[Senate Hearing 117-617] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 117-617 EXAMINING THE JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITOL ======================================================================= JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS AND THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- FEBRUARY 23, 2021 AND MARCH 3, 2021 ---------- Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 44-585 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RAND PAUL, Kentucky JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma ALEX PADILLA, California MITT ROMNEY, Utah JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri David M. Weinberg, Staff Director Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel Christopher J. Mulkins, Director of Homeland Security Roy S. Awabdeh, Counsel Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director Andrew C. Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director Erin E. Kuhls, Minority Counsel William H.W. McKenna, Minority Chief Investigator Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota, Chairwoman DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROY BLUNT, Missouri CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky MARK R. WARNER, Virginia RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED CRUZ, Texas ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon Virginia ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi JON OSSOFF, Georgia DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee Elizabeth Peluso, Staff Director Fitzhugh Elder IV, Republican Staff Director Cindy Qualley, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Peters Senator Klobuchar Senator Blunt Senator Portman Senator Leahy................................................ 32 Senator Johnson Senator Rosen Senator Warner Senator Lankford Senator Carper Senator Merkley Senator Scott................................................ 49 Senator Hassan Senator Hawley Senator Padilla Senator Hagerty.............................................. 59 Senator King Senator Sinema Senator Cruz Senator Ossoff Senator Feinstein............................................ 222 Senator Paul................................................. 249 Prepared statements: Senator Peters Senator Klobuchar Senator Portman Senator Blunt Tuesday, February 23, 2021 WITNESSES Captain Carneysha Mendoza, Field Commander, U.S. Capitol Police Special Operations Division.................................... 8 Robert J. Contee III, Acting Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington DC...................................... 12 Steven A. Sund, Former Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police...... 14 Michael C. Stenger, Former Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, U.S. Senate......................................................... 16 Paul D. Irving, Former Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives................................................ 17 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Contee III, Robert J.: Testimony.................................................... 12 Prepared statement........................................... 90 Irving, Paul D.: Testimony.................................................... 17 Prepared statement........................................... 108 Mendoza, Captain Carneysha: Testimony.................................................... 8 Prepared statement........................................... 87 Stenger, Michael C.: Testimony.................................................... 16 Prepared statement........................................... 106 Sund, Steven A.: Testimony.................................................... 14 Prepared statement........................................... 95 APPENDIX Johnson Federalist Article....................................... 112 Sund Supplemental testimony with attachments..................... 126 Statement submitted by U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee....... 140 Response to post-hearing questions submitted for the Record Mr. Contee................................................... 145 Mr. Sund..................................................... 151 Mr. Stenger.................................................. 176 Mr. Irving................................................... 182 Wednesday, March 3, 2021 WITNESSES Robert G. Salesses, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security, U.S. Department of Defense..................................... 199 Melissa Smislova, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland Security................................ 201 Jill Sanborn, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice.... 202 Major General William J. Walker, USA, Commanding General, District of Columbia National Guard............................ 204 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Salesses, Robert G.: Testimony.................................................... 199 Prepared statement........................................... 273 Sanborn, Jill: Testimony.................................................... 202 Prepared statement........................................... 287 Smislova, Melissa: Testimony.................................................... 201 Prepared statement........................................... 282 Walker, William J.: Testimony.................................................... 204 Prepared statement........................................... 292 APPENDIX Peters Secretary Defense Memo.................................... 296 Peters Secretary Army Article.................................... 297 Johnson NY Times Article......................................... 300 Cruz Bowser Tweet................................................ 306 Cruz Bowser Letter............................................... 307 Response to post-hearing questions submitted for the Record Mr. Salesses................................................. 308 Ms. Smislova................................................. 312 Ms. Sanborn.................................................. 327 Mr. Walker................................................... 342 EXAMINING THE JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITOL ---------- TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2021 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee on Rules and Administration, Washington, DC. The Committees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary C. Peters, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC), and Hon. Amy Klobuchar, Chairwoman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, presiding. Present: Senators Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, Rosen, Padilla, Ossoff, Klobuchar, Feinstein, Warner, Leahy, King, Merkley, Portman, Johnson, Lankford, Romney, Scott, Hawley, Blunt, Cruz, Capito, Wicker, Fischer, Hyde-Smith, and Hagerty. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\ Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix on page 73. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to thank Ranking Member Portman, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Blunt, and all of our colleagues from the Rules Committee for your leadership and your help in putting together this joint meeting and hearing today. I would also like to thank our witnesses for joining us today and for your service to our country. For many Americans, this will be the first opportunity to hear about what happened in the Capitol on January 6th directly from our witnesses. We appreciate your willingness to work with our Committees to examine the breakdowns that allowed this terrible attack to occur and to ensure that an attack like this can never, ever happen again. This hearing is unique because it is personal for everyone involved, and I am grateful to our witnesses, colleagues, staff, U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), and the National Guard units who continue to assist in protecting the Capitol today, and for all of the hard work that allows this very important discussion to begin. I would like to once again thank Chairwoman Klobuchar for your partnership and for your leadership, and I look forward to your opening remarks. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN KLOBUCHAR\1\ Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman Peters, and good morning. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today for this first joint hearing of the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as we work to conduct oversight into what happened in the lead-up and during the horrific events of January 6th. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The prepared statement of Senator Klobuchar appears in the Appendix on page 76. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Chairman Peters and also Ranking Member Portman, as well as my good friend, Senator Blunt, who I look forward to continue working with on the Rules Committee in this Congress. I think it is important to note that we planned this entire hearing on a bipartisan basis. That is because the stakes are so high, and I say this to our witnesses as well who are all appearing here voluntarily. I think it is important for the Members to know that, and we thank them for doing that. We want this to be as constructive as possible, because in order to figure out the solutions so this does not happen again, we must have the facts. The answers are in this room. When an angry, violent mob staged an insurrection on January 6th and desecrated our Capitol, the temple of our democracy, it was not just an attack on the building. It was an attack on our republic itself. We are here today to better understand what was known in advance, what steps were taken to secure the Capitol, and what occurred that day, because we want to ensure that nothing like this happens again. Each of our witnesses held a leadership role at the time of the attack: Acting Chief Robert Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia; Mr. Steven Sund, former Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, who is here with us in person today; Mr. Michael Stenger, former Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSA); and Mr. Paul Irving, former House Sergeant at Arms. The other witnesses are here, as many of our witnesses do, via video. To our witnesses, your testimony is vital, and thank you again for coming. At the same time, this is certainly not the last hearing that we will have regarding this attack. Next week we will hear from witnesses from Federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Defense (DOD), that are critical to our understanding. The insurrection at the Capitol was more than an assault on democracy. It was an actual life or death situation for the many brave law enforcement officers who show up here to do their work every day. At the beginning of this testimony, we will hear from one of them. We will never forget the haunting shrieks of the police officer pinned in between the doors at the hands of the rioters, pleading for help. We will never forget Officer Harry Dunn who fought against the violent mob for hours and, after it was over, broke down in tears, telling fellow officers he had been called the ``N'' word 15 times that day. He asked, ``Is this America?'' Or Officer Eugene Goodman, who, after saving Senator Romney from walking--who is here with us today; thank you, Senator Romney--directly into the mob, ran by himself to take on a group of rioters, and then Eugene Goodman diverted that mob away from the Senate chamber, allowing us to safely depart. Tragically, the attack on the Capitol also cost the lives of three brave officers, including of course, Brian Sicknick, who died from injuries sustained while engaging with protesters. Two other officers died by suicide following the event of January 6th: D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith and U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood. Officer Liebengood, or ``Howie'' to those who knew him, worked the Delaware Avenue door of the Russell Senate Office Building, someone who I have seen at that doorway and who always greeted me and everyone with a warm smile. It has been reported that 140 U.S. Capitol Police officers sustained injuries from defending the Capitol. The courage of these officers will be remembered forever, but there are still many voices that we have not heard in the stories of January 6th, including the many staff who make sure we have food in our cafeteria and water and heat in our building. One janitorial worker hid during the attack in a closet. Another custodial staff member reflected on how terrible he felt when he had to clean up feces and had been speared on the wall, saying, ``I felt bad. I felt degraded.'' These dedicated workers were here, too, when the Capitol was attacked, as were many committed journalists who report on our work to the American people. To make this place safe going forward, we must answer some key questions. First and foremost on many of our minds is what took so long to deploy the National Guard that day, both because of decisions made in the Capitol Complex but also by others in the Federal Government. We must find out what was known about the potential for violence before the attack and how that intelligence was shared with law enforcement partners, including the officials responsible for protecting the Capitol. There are also important questions to be asked about how information concerning those threats was communicated to rank-and-file officers. It is vital that we explore necessary reforms to the structure of the Capitol Police Board, which I know we will hear more about today. We owe it to the 140 Capitol Police officers injured and to all those at the Capitol who continue to suffer the repercussions. We owe it to the officer beaten by the violent rioters because he literally placed his body in the doorway to protect us. We owe it to the officers who lost their lives. We owe it to the American people to figure out how the United States Capitol, the preeminent symbol of democracy around the world, could be overtaken by an angry, violent mob. We owe it to ourselves, colleagues, to believe enough in our democracy and in the U.S. Senate that, despite our political differences, we will be constructive in this hearing today, not just here to make political hay but be constructive today, to figure out what went wrong and what changes we can make to ensure that the Capitol is safe for us and the public going forward. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Blunt, Ranking Member Portman, and colleagues, for me the bottom line is that we must get the answers, and those answers are what will give us the solutions. Thank you very much. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It has been just over six weeks since our Nation watched with horror as our Capitol Building was breached by domestic terrorists who sought to use violence and intimidation to overturn the results of a free and fair election. This was a shocking assault on our democracy, and it marked one of our Nation's darkest days. The United States has stood as a beacon for the world, showing how democracy can thrive. On January 6th, we saw how fragile many of our most valued democratic principles, including the peaceful transfer of power is. It is hard to express how deeply grateful we are for the actions our Capitol Police, our Sergeants at Arms, and other law enforcement agencies do to keep us safe every single day, and especially on that day. Too many of our officers were gravely injured or tragically killed as they bravely fought back the attackers. Chief Contee, we are also indebted to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department for their valiant efforts to thwart the attack. D.C. Police often provide support or help secure the Capitol, but the officers under your command did not hesitate to come to our aid. We are thankful for the heroic actions of so many who ensured this direct attack on our democracy failed. But there is no question that there were colossal breakdowns in the intelligence gathering and security preparations leading up to the events of January 6th, as well as during the coordination and response efforts once the attack got underway. Our goal today is to begin to understand where those breakdowns and failures occurred and to determine if there are policy and structural changes Congress must make to prevent a future attack of this nature. In my role on the Homeland Security Committee, I have worked to draw attention to the rising threat of domestic terrorism, including the rise of insidious ideologies of white supremacy, antigovernment militias, and now QAnon conspiracies. These ideologies are intertwined in numerous ways, and on January 6th we saw just how quickly they can shift from online communities to committing organized, violent attacks in the real world. But the warning signs were there. Just a few months earlier, in my home State of Michigan, law enforcement successfully stopped a plot by antigovernment militias to kidnap our State's Governor. We have seen an increase in violent crimes over the last decade that are driven by hateful ideologies. We saw the deadly and tragic consequences on January 6th when the domestic terrorist threat was not taken as seriously as it should have been. This is a systemic and leadership failure on the part of our security officials from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security to the security leadership on the ground in the Capitol, and it must be addressed. Domestic terrorism is not a new threat, but it is an urgent threat. It will require serious focus to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect the safety and security of all Americans, and I would like to take a moment to remind my colleagues that every Senator here today took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. As the Committees charged with oversight, strengthening homeland security, and maintaining Capitol operations, we have a solemn duty to thoroughly examine the security breakdowns and make needed reforms. I am hopeful we will be able to work together and carry out this responsibility in a serious and a nonpartisan way. Finally, while today's hearing is our first on the January 6th attack, it will not be our last. We will continue to seek testimony and information from a range of agencies and officials who were involved in preparing for and responding to the events of the day for the U.S. Capitol and for the entire region. The attack on January 6th was an extraordinary event that requires exhaustive consideration. The American people deserve answers on why their Capitol was breached, and I look forward to having a productive discussion with our witnesses in order to provide the American people with those answers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good. Senator Blunt. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUNT\1\ Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairwoman Klobuchar. It is great to work with you, Chairman Peters, and Senator Portman as we move forward on this hearing on what happened on January 6th, and I think that will obviously also require discussion of what happened in the days immediately leading up to January 6th. This hearing, as Senator Peters and you have both said, is really the beginning of a series of efforts that hopefully we can approach in a bipartisan way that looks for solutions and ensures that the deadly, outrageous, destructive attack that marked such a sad day in our history never happens again. Certainly the officers who defended the Capitol that day deserve to be recognized and praised for their valiant efforts and their willingness every day to stand ready to do what needs to be done to defend the Capitol and those who work there. I am certainly grateful to them. I am particularly grateful in this instance to the Metropolitan Police Department and their really admirable response to be here quickly, to be here with significant numbers of people in the very short term, and within an hour to have an incredible impact on what was going on here at the Capitol in a positive way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Blunt appears in the Appendix on page 84. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The failures of the day, unfortunately, were of the most serious kind. Senator Klobuchar has already mentioned the three officers whose lives were lost and other officers who have really had to deal with this in a significant way. You also have to remember that this was an event where the families of our officers were watching in real time on television an attack where they are seeing people that mean the entire world to them in this fight for their lives and fight for our lives and the Capitol. Three of today's witnesses, former House Sergeant at Arms Irving, former Senate Sergeant at Arms Stenger, and former Chief of the United States Capitol Police Sund, were all charged with the protection of the Capitol on January 6th. We need to hear from them, whether it was a failure of imagination, of what could go wrong, a failure of intelligence gathering and dissemination, a failure of preparation, which ultimately led to this problem, or maybe a structural failure that just is not designed in a way that it allows us to respond to an immediate crisis, and obviously we need to get that done. I want to hear from Chief Contee of the Metropolitan Police Department to learn about the department's role and, frankly, to learn how their decisionmaking process appeared to be so much quicker than the decisionmaking process we could go through here. I believe it is important for everyone to note that the attacks on January 6th did not prevent Congress from fulfilling its responsibilities. Both chambers reconvened that evening and finished the certification of the results of the Electoral College. I think Senator Klobuchar and the Vice President and I left the building about 4 a.m. on Friday, but we did get our work done where the American people and people all over the world would have expected it to get done. On the 20th, we held an Inauguration on the same platform that had been stormed two weeks earlier and carried out one of our most important aspects of our democracy, the peaceful transfer of power. I want to thank my colleagues from both the Homeland Security and Rules Committee for today's hearing and the staff work that has gone into getting ready for today. Chairman Peters. Ranking Member Portman. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN\1\ Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman Peters, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Blunt, for the constructive comments this morning. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Portman appears in the Appendix on page 81. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this business you often finish like you start, and I appreciate the fact that we are starting this review by taking the politics out of it so we can get to the bottom of what happened. I want to start by expressing my gratitude on behalf of everybody for the men and women of law enforcement--U.S. Capitol Police, U.S. Secret Service (USSS), National Guard, Metropolitan Police Department, the FBI, and all the law enforcement agencies who put their safety on the line to safeguard democracy on January 6th. As I said on the Senate floor that night, it was thanks to them that Vice President Pence, Members of Congress, staff, and the Capitol Complex workforce were protected, and we were able to complete our constitutional duty of certifying the election. It was important, in my view, that we sent a clear message that night to our constituents and to the world that we would not be intimidated, that the mob would not rule here. But that message could not have been delivered without law enforcement securing us and our respective chambers. Seven individuals lost their lives as a result of the Capitol attack, including two Capitol Police officers and a D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officer. We will never forget the service and sacrifice of Officers Brian Sicknick, Jeffrey Smith, and Howard Liebengood. I knew Officer Liebengood. I saw Howie most days at his post at the Russell Office Building. His colleagues will tell you no officer was more dedicated to the mission of the Capitol Hill Police Department, a mission and duty to serve and protect. I am proud to have called him a friend. We will never forget Officer Eugene Goodman and the hundreds of other officers who were heroes on the front lines that afternoon, that evening, many of whom sustained injuries. To honor that kind of sacrifice and avoid future attacks, we have to take a really hard look at what happened on January 6th, the decisionmaking that led up to that day and the decisionmaking that allowed the Capitol to be breached and overrun. As the bipartisan media advisory announcing this joint hearing stated, the purpose today is to examine the security failures that led to a breach of the Capitol on January 6th, specifically the preparation and response efforts. There are key questions that have to be answered. First, some witnesses have suggested there was an intelligence failure. We need to know: Was there credible intelligence about potential violence? When was it known? And who knew it? Second, our witnesses have differing accounts about requests for National Guard assistance. We need to now: Did the U.S. Capitol Police request approval to seek National Guard assistance prior to January 6th? If so, why was that request denied? We need to know: Was the request for National Guard assistance on January 6th delayed, and why, if that is true? We need to know why it took so long for the National Guard to arrive after their support was requested. Third, the Capitol was overtaken in a matter of hours. We need to know whether Capitol Police officers were properly trained and equipped to respond to an attack on the Capitol? If not, why not? We need to know why the Capitol Complex itself was so vulnerable and insecure that it could be so easily overrun. My hope is that today we get clear answers to these questions from our witnesses. We need to know what happened and how to ensure this never happens again. It is that simple. I will be listening carefully, as I know my colleagues will, to the testimony of the witnesses before us. These events on January 6th showed that while our democracy is resilient, our democracy at times will be challenged. We have to be up to that challenge. That certainly includes securing this Capitol, the citadel of democracy. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Portman. Before I introduce the panel, it is important that we hear from someone who was on the front lines that day, and I would like to recognize Captain Carneysha Mendoza of the U.S. Capitol Police. Captain Mendoza has been a member of the Capitol Police for almost 19 years, with 13 years of leadership experience. She currently serves as the field commander in the Special Operations Division where her duties include acting as a Field Commander for significant security incidents. She has served in various divisions within the department, including the Command Center, House Division, and Senate Division. Before she joined the Capitol Police, she served as an active-duty soldier in the United States Army, and she has received various awards for her work, including her work on recovery efforts during the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001. Born and raised in Missouri, Senator Blunt, Captain Mendoza graduated from Park University with a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice Administration. She has two children. On January 6th, she rushed to the Capitol when she heard that her fellow officers needed immediate help and assumed command in the rotunda as she and her colleagues fought to push back the rioters and ultimately drive them out of the building. Captain, thank you for sharing your story today. TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN CARNEYSHA MENDOZA,\1\ FIELD COMMANDER, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION Ms. Mendoza. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the Committee today and thank you all for your service to our country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Mendoza appears in the Appendix on page 87. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- My name is Captain Carneysha Mendoza, and I have served with the United States Capitol Police for 19 years. I take a lot of pride in my job. Prior to serving with the Capitol Police, I served as an active-duty soldier with the United States Army. My last duty station was split between the Pentagon and the Washington Area Criminal Investigations Division (CID). I have received various awards from the Army and the Capitol Police, to include an award for recovery ``efforts'' during the Pentagon attack. Unfortunately, I did not save any lives, but there are certain lessons that always stuck with me after September 11, 2001. One of those lessons is knowing the unthinkable is always possible, so be ready. I always take my job very seriously, as September 11 is always in the back of my mind. With the Capitol Police, I have served in various operational, administrative, and collateral assignments. I am currently serving as a captain in the Special Operations Division where I have various responsibilities to include serving as a field commander and a field force commander for the Civil Disturbance Unit (CDU). Throughout my career, I have responded to and managed various critical incidents and events from congressional and member security-related issues to shootings and armed carjackings. I have served as the CDU field force commander for multiple events, including the November 14th Million Make America Great Again (MAGA) March. In my career, I have been activated to work demonstrations with various controversial groups, and I have been called some of the worst names so many times that I am pretty numb to it now. As an agency, we have trained for and handled numerous demonstrations. It is something we do on a regular basis, and it is something I have always felt we have excelled at. During the Million MAGA March, multiple white supremacist groups, to include the Proud Boys and others, converged at the Supreme Court along with counter groups. The Civil Disturbance Unit fought hard that day, physically breaking up fights and separating various groups. I literally woke up the next day unable to move due to the pain. On January 6th, we anticipated an event similar to the Million MAGA March that took place on November 14, where we would likely face groups fighting among one another. Additional Civil Disturbance Units were activated that day. I was working the evening shift and had planned to report in at 3 p.m. I was prepared to work a 16-hour shift and assume field force commander should the event continue into the evening and overnight shifts. It was approximately 1:30 in the afternoon. I was home eating with my 10-year-old, spending time with him before what I knew would be a long day, when a fellow captain contacted me and told me things were bad and that I needed to respond in. I literally dropped everything to respond in to work early. I arrived within 15 minutes, and I contacted dispatch to ask what active scenes we had. I was advised things were ``pretty bad.'' I asked where assistance was needed and was advised of six active scenes. There was an explosive device at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) building, a second explosive device at the Republican National Committee (RNC) building, and large hostile groups at different locations outside the Capitol Building. I advised the dispatcher I would respond to the DNC since that building was closest to where I was at the time. En route, I heard officers at the Capitol Building calling for immediate assistance, so I proceeded past the DNC to the Capitol. As I arrived to the East Front Plaza of the Capitol, I heard an officer yell there was a breach at the rotunda door, and I heard various other officers calling for assistance in multiple locations throughout the building. Many of the doors to the building were not accessible due to the size of the crowd. I was able to enter a lower-level door with the assistance of a Capitol Division officer. Once inside the Memorial Door, I immediately noticed a large crowd of possibly 200 rioters yelling in front of me. Since I was alone, I turned to go back out so I could enter another door, but within the few seconds it took me to walk back to the door I entered, there were already countless rioters outside the building banging on the door. I had no choice but to proceed through the violent crowd in the building. I made my way through the crowd by yelling and pushing people out of my way until I saw Capitol Police Civil Disturbance Units in riot gear in the hallway. They were holding the hallway to keep rioters from penetrating deeper into the building. I immediately jumped in line with them to assist with holding the crowd of rioters. At some point, my right arm got wedged between rioters and the railing along the wall. A CDU sergeant pulled my arm free, and had he not, I am certain it would have been broken. Shortly after that, an officer was pushed and fell to the floor. I assisted the officer to a safer location and got back in line. At some point, the crowd breached the line officers worked so hard to maintain. Civil Disturbance Units began to redeploy to keep rioters from accessing other areas of the building. I proceeded to the rotunda where I noticed a heavy smoke- like residue and smelled what I believed to be military-grade chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS) gas--a familiar smell. It was mixed with fire extinguisher spray deployed by rioters. The rioters continued to deploy CS inside the rotunda. Officers received a lot of gas exposure, which is worse inside the building than outside because there is nowhere for it to go. I received chemical burns to my face that still have not healed to this day. I witnessed officers being knocked to the ground and hit with various objects that were thrown by rioters. I was unable to determine exactly what those objects were. I immediately assumed command in the rotunda and called for additional assets. Officers began to push the crowd out the door. After a couple of hours, officers cleared the rotunda, but had to physically hold the door closed because it had been broken by the rioters. Officers begged me for relief as they were unsure of how long they could physically hold the door closed with the crowd continually banging on the outside of the door attempting to gain reentry. Eventually, officers were able to secure the door with furniture and other objects. I am proud of the officers I worked with on January 6th. They fought extremely hard. I know some said the battle lasted three hours, but according to my Fitbit, I was in the exercise zone for four hours and nine minutes, and many officers were in the fight even before I arrived. I am extremely proud of the United States Capitol Police. I am especially proud of the officers who are the backbone of this agency and carry out day-to-day operations. I know with teamwork we can move forward. The night of January 7th into the very early morning hours of my birthday, January 8th, I spent at the hospital comforting the family of our fallen officer and met with the medical examiner's office prior to working with fellow officers to facilitate a motorcade to transport Officer Sicknick from the hospital. Of the multitude of events I have worked in my nearly 19- year career in the department, this was by far the worst of the worst. We could have had 10 times the amount of people working with us, and I still believe the battle would have been just as devastating. As an American and as an Army veteran, it is sad to see us attacked by our fellow citizens. I am sad to see the unnecessary loss of life, I am sad to see the impact this has had on Capitol Police officers, and I am sad to see the impact this has had on our agency and on our country. Although things are still raw and moving forward will be a difficult process, I look forward to moving forward together as an agency and as a country. In closing, I want to honor Chief Sund's leadership. I served under his command as a watch commander for three years and was able to personally see his hard work and dedication. He was fully dedicated to the United States Capitol Police, and he cared about every employee on the department. I often hear employees on the department praise his leadership and his ability to inspire others. He has made a significant impact on our agency. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Captain Mendoza, for that beautiful statement and for your work on behalf of our country. I am going to give you the bios on the other witnesses, and then Senator Peters will swear them in. Our first witness today is Robert J. Contee, Acting Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. Acting Chief Contee was sworn in as Acting Chief of the MPD on January 2, 2021. He first joined the department in 1989 as a Cadet. After being sworn in, he became a patrol officer before being promoted to Lieutenant and leading the force's intelligence branch. In 2004, he was promoted to Captain and put in charge of the Violent Crimes Branch. After being promoted to 2nd District commander, he joined the Special Operations Division. For the next decade, Acting Chief Contee served in multiple leadership roles with the MPD, including as Patrol Chief of Patrol Services South, where he oversaw several police districts. He was appointed as Assistant Chief of the Investigative Services Bureau in March 2018. Acting Chief Contee is a graduate of D.C. schools and holds a Bachelor's degree in professional studies from the George Washington University. Acting Chief Contee grew up in the Carter Terrace community in Northeast Washington, D.C. Our second witness today will be Steven A. Sund. Mr. Sund served as Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police from June 2019 to January 16, 2021. Mr. Sund joined the Capitol Police in 2017 as Assistant Chief and Chief of Operations. Prior to joining the USCP, he spent nearly 25 years with the Metropolitan Police Department where he started out as a patrol officer in 1990. From 1999 to 2006, he served in MPD's Special Operations Division and helped plan several major events, including the 2001 and 2005 Presidential Inaugurations. After joining the MPD's Homeland Security Division, he rose through the ranks to become Commander of the Special Operations Division in 2011. As Commander of the Special Operations Division, he served as lead planner for both the 2009 and 2013 Presidential Inaugurations and many other National Special Security Events (NSSEs). He received his Bachelor and Master of Science (MS) degrees from Johns Hopkins and his Master of Arts in Homeland Security from the Naval Postgraduate School. Our third witness will be Michael Stenger, former Senate Sergeant at Arms, who served in that capacity from April 2018 to January 7th of this year. He joined the Senate in 2011 as Assistant Sergeant at Arms for the Office of Protective Services and Continuity. He has also served as chief of staff of the Sergeant at Arms and as Deputy Sergeant at Arms. Prior to joining the Sergeant at Arms office, he was a 35-year veteran of the United States Secret Service where he served in many roles, including as the Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office. Immediately before joining the Senate, he served as Assistant Director of the Office of Government and Public Affairs for the Secret Service. He graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson University. He is also a veteran, having attained the rank of captain in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). Our final witness today is Paul Irving. Mr. Irving served as the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives from January 2012 through January 7th of this year. He joined the United States Secret Service in 1983 after briefly serving with the FBI. He served as head legal instructor for constitutional law and criminal procedure at the Secret Service Training Academy before joining the Presidential Protective Division during the George H.W. Bush and Clinton Administrations. Following his White House service, he served as the Assistant Director for Congressional Affairs, Assistant Director for Government Affairs, Assistant Director for Homeland Security, and Assistant Director for Administration for the Secret Service. He retired from the Secret Service in 2008 as Assistant Director and worked as a private security consultant until his appointment as House Sergeant at Arms in 2012. He is a graduate of the American University and Whittier Law School. I want to thank our witnesses for appearing voluntarily today, and I look forward to your testimony. Chairman Peters. It is the practice of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to swear in witnesses, so if the witnesses would stand, including those joining us virtually, and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Contee. I do. Mr. Sund. I do. Mr. Stenger. I do. Mr. Irving. I do. Chairman Peters. Thank you. You may all be seated. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Do you want to begin then, Chief Contee? Mr. Contee. Sure. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. CONTEE, III,\1\ ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Contee. Good morning, Chairman Peters, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Members Portman and Blunt, and Members of the Committees. I am Robert J. Contee, III, the Acting Chief of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department, the primary police force in the District of Columbia. I appreciate this opportunity to brief you on the events of January 6, 2021, a dark day for our country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Contee appears in the Appendix on page 90. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to begin by highlighting a few key facts to ensure the Committees and the audience understand the very different roles of Mayor Muriel Bowser and the District of Columbia, including MPD, and those of congressional and Federal authorities. First, MPD is prohibited by Federal law from entering the Capitol or its grounds to patrol, make arrests, or serve warrants without the consent or request of the Capitol Police Board. Second, the President of the United States, not the Mayor of the District of Columbia, controls the D.C. National Guard. The scope of the request by the Mayor must be limited to supporting the District's local jurisdiction and authority, which excludes Federal entities and property. Third, since Mayor Bowser declared a public health emergency last March, the District has not issued permits for any large gatherings. Although the District and MPD take pride in facilitating the exercise of First Amendment rights by all groups, regardless of their beliefs, none of the public gatherings on January 5th and 6th were issued permits by the city. On the morning of January 6th, MPD was prepared to support our Federal partners with a First Amendment assembly that was held primarily on Federal land, while continuing to patrol and respond to calls for service throughout D.C.. Based on our experience with prior demonstrations after the election, we recognized that there was a possibility of violence, especially after dark as smaller groups of protesters gathered with malicious intent on our city streets. To be clear, available intelligence pointed to a large presence of some of the same groups that had contributed to violence in the city after demonstrations in November and December. The District had intelligence indicating the potential for violent actions in the streets of the District of Columbia. In preparation for the anticipated demonstrations and the possibility of violence on city streets, MPD was fully deployed on 12-hour shifts the week of January 4th, with days off and leave canceled. At Mayor Bowser's request, several area police departments were on standby in D.C., and more than 300 members of the National Guard were deployed on District streets providing traffic control and other services. However, these resources were barely enough to counter an event that had never happened in the history of the United States: a mob of thousands of American citizens launching a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol--the seat of our Government--in an attempt to halt the counting of the electoral ballots, an essential step in the peaceful transfer of power in our Nation. The mob's sustained assault on the Capitol precipitated an equally unprecedented response, with then- Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund issuing an urgent request for MPD to come assist in defending the Capitol. Needless to say, when we received the call for help, MPD responded immediately. Within minutes, our members arrived at a chaotic scene. The violent mob had overrun protective measures at the Capitol in an attempted insurrection, prior to the arrival of MPD officers at the west front. Our objectives were to: one, stop the rioters from entering the Capitol Building and remove those that were already inside; two, secure a perimeter so that the Capitol could be cleared for lawmakers; three, enable Congress to resume their sessions to demonstrate to our country and to the world that our democracy was still intact; and, last, once the third objective had been accomplished, begin making arrests of anyone violating the law. At 2:22 p.m., a call was convened with, among others, myself, leadership of the Capitol Police, the National Guard, and the Department of the Army. I was surprised at the reluctance to immediately send the National Guard to the Capitol grounds. In the meantime, by 2:30 p.m., the District had requested additional officers from as far away as New Jersey and issued notice of an emergency citywide curfew beginning at 6 p.m. From that point, it took another 3\1/2\ hours until all rioters were removed from the Capitol. Ninety minutes later, at 8 p.m., Congress was able to resume its critical work and fulfill its constitutional duty. Over the course of January 6th and into the early morning of the 7th, approximately 1,100 MPD members responded to the Capitol. At least 65 MPD members sustained injuries. Five people lost their lives on January 6th. As we reflect on that dark day, we offer our condolences to all of the grieving families. In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the heroism of MPD officers who put their lives on the line to protect the Capitol, Congress, and our democracy. But to ensure the continued safety of the District and everyone in it, we must be frank in looking at several critical issues. This assault on the Capitol has exposed weaknesses in the security of the most secure city in the country. The Federal police forces in D.C. will be reexamining their security protocols given the risks of both foreign and domestic terrorism. As the Chief of the District's municipal police force, I must think about our preparations not only for possible attacks, but the daily impact of the changing operations of our Federal partners. As they harden targets in the Federal enclave, other buildings in the city under MPD jurisdiction may become more likely targets. This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Mr. Sund. TESTIMONY OF STEVEN A. SUND,\1\ FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE (2019- 2021), U.S. CAPITOL POLICE Mr. Sund. Good morning, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Blunt, Chairman Peters, and Ranking Member Portman. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before your two Committees regarding the attack on the United States Capitol that occurred January 6th. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Sund appears in the Appendix on page 95. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have been in policing for almost 30 years. The events I witnessed on January 6th was the worst attack on law enforcement and our democracy that I have seen in my entire career. I witnessed insurgents beating police officers with fists, pipes, sticks, bats, metal barricades, and flagpoles. These criminals came prepared for war. They came with their own radio system to coordinate the attack and climbing gear and other equipment to defeat the Capitol's security features. I am sickened by what I witnessed that day. Our officers fought valiantly, using batons, shields, chemical munitions, and pepper ball guns to hold back the attackers. Capitol Police and responding law enforcement agencies showed tremendous restraint by not using their firearms, which would have likely led to a more chaotic situation and a possible mass casualty incident. No civilian law enforcement agency, to include the United States Capitol Police, is trained or equipped to repel an insurrection of thousands of individuals focused on breaching a building at all costs. I am extremely proud and appreciative of the Capitol Police officers, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the other law enforcement agencies that came to our assistance. A clear lack of accurate and complete intelligence across several Federal agencies contributed to this event, and not poor planning by the United States Capitol Police. We rely on accurate information from our Federal partners to help us develop effective security plans. The intelligence that we based our planning on indicated that the January 6th protests were expected to be similar to the previous MAGA rallies in 2020, which drew tens of thousands of participants. The assessment indicated that members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, Antifa, and other extremist groups were expected to participate on January 6th and that they may be inclined to become violent. Based on the intelligence that we received, we planned for an increased level of violence at the Capitol and that some participants may be armed. But none of the intelligence we received predicted what actually occurred. Extensive preparations were put into place for January 6th that included the full activation of the department, intelligence and information sharing with our Federal and local partners and department officials, implementing a significant enhancement for member protection, extensive operational enhancements to include significant civil disobedience deployment and an expanded perimeter. We also distributed additional protective equipment for our officers and coordinated outside agency support. As recently as Tuesday, January 5th, during a meeting I hosted with my executive team, the Capitol Police Board, and a dozen of the top law enforcement and military officials from D.C., no entity, including the FBI, provided any new intelligence regarding January 6th. It should also be noted that the Secretary of Homeland Security did not issue an elevated or imminent alert in reference to the events at the United States Capitol on January 6th. We properly planned for a mass demonstration with possible violence. What we got was a military-style coordinated assault on my officers and a violent takeover of the Capitol Building. I know that the images we saw of the officers battling for their lives and the visuals on national TV had a profound effect on the Nation. The United States Capitol Police did everything we could based on the intelligence and available resources to prepare for this event. While my officers were fighting, my post was in the command center coordinating resources from numerous agencies around the National Capital Region to provide critically needed support. I was also briefing the two Sergeants at Arms and working on establishing accountability and priorities for the incoming resources. As Capitol Police and outside resources began to reestablish the security perimeter, I responded to the Capitol Building to personally evaluate the situation and brief the Sergeants at Arms and leadership. I acknowledge that under the pressure of an unprecedented attack, a number of systems broken down. One of the reported issues described by our officers was a lack of clear communications and directions from officials. It appears that the established incident command for the Capitol Building was overwhelmed by the enormity of the situation and as officials battling insurrections as opposed to directing the response. There have also been reports that some officers may have felt confused or let down during the attack. As an official who cares as much as I do about my colleagues, nothing is more painful to me. These issues must be addressed through new training policies and procedures. Even our best efforts were not enough to stop this unprecedented assault on the Capitol. However, casting blame solely on United States Capitol Police leadership is not only misplaced, but it also minimizes what truly occurred that day. The focus going forward needs to be on the efforts to improve intelligence and the coordination of security measures between all involved agencies. Hopefully this will be part of the focus of an independent after-action committee to look at all aspects of the January attack on our Nation's Capitol. In closing, I want to again recognize the heroic efforts of the Capitol Police officers who on January 6th, outnumbered and against the odds, successfully carried out their mission to protect the Members of Congress and the legislative process. I could not have been more proud to be part of their team and the USCP mission. I am available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Sund. Mr. Stenger. TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL C. STENGER,\1\ FORMER SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER (2018-2021), U.S. SENATE Mr. Stenger. Chairwoman Klobuchar, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Blunt, and Ranking Member Portman, the National Capital Region is a unique environment for law enforcement. The U.S. Capitol Police, in conjunction with the Sergeants at Arms, work to provide security of the Capitol Complex and its population, but there is a shared responsibility with other law enforcement groups within the region. The sharing of information and resources is paramount for success. Since assuming the position of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, enhancement of the working relationship between my office and the U.S. Capitol Police has been a priority. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Stenger appears in the Appendix on page 106. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am a proponent of the concept of intelligence-led policing. This methodology can be used in assessing threats to individual members as well as threats to the campus. As in all intelligence operations, it is only as good as the analyst assessing it, and that assessment is then placed in the appropriate hands to take steps in order to mitigate any threats. We have to be careful of returning to a time when possibility rather than probability drives security planning. Though the events of January 6th certainly reveal that a review of intelligence should be done, returning to the concept of possibility driving security operations may result in the poor use of resources. This is the constant give and take of security planning. There is an opportunity to learn lessons from the events of January 6th. Investigations should be considered as to the funding and travel of what appears to be professional agitators. First Amendment rights should always be considered in conjunction with these investigations. The law enforcement coordination in the National Capital Region should be reviewed to determine what can be done in a more efficient and productive manner. Intelligence collection and dissemination, training, and concepts on the use of force must be consistent. This integration should be accomplished without regard to self-interest and cost. In conclusion, whenever you prepare for a major event, you must always consider the possibility of some level of civil disobedience at these demonstrations and plan accordingly. The events of January 6th went beyond disobedience. This was a violent, coordinated attack where the loss of life could have been much worse. This concludes my prepared remarks. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Stenger. Mr. Irving. TESTIMONY OF PAUL D. IRVING,\1\ FORMER SERGEANT AT ARMS (2012- 2021), U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Irving. Chairman Peters, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Portman, Ranking Member Blunt, and distinguished Members of the Committees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Irving appears in the Appendix on page 108. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been a lot of press reporting about me, not all of it accurate, and I appreciate the opportunity to address some of that today. My name is Paul Irving, and I served as the Sergeant at Arms for the House of Representatives for the past nine years. Serving in that role was one of the great honors of my life, and I count it a privilege to have worked with Speakers from both political parties, including Speaker Boehner, Speaker Ryan, and Speaker Pelosi. I am a law enforcement officer by training. My professional career started more than 40 years ago as an intern at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and then as a Clerk at the FBI. I later became a Special Agent at the Secret Service where I worked on two different Presidential protection details and ultimately rose to the rank of Assistant Director. Like you, I am profoundly saddened by the events of January 6th. The entire world witnessed horrific acts of violence and destruction carried out by our very own citizens against a global symbol of democracy--our seat of Government. I am particularly saddened by the loss of life, which included three officers. My heart goes out to all the families that lost a loved one. We began planning for the protests of January 6th in December 2020. The planning relied on what we understood to be credible intelligence provided by various State and Federal agencies, including a special event assessment issued by the Capitol Police on January 3rd. The January 3rd assessment forecast that the protests were ``expected to be similar to the previous Million MAGA March rallies'' that had taken place in November and December 2020. Every Capitol Police daily intelligence report between January 4th and January 6th, including on January 6th, forecast the chance of civil disobedience or arrests during the protests as ``remote to improbable.'' I relied on that intelligence when overseeing the security plan put forth by Chief Sund. The Chief's plan took on an all- hands-on-deck approach whereby every available sworn Capitol police employee with police powers was assigned to work on January 6th. That meant approximately 1,200 Capitol police officers were onsite, including Civil Disturbance Units and other tactical teams. I also understood that 125 National Guard troops were on notice to be standing by for a quick response. The Metropolitan Police Department was also on 12-hour shifts with no officers on day off or leave, and they staged officers just north of the Capitol to provide immediate assistance if required. The plan was briefed to multiple law enforcement partners. Based on the intelligence, we all believed that the plan met the threat and that we were prepared. We now know that we had the wrong plan. As one of the senior security leaders responsible for the event, I am accountable for that. I accept that responsibility, and as you know, I have resigned my position. Much has been said about whether optics affected my judgment in a January 4th telephone call with Chief Sund and Senate Sergeant at Arms Stenger about a National Guard offer to incorporate 125 unarmed National Guard troops into the security plan. The Guard's purpose would have been to work traffic control near the Capitol. My use of the word ``optics'' has been mischaracterized in the media. Let me be clear: Optics as portrayed in the media played no role whatsoever in my decisions about security, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Safety was always paramount when making security plans for January 6th. We did discuss whether the intelligence warranted having troops at the Capitol. That was the issue. The collective judgment at that time was no, the intelligence did not warrant that. If the Chief or any other security leader had expressed doubt about our readiness without the National Guard, I would not have hesitated to request them. Chief Sund, Senate Sergeant at Arms Stenger, and I were confident in the Chief's plan, and I did whatever I could to ensure that Chief Sund had the support needed to prepare and execute that security plan. On January 6th, when I was asked for authorization to request National Guard assistance, I approved it. There are important lessons to be learned from January 6th. I commend the Committees for conducting this proactive review of the events leading up to and on January 6th. I want to help the staff and members make changes and improvements and to ensure the tragedies of January 6th never occur again. I look forward to answering your questions. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. We will now begin questioning. I want to start out just to clear up one thing by just asking all of our witnesses a yes-no question. Based on what we know now, including the recent Department of Justice indictments, do you agree that there is now clear evidence that supports the conclusion that the January 6th insurrection was planned and it was a coordinated attack on the U.S. Capitol? Everyone agree? Mr. Contee. Yes. Mr. Sund. Yes. Mr. Stenger. Yes. Mr. Irving. Yes. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Would you agree that this attack involved white supremacist and extremist groups? Mr. Contee. Yes. Mr. Sund. Yes. Mr. Stenger. Yes. Mr. Irving. Yes. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Would you agree that this was a highly dangerous situation which was horrific but could have actually been worse without the courage of the officers that you commanded? Mr. Contee. Yes. Mr. Sund. Yes. Mr. Stenger. Yes. Mr. Irving. Yes. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Now let us look at what we knew leading up to it or what you knew leading up to it or what people that worked for you knew leading up to it. We knew that leading up to January 6th President Trump sent nationwide tweets telling people to come to Washington on January 6th and saying, ``Be there. Will be wild.'' According to public reporting by the Washington Post, the FBI's Norfolk Field Office issued a threat report on January 5th that detailed specific calls for violence online in connection with January 6th, including that protesters ``be ready to fight'' and ``go there ready for war.'' I guess I will start with you, Mr. Sund. When a critical intelligence report is received by the Capitol Police from an intelligence community (IC) source like the FBI, who usually would receive it? I guess I will start with, did you receive this report? Mr. Sund. Thank you very much for the question, ma'am. In the last 24 hours I was informed by the department that they actually had received that report. One of our sworn members that is assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), which is a task force with the FBI, received it the evening of the 5th, reviewed it, and then forwarded it over to an official at the Intelligence Division over at U.S. Capitol Police headquarters. Chairwoman Klobuchar. And so you had not seen it yourself? Mr. Sund. No, ma'am. It did not go any further than that. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Then was it sent to the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms? Mr. Sund. I do not believe it went any farther than over to the Sergeant at the Intelligence Division. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Mr. Irving, Mr. Stenger, did you get that report beforehand? Mr. Stenger. No. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Mr. Irving? Mr. Irving. I did not. Chairwoman Klobuchar. I think that may have contributed in part to the lack of information, but I will leave that for the future. Now let us go back to another report. I know on January 3rd, Mr. Sund, you said in your written testimony that the Capitol Police published an intelligence assessment of the event, including one on January 3rd. Do you mostly rely on your Federal partners like the FBI to gather and analyze intelligence on potential threats to the Capitol and Members of Congress? Mr. Sund. Yes, I think what is important to realize, as a law enforcement agency, we are a consumer of intelligence and information that is provided by the intelligence community. The intelligence community is 18 Federal agencies that collect information, do the analyzing of the raw data, raw intelligence, and then provide it to us. We are reliant on that information to be complete and accurate. Chairwoman Klobuchar. But in that report we now know, according to your testimony, that tens of thousands of participants were likely to descend on Washington. Is that correct? Mr. Sund. Yes, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. The January 3rd memo, according to the Washington Post, made clear that supporters of President Trump see January 6th as the last opportunity to overturn the results of the Presidential election, and that ``this sense of desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive to become violent.'' Is that correct? Mr. Sund. Yes, it is, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. The article also quoted the memo as stating that, unlike previous post-election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counterprotesters but, rather, Congress itself is the target on the 6th. Is that right? Mr. Sund. That is correct. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Did you have any indication that many of these protesters might arrive armed or that members of extremist groups might be there? Mr. Sund. We knew that members of extremist groups would be there, and there was social media calls for people to come armed, yes. Chairwoman Klobuchar. You have also said that at a January 5th meeting with Capitol police, the Sergeant at Arms and Federal law enforcement, military officials, all present at the meeting indicated that there was no new intelligence to report for January 6th. Is that right? Mr. Sund. That is correct, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. But your testimony states that the Capitol Police took a number of steps after these assessments. What you said was the largest number of Civil Disturbance Unit platoons possible, increasing dignitary protection coverage, coordinating with the D.C. Police, and order all-hands-on-deck status for Capitol Police. Is that right? Mr. Sund. That is correct, ma'am. We took extensive efforts to prepare for the events based on the information, much of which you just reviewed, yes. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Good. If the information was enough to get you to do that, why didn't we take some additional steps, why didn't you and others involved, to be better prepared to confront the violence? Mr. Sund. We expanded our perimeter. When we expanded the perimeter, again, we knew there was going to be some maybe limited violence, but we did. We expanded the perimeter. We took a number of steps to outfit our personnel with additional hard gear. We developed a plan for if we had protesters that may be armed, and that was one of the reasons, the expanded perimeter and the heightened risk, that I went to the Sergeant at Arms and requested the National Guard. Chairwoman Klobuchar. But now you realize it was not enough, those security measures. Is that right? Mr. Sund. Hindsight being what it is, You look around the Capitol right now, and you see the resources that are brought to bear based on the information we now know from January 6th. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Mr. Sund, you stated in your written testimony that you first made a request for the Capitol Police Board to declare an emergency and authorize National Guard support on Monday, January 4th, and that request was not granted. Mr. Sund. That is correct, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Your testimony makes clear that the current structure of the Capitol Police Board resulted in delays in bringing in assistance from the National Guard. Would you agree with that? That is one of the things we want to look at. Mr. Sund. Yes, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Do you think that changes are needed to make clear that the Capitol Police Chief has the authority to call in the National Guard? Mr. Sund. I certainly do. I think in exigent circumstances there needs to be a streamlined process for the Chief of Police of the Capitol Police to have authority. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Mr. Stenger, do you think that reforms are needed to the structure of the Capitol Police Board to make that clear? Mr. Stenger. I think a review of the Capitol Police Board and their statutory authority probably would be a good time to do this now. There are a lot of statutes out there on the Capitol Police Board that go back many years. Things have changed, and to make the board a little bit more nimble, it is probably not a bad time and idea to take a look at what is there. Chairwoman Klobuchar. That is probably an understatement with what happened, but thank you. Mr. Irving, your views? Mr. Irving. I would certainly agree with both Chief Sund and Michael Stenger. I think a review would certainly be warranted at this time of the Capitol Police Board. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Mr. Sund, your written testimony states that you had no authority to request the assistance of the National Guard without an emergency declaration of the Capitol Police Board. On what rule, regulation, or authority did you base that view? Mr. Sund. I would have to go back and look at the specific rule, but it is a standing rule that we have. I cannot request the National Guard without a declaration of emergency from the Capitol Police Board. It is kind of interesting because it is very similar to the fact, I cannot even give my men and women cold water on an excessively hot day without a declaration of emergency. It is just a process that is in place. Chairwoman Klobuchar. To be clear, apart from the Capitol Police Board, you also faced delays in getting authorization to bring in the National Guard from the Department of Defense. Is that correct? We will be hearing from them next week. Mr. Sund. Yes, ma'am, that is correct. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Would you agree that there were serious issues at the Pentagon that contributed to the fact that Guard troops did not arrive at the Capitol until about 5:40 p.m. that day after most of the violence had subsided? Mr. Sund. I do not know what issues there were at the Pentagon, but I was certainly surprised at the delays I was hearing and I was seeing. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK, very good. My last question of all of you, in addition to the reforms of the Police Board, which you are very clear need to be made, any other suggestions that would not involve classified information you have for us. Mr. Sund? Mr. Sund. As referenced to some of the recommendations? Chairwoman Klobuchar. Yes. Mr. Sund. Again, one of the big things that I think was a contributing factor to this was intelligence. I think as you meet with the law enforcement and the intelligence community, we have a very good relationship. I think the aperture just needs to be opened up a little bit farther. Like Chief Contee had mentioned, January 6th was a new day. It was a change of what threat we face, and I think getting them to open the aperture and looking a little bit harder. I think internally, looking at some of our policies, procedures, our processes for how we handle special events, how we handle incident command, what stuff we can do. Then looking at physical security of the building and the grounds I think is going to be critical. I know a lot of people have talked about the fencing, the open environment. I understand and I know that goes way back, and Members of Congress like the open environment. I think there are ways to develop a more secure campus while keeping an open environment, but I would leave that for more classified or restricted hearings. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Anything you would add in addition, just any other thing you would add in addition to what the former Police Chief laid out here, Mr. Stenger? Mr. Stenger. I would be very supportive about those areas that the Chief mentioned. I think he is right on. I think there is maybe another area, use of force, that probably needs to be coordinated better in the region here. But certainly intelligence needs to be taken a look at as to how it works. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Mr. Stenger. We have a lot of people that we ramped up since September 11th, and I think maybe it is time to take a look at how efficient it is, the gathering of intelligence and collection of intelligence. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. I am going to allow my colleagues to ask that same question of you, Mr. Irving, and you, Chief Contee, because I have gone over my time. Thank you. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Sund, you have brought up the issue of intelligence throughout your testimony and the gaps that were there and how we need to strengthen the intelligence. My understanding is that that report has some fairly specific information that was troubling. I was struck by the fact that you said the FBI report did get sent to the Capitol Police, that it went to the folks in the intelligence department, but that you were not aware of it, which raises a really big question. Something coming in like that right before an event that I think is significant, it does not get to operational commanders who are there to deal with it? How can that happen? How could you not get that vital intelligence on the eve of what is going to be a major event? Mr. Sund. Thank you, sir. I know that is something that is going to be looked at. I think that information would have been helpful to be aware of. Again, looking at the information for the first time yesterday, it is strictly raw data. It is raw intelligence information that has come in, seen on a social media post, lots of people posting on social media that need to be corroborated and confirmed. Again, it is coming in as raw data, so please keep that in mind. But, I agree that is something we need to look at. What is the process and how do we streamline that information getting to where it needs to go? Chairman Peters. I understand it is raw data, but it is the eve of the event. You are not going to have time to do the kind of analysis that you would normally like to do. That is information that has to get to you, so that is clearly a major problem. My question is also related to the report that was put out by Capitol Police, by your intelligence folks, on January 3rd. The Intelligence Division of the Capitol Police issued an internal report which reportedly stated--and some of this has been out in the public domain--that instead of targeting counterprotesters, as you have seen in the prior events that occurred, that you have referenced earlier, that, this is a quote that has been out in the public domain--that ``Congress itself is the target on the 6th by Trump supporters.'' Congress was the target. The report also mentioned that members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, other extremist groups would be in attendance, and, quote--again, out in public sources--``may be inclined to become violent.'' So you have your own report. Did you see that report that was put out on the 3rd? Mr. Sund. Yes, I did. Chairman Peters. How is that not a warning of some extraordinary measures? I understand you increased your presence with the folks you had there. But how is that not a real big warning flag? If it was, what exactly did you do when you read that report? Mr. Sund. That was one of the reports that contributed to the fact that we expanded our perimeter. I reached out to the Metropolitan Police Department just knowing even before that report, knowing that extremists were likely to be there in the previous reports that have been called for on social media for people to be armed. In talking with our partners over at the Metropolitan Police Department, I reached out to say, ``Hey, are you going to be able to provide us some support?'' We coordinated that additional support the morning of the 6th. Yes, we did take all that in consideration as we developed the extensive security plans for this event. Chairman Peters. So you changed plans on January 3rd after getting that report? Mr. Sund. Yes, we adjusted our perimeter; we did a number of things. We actually were adjusting our perimeter probably a little bit before that as well. Chairman Peters. That was happening before. We are going to want to know more specifically, when you get that. Of course, I think we are going to see you got additional information from the FBI, for example, but that did not get to you. I understand that. Mr. Sund. Yes. Chairman Peters. The other thing that I think is important for us to understand--and I have heard all of you mention this in your testimony--is this was not just a random violent attack. It was coordinated. I believe in your testimony as well--I am going to ask other witnesses to respond to this, too, because all of you mentioned that. How do you define ``coordinated''? What did we actually see from these folks that leads you to believe that it was coordinated? I think in your testimony now you just mentioned military-style coordination. That would mean command and control; it would mean understanding the layout of the Capitol; it may mean knowing the internal operations of defense perimeters, of folks that are engaged. Talk to me. What did you see that leads you to believe that this was a coordinated attack? I would like our other witnesses to engage in that as well. Mr. Sund. Yes, I am able to provide you a quick overview of why I think it was a coordinated attack. One, these people came specifically with equipment. You are bringing climbing gear to a demonstration. You are bringing explosives. You are bringing chemical spray such as what Captain Mendoza talked about. You are coming prepared. The fact that the group that attacked our west front, approximately 20 minutes before the event at the Ellipse ended, which means they were planning on our agency not being at what they call ``full strength,'' watching the other event, saying that event is ending, OK, everybody get on post, they are going to be marching our way, knowing that we may not be at full strength at that time. Then also the fact that we were dealing with two pipe bombs that were specifically set right off the edge of our perimeter to, what I suspect, draw resources away. I think there was a significant coordination with this attack. Chairman Peters. Anyone else? Chief Contee, I think you also believe it was a coordinated attack. Mr. Contee. Oh, absolutely. My view is from the day of the incident. I think there were hand signals that were being used by several of the insurrectionists. There was radio communication by several individuals that were involved; the coordinated use of chemical emissions to include bear spray by several people that were out there. I certainly believe it was coordinated. To Chief Sund's point regarding the placement of the pipe bombs in the area, their discovery prior to this event, all of those things, and plus adding to that what we know in hindsight now as a result of the ongoing investigation that is being handled by the FBI, as they continue to scrub social media, I think we are learning more and more and more that this was clearly a coordinated effort. Chairman Peters. Real quick, Mr. Irving? Then I will ask another question. Mr. Irving. Based on the information provided by Chief Contee and Chief Sund, I would agree. The evidence would indicate a coordinated attack. Chairman Peters. We are looking at folks that were coming out in intelligence reports, groups like the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, others that were engaged, these violent extremist groups, which we clearly need to collect more intelligence on. It will be the subject of another hearing that we will do regarding this. But if you look at what the DOJ is now prosecuting, 200 Federal cases, the FBI has linked at least 40 to extremist groups, 59 to other defendants that have connections on social media, to violent or extremist rhetoric, conspiracy theories, this is clearly an area that we have to focus on as to why did we not have more information about these groups that were coming here planning--and usually you leave a trail when you are planning; either that or you are real sophisticated using encrypted devices and other things. But those are things that we are going to have to be looking at. Clearly, the National Guard presence was critical. I know you are going to get a lot of questions related to that. But, Chief Contee, in my remaining time, just a question, and you mentioned this in your testimony. But in an earlier statement, Chief, you stated that you were stunned by ``the tepid response'' of the Army officials in response to Chief Sund's request for assistance while the violent siege was escalating. Clearly, here we have a coordinated attack. All of you saw this immediately the way they were doing it. I can imagine the conversations with the National Guard. Chief, you were stunned by the tepid response. Could you clarify that and tell us exactly how those conversations went? Mr. Contee. Yes, so sometime after 2 p.m., I had left the west front of the Capitol after initially being at the scene assessing what was going on, looking at the violent actions that were taking place. Shortly thereafter, there was a phone call that was convened between several officials; Chief Sund was on the call literally pleading for it. There were several Army officials that were on the call. I do not know all by name who were on the call. Several officials from District Government that were on it. Chief Sund was pleading for the deployment of the National Guard. In response to that, there was not an immediate, ``Yes, the National Guard is responding. Yes, the National Guard is on the way. Yes, the National Guard are being restaged from traffic posts to respond.'' The response was more asking about the plan; what was the plan for the National Guard? The response was more focused on, in addition to the plan, the optics, how this looks with boots on the ground on the Capitol. My response to that was simply--I was just stunned that, I have officers that were out there literally fighting for their lives, and, we are kind of going through what seemed like an exercise to really check the boxes, and it was not an immediate response. When I asked specifically, Chief Sund, was he requesting the National Guard and was that request being denied, the response from the U.S. Department of the Army was, ``No, we are not denying the request.'' But they were concerned--they did have concerns. I was, again, just stunned at that response. Chairman Peters. Thank you. Senator Blunt. Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Chief Sund, if I have your testimony correct this morning, I think what I am hearing you say is based on the intelligence you saw on January 3rd, after that on January 4th you decided this was going to be a different kind of protest than you had seen in November and December, and that is when you asked for an expanded perimeter and National Guard assistance. Is that correct? Mr. Sund. The information we received, yes, it was very similar to the previous assessments. It was just a little bit more detailed. We had been analyzing kind of how we responded to the previous MAGA marches and decided to expand the perimeter. Really, when you expand an perimeter as large as we expanded it, it creates a large area you have to defend, and that was the primary reason, knowing that these protesters were coming here, we were the focus of the protest and the expanded perimeter, and we knew this was going to be a long day. Senator Blunt. Did you know from the time you expanded the perimeter that you were going to have to have more help in all likelihood to defend that perimeter than your force would be able to provide? Mr. Sund. We knew we could utilize the additional support, yes. Senator Blunt. Why did you believe that you needed the approval of Mr. Irving and Mr. Stenger to request assistance of the National Guard? Mr. Sund. That has always been the case. We only request the National Guard for very specific events, usually the Inauguration, and that requires a declaration of emergency from the Capitol Police Board to utilize those resources. Senator Blunt. Do you know if there is a statutory requirement for that? Mr. Sund. I could look into that and get to thank you as a follow-up if you would like, Senator. Senator Blunt. I do not know that there is, but I do know that if you get the approval to expand the perimeter and you do not have the assistance to do that, that is obviously a problem. Why didn't you contact the third member of the Police Board, the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), Mr. Blanton? Mr. Sund. Thank you for that question, sir. My conduit to the Capitol Police Board was usually through the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms. They were the ones usually having the communications with the department, especially law enforcement- related issues. They are both law enforcement. Also the fact that Mr. Stenger at the time is the Capitol Police Board Chairperson. But usually outside the monthly Capitol Police Board meeting that we would have unless it was an issue specific to the Architect regarding, building structure or something like that, my conduit was regularly the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms. Senator Blunt. Why do you think the Architect of the Capitol is on the Police Board? Mr. Sund. As one of the voting members and providing oversight. Senator Blunt. But apparently not enough oversight that you thought you needed to involve him in the conversation. Mr. Sund. Like I said, my usual conduit was going through the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms. That is already two people I have to go to. You know, going to three? In the future I guess if that is something that we will implement, then I will implement it. But I was just following my usual course of action. Senator Blunt. Mr. Irving and Mr. Stenger both--let us start with Mr. Irving. Why was the request for National Guard assistance not approved at the same time you approved the expansion of the perimeter? Mr. Irving? Mr. Irving. Senator, I did not take the call from Chief Sund on the 4th as a request. Chief Sund called me to tell me that he had received an offer from the National Guard to provide us 125 unarmed troops to work traffic control on the perimeter of the Capitol. Shortly after that discussion, I said, ``Let us include Sergeant at Arms Stenger as Chair of the Board and another senior official with quite a bit of experience.'' The three of us talked it through, and during that call the number one question on the table was: Did the intelligence support that additional offer for those 125 troops? Senator Blunt. Did you discuss this with anybody except Sergeant at Arms Stenger and Chief Sund? Mr. Irving. No. It was just this one phone call, and during that call we all agreed that the intelligence did not support the troops and collectively decided to let it go. Michael Stenger then said, ``How about we put them on standby just in case?'' That is what we ended up doing. Senator Blunt. OK. Mr. Irving. But from what I remember, everyone was very satisfied that we had a robust plan, security plan, that was consistent with the intelligence that we had at the time. Senator Blunt. Mr. Stenger, why did you think that the troops were on standby? Mr. Stenger. I brought up---- Senator Blunt. They must have been standing way away from where we needed them if it took hours to get them here. What did that mean, they were going to be on standby? Mr. Stenger. What I did, when I spoke to the Chief, when the Chief brought it up to me, this attempt to get the National Guard, and it apparently was not going forward, I suggested to him that he reach out--he knew the National Guard commander from his previous work in the Metropolitan Police Department, and I suggested he reach out to the National Guard commander for a couple reasons. One of them was I had either read in the paper or heard on the news that the National Guard in D.C. was rather reticent to engage with demonstrations at this time because of the issues that had arisen during the White House demonstrations of a month ago, and that we need to make sure that the National Guard was engaged in this. Senator Blunt. Do you think you did make sure that they were engaged and would be willing? I am going to have to go to one more question here. Did you think they were engaged and would be willing if called on? Mr. Stenger. Yes, that is what I asked the Chief to determine from the general. Senator Blunt. All right. Mr. Irving, you said in your testimony that when asked for National Guard assistance, you approved it. Mr. Sund stated that he asked for the National Guard assistance at 1:09 p.m., and it was approved at 2:10 p.m. Why would it take an hour to approve National Guard assistance on your part in that moment of crisis, Mr. Irving? Mr. Irving. Senator, from my recollection, I did not receive a request for approval for National Guard until shortly after 2 p.m., when I was in Michael Stenger's office. Senator Blunt. All right. Let me get that straightened out. Mr. Sund, do you know when you asked for National Guard assistance? Was it 1:09 or was it 2 p.m.? Mr. Sund. It was 1:09 p.m., sir. Senator Blunt. 1:09 p.m. Who did you ask for assistance at 1:09 p.m.? Mr. Sund. It was from Mr. Irving. I believe he was in the company of Mr. Stenger at the time as well. Senator Blunt. Mr. Irving, why would you not remember that? Mr. Irving. Senator, I have no recollection of a conversation with Chief Sund at that time. I was on the floor during the Electoral College session, and my conversation with Chief Sund in that timeframe was shortly before 1:30 p.m. when I recall he was describing conditions outside as deteriorating. He may, in fact, be submitting a request, and I carried that forward, and that was as much as I can tell you. I have no phone record of a call from Chief Sund at 1:09 p.m. Senator Blunt. Did you discuss that request at 1:09 p.m. or whenever you got it with anybody else, or did you and Mr. Stenger make that decision then? Mr. Irving. I did not get a request at 1:09 p.m. that I can remember. The first conversation I had with Chief Sund in that timeframe was at 1:28 or 1:30 p.m., and in that conversation he indicated that conditions were deteriorating, he might be looking for National Guard approval and approval of our mutual aid agreements with local law enforcement. I went to Mike Stenger's office awaiting an update---- Senator Blunt. This is a time, Mr. Irving--I am sure my colleagues will want to follow up on this because I am out of time, but this is a time when the difference in 1:30 and 2:10 or 1:09 and 2:10 makes a big difference. One of the things I am wondering--and we do not have time for you to answer this, but I am going to tell you what I am thinking here--is in a moment like this, if your focus is chiefly on the safety of House Members--and I would certainly understand that--and Mr. Stenger's is chiefly on the safety of Senate Members, maybe that is a problem here where the Board really cannot function as a Board because you have such diverse areas of immediate responsibility. But whatever happened here does not seem to me to be in agreement with the various timeframes, and I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Blunt. Senator Peters and I are going to tradeoff chairing here with the votes, and we have a set order that all the Senators' staff have based on a melded set of rules between the two Committees. I would like to submit for the record a written statement from the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee dated February 23, 2021.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee statement appears in the Appendix on page 140. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Peters. Without objection. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Senator Portman. Chairman Peters. Ranking Member Portman. Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, with regard to the conversation we just had on the discrepancies with regard to the National Guard assistance, I would request that both, Chief Sund, you and Mr. Irving provide us with those phone records. I know there have been some interviews that have been conducted, but I am not sure we have the phone records, and that seems that would clear up some of the confusion. I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about preparedness. Chief Sund, in your testimony you talked about the need for better intelligence and better coordination. That was your conclusion, and I think that is true. Certainly everything we have learned indicates that was part of the problem. But what about preparedness? We have received information that prior to January 6th, Capitol Police officers were not trained on how to respond to an infiltration of the Capitol Building. Is that correct, Mr. Sund? Mr. Sund. When you talk about infiltration, are you talking about a large insurrection like we saw on January 6th? No. Senator Portman. Why not? Why wouldn't we be prepared for an infiltration of the Capitol given the risk that is out there? I would say to Mr. Irving and Mr. Stenger, both of you have had distinguished careers with the Secret Service. I would ask you all to just give me a quick yes or no answer. Does the Secret Service have training regarding infiltration as an example of the White House? Yes or no. Mr. Stenger? Mr. Irving? Mr. Irving. Senator. Senator Portman. I will take that as a yes. Mr. Irving. Yes. Senator Portman. If it is a no--OK. Mr. Stenger, are you a yes also? Mr. Stenger. Yes. Senator Portman. OK. It seems obvious that you would have training on responding to an infiltration. I think if nothing else comes out of this process, we have to figure out how to deal with, again, the real danger that is out there, and it seems to me the intelligence reports but also just the previous demonstrations would indicate a need for that kind of training. Let me ask you about something else, if I could, Mr. Sund, and that has to do with the U.S. Capitol Police officers that I saw on video and the world saw fighting against this attack in street uniforms or soft uniforms. Many of them did not have riot gear. I am told by contrast D.C. Metropolitan Police Department provides all of its officers with such gear, including helmets, shields, gloves, gas masks. Having seen those incredibly disturbing videos and photographs of your brave officers attempting to hold the line to defend the Capitol without that kind of riot gear, are all Capitol Police officers outfitted with riot gear? Mr. Sund. No, they are not, sir. Senator Portman. They are not. Why are they not? Mr. Sund. If you look at the way we outfit our officers, it would probably be very similar to--I think you will find even with Metropolitan--and I had been with Metropolitan for a number of years. They will have a certain number of officers, CDU platoons, as they call. It is not the entire force that is outfitted to the Level 1 CDU with the big protective gear, the helmets, things like that. We have seven CDU platoons that we can activate. Four of those platoons--it is 40 people in a platoon--are activated to what we call the Level 1, the full CDU gear and equipment. It requires extensive cost, extensive training to keep and maintain that level. For us, a number of our officers are posted in interior posts, screening posts, things like that, where that gear would not provide them any support. We have determined, up until January 6th, that that number of CDU platoons had sufficed for all the demonstrations that we have been dealing with on Capitol Hill---- Senator Portman. Mr. Sund, I would just say, obviously, those officers who you say had interior posts needed it that day. It is not accurate to say that they did not need it. But I know that you activated seven of these Civil Disturbance Unit platoons, and only four of them had riot gear. I do not know why you would have a Civil Disturbance Unit platoon that did not have riot gear. But you have just testified that that is true, that only four of them had it. Is that correct? Mr. Sund. That is correct, and just one additional point. Since I have been Chief, I have actually pushed for every member in the department to have riot helmets. I ordered those back in September. We had been looking at delays because of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) from the manufacturer getting them delivered, and they actually just started being delivered January 4th and distributed to our officers just days before this, with limited numbers being given to the officers prior to this event. Senator Portman. Yes, too late for many of those officers. Chief Contee, the comment was made that the Metropolitan Police does not all have riot gear. Is that true? I thought that the Metropolitan Police Department officers did have access to riot gear. Could you comment on that? Mr. Contee. Yes. So we have seven platoons that have the hard and hardened gear, but all of our officers have ballistic helmets; all of our officers have batons; all of our officers have gloves as well and gas masks. Our entire department are deployed with that level, but when you are talking about the hardened part, all of the other extras, we have seven platoons that is a different layer of protection. Senator Portman. But every officer has a helmet; every officer has the protective gloves; every officer has the baton. Is that correct? Mr. Contee. Gas mask. That is correct. Senator Portman. Gas mask, yes. It appeared to the Metropolitan Police Department, I am told, that the Capitol Police officers did not have the training in civil disturbance tactics that they had. That is what I was told by some of the interviews that we have had. Chief Contee, is that correct? Mr. Contee. Yes, I have heard the same thing with respect to the training of the U.S. Capitol Police officers. Senator Portman. Are all of your Metropolitan Police officers trained in civil disturbance tactics? Mr. Contee. We have platoons that are trained for every patrol district and Special Operations Division. Some officers do not have the civil disturbance training. Those officers, generally they work on traffic duties or they work assignments back in patrol. Senator Portman. Chief Sund---- Mr. Contee. If I could add, too, one other thing. Senator Portman. Yes. Mr. Contee. All officers who leave the training academy, they get the basic Civil Disturbance Unit training. All of our officers do get the basic training, but we might have some members, for example, who have been on for 30 years, and they have not been CDU trained, and they work back at a patrol district. But all of our members coming out of the academy, they receive the Civil Disturbance Unit training. Senator Portman. Mr. Sund, is that true with Capitol Hill police officers also? Are they all trained in civil disturbance tactics as they go through their training? Mr. Sund. That was a process being implemented. I can check and let you know if that has been fully implemented for new recruits coming out of the academy. That was one of the initiatives I was working on. Senator Portman. We were working on that, but as far as you know, this training was not being provided even for new officers, much less for those---- Mr. Sund. I believe the new officers coming out were, but I just need to confirm that. Senator Portman. Yes, I think the bottom line here is that, unfortunately, our officers were not given the proper training with regard to infiltration of the building or the complex with regard to dealing with civil disturbance, and they did not have the equipment necessary to push back and, most importantly, to protect themselves. My hope is that, again, one of the ways that this joint hearing and this Committee report can be helpful is to bring the Capitol Police Department up to speed. I appreciate the sacrifice and the bravery of that day, but I think we also owe it to those officers to provide them the training and equipment they need to protect themselves and to protect the Capitol. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member. The Chair now recognizes Senator Leahy. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEAHY Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up on what Senator Portman said. I agree with his concerns, but I might ask a question from the Appropriations Committee, and I know time is limited, so these could be yes or no answers. The Appropriations Committee has always worked in a bipartisan fashion to get money to the Capitol Police. So, Mr. Sund, yes or no: The Appropriations Committee and ultimately the Congress has met your request for salaries and operating expenses in every fiscal year. Is that not correct? Mr. Sund. Yes, sir. Senator Leahy. Thank you. Mr. Stenger, the Appropriations Committee and ultimately the Congress has met your request for salaries and operating expenses in every fiscal year. Is that correct? I do not hear an answer. I will ask Mr. Irving. Mr. Irving, the Appropriations Committee and ultimately the Congress has met your request for salaries and operating expenses in every fiscal year. Is that correct? Mr. Irving. Yes, that is correct. Senator Leahy. Mr. Stenger. Mr. Stenger. Yes, that is correct, sir. Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. I have to think not that we had inadequate resources, but a failure to deploy the people that we were supposed to. I look at those who appeared. I looked at the lives that were lost, the police who fought to protect our Capitol. We saw this as a violent, and I would say a planned and organized, attack on the United States, on the U.S. Government, by domestic terrorists. I hope they are all going to be prosecuted as fully as they can be. But when we see people encouraging them, including from the former President of the United States, who urged his followers to fight and to show strength, I really wonder why we did not take it seriously enough to be prepared for them, the hours it took to bring in the National Guard, and everything else. Mr. Sund, I read your detailed letter to Speaker Pelosi, but you said there was not enough intelligence shared. But in your same letter, you stated that the intelligence assessment, and I am quoting here, ``indicated that members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, Antifa, and other extremist groups were expected to participate in the January 6th event and that they may be inclined to become violent.'' How much more intelligence do we need than that? Mr. Sund. Yes, sir, that is correct. That is what the intelligence assessment said. It was very similar to the intelligence assessments that we had for the November and December MAGA marches. The intelligence assessments that we had developed for the January 6th event all the way up until January 6th were all saying very much the same thing, and that is what we had planned for. We had planned for the possibility of violence, the possibility of some people being armed, not the possibility of a coordinated military-style attack involving thousands against the Capitol. Senator Leahy. But violent and armed strike me as pretty strong things, and I would suggest that everybody get together and look at the future, because if you have something that goes on for months, the President calling them, everybody else calling them, I am worried that there was not more response there. I think until we root out the hate and throw the rioters to our door that day, no fence or tank or barrier is going to provide the safety we need. We want safety, but also, talking about what Benjamin Franklin said, ``Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' But I know a vote is on, and before I close, I do want to commend you, Chief Contee, for your swift response. You do not have an easy job, charged with protecting a city as large as Washington, D.C., and balancing the delicate balance with dozens of other law enforcement. But I commend the two Chairs and Ranking Members for holding this hearing. We will hold more in Appropriations, but we are going to look very closely at the requests this year and say, ``What do we do if we have another one of these?'' I thank you, and I yield back my time. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Leahy. The Chair recognizes Senator Johnson. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start off by thanking our law enforcement witnesses for your service. Some of what I have seen from testimony, it seems like there is a fair amount of thought, a fair amount of due diligence that went into this. So, again, I appreciate your service. I also want to say I find the videos, as you said, Chief Sund, sickening, the violence reprehensible, the racial slurs repugnant, and I want to make sure the perpetrators, the people that engaged in the violence are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I have a long list of questions which this format really does not lend itself to asking, so what I will be doing is preparing a letter for the Committee Chair and hoping that they will ask those questions and investigate these issues that I will be listing. But what I want to do in terms of asking some questions, I want to start out by reading excerpts from what I thought was a very interesting eyewitness account by J. Michael Waller. He is a Senior Analyst for strategy at the Center of Security Policy. His areas of concentration include political and psychological warfare and subversion. He is a former professor and instructor at the Institute of World Politics at the Naval Postgraduate School. He is a current lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg. He wrote this piece titled, ``I Saw Provocateurs at the Capitol Riot on January 6th,'' and he basically arrived on the scene about 11:30 from Union Station, and I will just start reading it. ``At about 11:30, I walked from near Union Station . . . and noticed a small number of Capitol Police dressed in full riot gear, with shin guards and shoulder guards. . . . then [I] walked . . . up Pennsylvania Avenue toward an empty Freedom Park.'' He noticed that the speech had broken up, and so a crowd was walking down Constitution Avenue. He joined them at 13th Street. But he said ``the mood of the crowd was positive and festive.'' ``Of the thousands of people I passed or who passed me along Constitution Avenue, some were indignant and contemptuous of Congress, but not one appeared angry or incited to riot. Many of the marchers were families with small children; many were elderly, overweight, or just plain tired or frail--traits not typically attributed to the riot-prone.'' ``Many wore pro-police shirts or carried pro-police black and blue flags.'' ``Although the crowd represented a broad cross-section of Americans, mostly working-class by their appearance and manner of speech, some people stood out. A very few didn't share the jovial, friendly, earnest demeanor of the great majority. Some obviously didn't fit in.'' He describes four different types of people: plainclothes militants, agents provocateurs, fake Trump protesters, and then a disciplined, uniformed column of attackers. I think these are the people that probably planned this. He goes on: ``The D.C. Metropolitan police were their usual professionally detached selves, standing on curbs or at street crossings and exchanging an occasional greeting from marchers.'' ``When we crossed First Street NW to enter the Capitol grounds where the Capitol Police had jurisdiction, I noticed no police at all. Several marchers expressed surprise.'' ``The openness seemed like a courtesy gesture from Congress, which controls security.'' ``But that appearance of low threat level made no sense.'' ``Yet no Capitol Police appeared anywhere from what we could see''--now, again, I am taking these excerpts in order, but there is a lot more to this piece. ``What looked like tens or even hundreds of thousands of people surged down the avenues as far as one could see. . . . but almost everyone seemed talkative and happy.'' ``No police could be seen on the platform for now. No police could be seen anywhere.'' ``People kept surging in from Constitution Avenue, and the plaza quickly filled up and overflowed onto the lawn. Everyone squeezed closer and closer together, with most in high spirits. Some trouble began up in the front, near the base of the inaugural platform itself, but we could not see what was happening.'' ``Then something happened at the front of the crowd. . . . It seemed like a scuffle, but from 40 feet back, I couldn't see. People started chanting `USA, USA,' and other slogans.'' ``For a few seconds I saw what looked like police in a tussle with some of the marchers up front--what appeared to be an organized group in civilian clothes. This organized group are the cell I call the `plainclothes militants.' They fit right in with the MAGA people.'' ``Suddenly energy surged from the front of the crowd as the anti-riot police, above on the inaugural platform, visibly tensed up. . . . One fired a teargas canister--not at the plainclothes militants at the front line, but into the crowd itself. Then another. Flash grenades went off in the middle of the crowd.'' ``The tear gas changed the crowd's demeanor. There was an air of disbelief as people realized that the police whom they supported were firing on them. `What are you doing--we support you,' someone yelled.'' ``All of a sudden, pro-police people felt the police were attacking them, and they didn't know why.'' ``More tear gas. A canister struck a girl in the face, drawing blood. The pro-police crowd went from disbelief and confusion to anger.'' I will stop there. The last five pages is titled ``Provocateurs Turn Unsuspecting Marchers into an Invading Mob.'' I would really recommend everybody on the Committee read this account, and I ask that it be entered into the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The information referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 112. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, Chief Sund, I want to ask you, is one of the reasons-- the House managers made a big deal that this was predictable, this was foreseeable, which I do not believe. Do you believe that the breach of the Capitol was foreseeable and predictable? Mr. Sund. No, I do not. If you look at some of our other partner agencies, I think Acting Chief Contee actually made the statement that the breach of the Capitol was not something anybody anticipated, nor do I think some of our Federal partners expected it. I do not think Secret Service would have brought up the Vice President if they expected it. Senator Johnson. Is part of that because of what you had experienced in the past, what this Mr. Waller experiences, the vast majority of Trump supporters are pro-law enforcement and the last thing they would do is violate the law? Mr. Sund. I will say that, information I have received from some of my officers where they were trying to prevent people from coming into the building, and people were showing up saying, ``Hey, we are police, let us through,'' and still wanting to violate the law to get inside the building. Senator Johnson. Again, I have a long list. I want to close with the two former Sergeant of Arms. I knew these Committees were going to start an investigation. I waited a couple weeks. I did not see any oversight letter go out, so I wrote my own on the 21st, and I just have a question for both the former Sergeant of Arms. Did you get my oversight letter, with my questions? Mr. Irving. I did not receive your letter. I left town right after I resigned, but I certainly look forward to working with you and your staff to answer your questions. Senator Johnson. OK. If you would give us an address, because we sent it to the Acting Sergeant of Arms. That Acting Sergeant of Arms will not even let us know whether they passed that letter along to you. Apparently they did not. Mr. Stenger, did you receive my letter? Mr. Stenger. I do not recall it, Senator, but it might have come. I do not recall. Senator Johnson. Chief Sund, one last question for you. Do you regret resigning? Mr. Sund. Yes, I do, sir. I certainly do regret resigning. I love this agency. I love the women and men in this agency, and I regret the day I left. Senator Johnson. Mr. Irving and Mr. Stenger, I really wish you would respond--first of all, look for my letter, and I would like an answer to that as quickly as possible. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Johnson. We are waiting for Senator Warner and any other member--I see Senator Rosen. Would you like to go ahead? Because you are the first member on. Senator Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN Senator Rosen. Perfect. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar, and thank you, everyone, for being here today. Bringing this hearing is much needed, and I think it is the first of many. But I would like to start off by expressing that my thoughts are with the brave Capitol Police officers that put their lives on the line to protect us on January 6th and their heroic actions like the ones of Eugene Goodman. They redirected those violent rioters away from us. They are going to forever be embedded in our minds, and we know that so many of these courageous men and women, they are really hurting in the aftermath of the insurrection. I have been particularly heartbroken to hear about the death of Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, who has been protecting the Senate since 2005. He was stationed by the door of my Russell office. My prayers are with him and his family and his loved one. But, insurrectionists, when they came to storm our Capitol on January 6th, they came on not only with weapons but also with hate. Mere weeks before International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the world watched in horror as a rioter inside the Capitol proudly wore a ``Camp Auschwitz'' shirt as he and others violently pushed forward on the House and the Senate floors. All the while the rioters are waving Confederate flags, are hanging nooses on the front lawn. They are verbally assaulting a Jewish reporter outside the Capitol, saying, ``You are cattle today.'' That refers to cattle cars that used to transport Jews to Nazi death camps during the Holocaust. This violent attack on the Capitol featured followers of the anti- Semitic QAnon conspiracy theory. Mr. Contee, on January 4th, the Metro Police Department arrested Enrique Tarrio, leader of the racist, anti-Semitic Proud Boys hate group. The FBI claims that the next day it shared with MPD concrete intelligence about extremist plans for violence on January 6th, including specific threats on Members of Congress, maps of the tunnels under the Capitol Complex. If MPD was tracking extremist, potentially violent white supremacist activity, then what exactly did you know on January 5th? And why didn't you alert anyone? Mr. Contee. Thank you for that question. What the FBI said, ma'am, on January 5th was in the form of an email. I would certainly think that something as violent as an insurrection in the Capitol would warrant, a phone call or something. But as Chief Sund mentioned earlier, the information that was sent was uncorroborated information. It was raw. The information that we received through the same lines--through the JTTF--that information was not fully vetted and had not been sent through the chains of the Metropolitan Police Department. What the Metropolitan Police Department was prepared for was the larger violence and demonstrations that we expected to see in our city. Senator Rosen. I have to ask Mr. Sund the same question now. What did you know as of Tuesday night, January 5th? Because I have a follow-up for both of you on this one. So, quickly, Mr. Sund, what did you know on January 5th? And were you alarmed or not alarmed? What did you expect? Mr. Sund. Yes, I was concerned. We had the intelligence that was coming out, the intelligence that we would be planning for. Again, keep in mind the intelligence assessments that we had developed at the end of December and the one for January 3rd were very similar. They just provided a little bit more specificity. We had already been planning for the threat for violence, the threat for armed possible people protesting, and that is what we were planning for. Now, if you are referring to the Norfolk letter, again, I just became aware of that--the department was aware of that--24 hours ago. On the 6th or the 5th or the 4th, I was not aware that memo existed. Senator Rosen. You are saying that there is a breakdown between you and the FBI? Because we have rallies, protests, and things happening in Washington all the time. Could both of you just maybe give a guess how many do you think are usually with armed insurrectionists or come heavily armed out of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of rallies that we see in Washington through the year? Mr. Contee. We know of the last three incidents. The first two MAGA rallies, men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department recovered firearms from several people who were attending the demonstrations at the first MAGA rally as well as the second one. Aside from that, those have been really the only demonstrations where we have seen individuals coming armed. Senator Rosen. Do you think this was an intelligence breakdown or a resource issue? Mr. Contee. I think that the intelligence did not make it where it needed to be in terms of---- Senator Rosen. So you think the FBI did not raise this to the level they needed to with the Metropolitan Police Department in your mind? Mr. Contee. We received it in the form of an email that came as an alert bulletin at 7 p.m. the day before. Our posture at the Metropolitan Police Department, again, I think, it is reflected in our deployment in terms of not just the National Guard that was deployed, but as well as other officers from surrounding jurisdictions. That reflected the seriousness that we took with respect to the threats that we were expecting to see in this city. Senator Rosen. Mr. Sund, can you tell me, do you think this was a resource issue or an intelligence breakdown or something else? If you will be brief, because this is very important. Mr. Sund. Yes, ma'am, I will be very brief. It was part of my introduction. I think it was more than just the Norfolk letter. I think we need to look at the whole entire intelligence community and the view they have on some of the domestic extremists and the effect that they have. I look at this as an intelligence problem that impacted this event, yes. Senator Rosen. What information would you have had to have heard to have raised up the flag to get more resources for the Capitol Police? Because, thank goodness--I mean, we saw loss of life, and thank goodness there was not more, but one is too many. What is your threshold then? What should be the threshold to protect the Capitol and to protect your officers? Mr. Sund. I did in advance reach out to the Washington, D.C., police to coordinate resources, and I did also go to both the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms to request the National Guard. Senator Rosen. Mr. Contee, I think I have five seconds, and we can take this off the record, but I believe there are some plans by QAnon for something to happen to the Capitol on March 4th. I want to hear what steps we are taking to protect the Capitol on March 4th from any more violent extremists. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. We will have you talk to him about that later. Senator Warner has arrived via video, and I also want to mention Senator Peters will work with our witnesses for restroom breaks and the like and let us know so that--we do not want to take a long break, but I can imagine you need a break at some point here. Senator Warner. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER Senator Warner. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. We have talked a little bit about the deployment or lack of deployment of the National Guard. One of the questions, I guess, Mr. Sund, or frankly, Chief Contee, the fact that the District did not have the ability to bring the Guard to the table because of, frankly, the fact that they are not a State and Mayor Bowser is not treated, I think, in a totally fair fashion in this. This may be outside your lane, but her inability to bring the Guard to the table--and actually any of you on the panel can answer this--that to me is a reflection of the disempowerment of the District. On a going-forward basis, at least in terms of being able to deploy the Guard, shouldn't the Mayor of the District of Columbia have the ability to do that without all the additional hurdles they have to go through in terms of Federal checklists? Mr. Contee. Yes, I absolutely agree with that. Senator Warner. Does anybody else want to answer on that question as well? Mr. Sund. Yes, sir. I am happy to add in. I think we have an established process for the Capitol Police to make the request through the Capitol Police Board that is also equally as effective. Senator Warner. Again, I feel like the long-term discrimination against the District--we have seen it in some of the COVID legislation where they did not receive the same kind of level of support that other States did. We saw it play out in real time in terms of on January 6th, hurdles from the previous administration. I actually have concerns whether the deployment of the Guard was affirmatively slowed down. I hope that we in the Congress will--as a supporter of D.C. statehood, I would like to see that move forward, but even short of that, trying to ensure that the Mayor has appropriate powers going forward. I know there were some questions already raised about the FBI and whether the intel that came out on the Norfolk FBI office was ever fully relayed to all of you individuals. But can you talk more generally about the FBI's responsiveness, sharing of intelligence? I had a number of conversations. I called Director Wray on Monday, the 4th, trying to express concerns that there might be this kind of activity. I never expected this level of violence. I had a number of conversations with senior FBI leadership on the 5th through the 6th. I candidly was--I do not think even the full FBI could have been fully informed of all of what was going to come to pass, but I felt like the FBI felt that they were in better shape in terms of intel and preparation than what came to be the case. I would like each of you to comment on how well you felt that the FBI did in terms of sharing intelligence and then coordinating when the actual activities of the 6th played out. Mr. Sund. I will go ahead and--do you want me to address that first? Senator Warner. Yes. I cannot see where you all are, so every one of you can take a crack at that. Mr. Sund. I will go ahead and start first. I think the relationship we have with the FBI is outstanding. I think in my time with Metropolitan and my time here, we have seen nothing but the relationship get better. The construct that we have that is very similar to some of the other major cities is having the JTTF, being involved with that. The information we are getting in is good. I think the process and having, like I said earlier, the wider lens of what information is being collected, maybe looking at the agencies that are consumers of their information and what their intelligence collection requirements are is something that we need to look at. But I think, getting that information in and then having it processed and pushed forward in an effective manner is something we need to look at. I would say on the 6th, when this started happening, immediately the FBI, as being a partner of ours, established a process where with Capitol Police and FBI police, we can begin to analyze video footage, analyze other evidence to begin going out and making arrests of the individuals that had created the insurrection in the Capitol. Mr. Contee. Yes, I will go next. Senator Warner. What I want to know is did we get enough intel beforehand? If we can get the balance of the panel to respond? Mr. Contee. Yes, sure. I would echo what Chief Sund just mentioned. We have had a great working relationship with the FBI. I think it is a whole-of-intelligence approach, not specifically just the FBI, when we have something as significant as what occurred here at the U.S. Capitol. If there is information, specific information out there that our Government is responding to, I would think that something of that nature would rise to the level of more than just an email that is sent to law enforcement agencies. That should be a larger, more involved conversation about specifics, not just some of the unvetted raw information that is out there. We see a lot of that, but I think it is more of a whole-intelligence approach, not specifically the FBI. They are great partners to the Metropolitan Police Department. Senator Warner. Thank you. I do not know if any other panel members want to add any comment on that. Let me just say that my concern is that in Virginia, we have seen these kinds of antigovernment extremists take to the streets of Charlottesville in 2017, resulting in the death of Heather Heyer. We see the same kind of groups come to the forefront on January 6th. I think this is an ongoing threat to national security. I fear at times that while the FBI and others have pointed this out, that it did not get the level of serious review that it should have with the prior administration, I have felt at times that they did not want to take the information that was coming out of the FBI. I hope on a going-forward basis we are going to be able to be more coordinated in terms of taking on antigovernment extremism, whether it comes from the left or the right. This is a real ongoing threat. I can tell you from our Intelligence Committee that we have seen that many of these groups have connections and ties to antigovernment extremist groups in Europe, where they have taken a great precedent. I know my time has expired, Madam Chairman, but this is something we need more work on. Thank you for holding this hearing. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. We look to working with you and the Intelligence Committee on this. Next will be Senator Lankford, and after that, Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD Senator Lankford. Thank you. Mr. Sund, I want to try to validate something. There is a letter that is in the public domain at this point that is an eight-page letter that was written to Speaker Pelosi that is attributed to you to try to explain the events of that day. Are you familiar with that letter in the public domain? is it accurate? Mr. Sund. Yes, it is sir. Senator Lankford. So in the letter itself, you described several things in this and the details and the timeline on it. Can you tell me why you wrote this letter to Speaker Pelosi? What was the purpose of the letter? Mr. Sund. I feel at the time I resigned, I had limited communications with my department. I know my department was getting ready to go and testify at some of the initial committee hearings. I think that she had called for my resignation without full understanding of what we had prepared for, what we had gone through. I think she deserved to read, firsthand what we had prepared for and what I dealt with for the 6th. Senator Lankford. OK. That is helpful. You had said in this, you talked several times about thousands of well- coordinated, well-equipped violent criminals and described them, with climbing gear and all the things that you have also testified here. You also mentioned this letter about the pipe bombs that were located, that the first word will come at 12:52 p.m. that a pipe bomb had been located at the Republican National Committee headquarters. How was that located? Who found it? Why was that particular moment the moment that it was found? Mr. Sund. I do not know why that was the particular moment that it was found. I believe it was an employee of the Republican National Committee that had located it in the rear of the building that had called it into Capitol Police headquarters. Senator Lankford. You had mentioned before that you thought this was part of the coordination, that there were several that were out there that would take away resources at that exact moment, but there is no way to know that they would find it at that exact moment. I am glad they did find it. They found another one at the Democrat headquarters as well at 1:50 p.m., and you document that as well. But you had to send quite a few individuals to be able to go to the RNC and the DNC to be able to go deal with those explosives that were planted there. Is that correct? Mr. Sund. That is correct. For your information, the RNC pipe bomb, that was one that was really run by Capitol Police. The DNC, Metropolitan ended up taking that and running that so we could run two concurrently. That resulted in the evacuation of two congressional buildings, the Cannon House Office Building as well as one of the Library of Congress buildings. It took extensive resources. Senator Lankford. The assault on the Capitol is not what caused the evacuation of those buildings. The discovery of those pipe bombs is what caused the evacuation of those buildings. Mr. Sund. That is correct, sir. Senator Lankford. There has been quite a bit of conversation today and quite a few members here that have talked about the National Guard and the length of time that it took to be able to go through the bureaucratic process to be able to get them deployed. I do think that needs to be shortened obviously in a deployment structure and the complexity of the bureaucracy here. But it seems to be a misunderstanding on this dais with some individuals describing the National Guard as if they are the riot police that can automatically be called out. Were you expecting them to be like a rapid response special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team at this point? What is a typical response from the National Guard to be able to call them out when they are not currently positioned? Mr. Sund. I believe the typical response once they are approved is approximately two hours. Senator Lankford. OK. But then the approval process is obviously multiple hours to do that or multiple days to do that. You had started that process several days before in making some requests. Mr. Sund. That is correct. As far as the process, my initial request was over to Mr. Irving. It was actually an in- person request on the 4th. It was not until the evening of the 4th that I talked to General Walker that he informed me that, if needed, because Mr. Stenger wanted me to ask them if they can lean forward, they can get 125, if needed in a fairly quick fashion, once approved. So that is what led into January 6th, when we made the initial request at 1:09 p.m. Senator Lankford. But that 125 individuals from the National Guard that were prepared to be able to move faster because they were in streets and different places dealing with traffic duty at that point, you had already been informed that the city of Washington, D.C., and the Mayor's office had made a request to DOD and DOD had approved it, that none of them would be armed, none of them would have heavy gear on. There would be no military vehicles that would be available to them. They had to use unmarked vans and other Government vans. There would be no helicopters that would be used. Those were prohibited that day for those 125 individuals that were already on the street. Is that correct? Mr. Sund. Just for correction, at the time, no, I did not know that was the restrictions being placed on them. Two, when I talked to General Walker the evening of the 4th, which was Monday evening, the 125 he was going to give us were 125 that were doing COVID relief for the District of Columbia, not assigned to the traffic post. Senator Lankford. OK. The individuals that were assigned to traffic duty had no weapons, had no military vehicles to move, had no overhead visual on anything. That had all been requested no from the city of Washington D.C.. Then for the other individuals that could be assigned to use rapid force, those were folks that were currently doing COVID duty. You had no SWAT team. This description is very interesting to me around this dais that people think that suddenly the National Guard just bursts in and is ready to go on that. That is not what the National Guard is pre-positioned to do. Mr. Sund. That is correct. Anytime we have requested the National Guard, they have been in an unarmed fashion. I was looking for them to help support the perimeter that we had established. Senator Lankford. OK. There has been some concern now. I have talked to some of the officers here, and there has obviously been some conversation around this dais as well about the rules of engagement and about training and authorization. There was not training for what to do if a mass group actually comes through the door and tries to burst through, whether it is an insurrection type event, whether it is just a mob that has gone crazy and whatever it may be, or a protest that gets out of hand, to be able to burst through the door. There was no clarity for the officers inside the building on their rules of engagement once they actually came to the building. They literally, my impression is, had to make it up on their own, and they determined their stand was going to be where the members and the staff were located. That was going to be their stand to start using lethal force. I have a couple questions for that. At this point now--and I understand hindsight is 20/20--is there a need for much greater less-than-lethal force capability on officers at the time or available to officers at a time that they have less-than-lethal capabilities and clear rules of engagement of what to if you have a group of individuals come into the building unauthorized? Mr. Sund. So just for a little clarification, we do train for people trying to get into the building. We do not train for, what I said, an insurrection of thousands of people. Senator Lankford. Right. Mr. Sund. Our officers do have less lethal capability that they carry with them. With hindsight being what it is from January 6th, absolutely, I think there needs to be additional training and additional equipment to consider this type of attack in the future. Senator Lankford. The challenge is we all watched this summer--in fact, this Committee on Homeland Security had a hearing on the assaults on a Federal courthouse in Portland and went through and all of us saw for a month individuals just attack that courthouse day after day after day. We saw the techniques that were used. Some of those same techniques were used by individuals that came in here. I am not saying it was the same individuals, but some of those same techniques of trying to be able to work to the fence, to be able to find it, to be able to find a way to be able to attack officers. The challenge is that we saw that this was rising, I guess, that people were watching on TV people attacking a Federal institution all summer long. It is a follow-up that we are going to have to do in the days ahead of how to be able to get less-than-lethal capability and to find ways to be able to stop any kind of assault of a number of individuals to be able to come on the Capitol. I appreciate your service. I appreciate very much the officers that continue to be able to serve, because they have not had a gap. They have not had a break since that time period. I know you still interact with them; at least I hope you do. Mr. Sund. I certainly do. Senator Lankford. I would encourage you to pass on from us our gratitude. We are all looking at this as a hindsight, 20/ 20, saying, ``Why couldn't you read the tea leaves at this particular scrap of intelligence that came in the night before?'' None of us saw it at this level. We are grateful for the service they continue to do, and let us find the lessons we can learn. Mr. Sund. Thank you very much, sir. I know they appreciate your support as well as the support of Congress. They are a hell of a police agency. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Next, thank you for your patience, Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. My pleasure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief Contee, as a former Governor of the First State of Delaware for eight years, I recall numerous instances in which I called on the Delaware National Guard in emergencies. There could have been the floods, blizzards, ice storms, drought, you name it--a lot more. I know the importance of and the value of work that our citizen soldiers have done for decades in the First State and other States around the country. As we have learned, in contrast to every other States' National Guard in the country, the D.C. National Guard operates differently. I am convinced if someone had been able to activate the D.C. National Guard and have 1,000 or 2,000 guardsmen and--women deployed at the Capitol in a timely way on the 6th of January, this death and destruction would not have occurred. Unlike the 50 States that we have, the leader of the District of Columbia is not empowered to activate the D.C. National Guard during an emergency. That is one of the reasons why I have worked for years with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton in support of legislation to admit Washington, D.C., as our 51st State and to provide equal rights to the Americans who make this community of over 700,000 people their home. Here is the question. Chief Contee, in your testimony, you highlight that a request for D.C. National Guard assistance at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th would have had to have been made by the U.S. Capitol Police with the consent of the U.S. Department of Defense. Can you just take a minute to explain that process and why Mayor Bowser is not able to request D.C. National Guard assistance when Federal installations and property, as well as human lives, are threatened in the District that she leads? Please, go ahead. Mr. Contee. Yes, thank you for the question. Yes, so the Mayor does not have full authority over the National Guard to include their activation or deployment. We make a request as the District of Columbia. We make a request; we send that to the Federal Government. Ultimately, the Secretary of the Army receives that request. There is a whole approval process that that request has to go through in order for National Guard resources to be deployed to the District of Columbia, unlike Governors in other States who are able to activate their National Guard without going through those approval processes and receiving approval from the highest level of the Federal Government. That just does not have to take place in other States, so a real hindrance to us in terms of our response and the ability to call them up. Senator Carper. Thanks. Thanks for that response. Could you just take a minute to share with us your thoughts on whether having the D.C. National Guard under the command of the Mayor or even a Governor of a neighboring State might help the D.C. Metropolitan Police in coordinating with Federal authorities to better protect the city and its citizens, and along with Federal installations during the assault like the one we experienced on January the 6th? Mr. Contee. Yes, I think we certainly should. We knew even on that day, on January 6th, prior to any movement of the National Guard from the assignments that they have been given, the traffic posts, again, that required approval at the highest levels of the Federal Government, to include the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, in order to just move the National Guard or change of mission, in essence. So, yes, I think that that should certainly be something that falls under the Mayor's authority. Senator Carper. All right. Thanks so much. A question, if I could, for Mr. Sund. In your testimony, you state that the events of January 6th were not the result of poor planning on behalf of the U.S. Capitol Police but, rather, a lack of actual intelligence that would have allowed the Capitol Police to properly prepare. As I was looking through Mr. Stenger's testimony, former Sergeant at Arms for the U.S. Senate, he states, and I want to quote, he says, ``The chain of information and resources is paramount for success.'' That is his quote. I strongly agree with that statement. Mr. Sund, what went wrong leading up to January 6th with regard to gathering and sharing actual intelligence? Why do you think the likelihood of a truly devastating attack was so badly underestimated? Mr. Sund. Mr. Sund. I think as you start to hear from some of the Federal agencies on the investigations that are currently going on, where they are finding evidence that this was a coordinated attack that had been coordinated among numerous States for some time in advance of this, that is the information that would have been extremely helpful to us, for them to detect some type of level of coordination that would have given us the indication that we are going to see more than just ``may become violent,'' you know, ``may be inclined to violence'' type of preparations. You look at it now, knowing what occurred, you see what type of resources were brought to bear around the Capitol. That type of information could have given us sufficient advanced warning to plan for more of an attack such as what we saw. Senator Carper. The great Paul Newman movie ``Cool Hand Luke,'' has a line that probably a lot of people, certainly in my generation, remember: ``What we have here as a failure to communicate.'' That was right at the end of the film. ``What we have here is a failure to communicate.'' Did we have a failure to communicate here? I am not one who is crazy about pointing fingers and assigning blame, but to whom do we assign that failure to communicate? Mr. Sund. I believe that question is for me, sir. What I look at is, we have a process for communications, and being a consumer of intelligence, I look at it more of, I think there is a failure of having a wide enough lens to look at what are the current threats that we are facing in the Nation now from some of the domestic extremists. I think the communications processes are there. They need to be worked on a little bit, but I think the intelligence community needs to broaden its aperture on what information it collects. Senator Carper. We now know in retrospect that the rioters on January 6th did not begin on January the 5th, the 4th, or the 3rd. It started weeks before and was fomented, encouraged, as we now know, by, among others, our President. Somehow all of that work and all the intelligence that was gathered by the FBI and Homeland Security never found its way to the people who right here in D.C. could have used it the most to have avoided the tragedy of January 6th. Thank you. Our thanks particularly to the officers at the U.S. Capitol Police and others who joined them in trying to protect us in this Capitol on that sad day. Chairman Peters. I know we have several members ready to go, and we want you to go as quickly as possible, but there has been a request from our witnesses, who have been here a long time, if we could give them a five-minute break, and then we will reconvene in five minutes with additional questions. We will recess for five minutes. [Recess.] We are going to bring this hearing back to the order. Get our remote folks. It is good to see you on remote. Mr. Sund, welcome back. Senator Merkley, you are up for questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses. Mr. Sund, on January 4th, MPD arrested the leader of the Proud Boys for destruction of property and possessing high- capacity firearm magazines, and on the following day, on January 5th, the FBI issued a report through the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes going to the U.S. Capitol Police, and that report noted that on far-right media the threats included things such as, the comments such as, ``Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, blood from their Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent, stop calling this a march or a rally or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. Nothing else will achieve this goal.'' Did you get that FBI intelligence report? Mr. Sund. I addressed that right when we started. The United States Capitol Police Department did get that report. I was just advised of that in the last 24 hours. That report made it from the Joint Terrorism Task Force over to our Intelligence Bureau, over to a sergeant there, and ceased moving forward at that point. No leadership, myself included, over at Capitol Police was made aware of that at the time of the event. Senator Merkley. You have referred in your testimony to the individual who is the head, John Donahue, the Director of Intelligence on the U.S. Capitol Police. Did he receive that report, but he did not pass it on to you as head of the USCP? Mr. Sund. Again, I have no knowledge that he received that report. I have been told it went over to a official with the rank of sergeant and did not move any farther from there. Senator Merkley. OK. That is very concerning. Were there not procedures for the head of intelligence on the U.S. Capitol Police to get the intelligence report, to review it, especially when there were significant other indications of potential violence, and make sure that you as the leader had that knowledge on which to develop additional plans, if additional plans were needed? Mr. Sund. I am sure that is something that they are looking at in their current after-action. Yes, there is a process for it, but, again, as I mentioned before, that was raw intelligence that was coming in. Again, taken in consideration with everything else, none of the other intelligence was showing that we are looking at this type of a broad insurrectionist type of a event with thousands of armed, coordinated individuals. Senator Merkley. I know you are saying that folks are looking at that now, but my question was, did you have a procedure for important intelligence to be brought directly to your attention? Did that system break down, and that is why you did not see the warnings about blood being spilled, get violent, be ready to come and die? Mr. Sund. Yes, there is a process in place to make sure that critical, important information is brought up to leadership. Again, that was something that would have gone through the development and the analysis of that information. Senator Merkley. OK. So you are saying the intelligence side of U.S. Capitol Police failed to get that into your hands. Let me turn to rules of engagement. Officers are out there, and there was an expanded perimeter, which you have referred to, and you have those kinds of perimeter fence that looked like bike racks, and in a normal situation, those tell peaceful protesters this is where you stop. Was there any sort of discussion or training about what to do if protesters started picking those things up and opening holes in that perimeter? What were the rules of engagement? If I am a police officer that day on the line for the Capitol Police, was I trained? What do I do when those perimeter fences are breached? Do I use spray? Do I use a stun gun? Do I use tear gas? Do I have a clear sense of exactly how I am supposed to respond? Mr. Sund. Yes, there are rules of engagement. There is a use-of-force policy, and there is also civil disobedience unit training that has to do with when you have a noncompliant group, how you deal with noncompliance and gaining compliance, which would include hand control techniques, the application of chemical spray, and then impact weapons. Senator Merkley. On that day, you issued rules of engagement that included what, specifically? I am an officer. What was I supposed to do if those barricades were breached? Mr. Sund. There are rules of engagement that exist. They were not issued just that day. They existed. Senator Merkley. They do not vary from event to event based on threat analysis? Mr. Sund. No, sir. Senator Merkley. That perimeter you said got larger, which meant police officers were spread out over a larger area. Once it was breached, what are the directions to the police on the team to be able to retreat to a defensible point? Mr. Sund. What we had is we had what is called an ``incident command system'' established. You have an incident command for both the exterior, the resources on the exterior of the building that would provide those officers, those CDU units, with specific directions on where to go, what is the next step, if you are going to retreat up to the upper west terrace, which I believe which is what they were told to do, as well as an incident command system inside the building handling the joint session and activities going on inside. Senator Merkley. I am out on the plaza, and the crowd swarms past me. I have an assigned place to go to retreat to that is defensible? Mr. Sund. The incident commander would be providing direction to people in the field on where to retreat to make the next stand. Senator Merkley. So no advance information. How do you avoid the situation of those who are guarding a door, closing and locking the door and leaving police officers stranded outside of that locked perimeter? Mr. Sund. So your question, how do you prevent that? Is that what you are saying? Senator Merkley. How do you prevent that? If you have folks who are guarding a door, and protesters are trying to get through it so they are trying to lock that and prevent it, and there is not a pre-plan for how to deal with officers who are stranded outside of those doors, how is that handled? Do you have drills on that? Do you have set instructions on that? Mr. Sund. Again, that is something I would look for the onsite official, the onsite incident commander, to provide those officers with directions where to relocate to. Senator Merkley. OK. Let me put it this way: Have you ever held a drill to respond to this situation where a crowd pushes past the exterior barricades? Mr. Sund. Not this level of a situation, no, sir. Senator Merkley. To what level have you had such drills? Mr. Sund. We have done various exercises with people, activities on the grounds, during civil disobedience training, how to handle riotous groups---- Senator Merkley. OK. Thank you. I am going to turn--I just have seconds left--to our former Sergeant of Arms for the Senate, Mr. Stenger. At the time that we were in the Senate chamber and the protesters, the rioters, reached the perimeter of the Senate, there was a very quick rush to try to lock the doors, and there were people searching for how do you lock these, and there are many entrances on the balcony. Has there ever been any sort of a drill with the Sergeant of Arms team or in partnership with the Capitol Police on how to secure the doors to the chamber as a last point of defense? Mr. Stenger. Yes, sir. At least once a year, they hold a chamber action drill, where they would work together with the Capitol Police, with the doorkeepers, to do a lockdown so they know when they should lock down. Senator Merkley. That is done as an actual drill, where people have to run, get the keys, lock the doors. They know what doors they are supposed to guard. Are they supposed to guard them from the inside or from the outside and so forth? Mr. Stenger. Yes, sir. Senator Merkley. When was the last such drill of that nature conducted? Mr. Stenger. I would have to go back and check, but we try and do it once a year. Senator Merkley. OK. I think I am out of time, and thank you very much to the Chairman. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Scott, you are recognized. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman. First off, I want to thank everybody for your hard work. We have National Guard up here. We have had them, I guess, since around the 6th. Can you tell us how you made the decision to bring the National Guard here, each of you, to the extent you are involved, or if you were not involved, how the decision was made? The National Guard presence we have here, not as a result of the riot, but the National Guard that has put up the fencing and all that. Mr. Sund. OK. So that began to be developed the evening of the 6th. When we made the request, we got the National Guard in, we started looking to the future, what was going to be next. We started talking about bringing in the first section of global fencing, which basically went right around Capitol Square, which is Constitution, Independence, First to First. We got that in place. Then we started looking at what necessary National Guard resources working with the National Guard representative, so that was developed with Capitol Police working with, I believe, the Sergeant at Arms at the time, in the evening, going into the 7th that we developed that. Senator Scott. OK. Were you the only one involved or were the Sergeant at Arms involved? Mr. Sund. I believe so. I would have to go back and pull that information. We were working on a number of different aspects of it at the time, but I had my general counsel as well as our operations people working on the request and the coordination with the National Guard. Senator Scott. What was the purpose of the original--the National Guard that came and put up the fencing, what was the rationale? What was the threat assessment? Mr. Sund. Just to make sure I understand, you are talking about the National Guard that came on the 6th? Senator Scott. No; the presence that stayed after. Mr. Sund. Oh, the one that stayed after. So what was the threat assessment? Senator Scott. What was the threat assessment, and why was it set up that they would be here for, it seems like now months on end? Mr. Sund. Well, beyond the 8th--again, my departure date was the 8th, so the information I have is up until the 8th. It was based--they were putting them in place based on the mass insurrection that we had on the 6th. I was not aware of any additional intelligence at that point. They were just concerned about possible violent extremists regrouping and staging another attack on the Capitol. Senator Scott. You have not seen anything that would give us a threat assessment now that we have a concern that we need to have the National Guard presence? It does not mean there is not some, but you have not seen anything? Mr. Sund. No, sir. I have been really not in that environment since the 8th. Senator Scott. OK. Any of the others that are here to testify, do you have any threat assessment you have seen that there is a reason that we have the National Guard here today? Is that a no from everybody? No one has any idea why we have the National Guard here? Mr. Contee. This is Chief Contee. Yes, my guess is in response to all of the things that have happened, but to your question specifically about specific intelligence, I have not personally seen anything that would suggest that. Senator Scott. Are you involved in the decision at all of why the National Guard is here? Mr. Contee. No, sir. I am not. Senator Scott. They have not shared any threat assessment with you at all with regard to why the National Guard is here? Mr. Contee. That has not been shared with me, no. Senator Scott. Does that surprise you? Mr. Contee. I cannot say that I am really surprised. Quite frankly, we have talked about intelligence in terms of what we expect to see in the city. There are several law enforcement calls that take place between the Metropolitan Police Department and other Federal partners. But, again, the Capitol Police and that structure there, it is something that they are not beholden to the Mayor of the District of Columbia or anything like that. We exchanged information that we have, but, again, I just have not seen anything specifically from them that suggests the fence still being the way that it is now. I should add also, sir, that, obviously, I think that there needs to be a reimagining of the security posture of it. Something certainly should be there, but I am not exactly sure if the answer to that is razor wire and the deployment that we currently see. Senator Scott. Then, former Sergeant at Arms, you do not have any reason--no one has given you any--you have not seen any information that would suggest that we have a threat, an imminent threat that we need the National Guard here? Mr. Stenger. I have not. Mr. Irving. I have not either. I resigned on the 7th and have been gone since, so I have no information. Senator Scott. OK. So who would be making the decision that the National Guard needs to be here then? Where would the threat assessment come from? Does anybody know? Mr. Sund. I would maybe look at the current leadership over at maybe the Capitol Police in conjunction with the current Sergeant at Arms. Senator Scott. OK. So it would be the head of Capitol Police and the city and the Acting Sergeant at Arms? Mr. Sund. That is correct, to give you the current information on that. Senator Scott. Would they coordinate with the Metropolitan Police? Mr. Sund. If there was intelligence that would indicate the need for such activity, it would usually be shared with our partner. Our local law enforcement would share our perimeter and our borders. Senator Scott. If there was a threat out there, would there be some public information that they would put out normally? Mr. Sund. Again, that all has to do with the nature of the threat, the threat, the classification level of the threat. But, again, that would be shared with law enforcement within the District of Columbia through the JTTF, as well as the executive board for the JTTF. Senator Scott. I am flabbergasted that--not that you do not know now, but that there is no public information about why we have all these National Guards here. I mean, does that surprise you? Mr. Sund. It is a significant security deployment. Again, I believe it is based on the facts of what they have seen, hindsight being what it is. It is the facts of what occurred on January 6th, this unprecedented insurrection. Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hassan, you are recognized for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of the witnesses for being here today. I especially want to take a moment to acknowledge the heroism of the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police, law enforcement, and other employees of the Capitol who bravely worked to protect our democracy on January 6th and who have done so much work to restore our Capitol since that day. I also want to thank all of the families of our law enforcement and Capitol Hill staff for what they went through watching this unfold in real time. I want to start with a question to Chief Contee, if I could. Chief, Washington, D.C., is obviously no stranger to large assemblies and protests. What is the standard process for protests in Washington, D.C., when it comes to interagency coordination and information sharing? Following the events of January 6th, what recommendations do you have for improving coordination and information sharing? Mr. Contee. Thank you for that question. There are several discussions, meetings that take place between the municipal police department as well as our Federal partners. We oftentimes have coordination calls with the National Park Service (NPS) simply because in a lot of the Federal lands, they authorize the permits for the Federal land. There is coordination that has to happen there between the Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Park Police (USPP), U.S. Capitol Police, U.S. Secret Service. With respect to the intelligence, again, our partners from the FBI, they are often part of those discussions. I think that the thing kind of going forward that certainly needs to be looked at with respect to specific intelligence that has been outlined throughout some of the testimony today, when there is specific information that warrants us to perhaps posture differently, our notification system needs to be different. The JTTF distribution list that we have is not something that is a monitored list, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that would generate an immediate response to that. When those communications are sent out, there are staff members who at some point will get to that information, but I think that, again, that has been laid out. When we are talking about something of this magnitude that could potentially happen and ultimately did happen in our city, it should posture us to move differently, perhaps with convening phone calls immediately, and not counting on an email or something making it through the chain to the levels that it needs to make for other decisions to be made. Senator Hassan. Thank you for that answer. One of the things I would observe is sometimes ahead of events like these, just scheduling ongoing check-ins with leadership at all of the agencies that need to coordinate can have the effect of sharing information in real time. I want to move to a question to Mr. Stenger, Mr. Irving, and Mr. Sund. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to designate events with national and international significance as National Special Security Events. But that did not happen for January 6th, even given the threat information readily available ahead of time. Designated events are eligible for expanded Federal support related to the security of the events. Prior to January 6th, did anyone from the Department of Homeland Security contact you about a potential National Special Security Event designation? We will start with you, Mr. Sund, and then move to the others. Mr. Sund. Thank you, ma'am. No, I am not aware of anybody from DHS reaching out and requesting, that if we want to follow up, if this wanted to be a National Special Security Event, or if we were going to request that to be, or if they were going to identify and designate what they call a C or a special event rating to the event. No, I am not aware. Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Stenger and Mr. Irving. Mr. Stenger. No one contacted me. Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Irving. The same with me, Senator. No contact with me or my office. Senator Hassan. Thank you for those answers. I look forward to following up with the Department of Homeland Security about this during the next hearing on this topic. Mr. Sund, my last question. The officers of the Capitol Police work each and every day to keep the U.S. Capitol safe and secure. We are all grateful for the brave work of the U.S. Capitol Police officers on January 6th. Tragically, the law enforcement community has now lost two officers to suicide since January 6th as a result of the insurrection and the events then. My thoughts and I am sure the thoughts of all of us here today are with the families of MPD Officer Jeffrey Smith and U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood. Mr. Sund, what mental health resources are currently available to the United States Capitol Police officers, and are these resources sufficient? Mr. Sund. The department has brought in significant mental health resources, and I certainly do appreciate your recognition of that. I have talked to a number of officers who have definitely gone through the battle and feel that they are feeling a lot of trauma from it. But I know the Chief of Police, the Acting Chief, has brought in significant resources. We had the Employee Assistance Program (EAP), but they have brought in a number of outside contractors that have gotten a very good response. I think there is a lot of mental health resources available, and I know a number of officers are taking advantage of it, which I am happy to see. Senator Hassan. So am I, and I would encourage all officers who feel that they could benefit from counseling to reach out for it. I would certainly encourage--and I am sure my colleagues here would, too--that all leadership in law enforcement reach out to us if they feel the resources are strained or need bolstering in some way. Thank you all for your service. Thank you very much for your testimony and for being here today. To the Chairs and Ranking Members of our respective Committees, thank you so much for organizing this hearing. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hassan. The Chair now recognizes Senator Hawley for his questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by saying a special thank you and a special acknowledgment to Captain Mendoza who shared her testimony earlier today, earlier this morning. Captain Mendoza is a native of Missouri and an alumni of Park University, if memory serves. I just want to say to her, I want to thank her for being here today, but also for her incredible bravery and courage on January 6th. On behalf of the entire State of Missouri, I want to say thank you for what you have done. Thank you for what you represent. I also want to take that opportunity to say again now, as I said on the night of that terrible day, thank you to all of the law enforcement from all of our various branches who responded in this dire emergency to face these criminal rioters, these violent criminals, to repulse them from the Capitol and to secure this space so that the work of Congress could continue. Thank you and a special thanks to Captain Mendoza from the State of Missouri. Mr. Sund, if I could just return to the question about the National Guard activation, I am a little bit confused about the timeline here, and I want to ask you and Mr. Irving some questions just so I can get this clear in my own head. I am looking at your written testimony. You testified that you spoke with Mr. Irving at 1:09 p.m.