pace so that 
individuals are radicalized quickly and often radicalized in 
ways that are difficult to detect because they are consuming 
this content by themselves or in very small groups.
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, with respect to the January 6th attack, 
am I correct that there were several White supremacist 
organizations, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, that 
seemingly played a prominent role in the horrific events of 
that fateful day?
    Mr. Olsen. There is no doubt that individuals who identify 
themselves as members of those groups that you mentioned, Oath 
Keepers and Proud Boys, were present. Many of them have been 
charged and indictments here in Washington, DC, including two 
separate indictments that charge the crime of seditious 
conspiracy.
    Mr. Jeffries. Is it also fair to say that the Oath Keepers 
and Proud Boys are increasingly targeting people within law 
enforcement or former law enforcement personnel or in some 
cases people within the military or former military personnel?
    Mr. Olsen. We certainly do look at whether individuals 
within these groups espouse those types of ideologies. Look, we 
are looking at individuals, some of them identify, self-
identify as being members of those groups. We don't look at 
those groups as groups. We look at individuals who may, in 
fact, conspire with other individuals who are self-identified 
as members of those groups to see if they have committed 
criminal acts. That is how we look at those cases.
    Mr. Jeffries. Given this rise in racially motivated violent 
extremism, how is the Department of Justice or your particular 
division working with State and local law enforcement officials 
to try to prevent, to the best extent possible, things like the 
massacre at Mother Emanuel Church or the massacre at the Tree 
of Life Synagogue or most recently the massacre at a 
supermarket in Buffalo, New York?
    Mr. Olsen. It is a really important question, because when 
it comes to this type of violence, it is almost certainly going 
to be the State and local first responders who are going to be 
first on the scene. In many cases, they will ultimately 
prosecute these cases.
    So, the partnership between the FBI and State and local 
police, as well as at the prosecutorial level, is critical to 
addressing this challenge. We do training. The FBI is often in 
a support role from an investigative standpoint, sometimes in a 
primary role. Some of these cases are ultimately prosecuted in 
Federal court based on Federal charges. Many, many cases are 
prosecuted in State courts, so we need to make sure that we are 
all playing at the same level.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Buck. I thank the Chair. Mr. Olsen, I was honored to 
serve as a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice, at 
the U.S. Attorney's Office primarily, part of the time at main 
Justice for 15 years. I understand what you are saying about 
revealing information about ongoing investigations. I 
understand what you are saying about the, or at least I 
understand your reticence in answering some of the questions.
    I think it would comfort the American people--and I had 
some prepared questions. I am going to someday, hopefully, get 
answers to those questions. I think it would comfort the 
American people to know that you get it.
    I now have the honor of listening over and over, 
practically every weekend, to constituents who are afraid that 
the Federal government is getting into an area that it 
shouldn't get into. State and local officials can handle the 
protests, threats, and violent attacks. They are fairly rare 
when you look at all the school board meetings that are going 
on across this country.
    It would be comforting for all of us to hear that you 
understand that it is not a Federal issue. Antifa is a Federal 
issue. White nationalism, I hope you eradicate White 
nationalism in this country. I think everybody on this side on 
the aisle and that side of the aisle would agree on that. I 
hope that there are no Nazis left in the United States who 
would commit a violent act. Now, if there are people that 
believe things, we don't go after them for their beliefs. 
Anybody who would commit a violent act because of White 
supremacist beliefs or White nationalist beliefs, by all means 
look at that at a national level, because it is of a national 
scope.
    School board meetings and the threats against school board 
meetings, it concerns a lot of us greatly that there is 
actually a tag that is associated with that. I give you an 
opportunity to answer that. I would like to ask a couple of 
other questions, too.
    Mr. Olsen. I really appreciate that, because I think I 
agree completely with everything you just said. By and large, 
what we are talking about when it comes to threats of violence 
directed against State and local officials, school board 
members, those are matters that are going to be handled by 
State and local prosecutors and law enforcement. They always 
have been, and they will, they must I think continue to be.
    There is a role for the Federal government certainly with 
the national level cases you are talking about. Whether we are 
talking about racially motivated violence, domestic violent 
extremism, there may be a case at the State and local level 
that, the rare case that rises.
    I do think you are right that this--look, I am a parent of 
three children. My son is sitting behind me. I have been to 
school board meetings. I have spoken, much to his dismay, at 
school board meetings. I understand that parents absolutely 
have a right to be involved and should be involved in speaking 
up and disagreeing paciferously at times with the decisions 
that are being made at the local level.
    Absolutely we are committed. I personally am committed. The 
National Security Division is committed to protecting the 
rights of parents, citizens to speak out, to voice their 
concerns, even if we don't agree. We really need to draw that 
line between that free speech that we cherish and violence. 
That is the line that we draw.
    I also agree we need to be thoughtful about the role that 
the Federal government plays and to play an appropriate role, 
often in partnership and support of State and local law 
enforcement.
    Mr. Buck. I appreciate you saying that. I think it does 
comfort the American people that a leader says that. I want to 
make sure your son understands that he should be very proud of 
his father's service to our country.
    I want to ask, though. There is another area that concerns 
me and another area that I continue to hear a concern from my 
constituents. That is that the riots on January 6th at the 
United States Capitol were horrific. They were intended to 
disrupt a legitimate government function. They should be 
prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    The riots that occurred throughout our country in the 
Summer of 2020 were horrific. They were damaging. The American, 
many of the American people in my district--and granted, it is 
a fairly rural district and a fairly conservative district. 
Many of those people expressed concerns that there is not a 
parity between the attention that was given to those that 
committed crimes on January 6th and those that committed crimes 
throughout the Summer of 2020.
    Furthermore, as part of that analysis, the crimes that were 
committed on, throughout the Summer of 2020 appeared to be 
coordinated. I would like to ask you very specifically. Can you 
tell this Committee that George Soros was not behind, and his 
money was not behind, directly or indirectly, the Antifa 
activities that occurred in the Summer of 2020?
    Mr. Olsen. Yeah, certainly any of the work I have done I 
have never seen any suggestion of that. However, that is not 
really something that I would look at in terms of the cases 
that we handle in the National Security Division.
    So, but I do agree with you that we need to look, and we 
are looking evenhandedly across the board, whether we are 
talking about crimes committed during the riots and destruction 
of the Summer of 2020 and at the horrific attack on the Capitol 
on January 6th and using the tools that we have.
    The reality is that the thousands of arrests that occurred 
in the Summer of 2020, most of those were handled by State and 
local, as they should have been. The difference, of course, in 
some ways, I think it accounts for the attention paid on 
January 6th beyond the nature of that attack and the 
significance of it is that most of those crimes are Federal 
crimes, if not all, because the target was the Capitol. So, I 
do think that accounts for some of the difference in view when 
it comes to the role of the Federal government.
    The fundamental point that you make I completely agree 
with. We need to be apolitical in how we handle these cases. We 
need to look across the board and be driven by the nature of 
the threats we face.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Swalwell 
from California is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    Mr. Olsen, my Republican colleagues have said over and over 
that school board violence is, quote, ``fairly rare.'' A 
Reuters story on February 15, 2022, begins with:

        The letter came to the home of Brenda Sheridan, a Loudoun 
        County Virginia School Board member, addressed to one of her 
        adult children. It threatened to kill them both unless she left 
        the board. It's too bad that your mother is an ugly communist 
        whore, said the hand-scrawled note, which the family read just 
        after Christmas. If she doesn't quit or resign before the end 
        of the year, we will kill her, but first we will kill you.

The story goes on to document over 220 examples of such violent 
intimidation. I would like to enter that under unanimous 
consent into the record.
    Ms. Scanlon. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                      MR. SWALWELL FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Mr. Swalwell. Now, Mr. Olsen, what concerns me is that you 
are being questioned by a lot who has become more comfortable 
with violence than voting, that has associated itself more with 
chaos than community, but do you agree that what I just 
described to you is something that law enforcement should be 
concerned about, and that law enforcement should investigate?
    Mr. Olsen. Absolutely anyone who serves in a position such 
as a school board members should be free from the fear of 
threats of violence or acts of violence. Absolutely.
    Mr. Swalwell. Now, I am the son of a school board member 
myself. As someone who signed up to serve for the same reason, 
I think you have signed up to serve, do you also agree that if 
a parent goes and peacefully but very passionately describes 
their own beliefs about their child's curriculum, that that 
person should not be investigated?
    Mr. Olsen. Of course. That's protected by our First 
Amendment.
    Mr. Swalwell. I have to say I am not surprised that there 
are so many acts that are hardly fairly rare of violence 
because in this building America's leaders are stoking that 
violence. So, many of my colleagues now on their social media 
they love to hold their assault rifle and threaten the 
President to come and get it. They love to use their social 
media accounts to threaten to kill the Speaker of the House. 
That has happened. They have used their social media accounts 
to depict themselves in anime as killing the President of the 
United States. So, it would not surprise me that people in 
their community would go to a school board meeting and act the 
way that I just described. I am grateful that you are 
investigating people who would threaten violence and I am also 
grateful that you are not investigating people who have 
legitimate concerns about their children's curriculum.
    Also, I just have to debunk the Soros nonsense. Thank you 
for clarifying that. That is a part of a long-standing anti-
Semitic trope that we see from the other side that goes after 
George Soros, that goes after Michael Bloomberg, and any Jewish 
individual who contributes to campaigns to suggest that they 
support and fund violence.
    It is incomparable to take the violence that occurred 
during protests of the Summer of 2020 and what happened in this 
Capitol, the largest crime ever investigated as far as number 
of individuals investigated, indicted, sentenced. So, thank you 
for that.
    I want to ask you just briefly about the antitrust 
legislation that my colleague Mr. Cicilline referenced. My 
concern and the concern of others on this Committee is that if 
we were to have sideloading to take Apple's store, for example, 
and require them to take on apps from anywhere, essentially 
take a curated app store and allow it to be a flea market where 
anyone can come in and sell their apps on the platform.
    There are concerns about security, whether the Chinese 
would flood the app store with their own apps that could vacuum 
up U.S. consumer data and send it back to Beijing, not only 
making our privacy affected, but also any people in the 
intelligence community, or Russia using the platform to flood 
it with apps that could sow disinformation, whether it is our 
own elections or its campaign in Ukraine.
    Would you be willing, Mr. Olsen, to listen to evidence from 
other parts of the intelligence community if they have new 
concerns that came out after the letter that your agency sent 
as it relates to the antitrust legislation?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes. As we had the chance to talk about the--
    Mr. Swalwell. I am sorry. I meant the Department of 
Justice.
    Mr. Olsen. Yes. Yes. As this legislation moved through the 
process we did have the opportunity to comment on it. I do 
think some of the provisions that were incorporated addressed 
national security concerns, but of course if there are 
additional issues or concerns that are raised particularly by 
our intelligence community, it would be incumbent on us and the 
Justice Department and elsewhere to take those seriously.
    Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Listen, have there been any FISA orders or warrants 
obtained to assist in the investigation of what happened 
January 6?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I think you can appreciate, Congressman, I 
am not in a position to talk about any matters that occur 
before the FISA Court involving the implementation of the--
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, the only way that we can--
    Mr. Olsen. --[inaudible] classified.
