Hearings to examine the weaponization of the Quiet Skies Program.

1[Senate Hearing 119-215]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-21556                   EXAMINING THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE7                          QUIET SKIES PROGRAM89=======================================================================1011                                HEARING1213                               before the1415                              COMMITTEE ON16               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS17                          UNITED STATES SENATE1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                               __________2425                           SEPTEMBER 30, 20252627                               __________2829        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3031                       Printed for the use of the32        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs3334        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3536                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE373862-163 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 20263940        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS4142                     RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman43RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan44JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire45RICK SCOTT, Florida                  RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut46JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania47BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey48JONI ERNST, Iowa                     RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona49ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan5051                William E. Henderson III, Staff Director52     Christina N. Salazar, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel53                       Andrew J. Hopkins, Counsel54               J. Ryan Arient, Professional Staff Member55               David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director56     Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Director of Homeland Security57         Moran Banai, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member58                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk59                   Ashley A. Gonzalez, Records Clerk6061                            C O N T E N T S6263                                 ------64Opening statements:65                                                                   Page66    Senator Paul.................................................     167    Senator Peters...............................................     368    Senator Ernst................................................    1569    Senator Moreno...............................................    1970    Senator Lankford.............................................    2171Prepared statements:72    Senator Paul.................................................    3573    Senator Peters...............................................    387475                               WITNESSES76                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 20257778Mark Crowder, Senior Federal Air Marshal, U.S. Transportation79  Security Administration........................................     680Hon. Tristan Leavitt, President, Empower Oversight...............     881Matt Taibbi, Editor, Racket News.................................    1082Jim Harper, Senior Nonresident Fellow, American Enterprise83  Institute......................................................    1284Abed Ayoub, National Executive Director, American-Arab Anti-85  Discrimination Committee.......................................    148687                     ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES8889Ayoub, Abed:90    Testimony....................................................    1491    Prepared statement...........................................    6892Crowder, Mark:93    Testimony....................................................     694Harper, Jim:95    Testimony....................................................    1296    Prepared statement...........................................    4897Taibbi, Matt:98    Testimony....................................................    1099    Prepared statement...........................................    46100Leavitt, Hon. Tristan:101    Testimony....................................................     8102    Prepared statement...........................................    40103104                                APPENDIX105106Senator Paul's flash report......................................    71107Minority response to flash report................................    80108Committee Report.................................................    83109Redacted documents...............................................   126110Statements from Air Marshall National Council....................   238111Statement from Council on American-Islamic Relations.............   243112113                      EXAMINING THE WEAPONIZATION114                       OF THE QUIET SKIES PROGRAM115116                              ----------117118                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2025119120                                     U.S. Senate,121                           Committee on Homeland Security122                                  and Governmental Affairs,123                                                    Washington, DC.124    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room125342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul, Chair of126the Committee, presiding.127    Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Johnson, Lankford,128Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Peters, Hassan, and Blumenthal.129130              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL\1\131132    Chairman Paul. Welcome. Thanks, everybody, for coming133today.134---------------------------------------------------------------------------135    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Paul appears in the Appendix136on page 35.137---------------------------------------------------------------------------138    In mid-2024, as she grew increasingly critical of the Biden139administration and increasingly involved with the Trump140campaign, Tulsi Gabbard noticed changes as she went to the141airport. She had more screening, Federal agents with dogs142showing up for her flights. Other Federal agents followed her143on the plane and reported back on her activity.144    When I learned of this, I launched an investigation into145the Transportation Security Administration (TSAs) Quiet Skies146Program and the Biden administration's weaponization of the147watch list against everyday Americans. Under public scrutiny148the Biden administration removed now Director of National149Intelligence (DNI) Gabbard from the program, but they spent the150remainder of their time in office stonewalling any151investigation.152    Thankfully, that era is over. President Trump, himself a153victim of government weaponization, set out to reverse the154previous administration's targeting of the very citizens it has155sworn to protect.156    Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has taken157decisive action to eliminate bureaucratic obstacles resisting158transparency. We are finally getting answers, and now we know159exactly why the previous administration fought so hard to keep160us in the dark.161    Director Gabbard was surveilled on at least five domestic162flights by Federal Air Marshals (FAM) under Quiet Skies.163Internal records for her targeting show her congressional164portrait and that she was a former Congresswoman from Hawaii.165There was no doubt they knew who they were monitoring.166    Multiple concerns were raised internally, and one air167marshal asked a colleague, why the heck is she a Quiet Skies168suspect? If this can happen to a combat veteran, a Lieutenant169Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, and now Director of National170Intelligence, it can happen to anyone. And it did.171    Today, for the first time, you will hear directly from a172Federal Air Marshal whose wife was labeled a domestic terrorist173simply for engaging in protected First Amendment activity.174Records show the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) labeled175her as a domestic terrorist for unlawful entry into the Capitol176on January 6th.177    But she did not enter the Capitol. She came for public178support of the President, and they knew it. Her phone location179data did not put her inside the Capitol. Facial recognition did180not identify her inside. She had no criminal record and no181history of extremist views.182    What they did know is that this Catholic schoolteacher from183Texas supported President Trump and went to Washington to184attend his rally at the Ellipse. That was not enough for the185government. That was not enough to label her a suspected186domestic terrorist. For two years, her family was surveilled187when they flew.188    This was not an isolated case. It happened to hundreds of189Americans. It happened because the TSA used First Amendment-190protected activity as a predicate for watchlisting Americans.191That is unconstitutional, of course. First Amendment activity192cannot be the sole basis for watchlisting someone, but sole193basis is an important caveat and it is an opening the TSA194exploited.195    Today we will release internal TSA records that reveal how196the agency authorized First Amendment activity to be used to197justify the surveillance of Americans with no evidence and no198recourse. Using broad and vague authorities, TSA deemed199hundreds of Americans as threats to national security simply200for holding opposing political views. The Federal Government201used its investigative authorities, anonymous tips, and202university research institutions to build a flimsy case to put203them on the watch list.204    They did not just coincidentally watchlist hundreds of205people who attended the same Trump rally. They did it206intentionally, and obscured the process to create plausible207deniability. For example, documents obtained in my208investigation reveal that TSA relied on data collected by the209George Washington University (GWU) Project on Extremism.210    Consider this. First, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)211funds the Project on Extremism, an external partner not bound212by the same laws and regulations as Federal agencies. Then, the213Project on Extremism identifies supposed domestic threats by214meticulously tracking January 6th defendants. DHS then uses the215Project on Extremism reporting as evidence, sometimes the only216evidence for putting someone on a watch list.217    But the abuses were not limited to January 6th. TSA also218viewed skeptics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mandates219as threats. Simply removing a mask on an aircraft got 12220Americans watchlisted. Records also show three current Members221of Congress, all Republicans, were included in the companion222Silent Partner Program, either as a sitting member or while223seeking elected office.224    A cursory review would have revealed them to be either a225Member of Congress or decorated active or former U.S. military226members. In fact, they were surveilled, likely for activities227that were official duties during their time in the military or228in Congress.229    All of this was wrong, and I am glad that these abuses are230beginning to be exposed.231    I commend Secretary Noem for ending Quiet Skies, but our232work is not done. We must make sure that this program does not233come back under another name. Every official who directed or234approved surveillance of Americans for protected speech must be235removed from office.236    Full transparency must become the rule rather than237requiring a year of investigation. The result will be a process238that respects the Constitution, ends real-life shadow bans239against Americans, and gives all of us the assurance that our240government is focused on protecting us, not on chasing241political ghosts.242    I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening243statement.244245             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\246247    Senator Peters. Thank you, Chair Paul.248---------------------------------------------------------------------------249    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the250Appendix on page 38.251---------------------------------------------------------------------------252    Throughout my time in Congress, I have heard repeatedly253from my constituents, particularly from members of Michigan's254Arab and Muslim American community, about serious issues with255the government's watchlisting and travel screening practices.256    While I appreciate the opportunity to discuss that today, I257first want to raise some concerns about some of the other258critical national security work this Committee is responsible259for, but unfortunately, the Chair of this Committee has not260prioritized.261    In a matter of hours, two critical homeland security262authorities are set to expire: cybersecurity information-263sharing protections that protect our economy against264cyberattacks, and authorities that allow Federal law265enforcement to detect and mitigate threats posed by drones.266    We were scheduled to discuss these two bills to renew and267improve these authorities two weeks ago, but unfortunately the268Chair abruptly canceled the meeting with absolutely no269explanation.270    While there is a two-month extension for both authorities271included in the continuing resolution (CR), that is only meant272to be a stopgap. The Committee needs to do its work to273reauthorize both of these pieces of legislation.274    But even though bipartisan leaders in the House, as well as275the Trump administration and a bipartisan coalition in the276Senate, all support extending this legislation for 10 years,277Mr. Chair, you have not held a single hearing on these issues,278and you canceled the only meeting where the Committee had the279opportunity to discuss them. These actions risk making our280Nation less safe.281    This Committee should not simply walk away from its282responsibility to actually be a leader in critical homeland283security matters. Similarly, while I share your concerns about284government being weaponized for political purposes, quite285frankly I find it odd that you have chosen to look backward now286that