--actually both of the Sergeants at Arms at 1:09 p.m. Now, I understand there is a little bit of dispute about the timeline here, but you do say that Mr. Irving advised you that he needed to run it--namely, the request for the National Guard--he needed to run it up the chain of command. Have I got that right? Mr. Sund. That is correct, sir. Senator Hawley. OK. Mr. Irving, could I just ask you, when Mr. Sund says that you told him you needed to run it up the chain of command, to whom were you referring there? Mr. Irving. Senator, I do not recall a phone call at 1:09 p.m. when I was on the floor of the House during the Electoral College session. My phone records do not reflect a telephone call at that time. Had I received a call at that time, I had everyone with me. I had Mr. Stenger, leadership. We would have approved it immediately. I have no recollection of that call, and neither do I have a record of it. Senator Hawley. You say, I think, that you spoke with Mr. Sund later at approximately 1:30 p.m. Is that right? Mr. Irving. That is correct, after I left the floor, and on that call he had indicated to me that conditions were deteriorating and that he might be making a request at a later time. Senator Hawley. OK. Did you then say that you needed to run it up the chain of command or words to that effect? Mr. Irving. No, not to my recollection. I notified leadership, and I went to Michael Stenger's office to receive updates from Mr. Sund as to conditions outside and to determine whether he needed to make a request or not. When the request was made shortly after 2 p.m., we approved it. Senator Hawley. When you say ``we,'' who is ``we''? ``We approved it.'' Mr. Irving. House and Senate leadership staff were in Michael Stenger's office at the time and agreed. Senator Hawley. And so you did not consult congressional leadership. You were not waiting at any point for input from congressional leadership. Is that your testimony, Mr. Irving? Have I got that right? Mr. Irving. Yes. I advised them, as we would do with many security protocols. Senator Hawley. But you were not waiting for them at any point. There was no delay, you are saying, in getting National Guard requests because you did not at any point actually wait for the input of the Speaker or the Majority Leader or anybody else? Mr. Irving. No, absolutely not. Senator Hawley. Mr. Sund, is that your recollection? Mr. Sund. My recollection was at 1:09 p.m. while I was sitting in the command center watching things rapidly deteriorate, I made a phone call. The phone call was made in the presence of, I believe, both my Assistant Chiefs and possibly my General Counsel, at which time I made the initial request that we need to activate the National Guard; the situation is bad on the west front. I followed up at 1:22 p.m. to check on the status of the request. Senator Hawley. OK. One of the things I am trying to get clear on here is who would constitute the chain of command. Now, it sounds like Mr. Irving is saying that he actually never made that statement and he did not consult anybody else. I mean, my understanding is from the statute, 2 U.S.C. Chapter 29, Section 1970, that in an emergency situation--and I would think that this would qualify--that the Capitol Police Board does not have to consult with Members of the Senate or House leadership in order to make a request for deployment of the National Guard or request of other executive departments and executive agencies. It would seem strange to me that there was any talk about a chain of command that would involve anybody other than the Capitol Police Board given the statute. But there seems to be some confusion about the basic facts and who asked for what, when. Let me just ask you this, Mr. Sund: On Monday, January the 4th, you have testified that you approached the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms to request the assistance of the National Guard, and Mr. Irving stated that he was concerned about the optics of having the Guard deployed. Is that right? Am I remembering that correctly? Mr. Sund. That is correct, sir. On the 4th, it actually was not a phone call. It was an in-person visit over to his office where I went in and requested the National Guard. Senator Hawley. Mr. Irving, could you just clarify? When you used the term ``optics''--and maybe your recollection is you did not, so maybe you could speak to that--did you talk about being concerned about the optics of the National Guard? Then could you just elaborate on what you meant by that? Again, this is Monday, January 4th now. Mr. Irving. Yes, Monday, January 4th, Senator, safety was always the deciding factor when making security plans, and the issue on the table was whether the intelligence warranted troops at the Capitol. The conversation with Mr. Sund was not-- I did not take it as a request. He was merely informing me that he had received an offer from the National Guard. Then when we included Mr. Stenger, the three of us discussed the specific issue as to whether the intelligence warranted the troops, and the answer was no. It was a collective answer, no. Then Mr. Stenger put forth his recommendation to have them on standby. My recollection was Mr. Sund was very satisfied with that. In fact, he briefed the following day that he was satisfied, and I heard no concern anytime thereafter. Senator Hawley. Were you concerned that this use of the word ``optics,'' the appearance, what it would look like to have the Guard--this is what Mr. Sund has testified was a concern on January 4th, that there was a reluctance to request assistance because of the appearance. Was there something that you were--what is the appearance that you were concerned about, Mr. Irving, if indeed, you were? Were you concerned that having the Guard present would look like it was too militarized? Were you concerned about the criticism of the Guard being deployed in Washington during rioting earlier this summer, the summer of 2020? Just give us some insight into your thinking there, as you recall it. Mr. Irving. Senator, I was not concerned about appearance whatsoever. It was all about safety and security. Any reference to appearance would have been related to appropriate use of force, display of force, and ultimately the question on the table when we looked at any security asset is: Does the intelligence warrant it? Does the security plan match with the intelligence? Again, the collective answer was yes. Senator Hawley. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask one final question? Chairwoman Klobuchar. Yes. Senator Hawley. Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you. Speaker Pelosi has asked retired Lieutenant General Russel Honore to lead an immediate review of Capitol security in light of the attack. The general has said that the leadership of the Capitol Police--that would be you, Mr. Sund--and both of you gentlemen, the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms. He has criticized you for, and I am quoting now, ``the appearance of complicity during the attack,'' and also said that you ``potentially undertook complicit actions''--those are his words--during the attack. Mr. Sund, where you complicit in this attack on January 6th? Mr. Sund. Absolutely not, sir. I have heard those comments as well, and I think it is disrespectful to myself and to the members of the Capitol Police Department. Senator Hawley. Mr. Stenger, were you complicit in the attacks on January 6th? Mr. Stenger. Mr. Stenger. Oh. Senator Hawley. Were you complicit to the attacks on January 6th? Mr. Irving. He is asking you. [No audible response.] Senator Hawley. Mr. Irving, were you complicit in the attacks on January 6th? Mr. Irving. Absolutely not, Senator. Senator Hawley. Yes, of course none of you were. There is absolutely no evidence to that effect. Mr. Sund, I think your comments are appropriately taken. To allege that you, any of you, were complicit in this violent mob attack on this building I think is not only extremely disrespectful, it is really quite shocking, and this person has no business leading any security review related to the events of January 6th. Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Next, a new member of both Committees, Senator Padilla. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. There have been a lot of questions--I have been popping in and out from multiple Committees, but I understand there have been a lot of questions already about intelligence, what was known, what was assessed, what was shared, et cetera, and differing opinions. I will try not to be too repetitive. First, a quick question for Chief Sund and the two Sergeant at Arms. I imagine, like most people, you saw most, if not all, of the House impeachment managers' presentations before the U.S. Senate, as they sort of laid out the case, took the impeachment question aside, we know how that was resolved, but in terms of how January 6th did not just happen, but the lead- up to January 6th. Is there anything from that presentation that you would disagree with? Mr. Sund. To make sure I understand, the video I watched and all the information the video that was portrayed is all accurate video. As far as, any of the other commentary associated with the video, I cannot say I watched every single bit of it, but I can tell you a lot of that video was video from the United States Capitol Police, and it was all accurate. Senator Padilla. OK. Thank you. Mr. Stenger, Mr. Irving, same question. Mr. Stenger. Yes, the video I saw certainly reflected what I could see from my window the day of January 6th. Mr. Irving. From my perspective, Senator, I have not diagnosed why the attack occurred. At the time we left all information to the intelligence agencies that we had at the time, and I would say now to leave it to the after-action investigations to make determinations. Senator Padilla. OK. A question for Chief Sund specifically. Now, there is an Intelligence Division within the department. Correct? Mr. Sund. Yes, sir. Senator Padilla. OK. Now, having read your letter to Speaker Pelosi, you make reference to events on both November 14 as well as December 12 that you had sort of comparable intelligence in terms of risk assessments, threat assessments in the events of November 14 and December 12, not leading into anything near what happened on January 6th. Is that a correct interpretation of your letter? Mr. Sund. Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the letter. Both the assessments indicated that we were going to have various militia groups and extremists in attendance, in addition to the fact that, as Chief Contee had testified to earlier, weapons were recovered during both those events. Senator Padilla. OK. To the best of your recollection, in the lead-up to January 6th, since it was a comparable assessment, comparable intelligence, roughly, you therefore proceeded with comparable preparation and posture. Mr. Sund. Yes, that is absolutely correct. We proceeded with the posture of seeing it could have instances of violence. We knew it was going to be focused on the Capitol. We knew that there was going to be members of Proud Boys and Antifa participating. Like I had said before, not Capitol Police, not Metropolitan Police, not any of our Federal agencies had any information we were going to be facing armed insurrection of thousands of people. Senator Padilla. Now, if we take our experience with terrorism globally and look at case studies, both incidents that have been prevented and those that were successfully executed against the United States, is it plausible--and I know hindsight is 20/20. Is it plausible that the November 14 and December 12 incidents may well have been trial runs, the very extremist organizations you have referenced involved with the organizing and participation of November 14 and December 12, to gain counterintelligence on how you and your partner agencies would be planning and preparing for such incidents? Mr. Sund. As you rightly point out, when you look at some of the terrorist attacks that have occurred, there has been pre-planning. There has been pre-surveillance, pre-collection of intelligence on the security features. I do not know if November and December were two instances of that, but I would suspect with the fact that we are finding this was a coordinated attack, I would not doubt there was pre- surveillance. Senator Padilla. We do not know they were. We do not know they were not. That is my point. Mr. Sund. Correct. Senator Padilla. I know the intelligence folks will be here at a subsequent hearing, but we are all in this together. In your letter and your testimony earlier today, you bluntly said the intelligence community missed this. Mr. Sund. That is correct, sir. That is the way I feel. Senator Padilla. Now, who was Commander-in-Chief on December 6? Mr. Sund. When you say Commander-in-Chief? Senator Padilla. Who was the President of the United States---- Mr. Sund. Donald Trump, sir. Senator Padilla [continuing]. Overseeing the intelligence community that missed this. Repeat your answer. Mr. Sund. For the entire 18 agencies that represent the intelligence community? Senator Padilla. Yes. Mr. Sund. He would be Commander-in-Chief. Senator Padilla. Who was that again? Mr. Sund. President Donald Trump. Senator Padilla. OK. Let me ask a couple of questions on a different topic. I think it is obvious to many across the country. I was one of three Senators who was not in chambers on January 6th. I had, the benefit, if you will, of watching the events occur in real time both inside the Capitol and outside the Capitol on television. One thing that was not lost on me and many people that I have talked to is the difference in both police presence and response on January 6th compared to events from last summer when peaceful protestors were demonstrating in the Nation's capital in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Last summer, they were met with significant force. A couple of data points. To date, some 250 individuals who were involved in the Capitol insurrection of January 6th have been arrested. More will likely be arrested in the coming weeks and months, but only a small number, about 52, of these individuals were arrested on January 6th. By contrast, during the largely peaceful protests of last summer, 427 people were arrested. On June 1 alone, 289 people were arrested. Similarly, some 300 protesters were arrested during the Kavanaugh hearings in 2018. So a question, Mr. Sund. Can you tell us exactly how the Capitol Police preparations for January 6th differed from preparations for the protests from last summer? If you can specifically address if there were the same or different use- of-force guidelines in place on January 6th compared to the protests of last summer or any criteria for making arrests on January 6th versus the protests from last summer. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. If you could do that in about a minute. Mr. Sund. Yes, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, sir. Mr. Sund. I will do that very concisely. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Mr. Sund. I want to look at it from planning and preparations. We plan for every demonstration the exact same way. It does not matter the message of the person; it does not matter the demographics of the grievance involved in the demonstration. We do it the exact same way. We develop our information, we develop our intel, and we base a response plan on that. Let us transition to preparations. I will tell you we handled 15 major demonstrations involving Black Lives Matter groups following the death of George Floyd over the summer. We had a total of six arrests--six arrests--no use of less lethal capabilities, no use of lethal force capabilities. The events, everything that we put into place for January 6th far exceeded any planning that we did for any events in 2020. With the full activation of the department, the size of the perimeter that we expanded, the deployment of additional protective equipment, the deployment of less lethal and the application of less lethal far exceeded anything, any other event that I can recollect on the Nation's capital. I will just leave it at that. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Sund. We really prepared much more. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Padilla. We are going to go to Senator Hagerty and then to Senator King, who has been very patient and been on with us online quite a while. Senator Hagerty. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAGERTY Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Chairman Klobuchar. Thank you very much for having us here today and for holding this hearing. I want to begin by thanking all of the law enforcement officers that are represented here today. You and your families, thank you for your sacrifice, and certainly my heart goes out to those families and loved ones who lost their lives in this. In the spring and summer of 2020, many people criticized the use of the National Guard to help restore order in Washington following some of the worst rioting in decades. Mayor Bowser said that the Guard presence was, and I quote, ``unnecessary and maybe counterproductive.'' A D.C. National Guard leader even had to tell his troops, I quote again, ``Some of the D.C. public does not agree with our mission and may have nefarious intention toward our servicemembers.'' According to a January 5th Washington Post report, top Pentagon officials emphasized that on January 6th, the Guard would have a ``far more muted presence than in June,'' saying that, ``We have learned our lessons, and will be absolutely nowhere near the Capitol Building.'' Mr. Sund has stated that, despite attempting to attain National Guard support on Capitol Hill on January 6th, he was unable to get approvals for such support. Several people today have referred to concerns over the optics of January 6th. My first question is directed to Mr. Sund. Do you think that the backlash against the use of National Guard troops to restore order back in the summertime led to reluctance in advance of January 6th to utilize Guard troops to protect the Capitol? Mr. Sund. Sir, I cannot really testify to what the inner working was or inner working decisions were at the Pentagon regarding either the decisions from over the summer or the memo that was put out by the Secretary of the Army on the 4th. However, I was very surprised at the amount of time and the pushback I was receiving when I was making an urgent request for their assistance. Senator Hagerty. That is regrettable. I would also like to follow up on a line of questioning that Senator Hawley brought up. Speaker Pelosi indicated that she intends to establish a commission to examine the events of January 6th. Of course, that is why we are here today, examining those issues. Speaker Pelosi has also appointed a retired Army Lieutenant General, Russel Honore, who is going to lead the investigation of what happened. But days after the attack, General Honore said, ``I think once all this gets uncovered''--again, I am quoting him-- ``it was complicit actions by Capitol Police,'' before he added, that you, Mr. Sund, were ``complicit along with the Sergeant at Arms in the House and Senate.'' My question is: Do any of you believe that comments like these by Mr. Honore suggest that he is someone who is well suited to conduct a serious and unbiased review of the events of January 6th? If so, please explain. Mr. Sund. I will go ahead and start with that response. As I had mentioned before, I found the comments that he made regarding myself and also the Capitol Police officers highly disrespectful to the hardworking women and men of that police department and also to myself. I welcome and I look forward to an after-action that will move this agency forward, move our partnership with the Federal agencies forward, but it has to be done in an unbiased fashion. Senator Hagerty. I could not agree more, Mr. Sund. Any other responses? Mr. Stenger. I would disagree with the general's--what he said. I do not believe that is true. There was a lot of people that put themselves in very much danger on that day. I think saying something like that is just not in good taste. Senator Hagerty. Yes, I cannot imagine that being said myself, implying that you all were complicit in this, but I thank you for your answers and for your service. I yield back, Madam Chairman. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Hagerty. Next, Senator King. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KING Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses first for their patience this morning and their thoroughgoing answers. This has been a long hearing, and I really appreciate it. I appreciate the fact that, although you all are no longer, other than the Chief in Washington, no longer in your positions, that you have come forward to give us the benefit of your observations. It seems to me one of the clear--I am not going to plow this ground again, but one of the clear pieces of information we have learned today is an intelligence failure, not necessarily a failure of intelligence, but a failure to communicate intelligence. I think that is something that we all need to think about, and you can be very helpful to us in suggesting what should be the chain of communication in terms of intelligence. You cannot adequately prepare if you do not have the information, and it clearly seems to me there were some failures. Chief Sund, I have a specific question for you, and it is more forward-looking, but I would appreciate your insights. The question is: How do we protect the Capitol from either an angry mob or probably more likely one or two or three malignant actors without turning it into a fortress? How do we allow the American people to go in the rotunda, to tour the Capitol, to picnic on the grounds, to play with their kids? It seems to me that going forward that is really one of the challenges. We want security, but we do not--I would hate to see the U.S. Capitol turned into a fortress. Your thoughts, Mr. Sund? Mr. Sund. I will go back to your original comment with the intelligence and the communications. I think we have the process in place for when we have credible intelligence, especially high-level credible intelligence to quickly get to where it needs to be. I think my big concern is on the collection, on how wide we are casting the net to collect our intelligence that would have revealed that this was coming and we were facing this type of mass insurrection. I definitely want to say the Capitol Police is well versed, well trained on handling what you are talking about, a Mumbai- style attack, a couple of attackers armed, active shooter events, things like that. Those are the type of events that we are ready for. It is the thousands of people that are storming the Capitol that creates a big issue with us. When you talk about physical security, and I had mentioned it in my opening statement, in one of the initial questions, I think there are options for maintaining an open environment, an open-campus type of environment while putting some substantial physical security measures in place, both for the building, the skin of the building, as well as farther out. Time and distance is our best friend, and the most important thing is to provide some kind of protection farther out so the officers have more time to deal with it. But that is something that I think should be discussed in a closed or classified session. Senator King. I understand but--and I hope that that is a discussion, Madam Chair, that we can have. I think that is very important, because we just--as I say, we do not want the United States Capitol to be so protected that it is inaccessible to the American people. Amplify on your intelligence answer. It seems to me you are saying it is communicated adequately, but we did not have the collection that we needed. For example, the Norfolk, Virginia, letter, how does it get filtered and where does it get filtered? Mr. Sund. Again, the Norfolk Field Office letter, that is something to consider because even on the 5th, at noon on the 5th, I held a joint conference call with the members of the board, my executive team, a dozen of the top law enforcement and military officials from Washington, D.C., where we discussed the upcoming events on the 6th, the upcoming events for the Inauguration, any kind of threats, any kind of issues we may have. Even though we had the director of the field office, the Washington Field Office of the FBI, nothing was mentioned about it. I think my big point is I think we need to look out. There is significant evidence coming out that the insurrection that occurred on the 6th was planned, coordinated well in advance, coordinated almost to the point where you are looking between number of States where you are having events coordinated. It is that detection that I think would have been key to putting the effective security in place for this event. Senator King. Finally, when we are talking about providing this level of security, is there a playbook? Is there a contingency plan that is literally sitting on a shelf somewhere that says demonstrations around the Capitol, here is what you do? I mean, some of the timing things, for example, the deployment of the National Guard might have been faster had there been a predetermined set of phone numbers, actions, steps to be taken. Does that exist? If not, should it exist? Mr. Sund. To the level where you are including the National Guard, there is a process where we handle special events and demonstrations, but I tend to agree that we need to streamline the process that we request the National Guard in the future. Senator King. Yes, because clearly there was a delay there that was an important part of the response at the time. Madam Chair, again, I want to thank these witnesses. I think they have really made a contribution, and they made a contribution when they were serving in their respective positions. Thank you. I yield back. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Sinema is recognized for her questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is for Chief Contee. What coordinating actions were taken in the weeks leading up to January 6th to share intel across Federal and local law enforcement? What security planning took place and with which agencies? Mr. Contee. Thank you for that question. There were a series of several meetings that took place leading up to the events of January 6th. There are the weekly law enforcement partners calls that take place where our Federal partners are part of that. There is the First Amendment coordinating calls that took place, at least two of those, prior to this event. There is a National Park Service permit call that also took place prior to this event and, as Chief Sund mentioned, several calls involving several of the law enforcement entities leading up to the events of January 6th. There are a significant amount of phone calls or virtual meetings that took place leading up to January 6th. Senator Sinema. Thank you. Could you talk a little bit about what you see as the mistakes that were made or the holes that did not help connect all those dots in those meetings and coordinating prior to January 6th? Mr. Contee. I think the major issue, at least from my perspective, I think that in terms of the sharing of information, how it is shared, I think that that is where the focus should be. Again, we are talking about a report that came from the Norfolk office on the day before, that night, after 7 p.m., that was sent to email boxes. As the Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department, I assure you that my phone is on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and I am available for any phone call from any agency that has information with respect to something of this magnitude happening in our city. Certainly if there was information about one of our police stations being overrun or a Federal building being overrun that was related to the Metropolitan Police Department, I assure you that I would be on the phone directly with the officials that are responsible for the law enforcement response to give them that information firsthand. I am not really relying on technology in the form of an email in hopes that that information makes it to where it needs to be. I think that that is critical. To Chief Sund's point, there were several phone calls leading up to this and no specific information that talked about the events that we saw and experienced on January 6th. I really do believe that there should be quite a bit of attention given to that. Senator Sinema. I appreciate that. My next question is for Mr. Sund. You outlined that the FBI report was sent via email to the Capitol Police the evening of January 5th and that you never received the report. Is there an understanding within the system of how that report did not make it to you or to other individuals in leadership in the Capitol Police the night of January 5th? Mr. Sund. I appreciate that question, ma'am. Actually, as I had mentioned earlier in the discussion, this is a report that I am just learning about within the last--they informed me yesterday of the report. I am not sure what investigation may be going on. Since January 8th, I have left the department. What investigations? I know the Chief has put additional safeguards in place to make sure something like that does not happen again, but I am not sure of what the outcome was, why that did not get pushed up farther. Senator Sinema. Was there an expectation or a process or procedure prior to January 6th that should have gotten that memo up to your attention the night of January 5th? Mr. Sund. There is a process that ensures that information from the Joint Terrorism Task Force and through our task force officers gets over to their Intelligence Division and would be moved up to our intelligence analyst and the director of that Intelligence Division. Then based on that information, he could push it then up to the Assistant Chief or directly to me. He has my cell phone number. We talk regularly. Senator Sinema. As you mentioned, you were just learning about this recently, but would it have been an expectation that the FBI would have called Capitol Police or someone on the Joint Task Force to alert the new intelligence in an expedited fashion? Knowing that this information made it to the Capitol Police intel team on the 5th, what I am trying to understand is how it did not get to the higher levels to make preparations the night of the 5th. Mr. Sund. Right. I will just go ahead and echo what Chief Contee had mentioned, that I do think that deserves additional focus. I think if we have information that is coming in the day before a major event, that has that level of specificity, that it could get a little more attention than, being handled either through an email or electronic format. Senator Sinema. Was there any intelligence that you did receive in the several days leading up to January 6th that caused you to change any of the security plans amongst the United States Capitol Police? Mr. Sund. So just to reiterate, all the intelligence and all the information that we had been receiving during the development of the event for the 6th outlined very similar to what the intelligence report that was published on the 3rd outlined. We were expecting a large number of protesters coming in. We expected a potentially violent group. We knew they were being focused on the Capitol, and we knew that some of them may be armed. That is what was really driving up until even-- regardless of what was put out the 3rd, this was information that we knew. We were developing our security plan around that. That is when we looked at, based on our review of the November and December MAGA events, determined we were going to adjust our fence line and push our fence line out. When we want to do that, that is when I would request the National Guard, knowing we are going to need support for the fence line. Senator Sinema. Thank you. Chief Contee, you stated that the intelligence that you had received on January 6th did not differ from the previous MAGA marches, the two previous. Was there any conversation or consideration about the fact that the January 6th was scheduled on a very important day, that Congress would be in session certifying the results of the election? Was that different in a consideration around security than the other two marches, which had been on weekends without Congress being in session? Mr. Contee. Absolutely, and that is reflected in the response posture for the Metropolitan Police Department. For the two prior demonstrations that happened, the MAGA 1 and 2 marches, the Metropolitan Police Department, we did not call up officers from surrounding jurisdictions to be stationed physically within the footprint of the District of Columbia. We did not do that before. The Mayor, in addition to calling up those additional resources, again, called up the National Guard specifically for the reasons that we outlined to them, which would allow the Metropolitan Police Department to be a lot nimble in our response. That, in essence, enabled us to be able to respond quickly to assist the Capitol Police officers. Those responses were different. We were disrupting individuals or intercepting individuals who were armed with firearms in our city, in violation of the Mayor's order, many of whom were on Federal grounds. The Metropolitan Police Department's posture certainly was escalated beyond what we did at the prior two marches. Senator Sinema. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I see I have gone over my time. I have a few extra questions that I will submit. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Very good. Thank you, Senator Sinema, and thank you for your emphasis on the FBI report and the issues that everyone here seems to acknowledge with getting that, that it did not go at the right place, and just putting ``Send'' is not enough for a report like that. OK. Next we have Senator Cruz, and then after that will be Senator Ossoff. If there are any other Senators who wish to ask questions who have not asked questions, you should tell us, because those are the last two we have. Senator Cruz. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CRUZ Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me say to each of the witnesses here today, thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you also for your service. I want to thank each of you and also each of the heroic law enforcement officers who demonstrated extraordinary courage in fighting to repel the terrorist attack that unfolded on the Capitol on January 6th. We are grateful for the bravery and the courage in the face of a truly horrific attack. In the aftermath of that attack, there is naturally a process to assess what could have been done to better prevent that attack, to better secure the Capitol. I think everyone recognizes that hindsight is different from a decision made in the moment, facing the threat immediately. But this hearing is nonetheless productive for analyzing the security decisions and law enforcement decisions that were made realtime and for learning from them what can be done differently to ensure that an attack like that never again occurs. Chief Sund, I want to focus on, with some detail, your written testimony and just walk through what occurred in the days preceding January 6th and then on January 6th. In your written testimony, you say, ``On Monday, January 4th, I approached the two Sergeants at Arms to request the assistance of the National Guard, as I had no authority to do so . . .'' You go on to say, ``I first spoke with the House Sergeant at Arms to request the National Guard. Mr. Irving stated that he was concerned about the `optics' of having National Guard present and didn't feel that the intelligence supported it. He referred me to the Senate Sergeant at Arms . . . to get his thoughts on the request. I then spoke to Mr. Stenger and again requested the National Guard. Instead of approving the use of the National Guard, however, Mr. Stenger suggested I ask them how quickly we could get support if needed and to `lean forward' in case we had to request assistance on January 6th.'' Can you describe at a little more length those conversations with the two Sergeant at Arms on January 4th? Mr. Sund. Absolutely, sir. The first conversation occurred Monday morning. I went over, I would have to refer to my notes, but sometime maybe around 11 a.m. I met with Mr. Irving in his office. That is where I made the first request for the National Guard. He had indicated, ``I do not know if I really like the optics. I do not think the intelligence really supports it.'' He had, like we had said, recommended I talk to the Senate Sergeant at Arms. I went over and met with, later on the day, either--I am trying to recall if it was in person or over the phone. I would have to go back to my timeline where I reached out to him. They may have already talked, because he had referred me. He said, ``You know somebody over at the D.C. National Guard?'' I said, ``Yes, I do. I have a good friend over there, General William Walker.'' He said, ``Can you give him a call and see if we needed assistance, how quickly could we get assistance and what type of assistance could he give us?'' So that evening, as I was driving home at about 6:35 p.m., I went ahead and called General Walker and spoke to him and said, ``Hey, General Walker, I do not have authority to request National Guard, but I want to find out, if we needed them on Wednesday, how quickly could you get them for us, and is there a way you can kind of, be prepared just in case we put in the request?'' At that point, he had advised to me that he has 125 National Guardsmen who are supporting the COVID response in the District of Columbia, and if we needed a quick response, he could what he called ``repurpose them'' and get them to the Armory, at which point we could get somebody over to swear them in and try and get them to us as quick as possible. We ended our call. The next day I met with both--I met with Mr. Stenger. He came over to the office for the 12 p.m. video call that I had hosted with the dozen of the law enforcement officials from D.C.. We spoke about it briefly there and told him what Wayne Walker had told me, as well as I passed it on to Mr. Irving, I think later on that afternoon, and they both seem satisfied with that response. Senator Cruz. Mr. Irving and Mr. Stenger--Mr. Irving, as I understand it, you have some disagreement with the characterization about the concern about the optics, so I would invite both Mr. Irving and Mr. Stenger to relay your best recollection of that conversation on January 4th. Mr. Irving. Senator, my best recollection of the conversation on January 4th was a phone call from Chief Sund indicating that he had received an offer for 125 unarmed Guard that could be positioned around traffic perimeter checkpoints at the Capitol. My recollection again is, as we followed up with Mr. Stenger, that three of us engaged in a conversation whereby we looked at the offer in light of the existing intelligence. The decision, the collective decision amongst the three of us, was that the intelligence did not warrant the National Guard. My recollection, that ended the discussion relative to the offer. The only question on the table is: Should we perform any follow-up? Mr. Stenger recommended that we ask that they be placed on standby. House and Senate leadership staff were in Mr. Stenger's office when I received Chief Sund's request on January 6th, and agreed with my response. Senator Cruz. To the best of your recollection, did you make the comment about optics? If so, what did you mean by that? Mr. Irving. I cannot remember my exact verbiage. Had I used any language to the effect, it was all in reference to whether the intelligence was matched to the security plan. Senator Cruz. Let me ask both Mr. Irving and Mr. Stenger, did you all have conversations with congressional leadership, either Democratic or Republican leadership, on this question of supplementing law enforcement presence, bringing in National Guard either on January 4th or realtime on January 6th? Mr. Irving. On January 4th, no, I had no follow-up conversations. It was not until the 6th that I alerted leadership that we might be making a request. That was the end of the discussion. Senator Cruz. Mr. Stenger. Mr. Sund. For myself, it was January 6th that I mentioned it to Leader McConnell's staff. Senator Cruz. There has been some disagreement about what time phone calls occurred. I know Senator Portman asked earlier. Presumably everyone has phone records. I think it would be helpful if each of you could forward the relevant phone records to this committee.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The information requested by Senator Cruz appears in the Appendix on page 134. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Sund, you also referenced in your testimony that you sent an email to congressional leadership. If you could forward that to the Committee as well, I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Senator Ossoff. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our panel. I just want to take a moment and echo the sentiments of so many of my colleagues expressing appreciation for the men and women of the United States Capitol Police who endured a great deal on January 6th and showed great heroism. Also, Madam Chair, if I might express an interest in working with you to ensure that they are well taken care of and their needs are met. This discussion of the conversation that the three of you had regarding supplementary security support on January 6th raises the question of who is in charge. Is consensus between the two Sergeants at Arms and the Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police required to make such a request? Mr. Sund. Mr. Sund. The request for the National Guard needs to go to the Capitol Police Board for approval, yes. Senator Ossoff. Who has ultimate responsibility for the security of the U.S. Capitol Complex? Which individual? Mr. Sund. I believe that falls under the Capitol Police Board. Senator Ossoff. The Capitol Police Board. There is no individual who has personal responsibility for the security of the U.S. Capitol Complex? Mr. Sund. That is the way I interpret it, yes. Senator Ossoff. Had the U.S. Capitol Police conducted exercises simulating comparable events, such as a violent riot on or within the U.S. Capitol Complex? Mr. Sund. Part of our training for civil disobedience units involves dealing with riotous groups. We do do that training. We do do training on people attempting to gain entry into the building. Officers are trained on how to handle if someone tries to come through your door unauthorized. But training for thousands of armed insurrectionists that were coordinated and well-equipped? No, we have not had that training before January 6th, but I am sure they will find a way to do it now. Senator Ossoff. If I understand correctly, Mr. Sund, you are saying that personnel had engaged in tactical training regarding techniques to repel attempts to breach the complex, regarding rules of engagement. But have you had any comprehensive exercises that included command, that included procedures for coordination with supporting agencies, that included requests for support, that included communications with the Department of Defense or White House officials or Guard units been conducted? Mr. Sund. Yes, we have. We do exercises that are very similar to what you are talking about before some of our National Special Security Events. Those are the NSSEs such as the inauguration. We will do tabletop exercises that go through the process of what you are talking about, yes. Senator Ossoff. Thank you. Had the Capitol Police held any such exercises not pertaining to specific National Special Security Events? In order to deal with emergent contingencies, like a riot, not associated with one of those moments specifically identified as requiring a whole-of-government security response? Mr. Sund. Yes, one of the most important aspects of that that you are talking about, that we train our individuals to, is what we call the ``incident command system.'' That is one of the systems that we feel really under the unprecedented pressure that they exhibited on January 6th began to break down. The incident command system is established specifically so you have people that have the clearest understanding of what is happening, either in the field or inside the building, in control of the resources, to utilize, to defend against whatever issue you are having, or respond to whatever incident you have. It is really an all-hazards approach, but that is something that is trained. We have it as part of our general orders. That is something that we will need to look back on to see how it broke under this pressure. Senator Ossoff. I ask this question in part because of the account that has been shared regarding the coordination with the guard unit, which was here for a COVID-related mission. If I recall correctly, you have related that you had a conversation with the commanding officer and discussed mobilizing that unit if necessary, first via an intermediary stop at a Marine Corps facility, to then come to the Capitol if necessary on January 6th. Where there not preexisting channels of communication and procedures in the event you--not at a moment such as Inauguration or the State of the Union, but on any given day, needed a quick reaction force to provide security support? Mr. Sund. I think when you refer to it, I think it is the established process where if you are going to request them in advance, or request them for an incident. I think what we need to look at is those emergency requests. But there is a process for going through the Secretary of the Army, placing an official request. Ultimately, we did that. We had to do a letterhead after the fact. We did the oral request first and set it up that way. But I think what I did by reaching out to General Walker was to get an idea, much like, as I was requested to do, if we requested them on the 6th, what kind of resources could they give us, and what type of timeframe would we be looking at? But I agree. There is already existing process and channels for making the request for National Guard. Senator Ossoff. Right, because you, in fact, anticipated there might be some need based upon intelligence that your department was seeing. But on any given day, if a foreign terrorist organization decided to mount an attack on this complex, do the procedures exist and are the channels in place such that a quick reaction force can be mustered swiftly, such that someone in your position knows exactly who to call and they can do so without consulting with the Sergeants at Arms? Mr. Sund. I think what you are saying is what we need to look at, because I would still be required to consult with the Sergeant at Arms to make the request for National Guard. Senator Ossoff. OK. My time is running short, so I want to ask you this: What is the intelligence budget for the U.S. Capitol Police? How many personnel do you have in the Intelligence Division or did you have when you served as the Chief? Mr. Sund. I would have to go back and pull that specific information. We have a number of intel analysts. We have a number of people that work there, both sworn and civilian. But I want to give you clear and accurate---- Senator Ossoff. Approximately how many personnel are in the Intelligence Division? Mr. Sund. I would say approximately right around 30 or 35 people. Senator Ossoff. 30 or 35. Does the U.S. Capitol Police have the capacity to do any intelligence collection other than by making requests to executive branch agencies for raw intelligence or analysis? Mr. Sund. Again, when you talk about intelligence collection, we are a consumer of intelligence from the intelligence community. We do have the ability to go and look at open source, see what people are talking about on open source, but going and collecting in-depth specific intelligence is something that we are a consumer of from the intelligence community. Senator Ossoff. Thank you. I appreciate your time. I yield back. Mr. Sund. Thank you, sir. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. That was our last set of questions, and we are going to conclude this hearing. I wanted to say a few words at the end. First of all, I want to thank Chairman Peters and Ranking Members Blunt and Portman for conducting this hearing in such a professional way. We had a bipartisan agreement on how this hearing would be conducted, who our witnesses would be, and also the plan to have additional hearings, including one next week that we will be announcing tomorrow with the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI, because clearly we have and our members have additional questions. I want to thank the witnesses, as I said, for voluntarily appearing before us. I want to thank Captain Mendoza for her moving words and bravery. In many ways, she represents all of the officers that were there that day. A few things that are very clear to me. The first is the statements at the beginning from all the witnesses. They may have disagreed on some details. But there is clear agreement that this was a planned insurrection, and I think most members here very firmly agree with that. I think it is important for the public to know that this was planned. We now know this was a planned insurrection. It involved white supremacists, it involved extremist groups, and it certainly could have been so much worse except for the bravery of the officers. Second, we learned about the intelligence breakdown. Many of the Members of both Committees asked about that, particularly the January 5th FBI report that had some very significant warnings from social media about people who were coming to Washington who wanted to wage war. The fact that did not get to key leaders and the Sergeant of Arms or the Capitol Police Chief is, of course, very disturbing, really on both ends. I mean, you cannot just push ``Send''--as we all know, we get tons of emails--and hope that it gets to the right person, especially when we are dealing with something so serious. The January 3rd intelligence report that came right out of the Capitol Police also contained, according to Washington Post reports and other information, some pretty foreboding details that I would have thought would have resulted in planning and more preparations. The delays in approving a request for National Guard assistance, both from the Capitol Police Board and the Department of Defense, the fact that the Sergeant at Arms were focused on keeping the members safe in both chambers, while the Chief was trying to get some emergency approval. To me, you can point fingers, but you could also look at this as a process that is not prepared for a crisis. I think out of that, there is some general agreement, just based on talking to a number of members, that there should be changes to the Capitol Police Board, the approval process and the like. It is clear that that action must be taken not only to protect our Capitol, but also to protect the brave officers charged with protecting this citadel of democracy. Better intelligence sharing. Always an outcome when there is failures of intelligence. We know that. But I think we will get more details in the coming week. Some security changes at the Capitol. Requests that have been made for a while on those changes that I think we have to seriously consider. No, it does not have to be barbed wire. Of course, this is a public building, and you want the school groups and you want the veterans and you want people to be able to visit here. But that does not mean that we do not make some smart security changes to this building. The use of the National Guard. We know after September 11, the National Guard helped for quite a while. We also know that we have to have a plan going forward, as well as consider what happens when we need a greater number of National Guard in a crisis, and how those approvals are made. Those are just some of my takeaways. I am sure many others will have more, but I do want to make it clear that there are some items of agreement between most of us on this Committee. I do not think we should let the words of a few become the story here, because I think this has been a very constructive hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for coming forward as they did, and I want to thank Senator Peters. We look forward to more hearings. Thank you. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Chair Klobuchar. I have enjoyed this hearing. Thank you for your leadership. It has been good working with you and your entire team with the Rules and Administration Committee. I certainly want to thank Ranking Members Blunt and Portman and all of the members who came here together today to work in a bipartisan way, to ask tough questions and to get answers. I want to thank Captain Mendoza for sharing her experiences. Certainly a very powerful way to start this hearing. But I truly appreciate each of the witnesses that were here today, who came here today willingly and knew you would be asked tough questions, and you were willing to do that. Certainly, we appreciate you for that effort. While this hearing certainly shed some new light and offered some new information on what happened to the lead-up, as well as to the response to the January 6th attack on our Capitol, it also raised a number of additional questions that need to be asked. For the past two years, I have been working to draw attention to the rise of domestic terrorism, and specifically violence driven by white supremacists. We have only seen the threat of this violence grow, not just from white supremacists, but also from antigovernment groups and people who have been swept up by conspiracy theories and just simple outright lies. The events of January 6th and the answers that we heard today only further highlight a grave national security threat that our current homeland security apparatus is clearly not fully equipped to address. Our national security agencies were overhauled, and they were forged in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, and they are basically built around responding to foreign terrorist attacks, and they have been slow to adapt to this evolving threat of domestic terrorism that we have seen in the last few years. The Homeland Security Committee was created to oversee reforms, to fix the intelligence failures that led to September 11, and now I intend to assure that this Committee oversees efforts to fix the failures that led to the January 6th attack. There is no question our Federal counterterrorism resources are not focused on effectively addressing the growing and deadly domestic terror threat. The January 6th attack marked a once- in-a-lifetime failure, and now we have the duty to ensure that the Federal Government is doing everything in its power to make sure another attack like this never happens again. We must align our counterterrorism resources and our intelligence-gathering efforts to ensure we are focused on this dire threat. The FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center right now are eight months late on a report to assess the threat posed by domestic terrorism. We are going to continue to push them to complete this report as soon as possible so that we can take meaningful action. There is no question in my mind that there was a failure to take this threat more seriously, despite widespread social media content and public reporting that indicated violence was extremely likely. The Federal Government must start taking these online threats seriously to ensure they do not cross into real-world violence. I also plan to keep the pressure up on social media companies to work harder to ensure that their platforms are not used as a tool to organize violence. This investigation does not end here today, and I look forward to our next hearing where we will continue to seek answers to important questions that were raised today and others that need to be answered. Before we adjourn, however, I have to do a bit of quick housekeeping. It is my privilege to announce the Members of the Subcommittees of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for the 117th Congress. The following Senators will serve on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations: Jon Ossoff will be Chair, Ron Johnson the Ranking Member, Tom Carper, Maggie Hassan, Alex Padilla, Rand Paul, James Lankford, and Rick Scott. The following Senators will serve on the Emerging Threats and Spending Oversight Subcommittee: Maggie Hassan will be Chair, Rand Paul will be Ranking Member; Kyrsten Sinema, Jacky Rosen, Jon Ossoff, Mitt Romney, Rick Scott, Josh Hawley. And the following Senators will serve on the Government Operations and Border Management Subcommittee: It will be chaired by Kyrsten Sinema; James Lankford will be Ranking Member; Tom Carper, Alex Padilla, Jon Ossoff, Ron Johnson, Mitt Romney, and Josh Hawley. Congratulations to our new Chairs, our Ranking Members, and to all Members of our Committee. I look forward to working with all of you in the months and years ahead. Officially, the record for this hearing will remain open until 5 p.m. on March 9, 2021, for the submission of statements and questions for the record. With that, this hearing is officially adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the Committees were adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] EXAMINING THE JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITOL, PART II ---------- WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2021 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee on Rules and Administration, Washington, DC. The Committees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary C. Peters, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Hon. Amy Klobuchar, Chairwoman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, presiding. Present: Senators Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, Rosen, Padilla, Ossoff, Klobuchar, Feinstein, Warner, King, Merkley, Portman, Johnson, Paul, Lankford, Romney, Scott, Hawley, Blunt, Cruz, Capito, Wicker, Fischer, Hyde-Smith, and Hagerty. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN KLOBUCHAR\1\ Chairwoman Klobuchar. I call to order the second joint hearing of the Rules and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees (HSGAC) on examining the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Klobuchar appears in the Appendix on page 265. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At today's hearing we will continue our Committees' important work to get answers that will lead us to solutions following the horrific events at the Capitol on January 6. Last week we heard from witnesses who were directly in charge of Capitol security on that day and from local law enforcement in Washington. Today we will hear testimony from the head of the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG) and from Federal officials from agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), that are tasked with supporting our security people at the Capitol. The testimony of these witnesses is crucial as we work to get to the bottom of what happened, again, with the focus being on making sure it does not happen again. With that, I now turn it over to Chairman Peters for his opening statement. I will give mine, then Senators Blunt and Portman. Thank you. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\ Chairman Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Portman and Ranking Member Blunt, and to all of our colleagues from the Rules Committee for once again joining us to convene this second joint hearing on the January 6 attack on our Capitol Building. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix on page 263. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last week's hearing provided really the first opportunity for the American people to hear about the attack directly from the security officials that were on the ground. Today we will be seeking answers on the role of the Federal national security and counterterrorism agencies and officials played in intelligence-gathering, security, planning, and response to the attack. I want to thank each of our witnesses for joining us voluntarily here today, and I am grateful to all of you and the employees of each of your agencies, including the National Guard units who continue to assist in protecting the Capitol today. We appreciate their continued efforts to safeguard our national security. While there are still many unanswered questions about January 6, it is clear that this violent, coordinated attack was the result of a massive and historic intelligence failure. Today our Committees will once again examine the systemic breakdowns that led to this terrible attack and, particularly, how our intelligence and national security experts failed to see it coming. This is not a new problem. For years, I have been raising the alarm about the growing domestic terrorism threat with the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and other key agencies, and their continued failures to adequately and effectively align our counterterrorism efforts to address the threats posed by domestic extremists. But the January 6 attack must mark a turning point. There can be no question that the domestic terrorist threat, including violence driven by white supremacists and antigovernment groups, is the gravest terrorist threat to our homeland security. Moving forward, the FBI, which is tasked with leading our counterterrorism efforts, and the Department of Homeland Security, which ensures that State and local law enforcement understand threats that American communities face, must address this deadly threat with the same focus and resources and analytical rigor that they apply to foreign threats such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda. Today's witnesses are uniquely qualified to discuss what intelligence was produced in the days leading up to the attack, what officials missed as they assessed the likelihood of violence that day, and why our intelligence community (IC) failed to heed the crystal-clear warnings that were broadcast on social media and publicly reported in the days leading up to the 6th that a violent attack on the Capitol was likely imminent. We also need answers about the operational failures that terrible day, especially the response to secure the building once it was breached. I am pleased that we have representatives of both the Department of Defense's civilian leadership and the National Guard to help us understand why it took several hours for the National Guard to arrive and offer additional security and support. The January 6 attack on the citadel of our democracy remains a dark stain on our Nation's history. Both of our Committees, have a responsibility to carry out our oversight duties in a serious and nonpartisan way. I look forward to having a productive discussion, and getting the answers that the American people deserve and what we need to do to make sure that reforms are put in place to prevent an attack like this from ever happening again. With that, I will turn it back over to Chairwoman Klobuchar. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by thanking you and Ranking Member Blunt and Ranking Member Portman for the bipartisan and constructive hearing that we had last week. I also want to thank the many members of both Committees who patiently participated during votes and all last week and asked thoughtful questions that will help us move forward. Importantly, there were a number of areas of agreement. We heard all of our witnesses last week make clear that there is now evidence that the insurrection was deliberate and coordinated, that it involved white supremacists and extremist groups, and that it was highly dangerous but could have been so much worse if it was not for the actions of brave law enforcement on the front line. We also heard consensus from witnesses who held key leadership positions in charge of the Capitol security. Now, they did not agree on everything, but there was consensus there were breakdowns in intelligence sharing, delays in bringing in the National Guard, and issues concerning the structure of the Capitol Police Board and the decisionmaking process that it is in our unique responsibility to change. I hope that the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation will continue today as we hear testimony from Federal agencies on their roles with respect to intelligence gathering and timely sharing of intelligence, security preparations, the response and the requests for help from the Defense Department as well as their perspectives on how the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) decisionmaking process could be so much better going forward. We know that there were errors made by those in charge of security in the Capitol, and it is always easy, of course, to realize that later than in the moment. But that fact alone to me is not enough to not look back. We must look back because we must do better going forward. We heard last week that the Capitol Police is a consumer-- that was the word of the former Chief of Intelligence. It relies on its Federal partners, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, who have witnesses here today. While we are aware of the FBI raw intelligence report that came out the day before out of the Norfolk office, public reporting has indicated that neither agency, DHS or FBI, produced a threat report, that the FBI did not produce a joint intelligence bulletin, and that DHS did not produce a threat assessment ahead of January 6. The former Police Chief has said that representatives from these agencies indicated they did not have any new intelligence to share at a meeting before the day of the attack. But the insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol, as we know, came prepared for war, as we heard last week. They brought radios, they brought climbing gear to surmount the Capitol's security features, and they brought weapons. We need to hear from the Federal agencies about what was known and when, what was done in response to these foreboding online threats, and how information was shared with the law enforcement partners who depend on them. We need to also understand why, with all the information that was available, the decision to reinforce local police with the National Guard was not made ahead of time. Now, that decision was made--or maybe I should say rather not made by the former House and Senate Sergeant at Arms (SSA) who, in fact, have resigned. Nevertheless, despite the clear breakdowns at the Capitol, we must get to the bottom of why that very day it took the Defense Department so long to deploy the National Guard once the need for reinforcements became patently clear on every TV screen in America. At our hearing last week, Acting Chief Contee provided a disturbing account of how at 2:22 p.m., as the rioters already had broken through police lines, smashed windows at the Capitol, and were breaching the building, all on live television, the initial response from the Defense Department to a request of National Guard support was not to immediately activate the Guard. As the Acting Chief said to us last week, he was ``simply just stunned'' that there was not a more immediate response. Last, an issue of critical importance in today's hearing is the threat posed by domestic terrorism and hate groups and their role in the attack on January 6th. We will never forget the story of the Capitol Police officer who fought against the violent mob for hours, and after it was all over broke down in tears, telling his fellow officers how he had been called the ``N'' word repeatedly that day, and then said, ``Is this America?'' We also will not forget the picture of the insurrectionists proudly waving a Confederate flag in the Capitol rotunda or the images of a rioter in a Camp Auschwitz hoodie. But this rising problem is not just limited to the events on January 6. According to an FBI report, hate crimes in the United States rose to the highest level in more than a decade in 2019. Putting all the dates and the memos aside, there was widespread knowledge of the importance of the date of the rise of violent extremism and that the President of the United States had called out his followers to go to the Capitol that day. The warnings were dismissed, despite the fact that the Vice President, the future Vice President, and the entire Congress was gathered in one place. In the end, it was left to front-line officers, who were severely outnumbered, to protect not only those of us in the Capitol but our democracy itself. They performed heroically under unimaginable circumstances, tragically suffering many injuries and loss of life. That is why we need answers. Thank you. Senator Portman. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN\1\ Senator Portman. Thank you Senator Klobuchar and Senator Peters and Ranking Member Blunt, for the way you all have approached this process. It is important that we keep it bipartisan, I would even say nonpartisan, and I hope that our review continues to set politics aside and focus on the facts, what happened that day, and how can we avoid it happening again. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Portman appears in the Appendix on page 268. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to begin by expressing again my gratitude to law enforcement and the National Guard, who is represented here today. From all over the country, there are National Guard here in the Capitol still, and we appreciate them. We appreciate the fact that law enforcement put their safety on the line to safeguard democracy, also to protect us, and we will never forget that. We owe it to those law enforcement personnel and those National Guard and to all Americans to take a hard look at these security failures, both the preparation that was inadequate, clearly, and the response, which also had some gaps that we will talk about in a moment. How could this have happened that the Capitol was breached and overrun? We got some answers last week at our first joint hearing on the Capitol. I agree with what Senator Klobuchar just said, that it was a constructive first hearing. I thought it was productive, and I thought we were able to get some good information. We heard from the Acting Chief of D.C. Metropolitan Police (MPD), the former Chief of Capitol Police, the former Sergeant at Arms. What was good is that we heard from the people who were actually responsible on that day for making decisions. I am concerned that today we are not going to be hearing from the Department of Defense officials who were actually in place at the time making the decisions, and I hope we will have an opportunity to do that in the future. At last week's hearing, we learned a number of things. We learned that Capitol Police officers were not prepared to respond to an attack like the one we experienced on January 6. They were not given the appropriate training or equipment necessary to protect the Capitol Complex, but also to protect themselves. Also, we learned there were breakdowns in communication on January 6 and in the days leading up to it. The most concerning breakdown in communication, of course, concerned the significant discrepancies between the recollections of the former Chief of Capitol Police and the former Senate and House Sergeant at Arms about requests for backup, for National Guard assistance in particular. Each testified under oath to a different version of events, so we will get to the bottom of that. The witnesses also pointed to lapses in intelligence as a key reason law enforcement was not better prepared. They all claimed no intelligence warned of a coordinated, violent assault of the Capitol. But we know that there were reports out there, both publicly and from the FBI. There was at least one report from the FBI Norfolk Field Office warning of a violent attack on the Capitol. It was received by U.S. Capitol Police, but it never reached the former Chief, it never reached the former Sergeant at Arms, or even the incident commanders on the ground. Many questions remain unanswered. Despite the lack of intelligence, there were warning signs. Numerous online posts called for attacking the Capitol, and the previously mentioned FBI Norfolk field report warned of violence and even war. We need to know what information the intelligence community reviewed prior to January 6th, how it assessed that intelligence and how it characterized the potential for violence when it shared that intelligence with law enforcement. Second, although last week's witnesses disagreed about when the Capitol Police requested National Guard assistance, all agreed that, once requested, it took far too long for the National Guard to arrive. We will dig further into this today. Based on the Defense Department's public timeline, once requested, it took the National Guard over three hours to arrive at the Capitol. Now, remember, we are all watching this on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, and it is a riot. Yet it took more than three hours. The request came in from the Capitol Hill Police Chief Sund at 1:49 p.m., we are told, and the Capitol Hill deployment did not arrive until after 5 p.m. We will hear some different timelines on that today, but all of them are after 5 p.m., closer to 5:30 p.m.. So why did that happen? It is unclear when senior Defense officials authorized the National Guard to deploy. The Defense Department's public timeline states that Army Secretary McCarthy directed the D.C. National Guard to mobilize at 3:04 p.m. But according to the timeline the National Guard provided to the Committee, a Senate briefing from Major General Walker, Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, the instruction to deploy did not arrive until 5:08 p.m. We need to know why the Pentagon took so long to deploy the National Guard. According to the former Chief of Capitol Police and Acting Chief of D.C. Police and Major General Walker, the delay was due in part to concerns about the ``optics'' of the National Guard at the Capitol. We need to know what role, if any, optics played in the delay to provide much-needed assistance to U.S. Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police Department to protect the Capitol and to get people out of the Capitol. By hearing from representatives of the Federal agencies responsible for the intelligence and the National Guard today, we expect to get clear answers to these open questions. Answering these questions is critical to our understanding of where the breakdowns occurred on and before January 6th, and only by understanding where the breakdowns occurred can we make the changes necessary to ensure that something like January 6th never happens again. That is our objective here with this oversight mission. Again, I appreciate the fact that we have been able to keep the politics out of this and focus on the facts and be objective. We have to continue to do that. I look forward to another constructive hearing today. Thanks to our witnesses for being here. I look forward to your testimony. Chairman Peters. The Chair recognize Senator Blunt, Ranking Member Blunt, for your opening comments. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUNT\1\ Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and thanks to Chairwoman Klobuchar. I join my good friend Senator Portman with my appreciation for where we have headed with this so far and my hope that we continue to look at the facts and see where the facts lead us in as much of a nonpartisan way as you can do in a institution like the U.S. Senate. I am glad to join my colleagues for today's hearing to learn more about the decisions and the actions of Federal agencies on January the 6th. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Blunt appears in the Appendix on page 272. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last week's hearing with the Chief of the Metropolitan Police force, the former Chief of the Capitol Police, and the former Sergeants at Arms of the House and the Senate really left in many ways with more questions than answers. The witnesses could not agree on some of the basics of the timeline. I believe we learned at that hearing that the structure and the practice of the Capitol Police Board, which I previously questioned, in fact, asked for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that was issued in 2017, just simply delayed the response and proved to be ill-suited for an emergency on the 6th. Today I hope to learn if the failure of Capitol security leaders was compounded by officials at the Department of Defense, who did not act quickly enough to take the situation seriously enough. I also hope to explore if the failure to alert the leadership of the U.S. Capitol Police or the Metropolitan Police Department of the FBI's Norfolk Situational Information Report (SIR), which warned of ``war'' at the Capitol--and I understand that that information was raw and unverified, but should it make us consider changes in the information-sharing process that we pursue in this structure. All of the agencies participating in these hearing at the most fundamental level exist to uphold and protect the rights of Americans and to protect our form of government. January 6th revealed weaknesses in our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement agencies, and elements of Defense agencies. It would be a mistake for the leadership of those agencies to think it was only a failure of the U.S. Capitol Police leadership or the Capitol Police Board that produced the terrible result we saw that day. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and, again, thanks for holding this hearing, Chairman Peters. Chairman Peters. It is now my privilege to introduce each of the witnesses that we will be hearing from here today, and, again, thank you for your willingness to be with us. Our first witness today is Melissa Smislova. Ms. Smislova is currently the Acting Under Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Ms. Smislova is the Principal Adviser to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security for coordinating with law enforcement officials and intelligence to respond to terrorism and other threats that the Nation faces. She assumed this role on January 20, 2021. Prior to that date and on January 6th, Ms. Smislova was the Deputy Under Secretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Prior to joining DHS, she spent almost 20 years in the field of intelligence analysis, which included time at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Welcome. Our second witness is Jill Sanborn. Since January 2020, Ms. Sanborn has served as the Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division where she helps lead the FBI's efforts to provide information on terrorists and track down known terrorists worldwide. Ms. Sanborn first joined the FBI in 1998 and was assigned to the Phoenix Field Office. Prior to becoming Assistant Director, Ms. Sanborn served as the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Minneapolis FBI Field Office, was detailed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA's) Counterterrorism Center, and worked in both the Washington and Los Angeles Field Offices. Welcome. Our third witness is Robert Salesses. Mr. Salesses is currently performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, which he began on January 20, 2021. Prior to this and on January 6, 2021, he was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). In this role, Mr. Salesses worked closely with Federal, State, and local leadership, law enforcement, public health, and emergency management to oversee DOD's response to national emergency operations in support of civil authorities, including the deployment of the National Guard. Mr. Salesses was appointed to the Senior Executive Service (SES) in 2005. He was awarded the Presidential Rank Award at the rank of Meritorious Executive for his decisive leadership and program management skills and his contributions to the National Response Plan and the National Strategy for Homeland Security. Welcome. Our final witness today is Major General William Walker, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. In this role, General Walker is responsible for the strategic leadership, training, readiness, operational employment, and performance Mead of the Army and Air Force components of the D.C. National Guard. He reports to the Secretary of the Army and is charged with ensuring units are manned, trained, equipped, and ready for war and any national emergency. For 30 years General Walker served as both a National Guardsman and a Special Agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Welcome, General. Chairwoman Klobuchar, those are our witnesses for today. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Peters. If the witnesses could now please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony that you will give before the Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Salesses. I do. Ms. Smislova. I do. Ms. Sanborn. I do. General Walker. I do. Thank you. You can be seated, and I will turn it back over to Chairman Peters. Chairman Peters. I think we will now begin Mr. Salesses for your opening statement. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. SALESSES,\1\ SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE AND GLOBAL SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Mr. Salesses. Thank you, Chairman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Salesses appears in the Appendix on page 273. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Peters, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Members Portman and Blunt, distinguished Members of the Committees, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the Department of Defense's support of civilian law enforcement agencies in securing the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. One of DOD's missions is to support civil authorities, including civilian law enforcement organizations. DOD frequently provides this support during planned major events, like the Presidential Inauguration and State of the Union addresses. Due to the unique nature of the District of Columbia in which numerous governmental organizations exercise a range of jurisdictional authority, ensuring safety and security is the responsibility of the D.C. Government, the U.S. Secret Service (USSS), the U.S. Park Police (USPP), the Marshals Service, the Capitol Police, the Federal Protective Service (FPS), and other civilian law enforcement organizations. DOD provides support to these civilian law enforcement agencies when requested based on their assessment of the support required. Prior to the attack of January 6th, DOD worked closely with Federal law enforcement and D.C. Government partners to determine if they anticipated a need for any DOD or D.C. National Guard support related to the planned protests. On December 31st, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard received a letter from the D.C. Government requesting National Guard support for the D.C. Metro Police at 30 traffic control points and six Metro stations and to make available the D.C. National Guard's Civil Support Team to support D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Over the weekend of January 2nd and 3rd, my staff contacted the Secret Service, the Park Police, the Marshals Service, the FBI, the Capitol Police to determine if they planned to request DOD assistance. None of these law enforcement agencies indicated a need for DOD or D.C. National Guard support. After consultation with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Acting Secretary of Defense approved the D.C. Government request for National Guard personnel to support 30 traffic control points and six Metro stations from January 5th to the 6th. The Acting Secretary also authorized a 40-person Quick Reaction Force (QRF) to be readied at Joint Base Andrews. On January 5th, the Acting Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army received a letter from the Mayor of D.C. stating, ``MPD is prepared'' and ``coordinated with its Federal partners, namely the Park Police, the Capitol Police, and the Secret Service.'' Based on these communications with Federal and local civilian authorities, DOD determined that no additional military support was required on January 5th and 6th. DOD has detailed the events of January 6, 2021 in a memorandum published on defense.gov. I will provide a summary of those key events. After the U.S. Capitol Police ordered the evacuation of the Capitol Complex, the Secretary of the Army and the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard received calls shortly before 2 p.m. from the Mayor of D.C. and the Capitol Police Chief, respectively. At approximately 2:30 p.m., the Secretary of the Army met with the Acting Secretary of Defense and other senior leaders of the Defense Department. After this meeting, the Acting Secretary of Defense determined that all available forces of the D.C. National Guard were required to reinforce the D.C. Metropolitan Police and the U.S. Capitol Police and ordered the full mobilization of the D.C. National Guard at 3:04 p.m. During this period, Major General Walker, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, recalled and made ready the D.C. National Guard forces at the National Guard Armory for deployment to the Capitol Complex. After reviewing the D.C. National Guard's missions, equipping, and responsibilities to be performed at the Capitol Complex in support of the Metropolitan Police and Capitol Police, and conferring with the D.C. Metropolitan Police at their headquarters at 4:10 p.m., the Secretary of the Army received the Acting Secretary of Defense's approval at 4:32 p.m. and ordered the D.C. National Guard forces to depart the Armory for the Capitol Complex. DOD continued to deploy National Guard forces through the evening to support the U.S. Capitol. By 9 p.m. on January 7th, 1,100 National Guard personnel had arrived at the Capitol; by 9 p.m. on January 8th, 1,800 National Guard personnel had arrived at the Capitol. By January 10th, 6,000 National Guard personnel were at the Capitol providing security. DOD continues to support efforts to protect the safety and security of the U.S. Capitol and provide support to our civilian law enforcement partners. From January 9th through the Inauguration, DOD provided nearly 25,000 National Guard personnel to support security in Washington, D.C. Today there are approximately 4,900 National Guard personnel supporting Capitol Police and 500 supporting the Metropolitan Police. Going forward, the Department of Defense is committed to working closely with our Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners, the D.C. Government, and the Congress to ensure that we learn from this event and take all necessary actions to respond and ensure an attack on our Nation's capital never happens again. Chairman Peters, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Members Portman, and Blunt, distinguished Members of the Committees, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. Thank you for your continued commitment and support of the men and women of the Department of Defense. Chairman Peters. Ms. Smislova, you are now recognized for your opening statement. TESTIMONY OF MELISSA SMISLOVA,\1\ ACTING UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Ms. Smislova. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Smislova appears in the Appendix on page 282. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Peters, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Portman, Ranking Member Blunt, and other distinguished Senators, thank you for the opportunity for me to testify with you today. I want to start with saying I am deeply saddened by the terrifying events that you, your staff, your loved ones, and others experienced on January 6th. The country, myself included, watched in horror as our Capitol was attacked. I am here today as the Acting Under Secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, at DHS. I am a career intelligence professional of over 35 years. I am honored to have this opportunity to lead I&A. I have great faith in the workforce and in our mission, which is to focus on a range of homeland threats, including domestic terrorism, and ensuring that our partners across State, local, private sector have the information they need. Before I summarize the actions my office took before January 6th, I do want to say I am deeply concerned that, despite our best efforts, they did not lead to an operational response to prepare and defend the U.S. Capitol. Throughout the 2020 election period and the Presidential transition, I&A produced numerous strategic assessments about the potential for election-related violence from domestic violent extremists (DVE). In 15 unclassified assessments, I&A discussed the heightened threat environment and the potential for domestic violent extremists to mobilize quickly and attack large gatherings or government buildings. These products were intended to increase awareness about the volatile threat environment and enhance both policy and operational planning. They were shared broadly with all levels of government, law enforcement partners, critical infrastructure, including through fusion centers nationwide. I will highlight a few products and engagements. In August, I&A published an assessment on physical threats stemming from the 2020 election, in which we assessed ideologically motivated violent extremists and other violent actors could quickly mobilize to threaten or engage in violence against election or campaign-related targets in response to perceived partisan and policy-based grievances. In October, DHS released its first publicly available Homeland Threat Assessment, which stated racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically white supremacists, would remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland. The assessment also emphasized the breadth of the domestic violent extremism threat, including the heightened threats from election-related violence. A week before the attack, on December 30th, I&A co-authored an intelligence product with the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) highlighting persistent threats to government facilities and law enforcement, noting that perceptions of the outcome of the election could mobilize some extremists to commit violence in the coming months. Additionally, I&A proactively conducted briefings and stakeholder calls before and after the election and leading up to January 6th to share that information. Moving forward, I want to underscore the Department is prioritizing combating domestic terrorism. Specifically, in I&A we are working very closely with our DHS colleagues in the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office, Privacy Office, and our own Intelligence Oversight Office to carefully examine how we can better address the complex and evolving threat in a manner consistent with the Constitution and U.S. law. My office is committed to developing more expertise on domestic terrorism, improving our analysis of social media to better characterize the threat, and ensuring our assessments are received and understood by key decisionmakers. Additionally, the Department has taken these steps since January 6th. In late January, DHS issued our first National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin on domestic terrorism. It warned domestic violent extremists may be emboldened to act in the wake of the U.S. Capitol breach. Domestic violent extremists, which span a diverse set of ideological actors, including racially and ethnically motivated extremists, will continue to exploit lawful, constitutionally protected protests and other events to pursue criminal behavior and commit acts of violence. Also for the first time, Secretary Mayorkas designated domestic violent extremists as a national priority area within the Department's Homeland Security Grant. Let me close by saying that my colleagues at I&A and across DHS are unwavering in our commitment to ensuring the Department is well positioned to combat this evolving threat and protect the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome your questions. Chairman Peters. Thank you. Ms. Sanborn, you are now recognized for your opening comments. TESTIMONY OF JILL SANBORN,\1\ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ms. Sanborn. Good morning, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Member Blunt, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Portman, and Members of the Committees. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Sanborn appears in the Appendix on page 287. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- My name is Jill Sanborn, and I am the Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division within the FBI. It is always an honor to be here with you in the Senate. For those of you that I have not met or you do not know, I actually started my career in public service as a Senate page in 1987 thanks to a sponsorship from my home Senator, Senator Max Baucus. I want to start by offering my condolences to all of you who had to endure up close and personally the violence and destruction that occurred on January 6. The siege on the Capitol Complex while you were carrying out your duties as our elected representatives was not just unacceptable and disturbing; it was criminal. I also want to offer condolences to our partners at U.S. Capitol Police for the loss of one of their brothers, Officer Sicknick. This is a loss to us all in law enforcement. Violence designed to intimidate the population and influence the government is exactly what the FBI's Counterterrorism Division was designed to combat. The men and women of the FBI are not only dedicated to identifying and bringing to justice the individuals involved in the attack on January 6th, but also, and equally as important--and let me stress this--we are committed to working to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Over the last two months, Americans, the Americans you represent, from across the country have sent in over 200,000 digital media tips and reported more than 30,000 leads to our National Threat Operations Center. With this support, we have identified hundreds of people involved in the attack and arrested more than 300, with more and more arrests every day. I want to reiterate something the Director mentioned to some of your colleagues yesterday. As Americans, we are all victims of this assault, and the American people deserve nothing less than our commitment to see this investigation through and to protect them from acts of violence like this in the future. The FBI's number one priority is preventing acts of terrorism. The greatest threat we face is the threat posed by lone actors, both domestic violent extremists and what we refer to as the ``homegrown violent extremists'' (HVE). These actors are especially challenging for law enforcement because, by definition, their insular nature makes them particularly difficult to identify and disrupt before they have an opportunity to act. The FBI has been investigating domestic terrorism throughout our organization's history. However, today's threat is different than it was 100 years ago and continues to evolve. Between 2015 and 2020, racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists were responsible for the most lethal domestic terrorism threat. In fact, 2019 was the most lethal year for domestic violent extremist attacks since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. However, in 2020, three of the four fatal domestic violent extremist attacks were perpetrated by what we call ``antigovernment or anti-authority violent extremists.'' One of those attacks was perpetrated by an anarchist violent extremist in Portland, and, in fact, this was the first fatal anarchist violent extremist attack in over 20 years. 2020 also marked the first year since 2011 that there were no fatal attacks committed by the racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists advocating for the superiority of the white race. I think all of those explain how the threat is persistent and evolving. Looking forward, we assess the domestic violent extremist threat will continue to pose an elevated threat of violence to the United States. We expect racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and antigovernment, anti-authority violent extremists will very likely pose the greatest domestic terrorism threats throughout 2021 and, in fact, leading into 2022. Regardless of the specific perpetrator, the domestic terrorism threat remains persistent, and that is why we must remain focused on countering it. I want to take this opportunity to reemphasize that the FBI's mission to uphold the Constitution and protect the American people is both dual and simultaneous and not contradictory. One does not come at the expense of the other. That said, when a person crosses a line from expressing beliefs to violating Federal law and endangers the communities we serve, we aggressively pursue those threats. Before closing, I want to mention the importance of partnerships in the counterterrorism fight. We simply cannot be successful without them. Our investigations and disruptions rely on these partnerships, and they represent American lives saved in communities around the United States. For instance, in fiscal year (FY) 2020 alone, your Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTFs) across the United States arrested 235 terrorism subjects. We also continue to expand our partnerships in academia, private sector, and within the communities we serve. This is critical because nearly half of our cases are predicated on tips and leads from the community and our law enforcement partners. We in law enforcement cannot and will not tolerate individuals who use the First Amendment as a guise to incite violence. That is true now as we work hard to hold those accountable involved in the events on January 6th, just as it was last summer when individuals exploited peaceful protests as cover for their own violence and disruption. When violent extremists utilize explosive devices, attack government facilities and businesses, or target law enforcement officers, the FBI investigates those unlawful acts, regardless of the underlying ideological motivation. At the FBI we work every threat with the same level of rigor and dedication, and that is what I hope you take away from my testimony today. Thank you again for the opportunity to talk with you about the hard work our folks and our partners are doing every day to keep the country safe. We are grateful for the support that you have provided and continue to provide the men and women of the FBI. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Chairman Peters. Thank you. General Walker, you are now recognized for your opening statement. TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM J. WALKER,\1\ USA COMMANDING GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL GUARD General Walker. Good morning, Chairman Peters, Chairwoman Klobuchar, Ranking Members Portman and Blunt, and Members of the Committees. I am Major General William Walker, the Commanding General for the District of Columbia National Guard, affectionately known as ``Capitol Guardians.'' I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the events of January 6th--a dark chapter in our Nation's history. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Major General Walker appears in the Appendix on page 292. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was personally sickened by the violence and destruction I witnessed that fateful day and the physical and mental harm that came to U.S. Capitol Police officers and Metropolitan Police Department officers, some of whom I met with later that evening and I could see the injuries that they sustained. It is my hope that my recollection of the events and my presentation of the facts as I know them will help your Committees in its investigation and prevent such tragic events from ever occurring again. First, I think it is critical to understand what the District of Columbia National Guard's mission was on January 6th, to include what civilian agency we were supporting and how requests for support of other civilian authorities were handled. On December 31, 2020, the District of Columbia National Guard received written requests from the District of Columbia Mayor, Muriel Bowser, and her Director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Dr. Christopher Rodriguez. The requests sought National Guard support for traffic control and crowd management for planned demonstrations in the District from January 5 through January 6, 2021. After conducting mission analysis to support the District's request, I sent a letter to the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, on January 1st, requesting his approval. I received that approval in a letter dated January 5th granting support of the Metropolitan Police Department with 320 Guardsmen personnel to include a 40-person Quick Reaction Force. The District of Columbia National Guard provides support to the Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Park Police, the United States Secret Service, and other Federal and District law enforcement agencies in response to planned rallies, marches, protests, and other large-scale First Amendment activity on a routine basis. A standard component of such support is the stand-up of an offsite Quick Reaction Force, an element of Guardsmen held in reserve with civil disturbance response equipment--helmets, shields, batons, et cetera. They are postured to quickly respond to an urgent and immediate need for assistance by civil authorities. The Secretary of the Army's January 5th letter to me withheld that authority for me to employ the Quick Reaction Force. Additionally, the Secretary of the Army's memorandum to me required that a ``concept of operation'' (CONOP) be submitted to him before the employment of the Quick Reaction Force. I found that requirement to be unusual as was the requirement to seek approval to move Guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department to move from one traffic control point to another. At 1:30 p.m. on January 6th, we watched as the Metropolitan Police Department began to deploy officers to support the Capitol Police. In doing so, the officers began to withdraw from the traffic control points that were jointly manned with District of Columbia Guardsmen. At 1:49 p.m., I received a frantic call from then-Chief of United States Capitol Police Steven Sund, where he informed me that the security perimeter of the United States Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters. Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency at the Capitol, and he requested the immediate assistance of as many available National Guardsmen that I could muster. Immediately after that 1:49 p.m. call, I alerted the U.S. Army senior leadership of the request. The approval for Chief Sund's request would eventually come from the Acting Secretary of Defense and be relayed to me by Army senior leaders at 5:08 p.m.--about 3 hours and 19 minutes later. I already had Guardsmen on buses at the Armory ready to move to the Capitol. Consequently, at 5:20 p.m.--in less than 20 minutes--the District of Columbia National Guard arrived at the Capitol and were being sworn in by the United States Capitol Police. We helped to establish the security perimeter at the east side of the Capitol to facilitate the resumption of the Joint Session of Congress. In conclusion, I am grateful for the Guardsmen from the 53 States and territories who supported the District of Columbia National Guard's Operation Capitol Response and helped to ensure a peaceful transition of power on January 20th. In particular, I am grateful for the timely assistance of our close neighbors from the Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland National Guard who augmented D.C. National Guard forces in establishing the security perimeter. I am honored to lead these citizen soldiers and airmen. These are your constituents, many of whom have left behind their families, careers, their education, their businesses, to help ensure the protection and safety of the United States Capitol and those who serve in it every day. Thank you for the opportunity to brief you today, and thank you for your continued support of the National Guard. I look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you again. Chairman Peters. Thank you, General Walker. Thank you for your testimony, and, again, I know I speak on behalf of everybody in this joint Committee room that we fully support the men and women of the National Guard and appreciate your work on that day and continue to appreciate the service you are providing to your country and protecting the Capitol as well as country. So thank you again. General Walker, I want to start my questioning by going back in time a little bit prior to the events on January 6th. My question is: In June 2020, as violence was escalating during the summer protests, were you able to immediately receive approval from the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense to deploy National Guard to assist law enforcement at that time? General Walker. Senator Peters, I was. Yes, sir. The Secretary of the Army was with me for most of that week. He came to the Armory. I was in constant communication with him when we were not together. Chairman Peters. So you were immediately able to receive approval in June 2020. From your testimony, I want to be clear, were you able to immediately receive approval from the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense to deploy the National Guard on January 6th? General Walker. No, sir. Chairman Peters. In your opening remarks, you said that a January 5th memo was unusual. Could you explain to the Committee why it was unusual? What was the impact of the memo that you received on January 5th? General Walker. The memo was unusual in that it required me to seek authorization from the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense to essentially even protect my Guardsmen. So no civil disturbance equipment could be authorized unless it came from the Secretary of Defense. Now, the Secretary of the Army, to his credit, did tell me that I could have force protection equipment with the Guardsmen, so we did have helmets, shin guards, vests. We did have that with us. But that came from the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary of Defense told me I needed his permission to escalate to have that kind of protection. Chairman Peters. That kind of protection, even though you would be engaged in force protection, to protect your men and women, before you could do that, you would have to get approval from the Secretary of Defense? General Walker. The memo from the Secretary of Defense made clear that I needed his permission to have--so what it says, ``Without my personal authorization, the District of Columbia National Guard is not authorized the following: to be issued weapons, ammunition, bayonets, batons, or ballistic protection equipment such as helmets and body armor.'' Now, again, to be clear, the Secretary of the Army told me to go ahead and issue that equipment. We never were going to have weapons or ammunition, and we no longer have bayonets. But we do have ballistic protection equipment--helmets, body armor--and so I did have that with each Guardsman. Chairman Peters. Thank you, General. But that was unusual, as you mentioned, to have that kind of request. You were on the January 6th phone call at 2:30 p.m. that we heard in our previous hearing where the Chief of Capitol Police was making an urgent appeal for help, and we heard that the D.C. Metro Police Chief said it was a tepid response, he was shocked by it. What happened on that call? What was your recollection of the call? And the assessment of the two individuals I mentioned, was that your assessment as well? General Walker. Yes, sir. So that call came in. We actually helped facilitate it. The Deputy Mayor from the District of Columbia, Dr. Rodriguez, Chief Contee, Chief Sund later joined the conversation, and we dialed in the senior leadership of the U.S. Army. At that time, Chief Contee and Chief Sund passionately pleaded for District of Columbia National Guard to get to the Capitol with all deliberate speed. The Army senior leaders did not think that it looked good, it would be a good optic. They further stated that it could incite the crowd. Their best military advice would be to the Secretary of the Army, who could not get on the call--we wanted the Secretary of the Army to join the call, but he was not available. We were told that he was with the Secretary of Defense and not available. But the Army senior leadership expressed to Chief Contee, Chief Sund, Dr. Mitchell, the Deputy Mayor, and others on the call that it would not be their best military advice to have uniformed Guardsmen on the Capitol. Chairman Peters. During the call, you are saying that optics was raised on that call specifically. I want to go back to the question I started. You said that you were able to get immediate authorization in the summer of 2020 during those protests. General Walker, was the issue of optics ever brought up by Army leadership when the D.C. National Guard was deployed during the summer of 2020? Was that discussed? General Walker. It was never discussed the week of June. It was never discussed July 4th when we were supporting the city. It was never discussed August 28th when we supported the city. Chairman Peters. Did you think that was unusual? General Walker. I did. Chairman Peters. Let us put it in context. In your opening statement, you mentioned the National Guard troops that were ready to go. You had them back at the Armory. How many folks were in the Armory ready to go once the order was given? At what time were they ready to go? General Walker. I had them ready to go shortly after the phone call, so at 1500 I directed that the Quick Reaction Force that was based on Andrews Air Force Base leave the base, get to the Armory at all deliberate speed. I had a police escort bring them to the Armory. They returned to the Armory in about 20 minutes, so we had them sit there waiting. Then in anticipation of a green light, a go, we put Guardsmen on buses. We brought them inside the Armory so nobody would see them putting on the equipment and getting on the buses. Then we waited to get the approval, and that is why we were able to get to the Capitol in about 18 minutes. Chairman Peters. What time were they on the buses ready to go? Do you recall? General Walker. Before 5 p.m. But at 5 p.m. I decided, there has to be an approval coming, so get on the buses, get the equipment on, get on the buses, and just wait. Then a few minutes after that, we did get the approval. I was on a secure videoconference when the Army leadership conveyed to me that the Secretary of Defense had authorized the employment of the National Guard at the Capitol. My timeline has 1708--5:08 p.m. is when we wrote down that we had approval, and that was about eight people in the office with me when I got that approval. Chairman Peters. How many Guardsmen were ready? You said right immediately--earlier in the afternoon---- General Walker. It was about 155. Chairman Peters. You could have sent 155 much earlier. What would have been the impact of sending those 155 right around that 2 p.m. timeframe? General Walker. Based on my experience with the summer, I have 39 years in the National Guard. I was in the Florida Guard, Hurricane Andrew. I have been involved in civil disturbances. I believe that number could have made a difference. We could have helped extend the perimeter and helped push back the crowd. Chairman Peters. Ms. Sanborn and Ms. Smislova, last week we heard from former law enforcement officials who stated that a lack of intelligence reporting was the main reason for Capitol Police not being fully prepared for the January 6th attack. My question to both of you, yes or no: Would you agree that the intelligence community failed to sufficiently identify the threat and warn the Capitol Police of a plot to breach the Capitol, a plot that was planned in public and announced in advance in a number of open sources? Ms. Sanborn. I think this is on. I will start. I would not necessarily categorize it that way, sir. But I will tell you, I think you have heard us say before there is not an agent that would not want more tools in their toolbox. There is not an analyst that would not want more intelligence, and I think I would just paint a quick picture for you the challenges we faced are the immense amount of rhetoric out there and what we are trying to separate is aspirational from intent and combine in, and in order to get to that intent, we are really thinking about private communications and oftentimes encryption. I would say that what we were faced with is the challenge of the amount of data and then really trying to find, because of the volume and because of private communications, intent that then would have given us the intelligence picture potentially to shed light on what some of the plans and intentions, indicators and warnings, as our military folks might say. Chairman Peters. Ms. Smislova, quickly please. Ms. Smislova. Yes, sir. I will defer to you, Senator, your colleagues, and other oversight entities such as this one to actually determine what went wrong on January 6th. I do not feel I am empowered or have enough information to declare whether or not this is an intelligence failure. I do know, however, it was not a success, and we will do everything we can to make sure that what we know is better distributed and understood by our partners. To echo the Bureau's point, we will also do more to better understand how we can identify the next steps that we see on social media with this particular threat. Chairman Peters. Clearly, we have to do a much better job, and I am sure this will be explored in depth in questioning from my colleagues here. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman. I want to start by asking you the same questions I asked our witnesses last week, and that is, based on what you know now, including the recent Justice Department indictments, do you agree there is clear evidence that supports the conclusion that there were those who planned and coordinated the attack on the Capitol on January 6th? Does everyone agree with that? Yes? No? [Witnesses nodding heads.] Ms. Sanborn. We are seeing indications from our charging documents of people that coalesced together before and made some plans. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. So everyone is a yes on this? Does someone want to say if they are a no? I do not want to call on everyone. Are you all a yes? Ms. Smislova. Yes. Ms. Sanborn. Yes, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Then would you agree that it involved white supremacists and extremist groups, the planning? Is everyone a yes on that? Ms. Sanborn. Ma'am, I would just say that we are seeing a wide range of involvement and still a lot left to be identified, a lot of---- Chairwoman Klobuchar. No. Does it involve white supremacists and--that is what I am asking--extremist groups? Ms. Sanborn. Some. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Was the event not planned by Antifa? Ms. Sanborn. At this point we have not identified a specific individual that we have charged associating or self- identifying with Antifa. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Would you all agree that what happened was a highly dangerous situation that had the potential to be much worse if it was not for the heroic actions of the front-line officers? Ms. Smislova. Yes. Ms. Sanborn. Yes. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. All right. General Walker, I am going to start with you. I was not going to start here, but I am after what I just heard. Chief Contee had said that he was stunned at the response from the Department of the Army when former Police Chief Sund requested assistance from the Guard. What is your reaction to what Contee said? Were you frustrated on that call as well? General Walker. Yes, I was, Senator Klobuchar. I was frustrated. I was just as stunned as everybody else on the call. Chairwoman Klobuchar. I understand--and correct me if I am wrong--that with the National Guard it is much better to prepare them and call them into action and have a plan, which I know that I have heard from Mr. Salesses that people tried to do--they called the Chief, they called people and said, ``Do you want to have the Guard mobilized?'' There was a discussion between you and Sund leading up to January 6th in which this was discussed, and you did not get a clear direction to have them mobilized. Is that correct? General Walker. Yes, ma'am. I talked to Chief Sund on Sunday. I talked to him Saturday and Sunday. We talk. We are friends. I have known him for a long time. So on Sunday, I asked him, ``Are you going to request D.C. National Guard help? If you do, I need it in writing.'' It has to be formal because the Secretary of Defense has to approve it. He told me he was not allowed to request the support, and I asked him if he wanted me to share that, and he said, ``No. I cannot even ask you for the support,'' is what he told me. But he did say, ``But if I do call you, will you be able to support me?'' I said, ``Yes, but I have to get approval from the Secretary of the Army and ultimately the Secretary of Defense because it is a Federal request.'' Chairwoman Klobuchar. Exactly. As we have heard from Chief Sund last week, he had been denied by the Sergeant at Arms, and that is a subject for last week. But the subject for today is, given all that, and we know we would have been in much better shape if they had been called in ahead and if he had had authority, that now we are to the day, and it is 2:22 p.m., and you are on the phone with them, and you are asking for this authorization--which you felt it was unusual to get. Is that right? General Walker. I thought the delay was unusual. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Yes. General Walker. We were already in support of the Metropolitan Police Department, and when the Metropolitan Police Department left the traffic control points, what I wanted to do was take those Guardsmen and move them to the Capitol immediately. My logic was we would have been in support of the Metropolitan Police Department who was supporting the United States Capitol Police at that point. Chairwoman Klobuchar. I just keep imagining the scene. The whole country, the whole world is seeing this on TV. You have the police line breached at this moment. You have smashed windows. You have insurrectionists going through the police lines. You are on the phone. Everyone is seeing this on TV, and they are not immediately approving your request. In your recent testimony, you just said, ``Hey, I could have gotten them on those buses and ready to go.'' Is that correct? General Walker. That is correct, Senator. Chairwoman Klobuchar. As you just testified in response to Senator Peters, you believe that would have made a difference to have them at the perimeter at a sooner point, and I know that the people in charge of Capitol security felt the same. General Walker. Yes, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. And so you could have had them there earlier, hours earlier, if it had been approved. Then you had them on the bus, and so they were actually sitting on the bus for a short period of time--right?--waiting, because you thought, well, they have to honor the request. Is that how your head was working, so you actually put them on the bus so they were ready to go, but you could not let the buses go? General Walker. Yes, Senator. I just came to the conclusion that eventually I am going to get approval, and at that point seconds mattered, minutes mattered. I needed to be ready to get them there as quick as possible. I already had a District of Columbia National Guard Military Police vehicle in front of the bus to help get through any traffic lights. We were there in 18 minutes. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Eighteen minutes. General Walker. I arrived at 1720. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. General Walker. Yes, and they were sworn in as soon as they got there, and they made a difference, according to the Capitol Police. Chairwoman Klobuchar. According to a lot of us, and I just keep thinking of the hours that went by and the people who were injured and the officers whose lives were changed forever. A lot has been reported about the Quick Response Force that was waiting at Andrews Air Force Base to be deployed to D.C. just in case. Now, that force was set up as additional troops to support the Guard's traffic control mission as needed. Is that right? General Walker. Yes, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. The Quick Response Force could not be deployed to the Capitol immediately once the violence began because they were not outfitted for riot control. Is that right? General Walker. No, ma'am. They were outfitted. The Quick Reaction Force was District of Columbia Air National Guard, Security Forces Squadron. Most of those Guardsmen are law enforcement officers in their civilian positions. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Got it. General Walker. They were ready to go, and they were outfitted with all the equipment that they needed. Chairwoman Klobuchar. They were out at Andrews. General Walker. They were at Andrews. I just took it upon myself to move them without permission. I just moved them to the Armory so they would be closer as well. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Who was on that conversation with you, you mentioned from the Defense Department? I know who was on there from the police in D.C. General Walker. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, he was in charge of operations for the Army. The Director of the Army staff was on the call, and Lieutenant General Piatt. There were other senior civilian leaders from the United States Army, and other high-ranking general officers were on the call as well. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Do you remember who was mostly talking about the optics, the questions that Senator Peters asked you and their concern about that? General Walker. Yes. During the phone call with the District of Columbia leaders, the Deputy Mayor, Chief Sund, Dr. Rodriguez, who was talking about optics, were General Flynn and General Piatt. They both said it would not be in their best military advice to advise the Secretary of the Army to have uniformed Guard's members at the Capitol during the election confirmation. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Salesses, could you explain why they would say such a thing? I know you were not on the call, and you were the one that they sent here on behalf of the Defense Department, but you were not on the call. Do you have any idea why this delay occurred when, as Senator Peters has well pointed out, it did not occur in other incidences? Mr. Salesses. Senator, as you point out, I was not on the calls, any of the calls---- Chairwoman Klobuchar. We know that. That is why I spent my time talking to someone who was. Mr. Salesses. Right. However, Senator, in preparation for the hearing, I have had the opportunity to talk to General Walker. I have had the opportunity to talk to General Piatt and other general officers on the Army staff. I have also had the opportunity to talk to Secretary McCarthy in preparation for the hearing so that I could understand the details of---- Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. If you could answer my question-- there are so many of my colleagues waiting--why this happened. Mr. Salesses. General Piatt told me yesterday that he did not say anything about optics. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Maybe he meant he did not use the word ``optics''? Or are you saying that General Walker, who just testified that they were concerned about this, is wrong or that---- Mr. Salesses. General Piatt told me yesterday, Senator, that he did not use the word ``optics.'' Chairwoman Klobuchar. I will let General Walker answer this, but I think what he is talking about is the general concern was that they were more concerned about how this would appear and it was in their best advice--and I guess what bears out his testimony is that they did not send the National Guard there for hours. They did not give the authorization for him as he waited with his troops to go over to the Capitol. Mr. Salesses. Senator, in fairness to the Committee, General Piatt is not a decisionmaker. The only decisionmakers on the 6th of January were the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy. There was a chain of command from the Secretary of Defense to Secretary McCarthy to General Walker. That was the chain of command. There is lots of staff that is involved in obviously having discussions, but to be clear, on that day that was the chain of command. Chairwoman Klobuchar. I think we should give General Walker a moment to respond here, and then I will be done. General Walker. Yes, Senator, so the chain of command is the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, William Walker, Commanding General, District of Columbia National Guard. Can I just make a correction? I said Lieutenant General Mike Flynn. It was Lieutenant General Charles Flynn. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Got it. General Walker. I am sorry. I just wanted to correct that. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. General Walker. But there were people in the room with me on that call that heard what they heard. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. We will have to follow up with more questions. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Chairman Peters. Ranking Member Portman, you are recognized for your questions. Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and thanks to our witnesses. General Walker, can we continue to talk about your recollection, if you do not mind? This morning you have testified that you received this letter from Army Secretary McCarthy on January 5th, so the day before the attack on the Capitol. In that letter, did Secretary McCarthy prohibit you from employing the National Guard's Quick Reaction Force without his authorization? General Walker. I have the letter in front of me, and the Secretary of Defense says that I have to use it as a last resort. But the Secretary of the Army told me--and I have the letter--that I could not use the Quick Reaction Force. I will just read it: ``I withhold authority to approve employment of the District of Columbia National Guard Quick Reaction Force and will do so only as a last resort in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. I will require a concept of operation prior to authorizing employment of a Quick Reaction Force.'' Now, a Quick Reaction Force normally is a commander's tool to go help either a civilian agency but more typically to help the National Guardsmen who are out there and need assistance. Senator Portman. I think it is the very definition of a Quick Reaction Force to be able to react quickly. General Walker. Yes, sir. Senator Portman. When you have to go through that kind of an authorization, including coming up with a concept of operation before the Secretary or, as you say, the Secretary of Defense--so the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of Defense--would approve deployment seems to me to be contrary to the whole concept of a Quick Reaction Force. General Walker. Just to be clear, the Secretary of Defense said I could use it as a last resort. Senator Portman. Last resort, right. General Walker. But the Secretary of the Army says that I could only use it after he gave me permission, and only then after a concept of operation was---- Senator Portman. Right, and we talked about the chain of command earlier, so your chain of command is both of these gentlemen. In other words, you did not have the authority to deploy that Quick Reaction Force based on either the letter or the earlier memo that went from the Secretary of Defense-- Acting Secretary of Defense--to the Secretary of the Army. Is that correct? General Walker. That is correct, yes, sir. Senator Portman. I also thought it was odd--and I think you said it was unusual and very prescriptive--that the January 5th letter required the Secretary of the Army to approve the movement of deployed Guardsmen from one traffic control point to another. Did you find that unusual? General Walker. In 19 years, I never had that before happen. So on that day, the Metropolitan Police, as they would any other day, requested that a traffic control point move one block over. No traffic was where they were, so they wanted the traffic control point to move one block. I had to get permission. I told them, ``I will get back to you.'' I contacted Lieutenant General Piatt, who contacted the Secretary of the Army. I had to explain where that traffic control point was in relationship to the Capitol. Only then did I get permission to move the three National Guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department---- Senator Portman. These are three unarmed National Guardsmen who were helping with traffic control, in part so that Metropolitan Police could do other things, and they were not permitted to move a block away without getting permission from the Secretary of the Army. Is that true? General Walker. That is correct. Senator Portman. Yes. Then in your testimony, you also talk about riot gear. That January 4th memorandum from Acting Secretary Miller to the Army Secretary required the personal approval of the Secretary of Defense for the National Guard to be issued riot gear. Is that correct? General Walker. That is correct. But the Secretary of the Army told me to go ahead and put it in the vehicles, so I give him credit for that. Senator Portman. Yes, and you said that earlier. You gave him credit for saying at least to have it there so it was accessible. General Walker. Yes. Senator Portman. But, still, you could not prepare for a civil disturbance without getting permission from the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense. Is that true? General Walker. Normally, for a safety and force protection matter, a commander would be able to authorize his Guardsmen to protect themselves with a helmet and protective equipment. Senator Portman. As I said earlier, I am disappointed we do not have someone from DOD who actually was there at the time. I think you are being put in a tough position, Mr. Salesses. But, Mr. Salesses, I have to ask you, why did the Department of Defense impose these restrictions on General Walker's control of the National Guard on January 6th? Mr. Salesses. Senator, Secretary Miller wanted to make the decisions of how the National Guard was going to be employed on that day. As you will recall, Senator, the spring events, there was a number of things that happened during those events that Secretary Miller, as the Acting Secretary---- Senator Portman. Yes, clearly he wanted to. The question is why and how unusual--don't you think that is unusual based on your experience at DOD? Mr. Salesses. Senator, there was a lot of things that happened in the spring---- Senator Portman. But don't you think that was unusual? Mr. Salesses [continuing]. That the Department was criticized for--sir, if I could, Senator, civil disturbance operations, that authority rests with the Secretary of Defense. If somebody was going to make a decision about employing military members against U.S. citizens in a civil disturbance operation---- Senator Portman. Let us talk about the Quick Reaction Force then. Again, you have a lot of experience, your background--we appreciate your being here. Again, you were not making the decisions that day. They kind of put you forward here as the person to answer questions based on your discussions with individuals. But isn't the purpose of a Quick Reaction Force to quickly react to unfolding situations? Mr. Salesses. Senator, it is. It is designed to do that. Senator Portman. Isn't requiring a pre-submitted concept of operations antithetical to the idea of an enabling quick reaction? Mr. Salesses. Again, Senator, I would call our attention to the Quick Reaction Force that day was designed to respond to the traffic control points and the Metro stations. We did not have a Quick Reaction Force to respond to the events that unfolded on the Capitol. Senator Portman. I do not know that that is true. General Walker, did you not have a Quick Reaction Force as part of the D.C. Police? I think you did. You had police officers who were also Guardsmen who were involved in your Quick Reaction Force, correct? General Walker. I did. Senator Portman. Wouldn't they have been appropriate to respond to the attack on the Capitol? General Walker. In my opinion, they would have been. Senator Portman. I do not know. Look, again, I wish we had the people who were making the decision, Mr. Salesses, and I do not want to put you in this position, but you are all we have in terms of talking to DOD today. In your opinion, did the attack on the Capitol constitute a last resort? Mr. Salesses. A last resort, you mean an immediate response, Senator? Senator Portman. No. Remember, in the letter it said only as a last resort. Do you think a last resort situation occurred when there was an attack on the Capitol? Mr. Salesses. There was certainly a last resort situation that occurred, Senator. Senator Portman. Why did it take the Department of Defense so long to authorize the use of the National Guard in particular, the use of the QRF? Mr. Salesses. Senator, I can relay what I have obtained from my discussions with the personnel that were involved that day, and if you would like to go through the timeline, or just answer the question based on why the decisionmakers--in this case, Secretary McCarthy, if we go through the timeline, clearly at 2:22 p.m., as has been mentioned today, Secretary McCarthy at 2:30 p.m., as I pointed out in my oral statement, went down and saw Secretary Miller at 2:30 p.m. At 3:04 p.m. Secretary Miller made the decision to mobilize the entire National Guard. That meant that he was calling in all the National Guard members that were assigned to the D.C. National Guard. At 3:04 p.m. that decision was made. Between that period of time, between 3:04 p.m. and 4:10 p.m., Secretary McCarthy wanted to understand, the dynamics of the Capitol law with the explosives and the shots fired. He wanted to understand the employment of how the National Guard was going to be sent to the Capitol, what their missions were going to be. Were they going to be clearing buildings? Would they be doing perimeter security? How would they be equipped? He wanted to understand how they were going to be armed, because, obviously, shots had been fired. He was asking a lot of questions to understand exactly how they were going to be employed here at the Capitol and how many National Guard members needed to be employed on the Capitol. Senator Portman. Let me just say, with all due respect--and my time is coming to an end--three hours and 19 minutes from the first call--plea, really, with his voice cracking with emotion, as the Major General said, you have Chief of Police Sund saying, ``Help. We need help now.'' Three hours and 19 minutes, and that cannot happen again. Do you agree with that? Mr. Salesses. Senator, I do. Senator Portman. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good. Ranking Member Blunt. Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairwoman. General Walker, if the restrictions on your authorities had not been put in place by DOD, what would you have done when Chief Sund called you at 1:49 p.m. on January 6 with an urgent request for National Guard assistance? General Walker. I would have immediately pooled all the Guardsmen that were supporting the Metropolitan Police Department. They had the gear in the vehicles. I would have had them assemble in the Armory and then get on buses and go straight to the Armory and report to the most ranking Capitol Police officer they saw and take direction. Let me add this. One of my lieutenant colonels on his own initiative went to the Capitol anticipating that we were going to be called. He would have been there, and he met with Deputy Chief Carroll of the Metropolitan Police Department, who asked him, ``Where is the National Guard? How come they are not here?'' This colonel said, ``Well, I am sure they are coming, and I am here to scout out where they are going to be when they get here.'' So that was the plan. I would have sent them there immediately. As soon as I hung up, my next call would have been to my subordinate commanders, get every single Guardsman in this building and everybody that is helping the Metropolitan Police, re-mission them to the Capitol without delay. Senator Blunt. How quickly do you think you could have had people here? I think you said a minute ago that the Guard had moved from Andrews to the Armory here by 3:30 p.m. Is that right? General Walker. Yes, sir. Senator Blunt. How quickly was the colonel here that was-- -- General Walker. He came with the police, so---- Senator Blunt. He was here immediately. General Walker. Yes, sir, he was here immediately. When the Metropolitan Police left some of the traffic control points, my colonel left with them and came straight to the Capitol, anticipating that that is where the fire was and that fire needed to be put out. Senator Blunt. There certainly was concern here immediately. In fact, yesterday I saw a message that I sent Mr. Elder, who was the Director of the Rules Committee for me when I was Chairman at the time, and the quote on that text message, was: ``Could this information about the Defense Department and the National Guard possibly be true?'' That is 3:09 p.m., already wondering where Senator Klobuchar and I and other Senators were, ``Could it possibly be true that the Defense Department was not sending the Guard immediately?'' Mr. Salesses, on the January 5th letter, that is described as Secretary McCarthy relaying new restrictions from the Acting Secretary of Defense Miller, Christopher Miller. Would that be accurate? Would those be new instructions? Do you agree that General Walker had more flexibility before those instructions than he did after? I think that is a yes or no. Do you agree he had more flexibility before those instructions than he did after? That would be one question. Two, would it be fair to say those were new instructions or not? Mr. Salesses. Senator, General Walker, in fairness to him, cannot respond to a civil disturbance operation without the authority of the Secretary of Defense. So absent these memos, General Walker would have had to get approval to respond to the Capitol through the Secretary of Defense. Senator Blunt. Let us talk about that approval process. I think you said a minute ago to Senator Portman ``if you would like to go through the timeline.'' I assume you are talking about the Department of Defense timeline that I have in front of me. You mentioned 1504 as one of your reference points. At 1519, or 3:19 p.m., that timeline says, ``Secretary of the Army phone call with Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi about the nature of Mayor Bowser's request. Secretary of the Army explains Acting Secretary of Defense already approved full D.C. National Guard--``mobilization.'' Would that be right as of 3:19 p.m.? Mr. Salesses. That would be accurate, but if I could clarify what mobilization---- Senator Blunt. Let me go one step further. Then I will let you do that. At 1526, 3:26 p.m., ``Secretary of the Army phone call with Mayor Bowser and Metropolitan Police Chief relays that there is no denial of their request and conveys Acting Secretary of Defense approval of the activation of full National Guard.'' On your timeline, within seven minutes, one is mobilization, the other is activation. Go ahead and explain what those two things mean? Mr. Salesses. Senator, those words are being used interchangeably. What Secretary Miller did at 1504 on January 6th was authorize the mobilization or activation of the National Guard, the D.C. National Guard. All that does, sir, is provide for the National Guard to be called in from wherever their homes are to come to the Armory. That is what the mobilization/activation order was---- Senator Blunt. I wonder if that is what Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi thought it meant. Now, you cannot answer that. Only they could. I also wonder if that is what Mayor Bowser thought it meant when they were told at 3:19 p.m. and 3:26 p.m. that the Guard was being mobilized and the Guard was being activated. I do not expect you to be able to answer what they thought. I know I would have assumed that that meant the Guard was on the way, unless I was specifically told, well, they are mobilized, but they really will not be there until we make a decision hours later. At 4:32 p.m. the Acting Secretary of Defense provides verbal authorization to re-mission D.C. National Guard to conduct perimeter and clearance operations. That is 4:32 p.m. That is an hour and 10 or so minutes later. Is that the moment when the Guard was told they could move forward? Mr. Salesses. Yes, Senator, it is. Senator Blunt. Do you agree with that, General Walker? General Walker. No, sir. I did not get approval until a little bit after 5 p.m., and I got that from the Secretary of the Army, who was relayed to me. I never talked to Secretary of Defense Miller, and I did not talk to the Secretary of the Army. Army senior leaders told me at about 1708, 5:08, p.m., that the Secretary of Defense has authorized our approval to support the Capitol. Mr. Salesses. Senator, if I could, in fairness to General Walker, too, that is when the Secretary of Defense made the decision, at 4:32 p.m. As General Walker has pointed out, because I have seen all the timelines, he was not told that until 5:08 p.m. Senator Blunt. How is that possible, Mr. Salesses? Do you think that the decision in the moment we were in was made at 4:32 p.m. and the person that had to be told was not told for more than half an hour after the decision was made? Mr. Salesses. Senator, I think that is an issue. There was decisions that were being made. There was communications that needed to take place. Then there was actions that had to be taken. All of that was happening at simultaneous times by different individuals, and I think that part of the challenge is that some of the delayed communications probably put some of the challenges that we had that day. Senator Blunt. I would think so. If you have to have the communication before General Walker and the National Guard can take the action and the communication does not occur for over half an hour, that is a significant problem for the future if we do not figure out how the decision, the communication, and the action all happen as nearly to the same time as they possibly can. Mr. Salesses. I agree, Senator. Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairwoman. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Senator Hassan. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Klobuchar and Chair Peters and our Ranking Members Blunt and Portman, for this hearing. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, and I want to thank you all for your service to our country. I want to start with a question for Ms. Smislova, please. It is about a topic that I asked about last week. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to designate events with national significance as National Special Security Events (NSSE), and these designated events receive expanded Federal support for event security. Factors used to determine National Special Security Event designations include the attendance of U.S. officials as well as the size and significance of the event. In our hearing last week, the former officials in charge of security here at the Capitol testified that DHS did not reach out to U.S. Capitol officials about designating January 6th Joint Session of Congress as a National Special Security Event. Ms. Smislova, to your knowledge, did any Department of Homeland Security officials ever consider or recommend designating the January 6th Joint Session of Congress as a National Special Security Event? Ms. Smislova. Thank you, Senator. No. To my knowledge, no one at the Department of Homeland Security did consider designating January 6th as an NSSE. Also, to my knowledge, no one responsible for protecting the Capitol asked for such a designation. Senator Hassan. Right, but when we are talking about an NSSE, you do not need a request from the Capitol---- Ms. Smislova. You do not. That is correct. Senator Hassan. DHS could have initiated it. What is the Department's current policy and process for designating National Special Security Events? Were there any procedural issues blocking such a designation in spite of the growing evidence of intelligence available to Federal security officials prior to the event? Ms. Smislova. I am sorry, Senator. I am running currently the Office of Intelligence and Analysis for DHS. We have a small role in the NSSE process, but I am not qualified to speak about the whole process. It is fairly complicated. I am happy to have Secret Service reach out to you, ma'am, if you would like me to follow up with that. Senator Hassan. I think it is really important for us to understand what the processes are. Ms. Smislova. Yes. Senator Hassan. We had, as has been pointed out, the Vice President, the Vice President-elect, all Members of Congress in one location at an event where there was clear intelligence that might turn violent, and there appears to have been no communication or effort by DHS to designate this in a way that would have had the security that we are now standing about stood up ahead of time in an effective way. Ms. Smislova. Happy to follow back up with you, Ma'am. Senator Hassan. I would look forward to following up with you on that. Ms. Smislova. Yes. Senator Hassan. I want to turn to Ms. Sanborn now. According to a recent report, the FBI has currently charged 257 people associated with the events on January 6th. Of the individuals charged to date in relation to the attacks of January 6th, how many were already under investigation by the Bureau? Ms. Sanborn. Ma'am, I would have to get you the specific number, but I can only recall from my memory one of the individuals that was under investigation prior. Senator Hassan. Was that because the FBI is limited in its tools or capacity to monitor, charge, or arrest these individuals prior to January 6th? Was this a manpower issue? I am just trying to understand, understanding looking back now, what might have made a difference in being able to move against some of those individuals sooner. Ms. Sanborn. Yes, I think that is a great question. I think it is twofold. It is the complexity of trying to gather the right intelligence that helps us predict indicators and warnings, and I spoke earlier about while there is a volume out there of rhetoric, trying to figure out that intent is very challenging for us in the intel community because it happens on private comms and encryption. So that is one aspect. Then the other aspect is, of the people that we were investigating, so predicated investigations, we do not necessarily have the ability to mitigate the threat they might pose by travel if we do not have a charge. I think you are tracking that we were aware of some of our subjects that intended to come here. We took overt action by going and talking to them and trying to get them to not come, and that worked in the majority of our already predicated cases. Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you. I would look forward to following up with the FBI more about that. I also have another question for you about the FBI's information-sharing practices. On January 5th the FBI Norfolk Field Office issued a report that some extremists were preparing to travel to Washington and commit acts of violence. That report eventually made it to a U.S. Capitol Police analyst, but it did not make it to the former Capitol Police Chief, Mr. Sund. I think it is important for us to understand whether this was a failure in information-sharing product or practice. What is the standard policy for disseminating reports like that? Ms. Sanborn. Yes, ma'am, that is a great question, and I would just like to segue into that that part of the reason we were able to get that intelligence report from the Norfolk office is because we made it a national collection priority for all 56 field offices to collect whatever they could on the Joint Session as well as Inauguration. When they collected that information, they did follow our normal process, and I think we heard yesterday from the Director, and went above and beyond that process. They documented it quickly within the Situational Information Report, and they disseminated it three different ways--in writing, via email, verbally--and then also put it in what we call the Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal (LEEP), which is available to all State and local partners across the United States. Senator Hassan. I am trying to understand, though, how it did not get elevated or communicated to the highest level. Who was the highest official in the FBI to be informed of the intelligence? Ms. Sanborn. So I, similar to Director Wray, found out about it days after. I think it is very important to also caveat what that was. It was raw, unvetted information and only because of the collection message did it get as quickly elevated to the Washington Field Office and disseminated to the task force officers. So thousands and thousands of tips come in just like this one every day, and not all of those get elevated to senior leadership. Senator Hassan. Except that this was tips about violence in the United States Capitol where we were going to have all Members of Congress, the current Vice President, the Vice President-elect. And so given the gravity of the threat, it is very hard for me to understand why somebody did not pick up the phone. I would like to understand, too, whether any of the following were informed of the intelligence: the President, the White House Chief of Staff, the Attorney General of the United States, the Speaker of the House, or the Senate Majority Leader. Ms. Sanborn. Not to my knowledge, ma'am, and I think you heard the Director say this yesterday, and I echo it 100 percent: Anytime an attack happens, we are going back, and we are going to figure out what we could have done better and differently. I echo there are always processes that can be improved. Senator Hassan. Look, I will just say this: that one of the things before a major event that one should always do is figure out who the leadership is, and they should be talking twice a day on the phone for the week leading up at least. That is kind of standard practice, at least in the States that I am familiar with. It is certainly standard practice for Governors. It is astounding to me that, even if it is raw intelligence, given what the stakes were on January 6th, that that kind of sharing was not routine and that it did not happen. I hope very much that we will look back at this and develop kind of standard operating procedures (SOPs) so that the leadership of security at the Capitol, the leadership of security at all the various agencies are sharing this kind of information person to person rather than relying on standard emails and the like. Thank you very much. Ms. Sanborn. I will say that is the purpose of the command post, and I 100 percent echo your point, which is let us go back and figure out what we could do differently? Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Hassan. For members of the Rules Committee, we are following the order set forth by the Homeland Security Committee, how they do their order. If there are questions about that, that is how we are doing it today. Next is Senator Feinstein. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I would like to ask this question: In August 2017, DHS Office of Intel and Analysis and the Virginia Fusion Center issued a report days before the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. The report warned that the protests could be among the most violent to date. It warned that anarchistic extremists and white supremacist extremists are calling on supporters to be prepared for and to instigate violence at the August 12th rally. Now, this was very similar to what we saw in the lead-up to the January 6th insurrection when groups were actively planning to come to Washington and commit violence. Yet there was no similar intelligence report by the Department of Homeland Security for this occasion. My question is: Why? What happened to change this procedure? Ms. Smislova. Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. Between before the election and then into the Inauguration, I&A did publish 15 separate unclassified reports that did discuss specifically that there was a heightened threat environment, that the threat could come from lone actors or small cells. We assessed that those that were motivated by concerns about the election and grievances associated largely with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions would also appear to be armed, and we also warned that they could transition quickly from a peacetime situation into a violent situation. I actually in preparation for this hearing did review all of those reports and was impressed with how well the team did. They were very well written and very specific. The point, Senator, is that we thought we had provided that warning. We did not have anything specific about an attack on the Capitol to occur on January 6th, so we did not issue a separate report. In hindsight, we probably should have, but we had just issued a report on December 30th with our colleagues at FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center where we had thought, ma'am, that that was sufficient. Senator Feinstein. I would like to ask that you make those reports available to this Committee, please. Ms. Smislova. Happy to, ma'am. Senator Feinstein. Also, press reports indicate that Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller issued a memo on January 4th preventing the D.C. National Guard from receiving weapons or protective gear, interacting with protesters, or employing riot control agents without his personal authorization. Do you know of any other instance where a Defense Secretary required personal authorization before allowing National Guard troops to respond to an emergency? I would like to put the letter from Christopher Miller,\1\ Madam Chairman, in the file, if I could. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The letter referenced by Senator Feinstein appears in the Appendix on page 296. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Klobuchar. Yes, without objection. Senator Feinstein. Could someone answer that question? Mr. Salesses. Oh, I am sorry, Senator. I will answer that question. I was waiting. Senator, I am not aware of another letter from a Secretary, but, again, based on events in the spring and Secretary Miller being new to the Department at that time and some of the things mindful that happened, he issued that direction. That direction, though, again, I would come back to the point that in order for National Guard members to deploy in civil disturbance operations, it requires the Secretary of Defense's approval. So just to be clear, there is no ability for the military to respond without the Secretary's approval for civil disturbance operations. Senator Feinstein. If I may, Madam Chairman, I am looking at a memo for Secretary of the Army, employment guidance for the District of Columbia National Guard, dated January 4, 2021, I received it, and it responds to a memorandum regarding the District's request for support for the planned demonstrations from January 5 to 6, 2021. You are ``authorized to approve the requested support subject to my guidance below, subject to consultation.'' Then it points out a number of things that are not authorized. This letter of January 4th, I would like it to be in the record, because somewhere there is a problem here. I have been listening carefully trying to find out what the problem is. But there were certain reports that just were not issued, and they were of an intelligence nature, and I am curious about finding out which ones essentially did what. If you have any response to that, other reports, and could let this Committee know, it would be appreciated. Ms. Sanborn. Yes, ma'am, happy to do so. I think the key here is--and I think my DHS colleague mentioned this--the intelligence we had articulated that we knew people were coming to the D.C. area, we knew there was a possibility they would come armed and potentially have conflict amongst themselves, what we lacked--and I think you heard this last week from all the folks that testified as well--none of us had any intelligence that suggested individuals were going to storm and breach the Capitol, and that was the intelligence that we lacked. Senator Feinstein. I think that remains to be seen, but I appreciate the comment, and I think that is what this Committee has to look for and make a determination whether there was, in fact, adequate pre-question, pre-interest. There is a record, and I thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Chairman Peters. Senator Johnson, you are recognized for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get into my line of questioning for today's subject, Ms. Smislova, I received, sitting here in the hearing, a press release from Capitol Police that said that ``we have obtained intelligence that shows a possible plot to breach the Capitol by an identified militia group on Thursday, March 4th.'' Is that a threat that you are aware of? Ms. Smislova. Senator, we issued a bulletin last night, co- authored with the FBI, about extremists discussing March 4th and March 6th. Is that what you are referring to? Senator Johnson. Yes, and---- Ms. Smislova. It was a Joint Intelligence Bulletin we released last night around--it was very late. Midnight, I think? Yes. Senator Johnson. OK. Again, the threats are ongoing. Ms. Smislova. Yes. Senator Johnson. General Walker, to review the timeline, at 1:49 p.m. Chief Sund contacted you. At 2:15 p.m. the Capitol was breached. I think in your testimony you said you had available 340 D.C. National Guard troops. Is that correct? General Walker. Sir, it was actually half of that. So half were on the streets helping the Metropolitan Police Department. The other half would have came in to relieve them. But we would have called them in to come in. Senator Johnson. OK. So you had 40 in the Quick Reaction Force, correct? General Walker. Yes, sir. Senator Johnson. So had this all been preapproved by the Secretary of Defense? I am mindful of the considerations of having military involved in civil disturbances, and I think that is part of the issue, some of the blowback that occurred with the spring instances. How quickly could you have gotten how many people to the Capitol? General Walker. Twenty minutes. Senator Johnson. How many people? General Walker. One hundred and fifty. Senator Johnson. OK. I mean, that is important information to have. I think, quite honestly, what we need to do here is we need to completely reconstruct what happened, and I mean completely reconstruct it. We need to obtain eyewitness testimony from different vantage points, from different perspectives, and that is certainly what I have tried to do. Ms. Sanborn, how many points of confrontation occurred during the riot? In other words, were these primarily at chokepoint, doors, windows that were breached, and then in side the Capitol, again, outside the House chamber? Or was there, the Capitol is 751 feet long. Was this a 751 long line that Capitol Police and other law enforcement were battling protesters? Ms. Sanborn. Thank you for the question. I think we are still in the process of gathering that data. Obviously, the folks that we have charged for breaching and getting inside, and so we at least know that at some point they go through a chokepoint. The actual distance of how long that was is still part of what we are examining, sir. Senator Johnson. OK, but we have all kinds of video, all kinds of photographs. You obviously are examining that, and from that video you have been able to arrest 300 people--300 people have been charged. Eighteen have been charged with conspiracy, 40 have been arrested for assault of law enforcement officers. So have you, looking at those videos, maybe not being able to identify the people, but have you counted the number of people that you want to identify, for example, that will probably be charged with assault? Ms. Sanborn. So we are still doing that, and that number increases just like the arrests every day, and so far we have identified hundreds of people that we are trying to still identify. Senator Johnson. OK. Again, we have 300 individuals have been charged; 40 have been charged with assault. Do you expect the hundreds of people to be charged with assault? Or will those be disorderly conduct, unlawful entry? Give me some sort of sense of the extent of this. Ms. Sanborn. Absolutely. It is a fair question. I think the charges have ranged from everything from trespassing to obstruction to definitely assault on Federal officers. We have a fair number of those. The charges based on the actual behavior that the individual partook that day definitely vary. Senator Johnson. How many firearms were confiscated in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds that day? Ms. Sanborn. To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any other arrests at the scene at this point. But I do not want to speak on behalf of Metro and Capitol Police, but to my knowledge, none. Senator Johnson. So nobody has been charged with an actual firearm weapon in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds? Ms. Sanborn. Correct. The closest we came was the vehicle that had the Molotov cocktails in it, and when we did a search of that vehicle later on, there was a weapon, but---- Senator Johnson. How many shots were fired that we know of? Ms. Sanborn. I believe the only shots that were fired were the ones that resulted in the death of one lady. Senator Johnson. OK. I appreciate the Chair's comments about the bipartisan/nonpartisan investigation here seeking out the truth. That is what I am trying to do. Cognizant of how it was reacted to by offering an eyewitness account at the last hearing, I will risk entering another piece of reporting into the record.\1\ This is from the New York Times. Hopefully that will be viewed more favorably. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The New York Times article appears in the Appendix on page 300. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The title is, ``A Small Group of Militants' Outsize Role in the Capitol Attack.'' In that report it says, ``Federal prosecutors have said members of the Oath Keepers militia group planned and organized their attack and `put into motion the violence that overwhelmed the Capitol.'" The reason I am entering this in the record and read that quote is it really does seem to align with the eyewitness account that I read portions of in the record last week. No conspiracy theory, just an eyewitness account from a knowledgeable observer. I did not get to the point of the actual attack, and I want to just read a couple excerpts. This is the title: ``Provocateurs turn unsuspecting marches into an invading mob.'' Again, these provocateurs are primarily white supremacist groups. ``Then, a loud, bellowing shout from behind: `Forward. Do not retreat. Forward.'" ``Then two other men standing across from one another on the high granite curbs on either side of the footpath bellowed variations of, `Forward. Do not dare retreat.' Some made direct eye contact at people and pointed directly at them, as if trying to psych them into submitting.'' ``A third man standing on a chair also shouting `Forward,' reached down to grab me by the shoulder and barked, `Don't retreat. Get back up there.' It wasn't an expression of enthusiasm or solidarity; it sounded like a military order. It was not from a wild-eyed kid. This guy was probably in his 50s. He looked furious with me.'' ``Nobody seemed aware the Capitol was physically under attack. The tear gas caused pandemonium. But there was still no stampede, and people helped create or widen paths to allow others to leave the area.'' ``Then, from the north, a column of uniformed agile younger men walked briskly, single file toward the inaugural stand. They came within two feet of me. Their camouflage uniforms were clean, neat, and with a pattern I could not identify.'' ``These were the disciplined, uniformed column of attackers I had seen.'' ``There were a good three dozen of them moving in a single, snakelike formation. They were organized. They were disciplined. They were prepared.'' ```We are taking the Capitol,' the first or second announced.'' ```You are going to get arrested,' someone called out.'' Ms. Sanborn, does that tie into with what you are uncovering as you investigate exactly what happened in the Capitol that day, that you had these armed militia groups that had conspired and organized to be there, maybe dozens--we do not know how many--but that they were organized and knew how to use the mob to storm the Capitol? Is that kind of what you are seeing? Ms. Sanborn. We definitely so far are seeing a mixture of that, absolutely. We are seeing people that got caught up in the moment, got caught up in sort of the energy, et cetera, and made their way into the Capitol. Those are probably the ones that you are seeing the charges simply of trespassing. Then we are definitely seeing that portion that you are pointing out, which is small groups in cells now being charged with conspiracy that coalesced either onsite or even days or weeks prior and had sort of an intent that day, and they too probably caught people up in the energy. Senator Johnson. So one final comment. I would urge anybody that criticized me for entering an eyewitness account into the record last week to please read the eyewitness account to take a look at actually what the truth is. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Before I call on Senator Merkley, I just want to ask you, Ms. Sanborn, one thing. These people that were assaulting the Capitol in military gear and were pinning an officer between a door and were using bear spray on officers in the Capitol, would you title them ``provocateurs''? Ms. Sanborn. Ma'am, it would all depend on the evidence behind the case, right? So as we are going through and we are figuring out what actually we know about each individual, it would just depend on what the facts and what we know holistically about that to be able to be put a label on it. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Do you think there were some very serious violent people involved in this insurrection? Ms. Sanborn. One hundred percent. A lot of officers were injured and a lot of damage was done. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Would you describe the atmosphere as ``festive''? Ms. Sanborn. Absolutely not. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Senator Merkley. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all for your information. Assistant Secretary Salesses, if I understood your earlier comment, you thought the quick reaction team was only for reinforcing assistance to those members of the National Guard providing traffic control. Did I hear your comment correctly? Mr. Salesses. Yes, Senator, you did. Senator Merkley. Thank you. Major General Walker, I believe that, if I heard your comments correctly, that quick reaction team was there to respond as needed, including protection of the Capitol. Is that correct? General Walker. No, Senator. They were actually to provide support to the Guardsmen out there. What I would have wanted to do was re-mission them and get them to the Capitol immediately as a Quick Reaction Force. Senator Merkley. I see. they were not necessarily planned to help protect the Capitol, but you would reassign them to that in that type of emergency? General Walker. Yes, sir. Senator Merkley. OK. Thank you for that clarification. I was really struck by the complexity of the chain of command for trying to get a decision for response. It starts with the Capitol Police Board, which goes to the Chief of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, who goes to the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, who goes to the Secretary of Army, who then consults with people within Department of Army about whether it is appropriate, which then goes to the Secretary of Defense, who then consults--Christopher Miller, to decide to study that, who then gives an order back to the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. This six-step process seems totally unsuited to the situation of responding quickly to an emergency. I just wanted to ask you, Commander Walker, if I am reading this chain of command correctly? Do you share the view that this is way too complex for a moment when you need to respond quickly? General Walker. Senator, it is a longstanding process, but it can work in minutes. For example, during the first week of June, the Secretary of the Army was with me. I watched him call the Secretary of Defense and consult with the Attorney General and respond back to me with an approval within minutes. It is an elaborate process, but it does not always have to be when in extremist circumstances we can get it done over the phone very quickly. Senator Merkley. But if I understand right, it is normally an elaborate process done in advance. In fact, the information came to you on January 1st. You got back a response on January 5th, so this was before January 6th. But it had this provision that--this restriction that I think you have testified to--was unusual, that required reconsultation on January 6th in a fashion that deeply inhibited the ability to move quickly. General Walker. That is right, Senator. Senator Merkley. OK. Thank you. I wanted to turn to Under Secretary Smislova. You have been with the Department for how long? Ms. Smislova. Seventeen years, sir. Senator Merkley. For 17 years. I think you were the Deputy Under Secretary on January 6th. Is that correct? Ms. Smislova. Yes, sir. Senator Merkley. OK. I was struck by different reports that came from officials saying that there was a move within the Department--and I will just quote one formal official report: ``Nobody wanted to write a formal intelligence report about this in part of the fear that such a report would be very poorly received by the MAGA folks within DHS.'' To follow this up, Brian Murphy, former head of DHS--and I do not know. Were you also the Deputy to him as well? Ms. Smislova. I was one of his deputies, yes, sir. Senator Merkley. He noted that DHS officials had ordered him to stay away from the threat of white nationalism, that Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli also had asked him to modify intel assessments to ensure that they matched up with public comments by President Trump to downplay the threat posed by white supremacists. In your time at DHS, it is very important that intelligence is unaffected by politics. It is like the root information. Did you get a sense that there was kind of a troubling cloud, as reported in various sources, including from the former head of DHS, that there was this troubling cloud of political influence over the quality or the kind of determination of how intelligence was presented to officials? Ms. Smislova. I can say that I&A's reports did not change. We did not change our assessments based on any political pressure or interference. We did publish the Homeland Threat Assessment. It is a publicly available document that does state that white supremacists are the most persistent and lethal threat to the homeland. Senator Merkley. Did you ever feel any pressure or receive any encouragement, even kind of in a less informal way--I am not talking about a written document--that you needed to be very careful about clarifying the threat posed by white extremists? Ms. Smislova. I did not personally receive that. Senator Merkley. Do you consider Brian Murphy's report that that type of pressure was applied to be accurate or inaccurate? Ms. Smislova. His is a whistleblower complaint, and it is still being adjudicated. Senator Merkley. No, I understand, but I am asking you. You were right there in the leadership. You never got a sense that there was any type of political influence like he reported regarding encouragement to downplay---- Ms. Smislova. I did not personally have that influence pushed upon me, sir. Senator Merkley. OK. Thank you. Someone suggested that the reason that there were formal intelligence assessments regarding earlier events, including the protests in Portland, but not such a detailed presentation related to January 6th, was because of this pressure to downplay to some degree the threat posed by white extremists. Ms. Smislova. I would like to point out, sir, that the two instances are very different. Our support during some of the civil unrest and the protests specifically in Portland were at the direct request of our own DHS Federal law enforcement partners, and in that capacity we were reacting to a pattern of violence that had shown itself for several weeks. Our open- source team did an excellent job in many instances of providing specific information that kept those officers safe. They were reporting things like bricks may be used today as a weapon. Another day it might be bug spray combined with leaf blowers or lasers. Our work, by contrast, leading up to the election and January 6th is quite different. It is a different kind of environment. There is not that pattern violence. It is a different kind of assessment. I do suggest, sir, that it is impossible to compare the two. Senator Merkley. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Smislova. Thank you. Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. The Chair recognizes Senator Sinema for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. During last week's hearing, we heard about coordinated security planning efforts between law enforcement and Federal partners for January 6th, including areas where planning could be improved. As part of this conversation, the Committee has heard about intelligence shared by the FBI Field Office in Norfolk, Virginia, on January 5th warning of extremists preparing to travel for ``war.'' We also heard from the former Chief of U.S. Capitol Police that he never saw this report, and that on January 6th he knew of no intelligence suggesting there would be a coordinated violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. The head of FBI's Washington Field Office has previously said publicly that the Bureau did not have intelligence suggesting the rally would turn violent prior to the January 5th report. However, on January 8th, a podcast from the New York Times outlined activity across multiple social media platforms showing coordination between groups ahead of the January 6th attack. The podcast highlighted social media conversations about coordinating travel, bringing weapons, and using language like ``Occupy the Capitol'' and ``The revolution will come to Washington.'' My first question is for Ms. Sanborn. Was the FBI aware of these specific conversations on social media? Ms. Sanborn. To my knowledge, no, ma'am, and I would just sort of articulate why that is. So under our authorities, because being mindful of the First Amendment and our dual- headed mission to uphold the Constitution, we cannot collect First Amendment-protected activities without sort of the next step, which is the intent. We would have to have an already predicated investigation that allowed us access to those comms and/or a lead or a tip or a report from a community citizen or a fellow law enforcement partner for us to gather that information. Senator Sinema. The FBI does not monitor publicly available social media conversations? Ms. Sanborn. Correct, ma'am. It is not within our authorities. Senator Sinema. My next question is for Ms. Sanborn and then Ms. Smislova. Did the preparations for the January 6th rally follow the typical process for sharing information among law enforcement entities when confronted by this type of an event with a high potential for violence? Were there additional processes implemented to consider that, as Senator Klobuchar pointed out, this was an event with Congress in session and the Vice President and Vice President-elect all gathered in one place? Ms. Sanborn. Yes, ma'am, so a couple of things we did different than normal operations is we sent out and made this a national priority for all of our 56 field offices to actively go out and ask sources, collect information on any threats that posed to the National Capital Region (NCR), not only for the 6th but for the Inauguration. That tasking is what led to the potential collection in the Norfolk Field Office. Also a step we took that is different than our normal everyday course of business is both Washington Field Office and headquarters stood up command posts, so we activated our National Crisis Coordination Center (NC3), which is a multi- agency task force that was 24/7 inside the Hoover Building, inside Strategic Information and Operations Center (SIOC), and Washington Field mirrored that in their field office. Ms. Smislova. Ma'am? Senator Sinema. Yes? Ms. Smislova. DHS also, I&A, had been on a heightened period of alert before the election and then after the election. We also participated in the command posts in the Washington Fusion Center. In retrospect, we may have been better off if we had considered sending out some kind of a terrorism bulletin, but we did not do that before January 6th. Senator Sinema. This is a question for both of you. The FBI Field Offices did have intelligence outlining a threat to Congress. We know that conversations were happening on publicly available social media, and DHS was tracking the travel of some of these suspected radicals. Given all of these pieces, what in your opinion broke down and what got in the way of law enforcement properly planning to meet these publicly articulated threats? Ms. Sanborn. I will start. I think exactly the processes we had in place we followed, and I think that is the good news. I think as you heard the Director yesterday, and I would echo, anytime there is an attack, we in the FBI want to bat a thousand, and we want to not ever have this planning again. We are asking ourselves exactly the questions that you are asking: Is there a place that we could have collected more? Is there something that we could have done? That is exactly what we are looking back at. I think that the information we had, we worked quickly to try to get that out in reporting and share it in multiple ways--verbally, email, putting it in portals, et cetera. But 100 percent you can rest assured we are asking ourselves the same as we want to continue to improve and get better. Ms. Smislova. Ma'am, we also at DHS are completely dissatisfied with the result of our efforts leading up to January 6th. We are reexamining how we distribute our information, how we coordinate with our partners. We thought that it was sufficient, and clearly it was not. We are also working much more focused on applying more resources to better understanding this particular threat. We also are looking at how we can better understand social media to get those tips and maybe get better insight into what this adversary is doing. This is a very difficult threat for us and the intelligence community to understand. It will require more partnerships with nontraditional partners and with our standard State and local partners. You will see that we will reinforce our already good partnership with the FBI. We will do better. Senator Sinema. Thank you. Following up on that last comment around local partnerships, I wanted to go back to Ms. Sanborn. On January 5th the FBI did receive information that armed protests were being planned at capitol buildings in all 50 State capitals. Could you just briefly in the time we have left share how that intel was acted upon and how it was shared across the country? Ms. Sanborn. Ma'am, I do not recall off the top of my head. I would have to get back to you on the mechanism that we did to share that information. Senator Sinema. Based on that response, would it be fair to assume that it was not a particularly high priority that there were armed protests planned at all 50 State capitols across the country? Ms. Sanborn. No. It 100 percent was a high priority, and it definitely--for our mission and our focus, we were not on the 6th only focused on the National Capital Region. We were focused on the whole country, and so it 100 percent was a very important focus for us. I just cannot remember the mechanism of the document or whether it was an email, whether it was a joint product, how we passed that information, but we were concerned with it, and I know we disseminated it in some form, and I owe you that. Senator Sinema. Thank you. I will just have my team follow up with you. Mr. Chair, I see that my time has expired. I yield back and thank you. Chairman Peters. Thank you. Senator Padilla, you are recognized for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First a comment, then a question for the witnesses. I understand there are a lot of people saying they would like to see a reconstruction of the events of January 6th and how they came to be. For anybody genuinely interested, I would turn their attention to the House impeachment managers' presentation to the U.S. Senate from February 9th through the 13th. My questions today, though, are in some ways a follow-up to yesterday's Judiciary Committee hearing where we heard from FBI Director Chris Wray, and I am going to quote from his testimony yesterday: ``We are not aware of any widespread evidence of voter fraud much less that would have affected the outcome in the Presidential election.'' Yet former President Trump and other people with influence continue to spread lies and disinformation about how the November 2020 election was stolen. Former President Trump continued this effort most recently at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Sunday, falsely claiming, and I will quote from him, ``We did even better in the second election than we did in the first. I won the first. We won the second. We did much better.'' Prior to joining the U.S. Senate, I served for six years as California's Secretary of State, which includes the responsibility of serving as California's chief elections officer for the most populous State in the Nation. I know Trump is lying. We all know Trump is lying. FBI Director Wray told us yesterday that one of the biggest challenges that government faces in confronting domestic terrorism is separating the signal from the noise. This was particularly true in the lead- up to the January 6th insurrection. When people of influence, particularly former and current elected officials, continue to spread lies and disinformation about election integrity, I would imagine that creates a lot more noise, unnecessary noise, counterproductive noise, dangerous noise, for you all to have to sift through. I suspect it also serves to radicalize some number of people to actually take action, including violent action, just as we have seen for years with jihadist propaganda and other forms of foreign terrorism. My question for each of you--two questions, actually. One, does the perpetuation of disinformation about the 2020 election make your job harder? And how? Second, what kind of message does the January 6th insurrection send to other domestic violent extremists and our foreign adversaries as well? Ms. Sanborn. I will start. I think I would start with pinpointing the specific thing that drives somebody to mobilization is very difficult, and it is probably more complex in the domestic violent extremist space than any other of the terrorism threats we face. Why that is is what we have found in our investigations is domestic violent extremists not only are potentially doing what they are doing in an insular manner, but it is a combination of an ideology that they have, and what makes it different is a very unique personalized grievance. When those things combine, that appears to be what pushed them to mobilization. For every single individual we are trying to find that, but it is incredibly hard, and it relies a lot on their ability, post-disruption, to explain that process to that. That is something we are trying very hard to get to the bottom of on each of these cases. Ms. Smislova. Sir, we did warn in our national terrorism advisory system bulletin that we assess perceived grievances that are fueled by false narratives could continue to mobilize or incite people to commit violence. So to that extent, yes, false narratives are difficult. Mr. Salesses. Senator, the Department of Defense does not do domestic intelligence on U.S. citizens, but there is no tolerance for extremists in the ranks of the Defense Department. Secretary Austin within the first few weeks of taking over as the Secretary ordered a stand-down in the Defense Department, a 1-day stand-down to examine extremism, educate people, and make sure that we are doing everything we can to root that out. General Walker. Senator---- Senator Padilla. I will spare you for a second because I want to make sure I get some clarity here. Now, I know these issues are complex. Your work is tremendously complex and challenging. But the answer to the first question, based on what I hear--tell me if you disagree--the question being, ``Does this make your job harder?'' The answer would be so far yes, yes, yes. Is that correct? Ms. Sanborn. It is twofold. It is volume. Any more volume makes it harder. The more variety of things that inspire people definitely makes pinpointing it to a specific one challenges. A variety of inspiration combined with amount of rhetoric out there definitely are two things that add. Senator Padilla. OK. In the limited time I have left, I want to make sure we address the second question, which is, what message do you believe this is sending to other domestic violent extremists let alone foreign adversaries? Ms. Smislova. We do assess that the breach on the Capitol could inspire others to act, if that is what you are asking, sir. Ms. Sanborn. I agree. Anytime an adversary is successful, others pay attention, and so we are worried that this would be an inspiration. Mr. Salesses. I agree with that. General Walker. I agree as well, sir. Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Just for planning purposes, before I recognize the next member from my Committee, our witnesses, you have been here a long time, so what our plan is is to give you in the near future here a chance to stretch a little bit. I am going to recognize one more Senator from my Committee. Chairwoman Klobuchar will recognize one from her Committee. Then we will give you a five-minute break. With that, Senator Rosen, you are recognized for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Peters. I appreciate you and all the other Senators on the Rules Committee for bringing together this joint hearing. It is really important, and I appreciate everyone for being here. In October 2020, DHS warned that, and I quote, ``racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically white supremacist extremists, will remain the most persistent and lethal threat to the homeland,'' and that, quoting again, ``violent actors might target events related to the post- election period.'' According to a former DHS Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis was aware of the potential for violence on January 6th, and I quote again, ``but for reasons of fear, did not want to formalize reports.'' We know Senator Merkley asked you this question already. But, in fact, the day before the attacks, I&A sent a national summary to law enforcement partners stating that there was nothing significant to report. DHS assessed white supremacists to be the most lethal threat to Americans, and if I&A was aware of domestic violent extremists mobilizing to cause violence on January 6th, then why didn't the Department issue a formal intelligence warning that violence could occur? I ask this of Ms. Smislova. Ms. Smislova. Yes, ma'am. First, we have heard of that report that we supposedly sent out that said nothing significant to report, and we cannot locate that. I have no idea where that notion came from. Senator Rosen. Could you follow up with us on that report and see if you can find it or where we---- Ms. Smislova. We have looked, ma'am, for a while. We do not have a copy of that report. That would not be an official report I&A sent out. It is possible, ma'am, that where it came from was maybe a phone call or something else where we said we had nothing additional to report. We did view the work that we had done prior to January 6th as being sufficiently specific and warning of the possible threat. Some of the reports we did distribute you just quoted from yourself, so it was our belief that those warnings were enough. Obviously, they were not. We are working very hard now to do two things: one, get better specificity and insight into this particular threat; and then, second, understand better how our customers receive our products, read our products, who gets our products. It is unclear to us why they were not received and we were not better prepared for a possible attack. Senator Rosen. Thank you. Did I&A share any intelligence products with national fusion centers, relay information about possible violence on January 6th? Is Capitol Police part of the D.C. area fusion center? Ms. Smislova. Yes, we talked specifically to the Capitol Police in early December, made sure that they were in receipt of all of our products, and they received, again, the one we put out just a week before the attack that we co-authored with FBI National Counterterrorism Center. We know that all of our products do go to the National Network of Fusion Centers, and we, in fact, participated in a phone call that was sponsored by the National Network of Fusion Centers the day before, on January 5th, where we also reiterated our concerns that we were at a heightened threat environment, that this particular adversary could mobilize quickly, and most likely small cells, lone offenders, they would most likely come armed, and they were interested in attacking specifically government buildings and large gatherings. Senator Rosen. I appreciate that, but it seems like we were not exactly ready. So moving forward---- Ms. Smislova. Correct. Senator Rosen [continuing]. I know you alluded that you are going to try to figure out where your product goes and who talks about it, but how are you going to specifically elevate I&A's assessment that white supremacists are the homeland's most lethal threat so that quality detail and informed intelligence actually reaches our communities, including our local law enforcement ahead of possible attacks so that we can prevent any loss of life certainly or other kinds of damage? Ms. Smislova. Yes, ma'am, and the Department is committed to doing that. Our Secretary is very committed to coming up with a whole-of-DHS approach to better combat domestic terrorism. We are working across the Department to understand how to better articulate the threat and deliver the threat and how to mitigate it with our State and local partners. Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to move on because, the day before the insurrection, the FBI issued an internal warning that extremists planned to take part in violence on January 6th. Last week I asked Metro PD about the intelligence failures leading up to the attack. Acting Chief of Police Contee told me that FBI emailed MPD an alert bulletin warning about potential violence at 7 p.m. the night before the attack. Mr. Contee told me, again, I am going to quote here, ``I would certainly think that something as violent as an insurrection at the Capitol would warrant a phone call or something.'' But yesterday FBI Director Wray shared that his information had been provided to local law enforcement multiple times and in multiple forms. Ms. Sanborn, it sounds like either Mr. Contee or Director Wray was mistaken. Can you corroborate Director Wray's Statement? If indeed the warning was only sent in writing, why didn't the FBI go a little bit further? Why did it not alert local law enforcement about the possible violent insurrection in a manner more consistent with the gravity of the threat on our homeland? Ms. Sanborn. Yes, ma'am, I appreciate the question. I think I will start with the information we received, just to correctly characterize what it was, was information off the Internet, unattributable to a specific person. That being said, the content and the suggestion of what may or may not happen was concerning enough that based on our prioritizing this as a collection priority for our 56 field offices, they quickly wrote that up and within the hour had that information to the Washington Field Office. They wrote it up in a document specifically for dissemination to State and local partners, but really they tried to belt-and-suspender that together. They wanted to make sure that we just did not rely on the dissemination of a product that we also followed up with an email so it went out in an email to all task force officers on the Washington JTTF, and there are numerous of those from the National Capital Region that received that email. Still, on top of that, they did not want to rely on just the email and the written document. In one of the command post briefings that they were doing back then every couple of hours, they specifically stood up and talked about this to try to have a common operating picture of what this information was. Then, still, to go a step further and not rely on just that and make sure that we broadened the visibility not just to the National Capital Region, but that we opened that aperture to the whole country for our State and local partners, we posted that Situational Information Report on what we call the ``LEEP portal,'' which is available to all State and local partners. Why that is significant is it gives them awareness, but it also gives them the opportunity to maybe even potentially add collection to our piece that we got from the social media posting online. Senator Rosen. Thank you. I know my time has expired, so I will take this question offline. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Senator Rosen. But there are still many online threatening posts. We need to maybe change the definition of specific threats---- Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you. Senator Rosen [continuing]. Raise them up. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good thought, Senator Rosen. Next, Senator Warner from the Rules Committee. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER Senator Warner. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and let me also agree with you and Senator Rosen that the cross-pollination that takes place on social media platforms and on the dark Web need to be pursued. I appreciate Ms. Sanborn's appropriate response that you cannot arbitrarily collect off of American citizens if there is not some nexus, but I do think it is important--and I think others had mentioned this--that, domestic violent extremists did not start with January 6th. They did not start with Donald Trump. They are not going to end with January 6th. They are not going to end with Donald Trump. In my State, we saw a few years back the Unite the Right rally at Charlottesville where many of these same groups and affiliations came together in another violent effort where one protester was killed, and, unfortunately, we lost a couple members of our State police. Director Wray has repeatedly said in testimony before the Intelligence Committee, the worldwide threat assessment, that domestic violent extremists are a major national security threat to this country. I personally believe that that message was downplayed during the previous administration because they did not want to hear it. I want to start with Ms. Smislova and Assistant Director Sanborn. Director Sanborn, it is great to see you again. Recognizing the constraints that are placed upon you in terms of collections but also acknowledging that this threat has been around for some time and the FBI in particular has acknowledged that it is an extraordinary, major, severe threat, what have you both been able to do in engaging in open-source intelligence and independent research communities to better identify these DVEs? I know in the run-up to the January 6th insurrection there was research done by Harvard's Joan Donovan, Elon University's Megan Squire, as well as other researchers, that pointed to the fact that these DVEs and the affiliated groups, oftentimes groups that are working in conjunction with groups in Europe, were planning this effort. How are you, both DHS and FBI, utilizing these independent researchers, open- source activities, and making sure we have a better handle on it, recognizing the appropriate constraints on what you can do directly? Ms. Smislova. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question. We just last week met inside I&A to discuss contracting with some of those experts outside. We are aware that we need to invest more in our understanding of domestic terror. We understand as well that it will require a different approach than a traditional intelligence community approach. We must use different sources to understand this threat. We are looking to get outside experts, invest more in-house. We are, second, looking at how to better understand the social media world so that we can better focus on where we might actually find specific and insightful information about what the adversary is thinking about. We are additionally working to partner more with our State and local colleagues who we know have a different perspective of this threat and have more information in some cases than we do. We are also, again, partnering more across the Department and with our Federal partners, increasing our relationships with FBI. Senator Warner. Ms. Sanborn. Ms. Sanborn. Thank you, Senator. Nice to see you again as well. I tried to say what we are trying to do, and I will put it in three buckets really for you. Increasing our private sector outreach is 100 percent. I have a section just inside my division that does nothing but partner engagement. We have found that the better we educate them on the threat we are facing and painting a picture for them of what those threats are, they are better able to pay attention and collect and refer information to us, and that is helpful. I think that is why when we talk about the fact that 50 percent of our tips and leads to our cases or predication for our cases come from that relationship and that education. We are also, the same as my colleague said, using the State and local partners, so we leverage the fusion centers a lot and their ability and their expertise, and the Orange County Fusion Center in California is a great example of leading sort of the analytics of social media and leveraging their expertise to predicate cases, and they were actually behind the predication of the case, the base that we disrupted. Last, I would say challenging ourselves for better collection inside, trying to point our sources and our collection to be in the right places to collect the intelligence that we need. That is what led to the Norfolk SIR. That is us pointing our collection in a space that gathered that information. Senator Warner. I have to tell you, respectfully, I am pretty disappointed at both of your answers. This is not a new threat. We have seen since the 2016 election how foreign adversaries manipulate social media. We hear repeatedly from DHS and FBI that we are going to get better at collecting. We saw the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. We heard people say we are going to get better at collecting information and better partnering. Neither one of you referenced--there is literally a host of experts in academia, organizations like Graffica and others that are monitoring the DVEs and their activities, oftentimes in their connections to antigovernment groups in Europe, again, oftentimes amplified by nations like Russia. We are always going to get ready, and then we are somehow surprised to see the kind of chaos that took place on January 6th. We cannot always be saying we are going to do better next time when this threat has been around for years. It is not going to disappear with Donald Trump. There has never been somebody that was as active in encouraging these kind of individuals, but we have to pick up our game. I do think the academic researchers are a tool that we need to better develop. I think we need to work on the intel side with some of our foreign partners. Many of these groups have connections to antigovernment extremists. I will just close. I know my time has run out. This is not directed at you, Director Sanborn, but I had a number of senior conversations with FBI officials both January 5th and January 6th where I was constantly reassured, ``Do not worry. We think from the FBI's standpoint we have this pretty well under control.'' That was not the case, and we now have the Capitol of the United States desecrated. For our adversaries, I would say from an intel standpoint that the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings of the world, the images of those marauders across the whole world is going to be a price that we will be paying for many years to come. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Warner, and thank you for your work as Chair of the Intelligence Committee. We are now going to break for 5 to 10 minutes, so we will be back at that moment. Thank you. [Recess.] Chairman Peters. The Committee will come back to order. Senator Lankford, you are recognized for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this. Witnesses, thank you. I appreciate your engagement. We are trying to all fill in blanks, and none of you have all the answers on this. We are not expecting this panel to be able to cover everything, but I do appreciate the gaps that you are helping us fill as we go through this conversation together. Ms. Smislova, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the intelligence community (IC). I have read through some of the sensitive information that was sent out to law enforcement in advance of January 6th. Obviously, many of these folks that are getting the report from Capitol Police and others, the Sergeant at Arms, they get reports like this similar every day. If I look at the reports prior to January 6th that are coming out from intelligence, I have a hard time looking at it and getting the context of how is this different than normal. Help me understand for those reports, for someone who is reading these reports every day, how would they understand the context of what you are seeing or what the folks are seeing on the ground that is different than what they had seen three months before, six months before, a year before? Ms. Smislova. Yes, sir. That is a great question, and that is one that we are now reassessing. It was our view--again, when I prepared for this hearing and I looked at all of the work that we had done, specifically talking about the extremists that would be motivated by the dissatisfaction with the election results and also unhappy with some of the restrictions related to COVID-19, the reports are quite good. They are well written. They seem to summarize pretty succinctly--I mean, I look at them and I am proud of the team, which has produced twice as many reports on domestic terrorism this last year as they did the year before. But to your point, it might be hard to see that trend over time in the noise. Looking backwards from now, what did not happen--right?--we are examining should there be different types of reports. Should we use some of the tools that DHS has such as the National Terrorism Advisory System. We have restarted the Counterterrorism Advisory Board, which was occurring monthly under the previous administration and had fallen off for a variety of reasons the last few years. We have restarted that. Secretary Mayorkas is challenging us all to do a better job when it comes to combating terrorism, domestic terrorism. I guess that is a long way, sir, of saying we are taking a look at the reports that we have done. We will be engaging very directly with all of our stakeholders, asking them what we could do better, asking them how they might better receive the information. Should we put it in a different format? Is there some way we should remind them that this is an alert? It is hard, candidly, with the volume of information that we all receive daily. Senator Lankford. Sure. You are getting a tremendous amount of that information that continues to be able to flow. But when I look at the reports and look at even the bottom line up front that is at the beginning of it, it all seems very standard to me. There does not seem to be an elevated risk. Now, there are some details that come afterwards that, if you are reading through it, you could then elevate it. As you heard some Members on this Committee and others in the media have pulled out specific statements buried in a report and pulled it out and said, ``How could you have missed this?'' Ms. Smislova. Right. Senator Lankford. But in the bottom line up front, it looks very standard. Here are the risks; here are the things that we are seeing. There does not seem to be something that would say, hey, this is higher than normal. If I can use the intel term, it seems to be ``chatter.'' Even in the report itself, it identifies multiple places. This was one person on a social media sight, and they had one comment that they made. That would make someone think this is one person out there saying this. This does not look like a movement that is happening. If that was accurate to say we are hearing some chatter on that, there has to be some way to be able to note that for the future, to be able to say elevate it more so than normal, higher than it was a week ago, some way to be able to show a trend line, whether it is bottom line up front, all the way through to say it is increasing in awareness on this. That is something that is fixable. I would tell you my challenge from serving on the Intel Committee is seeing different reports that come through that are so carefully scripted, they say nothing. So getting as many pieces of raw information as possible, which are in some of these reports, but then to also make sure that the assessments and the statements are very clear, will help everyone in the process. We do reach moments where it becomes so politicized that we have to be able to turn down the volume of that particular word that at the end of it they do not say anything. General, can I ask you a question on this as well? For any of the operations that Washington, DC, has or that you know of for other National Guard members, in any operation that you are going to be around--and you had, obviously, soldiers that were involved scattered around the city helping with traffic duties and such during the day. Do you get the threat assessments in advance the same as what Capitol Police and Metro Police would get? Because obviously you are assisting Metro Police. Would you get the same threat assessments that they get as they are leading up to the event so that you would have that for that event as well? General Walker. Yes, Senator, we do receive finished intelligence products. Senator Lankford. OK. Are those helpful to you? General Walker. They are. Senator Lankford. Good. Is there anything that you are missing when you go through those reports that you wish was there? General Walker. No, sir. Senator Lankford. We would all love to see 20/20 into the future. I get that completely. You have made several comments through the course of the day today that I have noted and in your statement itself where you stated, ``The Secretary of the Army's January 5th letter withheld authority for me to employ the Quick Reaction Force.'' Now, we have talked about that, and several of us have brought it up. I want to ask a question. For the folks that were actually on traffic duty and such that were helping out that day and standing side by side with Metro Police to help them, were those folks armed with less lethal implements to be able to help in case there was a riot situation or an unruly crowd? Could they have engaged from where they were with less than lethal force? General Walker. They were not equipped with less than lethal, but they were equipped with force protection--helmets, shin guards, body protection. Senator Lankford. Were they wearing those or were those in the vehicles? General Walker. They were in the vehicles. Senator Lankford. They were in the vehicle, and my understanding is those were not military vehicles. They were unmarked vehicles rather than government vehicles. Is that accurate? General Walker. Yes, sir, they were U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) vehicles. Senator Lankford. Got it. Then there was no overhead for your folks that were out that day. My understanding is there was a request from the Mayor to not have military vehicles, to not have helicopters up in the air that day in support. Would that have typically been something that you would have asked for in the past to be able to have some kind of overhead for a day like that? General Walker. No, sir, we would not have needed helicopters or any kind of air support for a mission like that, just simple traffic control. The Quick Reaction Force was available to support them if they needed it. Senator Lankford. But they are physically how far away, as far as minutes? You do not have to say where they were exactly. General Walker. About 25 minutes away. Senator Lankford. The Quick Reaction Force was 25 minutes away. Even if it was a go, we need you to be able to respond, it is 25 minutes on a good traffic situation to be able to get there, barring what is happening with the crowd. General Walker. We would have had a police escort. The District of Columbia has military police and security forces. Both have marked police vehicles with the emergency equipment, lights, sirens. Senator Lankford. Right. To clarify, that is 40 individuals on that Quick Reaction Force. Is that correct? General Walker. Yes, sir. Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you. Thank you all. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Next up, Senator King from the Rules Committee. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KING Senator King. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks for holding this hearing. A quick question for Mr. Salesses. I know the Defense Department has its own intelligence service, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and this is a question for the record. I would appreciate it if you would check and provide to the Committee whatever there are in the way of intelligence products that were available to the Department of Defense in the week prior to and particularly the day prior to January 6th. They can be submitted in a classified setting if there are issues of sources and methods. I do not know if there is any such material, but if there is, I hope you will make it available to the Committee. General Walker, you are a very important witness today because you were in the midst of all of this, and you were in touch, and what we are really struggling with here is why that long delay. You testified earlier that in the summer the delay was a matter of minutes. This time it was a matter of three hours and 19 minutes, I think as Senator Portman said. The question is: Was the delay caused in your judgment, from being on the various phone calls, by anything remotely resembling politics and a desire not to interfere with this particular group? Or was it because of--I think the word ``blowback'' has been used--the concerns about what had happened in the summer and the criticism that the Guard had taken for its actions at Lafayette Square or in other parts of the protests of the summer? What do you think was going on here in terms of why this matter took so long to respond to? Mr. Salesses. Senator King, I think it was a combination of both. In my judgment it was two factors. I had the benefit and comfort of having the Secretary of the Army collocated with me during the summer, so he was right next to me for pretty much that entire week, the first week of June, and I was in constant communication with him. I had his phone number, he had mine, and we communicated regularly. I did not have that benefit for January 6th, so there was some concern. I do not think it was so much of what the District of Columbia National Guard and Guard Nation did for June. I think it was more--the word that I kept hearing was the ``optics'' of it. There was concern that it could inflame the protesters. A uniformed presence of Guardsmen, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force uniforms could inflame the protesters. That was a concern as well. That was a thought by Army senior leaders. Senator King. The optics that you mentioned, that has sort of in this context become a bit of a pejorative term. But what they were really worried about, in my understanding, is the visuals of armed troops and military vehicles and barriers surrounding the United States Capitol. Ironically, that is what we ended up with. But was that the concern that you discerned in those conversations? General Walker. Senator, nobody was talking about being armed on January 6th. We were talking about physical presence, civil disturbance, equipped Guardsmen to form a line with the United States Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police to restore order and prevent the Capitol from being breached. Senator King. But there is no question that the day before or the days before, the city made it clear that they did not want the National Guard at the Capitol. Is that accurate? General Walker. No, sir. The city does not have standing at the Capitol. The Mayor's request and the Director of Homeland Security Dr. Rodriguez's request did not talk about the Capitol at all. Senator King. OK. The request from the city was directed toward the traffic control and those kinds of things, away from the Capitol? General Walker. Yes, sir. Senator King. Let us move from history to what we learned from this. In your view, should there be changes in the process or changes in the chain of command in an emergency situation to enable the National Guard, whether it is you here in the District of Columbia or a National Guard unit in New York or San Francisco or Austin, Texas, should this be something that we are concerned about? The three hours of reaction in a true emergency situation seems to be something we need to figure out how to avoid. General Walker. If I can answer it two ways, I think you should be concerned that Chief Sund was not allowed to contact me and ask for help in advance. Then we could have had the right forces positioned to support the Capitol Police and protect the Capitol. That is one. No. 2, the request did take too long--the response to the request took too long, so I think there needs to be a study done to make sure that that never happens again. It should not take three hours to either say yes or no to an urgent request from either the Capitol Police, the Park Police, the Metropolitan Police Department. In an event like that where everybody saw it, it should not take three hours. But before that would have happened, I think the Capitol Police should have been empowered to request National Guard assistance in enough time that we would have been there ready, to have a large Quick Reaction Force sitting possibly at the Armory, possibly closer, to be ready to respond and not be late to any---- Senator King. The limitation on the Capitol Police ability to liaise with you prior to the event was an issue, but I want to get to the larger issue of being able to react, and should we have contingency plans, should there be an after-action assessment within the Department of Defense about those three hours and how to empower the local leadership such as yourself to react in an extraordinary emergency so that you do not have to go through whatever it was that caused the delay, whether it was communication or chain of command or consultation? But clearly, again, this could be an emergency in another city under entirely different circumstances. Don't you think it would be prudent for us to have a contingency plan that would be---- General Walker. Of course. Yes, sir. Senator King [continuing]. More expeditious? General Walker. So emergency authority, to act in an emergency, to witness what occurred and to be able to respond, yes, I think going forward the Department of Defense should consider how the District of Columbia National Guard is able to respond in a much more expeditious manner. Senator King. Or the National Guard in other parts of the country. Thank you very much, General, for your testimony. General Walker. Yes, sir. Senator King. Thanks to all of you, and thank you, Madam Chair, again, for this important hearing. Chairman Peters. Thank you. During today's testimony, two memos have been discussed, one on January 4th and one on January 5th from Ryan McCarthy to Major General William Walker. One of those documents has already been entered into the record. Without objection, I would like to enter the memo dated the January 5, 2021 from Ryan McCarthy to General Walker. Without objection, that will be entered.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The memo referenced by Senator Peters appear in the Appendix on page 297. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With that, Senator Carper, you are recognized for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Thanks. Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Peters. I can, loud and clear. Senator Carper. Thanks so much. Thanks to our witnesses for joining us today and for your input. I have been a Member of this Committee, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, for 20 years, and one of my favorite memories of serving on this Committee came at the end of a tragedy, and that was the attack on 9/11, and the bipartisan commission we created, the co- Chairs were Lee Hamilton, one of my mentors in the House of Representatives, Congressman from Indiana, as I recall, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), and a fellow who was a Governor from our neighboring State of New Jersey, Tom Kean, a Republican. The two of them provided great leadership. The panel included former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman. They worked together on the heels of 9/11 and produced unanimously I think something like 41 recommendations to the Congress and the President at the time, George W. Bush. And we enacted I think about 36 of them, which is pretty amazing when you think about how hard it is to get stuff done around here today. I have a question. I think we should create a 9/11 style commission to look at the failures that led to the devastating attack on our Capitol on January 6th just like we needed one 19 years ago. A question, if I can, for Ms. Sanborn. Do you agree with the need for a commission like the 9/11 Commission, nonpartisan, led by just terrific citizens that would be--do you agree with the need for a commission to analyze what went wrong? Ms. Sanborn. Sorry, you broke up a little bit, but I think you are asking me if I agree that something similar to the---- Senator Carper. I can barely hear you. Ms. Sanborn. I think you asked me--you were breaking up a little bit and hard to hear--do I agree that something similar to a 9/11 Commission is worth having in this instance, and I think I would---- Senator Carper. That was my question, yes. Ms. Sanborn. I think I would just say it this way: I have been involved in numerous after-action lessons learned, and I cannot think of a time where we have not learned and improved. I think anytime we can reflect back and learn, it is value- added. Senator Carper. A follow-up question, if I could. How can we ensure that a new 9/11 style commission examines the root causes, not just the symptoms or problems--I am a big root cause guy. But how can we make sure that if we were to establish a 9/11 style commission it would examine the root causes? That includes the threats posed by domestic terrorists. Ms. Sanborn. If I understand your question, you are asking me how do we ensure we have a 9/11 Commission that is set up to do a good job, and I do not know that I---- Senator Carper. Something not just looking at the symptoms of the problem but the root causes of the problem. Ms. Sanborn. The root cause. I do not have any specific examples of how best to set that up. I have never been necessarily involved in picking sort of the road ahead and picking and selecting the team that does the review, but I have always benefited from the review. Senator Carper. Maybe part of it is for Members of Congress to make clear if there were to be a commission, our efforts should certainly include focusing on the root causes of the threat posed by domestic terrorism and make sure that the leaders of that bipartisan commission are committed to examine the root causes. A second question, if I can, for Ms. Sanborn. This is a question related to the intelligence failure. A large part of our conversation from last week's hearing focused on raw intelligence from the FBI that was shared I believe by email just the evening before, on January 5th, with a lower-level person at the Metropolitan Police Department, and it was not shared with any senior official, even though we had seen in the actual intelligence that something awful was going to happen the next day that could lead to murder and mayhem. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Senator Carper, it is a little hard to hear you. You might want to speak a little louder and slower. Yes, it is not you. Senator Carper. Usually it is me, but this time I think it is not. But I guess my question is: What happened? Somebody knew something awful could happen. Somebody knew. They sent an email the evening before the event. Why wouldn't somebody pick up the phone and call a senior official and say, ``We have this information,'' and we were like 12 hours away, we need to do something. Somebody sent an email. Ms. Sanborn, could you just shed some light on how exactly we missed some of the grave warning signs until like the very last minute? Ms. Sanborn. Thank you for the question, sir. I think I will start with the piece of information we received, again, was a nonattributable posting to a message board, and so very raw, very unvetted. We actually did not receive that information until very late in the afternoon on the 5th and almost into the evening. Because of our emphasis on we need any intelligence, even though it was raw, unattributed, and unvetted, the Norfolk office quickly wrote that up specifically in a document following our processes to disseminate that. A Situational Information Report is for the intentional purpose of sharing that with State and local partners. Not only did they write that up, because they knew how important it was to get that information out into hands of folks that might need it, our State and local partners, within 40 minutes they sent an email to the Washington Field Office with that information, and Washington Field Office also then followed up with an email to all task force officers. Several different mechanisms happened here, and, we like to use the phrase ``belt and suspenders.'' We did not want to make sure that one method of communication failed, so we wrote it up in the document for dissemination. We sent it in an email to all task force officers in the National Capital Region, and that does include Washington Metro as well as Capitol. But, again, not wanting to rely on those two mechanisms only, it was then briefed verbally in a command post, an interagency command post that we were doing briefings every couple of hours so that every agency in that command post had what we call a ``common operating picture,'' knowing what all of us knew at any given time. It was briefed at 8 p.m. on the evening of the 5th. Then taking it one step further, because we did not want to limit our aperture to just the National Capital Region, because there is collection opportunity for all State and local partners and Federal partners to help us, we loaded that suspicious information report into what we call the ``LEEP portal,'' and that is accessible by all State and local partners. We really tried in various ways to make sure that we did not rely on one communication mechanism and really tried to rely on several so that the information would get to the right people. Senator Carper. I will close with this. I do not know if anybody picked up the phone and called somebody in charge and said, ``We have a problem here, and we are 12 hours away from seeing that problem up front and in person. We need to do something.'' All well and good about sending out emails and copying people and that sort of thing, but somebody should have just picked up the phone and said, ``We need to do something. This is urgent.'' I am not sure that that happened. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF Next, Senator Ossoff. Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the panel. General, thank you for your service. In response to Senator King a moment ago, he noted your testimony from earlier today that you had seen the requisite authorities granted for the D.C. Guard in a matter of minutes in the past. In this case, it took over three hours. You stated you believed it was a combination of political concerns and optical concerns that led to that delay. Can you please break down which concerns you believe were political, which you believe were optical? What is the basis for your assessment that the three-hour delay was a function of political and optical concerns? General Walker. I do not think it was so much political. It was let me focus on the optics, because that is what I heard, the word ``optics,'' and the word that having uniformed presence at the Capitol could inflame the protesters. Senator Ossoff. Who made that statement? General Walker. That was senior leaders in the United States Army, General Piatt, General Flynn, and others. They got back to me saying--and that was on the phone call with District of Columbia senior leaders that it would not be their best military advice to send uniformed Guardsmen to the Capitol because they did not like the optics. They had also said that they thought it could inflame--what they wanted to do was send Guardsmen to relieve police officers in the city so more policemen could get to the Capitol. Senator Ossoff. That was the call at 2:30 p.m. following the Chief's call to you. Is that correct, General? General Walker. Yes, sir. Senator Ossoff. You conveyed to those on that call, who included the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Secretary of the Army, the Acting Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the fact that the U.S. Capitol Police Chief's tone had been, as you describe in your testimony, ``frantic,'' that he had informed you at 1:49 p.m. that the security perimeter at the Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters, that the Joint Session of Congress had been interrupted, that the Vice President was still on the premises? General Walker. No, I never said all that. What I relayed-- and it was not to the Chairman. What I relayed to the Army leadership was the call that Chief Sund had with me at 1349, at 1:49 p.m., and that it was an urgent plea, and his voice was cracking, and he was serious. He needed help right then and there, every available Guardsman. At the 2:32 p.m. call, that is when the Deputy Mayor was on the call, the Director of Homeland Security, Acting Chief Contee, Chief Sund, and others to include the Chief of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division was on that call as well. We dialed in trying to get the Secretary of the Army on the call, but he was not available, the G3 or the Director of Plans, Operations, and Training (DPOT) for the Army, General Flynn, joined the call, and the Director of the Army Staff, General Piatt, joined the call, and there were others on the call as well. During that call Chief Sund pleaded to have National Guard support at the Capitol immediately. That was reinforced by Chief Contee: ``We need them there right now. The Capitol will be breached.'' Senator Ossoff. Thank you for the clarification, General. I appreciate that. Mr. Salesses, between 2:30 p.m. and 4:32 p.m., what were the internal deliberations of the Department of Defense to determine whether or not to grant the request? Mr. Salesses. Senator, there was discussion. Secretary McCarthy, who was the Secretary of the Army at the time, asked what was the National Guard going to do on the Capitol. Secretary McCarthy wanted to understand exactly how the National Guard was going to be employed coming to the Capitol. Because they had heard that gunshots had been fired, there was explosives, obviously a pretty dynamic environment. What he was trying to understand was what was the National Guard going to do when they came up here? Were they going to be asked to go into the building and clear the building? Were they going to be part of the outside perimeter? He was trying to understand that. He went as far as going to the Metro Police Department at 4:10 p.m. to sit down with them and make a clear understanding of how they were going to be employed. After that meeting at 4:10 p.m., he went back to the Acting Secretary of Defense, and at 4:32 p.m. he approved the deployment of the National Guard. Senator Ossoff. Thank you. He was aware, was he not, while he was conducting this analysis, that the nature of the Chief's request as relayed through the general had been frantic, that the perimeter of the Capitol had already been breached, that Members of Congress' lives were at risk, that the Vice President's life was at risk? Mr. Salesses. I would assume he knew that, Senator. Senator Ossoff. He was of that during that time. Thank you so much. I do have to reflect for a moment that ultimately responsibility for securing this conflict falls to the U.S. Congress, which is responsible for these premises. I was dispirited speaking with the former Chief in our last hearing when he described that there was no individual responsible for the security of the United States Capitol, that an urgent request for support from the Guard required concurrence with the two Sergeant at Arms, an unwieldy command structure, and then there was an unwieldy command structure imposed within the Executive Branch as well. General, based upon your military experience, is there any reason why the United States Capitol Police could not generate the capabilities to independently provide the kind of Quick Reaction Force that the troops under your command would have so that this institution, the U.S. Congress, is not dependent upon swift decisionmaking by the Secretary of the Army or concurrence between civilian and military leadership when the lives of Members of Congress and the Vice President are at risk? General Walker. Yes, Senator, the United States Capitol Police could develop that capability. I mean, they certainly could. Senator Ossoff. Thank you, General, and a final question for you. Had you conducted any exercises that included simulations of civilian-military joint decisionmaking, simulations of command decisions involving contingencies that threatened the functioning of the U.S. Congress, the lives of Members of Congress, Joint Sessions of Congress, outside of the context of specific preparations for specific National Special Security Events? General Walker. No, sir. Senator Ossoff. Might exercises such as those have improved the capacity of the overall command to respond to an event like this. General Walker. We were prepared to come to the Capitol and help the United States Capitol Police secure the Capitol. Here is what we do. We practice and rehearse civil disturbance. I think we are well exercised in that capability. It is a mandate that all National Guard practices civil disturbance. We are equipped for it, we train for it, and we are prepared to do it when called upon. If we had been approved to do it, we would have there and helped the United States Capitol Police. Senator Ossoff. Understood, General, and I have no doubt that the forces under your command were appropriately trained and qualified. General Walker. And equipped. Senator Ossoff. Equipped. My question is whether any exercises had been undertaken that simulated the command decisions that would need to be made, the requests that you would need to make, for example, at the Secretary level in order to allow your troops, which were properly trained and equipped and had those capabilities---- General Walker. Senator, they are already there. That is a process that is well rehearsed, well practiced. We do it most of all with the Metropolitan Police Department. They are our primary customer. But if you recall when the monuments were attacked in the summer, the Department of Interior, on behalf of the United States Park Police, exercised that same request. The Secretary of Defense authorized the District of Columbia National Guard to respond to monuments in the city and help the Park Police protect those monuments. Senator Ossoff. Thank you, General. General Walker. It was the same process. Senator Ossoff. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator. Senator Paul, you are recognized for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL Senator Paul. I think there is a danger in analyzing this of spending too much time on January 6th and not enough time on the days and weeks and months leading up to this. I think on that day it would probably be superhuman to have gotten the National Guard there in 20 minutes or 30 minutes. You might have, but really I think the Capitol would have been breached, and we would have been coming in after the fact, no matter how good you were. I think really there is a judgment question about whether or not we should have had more people there. In retrospect, we all agree there should have been more people there. But, really, this is the judgment that should call into question predating that. Should we have had more Capitol Hill Police there? My understanding is there were over a thousand Capitol Police that were either off duty or not here, that could have and probably in retrospect better judgment would have had them in there, and we would have had riot lines, and we might have prevented this from happening. I think we can talk all we want about January 6th but, really, it is the decisionmaking leading up to that. Someone made a bad judgment call, and we need to be better prepared. If we are going to fix this in the future, it is not about calling the National Guard out quicker. It is about having a thousand people standing there before the riot happens so the riot does not happen. That is where the real mistake is, and I think we can get too bogged down on the details of January 6th and forget about what could have actually fixed this. Ms. Sanborn, in the investigation afterwards, did the FBI or any intelligence-gathering entity of Government subpoena requests or issue a warrant for non-individualized phone and credit card records for anyone on Capitol Hill on January 6th? Ms. Sanborn. I do not have the specific answer to a specific subpoena, but I do know that we have issued lots of subpoenas and lots of search warrants as a result of each of those---- Senator Paul. My question is not toward individuals. Like if you see John Smith on a video, I am fine with looking at his records. My question is: Did you have a generalized collection of data about people who were on the Hill on January 6th? Ms. Sanborn. Not that I am aware of. I do know that we have used data--and this is reflected in some of the charging documents--that had geolocation data. I do not know the background for what the underlying predicate was for that search warrant, but I do know that we obtained geolocation data. I just do not have the predication---- Senator Paul. Do you understand the potential problem here if you gather everybody's data---- Ms. Sanborn. I do. Senator Paul [continuing]. Then start searching through it and looking for people who might have done something wrong as opposed to the traditional law enforcement where we think John Smith is on a video breaking into the Capitol, now we want to look at his records and see if he was there to help prove he was there. I think that is a reasonable request. But we have had articles written about the Bank of America sharing all of people's credit card information. What I need to know is: Did you request it? Did you subpoena it? Did the Bank of America just decide they do not care about the privacy of their customers and just upload everybody's data? These are important questions. The Fourth Amendment is out there to protect against generalized searches, and I think you know the importance. Most people in law enforcement know the importance of you individualize. We are all fine with that. But there are even reports that elected Members of Congress' phone calls, records, as well as credit card records are in some of this data. Have you heard of that or seen any of that? Ms. Sanborn. I do not have any specifics on that, sir. I would be happy to follow up. Senator Paul. All right. If we want to get the answer, we just need to direct it to the Director of the FBI? Ms. Sanborn. I mean, you can direct it--I am happy to follow up and answer the question for you. Senator Paul. All right, but you have not personally seen any of that or seen any cross-referencing of records between a general category to try to find individuals as opposed to have an individual and then looking at data? Ms. Sanborn. No, again, sir, I do not know what went into the background for the application for the search warrant, so I would like to follow up and get you that detail. I do know that we did receive information from private partners. I would also like to follow up on that specific detail about Bank of America for you as well. Senator Paul. But you do not know the answer? Ms. Sanborn. I do not. [The information referred to follows:] Senator Paul. OK. I think it is very important. Everybody wants to get to the bottom of this, but it also very important that we not have some huge dragnet that everybody that went shopping on January 6th in D.C. is now a suspect and going to be charged with some kind of conspiracy that could be 20 years in prison. As we do the investigation, it is important that those who committed violence are treated accordingly and given significant penalties. But I think it is also important that those of us who have been for criminal justice reform, for poor, underrepresented people in our cities, also want the same kind of justice here that we are not charging people with crimes that are 20 years for doing something that was admittedly wrong and they should be punished for. But there is a difference between assaulting a policeman and causing bodily harm, which I think requires jail time, and, being present at the Capitol. I worry that if we are going to look at everybody's phone shopping records and 20,000 people were here, I hope that is not what is going on, is that we are looking for anybody in D.C. and we are going to just develop a case out of nothing without having seen them actually commit some sort of crime. Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir, I totally understand. I would like to follow up on both of those. Again, I am not clear on what went into the application for the phone data. I do know we have phone data. I am aware of the Bank of America situation and would like to follow up in detail with you on that. Senator Paul. My suspicion is it was gotten in a generalized way because we have very little concern for individual privacy anymore, and the warrant requirements and some of the court precedents allow the FBI to gather this, which is something I object to, but gathering things in a large way, not specific to an individual, not specific to probable cause, and not specific to someone alleged to have found a crime, but more a dragnet of, hey, let us just look at all the phone data on Capitol Hill. I want you to know that there are at least some of us in this country who do not like that. Chairman Peters. Senator Hawley, you are recognized for your questions. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for being here. General Walker, let me start with you, if I could. You have testified to several Senators today that you faced restrictions for the deployment of the Quick Reaction Force that you had assembled, and those are restrictions that you had not had to deal with before. Is that broadly correct? General Walker. That is correct. Senator Hawley. What is your understanding for why those restrictions were put in place? General Walker. Senator, it was never really explained to me. I am a major general. I do not question the people above me. The Secretary of the Army is the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of Defense is the Secretary of Defense. I had restrictions that were unusual to me. I had not had them in the past. Senator Hawley. Mr. Salesses, let me ask you about your response to this. You said something earlier to Senator Portman that caught my attention. You said to him, when he was asking about this same issue, you said, and I am quoting you now, ``several things happened in the spring'' that may have led to these changes. What are you referring to there? Mr. Salesses. Senator, what I am referring to is there were a number of incidents in the spring where we helicopters flying above U.S. citizens; we had spy planes, RC-26, flying over folks who were protesting. We also had law enforcement officers that were in military uniforms, which sometimes confused people. When the new Secretary came in, he wanted to make sure that he had guidance on making decisions. Now, I will point out, Senator, that the Secretary of Defense is the only authority to order military personnel into civil disturbance operations. That is the Secretary of Defense. This is more clarifying information because it talks about not just civil disturbance; it talks about using helicopters, using planes, using types of equipment. That is why the memo was published, was for that reason, because of the events in the spring. The Secretary of Defense wanted to have that authority vested in him. It was a very clear chain of command. It went from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Army to General Walker. Senator Hawley. Thank you for that answer. If I understand you correctly, the events of the spring, which we are all familiar with--I mean, we had the attack on the White House where 60 Secret Service officers were injured. The President had to be evacuated into a bunker. The church across the street was lit on fire. We had the incidents in Portland, Oregon, where 277 Federal officers were injured at the Federal courthouse there. We had rioting in various other cities across the country, including Washington. This, of course, was politically controversial, the use of the National Guard in some of those incidents, the use of the National Guard here in Washington, DC. The Washington Post even reported on this. For instance, June 4, 2020, ``Humvees, helicopters, and the National Guard: D.C. officials push back on show of Federal force on city streets.'' Then from January 4th--this is still the Post: ``National Guard activated for D.C. protest with more restraints than in June.'' Is the picture here, Mr. Salesses, if I have this right, that we had these--we had riots. We had civil unrest in the summer. The National Guard was involved in some of these to some extent. That was politically controversial, as journalists at the time documented, I am sure people watching this are very familiar with. That then led in some way to this reaction, well, we are going to be careful, we are going to be more careful, we are going to put some restraints on how we deploy the Guard that we previously have not before. Have I got that correct? General Walker. You do, Senator. That is exactly what happened, Senator. Senator Hawley. OK. General Walker. Just to call into mind that we had a new Secretary, too. Secretary Esper had left. Secretary Miller came in. He was aware of the events, and he wanted to make the decisions at his level. Senator Hawley. Right. Got it. I think that is helpful. I think that is very helpful clarifying testimony. I think that is something that this Committee--or Committees and Congress is going to have to grapple with as we go forward, that there was a political reaction to events from over the summer, and that political reaction resulted in restraints being put on Guard deployment that ultimately ended up being dangerous on the day here, on January the 6th. Ms. Sanborn, can I come to you for a second and just follow up on something that Senator Paul was asking about? I had the chance to talk with Director Wray yesterday in the Judiciary Committee in a wide-ranging hearing there, and one of the things I asked him about were these reports about private companies who have conducted broad searches of their customer databases and according to reports, turned over this information voluntarily. He said he did not know one way or the other. I heard you give a similar response to Senator Paul. You said you would follow up with him. Can I ask you to do the same with me with specifics about that? Ms. Sanborn. Absolutely. Senator Hawley. Thank you. Let me just ask you a little more broadly, to your knowledge, has the FBI requested or required private companies to turn over metadata in order to identify individuals who may have been present in the Capital Region or engaged in violence on the 6th? Ms. Sanborn. Anything we would have requested from any of those companies would have been via subpoena or search warrant, so via lawful process. I would have to get you the background of when we may have asked for that or not. I am not positive of the situation, but I just would reiterate that if we obtain that, it would be from a lawful court order or a subpoena. Senator Hawley. Director Wray gave me a similar answer yesterday, but he similarly said he did not know of the specifics. That was his language, he did not actually know if there had been any such requests or not. I think he also went on to say he would not be surprised, but he just did not know. You are telling me you do not have any additional knowledge of the specifics? Ms. Sanborn. I am definitely not aware of a situation where we requested it. Whether or not somebody offered it, both of those are things I would like to follow up. Any request would have come with legal process. Whether it was offered to us voluntarily, that is where I would like to follow up. I know you specifically mentioned Bank of America to him yesterday. I am aware of that situation and would like to follow up with you on it. Senator Hawley. OK, great. But you are not aware of any request made by the Bureau? Ms. Sanborn. Not outside legal process. Senator Hawley. OK. Got it. Are you aware if any of these methods that have been reported using metadata, cell phone location data, financial data, were any of these used by the FBI during Operation Legend or any other investigations over the summer related to civil violence then? Ms. Sanborn. I am not aware, sir. That would be my counterpart, but happy to follow up and have him follow up with you. Senator Hawley. That would be great. I would appreciate that. Thank you all for being here and for your service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Senator Cruz from the Rules Committee. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CRUZ Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to each of the witnesses for being here. Thank you for your service helping keep this country safe. As we look back on the terror attack that played out in the Capitol on January 6th, it is apparent that far more should have been done to keep the Capitol safe and to stop the attack beforehand. There were multiple factors that led to that not being done and to there not being a sufficient law enforcement presence to prevent violent criminals from carrying out that terror attack. On January 5th, the day before the attack, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser sent out a tweet. That tweet read, ``To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other Federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to and consultation with MPD if such plans are underway.'' The tweet that she sent attached a letter that she sent to the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense. That letter in turn reads as follows: ``As the law enforcement agency charged with protecting residents and visitors throughout the District of Columbia, the Metropolitan Police Department is prepared for this week's First Amendment activities. MPD has coordinated with its Federal partners, namely, the U.S. Park Police, U.S. Capitol Police, and U.S. Secret Service, all of whom regularly have uniformed personnel protecting Federal assets in the District of Columbia.'' ``This week MPD has additional logistical support of unarmed members of the D.C. National Guard who will work at the direction of and in coordination with MPD. The District of Columbia Government has not requested personnel from any other Federal law enforcement agencies. To avoid confusion, we ask that any request for additional assistance be coordinating using the same process and procedures. We are mindful that in 2020 MPD was expected to perform the demanding tasks of policing large crowds while working around unidentifiable personnel deployed in the District of Columbia without proper coordination. Unidentifiable personnel, in many cases armed, cause confusion among residents and visitors and could become a national security threat in no way for MPD and Federal law enforcement to decipher armed groups.'' ``To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other Federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to and consultation with MPD if such plans are underway. The protections of persons and property is our utmost concern and responsibility. MPD is well trained and prepared to lead the law enforcement coordination and response to allow for the peaceful demonstration of First Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.'' Signed, ``Muriel Bowser, Mayor.'' So in hindsight, that letter seems incredibly ill advised. Now, hindsight is always 20/20. But to what extent did the District of Columbia's explicitly asking for no additional Federal personnel impact the decisionmaking of your respective agencies? Mr. Salesses. Senator, I will go first. In my oral statement this morning, I mentioned that letter because it did--it was a communication that they were looking for no more support. On top of that, Senator, we also contacted all the Federal law enforcement organizations--Secret Service, Park Police, Marshals, FBI, and Capitol Police--over the weekend of the 2nd and 3rd of January, just to make sure that the Department of Defense, if additional support was going to be needed, that we would obviously provide that support. We did that over the weekend. Then we receive that letter on the 5th, and based on that it was clear that there was no additional support needed for our law enforcement partners or the city-- the District, rather. Senator Cruz. Let me follow up on that, Mr. Salesses. Mr. Sund, who testified before the Senate last week, said that he had requested the support of the D.C. National Guard on January 6th, but that the Army Secretary denied his request saying, ``I do not like the visual of the National Guard standing aligned with the Capitol in the background.'' Is that accurate? Mr. Salesses. Senator, I am not aware of the Secretary of the Army talking to Chief Sund about the D.C. National Guard and the Capitol. It has been reported by others that there were other folks that made that contention to the D.C.--I mean the Capitol Police, but I am not aware of the Secretary of the Army doing that. In fact, nobody in the chain of command disapproved the request on the 6th of January from the Capitol Police. Nobody disapproved it. Senator Cruz. The various authorizing memoranda from January 4th and January 5th suggest that the National Guard was significantly restricted on the 6th. While Ryan McCarthy, the former Secretary of the Army, approved the D.C. National Guard to support MPD in some ways, he expressly withheld authority to employ the Quick Reaction Force, and he lacked authority to authorize the issuance of weapons and riot gear, among other things. Could you please explain what you understand to be the restrictions placed on the Guard? Mr. Salesses. Senator, again, there is a very strict chain of command for the D.C. National Guard. It runs from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Army to the D.C. Guard Commanding General, General Walker. Anytime the military is going to deploy the civil disturbance operations, it requires the Secretary of Defense's approval. The memos that were published on the 4th of January and respectively on the 5th of January, those were to provide additional guidance to, number one, the memo on the 4th from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Army. He wanted to make decisions if the National Guard was going to be employed in any kind of operation that required helicopters, bayonets, the things that are on the letter. Subsequently, the Secretary of the Army published the memo on the 5th stating that this is how he expected the D.C. National Guard to be employed at the traffic stops, the Metro stations, and if the QRF that was positioned at Andrews Air Force Base was going to be used, he wanted to understand exactly how that was going to be used through a concept of operations. That is what those documents---- Senator Cruz. General Walker, could you answer the same question and, in particular, whether you had the authority to employ a Quick Reaction Force prior to January 6th? Would that have potentially made a difference on January 6th if you had been able to do so? General Walker. Senator Cruz, I would have had that authority prior to January 6th to employ, direct a Quick Reaction Force. The Secretary of Defense, his letter authorizes me to use the Quick Reaction Force and it says ``only as a last resort,'' where the Secretary of the Army, his direction to me withholds the authority to use the Quick Reaction Force, and he will only authorize that and only after he has a concept of operations sent to him, a CONOP sent to him. That was a restriction that was unusual to me. I had never seen that before. Senator Cruz. Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent that both the tweet and the letter from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser be entered into the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The information referenced by Senator Cruz appears in the Appendix on page 306. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Klobuchar. Without objection, it will be entered in the record. Senator Cruz. Thank you. Chairman Peters. I think we are starting to wrap up this hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses again for your testimony. But I have a couple quick questions, and I know Chairwoman Klobuchar has a couple, and then we will have some closing comments. I guess I will start with these two questions and the preface. I am going to start these questions where I started my questions initially with the events that happened in the summer of 2020 where authorization happened very quickly for the National Guard. There was no delay. You were immediately deployed, General Walker, and yet it happened differently on January 6th. Part of that is some of the surveillance. My first question for you, Ms. Sanborn, it has been reported that the FBI deployed its state-of-the-art surveillance plane to watch the protests that occurred in Washington, DC, over the summer in response to the death of George Floyd. How do you explain the difference in how the FBI responded to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest compared to the pro-Trump protest? Ms. Sanborn. I do not have any specifics on the plane. It is just not my purview of something that I cover specifically as the Assistant Director of Counterterrorism. But what I can tell you from the Counterterrorism Division's approach to both of those was not different. We go after the violence, and what we saw all summer long was violence and people using the guise of First Amendment-protected activity to conduct violence. We opened hundreds of cases and arrested close to 100 people throughout the summer in their activities. Our approach to both instances was equal opportunity. If you are going to do violence in the United States and break Federal law, the FBI is going to investigate. Chairman Peters. Certainly, and I understand that, and you should. There is no quarrel there. Where would we get the answer on the use of a surveillance plane versus not on January 6th but on other occasions across the country? Ms. Sanborn. Yes, I will take the question back, and I think it would be best posed for our Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG). But definitely I will find somebody that can follow up with you. Chairman Peters. I appreciate that. General Walker, you were also asked by someone on the panel about the helicopter in relation to January 6th, and you said that is not normally something we would use. I do not want to mischaracterize you--you said it would not be necessary. But what I did get from it is that it is not normally used, but yet it was used in the summer protests. Why was it used there and not on January 6th? Was there different circumstances? How do we explain that difference? General Walker. It is my understanding one of my Deputy Commanding Generals put the helicopter up. Ultimately it is still me, but I believe the request was to be able to observe and report the crowd size. It was at night, that night, versus a daytime operation. That is why the helicopter was there. I just want to correct the record regarding the RC-26 that was mentioned. The District of Columbia National Guard never requested an RC-26 fly over the District of Columbia. The difference between the summer and January 6th was the Secretary of the Army was right next to me, for days at a time. When it came time to respond to the White House, the Secretary of the Army was with me. The monuments, the Secretary of the Army was with me. He either came to my headquarters, he rode in the car with me, or I rode in the car with him. I was present when he called the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General to request approval for requests that the city made. The city wanted us to conduct additional traffic control points, blocking vehicles. The Secretary gave me a verbal and then contacted the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, and it was done. Those are just some of the differences that occurred, and I did not have the Secretary of the Army with me on January 6th. Chairman Peters. The Secretary was with you during the summer. Those were large gatherings. All the evidence pointed that this was going to be a very large gathering, and we know that based on social media the Capitol and Members of Congress was going to be a target. Is there a reason that you know of that the Secretary of the Army was unable to be with you on that day? General Walker. I do not, but the Secretary of the Army is the Secretary of the entire Army, so I do not know what else was going on throughout the Army. We are globally deployed. I do not know why he was not with me on January 6th as he was during the summer. Chairman Peters. Very good. Ms. Sanborn, finally, I will wrap up here. Could you please commit that in the future the FBI will provide any threat reporting, even if it is not yet corroborated or fully analyzed, relating to the security of the Capitol to the U.S. Capitol Police, both Sergeant of Arms, and congressional and committee leadership? Ms. Sanborn. I believe I can do that, sir, yes. Chairman Peters. Great. Thank you. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you all, and I know it has been a long day and you probably want some lunch, and I really appreciate your patience today. I wanted to end with some ideas and constructive ideas, which is why we are doing this hearing on how we can best do that. Any of you can take this, but this is just based on all of the experience you have had. We have a unique situation here at the Capitol where the Chief is reporting to this Police Review Board. You, General Walker, may be most familiar with it. But they are reporting to the Sergeant at Arms, the two Sergeants at Arms, and the Architect of the Capitol. It is three of them. In fact, just today Senator Schumer announced a new Sergeant at Arms, Karen Gibson, while you guys were sitting there. There is something about the structure which may work for requesting resources or making decisions, but certainly did not work in this context where the Chief, then-Chief Sund, was leading up to it, asking them, probably not able to do exactly what he may have wanted to do at the time, and then the most ridiculous of situations during the insurrection is actually calling them for their advice and authority while they are individually guarding the Members and safely getting them to other places in this crisis situation. Your views on whether or not that is an ideal situation--this is called a ``softball,'' General Walker. That is, whether or not this is an ideal situation, and maybe Ms. Sanborn, for trying to make decisions in a crisis as we look at changes that we can suggest and make here at the Capitol. General Walker. The Sergeant of Arms, both of them, were briefed by me personally in 2018 on what it takes to request District of Columbia National Guard support. I sat down with both Sergeant of Arms, myself and Brigadier General Dean and others, in their office and explained six-step process and left them with a PowerPoint presentation. I also briefed Chief Sund and his predecessor. I had them come to the Armory and explain in detail what it takes if you ever need District of Columbia National Guard support. What I think might be helpful in the future is that that is practiced, that you come up with an event when we need District of Columbia National Guard support. You pick a day and say--and then we exercise it, and then have the District of Columbia National Guard actually come out in an exercise, here is where we would go, here is how we would support the United States Capitol Police. But both Sergeants of Arms understood what it takes to request District of Columbia National Guard support. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Mr. Salesses, do you want to add anything to that? Mr. Salesses. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I do. I work on a regular basis with the Capitol Police Board. I just met with the new team on Monday, in fact. The challenge, quite candidly, is in contingency operations and contingency events, there really needs to be one person in charge making decisions. To have four people that have to either agree or come together and have the same--I just do not think it is a very workable solution. I also deal with all the Capitol Police requests that come to the Defense Department. Normally we get the requests actually at the last minute most of the time, because it takes all four of them to sign a document to give us the request. For example, right now we have the National Guard on the Capitol today. It is supposed to end on the 12th. We are trying to figure out would the Capitol Police Board--what is going to happen after the 12th? We need an answer in the Defense Department so that we understand---- Chairwoman Klobuchar. Exactly. Mr. Salesses [continuing]. The Secretary can review and make a decision on how that support will either be continued or adjusted. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Very good. I would agree with that. Mr. Salesses. I just would like to add something else, Senator, if I could. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Sure. Mr. Salesses. I do think that all of us now, because of the unique environment that we are in, as we talked about extremism, I know we talked a lot about intelligence assessments and those types of things, and they are critical to this effort, really being able to predict. But I think we also need to anticipate when we see large crowds gathering in the National Capital Region. They are all permitted by the Park Police, so we know when they are going to be here. We need to do a better job anticipating that kind of activity so that we think about the most likely and most dangerous scenarios that we face. With that, we need to plan together; we need to train together; we need to exercise together. We need to have an integrated security plan here for the NCR. As I mentioned in my opening statement about the number of law enforcement organizations that we have here in the NCR and the different jurisdictional responsibilities, we need to bring them together so we know how we are going to operate in these complex environments that we are facing right now. Then we need to understand the critical capabilities that each of us can bring to that, and we need to make sure that we have prearranged agreements to provide those capabilities in a timely fashion. The challenge is when you start from zero and you are faced with the challenges that we were faced with on the 6th collectively, that is a very difficult position to start from. I think if we work at some of those things, I think we can be much more effective, and the Department of Defense really looks forward to working with people on that. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Yes, and I had a very good meeting with the head of the Joint Chiefs. He actually gave one of the highest civilian honors to one of our heroes here, and I was able to talk with him about this. I think that is a moment--I thought that Ms. Sanborn said it best when she said she has always learned and improved. It is hard to do that in an environment like this, and I know it is not easy as we ask these questions, especially when people think, well, yes, OK, maybe we messed up this part of it, but how about those guys? But we know there are things that can be done better, and so I really appreciate that. I do not know if the two of you want to add anything to my question, and that will be it for me. Ms. Sanborn. Nothing to add, ma'am. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Ms. Smislova. Ms. Smislova. No, nothing. Chairwoman Klobuchar. OK. Very good. Chairman Peters. Once again I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us here today. This was a very long hearing. I appreciate your perseverance in dealing with certainly a number of very tough questions, and we all appreciate your answers. There is no question from what I have been hearing over these last two hearings that there were serious breakdowns in our intelligence gathering and security planning that resulted in significant violence right here on the Capitol Grounds. The three hour and 19-minute delay in authorizing the deployment of the National Guard to respond to the Capitol to quell the violence was one that left police, Members of Congress, staff, and the public in danger and is without question completely unacceptable. The breakdown in communication in the chain of command within the Department of Defense that contributed to this delay, a stark difference from the Department of Defense's response during the summer protests, is concerning and should never, ever happen again. I remain concerned that our national security agencies are simply not adequately focused on domestic terrorism, which we all agree is the number one terrorist threat to our homeland. The potential for violence was well known and widely disseminated all across social media platforms in the days leading up to January 6th, yet the very agencies responsible for monitoring and evaluating those threats failed to utilize every investigative tool to gather the readily available intelligence warnings of violence and failed to assess this intelligence. The intelligence community's family directly contributed to law enforcement's inadequate preparation on January 6th, and I understand the FBI and the DHS' commitment today to doing better in their intelligence collection and monitoring this threat, which I appreciate, but we need to actually see these improvements. It has to be demonstrated in a meaningful way. It is not enough for agencies to simply promise to do better. Congress must make reforming our counterterrorism efforts a top priority. We need to take a hard look at reforming the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis and requiring both DHS and FBI to provide more concrete information to law enforcement so that they can take actions to protect our communities from this violent and deadly threat. Following today's hearing, I will continue my investigation, and we will continue to interview other officials and experts as we work toward additional problems and potential solutions, and I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, across multiple committees, to ensure that we are setting policy that will provide the foundation for our national security agencies' threat and treat domestic violence threat with the seriousness that it certainly warrants and help protect Americans all across our country. With that I close, and thank you again, Chairwoman Klobuchar, for working with me on this hearing today. Chairwoman Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman Peters. I also thank Ranking Members Blunt and Portman. We have done every part of this hearing together and agreed on witnesses and agreed on how we were going to proceed. We felt that was very important. This is a political environment enough without politicizing this, and we have tried our best to be constructive. Now we have had two hearings, and we all know we have had some consensus on many things. We have had consensus from our witnesses that there is significant evidence that there was an element of this that was planned and coordinated involving white supremacists and violent extremists, people intent on doing damage not only just to this building, as we are reminded as we stood on the inaugural stage with now-President Biden, with still spray paint at the bottom of the columns and still surrounded by what had just happened there only two weeks before. They were intent not just on destroying the physical building that we work in, but also our democracy that brought us to that moment. As an aside, I really was proud of the work that Senator Blunt did in planning that Inauguration, but also the work we did that night when, at 4 a.m., it was just the two of us a Vice President Pence walking with two young pages that had the mahogany box with the remaining ballots in it to go over to the House. People were doing their jobs, just as you do your jobs. As I said earlier, I thought this was best summed up by Ms. Sanborn when she talked about their after-actions, when they look at, as I know I did when I was a prosecutor--sometimes with law enforcement, sometimes about cases, sometimes about why a domestic violence case--I mean domestic violence as in the home--got to the point that it did. We would look back at decisions that had been made. Now, back then we could do it in rooms just with ourselves, and that is a lot easier than this. I am sure you are doing that in your own agencies. But we have a public duty of oversight and a public duty to get this information out, and sometimes around this place the only way we can get the change and maybe the resources that you need, Ms. Sanborn, that Director Wray was talking about or the work that you were talking about, Mister--the man with the hardest name at this hearing. [Laughter.] Chairwoman Klobuchar. Mr. Salesses, that you were talking about to be able to bring people together that we need to for the planning ahead of time so we do not get to that moment of chaos--not only chaos at the Capitol but chaos that, of course, General Walker encountered when he was trying to get a decision that day. A lot of this is stepping back, planning ahead. I personally think that it has been very difficult during the pandemic for people to meet like they used to meet when they were planning ahead. Thankfully, with the recent announcements we have had, we hope to be through that so people can once again be meeting face to face and across jurisdictions. I think that would make a difference. As we look at the changes which Chairman Peters so well laid out, I think additional ones, again, which I keep harping on, is that the Capitol Police Board, I just think having been in law enforcement myself, this is just a recipe for disaster to have crisis decisions made by a group of people on the scene or even leading up to it. I also think we know that, as we learned after 9/11, as was pointed out by some of our Senators, you can learn from horrible, horrific events and then do better with sharing intelligence, that maybe old ways that people were getting used to with sending emails or maybe speaking up at a meeting, maybe the right people were not in that room. Or perhaps they are not looking at all the information because they are overloaded, and you have to find a way to triage it so they actually realize something is important. I personally think with everything that went on in the last year, there was some underestimation of the potential violence of these particular groups, which we now know all too well. I also want to thank everyone involved in law enforcement, not just for keeping us safe that day but for the work that they are doing all across the country to bring justice to those like Officer Sicknick who lost his life and those who were injured in terms of pursuing these cases, some of which are very straightforward because they put it on their own Facebook page, but some of which are a lot harder to figure out what the coordination is and what happened. We all know there are still questions coming out of all of this--again, some of them, I am sure, very difficult because a lot of people were trying to do their jobs that day, and mistakes were made. But we do have to get to the bottom of some of this, at the same time not losing track of our intent. There may be longer investigations that go on on all of this, but our intent right now is to make sure that we make smart changes getting the people in place at the Capitol. Senator Peters and I do not control that, but we can give our advice based on what we hear, and also making the structural changes that can make it easier for you all to do your jobs to keep this country safe and for us to do our jobs as well. Thank you very much, and we will keep the record of this hearing open for two weeks, and the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 2:06 p.m., the Committees were adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]