    Mr. Gohmert. --have oversight to discern whether or not 
that we should ever allow FISA to continue is if we find out 
what has been going on. I was here beginning January of 2005. 
We talked to lots of people from the Justice Department. We 
were assured nothing, but foreign matters were going before the 
FISA Court.
    So, imagine the shock when we saw this order from the FISA 
Court which basically--well, not basically, it says that all 
call detail records created by Verizon for communication 
between the United States and abroad; there is the foreign, or 
wholly within the United States including local telephone calls 
all had to be turned over.
    As I understand there are still orders similar to that that 
have a big net, and once that information goes into the 
database of your department, of the DOJ, of the NSA, then there 
are thousands of people that can access that and have accessed 
that and done searches.
    So, the question, when you have something that we are told 
is wholly domestic, that it is the domestic threat that is so 
serious, it is an important question to know whether you are 
using something called FISA, where the F stands for foreign, to 
go after American citizens, because that--I can tell you when I 
was here back in 2006 and 2008 we were talking these matters 
us, if people had known how badly that was being abused, there 
were people back then on both sides of the aisle who would have 
said wait a minute, this is just being abused so much.
    So, that is why it is a fair question to know, in general, 
not specific cases, is the FISA Court--has it been used to get 
orders to investigate January 6?
    Mr. Olsen. So again, I'm not familiar with the order that 
you referred to a moment ago.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, it was leaked. I think it was Wikileaks. 
That is what was so shocking to so many of us. Look, the abuses 
occurred during the Bush Administration, the Obama 
Administration. There were some in the Trump Administration. I 
feel sure it is still going on. We need to know the extent of 
that.
    Well let me ask you about a case. In Kilgore, Texas a lady 
there working for a private oil company got a text from her 
nephew. He had been looking through the FBI pictures and said 
you recognize anybody in this picture? It looked similar to 
her. Did a LOL. Gee, that looks like me; don't turn me in. 
Couple of days later two FBI agents show up at her place of 
business demanding to know where she was on January 6. She was 
in Kilgore, Texas. Then they threatened her boss that he could 
go to prison for covering for her.
    Is there any order from any court that allows the DOJ or 
the NSA to monitor text messages of American citizens?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes. Obviously there are court orders, whether 
they come from Federal courts, not the FISA Court, or the 
Federal FISA Court, that authorized pursuant to law search 
warrants and surveillance--
    Mr. Gohmert. Yes, but search warrants under the Fourth 
Amendment have to describe with particularity the things to be 
searched or seized, and that is not happening. That has not 
been happening. So, when you have no probable cause to go after 
somebody in Kilgore, Texas, we had heard about, oh gee, there 
is software to look for specific words that allow you to go 
after anybody that hasn't committed crimes. We really need to 
know how widespread that is. Can you give us an answer? Is that 
being used?
    Mr. Olsen. It's just really important to point out, sir, 
that the way the law works is that the Federal judge, a Federal 
FISA Court judge will only approve an order based on probable 
cause that an individual is an agent of a foreign power.
    Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Olsen, we have proof that is a lie.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Gohmert. It has not been followed and it needs to be.
    Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Raskin is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Welcome, sir. Thank you for your testimony. Dangerous 
extremists jacked up on racist and anti-Semitic propaganda like 
the White Replacement Theory have committed massacres in 
Buffalo, in El Paso, at the Tree of Life Cinema--Synagogue 
rather, in the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, and 
South Carolina. The American people are obviously very upset 
about this explosion of gun violence by dangerous extremists. A 
number of the extremist groups also participated significantly 
in the violent insurrection against our government on January 
6, 2021.
    I am wondering about the internal structure of the 
Department of Justice and how it has worked to try to address 
this threat in the country. I know that after 9/11 the 
department redefined its mission and priorities to focus on 
counterterrorism and this included the formation of the Anti-
terrorism Advisory Council and the National Joint Terrorism 
Task Force.
    Have these existing structures created in the wake of 9/11 
been adapted to address White supremacist violent 
radicalization and this new domestic terror threat or are there 
other structures that you have innovated to respond to it?
    Mr. Olsen. I think it is a really important question, 
Congressman. I do believe that we are adapting. The National 
Security Division, as others have pointed out and you note, it 
was formed in 2006 largely to consolidate the Department's 
National Security structures to focus on the international 
threat from Al Qaeda, in particular.
    We have evolved over time. We have built the ability to go 
after cyber-attacks and cyber actors for example, and we've 
increased our ability there. We have a FARA Unit to go after 
transparency.
    The question you raise about domestic terrorism--this year 
I established a Domestic Terrorism Unit within our 
Counterterrorism section to increase our focus on the types of 
threats we face from domestic violent extremists.
    In addition, I have formed with the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Civil Right Division, Kristen Clarke, an 
ongoing partnership because so many of the attacks that you 
mentioned, whether it's Buffalo or Charleston or El Paso--these 
are not only domestic violent extremists' attacks, but they're 
also hate crimes. We had learned over the years that our hate 
crimes are our most effective Federal criminal tool to go after 
those.
    In support of each other in partnership, a partnership that 
maybe wasn't an obvious one 15 years ago, between the National 
Security Division and the Civil Right Division, has proven to 
be very effective in making sure that prosecutors on both sides 
are bringing all our resources and expertise to bear on the 
growing problem that we face, as you note in our question.
    So, I think we're evolving. We're working again with the 
FBI which has a Domestic Terrorism Operation section to focus 
on this threat. There's more we can do and we are going to 
continue to be driven by the nature of the threats we face.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that because violent far-
right terrorism is striking all over the country in churches, 
mosques, synagogues, movie theaters, Walmarts, and grocery 
stores. Of the 30 domestic terror fatalities last year CSIS 
found that 28 of them resulted from far-right terrorist 
attacks. So, the vast majority, nearly all of them.
    You previously testified that the number of FBI 
investigations of suspects accused of domestic extremism had 
more than doubled since the spring of 2020. Has this jump in 
the number of investigations led to an increase in actual 
indictments and prosecutions if you excluding for the moment 
the January 6 prosecution?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I don't have a specific number on that, 
Congressman, because that number jumped, that doubling does 
include the January 6th cases. Of course, there we have over 
800 arrests of individuals. All of them are characterized as 
domestic violent extremists, to be clear, but many are. Those 
do account for at least a significant portion of that jump over 
the past two years in the number of investigations.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. Are there any other proactive measures 
you are taking to try to address this threat?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, say again, sir?
    Mr. Raskin. Are there proactive measures that DOJ is taking 
to address the threat of far-right terrorism?
    Mr. Olsen. Absolutely. In fact, part of the challenge is 
that we have not historically done a good job of categorizing 
and capturing the numbers. So, just the data collection--
because many of these cases are actually prosecuted at the 
State and local level or by Federal U.S. Attorneys' Offices 
around the country. So, we're getting better at just capture 
that data. That's one proactive aspect of this threat, as well 
as training that we're doing around the country.
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time--
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Attorney General, every riot or act of violence or 
threat thereof taking place anywhere in this nation, whoever is 
responsible for it, is unconscionable and we on this side, 
Republicans, we reject it; we condemn it.
    As elected Members of Congress we must do our part and call 
out acts of violence, just not those that fit a particular 
partisan narrative. We need to reject them all.
    Democrats unfortunately have been very focused on the 
rhetoric that led up to the riots on January 6th, and yet for 
the most part they have been silent when similar language and 
tactics are used by their supporters. Following the 
unprecedented leak of Supreme Court's draft decision in Dobbs 
Democrats ignored the threats of violence including an 
assassination attempt on a Supreme Court Justice.
    In addition to proabortion activists, these abortion 
activists have targeted Supreme Court Justices. Fanatics 
professing proabortion views have targeted, destroyed, and 
vandalized dozens and dozens of pro-life facilities and 
churches to further a political cause.
    Arguably the incendiary rhetoric used by some of the 
radical left has only encouraged that violence against those 
facilities and those justices and is putting lives at risk. 
Members of Congress must condemn, not condone violence in 
furtherance of a political agenda. Look no further than Senator 
Chuck Schumer who took to the steps of the Supreme Court in 
2020 when the Court was considering a Louisiana pro-life law 
and said, quote,

        I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you 
        have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You 
        won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful 
        decisions.

That is what Chuck Schumer said, the Democratic head over in 
the Senate.
    Assistant Attorney General Olsen, is that the kind of 
rhetoric that is helpful when trying to avert abortion-related 
violent extremism?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I completely agree with you, Congressman, 
that this is not a partisan issue. Everyone who serves in a 
position of public trust, certainly at the very top, the 
members of our Supreme Court, deserve to be safe. We have taken 
very seriously the threats of violence and violence. In fact, 
we are prosecuting an individual with attempted assassination 
of Justice Kavanaugh. We have provided support and protection 
through the Marshall Service to the Supreme Court. We have 
supported legislation to increase that support. We take that 
extremely seriously.
    Similarly, you mentioned the attacks on pregnancy resource 
centers and pro-life centers and groups. Also, not a partisan 
issue. Violence, threats of violence absolutely not acceptable. 
The FBI has opened a series of cases involving those attacks or 
threats against those resource centers, some of them opened as 
domestic violent extremist cases. So, this is not a partisan 
issue for the Justice Department.
    Mr. Chabot. It is critical that you do that. You absolutely 
need to do that because we have got facilities there where 
these organizations are trying to help women in need and they 
are being attacked, and it is outrageous.
    As we saw in June the radical proabortion group Ruth Sent 
Us, the same organization that originally posted the addresses 
of the six conservative justices published the name of Justice 
Amy Coney Barrett's church and the school her children attend, 
the very school that her young children attend, encouraging 
protestors to, quote, ``voice your anger.''
    Is that the kind of rhetoric that is helpful when trying to 
avert abortion-related violent extremism?
    Mr. Olsen. I think again we look at acts of violence and 
threats of violence that violate the criminal law. It is an 
unfortunate fact of our civic life that there is strong 
language, reprehensible language on both sides.
    Mr. Chabot. Well, I assume you would condemn putting up a 
Supreme Court Justice's children's--what school they go to and 
what church they attend. You don't condone doing that sort of 
thing, do you?
    Mr. Olsen. I may personally find certain comments or 
statements reprehensible and not acceptable, but in my role at 
the National Security Division, we look at threats of violence 
and we prosecute those at the same time that we protect 
American's right to enjoy their First Amendment rights.
    Mr. Chabot. Let me ask you this: Another leftist group 
ShutdownDC offered bounties, bounties to D.C. industry workers: 
Waiters, etc., for reporting confirming sightings of 
conservative justices and additional money of the justices were 
still at the establishment 30 minutes after the initial report. 
Is offering bounties for sighting justices helpful when we are 
trying to avert violent extremism?
    Mr. Olsen. Again, our goal is to investigate and prosecute 
crimes, threats of violence and violence. It is one of our 
cherished protections that people can speak out under the First 
Amendment and do so in ways that obviously many people, if not 
most, don't agree with. That's part of what it means to be an 
American.
    Mr. Chabot. Well, they are putting a lot of lives--
    Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Chabot. I know my time is expired, so I yield back.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Attorney General Olsen, for your service. We 
appreciate your testimony here today. Just please confirm that 
your job is to prevent, disrupt, investigate, and prosecute all 
forms of terrorism. Is that correct?