this program has ended, while at the same time President287Trump is openly directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to288prosecute his perceived enemies, by ordering also the closure289of bribery investigations into a political ally who has been290investigated for taking bribes. We also recently saw the291Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) openly292threaten the licenses of media companies over First Amendment293protected speech.294    Mr. Chair, I hope you will devote this Committee's295resources to conducting oversight of the current296administration, as well.297    Turning to today's topic, in December 2023, I published a298report that demonstrated how well-intentioned screening299practices have ballooned into a layered and duplicative system300that sweeps up travelers who may pose no threat to national301security, especially among Arab, Muslim, and South Asian302American travelers. At that time, there were at least 22303different mechanisms that could lead a traveler to receive304extra screenings or be denied boarding. Americans must navigate305this very complex system with no explanation of why their306travel has been delayed or disrupted, and they have no real307opportunity to fully redress what prompted additional screening308in the first place.309    Congress does not even have a complete picture of the full310scope of this system and the impact that it has had on everyday311Americans. Almost all of the oversight mechanisms are internal312to the Executive Branch, such as the Privacy and Civil313Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and the Civil Rights and314Civil Liberties (CRCL) Office at DHS.315    Unfortunately, with the Administration's attacks on316oversight, those mechanisms have now been gutted, eliminating317one of the few checks and balances that Americans can use to318protect their rights in this process.319    That is why, following my report, I introduced, and this320Committee passed, the Enhanced Oversight and Accountability in321Screening Act. It was the first real effort to provide more322transparency and more oversight for this entire system of323screenings that is the topic today. This legislation requires324DHS to reform the redress process and provide Congress with325data on enhanced and secondary screenings by TSA and Customs326and Border Protection (CBP), including their effectiveness.327    At the time, I asked, Mr. Chair, you to join me in working328on this legislation, but instead you and the entire Republican329dais voted against this transparency legislation. I am working330to update it now, and would certainly love to have folks on331this Committee join me in re-introducing this updated version332in a bipartisan way.333    As I have said countless times before, we must be able to334protect our Nation, but Americans who pose no threat to335national security should not face a maze of travel screenings336and a flawed redress process. We must bring transparency and337accountability to our travel screening practices so we can338ensure the government is effectively protecting our national339security, while also protecting the civil rights and civil340liberties of travelers.341    Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce two things into the342record. I want to move to introduce a minority response to the343majority report into the record,\1\ to clarify some of the344information that the Committee has actually received that345requires some clarification.346---------------------------------------------------------------------------347    \1\ The minority response to the majority report appears in the348Appendix on page 80.349---------------------------------------------------------------------------350    I would also like to move to introduce my Committee report351from December 2023,\2\ identifying significant problems with352the watch list and screening processes, and calling for353reforms, that again passed this Committee but unfortunately354received no Republican support for the reforms that we are355going to be talking about here today.356---------------------------------------------------------------------------357    \2\ The Committee Report appears in the Appendix on page 83.358---------------------------------------------------------------------------359    Chairman Paul. Without objection.360    You have to love fake outrage. If there was such great361concern for these Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security362Agency (CISA) authorities, last week the Ranking Minority363Member had a chance to vote for the CR which extended these364authorities, but he voted no. So, you know, fake outrage is365great, but it is fake.366    As far as the reason why we have not gone forward with the367CISA reauthorization, it is because CISA has been associated368with some of the worst and most egregious abuse of First369Amendment. What we are talking about today, with the Quiet370Skies, is First Amendment abuses, so we want to make sure that371no one in government ever uses government again to go to372Twitter or Facebook and tell them to take down stuff that's373protected by the First Amendment. So it is integral, and we374will continue to fight to make sure if CISA is reauthorized, or375any of CISA's activities are reauthorized, that there are First376Amendment protections attached.377    Senator Peters. Mr. Chair?378    Chairman Paul. Sure.379    Senator Peters. You are conflating. This is not a380reauthorization of the CISA as the organization. This is381liability protections that have been in place for 10 years.382    Chairman Paul. So it is going to be First Amendment383protections added to that.384    And you have opposed it and that is a problem.385    Senator Peters. Mr. Chair, this has broad bipartisan386support. The Trump administration supports this387reauthorization----388    Chairman Paul. And so we can keep fighting about this.389    You had a chance to vote for it.390    Senator Peters [continuing]. They had said that is391absolutely essential.392    Chairman Paul. So you voted against it.393    Senator Peters. And you voted against the reauthorization394that I put up. You were the only objector.395    Chairman Paul. You voted against it and now preciously you396are for it this week. All right.397    Senator Peters. It has the support of 49 members of the398Senate.399    You will have a chance to vote again in a unanimous consent400(UC), Mr. Chair.401    Chairman PaulI now recognize the witnesses.402    Senator Peters. You are going to have a chance again.403    Chairman Paul. It is the practice of the Homeland Security404and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in its405witnesses. Will each of the witnesses please rise and raise406your right hand.407    Do you swear that the testimony you will be giving before408this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing409but the truth, so help you, God?410    Mr. Crowder. I do.411    Mr. Leavitt. I do.412    Mr. Taibbi. I do.413    Mr. Harper. I do.414    Mr. Ayoub. I do.415    Chairman Paul. Thank you. Our first witness is Mark416Crowder. He is a Senior Federal Air Marshal with the U.S.417Transportation Administration, with over 20 years of418experience. Before joining the Air Marshals, he served four419years in the United States Marine Corps (USMC), three years as420a uniformed police officer with the Central Intelligence Agency421(CIA), and three years as a Deputy Sheriff in Florida.422    Mr. Crowder, you are recognized for your opening statement.423424  TESTIMONY OF MARK CROWDER, SENIOR FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL, U.S.425             TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION426427    Mr. Crowder. Good morning, Chair Peters, and distinguished428Members of the Committee.429    I am going to start by reading a memo that I was advised to430read by my management.431    The views I express are my own and should be construed as432not representing the official policy or position of the433Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security434Administration, or the United States. I have also been advised435that whistleblowing is an official duty.436    With that being said, I will go into my testimony.437    Again, my name is Mark Crowder, a Senior Federal Air438Marshal with over 20 years of service protecting the American439people. In those two decades I have flown millions of miles to440safeguard our Nation. Like so many others, I answered the call441to serve after the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001442(9/11). Driven by an unshakeable resolve to ensure such a443tragedy would never happen again, at its peak the Federal Air444Marshal Service embodied the highest standards of Federal law445enforcement. We are known for excellence in firearms, tactics,446and specialized training.447    Today I come before you to report that those standards have448been eroded. The agency's once clear mission has been distorted449by career bureaucrats and political appointees who prioritize450personal advancement over the safety of our citizens. My451testimony will expose how Federal law enforcement agencies,452sworn to protect Americans, have been weaponized to target the453very people it serves.454    On July 15, 2021, while serving in the Houston Field Office455Operations Unit, I was monitoring special mission coverage456flights in our area of responsibility. To my shock, I457discovered my wife, Christine, seated behind me, had been458flagged in the FAM system as a domestic terrorist, falsely459accused of entering the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. I was460horrified. I knew with absolute certainty that Christine was461nowhere near the Capitol that day. My wife, who has a462disability that prevents her from walking long distances had463simply exercised her First Amendment right to attend a rally464for President Trump before returning to her hotel.465    As a Federal Air Marshal with top secret security clearance466I immediately reported the alarming designation to my467supervisors, noting that according to their system I was living468with a terrorist, a clear insider threat. The Special Agent in469Charge (SAC), William Aupperlee, instructed me to remain silent470and let the investigation run its course. Shockingly, no one471expressed concerns about the potential compromise of classified472information through my household. SAC Aupperlee was later473promoted to senior positions within the agency.474    From July 2021 until April 2023, Christine was subjected to475approximately 13 special mission coverages. Each time she flew,476teams of Federal Air Marshals surveilled her. She was barred477from checking in on the airport kiosk, online, and forced to478endure long waits at ticket counters for TSA's verification of479her identification and to take control of her luggage. She was480subjected to invasive secondary screening at TSA security481checkpoints. After the checkpoint she was then searched again482at the jetway by TSA's Advanced Threat Local Allocation483Strategy (ATLAS) teams. This treatment extended to anyone484traveling with her, including her elderly mother and our485daughter, causing them both significant distress.486    In one particularly disturbing instance, I was off-duty,487flying armed, with Christine. The FAM team assigned to surveil488her that day had to coordinate with me, an armed Federal Air489Marshal traveling with an alleged terrorist. How could an490agency allow such a glaring operational and ethnical conflict491to persist?492    I only learned of my wife's designation because of my493insider role within the agency. How many other innocent494Americans have been falsely labeled as terrorists and495surveilled without their knowledge? How many had their496conversations, travel companions, and devices unknowingly497monitored?498    With the assistance of Sonya LaBosco, an Air Marshal499National Counsel, I exposed this injustice and halted500surveillance of my family. At the same time, Quiet Skies501missions and those targeting Americans who attended January 6th502events, including public figures like Director of National503Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, dominated FAM's operations. These504politically motivated priorities diverted critical resources505and genuine security threats, betraying the solemn promises we506made after 9/11--never again.507    The events I have described, betrayal of American values,508the weaponization of Federal law enforcement to arrest and509intimidate citizens, exercising their constitutional rights is510unconscionable. Senior officials at the FBI, the Department of511Homeland Security, TSA, and the FAM service should have512recognized these actions as beyond the scope of lawful513authority and intervened.514    Someone fabricated false claims about my wife's actions on515January 6th to advance a politically motivated agenda. Those516responsible must be identified, and accountability must be517enforced to root out the corruption and restore public trust in518Federal law enforcement.519    Thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony.520    Chairman Paul. Next up we have Tristan Leavitt. Mr. Leavitt521is the President of Empower Oversight, a nonprofit, nonpartisan522organization dedicated to strengthening public integrity523through research, education, and providing pro bono legal524assistance to whistleblowers. Mr. Leavitt previously served as525a Principal Deputy Special Counsel at the Office of Special526Counsel (OSC) and the General Counsel (GC)--that is a lot of527counsels--at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).528    Mr. Leavitt, you are recognized for your opening statement.529530   TESTIMONY OF HON. TRISTAN LEAVITT,\1\ PRESIDENT, EMPOWER531                           OVERSIGHT532533    Mr. Leavitt. Thank you. Chair Paul, Ranking Member Peters,534and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you so much535for having me to testify today.536---------------------------------------------------------------------------537    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Leavitt appears in the Appendix538on page 40.539---------------------------------------------------------------------------540    Empower Oversight provides legal representation to brave541whistleblowers across the Federal Government. We are honored to542represent several air marshals, including Senior Air Marshal543Mark Crowder here today.544    Mr. Crowder first came to Empower in 2022, through the Air545Marshal National Counsel's indomitable Executive Director,546Sonja LaBosco, seated behind me. He raised concerns that his547wife had been targeted for