    Mr. Olsen. That is correct.
    Ms. Demings. Does that include both foreign and domestic?
    Mr. Olsen. It does.
    Ms. Demings. Are you committed to protecting in your work 
the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Americans?
    Mr. Olsen. I am.
    Ms. Demings. Regardless of the color of their skin, their 
gender, sexual orientation, and religion?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes.
    Ms. Demings. As a former law enforcement officer, contrary 
to some of my colleagues who really like to pick and choose who 
they want to prosecute, based on political part or if it serves 
their political agenda by any means necessary, but, Mr. Olsen, 
I can assure that I am committed to holding all violators of 
the law accountable. I do believe that those who are most 
dangerous, those who are most engaged in the most heinous 
behaviors should be held accountable first.
    We have heard a lot of talk about the school board. As a 
parent who has attended school board meetings, like you, 
parents are supposed to be involved in what is happening with 
their children in school.
    I can tell you, I have never seen any parental behavior 
that even comes close--even as a law enforcement officer--to 
the violent, deadly behavior that we all were subjected to on 
January 6th. However, my colleagues seldom talk about that, 
unless it is in an effort to explain their inaction, or it is 
an effort to explain why they should ignore subpoenas. As a 
matter of fact, my colleagues on the other side said, if you 
did not know better, you would think it was a normal tourist 
visit. Well, it certainly was not that. Nor do they talk a 
whole lot about Uvalde or Buffalo or Pulse nightclub that is in 
my district; bomb threats against HBCUs, synagogues.
    Mr. Olsen, you talked about the unit that had formed within 
your department that will investigate domestic terrorism. Could 
you just talk a little bit more about that--or staffing, 
resources. Where are we? Are you able to meet the goals of that 
unit? Or what do you still need from Congress to help you to be 
able to fulfill that mission?
    Mr. Olsen. I really appreciate this opportunity, but we 
formed that unit with the existing attorneys that we had within 
the Counterterrorism Section. So, it is starting small, but we 
are going to grow it to meet the threat.
    What I can tell you is, as I said in my opening, when we 
look at the threat across the board, whether it comes from 
violence against public officials at the State and local level 
all the way to attacks like what we saw in Buffalo, in 
particular, the January 6th attack stands apart. It represents 
now the single largest domestic terrorism investigation in the 
nation's history--more than 800 arrests, hundreds of those for 
felonies.
    I think it is important, as we talk about the range of 
threats, that we be clear-eyed and understand the threat that 
that attack posed to American democracy, as individuals 
involved in that attack sought to prevent the peaceful transfer 
of power. That is why our unit, our organization in the 
National Security Division, is joined in partnership with the 
U.S. Attorney's Office here in Washington, DC, and the Criminal 
Division of the Justice Department, to make sure that we have 
all the resources to bring to bear on what amounts to one of 
the most wide-ranging investigations in history, which really 
reflects the significance and gravity of that day, and the days 
leading up to it, of January 6th.
    Ms. Demings. You would really think the Judiciary Committee 
of the United States House of Representatives would be really 
concerned about the most wide-ranging investigation that 
involved trying to not certify a free and fair election. That 
is not the case, as all America who has been watching knows 
today.
    I want to very quickly ask, you made a statement to a 
question from Congresswoman Jackson Lee earlier about the 
millions of 702 queries that likely resulted in a search for 
victims of a cyber breach. Mr. Olsen, was that related to the 
courts' cyber breach?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't think I can talk about it in this 
setting. The reason for those searches, I can tell you that it 
was related to a cyber, investigation of a cyber-attack.
    Ms. Demings. Okay. All right. So, that is something that we 
can in another setting get more information--
    Mr. Olsen. Absolutely. Happy to talk about it just with you 
and others on the Committee in a classified setting.
    Ms. Demings. My time is up, but thank you again for doing 
God's work. We appreciate you.
    Ms. Scanlon. We now have two votes on the House Floor. 
Therefore, the Committee will recess until immediately after 
the last vote.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Correa. [Presiding.] The Committee will now come to 
order.
    I will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McClintock, for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Olsen, is it illegal under Federal law to picket or 
parade in front of a Justice's residence with the intent to 
influence or intimidate their decisions?
    Mr. Olsen. Hard for me to answer a question in the 
hypothetical, Congressman.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, let me read you the statute then.

        Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or 
        impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of 
        influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the 
        discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building 
        housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building 
        or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or 
        court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or 
        similar device or . . . , shall be fined under this title or 
        imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Is that news to you? Is this the first time you have ever heard 
of that statute?
    Mr. Olsen. No, I'm aware of the statute.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, then, I would ask for a little more 
candor in your answers to my questions.
    Why is that law not being enforced?
    Mr. Olsen. That law will be enforced, like all Federal 
laws, based on the evidence that we are able to obtain and the 
application of the law--
    Mr. McClintock. We are watching videos of this occurring 
quite regularly in front of Justices' residences. Why is it not 
being prosecuted?
    Mr. Olsen. We prosecute the laws based on the evidence and 
facts that we're able to obtain in every case.
    Mr. McClintock. Yes, you have said that multiple times. 
That's not an answer to the question.
    Your department has put enormous resources into 
investigating and prosecuting the disruption of our January 6th 
Joint Session of Congress. How does this compare with the 
resources in investigating and prosecuting threats and 
intimidation of members of the Supreme Court?
    Mr. Olsen. I will tell you that, with respect just to the 
concerns that I think are serious that are involve threats of 
violence against members of the Supreme Court--
    Mr. McClintock. No, are you putting the same effort--
    Mr. Olsen. --that we're prosecuting in connection with 
Justice Kavanaugh's attempted assassination.
    Mr. McClintock. Are you putting the same effort and 
resources in prosecuting the intimidation--
    Mr. Olsen. We are adding security to the Marshals Service, 
to the members of the Supreme Court--
    Mr. McClintock. How do those resources compare with what 
you have put into the riots on January 6th?
    Mr. Olsen. I think that's apples and oranges. It's very 
hard to say. One event--
    Mr. McClintock. In a sense, I think you're right.
    Mr. Olsen. In one event, we are applying the resources 
necessary to address the threat in that case, and another case 
we're applying the resources commensurate with the threat in 
that case.
    Mr. McClintock. The electoral count resumed the moment the 
last of these yayhoos was kicked out of this building. The 
would-be assassin of Justice Kavanaugh made it very clear that, 
by killing a conservative Supreme Court Justice or two, he 
could singlehandedly change the majority of the Court. 
Unfortunately, I think that equation is correct.
    Do you consider that as grave a threat to the 
constitutional order as a lunatic wearing buffalo horns 
entering this building?
    Mr. Olsen. With respect to Justice Kavanaugh, that was a 
very serious crime, and an individual has been charged with 
attempted assassination in connection with Justice Kavanaugh.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, you've refused to prosecute the 
multiple demonstrations that are in violation of Federal law 
that have been occurring in front of Supreme Court Justices' 
homes, and then, you're shocked--just shocked--that an assassin 
shows up at his doorstep. I find that astonishing for an 
officer given the trust that you have been given by the United 
States Government. By failing to enforce the laws that protect 
the safety of Supreme Court Justices, aren't you, in effect, 
sending an open season message to extremists across the 
country?
    Mr. Olsen. We're enforcing the laws based on the facts and 
the evidence in every case. In fact, as I've said, we have 
charged an individual with attempted assassination involving 
Justice Kava-
naugh. We've added security for the Justices. We've supported 
legislation to add security to the Justices.
    Mr. McClintock. Turning a blind eye to laws--
    Mr. Olsen. We are taking that threat very seriously.
    Mr. McClintock. --and turned a blind eye to the laws that 
protect those Justices in their homes. I find that shocking.
    Mr. Olsen. I categorically reject the characterization of 
our actions as ``turning a blind eye.''
    Mr. McClintock. There are no actions, Mr. Olsen.
    Mr. Olsen. I categorically reject that.
    Mr. McClintock. There is total inaction when it comes to 
enforcing that law that you originally pretended you hadn't 
even heard of.
    How big a threat to the Mexican crime cartels and the 
affiliated gangs pose to the security and safety of the 
American people?
    Mr. Olsen. The threat from cartels--it's certainly a 
criminal threat. I would--
    Mr. McClintock. We've had 900,000 gotaways because the 
Border Patrol has been completely overwhelmed by this mass 
migration along our southern border. We know there were 5,000 
or more terrorists released from Parwan Detention Facility when 
this administration unconditionally surrendered to the Taliban. 
How many of those terrorists do you imagine are among the 
900,000 gotaways that we were unable to intercept? We know that 
we were able to intercept 60.
    Mr. Olsen. I would want to verify the veracity of your 
assertions before responding to that question.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, here's my fear: I think you're 
tracking down and prosecuting--I don't know--
    Mr. Correa. The time--but if the Witness wishes to answer 
the question--
    Mr. Olsen. No, I just have no basis to ascertain the truth 
of those assertions. So, I'd want to verify that before trying 
to answer that question.
    Mr. McClintock. I'm sorry, do you question the reports of 
900,000 gotaways?
    Mr. Correa. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. McClintock, thank you very much.
    I will now recognize myself for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Olsen, sir, first, let me thank you for your service. 
You've got a tough job--defense of our country, our citizens. 
You have to play 100 percent defense. You can't let them score 
in any way, form, or manner.
    If I can, let me turn to cyber a little bit, cybersecurity. 
Question: At what point does a cyber-attack on our nation 
constitute a declaration of war? We recently had an attack on 
our Federal court system--brazen, unbelievable. It's a 
rhetorical question.
    Mr. Olsen. Yeah.
    Mr. Correa. I don't think you can answer that. The point 
that's made, which is cyber is an attack on our nation and it's 
a deadly attack in many ways.
    I presume you're concerned with the increasing cyber-
attacks/threats from Russia and China and other actors.
    Mr. Olsen. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Correa. This Committee recently considered legislation 
that requires American companies to open their hardware and 
software to the third parties, which could allow of these 
actors--China, Russia, and others--to have additional access to 
U.S. consumer data. Doesn't this pose a cybersecurity risk?
    Mr. Olsen. So, the cyber threat is a vast and complicated 
one. Now, at the National Security Division, we're focused on 
nation-state-type attacks, particularly, as you mentioned, sir, 
China and Russia. China, actually probably, is the most 
significant actor when it comes to cyber-enabled espionage. It 
is a challenge for both the government, public sector, and the 
private sector. It's one that we are very focused on at the 
Justice Department in terms of investigating and prosecuting, 
but we're part of a broad, all-of-government approach. That 
includes Homeland Security and the intelligence community.
    Mr. Correa. You've, essentially, said that we're seeing 
nation-states and their proxies increase their cyber-enabled 
means in ways that threaten our democracy and our economic 
institutions. Wouldn't forcing these platforms open allow the 
bad actors to have increased access into our systems?
    Mr. Olsen. I think it's incumbent on the government--that 
includes the Justice Department and Homeland Security, as well 
as the intelligence community, to work with the private sector, 
in particular, the large technology companies, to make sure 
that we have a joint effort to address these types of--
    Mr. Correa. Do these large companies have a competitive 
edge, a magic potion here, to work with you hand-in-hand to 
defend our nation from cyber?