exercising her First Amendment548rights alone. If they truly considered her some sort of threat,549why wasn't he walled off from seeing this information as he550assigned missions of air marshals around the country?551    Despite his disclosures to the Office of Special Counsel,552my former agency, and later to the DHS Inspector General (IG),553no meaningful investigation ever took place. That failure of554oversight is exactly what allows abuses to fester.555    Ms. LaBosco contacted us at Empower Oversight again in the556beginning of August 2024, when air marshals wanted to blow the557whistle on another disturbing case, the political targeting of558Tulsi Gabbard through TSA's Quiet Skies program. The facts were559alarming. Ms. Gabbard was added on July 23, 2024, just one day560after she made statements to Laura Ingram on Fox News critical561of Vice President Kamala Harris, who had just become the562presumptive Democratic Party Presidential nominee. Rather than563using her passport photo as required, TSA officials used her564official congressional photo, making clear that they knew565exactly who she was.566    These initial whistleblower disclosures were reported by567Wendi Strauch Mahoney on UncoverDC and digitally on the Breanna568Morello show. Despite Empower's experience with the DHS IG569failing to investigate the Crowder situation, we asked them to570investigate here and we also submitted disclosures to the571Congress. Members of this Committee, and others, pressed DHS572for answers, and your persistence, Chair Paul, helped ensure573Secretary Noem became aware of the Quiet Skies program and574ended it.575    Ending Quiet Skies was a very important step and well, well576overdue. But that alone does not prevent what happened to the577Crowders. They were not a part of the Quiet Skies program, and578a program like Quiet Skies could always be revived if we fail579to learn the lessons.580    The first lesson is very clear--civil liberties cannot581protect themselves. Independent oversight is essential from582bodies like this and others. Whenever government cites national583security to conceal its actions, the risk of abuse rises, and584only oversight can shine the light needed to stop it. In this585case, much more light is needed as it relates to Tulsi Gabbard.586    On January 28, 2025, The New York Times published a leak587from the government attempting to explain away Ms. Gabbard's588placement on Quiet Skies. The article claimed that her589placement was related to her attending a conference at the590Vatican, supposedly because of another attendee on the watch591list. But the article admitted that she attended alongside592another former Member of Congress, Mick Mulvaney, who invited593her. If Ms. Gabbard was truly flagged for that reason, why594wasn't Mr. Mulvaney also added to Quiet Skies when he flew back595from the conference at the Vatican?596    The government's story just does not add up, and any597credible review must answer those questions. Secretary Noem598announced the review revealed, quote, ``the Quiet Skies program599was used as a political rolodex of the Biden administration,''600end quote. However, she provided few details. Reports indicate601that at least one elected official had her husband removed from602the Quiet Skies list with a single phone call.603    These issues demand a full accounting. That is why Empower604Oversight recently called on the DHS Inspector General to605complete its work and make its report public. Normally,606inspector general reports with private information are kept607internal. They have information about personal individuals.608However, given Ms. Gabbard's prominence, the allegations of609political targeting, and the large amount of selective610information the government already leaked, there is a clear611public interest here in transparency. DHS IG has released612similar reports before when public figures were involved.613Accountability cannot be achieved if this is swept under the614rug in a private report.615    In addition, the investigation must look beyond Ms.616Gabbard's case. Anyone who abused TSA protocols to target or617protect individuals for political reasons must be held618accountable. A thorough report is necessary to propose619discipline for those who committed misconduct.620    Finally, another of the most important lessons is that none621of this would have come to light without whistleblowers. Of622course, it was obvious to Ms. Gabbard that she was subjected to623extra screening, but what she did not know, and would never624have known, is that she was formerly targeted through Quiet625Skies. Only courageous insiders willing to speak up made that626possible.627    After their disclosures, and when we brought these things628to the attention of the IG, TSA opened a leak investigation. Of629course, this was troubling. The legal question of whether630whistleblowers may disclose so-called sensitive security631information to the media was resolved over a decade ago in the632case of Air Marshal Robert MacLean. When his case came to the633Supreme Court in 2013, I organized, for Senator Grassley, a634bicameral, bipartisan amicus brief arguing TSA's regulations635could not trump the statutory guarantees of the Whistleblower636Protection Act (WPA). A Supreme Court majority agreed with us,637but TSA still sought to investigate our clients' disclosures as638though they were unlawful leaks. That kind of retaliation639chilled whistleblowers across the government.640    TSA backed down when Empower exposed their investigation,641but those kinds of risks remain. Protecting whistleblowers is642not optional. They are the first line of defense against waste,643fraud, abuse, and overreach. If they are silenced, the American644people lose one of the only tools that can help bring abuses of645power into light.646    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look647forward to your questions.648    Chairman Paul. Our next witness is Matt Taibbi. Mr. Taibbi649is an award-winning investigative reporter and Editor for650Racket News. Mr. Taibbi was a Contributing Editor at Rolling651Stone, won a National Magazine Award, authored four New York652Times best-sellers, and now writes on Substack as one of its653most popular independent columnists in the country, with tens654of thousands of subscribers.655    Mr. Taibbi, you are recognized for your opening statement.656657        TESTIMONY OF MATT TAIBBI,\1\ EDITOR, RACKET NEWS658659    Mr. Taibbi. Thank you and good morning, Chair Paul, Ranking660Member Peters, distinguished Members of the Committee.661---------------------------------------------------------------------------662    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Taibbi appears in the Appendix on663page 46.664---------------------------------------------------------------------------665    Last year, former Hawaii Congresswoman and Presidential666candidate Tulsi Gabbard was placed in a surveillance program667called Quiet Skies by the Transportation and Security668Administration. She was subject to intrusive searches, followed669by bomb-sniffing dogs, and trailed by three Federal Air670Marshals per flight.671    To cover the story I contacted the TSA. They no-commented672the main question about the truth of the story, but added, as673if in mitigation, ``Simply matching to a risk-based rule does674not constitute derogatory information about an individual.''675That is bureaucrat-ese for, ``We can't say if Ms. Gabbard was676in the program, but if she was, don't draw any conclusions,677because we do this even to innocent people.''678    Before Quiet Skies was discontinued by this Administration,679it was a symbol of the steep decline of Federal enforcement680since 9/11. The government spent $200 million a year following681up to 50 people a day for a program that in its history never682once led to an arrest or thwarted a single criminal act.683Despite its demonstrated inutility and grave civil liberties684concerns it was re-funded year after year because this is what685our government does now--it gathers information on its own686citizens as an end in itself.687    In a week in which the question of whether Federal security688officials always tell the truth to Congress is back in the689news, it is worth noting that it has been 13 years since then690National Intelligence Director James Clapper answered, ``No,691sir,'' and ``Not wittingly'' when Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon692asked, ``Does the National Security Agency (NSA) collect any693type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of694Americans?''695    Clapper later explained that he had responded in the,696quote, ``least most untruthful manner.''697    That episode solidified a principle that holds in America698today. If you lie about mass surveillance programs, even under699oath, you not only get to keep your job, you get to be hired as700a professional truth-teller after retirement as a National701Security Analyst for CNN. If you try to tell the truth, on the702other hand, about the same issues, your options are prison or703leaving the country forever.704    In those 13 years, Americans became numb to surveillance.705It was once a core principle that government could not or706should not spy on its citizens without predication. Now much of707the country accepts as inevitable the idea that every move we708make is being recorded and analyzed. We know emails and phone709conversations, at a minimum, are being collected passively, and710mountains of data we leave behind as our lives move online,711from geolocations of cellphones to GPS tracking, to travel,712banking, and medical records, are increasingly fodder for overt713or covert acquisition by Federal analysts. As Google admitted714last week, Federal officials partnered with companies not just715to monitor speech but to suppress it on a grand scale.716    Quiet Skies was the paradigmatic example of a program that717could take endless liberties with the Constitution because it718was secret. When you gather information with no intention of719ever going to court, as the TSA did with Quiet Skies, you never720have to justify yourself to a judge. This leads to a lot of721what one court recently called the exact sort of ``exploratory722rummaging'' that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.723    This is a betrayal not just of the public but of people724like Mr. Crowder, who have been trained for important work but725have been forced to do intelligence work and gather information726fellow citizens instead. As former marshal Robert MacLean put727it to me, ``The air marshal's job is to protect the cockpit and728the pilots. Let somebody else do the intelligence.'' One FBI729agent I interviewed said, ``The distinction between people who730believe bad thoughts and people who do bad things'' has been731``completely lost in our government'' since 9/11.732    Once you start down the road of collecting information on733innocent people, it creates the intellectual justification for734doing it again and again and again. All this information-735gathering reverses the natural political order, giving elected736officials undeserved and unearned power over their bosses--us,737the voters.738    It is time to stop being numb to this outrage. Let's hope739the elimination of Quiet Skies is just the beginning. Thank you740very much.741    Chairman Paul. The Committee now welcome Jim Harper. Mr.742Harper is a Senior Nonresident Fellow at the American743Enterprise Institute (AEI). His work there focuses on digital744privacy, privacy law, and select constitutional issues. He has745written several amicus briefs in Fourth Amendment cases before746the U.S. Supreme Court and has published articles in a variety747of law journals.748    Mr. Harper, welcome to the Committee.749750TESTIMONY OF JIM HARPER,\1\ SENIOR NONRESIDENT FELLOW, AMERICAN751                      ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE752753    Mr. Harper. Thank you, Chair Paul, Ranking Member Peters,754and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify755before you today. I am happy to return to a Committee where I756was a counsel for a short time early in my career, under the757chairmanship of Senator Ted Stevens.758---------------------------------------------------------------------------759    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Harper appears in the Appendix on760page 48.761---------------------------------------------------------------------------762    Having established that I am old, I also want to confess to763being slightly embarrassed for all of us that my written764testimony, submitted to you, spends as much time as it does on765the problem of counterterrorism security policy, which still766plagues us nearly 25 years after the attacks of September 11,7672001. I wish that by now we had better systems in place for768assessing risk and calibrating our responses.769    I am in the privileged position of working in a think tank770that encourages me to call it like I see it, without reference771to orthodoxies or partisan considerations. That is the American772Enterprise Institute, where I am a nonresident senior fellow.773This morning the President of AEI asked me a lot of questions774about my testimony, and I said, ``You can't ask all these775questions or I am going to have to change my opening776statement!'' But I will proceed.777    The testimony I have submitted to you is a sincere effort778to summarize what my study over years has produced in terms of779strategic counterterrorism and the security systems by which a780free country should address a particularly difficult challenge.781Doing security well is an American, nonpartisan interest.782    There are partisan valances to this hearing, of course, but783there is opportunity here, because communities and people784sympathetic to both sides of the aisle have now experienced the785negative consequences of watchlisting, including in the Quiet786Skies program. In writing my testimony I kept coming back to787the theme that watchlisting is a security and constitutional788half-measure. Watchlisting is a system for interdicting people789whose activities do not raise a sufficient suspicion to merit790actual interdiction, through full investigation, arrest, and791the levying of criminal charges.792    By doling out minor punishments and derogations on freedom793unilaterally, watchlisting defies our constitutional separation794of powers, in which law enforcement is supposed to bring795charges to be adjudicated in a separate judicial branch.796Watchlisting violates due process and derogates from the797presumption of innocence, treating people as guilty of798something without providing them an opportunity to challenge799that assessment.800    In my written testimony I place Quiet Skies in a context as801a form of overreaction to terrorism, which, as a strategy,802seeks to trigger victim states into error. The waste of blood803and treasure is the clearest error and a win for terrorism.804Here, a program costing hundreds of millions of dollars to805achieve essentially nothing.806    Terrorism seeks to knock victim states off their807ideological moorings and to delegitimize them. You do not have808to believe in a deep state cabal here, but you can recognize809that Quiet Skies and other watchlisting programs open our810government up to the charge, which is delegitimizing.811    I also supplied in my written testimony material on812terrorism risk management that was produced by the Department813of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory814Committee in 2006. The DHS Privacy Committee itself was one815effort to create some balance at DHS. The Privacy Impact816Assessment process is another. They have a role not to be817dismissed, but I do not think internal counterweights do enough818to bring balance to security programs. Our tradition is to use819tension among branches of government and among agencies to820bring balance. In the latter part of my testimony I broach a821few methods for improving the institutional and policymaking822dynamics so there would be fewer or no more Quiet Skies823programs.824    First, Congress could de-delegate power from the DHS. We825can understand the haste and uncertainty that produced broad826delegation of power in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001,827attacks, but that era is passed. You could specifically828authorize programs that you find to be effective, de-authorize829the ones that you do not see as clearly and cost-effectively830securing our country.831    Oversight hearings like this are an appropriate response.832Public and judicial oversight are important checks that help833produce balance. Here, secrecy is a perennial and confounding834problem. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's book, Secrecy: The American835Experience, argued that secrecy leaves policymakers less836informed, it denies government accountability, and it sharply837limits public debate about policy and government conduct.838    An additional proposal I offer is to have the Congress839recognize travel as a right equivalent to other rights in the840Constitution. Were it recognized clearly as a right, courts841would be in a better position to help administer the issues842that come before it and people would be able to challenge843security programs that threaten their liberties.844    Finally, I argue that privatizing at least some parts of845travel security would produce good results. Liability rules,846the insurance system, and competitive pressure are things that847government programs do not have to help guide them.848    We are in a time of welcome openness to change at the849Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Noem. Quiet850Skies is gone. The shoes-off policy at airport checkpoints is a851thing of the past. There are signals that the liquids rule and852other overreaction may be reconsidered. Let's see more to853revamp airline security and counterterrorism policy so that854threats are in perspective and directly met while Americans855remain free to travel in possession of all their rights. Thank856you.857    Senator Peters. Our next witness is Abed Ayoub. Mr. Ayoub858hails from Dearborn, Michigan, and is a graduate of the859University of Michigan and the University of Detroit Mercy860School of Law. He currently serves as the National Executive861Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee862(ADC), an Arab-American civil rights organization committed to863defending the civil rights and civil liberties of all864Americans, including advancing due process and equal865protection.866    Throughout his career he has worked to address issues867impacting Arab and Muslim Americans in the United States,868including matters related to discrimination, surveillance,869profiling, and most relevant to this hearing, watchlisting and870screening. Under his leadership, the ADC legal department871successfully assisted and provided pro bono support to872thousands of impacted community members across the country.873    You are now recognized for your opening remarks.874875   TESTIMONY OF ABED AYOUB,\1\ NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,876          AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE877878    Mr. Ayoub. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Paul and Ranking879Member Peters for the opportunity to testify. My name is Abed880Ayoub, National Executive Director of ADC. We were founded over88145 years ago by former Senator James Abourezk. Throughout that882time we have worked and assisted countless members of our883community who have directly impacted by government watch list884process.885---------------------------------------------------------------------------886    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ayoub appears in the Appendix on887page 68.888---------------------------------------------------------------------------889    Let me start off by saying something that may surprise some890people, but I have sympathy and I feel really for MAGA891supporters, for Republicans, and for anybody that is going892through and experiencing the fallout of the watch list issues.893That includes missed flights, repeat screening, frozen bank894accounts, job consequences, and much more, without notice or a895fair way to challenge it.896    I do not need to share their politics to understand that897rights and liberties are not condition on agreement. What they898are experiencing today mirrors what Arab and Muslim families899have endured for decades, a secret designation that follows you900from airport to employer and sometimes to consulate, with no901clear explanation and no reliable fix. That is not a partisan902problem. It is a due process problem. When the government can903quietly tag one group, it can quietly tag any group--left,904right, neither--just depending on who holds power. The answer905is the same for all of us--end the watch list, or at minimum,906implement safeguards that protect our liberties and rights.907    Quiet Skies was a total disaster. ADC welcomes the decision908by the Secretary of Homeland Security to shut it down. Retiring909a program that surveilled ordinary travelers without evidence910of wrongdoing is a meaningful step toward fairness. But Quiet911Skies captures only part of the story. It was a window into a912faulty surveillance architecture--secret lists, vague criteria,913and downstream sharing that harm people who have done nothing914wrong.915    For decades, the watch list system has too often been a916shortcut for suspicion, aimed at my community members not917because of what we have done, but because of who we are and918what we believe. People get flagged after visiting family919overseas, donating to lawful charities, attending a protest, or920simply for praying. That is not security. That is punishment921for religion and politics.922    More than 98 percent of the names on the FBI's 2019923Screening Dataset were Arab or Muslim. Placement on these lists924does not require arrest, charge, or conviction. Instead, it is925based on vague suspicion, often tied to religious practice or926again, protected political speech.927    Again, let me be clear. If a tool can quietly target my928community members today, it can target any community tomorrow--929journalists, activists, immigrants, gun owners, union930organizers, pro-life or pro-choice advocates. Once a secret931label replaces proof, the only limit is who is in power. If you932won't end the watch list, then at least cage it with real933notice, evidence, hearings, and strict limits so no American's934faith or viewpoint becomes a reason to be treated like a935suspect.936    Placement on the watch list has a direct and dire impact937that reaches beyond the airport. These harms underscore why938there must be reform to allow for redress/removal from the939list, the tracking of screenings, and assurances of appropriate940oversight, because the human and policy costs are real.941    The task is larger than ending one program. We have to take942immediate steps to implement due process measures to afford943those on the list an opportunity to be removed.944    Many expert, and opinions, many of them here today, have945provided a clear roadmap to fixing these immediate issues, such946as requiring TSA and CBP to systematically track all screenings947and outcomes so we can see where the system fails and who is948being hit the hardest. Second, direct the National Terrorist949Screening Center (NTSC) to report regularly to Congress on950nominations, removals, error rates, and recall of bad data,951with safeguards to protect privacy while exposing patterns of952bias. Third, pair transparency with teeth. Have mandatory953timelines and independent review that can order a delisting.954    The most urgent fix is transparency and due process. If the955government is going to restrict your liberties, you have a956right to know why. DHS's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program957(TRIP), provides little information to travelers about why they958are flagged or whether corrections are applied across the959system. Without systematic tracking, bias can go unchecked, and960travelers have no meaningful way to correct errors. Today,961individuals on watchlists often receive no notice, no962explanation, and no meaningful way off the list.963    There is room for bipartisanship on this issue, and I am964confident of that. I will meet anyone halfway on this--left,965right, it does not matter--because the watch list is not about966who you voted for. It is about whether the government has to967prove its case when it takes away your rights and limits your968life.969    Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, eliminating Quiet970Skies was necessary, but it is not sufficient. We need to971restore transparency, accountability, and due process to972protect millions of travelers. We stand by and ready to assist973in that effort. Thank you,974    Chairman Paul. Thank you all for your testimony. We are975going to start a round of questions, and we will start with976Senator Ernst.977978               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST979980    Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for calling today's981hearing. For years I have been highlighting examples of982government mismanagement and waste with my monthly Squeal983Awards, and the TSA's Quiet Skies program, unfortunately, was a984prime candidate for such an award.985    Two hundred million dollars a year was spent on a program986that was weaponized by the Biden administration to target987political opponents, including patriot veterans like former988Congresswoman, now Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi989Gabbard. The program covered over 180,000 flights since 2018,990and did not stop a single terrorist attack, as many of you991noted.992    I thank Secretary Noem for ending this wasteful boondoggle993of a program and ensuring that TSA and DHS resources are used994effectively to focus on keeping air travel safe rather than995spying on and harassing law-abiding citizens.996    Mr. Crowder, I will start with you. I am so sorry to hear997about the political targeting by the Biden administration998against your family, and I thank you for your service to our999fantastic country. Your testimony highlighting TSA and Federal1000Air Marshal resources being diverted to track and harass the1001families of those sworn to protect Americans and make air1002travel safer, shows what was wrong with the awful Quiet Skies1003program.1004    But this program is not the only boondoggle that has1005existed under TSA and DHS in recent years. Since 2017, the DHS1006Inspector General has highlighted unresolved recommendations1007about how Federal Air Marshal Service contributions to aviation1008security are questionable, so questionable, in fact, that as1009much as $394 million is being perpetually misused. Mr. Crowder,1010can you share any suggestions for TSA and DHS safety changes1011you and your colleagues might have?1012    Mr. Crowder. You say we have not shown to stop anything.1013Back in the 1980s, there were air marshals. There was a1014significant number of them, trying to stop hijackings. That1015number dwindled down to approximately 33 before 9/11. Had the1016agency stayed the course, maybe that would have been prevented.1017It is not how many air marshals and how many flights we are on1018but the terrorists not knowing which flight we are on.1019    I do not want to downplay our role in the security of the1020Nation. But as I testified, a lot of things were abused with1021Quiet Skies. January 6th, things of that nature, need to be1022addressed. Does that answer your question?1023    Senator Ernst. It does. What you are saying, basically, is1024follow the guidelines as the Federal Government has laid out1025for air marshals, and not get into the business of1026intelligence, following, surveilling, those passengers that1027might be targeted by the Federal Government. Can that be a1028takeaway?1029    Mr. Crowder. Yes. The abuse for political reasons needs to1030be stopped.1031    Senator Ernst. OK.1032    Mr. Crowder. It needs to be intel driven.1033    Senator Ernst. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Leavitt, where are1034the TSA and DHS employees who were working on the Quiet Skies1035program now? Have they moved into other programs? Does the1036agency still employ them?1037    Mr. Leavitt. Quiet Skies is just one of several programs1038that fed into creating what is called special mission coverage.1039There are still air marshals being deployed around the country,1040of course. This was just one of their several missions. At TSA1041headquarters, they still have other reasons, other criteria for1042which they are putting people on lists and other things.1043    So no, we do not have any reason to believe that any staff1044have been laid off or anything because the Quiet Skies program1045was finished. They just divert in other work, and we hope that1046it is work that actually protects the American homeland.1047    Senator Ernst. Wonderful. I want to thank all of our1048witnesses for being here today and sharing those personal1049stories. I think it is very important.1050    I want to just take, in the remaining time I have left, to1051once again thank Secretary Noem. Over the weekend, while I was1052at home, in Southwest Iowa, I ran into a U.S. Marshal that had1053been part of the apprehension of an illegal migrant that had1054killed a young Council Bluffs woman nine years ago. He had fled1055to Honduras, back to his home country. Through Secretary Noem,1056DHS, and through Secretary Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State,1057through those two departments they were able to extradite that1058man from Honduras, and he is here, seeing justice, finally,1059after nine years. I want to thank the Administration for doing1060that.1061    But when I ran into this U.S. Marshal over the weekend he1062said, ``Rarely do we ever see justice,'' and in this case we1063are seeing justice because of the Administration and their1064follow-through. Thank you for allowing me that, Mr. Chair.1065    Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.1066    Senator Peters. Mr. Ayoub, one of the issues that I have1067heard again and again from people in the community and others1068is just how broken the redress process is for people who1069believe that they are unjustly or mistakenly caught up in the1070watchlisting system. Mr. Crowder, I understand your wife, my1071understanding is not on Quiet Skies, she was put on the watch1072list, the Terrorist Watch List program. The redress process is1073really important. We still have that program in place, and we1074need to have reforms, which was part of the work I have been1075doing and the legislation that I had that we did pass out of1076Committee to deal with redress.1077    But given your experience working with individuals who1078believe that they are on the Terrorist Watch List, what1079recommendations specifically do you have for this community?1080What should we be doing right now so it does not happen to Mr.1081Crowder's wife in the future, it does not happen to the folks1082that you hear from regularly and I hear from regularly back in1083Michigan?1084    Mr. Ayoub. Thank you for that. Look, the redress process1085and the DHS TRIP program is flawed. It does not always work, it1086does not give you the reason why you were put on a list, and it1087does not give you a final decision. You fill out your1088information online, and you get a letter back saying some vague1089language, like, ``We received it. We can neither confirm nor1090deny that you are on a list.'' And it is not always effective.1091    We need to work to find ways to expand that due process,1092expand the option of being removed from the list, look at what1093existing programs are there that we could take advantage of1094which could review individuals coming in. You want to be1095proactive. If somebody is on the list, again, set up a1096proactive way for them to reach out and be removed.1097    My colleague at the end, who is a U.S. Air Marshal, who has1098far more access to being removed, it still took him a couple of1099years to be removed. Imagine a regular individual going through1100the same thing. It is going to take much longer.1101    What we have learned through our practice is when we can1102identify that one piece of information or that one agent that1103placed that piece of information in there, and then have a1104conversation with them, and interview the client. Once that1105piece of information is removed, then the issue is gone.1106    But it is going to be impossible to do that for two million1107people. There are just not enough agents and resources to go1108around. Finding a streamlined way, a streamlined due process1109measure, maybe building on DHS TRIP, that should be first and1110foremost, in dwindling down the list. Then also possibly maybe1111going through a list to at least purge the names of folks that1112have died, or children that are like four or five years old.1113Remove those names so you are working with a cleaner set of1114data to begin with.1115    Senator Peters. Right. I have certainly heard a lot from1116community members about the negative experiences, as you have1117mentioned here, with the screening system. But just like1118today's testimony, which is powerful and I appreciate the1119testimony, these are anecdotal accounts, and we could come up1120with an awful lot of anecdotal accounts. One of the1121recommendations in our report, and a big part of my bill, was1122requiring better and more complete data from CBP and TSA on all1123their screening practices, because there are like 20-plus1124programs. We are talking about one that has gone away. We have1125still a whole lot more of these things that are out there, that1126need to be addressed. This is a big issue.1127    My question for you is, do you think having better data,1128exactly what is happening to understand whether these processes1129are effective and whether there is bias, intentional or not,1130political, whatever it may be, we need data. What is your sense1131of that?1132    Mr. Ayoub. Absolutely. I think there should be data. We1133should be able to look at that list and determine why this1134person was added. Then at the end of the review you will find1135out, OK, was this group of people, do we have this many1136individuals added because they are Trump supporters, or because1137they are Democratic Party supporters? We need to be able to1138read that. We need to be able to know why they are on there,1139who they are, what trends, and to determine what mistakes are1140being made. Because again, just depending on what1141administration is in office, who is going to be targeted. Our1142community, for the past quarter of a century, for the past1143three decades or so, were thankful enough to be targeted by all1144administrations. We can tell you the experiences through1145Republican and Democrat administrations.1146    But the reality is there are trends. There is bias. There1147are folks on that list that need to be removed. Expanding that1148option, expanding the way to do that, and having those data1149points, having that dataset will also help develop policies and1150strategies moving forward to enhance and make the security1151process and the screening process better.1152    Senator Peters. Yes, I would just like to followup, because1153this could happen in all administrations, both parties,1154whatever. This is a problem. We have to make sure there is full1155transparency, there is oversight, regardless of who is in1156office.1157    Most of the oversight in these systems currently is handled1158by internal DHS offices. The Office of Civil Rights and Civil1159Liberties, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as well1160as inspectors general, who oversee this. However,1161unfortunately, this administration has basically gutted all of1162the oversight, so we do not have the oversight anymore. Can you1163describe the consequences of eliminating internal oversight1164will have on American civil rights, and civil liberties with1165regard to screening and watchlisting? So all of the issues that1166are being raised by everybody here today, we have to make sure1167that we are guarding against that.1168    Mr. Ayoub. Look, oversight is very important. The issue was1169bad with a functional CRCL office at DHS, and you can imagine1170it would be a lot worse with no oversight. So having that1171office, having some sort of mechanism there is important.1172    Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno.11731174              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO11751176    Senator Moreno. Mr. Chair, as I mentioned to you yesterday,1177I really appreciate you putting on this hearing. I think it is1178really important. I think if the American people read1179everything that was provided for this hearing, their minds1180would be blown. I think some of the stuff that is in here is1181sensitive information, which we should maybe think about maybe1182daylighting that, because I have never read something more1183outrageous than reading that memo. So it is pretty crazy.1184    You mentioned just now to my colleague from Michigan that1185the oversight is essential. How did oversight work out in the1186last four years of the Biden administration?1187    Mr. Ayoub. It didn't really work out.1188    Senator Moreno. So it is not a question of oversight. It is1189a question of intent. Because here is the reality. I think1190Americans would be appalled to know that their government was1191spying on them. Not just spying on them. Paying people like Mr.1192Crowder, who, you did not take the job to go walk around1193airports, monitoring bathroom habits and coffee habits of1194American citizens. Yet your government was paying you to do1195that, to spy on American citizens, violating the Fourth1196Amendment, shredding the Fourth Amendment.1197    One of the things that I had to do to become a U.S. citizen1198was learn a lot about Americana history. I had to read the1199Constitution. My mom convinced me that this citizenship test1200was going to be impossible, so I memorized it. Everybody talks1201about what Joe Biden says is the thing. The thing, you know,1202life, liberty, and he couldn't even repeat it so he called it1203``the thing.'' But after the end of that sentence there's a1204line that says that government is deriving its just powers from1205the consent of the governed--deriving their just powers from1206the consent of the governed.1207    Mr. Ayoub, do you think that over the last four years of1208the Biden administration that they derived their just powers1209from the consent of the governed? Do you think Americans knew1210that they had somebody stalking them at airports and bathrooms1211and coffee shops and watching who they were talking to on1212airplanes?1213    Mr. Taibbi. Senator Moreno, thank you for the question. No,1214I do not think so. In fact, as a reporter in the last four1215years it has been very frustrating investigating not just1216programs like Quiet Skies but also issues like censorship. It1217seems like there are only three ways that you can get important1218information. One is through whistleblowers like the ones1219represented by Mr. Leavitt. Another is through investigations1220like the ones by this Committee. The third is if an eccentric1221billionaire decides to hand over a ton of material to a1222reporter. It has become almost impossible to get information1223about these abuses.1224    I think what I was trying to get at with my opening1225statement is that particularly in the last four years the1226government has taken the position of the citizenry, they are1227all basically suspects until proven innocent. It should be the1228other way around.1229    Senator Moreno. That should be the other way around. That1230is the foundational principles of this country. That is not up1231for debate. There is no law that we need to pass. That is in1232our Constitution, in our Bill of Rights.1233    Mr. Crowder, I am going to shift to you for a second. I was1234out of the meeting. I had to go to a Banking session so I1235apologize. Could you point out your wife real quick for me? Has1236anybody from the U.S. Government apologized to your wife?1237    Mr. Crowder. No, sir.1238    Senator Moreno. So they have not even bothered. Nobody in1239the government has bothered to pick up the phone, send a letter1240saying, you know, we are very sorry.1241    Mr. Crowder. Nobody.1242    Senator Moreno. Let me say that to you on behalf of the1243U.S. Government. We apologize for what happened to you. It1244should never have happened to any American citizens. It is a1245total and complete disgrace, that the previous administration1246weaponized this.1247    You mentioned, Mr. Crowder, this is a result of 9/11. How1248many American citizens were involved in the plotting of 9/11?1249    Mr. Crowder. Zero, to my knowledge.1250    Senator Moreno. So what problem are we trying to solve?1251Meaning, the auspices of this. Look what happened. We can never1252let another 9/11 happen. Why the hell are we having Americans1253surveyed at airports and on airplanes?1254    Mr. Taibbi, you mentioned something else. During the COVID1255era, let's not forget how insane that was. Do you remember what1256that was like? Like you get on an airplane, you had the mask1257on. We saw people dragged off airplanes because they were not1258wearing a mask. Dragged. Like humiliated by the police, dragged1259off for the offense of not having a mask on. But when they1260served you, you could take your mask off to eat, because it was1261the most polite virus ever in the history of humanity. It said,1262well, you are eating so I am not going to infect anybody right1263now, but when you are done I am going to go back to the1264infectious part. Those of us who had some level of like, hey,1265this is just stupid, said we are not going to wear a mask, and1266that put you on a No Fly List. That got you banned from flying.1267Could you explain that?1268    Mr. Taibbi. Actually, Senator, it is worse than that. My1269understanding is that just for supporting a group that1270protested the wearing of masks on airplanes you could be placed1271on a No Fly List or on a watch list by the TSA. That is in1272addition to the J6 category, which included people who were1273just suspected of traveling to the National Capital region, not1274even of going into the Capitol.1275    Senator Moreno. I know I am over time. Let me just make1276this comment. Mr. Chair, you mentioned this to our Ranking1277Member. He is not here to listen to this, but maybe he would1278not want to. He has a choice, right, to extend CISA 2015 by1279voting yes for this continuing resolution today. But it is so1280important to him to hijack Republicans that even he is willing1281to say, ``Well, this is not that actually important to me.'' I1282also find it decently ironic that when they had control of the1283House, the Senate, and the White House that the report that he1284issued, he could have put that on the floor, right? I am not1285wrong there, right? He could have put that on the floor and1286passed that.1287    Chairman Paul. That is a good point because this is in1288response to my wanting to put First Amendment protections on1289the CISA extension. CISA was the agency--and this is not the1290authorization for the whole agency but for some of their1291powers, and I said yes, we can let it go through, but let's add1292First Amendment protections to it. Why? Because the First1293Amendment protections were in another department of government,1294some through CISA, DHS, some through the FBI, that Mr. Taibbi1295knows a lot about because they were meeting with Twitter. A lot1296of Americans still do not know this, that the FBI was actually1297sitting in meetings with Twitter officials, that CISA was1298sitting in