    Mr. Olsen. My experience has been that large companies, 
large technology companies, are very open to working with the 
government when it comes to improving the government, the 
nation's cybersecurity, as well as other--
    Mr. Correa. They're open to it, but they have a vested 
interest, a business interest, to make sure they also play 100 
percent defense.
    Mr. Olsen. Our interests are aligned in many ways when it 
comes to cybersecurity. That is, our interest, the interests of 
the private sector and the government.
    Mr. Correa. Mr. Olsen, I understand that the Executive 
Branch has been reviewing the tech antitrust legislation that I 
was talking about, and you've been part of this review, it's my 
understanding?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm sorry, the review of the legislation?
    Mr. Correa. The antitrust legislation?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes, sir, absolutely. My division was part of 
the Department's review of that legislation.
    Mr. Correa. We've seen concerns raised by former national 
security experts on both sides concerning these antitrust 
bills. Is it fair to say that, if you have concerns, you will 
provide this Committee with that information at the right time?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes. We have provided a letter from the Justice 
Department in support of the legislation. I'm prepared to 
continue to work on that with this Committee if there are 
additional concerns that need to be addressed.
    Mr. Correa. You will bring some of those concerns, if they 
are there, to this Committee?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes. I continue to work with this Committee and 
others in Congress on this issue.
    Mr. Correa. I would like to submit a letter, without 
objections, for the record titled, ``Open Letter from Former 
Defense, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Cyber Officials, 
Calling for National Security Review of Congressional Tech 
Legislation.'' Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. CORREA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Correa. Let me just say that, again, cyber is a new 
warfare. We are in a State of war in cyber. I think it's 
important that your voice be a clear one when it comes to some 
of this legislation.
    This legislation primarily applies to American companies. 
Yet, a lot of the foreign firms--Huawei, TikTok, many, many 
others--do not seem to fall under the purview of this 
legislation. I believe it is important that, before we go off 
and go after our own firms, that we make sure that we're not 
doing unintentional harms to our national defense, when it 
comes to cyber.
    Mr. Olsen. I understand.
    Mr. Correa. I'm out of time.
    With that being said, the Committee needs to take a moment 
to address technical issues.
    The Committee will suspend.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Correa. The Committee now resumes.
    Mr. Bishop, you are called for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Assistant Attorney General Olsen, in April, in one of the 
DOJ's highest-profile domestic terrorism cases, a Federal jury 
appears to have found that the FBI entrapped people in a matter 
involved in an alleged plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan. 
The jury acquitted two defendants and hung on two others.
    You're familiar with that case, sir?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes, sir, I am familiar with that particular 
prosecution.
    Mr. Bishop. All right. You've emphasized the importance of 
DOJ's domestic terrorism mission, or of that risk central to 
the national security mission.
    Mr. Olsen. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. Is that case a fair representation of how DOJ 
is handling domestic terrorism matters?
    Mr. Olsen. I would include that case among many others that 
are part of our efforts to ensure that people who serve in 
public office are safe.
    Mr. Bishop. I think the importance is undeniable. The 
question is whether that's what FBI is doing.
    Let me just go on a little further. The evidence that the 
jury heard, mostly in text messages and testimony of agents and 
informants of the FBI, was that the FBI did not discover an 
existing scheme and take the plot--collect evidence and take 
down plotters. Instead, the FBI appears to have contrived the 
plot, used its informants to draw people into the plot, and 
provided logistical and financial support to what was, in 
effect, an FBI operation.
    The board behind me details just some of the resources that 
were devoted to the op. You had a late informant, a guy named 
Big Dan who was paid $54,000 over six months to pretend to lead 
a fake militia to recruit really disadvantaged and unstable men 
from a Facebook discussion group. This is sort of--well, one of 
them was living in the cellar of a vacuum repair shop.
    FBI paid travel expenses for people involved, food, even 
alcoholic beverages to take the targeted folks to a militia 
conference out of State. There were more than a dozen FBI 
informants involves in the process, undercover FBI agents, 
several of them, one of whom taught, purported to teach how to 
make a bomb and used a bomb video produced by the FBI.
    At one point, according to The New York Times, there was a 
nighttime surveillance at Governor Whitmer's vacation cabin, 
and four of the participants were informants, including Big 
Dan, or undercover agents.
    At one point, when the group was sort of falling apart, in 
August 2020, the FBI handler congratulated Big Dan, said, 
quote, ``Look at you, bringing people together.'' Now, he 
congratulated him for breathing new life into the plot.
    Not as well-known, the same FBI agent, Jason Chambers, 
coached Big Dan in a parallel scheme to recruit folks into a 
contrived plot against former Virginia Governor Northam. At one 
point, he was asked by Big Dan how to couch the plan to one of 
the recruits, and Chambers wrote, quote, ``The mission is to 
kill the governor specifically.''
    Again, now that's the evidence I understand from the trial. 
Don't know that it's a complete sampling of it, Mr. Attorney 
General. Is that the kind of conduct that DOJ and the FBI are 
engaged in pursuing domestic terrorism matters?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I'm sure you can appreciate that case, as 
you know, involves defendants charged with kidnapping the 
governor of Michigan. It's an ongoing case. The judge has 
ordered a retrial, and that retrial is set.
    Given that it's an ongoing case, I simply can't comment on 
any of the questions you've asked.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, it's not ongoing as to two defendants. 
They've been acquitted by a jury.
    I understand that DOJ has decided to retry two other 
defendants, but the evidence is what the evidence has been. 
That's been public. There's been media stories written about it 
across the ideological spectrum. It's not like this is some 
kind of right-wing notion.
    Don't those revelations impair the credibility of the FBI, 
which you said earlier was, is very important?
    Mr. Olsen. Yeah, and that case is the judge has ordered 
that case be retried. It's an ongoing matter, and I can't 
comment further.
    Mr. Bishop. How many FBI informants/agents, respectively, 
were involved in that operation?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to comment about that particular 
case.
    Mr. Bishop. How much did the FBI spend on it?
    Mr. Olsen. It's an ongoing case. It's set for retrial. So, 
I'm not going to comment on it.
    Mr. Bishop. The alleged Whitmer plot was announced October 
7, 2020, within a month before the U.S. presidential election. 
How come that timing for the FBI's announcement of this, of 
this plot?
    Mr. Olsen. That's an ongoing case. I'm not going to comment 
on it.
    I can tell you that in every case we follow the facts and 
the evidence and the law, and we do so without regard to 
politics or ideology.
    Mr. Bishop. The FBI has got a notorious history on exactly 
that kind of thing. You have no comment about that, the 
exposure of that during the month before the Presidential 
election, of the propriety of doing so?
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Mr. Bishop. Are you going to let him answer the question? 
Usually, that's the practice, is he gets to answer the question 
that I posed.
    Ms. Dean. Did you have a question?
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, I did ask a question.
    Ms. Dean. Okay. Yes, you may answer the question.
    Mr. Olsen. That's an ongoing case. It's set for retrial. 
The judge has set it for retrial, so I'm not going to comment 
further.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you. Now, the gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Olsen, for appearing today to 
speak to the Department of Justice's work on a number of 
matters involving our national security.
    As you indicated in your testimony, domestic violent 
extremists are one of the most significant and a growing threat 
that America and the Department of Justice must grapple with as 
these individuals often radicalize online and are motivated by 
a mix of ideologies and grievances.
    In recent years, domestic terrorists have directed hate-
fueled threats and deadly attacks at institutions, including 
predominantly Black churches, Sikh temples, and synagogues.
    Racially motivated extremists have gunned down shoppers at 
stores in El Paso and Buffalo and we have seen a rise in 
political violence directed against elected officials and other 
public servants, including election workers and school 
officials.
    Domestic disinformation and domestic extremism often go 
hand in hand and we have seen the perverse conspiracy theories 
and disinformation that motivate far-right extremists being 
spread precisely to sow hate within our communities and that 
they can spiral into acts of violence.
    They also work to undermine our foundational institutions, 
including our elections. Conspiracy theories and hate-filled 
ideologies have migrated from the fringes of American society 
into public discourse and political propaganda through the 
efforts of both foreign adversaries and domestic political 
opportunists.
    The Plain truth is that words matter, and while the First 
Amendment gives broad protection to free speech, elected 
officials and other leaders abuse the public trust and their 
responsibility to their constituents when they embrace and 
amplify disinformation, whether that disinformation concerns 
lies about election results, antigovernment conspiracy 
theories, or thinly veiled attacks on religious minorities or 
other marginalized groups.
    So, can you discuss a little bit how disinformation on 
social media is used in extremist recruitment?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes. The challenge that we face with individuals 
who consume rhetoric or hateful content online is that this 
information is so easily available to individuals who may be 
alone or who act in very small groups, and compared to decades 
ago or even several years ago, there's more of that content 
online and it tends to accelerate someone who may be inclined 
to believe in this information, accelerate them on the path 
toward becoming radicalized.
    Again, ultimately, the concern we have is that this 
individual or group may become mobilized to carry out acts of 
violence that violate Federal law and much of that conduct is 
protected under the First Amendment--the speech itself--but, 
identifying that line, especially when it happens in private--
online--identifying when someone's crossed that line from free 
speech to planning a violent attack, for example, which is not 
protected, can be very difficult for the FBI and other 
investigative agencies, and I think that's one of the 
challenges we face.
    Ms. Scanlon. So, I guess that is my question, what can 
Congress do other than individual Members taking care not to 
repeat or amplify disinformation to support the Department of 
Justice's efforts to disrupt radicalization?
    Mr. Olsen. Well, I think hearings like today that focus on 
this issue are helpful. We have asked for and obtained 
resources from Congress, particularly around the January 6th 
attack.
    The U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, DC, which has 
done an admirable job in leading that effort, has been able to 
increase its ranks to go after based on funding from Congress, 
and I think as well the work of the Select Committee has done 
an exceptional job shining a light on the events of January 
6th, and the days leading up to that day so that the American 
people have a better understanding of what was at stake in an 
effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, which is a 
pillar of our democracy.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    You've been quite clear that politics doesn't play a role 
in the Department of Justice's decisions to investigate or 
charge criminal conduct.
    Is it fair to say that a person's parental status also 
doesn't play a role in DOJ's decisions to investigate or charge 
potential criminal conduct such as threats of violence directed 
against school officials or their families?
    Mr. Olsen. Of course.
    Ms. Scanlon. I have no further questions. I yield back.
    Ms. Dean. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, is now recognized.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    Has the Department of Justice prosecuted a single case 
against individuals demonstrating at the residence of Supreme 
Court justices in violation of U.S.C. 1507?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not aware that there's been a case brought 
under that particular statute.
    Mr. Roy. So, the answer is no.
    Does the purposeful movement of human beings and dangerous 
narcotics to the tune of 107,000 dead Americans across our 
border by armed and organized cartels pose a danger to the 
national security of the United States?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not familiar with the facts that you're 
referring to.
    Mr. Roy. You're not familiar with cartels and their 
involvement with 107,000 dead Americans related to fentanyl? 
You don't believe that--you can't comment on whether that poses 
a danger to the national security of the United States?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not familiar with the facts that you're 
referring to. I will say that there's no doubt that the 
movement of illegal drugs across our borders poses a threat to 
the safety and wellbeing of Americans.
    Mr. Roy. What about threats to Border Patrol agents such as 
signs displayed on the Rio Grande threatening to kill Border 
Patrol or gunfire on the streets of Texas? Would that pose a 
national security threat to the United States?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't know specifically what you're referring 
to but, obviously, acts of violence directed at our law 
enforcement--Federal or State--is a significant concern and one 
that we take very seriously.
    Mr. Roy. A question before of one of my colleagues about 
known gotaways he said 500,000. How about simply the 389,000 
known gotaways that the Attorney General actually testified 
under oath here in the House of Representatives accepting that 
fact, the Attorney General testified--sorry, that might have 
been the Secretary of Homeland Security testified under oath, 
knowing that gotaways would that pose a danger to the national 
security of the United States?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm just not familiar with the facts that you're 
referring to--I can talk to generally.
    Mr. Roy. The Secretary of Homeland Security testified at 
this body. Assuming that fact, would you accept that as posing 
a danger to the national security of the United States?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm comfortable talking about cases that we are 
bringing or that we have brought that are a matter of public 
record where we have proven cases in court. I would prefer not 
to comment on hypotheticals.
    Mr. Roy. Okay. Which poses a greater danger to the American 
national security, cartels or parents at school board meetings?
    Mr. Olsen. Look, groups, violent gangs that move drugs or 
are involved in acts of violence are a significant threat.
    Mr. Roy. Do they pose a greater danger to the United States 
than do parents at school board meetings?
    Mr. Olsen. I would, certainly, have to agree with that. I 
would agree that, as a general proposition, being a parent 
myself--
    Mr. Roy. I thank you for that.
    Mr. Olsen. --that gangs and violent groups pose a greater 
threat to the American people.
    Mr. Roy. I thank you for that answer.
    Mr. Olsen. That's a serious question.
    Mr. Roy. Is the Department of Justice still operating under 
the memorandum issued by the Attorney General Merrick Garland 
on October 4, 2021, in which he said disturbing--quote, 
``disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of 
violence to school boards?'' Are they still operating under 
that memorandum?
    Mr. Olsen. The Attorney General's guidance from last fall 
is still in effect.
    Mr. Roy. Continues in effect?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Roy. In the press release that was issued the Justice 
Department addresses violent threats against school officials 
and teachers. Your division is mentioned. Why?
    Mr. Olsen. The National Security Division is part of a 
broader array of components of the Justice Department as part 
of that effort to ensure that people who serve on local school 
boards or other bodies are safe.
    Mr. Roy. Do you think parents at school boards rise to the 
level of the National Security Division at the Department of 
Justice?
    Mr. Olsen. I, certainly, think it's possible that there 
could be a threat or an act of violence against somebody in the 
local office, whether it's city council or school board, that 
might reflect a domestic violent extremist attack. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. So, you are saying yes. Is it appropriate to use 
the Patriot Act against parents?
    Mr. Olsen. The Patriot Act is a variety of tools. I can't 
talk about it in the abstract. Certainly, we--
    Mr. Roy. Did the National School Boards Association 
recommend the use of the Patriot Act and describe that the 
actions of parents at school boards is the equivalent to 
domestic terrorism preceding the memo issued by the Department 
of Justice?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't know.
    Mr. Roy. You don't know?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't know.
    Mr. Roy. You don't know that there was a memorandum put out 
by the National School Board Association referring to domestic 
terrorism and the use of the Patriot Act prior to the Attorney 
General of the United States issuing a memorandum directly 
targeting and focusing on school boards? You don't know?
    Mr. Olsen. I've heard you and other Members of this 
Committee make reference to that today.
    Mr. Roy. You're the head of the National Security Division, 
in which it's mentioned in the press release. That goes out and 
you don't know? You don't know? You're testifying under oath 
here before us that you don't know anything about that?
    Mr. Olsen. I've heard of that letter. I don't know exactly 
what it says.
    Mr. Roy. Do you support the tagging of alleged threats 
involving schools or school boards as EDUOFFICIALS as was made 
public via a whistleblower?
    Mr. Olsen. I think how the FBI characterizes its cases is a 
question that's better posed to the FBI.
    Mr. Roy. One last question on a different topic.
    I sent a letter on July 11th requesting the Department of 
Justice to conduct a thorough review of the LIV Golf Limited 
and its potential violation of FARA with respect to the billion 
dollars that the Saudi Arabians have pumped into targeting the 
PGA Tour, believing that it is a, quote, ``great thing for the 
image of Saudi Arabia'' or, quote, ``an incredible investment 
for Saudi Arabia.''
    That would seem to require some FARA registrations. I'm 
unaware of those registrations occurring, and asking my 
question, would you respond to that letter that we sent the 
Department of Justice and brief Members on that issue?
    Mr. Olsen. I'll take that question back to our legislator's 
office. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Garcia, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 
Chair Nadler for convening this very critical hearing.
    Attacks on minority communities and individuals are 
becoming an existential threat to our democracy and our nation. 
White supremacists have worked their way into our government 
institutions.
    Some would say they have the Republican Party in a choke 
hold. Some would also suggest that congressional enablers 
welcome their violence with encouragement and enthusiasm.
    They call insurrectionists patriots and defenders of 
freedom. They criticize their jail conditions when they've had 
a blind eye to the massive incarceration of Black and Brown 
people in our country disproportionately.
    My Republican colleagues' refusal to combat instances of 
domestic terrorism motivated by racism violates my 
constituents' civil rights and liberties to live without free--
fear of retaliation against their identities.
    Texas is not immune to the increasing rate of hate crime 
since 2016. The shooting in El Paso, Texas, in August of 2019, 
was motivated by anti-Latino and anti-immigrant sentiments 
harbored by the perpetrator of the shooting.
    Anti-Hispanic hatred is an inherent part of White supremacy 
ideology. The shooter claimed the attack was a justified 
response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. He alluded to the 
Great Replacement, a conspiracy theory central to White 
nationalist ideology.
    These racist ideas are not a political anomaly but, rather, 
the most extreme outgrowth of a White supremacist political 
culture. That racism, anti-Hispanic sentiment, anti-Semitism, 
and homo-
phobia remain pressing problems of the United States and are 
reflective in 2019 hate crime increases.
    Congress must find ways to address the relationship between 
anti-immigrant rhetoric and domestic terrorism to prevent 
future acts of domestic terrorism.
    It is also critical for our friends across the aisle to 
collaborate with Democrats and put people over politics and put 
all this terrorism behind us and be about protecting our 
democracy.
    Sir, I wanted to ask you a question about the 
interrelationship and the connectedness of all this, and I know 
that much has been said about some of the pro-abortion 
extremists.
    I want to just say that according to the latest reports 
I've seen anti-abortion extremists have been responsible for at 
least 11 murders, 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 194 
arsons, and thousands of incidents of criminal activity 
directed at abortion providers since 1977, including thousands 
and thousands of trespassing charges, criminal mischief, 
vandalism.
    I mean, the list goes on. It's pages and pages of all of 
this, and I think it said 2,024 trespassing charges, and it 
also talks about the connection between the anti-abortion 
extremists and the January 6th insurrectionists, that they 
overlap and that one of the convicted arsonists, an anti-
abortion extremist, live streamed from outside the Capitol on 
January 6th.
    Another one was a frequent protester at abortion clinics, 
entered the Capitol, and was later charged and the list goes 
on.
    So, what is the interconnectedness between the extremists? 
I mean, do they do all acts of terror domestically or is there 
some that lean more toward hate crimes against Hispanics and 
Blacks and some towards the abortion clinics?
    Mr. Olsen. So, it's an interesting question because what we 
have seen, and the intelligence community has made this 
assessment, that violent extremists are often motivated by a 
mix of ideologies and don't necessarily fit neatly into one 
category or another.
    They may consume a variety of content, for example, online 
that feeds into a world view that causes them to become 
radicalized and, ultimately, move to violence. It's sometimes 
difficult to pinpoint a particular ideology or a particular 
viewpoint.
    What I do know from the data is that individuals who are 
motivated by racial animus and individuals motivated by 
antigovern-
ment views account for the greatest number of lethal attacks in 
the U.S. in recent years.
    The FBI seeks, when it identifies a case as a domestic 
violence extremist case, to categorize it as one category or 
another. As my conversations with the experts has suggested to 
me, it's very difficult, in some cases, to pinpoint a 
particular ideology.
    The fundamental point for us at the Justice Department is 
that we prosecute acts of violence and threats of violence 
without regard to ideology or politics.
    Ms. Dean. The gentlewoman's time has--the gentlewoman's 
time has expired.
    Ms. Garcia. Madam Chair, I also ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record the 2021 violence and disruption 
statistics prepared by the National Abortion Federation. Also, 
three articles that I won't read all the titles, but they're 
all related to hate crimes, and President Biden's funding of 
the police and other issues related to this hearing today.
    Ms. Dean. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MS. GARCIA FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Ms. Dean. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Olsen, for being here today.
    Is your department purchasing data from third parties and 
then using that data for investigatory purposes?
    Mr. Olsen. So, the National Security Division, what I lead, 
does not engage in purchasing data. So, the answer to your 
question in terms of the work that I do is no, we're not 
involved in purchasing--
    Mr. Bentz. What about other aspects--other agencies, parts 
of the department?
    Mr. Olsen. I can't speak across the board in answer to that 
question, Congressman.
    I can say, in general, that in terms of carrying out the 
National Security Division, the investigative agencies within 
the Justice Department, the FBI, and others operate under a 
series of rules and laws that protect American citizens' 
privacy and civil liberties.
    Mr. Bentz. Wait. Wait. Stop.
    They're purchasing data and they're trying to follow the 
law while they do it. I've heard and to quote Secretary 
Mayorkas speaking to the Aspen Security Forum just last week, 
he said, ``Look, the border is secure.''
    Do you agree with our border is secure?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not familiar with his remarks at that 
conference. So, I would have to--
    Mr. Bentz. Well, just take it from me. I'm quoting--this is 
his remark. I simply want to know if you agree is our southern 
border secure.
    Mr. Olsen. I would defer to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and his judgment on that question.
    Mr. Bentz. So, that means your department has nothing to do 
with the border. Is that what you're saying?
    Mr. Olsen. We, certainly, are involved in the investigation 
and prosecution of crimes around the borders of the country. In 
terms of the overall border security, I defer to Secretary 
Mayorkas.
    Mr. Bentz. Given the incredible number of folks coming 
across and the number of prosecutions, perhaps, you would 
surmise or maybe guess or hint at the fact that the southern 
border is not secure. You wouldn't be down there if it was. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Olsen. We, certainly, are involved in making sure that 
individuals who violate Federal law are investigated and 
prosecuted.
    Mr. Bentz. There's a bunch of them.
    Let's go--there's a great deal of hyperbole about what's 
our greatest threat. We hear a lot about domestic violence. 
I've read that the FBI thinks that China is the greatest 
threat.
    Who is the greatest threat, in your opinion? Or is that 
just the wrong way to approach this?
    Mr. Olsen. Honestly, sir, I think that's probably the wrong 
question to ask. I think we have a number of significant 
threats, and we need to make sure that our efforts and 
authorities and resources are aligned commensurate with the 
threats we face.