meetings.1299    What I have said is if we are going to reauthorize CISA,1300which a lot of people want to reauthorize this particular1301authority, let's reauthorize it with an amendment that simply1302says government officials are not allowed to meet with them to1303take down constitutionally protected speech. If it is illegal,1304they can meet with them and warn them something illegal is1305happening on their social media. But things that are not1306illegal, that are protected by speech, why not put it on a1307must-pass piece of legislation? That is the only way we are1308ever going to get it beyond the other side is to do it.1309    So you are right. It is fake outrage. They are outraged1310about this particular authority expiring, but they have every1311chance to, and they will have another chance today, to vote to1312reauthorize it, and it will be part of the continuing1313resolution to reauthorize this particular facility.1314    Senator Moreno. But just super quickly, and I apologize,1315last year, when you were not Chair, the Ranking Member could1316have put that bill on the floor, and chose not to. Is that1317correct?1318    Chairman Paul. Yes. Senator Lankford.13191320             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD13211322    Senator Lankford. To the witnesses, thanks. Thanks for the1323work you are doing to be able to continue to be able to protect1324the civil liberties of all Americans and for your service to1325the country. We are grateful, as a Nation, to be able to have1326folks that are actually engaged in these ideas.1327    All of us who flew on a plane during the time of COVID1328remember full well the experience of the mask on, mask off. I1329will never forget a particular flight that I was on, that1330literally the flight attendant patrolled up and down the aisle1331the entire time, like a prison guard, watching for anyone that1332lowered their mask at any point or that got onto children who1333were with a pacifier or with someone who has a crying baby, and1334to try to figure out some way to be able to cover that up. This1335is bizarre, to be able to think about that, but to be able to1336think about our own government at the time was also trying to1337find people that disagreed with policy during that time period,1338and would say, ``We want to try to find some way for you just1339not to fly, because you disagree with us,'' becomes an entirely1340different level.1341    For Mr. Crowder, let me ask you a question on this, and Mr.1342Leavitt, if you want to be able to jump in, as well, you can on1343this. How did they make decisions regarding the threat level of1344individuals on the mask mandate issue? Did they have a ranking1345for that? How did they determine what is the level of threat1346for an individual?1347    Mr. Crowder. I am going to defer to you.1348    Mr. Leavitt. OK. We do not know, and that is the problem,1349because things like this are secret, right. They are not the1350sort of thing that everyday Americans have insight into. They1351are not the sort of thing that air marshals, even flying back1352and forth in these flights, have insight into. They are clearly1353not the sort of things that you have insight into.1354    Senator Lankford. Right.1355    Mr. Leavitt. So it begs the question then, who was writing1356this stuff and how are we supposed to trust that it has any1357basis? Clearly, people just expressing their concern about1358masks is outrageous for them to be put on a watch list.1359    Senator Lankford. Yes. So going back to some of the things1360Mr. Ayoub was saying. Someone who is visiting family in1361Pakistan, someone who was a missionary that was flying back and1362forth to a country that was deemed inappropriate to be able to1363fly back and forth to. Was there a process to be able to1364actually have a human engaged in that decisionmaking to be able1365to say, ``Hey, this person is visiting family members. ``This1366person was a missionary,'' whatever it may be. Was there a1367human involved in that or is it just a trigger, you were in a1368certain city, at a certain place, so you are on the list?1369    Mr. Crowder. Again, I can only testify to my wife's1370situation. I had specific knowledge she did not enter the1371Capitol. How she got on that list, who said that she entered1372the Capitol, I do not know. That is well above our access.1373    Mr. Leavitt. I will add to that. The TSA has tried to say1374this is just a rule-based program, right, and they give the1375impression almost that like some computer is just assessing1376flight bookings and then spitting these out. But someone made1377the decision to put, for instance, Tulsi Gabbard's1378congressional photo on there, rather than her passport. There1379was an individual involved, and frankly, somebody needs to1380figure out who that is and ask them a lot of questions.1381    Senator Lankford. Yes. There are other Members of Congress1382that have also been placed on the list, as well. We do not know1383why or what the reason was. It was just they are a threat, and1384so they have to be able to be on this list.1385    TSA has policies that prohibit active collection of1386information about people. TSA is receiver of information, not a1387collector of information. This is clearly TSA trying to be able1388to collect information. Was TSA in violation of the law,1389because they are not managing information given to them, they1390were shifting into the collection mode.1391    Mr. Leavitt. I will take a stab there. TSA has broad1392authorities, right, and so they do not treat this as1393intelligence, right. They do not say that it is intelligence,1394as though they observed you doing something. They are just1395deploying the asset. I think back to one of the points that has1396been made here, Congress has given TSA pretty broad authority.1397That might need to be looked at being constrained more further.1398    Senator Lankford. Mr. Harper, do you want to be able to add1399to that?1400    Mr. Harper. Yes. I will not be able to cite you chapter and1401verse, but the authorities in the Aviation and Transportation1402Security Act are very broad. Your intuition is correct that TSA1403should not be an intelligence collection agency. But if it1404decides it is going to go off in that direction, the language1405is so broad it can go off in that direction. That is why one of1406my recommendations is to bring TSA and other DHS authorities1407within bounds that Congress sets tightly.1408    Senator Lankford. Mr. Harper, you had also mentioned1409something about a right to travel and to clarify that. Tell me1410what you mean by that.1411    Mr. Harper. I think we intuitively feel we have a right to1412travel, and there are cases from the Supreme Court that say of1413course, you have a right to travel. You can move from one State1414to another and they cannot deny you welfare benefits when you1415get there. There are other cases where a man in San Francisco1416wanted to fly to Washington, D.C., to meet with his1417representative, and in this case the Ninth Circuit Court of1418Appeals found that you do not have a right to travel on your1419preferred mode of transportation. He did not want to go through1420all the security nonsense, and so challenged there. They said,1421no, you can take a train, or you can drive if you want to go to1422Washington, D.C.1423    A clear right to travel--Americans believe they have it,1424but the courts have not accorded it to them--would give them a1425position when they went to court where they could do discovery,1426and some of these things could be turned up. We could learn1427more about the programs. I think courts would balance well.1428Obviously, a court is not going to throw out a program that is1429probably cost effective. They will say, ``Yes, no, in this case1430you do have this right, but the right is subject to regulations1431that allow for security.'' But the right does not give way to1432regulations and programs that do not do anything, the1433regulations and programs that do not actually produce cost-1434effective security.1435    I am glad you asked about it--I would like you to give it1436more consideration. Congress can weigh in on that and say,1437``No, this intuition of Americans, that is somewhat backed by1438courts, can be made a full right. We think it is in Congress.1439Let's have the courts treat it as such.''1440    Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1441    Chairman Paul. When I traveled during the pandemic, we all1442travel several times a week, there were many flight attendants1443who were very nice, very pleasant, very sympathetic, and were1444just like me, unhappy with the mandates, and really did not1445want to go overboard. They would pass me notes, sometimes1446secretly, saying they were supportive. They did not want1447anybody to know they might be supportive of things I was for.1448    But it also brought out the inner Karen in people. This1449exists in a significant number of people in our society, the1450idea that given a little power, they really like it. I never1451was a policeman, but I wish I were. Just the idea of all of1452this power. I have power over it. If you say a word to me, you1453can be put on the list.1454    In fact, I have a TSA document, somewhere here in my1455collection of documents, that says that disobeying a public1456health order is equivalent to, saying I am going to take the1457plane down. I mean, you are a threat to the plane. You have now1458become a threat to the flight attendant. That just brought out1459the inner Karen in a lot of people, and it became really1460unpleasant.1461    I hated to fly every week and I am not somebody who is1462really that confrontational. I do not like that. That is why I1463do not like it. I do not like to have a confrontation. But, you1464would have, ``Sir, sir, you are not eating your peanuts fast1465enough. You need to put your mask on in between each peanut.''1466I mean, literally, that was happening on flights.1467    The ludicrous nature of there being any science related to1468that, that all of us with our masks off for 20 minutes while we1469are eating is somehow going to protect us from having it on for147040 minutes when we have it off 20 minutes. It turns out that1471none of these things had any science behind them. None1472whatsoever. Most of the masks they were recommending were masks1473that were ineffective. Cough masks were entirely for show and1474completely ineffective. Yet the head of the National Institutes1475of Health (NIH) was wandering around with Washington Nationals1476cloth mask on, as if it were of any value.1477    But I think it is important to know how we got here. So1478Quiet Skies, you are right, Mr. Leavitt, we got rid of Quiet1479Skies, but I am not sure that helps Mr. Crowder or Christine.1480We are still not sure exactly how they got on the list. My1481suspicion is if she just shows up on the list, I am wondering1482if somebody who does not like you saw her social media that she1483was in Washington on January 6th, did not like your politics,1484and says, ``I am going to call the Tip Line.'' You would have1485never known about it until everybody started harassing her. But1486you, to this day, do not know how she got on the list, right?1487    Mr. Crowder. That is correct, sir.1488    Chairman Paul. So that is a real problem. What we are1489taking is, let's say I am of a different political persuasion.1490I may not know your wife, but I work with you, and I heard you1491say something about your politics, and I am of a different1492political bent. Why don't I just call in the Tip Line and say--1493because I heard you say she was there on January 6th. But she1494was at the White House, not the Capitol. Not as if it is really1495a huge distinction, but there is a distinction. So maybe just1496out of spite somebody does it. Don't we have to have a way to1497fix where someone does not like you and puts you on the list?1498Or maybe somebody has an animus toward Arab Americans and just1499makes his list. I do not think we are nearly done with trying1500to fix this problem yet.1501    There is also this silent program, Silent Partner program,1502where one of them was if you are traveling from Greece and you1503do not have a Greek name, and you have been to Turkey, or you1504have been to Syria sometime in the last 10 years, well, what if1505that trip to Syria was because you were part of the armed1506services? Is there not somebody with a brain that is actually1507looking up and saying, ``You were in the armed services while1508you were there,'' or have a relative there, frankly, and have a1509good reason to have gone there. But I do not think anybody has1510taken the time to do it, because there are just so many damn1511people to put on these lists, and then it is so hard. But half1512the time you do not even know if you have been named. I mean,1513you were fortunate. You were in a unique position, and I thank1514you for coming forward, because you were in a unique position1515that you knew this had happened. This had to have happened to1516dozens, if not hundreds, of other people.1517    With regard to secrecy, Mr. Harper mentioned this, I want1518to reiterate how much of a problem this is. We cannot analyze1519whether programs work because they simply say, ``It is secret1520and you do not deserve to know.'' I have been asking, as the1521Chair of this Committee, a couple of simple questions. Like I1522say, I travel all the time, so I get the good and the bad, and1523a lot of it the bad of travel. I get stopped once every two to1524three weeks, and I do not think I am being selected. But I get1525selected by the machine for random pat-downs. I have been1526through the magnetometer. If I have made it through that, and I1527do not have any metal on me, I want to know, now that I have1528been selected and I go through the advanced pat-down and the1529whirly-gig machine, how many weapons and knives are you1530finding? They sent me some long answer, but they did not answer1531the question. I want to know how many. I think it is zero.1532Because I have already been through the magnet. I do not have a1533knife or a gun. What are they finding when I go through?1534    The other thing is, when you go through the--I call it the1535whirly gig machine--you go through there, it always finds1536something that needs to be patted down, so I get a pat-down1537too. But it never finds anything. It must not be a very good1538machine if I get patted down every time, and there is never1539anything there. I suspect that that machine is actually1540targeting not me personally, but doing a random check to do a1541pat-down on me by indicating