    Mr. Bentz. On October 21st, the Attorney General appeared 
before this Committee and I asked him if he would please focus 
on a situation occurring down in my State, Oregon--southern 
Oregon--where we have had a very significant number of very, 
very large--excuse me--and extremely wealthy cartels from all 
around the world move in to start raising incredible amounts of 
marijuana. The numbers are in the billions of dollars retail 
value that which is being raised in southern Oregon.
    I asked the Attorney General if he would please help, if he 
would please send additional folks to Oregon to try to stop 
what's going on. Part of it involves the theft of immense 
amounts of water.
    We're in an incredible drought and we have these cartels, 
and people might laugh at that out here where there's nothing 
but water, but not back where I'm from. Then the fact that 
people are carrying AK-47s into grocery stores, the fact that 
there are people being locked into their homes as cartels move 
huge amounts of marijuana out of the State.
    What's your department doing to try to head off this 
threat?
    Mr. Olsen. Sir, what you describe sounds extremely 
concerning. I don't have, obviously, firsthand knowledge and, 
in fact, the National Security Division typically wouldn't be 
involved in what you're describing, which sounds like what 
would be handled by our Criminal Division in terms of drug or 
weapons violations.
    So, I would probably have to ask the Criminal Division and 
our Legislative Affairs Office to respond to that question.
    Mr. Bentz. I think it is safe to say that the cartels are 
making billions of dollars and using that, in turn, to bring in 
all kinds of drugs that are killing up to--upwards of 100,000 
people a year, and you would think that this would fit within 
your mission statement, which I have right here in front of me, 
which is to protect the United States, carry out the 
department's highest priority, protect and defend the United 
States against the full range of national security threats.
    This would appear to me to be one. Would you disagree?
    Mr. Olsen. I think the way we have divided up 
responsibility within the Justice Department is that our 
Federal narcotics laws and weapons laws are, by and large, 
enforced by other parts of the Justice Department.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, would you be so kind as to reach out to 
those other parts and tell them that we, in Oregon, need help 
and the situation, in my opinion, is one that rises to a 
national level, given the fact that that marijuana is being 
sold right on the streets here in Washington, DC.
    Thank you again for being here and look forward to your 
helping us out here in Oregon.
    Mr. Olsen. Understood.
    Mr. Bentz. Yield. I yield back.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Stanton, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 
you, Mr. Olsen, for your service at the Department of Justice 
and for answering the Committee's questions today.
    Throughout this Congress, this Committee has made it a 
priority to examine the Federal government's surveillance and 
data collection practices, and protecting the due process 
rights of all Americans has been paramount in our work.
    One particular area of concern has been the DOJ's use of 
nondisclosure orders, or NDOs. These court-ordered NDOs prevent 
technology service providers like Google, Apple, or Verizon 
from notifying their customers that the government has seized 
their personal records or emails from the provider, and during 
a hearing before this Committee in June of last year executives 
from some of our nation's largest tech companies testified that 
they received thousands of these NDOs from the DOJ every year.
    In fact, leaders for Microsoft indicated that they receive 
7-10 of these gag orders every single day. While the use of 
these secrecy orders may be justifiable on national security 
merits, the volume and frequency with which the NDOs are 
utilized raises concerns about their misuse or their overuse, 
and the fact that journalists and Members of Congress were 
swept up in investigations involving NDOs, potentially 
implicating First Amendment liberties and separation of powers, 
calls for additional scrutiny into these processes.
    In response, I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues 
from this Committee in introducing the NDO Fairness Act to 
provide more guardrails around the use of NDOs, including by 
raising the legal standard to a strict scrutiny analysis, 
establishing a 30-day limit on NDOs' effectiveness, requiring 
notice to be given to customers 72 hours after the expiration 
of the NDO, and allowing providers to contest the gag orders in 
court.
    I was pleased that this much needed oversight bill passed 
through the House of Representatives in June. I hope the Senate 
will take it up very soon.
    So, Mr. Olsen, I'd like to ask you some questions about 18 
U.S.C. 2705(b) and the DOJ's use of the NDOs. Prior to this 
Committee's examination of the issue and subsequent passage of 
the NDO Fairness Act, had the department considered changing 
2705(b) policies to prevent the overuse of gag orders by DOJ 
prosecutors?
    Mr. Olsen. Mr. Congressman, I'm not aware of prior policy 
or consideration around the use of nondisclosure orders.
    If I may, I can tell you that as a former Federal 
prosecutor they can be--nondisclosure orders can be an 
appropriate and important part of a criminal investigation to 
preserve the integrity of the investigation.
    They are subject to constraints, time limits. They must be 
issued by a judge. They typically would only be appropriate in 
cases where we are seeking to protect someone's life or to 
protect against the destruction of evidence.
    I am aware that there are concerns about their overuse. I'm 
aware of those concerns because they do impose restrictions on 
third parties. I do think there are constraints that apply to 
their use.
    Mr. Stanton. On May 27, 2022, Deputy Attorney General Lisa 
Monaco released a memo providing a prosecutorial clarity on 
2705(b) procedures. The memo includes reminders that, quote, 
``a protective order should be sought only after prosecutor 
engages in a case and fact specific analysis,'' unquote, and, 
quote, ``a prosecutor must provide a court with sufficient 
facts to permit the court to conduct the same case and fact 
specific analysis,'' unquote.
    Why do you believe DOJ prosecutors were required to have 
this reminder?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not exactly sure what was the reason for the 
Deputy Attorney General's memo. I do find the language you read 
to be appropriate and consistent with my experience that 
nondisclosure orders should be issued only based on the 
particular facts in a case where such an order would be 
justified, again, to protect against danger to a witness, for 
example, or against the destruction of evidence.
    Mr. Stanton. In June 2021, executives from tech companies 
and communication providers testified to this Committee that 
there was merely a, quote, ``rubber stamp process,'' unquote, 
for obtaining these gag orders in court.
    Have DOJ prosecutors been treating 2705(b) requests as a 
rubber stamp process as the providers allege?
    Mr. Olsen. Again, I can't speak generally to how 
prosecutors around the country are using those orders. I do 
agree very much with the policy from the Deputy Attorney 
General that they should be viewed and used only on a case by 
case basis where the circumstances warrant.
    Mr. Stanton. Okay.
    Lastly, Mr. Olsen, will you commit to conducting a review 
of the National Security Division's usage of 2705(b) orders?
    Mr. Olsen. If I may, I would like to consider how we would 
respond to that question and get back to you.
    Mr. Stanton. Okay. I look forward to hearing your response 
soon.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Olsen, in your opening statement it kind of surprised 
me that you called the January 6th investigation the largest in 
the history of the National Security Division.
    I'm just surprised that you kind of led with that in your 
opening statement. Would you, again, state for the record what 
you're investigating as a division and the scope of the 
investigation?
    Mr. Olsen. Sir, with respect to January 6th in particular?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Right.
    Mr. Olsen. Yes. I mean, the reason I said that this 
investigation stands apart as the largest domestic terrorism 
investigation in U.S. history, the FBI has characterized that 
investigation and opened it as a domestic terrorism 
investigation.
    It is, as the Attorney General has said, the most wide-
ranging investigation in U.S. history. The numbers speak for 
themselves. Over 850 people have been arrested, many, if not 
most, of those for felonies.
    It includes serious charges--very serious charges involving 
assaults on police officers, obstruction of Congress, seditious 
conspiracy.
    So, it has touched on every State in terms of the FBI field 
offices and every State in terms of the U.S. Attorney's offices 
around the country that are involved.
    So, by several measures in scale and significance, the 
significance being that it involved an effort to prevent the 
peaceful transfer of power, which is one of the pillars of our 
democracy, by all those measures I feel justified in describing 
it as an investigation that stands apart in our history.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, you yourself said the division 
investigates, quote, ``threats of violence.'' What threats was 
the division aware of on the days that led up to January 6th?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I think there's--I don't know exactly how to 
respond to the question of what threats the National Security 
Division was aware of because I wasn't at the National Security 
Division at the time. I came into the office later.
    I do think that there was information--
    Mr. Fitzgerald. You're aware of what the investigation 
includes at this point, I'm sure, right?
    Mr. Olsen. Absolutely. Again, we're working on that case in 
partnership with the D.C. Legislative Office.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Would you say that DOJ and the FBI failed 
to anticipate the threat of January 6th or failed to prepare 
for the threat?
    Mr. Olsen. I think that the level of violence speaks for 
itself. I think we always want to learn to do better when it 
comes to anticipating something that we didn't necessarily 
anticipate in terms
of the level of violence that occurred and in the run up to 
Janu-
ary 6th.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Do better might be--
    Mr. Olsen. So, we always need to continue to learn from 
that.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Yeah. Do better might be soft selling it 
here.
    Has there been any coordination between the DOJ and the 
House of Representatives January 6th Committee?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm aware of our requests from the Department of 
Justice for access to transcripts from the Select Committee.
    Other than that, the answer is not there. These are two 
separate investigations, one by Congress and another by a 
coequal branch of government. That's the Executive Branch. Both 
of us have a job to do, they're different, and we're continuing 
to do that.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. There are news reports stating that DOJ is 
considering more charges related to January 6th, but rather 
than violent acts these charges are based on speech or verbal 
communications rather than any of the violence or the threats 
that were experienced on that day.
    Is this accurate? Is this actually happening as we sit here 
today?
    Mr. Olsen. So, the Department of Justice does not conduct 
its investigations in public and that's for a couple reasons. 
One is to protect those who may be within the scope of the 
investigation--in other words, those who may, ultimately, be 
accused as well as to protect the integrity of the 
investigation.
    So, I'm not going to talk about the trajectory or the 
direction of the ongoing investigation into the events of 
January 6th and the days leading up to it.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, you made some comments earlier, based 
on questions asked by Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Raskin, that were 
inside what you're actually investigating. That's why I just 
asked it.
    Let me just move on. Is what Speaker Pelosi knowing 
regarding potential threats and her preparations, or lack 
thereof, something that is off the table or is that something 
that could be investigated as well by DOJ?
    Mr. Olsen. Again, I'm not going to discuss anything about 
that ongoing investigation. What I can tell you is it's our 
obligation at the Justice Department to uphold the rule of law.
    The rule of law is what distinguishes us from dictatorships 
and autocracies, and a central tenet of the rule of law is that 
no one, no matter their status, is above the law and we will 
continue to pursue the facts and the evidence and apply the law 
in the course of our investigation of the January 6th attack.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. In my final 30 seconds I'd just like to go 
back to my colleague from Rhode Island pointing out that 
President Biden's DOJ has endorsed the American Online 
Innovation and Choice Act even after the revisions.
    Several national security officials have raised concerns 
that the bill could limit U.S. tech company's ability to fight 
cyber threats and other national security risks.
    Are you aware if the Department of Defense or any 
intelligence agencies outside of DOJ were consulted prior to 
Acting Assistant Attorney General Hyun sending letters of 
support on the American Online Innovation and Choice Act?
    Mr. Olsen. It would be normal order for legislation to go 
through a process that involved a number of different 
departments and agencies.
    I know that we were consulted, and I know that, ultimately, 
the Department of Justice came out in favor of that legislation 
and that national security risks we felt in the National 
Security Division were addressed by the legislation and the 
particular changes that were adopted.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize 
myself for five minutes. Assistant Attorney General Olsen, 
thank you very much for your service to our country and, of 
course, for your testimony here today.
    As you shared in your testimony, you, in part, are tasked 
with addressing the most pressing national security issues of 
the day. I believe the online and on microphone vitriol that so 
commonly targets women and girls is a most troubling issue. For 
example, in Uvalde, there were so many signs.
    The Uvalde shooting, the deadliest school shooting in a 
decade, came as a shock to the nation. Girls and women who 
talked with the murderer, whose name I will not keep saying, 
online they saw the signs. The women described him as cryptic, 
demeaning, scary after he sent angry messages and photos of 
guns.
    When the women didn't respond how he wanted, he sometimes 
threatened to rape or kidnap them, then laughed it off as a 
joke. I don't think rape is funny. I don't think threats of 
kidnapping are funny.
    This man had a public digital footprint available months 
before he killed, slaughtered, massacred 19 children and two of 
their teachers. He had a history, an online profile of 
harassment and violent threats. Some Members of this very 
Committee choose to stand in public and use the microphone with 
misogynistic statements as recently as this weekend.
    So, how can an 18-year-old who shared so much hate online, 
going back to the shooter now, to these girls do so without 
punishment or raising an alarm? What can your division tell us?
    Mr. Olsen. Well, let me say first, that I share your 
outrage at the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Uvalde and 
unfortunately has occurred too often in other parts of our 
country. The challenge that I think we face as a country, in 
particular, law enforcement faces, is that individuals who may 
have mental illnesses or may otherwise be easily persuaded by 
the availability of online content are able to radicalize often 
by themselves or in small groups. It's very hard for law 
enforcement to see that before it happens.
    In fact, we rely very much on families, educators, 
communities to be able to report that information to law 
enforcement so that there is an opportunity to intervene. 
Again, we've seen too often that has not happened. You combine 
that fact with the fact that individuals in this country have 
access to military grade weapons and that they are typically 
choosing to attack vulnerable locations like schools and 
shopping malls. You have a series of factors that contribute to 
a very dangerous situation that unfortunately we've seen play 
out over and over again has resulted in mass shootings and 
tragedies like we saw in Uvalde.
    Ms. Dean. Can I ask you has your department seen, noticed, 
elected data to show an increase in the rise of terrorism and 
violence inspired by misogyny?
    Mr. Olsen. I can't say that I can point to misogyny as a 
particular viewpoint that is a theme or a thread that I can see 
throughout the data. Certainly, what we do know I think 
supports your perspective that it can be a range of viewpoints, 
some of it informed by hatred of people from certain countries 
or certain races mixed with viewpoints that are hard to 
understand. It's a mix of ideologies that often contributes to 
an individual's radicalization, ultimately taking steps to 
carry out acts of violence.
    Ms. Dean. I appreciate that. I would say that the shooter, 
of course, was not in a position of power. Those in a position 
of power have an obligation to use their words very carefully 
so as not to inspire others to attack women or to mock women.
    I want to go really quickly if I may to Philadelphia, my 
home city. I'm from suburban Philadelphia. The most recent data 
from 2020 details 63 people were reported as victims of hate 
crimes, a 320 percent increase from 2019.
    Lest we forget we are still trying to find all the 
extremists who stormed the Capitol. I thank you for your 
efforts in that. I thank any Member of Congress and anyone who 
has any evidence who's coming forward with that detail. Can you 
talk about the increase--maybe even specific to my city, maybe 
not--but the increase in hate crimes across the country?
    Mr. Olsen. Yes, and what we have seen is many of the acts 
that we characterize as domestic terrorism are also hate 
crimes, Buffalo being the most significant and recent example. 
That case is being prosecuted as a hate crime. That individual 
was motivated by racism.
    There are other matters. There are hate crimes that aren't 
necessarily acts of domestic terrorism. Those hate crimes are 
prosecuted by our civil rights division which has a whole 
section of criminal prosecutors devoted to prosecuting 
violations of civil rights, in particular hate crimes. So, I 
guess I would refer your question to us to take back and we can 
bring back more information about hate crimes, in particular.
    Ms. Dean. I appreciate that, and I apologize. I went over. 
Mr. Tiffany, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. I'll be interested if your son 
wants to get a job in the National Security Division when he 
reaches adulthood. You commented about the rule of law sets us 
apart. It's a great concern that my constituents have.
    Many of them come up to me now, average people, good 
citizens of America. They say, why do we have a two tiered 
justice system in America? One of those--part of the reason 
they say that is Russia collusion proved to be the biggest hoax 
perhaps in the history of the United States.
    Do you think it's acceptable to have an executive law 
enforcement agency actively engage in sabotaging a political 
candidate? Think Comey, Strok, Page, and McCabe.
    Mr. Olsen. The Justice Department, it's been my experience 
having been there for 18 years, almost 20 years, but 18 years 
of time as a career prosecutor and attorney that in every case 
we prosecute cases based on the facts and the law. There's 
not--
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you embarrassed by--
    Mr. Olsen. --a motivation involving politics or ideology.
    Mr. Tiffany. We know what the truth is now, that it was a 
hoax. Does that embarrass you as someone who has served in this 
position of great trust of the American people? Does that 
embarrass you that you had four people in upper leadership and 
ultimate leadership--does that embarrass you that we had those 
people in that position?
    Mr. Olsen. As a career prosecutor, my experience 
consistently has been that we take action based on facts, 
evidence, and the law. We do not act in the Justice Department 
based on ideology or politics.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Department, clearly, they did. The 
Department appointed Susan Hennessey to a senior position with 
a National Security Division. She's been an outspoken and 
partisan critic.
    For example, she extensively commented on the FBI 
investigation into the allegations that the Trump campaign 
colluded with Russia during which he quoted relentlessly in 
hyped Russia collusion allegations. Ms. Hennessey vouched that 
Christopher Steele--author of the dossier filled with political 
opposition research and Russian disinformation--was a person 
whose work intelligence professionals take seriously. Are you 
aware of that statement by Ms. Hennessey?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I'm not going to comment on any members of 
the workforce--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Hennessey was also a vocal critic of the 
U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation into the targeting of 
the Trump campaign and transition team, even calling the 
investigation partisan silliness. Are you aware of that 
statement?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I'm not going to comment about any of the 
particular members of my division.
    Mr. Tiffany. She works for you.
    Are you aware of that statement?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to comment on the work of anyone 
in my division, in particular. What I can tell you is that I 
hold everyone to the highest standards of legal capability and 
ethics. I include Ms. Hennessey in that regard.
    Mr. Tiffany. Okay. You bring up the issue of ethics. Do you 
agree that because this investigation is ongoing and in her new 
role, Ms. Hennessey may exert supervisory functions over this 
investigation, her previous statements seriously undercut any 
perception of her impartiality?
    Mr. Olsen. It's my responsibility as the head of the 
National Security Division to ensure that everyone in the 
division follows the rules and those include the rules of 
ethics. I'm confident that I am able to do that. I'm also 
confident--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Hennessey deleted tens of thousands of 
statements on her Twitter account prior to announcing her new 
position working for your division. Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm absolutely confident in the capabilities and 
the integrity of Ms. Hennessey.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you agree that erasing her past 
controversial statements about national security matters and 
hide her political bias raises concerns about a department 
employee? I mean, would you be concerned? Take Ms. Hennessey's 
name off from the conversation here and it is a generic person. 
Would that concern you as someone hiring these people?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I'm confident--
    Mr. Tiffany. Tens of thousands of Twitter posts that are 
anti-President?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm confident in the integrity of the workforce 
of the National Security Division. I was there when we started 
the National Security Division in 2006. I spent three years as 
a senior career official there. I returned there in 2021. I 
have the upmost confidence in the excellence and the integrity 
of that workforce.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you're not going to remove her? Has Ms. 
Hennessey recused herself from the Durham investigation?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to comment on any particular 
member of my workforce.
    Mr. Tiffany. Has Ms. Hennessey received authorization to 
access any aspect of the Durham investigation?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to comment on any particular 
members of my workforce. As I will repeat, I have upmost 
confidence in the overall integrity workforce.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Tiffany. So can we find out as an oversight authority, 
and the Congress of the United States, can we find out if she 
is exercising that authority? You're not going to tell me here 
today. Do I have a way to be able to find out if she's going to 
squelch the Durham investigation?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to comment on specific members of 
the workforce. I can tell you that I have the upmost confidence 
in every single person who works within the National Security 
Division.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. Ross. 
You've got five minutes.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Attorney 
General Olsen, for joining us today. I'm going to shift focus 
and ask you to answer some questions about cybersecurity that 
you haven't been asked yet.
    In North Carolina, our Attorney General recently announced 
that 2021 saw a record number of reported data breaches which 
have affected more than 2.14 million North Carolinians. My 
district has felt the impact ransomware attacks on a multi-
state infrastructure operation cause such as the 2021 attack on 
the Colonial Pipeline. Following this attack, more than 70 
percent of Raleigh gas stations ran out of fuel, leaving my 
constituents with limited transit options. As you know, 
Colonial Pipeline paid a ransom to get its systems back online.
    In June 2021, DOJ directed Federal prosecutors to 
coordinate ransomware investigations with the new ransomware 
and digital extortion task force. Soon after, DOJ was able to 
work with the IRS and reports to claw back 2.3 million dollars 
of a 4.4-million-dollar payment paid by Colonial Pipeline to a 
group using DarkSide ransomware. While this attack was heralded 
as a great success, no similar actions that we know of have 
been taken in the intervening years since that success.
    Is the Colonial Pipeline operation indicative of a new 
strategy of interagency assistance on behalf of the U.S. 
government? Or was it just a one-off situation because of how 
great the impact was?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I do think the Colonial Pipeline ransomware 
attack constituted a bit of a wakeup call because of the nature 
of the attack on a portion of our critical infrastructure, 
Congresswoman. We are engaged now in the Justice Department in 
a concerted effort to address the challenge of ransomware which 
has increased significantly in the past several years. What we 
see is cyber-attacks as I think you appreciate that span the 
range of threats to our national security, from ransomware to 
efforts to steal our secret information to efforts to steal our 
trade secrets, efforts to interfere with our political process 
through misinformation, and even efforts to debilitate our 
critical infrastructure.
    So, cyber enabled attacks across the board are a 
significant concern. In the National Security Division, we 
particularly focus on those attacks that emanate from nation-
states. For that, we are most concerned about China, Russia, 
and also Iran and North Korea.
    Ms. Ross. Well, in addition to the nation-states, we do 
have these rogue actors sometimes encouraged or enabled by 
nation-states. Because of the nature of blockchain payments, 
when the recipient of the payment is anonymous, the trail of 
payments could be easier to follow. Why is it difficult to 
simply intercept all crypto-currency payments made to 
ransomware gangs?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I appreciate very much that you seem to have 
a deep understanding of this challenge. For one, I totally 
agree that in some cases it's hard to discern or distinguish 
between criminal groups and nation-states because of the ways 
in which certain nations might enable or support the work of 
criminal hacking groups. When it comes to the recovery of 
crypto payments for ransomware, the challenge there is that 
these groups by nature seek to hide their steps, and it can 
make it difficult to identify the movement of money that's paid 
in ransom.