that something there is not there.1542They will not admit they are doing that, but I suspect they are1543doing that. But it all goes back to secrecy. They do not want1544to reveal the State secrets, even to the people who are1545supposed to be overseeing the State secrets.1546    To give you an example of how bad it is, this is not in1547just this area. I have been wanting to read the Church1548Committee report from 1976. It will be 50 years next year, and1549it will be released to the public, but I am not allowed to read1550it, and some of my colleagues are preventing me on the1551Intelligence Committee. They jealously protect this1552information. Typically the people on that committee, with a few1553exceptions, are in favor of more intelligence power and opposed1554to more scrutiny.1555    But there is supposedly a classified annex. I want to read1556it, and I am being prevented from reading it. They have told me1557now I can individually read it, and it is a box. It is a room1558full of boxes. They will not designate exactly what is what,1559and there is no index. But I can go read it. I cannot read the1560whole entire--I would need a whole staff. I would need1561historians and other people interested in the Church Committee.1562But the Church Committee was critical of too much power to the1563intelligence agencies. Now I want to read something and I am1564being stymied 50 years later. So secrecy is a problem.1565    To Mr. Ayoub, the whole idea of accountability, of course1566we need to find these things out. Most of the programs in1567government--and it just does not go to this--most programs in1568government that are authorized for a purpose are never1569reviewed. We have legislation that says if it does not get1570reauthorized it goes out of existence. It should disappear.1571Reauthorization, and I know Senator Lankford has been very1572active in this, reauthorization should be about does it work.1573We have like 82 housing programs. Everybody gets this idea, I1574want to help the homeless. We have already done it 82 times.1575Why don't we study the other 82 programs to find out if any of1576them work before we reauthorize a new program?1577    With regard to where we go from here, we are not done with1578this. I am still appalled by the idea of outsourcing this to1579universities. So we pay the universities. Universities have no1580scruples whatsoever. George Washington University here in D.C.1581has a project on extremism. Is extremism showing up on January15826th to support President Trump? I mean, really, we have to be a1583little careful of who we are giving the keys to this. I think1584they did go after those people.1585    The evidence is that the people on the mask list--there is1586a terror mask list, apparently, so the people on the terror1587watch list for not wanting to wear masks--I do not think they1588were removing their masks. I think they were talking about it1589online. ``Let's not wear our masks. Let's take our masks off on1590the plane and have civil disobedience.'' But we are still1591trying to get to the bottom of that because we do not actually1592have the names of the people on the list. That is all being1593hidden.1594    I suspect there are also hundreds of other people that were1595put on a list because they were resistant to dictate from1596someone on a plane, to a flight attendant saying, ``Wear your1597mask higher. You are showing a nostril. Hike up your mask a1598little higher.'' I think a lot of those people were put down as1599potential disasters for the plane, dangerous people, and not1600necessarily for masks because they didn't want to list them all1601masks.1602    But we have to do more. Every one of these programs has to1603be looked at. You have to have recourse. You have to redress. I1604think that we cannot just stop here. We have to look throughout1605government, more transparency, more sunlight.1606    I am going to throw it back to Senator Moreno, I think has1607another couple of questions.1608    Senator Moreno. Yes. Mr. Taibbi, you have been around the1609block, as they say, around the globe. You have seen1610authoritarian governments. What would be the American foreign1611policy reaction to a country that receives foreign aid, foreign1612assistance from the United States that did this to their own1613citizens?1614    Mr. Taibbi. Senator, I would hope that we would look1615negatively on any country that mass-collected information on1616innocent citizens.1617    Senator Moreno. Surveilled their citizens?1618    Mr. Taibbi. Surveilled their citizens.1619    Senator Moreno. Put them on a watch list?1620    Mr. Taibbi. Yes.1621    Senator Moreno. Prevented them from traveling?1622    Mr. Taibbi. Right.1623    Senator Moreno. Had a presumption of guilt, not a1624presumption of innocence? We would probably call them in and1625say, ``Hey, we can't continue this relationship because you are1626oppressing U.S. citizens.'' Would that be accurate?1627    Mr. Taibbi. Yes, I think that would certainly be accurate.1628I know that we have raised questions about surveillance of1629journalists in other countries in the past.1630    Senator Moreno. When that was happening, as the Chair just1631said, literally FBI agents sitting down with private companies,1632saying, ``You must remove this person from social media.''1633``You must go knock on their door.'' Some of the stuff we are1634seeing in the United Kingdom (UK), which I am very proud of the1635fact that our Vice President is speaking out against what the1636U.K. is doing to their own citizens, like persecuting them for1637social media posts. Yes, that is pretty outrageous, right?1638    This was happening over the last four years of the Biden1639administration. You would say in the history of the United1640States of America, we have never seen more of a tilt toward1641authoritarian rule than we did under Joe Biden, between firing1642people who would not get vaccinated, you could not get a job,1643you were somehow a bad person, we were masking two-year-olds,1644we were forcing the injection of an experimental, I will1645generously call it a vaccine. If you did not do that, and if1646you did not carry proof of that with you, then somehow you were1647a bad person. That was a pretty dark four years in the scheme1648of American democracy. Would you agree?1649    Mr. Taibbi. I would agree, and there was also a radical1650shift in attitudes in this country toward whether or not we1651should have laws against things like hate speech. There used to1652be a small minority of people who believed that. Now it has1653become almost a majority of people who believe that.1654    You mentioned the U.K. I interviewed somebody last week who1655was arrested for speech over there. To the Chair's point, they1656have a system that allows people to make complaints that result1657in criminal arrests of people for social media posts. That1658could have been our future here, so that is deeply concerning1659to me.1660    Senator Moreno. I will jump to you, Mr. Harper, and I will1661let you answer this one. Do you think, in the scheme of things1662for Americans, I think Americans would think that their1663freedom, their liberty, their constitutional rights given to1664them by our founders is important. Just a quick question if you1665can answer it. Do you think that is important, really important1666to American citizens?1667    Mr. Harper. It is.1668    Senator Moreno. Do you think that it is ironic that1669Democrats, that chase cameras, saying that President Trump is a1670threat to our democracy, are not even here? I think the record1671should show, Mr. Chair, who attended this hearing and who did1672not attend the hearing. Because you cannot go out there and go1673on camera and say that President Trump, the person who ended1674the Quiet Skies program, the person who is reforming what has1675happened under the Biden era, there is nobody being threatened1676or being fired for not taking a vaccine. In fact, restoring1677individual liberty, and yet do not even bother to show up to a1678hearing, which I think this hearing--and I said this to you1679yesterday, Mr. Chair--is the most outrageous thing I have ever1680seen in Washington, D.C. Yet they cannot even bother.1681    I think it is one of those things where you decide what is1682important. Like when you are a United States Senator you can1683decide what is important. I can be in this hearing. I can be in1684another hearing. I can be at a fundraiser. I can be golfing. I1685can do whatever the heck I want, and that is kind of the crazy1686part about being a Senator. You do not actually have to show up1687to win, but you do. The fact that the Democrats basically,1688virtually boycotted this hearing, gives them zero credibility1689when they say that this President is moving this country toward1690an authoritarian. Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Harper?1691Am I wrong?1692    Mr. Harper. Your question on the perspective, your question1693gave, if this were happening in another country what would we1694say about it? Very powerful, because Keir Starmer in the U.K.1695is saying everyone is going to have a digital ID, a national ID1696program. In the United States we oppose that. The Real ID Act1697of 2005, continually failed to be implemented, and hoorah for1698us, because it should not be. It should be repealed.1699    Financial surveillance is a product of United States law1700that we export around the world. If you took off the label,1701Bank Secrecy Act, and put a Chinese label on it, you would say,1702``Aha! That is China!'' That is what we do, and it is what the1703United States has in the Bank Secrecy Act, again, that we1704export through the Financial Action Task Force. There are so1705many issues that we could get to, but that insight: We should1706not be doing it here. We should be leading in the United States1707on civil rights and civil liberties. So all of the things we1708have talked about, the transparency, anti-secrecy, no to a1709national ID. The perspective of your question was really1710important and helpful, I think. Thank you.1711    Senator Moreno. Mr. Chair, just one request, from my1712perspective. There has been almost no accountability to what1713the government did to the American people during COVID, like1714almost no accountability. People closed schools, who made kids,1715little kids, get vaccinated, masked. Can you imagine what that1716impact is going to be? You have kids, what the impact is going1717to be long term on 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-year-olds that were forced to1718be masked for 5, 6, 7 hours a day? No accountability.1719    Look, the most accountability was that the American people1720fired Joe Biden, thank God, and prevented Kamala Harris, which1721would have been even worse.1722    But we do have the ability to go into the current1723Administration and say who, within Homeland Security, still has1724a job that perpetuated these policies? Because my mindset is1725anybody, especially the person that wrote that memo, that1726literally made my hair stand up, how is that person still1727employed by the United States government? I think we need to1728ask that question, while we have an administration that1729actually wants to protect civil liberties, that actually wants1730to protect the American people. We cannot just ignore this.1731    Again, there are a lot of things that have happened, that1732scene, about eight months here in D.C. But this report was so1733outrageous, and the fact that my Democratic colleagues have no1734interest in listening to this says it all.1735    Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for holding this very1736important, and thank you for all the witnesses for being here.1737Again, Mrs. Crowder, truly apologize for what you went through.1738It is completely insane, not just to you but to anybody who had1739something like that happen to you.1740    Chairman Paul. Part of oversight is not vendetta or1741revenge. It is removing people who abuse the civil liberties of1742Americans. So far the court has been consistent in upholding1743the President's right to hire and fire people in the Executive1744Branch. I agree with you completely. Because we need to make1745sure that these programs do not come back again.1746    The issue of anonymous accusation reminds me of a scene1747that I saw in Venice. There is a lion's mouth, Bocca di Leone,1748and the Doge was like the kind of Venice, and you could1749anonymously just put it in there. But you could lose your head1750or be imprisoned for life by an anonymous tip.1751    One of the evolutions beyond that is sort of the idea of1752due process, that you cannot just be secretly accused of1753things. I think there is a real danger to that, and I think1754that is what happened in this case. If this is somebody who1755works still as an air marshal, that person does not need to1756work as an air marshal, if it was a colleague or somebody that1757tried to get your wife in trouble. Somebody did it. I have a1758feeling that it is malicious, actually. I do not have1759information on that, but we want to get to the bottom of that.1760The people who created and ran all these programs, of course we1761do.1762    I think your point is well taken on human rights. We have1763all kinds of strings that are supposed to be attached to human1764rights. If you are not a democratically elected government--I1765have tried using that one before, because there are many coups1766that occur around the world. We keep sending them. Egypt still1767lives under a military rule after a coup. Technically, they are1768not supposed to--there was something called the Lahey1769Amendments--they are not supposed to get foreign aid now, but1770we do it anyway. We just exempt them from the Lahey Amendments.1771    But things that we enforce in other countries we certainly1772should enforce on others. There are big categories of people--1773Arab Americans, Muslin Americans--who have been abused by this1774stuff. But it really is not always just either the color of1775your skin or the color. It could be the shade of your ideology.1776You could be a home-schooler or Donald Trump supporter. You1777could be all kinds of things that may be outside some sort of1778mainstream. To target those people is anathema to what our1779country stands for.1780    I appreciate everything all of you have done in this. I1781appreciate your testimony today. I would like to enter into the1782record\1\ a set of redacted documents produced to the Committee1783as part of this investigation. I would also like to enter the1784statements\2\ for the record from the Air Marshal National1785Council