    I would note that the department announced last year, about 
a year ago, that we had seized 85 percent of the Bitcoins that 
Colonial Pipeline had paid as a ransom to the hacking group, 
DarkSide. We were able to track it and recover that significant 
portion of that in that case. That's not always going to be 
true again because these groups, again, by their nature seek to 
hide their tracks.
    Ms. Ross. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Ms. Dean. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from 
Utah, Mr. Owens, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Olsen, 
what's the number of DOJ employees who have access to 702 FISA 
acquired data?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't know the exact number. It's important to 
note, I assume your question includes the FBI as DOJ employers 
because primarily--
    Mr. Jordan. It does. It does.
    Mr. Olsen. --that's FBI agents and analysts who have access 
to that data. I don't have the exact number for you, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. Give me an estimate of who can query that 
database.
    Mr. Olsen. Again, I don't have a number, even an estimate 
on the number. What I can tell you is that every single person 
who can query the 702 database has to be trained and certified 
to have access to that data.
    Mr. Jordan. When we got a briefing on December 2nd of last 
year, Melissa MacTough I think works in your division told us 
that it could be as high as 10,000 people. We were, like, 
shocked. I mean, we didn't expect it to be one. We certainly 
didn't expect it to be thousands.
    So, as the head of the National Security Division, she 
works for you. She's a lawyer in the National Security 
Division. She told us it could be--she was one of the attorneys 
there. I don't know if she's the one who said it, but she was 
in the briefing.
    We'd kind of like to know what that number really is 
because we've got a FISA reauthorization coming up soon. I 
think this thing has got all kinds of problems. So, are you 
sure you don't have an estimate?
    Mr. Olsen. I don't know if that was the number that was 
given to you during that briefing, I'm aware of that briefing 
that you received, and I did get a readout from that briefing. 
I'm assuming that was accurate.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Jordan. It's frightening if it's that high. It truly 
is. Okay. One of the questions we got today was from the 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs. He asked you the 42 
individuals that the Homeland Security has identified illegal 
migrants coming across the border who are on the terrorist 
watch list.
    He asked you a question, does ICE inform you as the head of 
the National Security Division about that information when they 
get it? You indicated you didn't know. Is that right?
    Mr. Olsen. Well, I think his question was about CBP, not 
ICE. It was about whether that information flowed to the 
National Security Division. My response is that information--I 
would assume if it's threat information, it would go to the FBI 
which is the investigative arm that would have--potentially 
have authority to investigate--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Jordan. Well, by definition it would be threat. I mean, 
they're on the terrorism watch list. So, I think it would have 
gone straight to you from ICE or Customs and Border. I think it 
would go straight to you.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Olsen. We're the lawyers that prosecute these cases. We 
certainly do work hand in hand with the FBI. If that 
information came to the FBI and there was a basis to open an 
investigation, we would be the lawyers that would be involved 
in working with the FBI and investigating--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Jordan. I understand what's supposed to happen. I'm 
asking is it happening. Frankly, when you couple that with the 
response we got from Secretary Mayorkas that day when I asked 
him what's the status of these folks, he sat right where you 
sat and testified and his answer was I don't know.
    So, he didn't know the status of those when he came in 
front of the Judiciary Committee even though it'd been widely 
reported in the press. What you're saying is you don't know if 
the information gets to the National Security Division. I find 
that troubling. I would yield the remaining two minutes to my 
friend from Florida.
    Mr. Gaetz. Did anyone at the National Security Division 
encourage L3 to purchase PEGASUS?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I'm not aware of anything about that matter. 
So, I--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. You are because people who work with you have 
come and briefed us on it. I'm citing, of course, The New York 
Times article, defense firm said U.S. spies backed its bid for 
PEGASUS spyware. So, PEGASUS is the most exquisite spying 
software in the world. It's zero click.
    It can get in people's phones. It's been used to target 
politicians, journalists, dissidents in some places. Here you 
have L3 saying that they were encouraged to go buy it from the 
national security apparatus. It's very important under oath for 
you to tell me whether any of those people were the National 
Security Division.
    Mr. Olsen. So, I'm sure you can appreciate I don't have any 
information about the public reporting. I'm aware of public 
reporting relating to that. I don't have any other information.
    Mr. Gaetz. Is that a yes or is that a no? Because we're 
going to find out eventually.
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not going to comment any further.
    Mr. Gaetz. Wait a second. Whether or not our own government 
used a private company as a cutout to go buy spying software 
that deprives people's rights. What you're saying is I'm not 
going to get a yes out of you and I'm not going to get a no out 
of you, because you're just not going to tell. You don't think 
the American people deserve to know that?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not aware of the facts that you're 
asserting.
    Mr. Gaetz. You know what PEGASUS is.
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not aware of the facts that you're 
asserting.
    Mr. Gaetz. You know what PEGASUS is.
    Mr. Olsen. Yes, I definitely have heard of PEGASUS.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. So, you should be able to tell me whether 
or not anyone who works at the National Security Division was 
out there trying to goose some private company to go buy it for 
you guys to use. Did you or did you not?
    Mr. Olsen. So, I'm not aware of any facts that relate to 
your question.
    Mr. Gaetz. I think you are.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Owen's time has expired. Do you want to be 
recognized? Okay. Nobody here.
    Mr. Gaetz. I seek recognition.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz, is now 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. There is a secret workspace at the Perkins law 
firm that is maintained by the Department of Justice. Has any 
information flowed through that secret workspace to the 
National Security Division?
    Mr. Olsen. I'm not familiar with the premise of your 
question. In other words, I'm not familiar with the facts that 
you've asserted in your question.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, you're not aware of the workspace that the 
Department of Justice maintains at the Perkins law firm?
    Mr. Olsen. Correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. You can't tell me whether or not the National 
Security Division has every received information that is flown 
through the law firm that is functionally the legal wing of the 
Democratic party?
    Mr. Olsen. Correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. I just keep going back to the plausible 
deniability from the Biden family. Speaking of the Biden 
family, since our last conversation, Mr. Olsen, a remarkable 
piece came out in Fox News entitled ``Joe Biden met with at 
least 14 of Hunter's business associates while Vice 
President.'' Now, I know that you're not going to answer any 
questions about Hunter Biden with the ongoing investigation 
answer that given me previously. Is Joe Biden compromised?
    Mr. Olsen. I should be clear I'm not going to comment on 
that question because I do not comment on any matter that may 
or may not be a matter of investigation. To the extent my 
comments previously were construed as confirming an 
investigation, that would be a mistake.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well--
    Mr. Olsen. I'm neither confirming an investigation nor am I 
denying an investigation. I'm simply saying I am not commenting 
on any potential investigation.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you think the American people deserve to know 
whether or not the First Family is compromised?
    Mr. Olsen. We speak through our filings in court at the 
Justice Department. We do not make allegations--
    Mr. Gaetz. You said that because yesterday--
    Mr. Olsen. --without going to court--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. --you all spoke through some leaks, right? 
Recently, you had Lester Holt interviewing Attorney General 
Garland. Lester Holt asked him a lot of questions about whether 
or not President Trump was being investigated for January 6.
    Just like you, AG Garland was repeating the premises of 
prosecutorial pathways. Then low and behold the same day, the 
Department of Justice didn't speak through any filings. They 
went and leaked to the Washington Post they're investigating 
President Trump.
    So, it seems like when it's the Biden family, you are all 
buttoned up with all your propriety about not talking about 
these things. When it's a Republican, when it's President 
Trump, you love to go have your authorized leaks. Here's my 
question to you. Are you aware of an authorized leak to the 
Washington Post the same day as AG Garland sat down with Lester 
Holt?
    Mr. Olsen. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. You think as you sit here as the representative 
of the National Security Division for the House Judiciary 
Committee that we aren't owed an answer as to whether or not 
the Biden family is compromised? We deserve that?
    Mr. Olsen. We speak through our filings in court. That's 
part of the rule of law. It's designed to protect the rights of 
anyone who may be accused, and it's designed to protect the 
integrity of the investigation. It's a central pillar of the 
Justice Department, and it's--
    Mr. Gaetz. It's one you violate all the time. Even Mr. 
Horowitz, the Obama appointed Inspector General, has given us 
report after report where Department of Justice employees are 
off getting tickets to baseball games and fancy dinners with 
reporters in exchange for giving them information. So, can you 
at least acknowledge that you don't live up to that pillar with 
great precision?
    Mr. Olsen. We speak through what we say in court. We 
protect the integrity of our investigation and we protect the 
rights of the accused.
    Mr. Gaetz. Especially what you say in court, what you said 
in the Washington Post what Jim Comey leaks to his professor 
buddy, what's kind of said between people at a baseball game 
where you guys are getting special treats and special treatment 
from the media. You see the political bias. We're living in a 
time where the American people have the lowest perception and 
belief in the integrity of the Justice Department since your 
inception.
    It's not because we're asking tough questions. It's because 
you sit here and stonewall us and don't give us answers. Just 
in this series of questions, you won't tell me whether or not 
our own government was out there trying to operate through 
cutout to buy software that spies on Americans illegally and 
improperly.
    You won't tell me whether or not the legal wing of the 
Democratic party was passing you information that was actually 
opposition research then to be recategorized and repackaged as 
national security information. You won't tell me whether the 
President of the United States is compromised when we know he's 
lying. Joe Biden came out and said repeatedly that he never 
talked to Hunter Biden about business, and here you have 14 
documented meetings.
    It's, like, are you guys ever going to investigate this? Or 
is it just going to be what Mr. Thibault said, what Mr. 
Grassley said? That is that you guys are basically political 
shills.
    This is what Mr. Grassley said. If these allegations are 
true and accurate, the Justice Department and FBI are and have 
been institutionally corrupted to their very core to the point 
at which the United States Congress and the American people 
will have no confidence in the equal application of the law. 
Can't you see that's what your behavior is continuing to just 
metastasize?
    Mr. Olsen. So, we don't conduct our investigations in 
public.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. Yeah, you leak them. That's what you do.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has--
    Mr. Olsen. We take--
    Mr. Gaetz. You leak them to try to smear people.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired. You may answer 
the question.
    Mr. Olsen. We take care that the assertions we made about 
facts are based on facts in evidence and are not reckless and 
false.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, this isn't false.
    Mr. Olsen. That is the way--
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Gaetz. This isn't reckless. You're just choosing not to 
investigate because it's the Bidens.
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Olsen. We take care to make sure that our assertions 
and we make in court are based on the facts and the truth and 
in the pursuit of justice. That's our solemn obligation, and 
that's one that I--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. Plausible deniability.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Olsen, please--
    Mr. Gaetz. Plausible deniability.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Olsen. Basing our investigations on the facts and the 
law and the pursuit of justice is our solemn obligation. It's 
one I take seriously, and it's one I have taken seriously for 
over 20 years.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Olsen. I continue to oversee the National Security 
Division that we will continue to do that.
    Ms. Dean. This concludes today's hearing. Mr. Olsen, I 
thank you and your entire team of public servants for your 
faithful service to our country in the pursuit of the rule of 
law and pursuit of justice.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the Witness or 
additional materials for the record. Without objection, the 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



      

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]