and other stakeholders. Without objection, these1786records will be entered into the record.1787---------------------------------------------------------------------------1788    \1\ The redacted documents entered in the Record appears in the1789Appendix on page 126.1790    \2\ The statements submitted for the Record appears in the Appendix1791on page 238.1792---------------------------------------------------------------------------1793    Chairman Paul. Senator Moreno, do you have any more1794questions? We have one Senator that wants to come and ask a few1795questions, so I am going to wait another minute or two. Do you1796have anything else?1797    Senator Moreno. No. Mr. Leavitt, you are an attorney. I am1798not. I will ask you this question. If Congress passed a law,1799called the Quiet Skies law, what would the Supreme Court say?1800    Mr. Leavitt. They have the same substance.1801    Senator Moreno. Same substance. In other words, if we1802passed a law that said that the U.S. Government can surveil1803American citizens who they suspect, without any evidence, of1804maybe committing a crime, and we passed that law, and we all1805cheered and we passed it, super bipartisan, and we threw a big1806party, and had a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the law, and photo1807op, what would the Supreme Court say?1808    Mr. Leavitt. Two thoughts. One, we have seen passed laws1809that are not that different from that maybe, right, and so it1810is hard. There is a balance, a policy balance. It is possible1811the Supreme Court, if it is not nearly tailored enough, would1812invalidate that.1813    Senator Moreno. Because it is unconstitutional. Because we1814have a presumption of innocence in this country. Because if I1815decide not to wear a mask on an airplane because the rule is1816insanely stupid, I should not be prohibited from ever flying1817again. If I want to travel to Washington, D.C., and I want to1818do whatever I want to do in Washington, D.C., that is well1819within the bounds of the law, that does not give any1820administrative agency the right to decide I cannot fly1821somewhere else. It does not give the government the right to1822have somebody follow me and creep me out in a bathroom and1823decide whether I am getting too many sugars in my coffee, or if1824I am going to the wrong yogurt place. That report should not be1825published inside some sort of official government document.1826    Because, Mr. Chair, there is a difference between somebody1827who has power, because it is given to them, because of some1828administrative thing. There is somebody that has real power,1829somebody who has a badge, who has a gun, who has the ability to1830arrest you, who has the ability to take your civil liberties1831away. That is what happened over the last four years, and1832Americans should be equally outraged about all this. This1833should not be partisan.1834    Chairman Paul. But I would interject, and I think it is1835longer than that, and I think one of the witnesses mentioned1836this. This fear really originated after 9/11. When they passed1837the Patriot Act, one of the things in the Patriot Act said that1838the government could go to your local library and give a secret1839warrant--it is not a Fourth Amendment warrant; it would be a1840FISA warrant--and they could get all of the different books1841that I read when I go to the library. All those could be a1842confiscated list. But they went even further. They said that1843the librarian, that you will put the librarian in jail if she1844reveals to me that the government is looking at my reading1845list.1846    We did a lot of things out of fear, and that fear from 9/184711, look, there was anger that was justified. There was a war,1848I think in many ways also justified. But we let down our guard1849on our constitutional liberties, and it is in times of fear you1850have to be most careful about them. We probably have a million1851Arab Americans in Dearborn. We probably have 10 million Arab1852Americans that are part of our country. Many of them are1853citizens. We even have Columbian Americans. They all deserve1854the same protections. That is many of the reasons why they came1855here.1856    Senator Moreno. But it is decently ironic that the1857Democrats looked the other way while our border was open to 101858million illegals cross our border.1859    Chairman Paul. I will grant you that.1860    Senator Moreno. I will turn things over to my great1861colleague from Missouri.1862    Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.1863Chair. Thanks for holding this hearing, No. 1, but thanks for1864waiting for me, as well. Thanks to all the panel for being1865here.1866    Mr. Crowder, I want to start with you, and I apologize if1867you already covered this. I have been going back and forth to1868other hearings today. But I just want to ask you, coming back1869to your wife, did you find out, how did she get added to that1870database? Why was she flagged in the first place? Who did it?1871Do you know? I mean, at what level was the decision made?1872    Mr. Crowder. That is still something we do not know. It has1873been unanswered after many attempts by several people.1874    Senator Hawley. Is it your sense that it was an individual,1875this was a human decision, or is this some kind of an automated1876thing, based on information they collected about her, personal1877information, the fact that she was in D.C. on January 6th, that1878they tagged her? Too bad, she is on the list for years.1879    Mr. Crowder. Your guess is as good as mine. She was1880obviously in the area on January 6th. Whether that prompted1881somebody to just put her on the list or something else, we do1882not have the answers.1883    Senator Hawley. Yes, it is just unbelievable. It is a1884sickening violation of her First Amendment rights, obviously. I1885want to thank you for your service, and thank your wife for1886what she has endured. You should never have had to go through1887it. To be honest with you, what we saw in the aftermath of1888January 6th, the effort to persecute the President's political1889opponents, President Biden, that is, it is just unbelievable.1890    I want to ask you, Mr. Leavitt, if I can, just on that1891subject, tell me a little bit more about how the Biden1892administration used the Quiet Skies program, which had existed,1893obviously, for long before then, but really started using it to1894target political opponents. It seems like they found, in this1895program, a great opportunity to start turning the screws down1896on people that they did not like, including, just ordinary1897folks like Mr. Crowder's wife. She was not running for office,1898I mean, she was not running against Joe Biden. But yet, my1899gosh, she found herself targeted. Is this the United States of1900America or not? Talk to us about your understanding of how this1901happened.1902    Mr. Leavitt. After January 6th it is clear, and you see1903this across a lot of agencies. We have seen this from FBI1904whistleblowers we represented. The Federal Government took a1905stance which was that a lot of people with certain political1906views were threats to our Nation. That certainly manifested1907itself in lots of ways, and one of those was these different1908types of travel lists. People who were there on January 6th, as1909has been mentioned, people that maybe were members of a group1910or expressed concern about wearing masks in public because of1911their effectiveness, were all put on lists like these. The most1912still-unanswered example is Tulsi Gabbard being added to a list1913after she criticized Kamala Harris, and again, the TSA's self-1914serving--I can't say TSA--someone in the government's self-1915serving leak to The New York Times said, ``No, no, no, it is1916OK. It was because she was associated with this person at the1917Vatican.'' She went to a conference there. But it clearly says1918Mick Mulvaney went, as well. Many of you know Mick Mulvaney. He1919did not get added to a Quiet Skies list when he flew back to1920the United States. So it just puts the lie to the fact that1921this was the justification.1922    Whenever you have secrecy, we are talking about all the1923civil liberties concerns, but whenever you have secrecy there1924is also the additional threat that it will be used in secret1925ways to target people that go above and beyond just, we all1926have to endure it. It is part of being safe in America today.1927That is targeting. That is weaponization.1928    Senator Hawley. It is kind of incredible, is it not, that1929after all these years, to come back to Mr. Crowder's wife, we1930still do not have any idea exactly how she got added or who did1931it. There is the evasion of accountability. You cannot go and1932say, ``Well, you are fired. You did that. That is an abuse. You1933are gone.'' It is the classic bureaucratic deep state. ``Oh,1934well, we don't know. We don't know quite how it happened.'' It1935just so happens, though, that everybody who looks like they may1936have been politically of a different mindset than the last1937President gets targeted. Who gets the FBI knocking at their1938door early in the morning? Is it people who are Biden voters?1939No. Amazingly, it is not. It is people who go to school board1940meetings and ask about masking policies. Who gets the FBI's1941SWAT teams at their door? Oh, it just happens to be pro-life1942folks, who had the audacity to exercise their First Amendment1943rights by walking on a sidewalk. It is unlike anything I think1944we have seen in this country's history.1945    Mr. Taibbi, if I could just come to you. Will you help1946contextualize this? We saw, and you reported on this, we have1947seen abuse across a range of agencies. It was not just Quiet1948Skies. It was the FBI. It was the Internal Revenue Service1949(IRS). It was agency after agency. It was DHS, right. It was1950agency after agency. Just fill in the blanks here for us. Help1951us understand how this, what we are talking about today, is1952sadly just one piece of a massive, seemingly whole-of-1953government approach to try and delegitimize anybody who1954disagreed with the last administration.1955    Mr. Taibbi. Sure, and thank you, Senator Hawley. Just to1956Mr. Leavitt's point, there are a lot of similarities in the1957statements of the FBI whistleblowers that empower or are1958represented in some of the air marshals that I talked to about1959this story. Both complained. For instance, there are FBI agents1960who just sat in vans outside the homes of people who might have1961been at J6, people who were pulled off details, trying to catch1962child pornographers to do that kind of work, who were extremely1963frustrated to be forced to be collecting information on1964innocent people.1965    The same thing with Federal Air Marshals who, their job is1966to prevent terrorists from storming cockpit doors on airplanes.1967That is a very important job. But we are putting marshals in1968the backs of airplanes, where they cannot do any good at all,1969and having them listen to conversations of, a former1970Congresswoman from Hawaii, and checking how many times they go1971to the bathroom. It is a total misallocation of resources, and1972it is politicized information gathering.1973    Again, I think it is a betrayal of both the people in these1974services and the American citizens.1975    Senator Hawley. Yes. Very well said, and I just have to1976say, I appreciate you holding the hearing, Mr. Chair, because I1977think we have to expose this so that it never happens again.1978The nearest thing I can think of in our country's history is we1979briefly, in 1798, toyed with trying to outlaw political1980dissent, the Alien and Sedition Acts. That unhappy episode was1981resoundingly rejected by the American people in the election of19821800. That was a long time ago now. You would think that we1983were past that. And really, what we have seen in the last four1984years is unlike anything since that period, and much worse1985because the Federal Government is much more powerful than it1986was in 1798--the ability to prevent travel, the ability to1987monitor conversations.1988    I can just think, off the top of my head, you had the1989Federal Government telling the big tech companies they have to1990take down and censor normal Americans who comment on COVID, who1991comment on masks, who comment on a CRT in the classroom. You1992have the FBI designating parents who go to school board1993meetings as terrorists. You have the FBI targeting pro-lifers.1994You have the FBI recruiting spies into Catholic parishes. You1995have the Quiet Skies program. I mean, that is just all off the1996top of my head. That is like six things. It is unbelievable.1997    We talk about Never Forget. We have to never forget this1998and make sure it never happens again. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1999    Chairman Paul. Thank you. An investigation is not over. We2000are, today, announcing that we will be investigating the2001Project on Extremism at George Washington University. We want2002to know whether or not they were doing research on people not2003wearing masks or against wearing masks, whether they were doing2004research on people who attended January 6th, whether Christine2005Crowder came from George Washington information that was sent2006over, or whether it came from someone specifically making up2007something about her.2008    We are going to get to the bottom of it. We are going to2009keep asking questions. We are going to find out who did this2010and who caused such a great disruption to your life for several2011years. You are the one we know about, and we are going to try2012to get to the bottom of who did this.2013    But this is the tip of the iceberg. We hope that anyone who2014is interested in this will continue to give us information,2015that more people will step forward. Those of you who are2016interested in reform participate with us in finding legislative2017solutions to try to make sure this never happens again.2018    With that I would like to thank our witnesses for joining2019us here today to share their testimony and expertise with the2020Committee. The record for this hearing will remain open until 52021p.m. on Friday, October 3, 2025, for the submission of2022statements and questions for the record.2023    The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.2024    [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]20252026                            A P P E N D I X20272028                              ----------20292030    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]20312032                                 [all]