[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2017
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
___________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
John Martens, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Colin Samples, Aschley Schiller, and Taylor Kelly
Subcommittee Staff
___________________________________
PART 6
Page
Department of Justice.................
1
Federal Bureau of Investigation.......
49
Drug Enforcement Administration.......
93
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________________________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
PART 6_COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2017
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2017
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
___________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DEREK KILMER, Washington
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
John Martens, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Colin Samples, Aschley Schiller, and Taylor Kelly
Subcommittee Staff
___________________________________
PART 6
Page
Department of Justice.................
1
Federal Bureau of Investigation.......
49
Drug Enforcement Administration.......
93
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________________________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
___________________________________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-680 WASHINGTON : 2016
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2017
----------
Wednesday, February 24, 2016.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
HON. LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Culberson. The Appropriations Subcommittee for
Commerce, Justice and Science will come to order. It is a
privilege to have you with us here today, Attorney General
Lynch, for our first hearing together with me as the new
chairman and you as the new Attorney General. We deeply
appreciate your service to the country and for all of us as
Americans who depend on the good work that you and your
officers and every law enforcement officer at the state and
local level do, we want to thank you. As America's chief law
enforcement officer we are counting on you to keep us safe, to
ensure that the laws are enforced as written by Congress. We
are just immensely grateful for the sacrifice that you and
everyone that wears the uniform make on behalf of our great
country.
We in this fiscal year 2017 will be working to ensure that
the Department of Justice has the resources that it needs to do
its job in not only enforcing our laws as written by Congress
but to combat cyber crime, gangs, terrorism, human trafficking,
and espionage.
Of course our Subcommittee has the responsibility to ensure
that our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely
and frugally and in compliance with Federal law as written by
Congress. And we are confident that the relationship that you
and I and your staff have already developed, that we are moving
in the right direction, which I deeply appreciate. And we will
find ways to continue that cooperation in ensuring that the
money that is the hard earned money that our constituents pay
to the IRS and the Federal government is used to keep our
streets safe and is spent wisely and frugally.
It is very important, and we know you as the new Attorney
General will do all you can to ensure that we do not hear that
any of our hard-earned tax dollars are spent for lavish
parties, unnecessary expenses, or unauthorized activities. And
in our hearing today and in the weeks and months to come
throughout the remainder of President Obama's term in office I
know you will work to convince this committee that the
Department of Justice is working to diligently enforce federal
law and spend our hard earned tax dollars wisely and frugally
to protect us. And even those federal laws that the
administration wants to change, but does not have congressional
support to change, that is an important part of this. It is our
responsibility as good stewards of our constituents' dollars.
I would like to hear in particular today how your
Department is protecting Americans' second amendment rights,
ensuring that State and local governments are not refusing to
cooperate with the Department of Human Security and releasing
violent alien criminals into communities. And as the new
chairman of this Subcommittee the rule is that if a Federal
agency or a State or local government expects to receive
federal money they have to comply with Federal law. And I am
delighted with the letter you sent me. It looks like we are on
the same page. I am very, very pleased to hear that.
We also want to talk about what the Department of Justice
is doing to combat cyber crime and espionage, and above all
protecting the United States from terrorism.
I look forward to working with you throughout the year as
the appropriations process moves forward and before I proceed I
would like to recognize our Ranking Member Mr. Honda from
California for any remarks he would like to make.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would also like
to thank you for your leadership and fostering really a
collegial and open atmosphere amongst the members of our
Subcommittee. And I would also like to welcome to our
Subcommittee Attorney General Lynch and thank you for coming
here to testify today.
As our nation's chief law enforcement officer we are all
grateful to you for your service to our country and your
commitment to upholding the rule of law. We also especially
thank you for the thousands of hardworking men and women at the
Department of Justice who are working around the clock to keep
us safe.
I look forward to building upon last year's successes by
putting together a strong CJS appropriations bill that supports
the mission of our law enforcement agencies in protecting the
American people, especially the most vulnerable among us in
those communities that have been neglected in the past.
I am pleased that the President's budget provides for a
healthy increase for what has been a relatively stagnant
Department of Justice budget over the past few fiscal years.
This year's request includes desperately needed resources for
the law enforcement at the federal, State, and local levels to
help keep up in combating new and evolving threats to the
American people. It also provides resources to those in
distress, such as victims of sexual assault and human
trafficking, as well as tribal crime victims.
I think we all agree that the mission of the department is
critical to our country and that it is vitally important that
the Department of Justice has the resources it needs to
effectively enforce our nation's laws.
With that, I want to thank you again for joining us this
morning. I look forward to hearing your testimony and responses
to questions from the members of our subcommittee. Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Madam Attorney
General, you are recognized for your opening statement and,
without objection, your written statement will be entered into
the record in its entirety. And if we could I would encourage
you to keep your statement to five minutes to summarize and
that will give us additional time for questions. But again,
welcome. We look forward to hearing your opening statement. And
we will proceed. Thank you.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, and also good morning and thank you also to
Ranking Member Honda, all the distinguished members of the
committee, the hard working staff. It is an honor to appear
before you today.
I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2017 budget for the Department of
Justice, which reflects our enduring commitment to creating the
stronger nation and the more empowered communities that every
American deserves.
In the last year thanks to the thousands of dedicated men
and women who serve the Department of Justice, and thanks to
the ongoing support of this distinguished committee, we have
taken tremendous steps toward that goal. We have prosecuted
violent extremists and dangerous criminals. We have defended
the integrity of our markets and the beauty of our natural
resources. We have also worked to end human trafficking, to
disrupt the flow of illegal drugs and weapons, and to eradicate
international corruption. And we have created new opportunities
for second chances in our justice system and new foundations of
trust in our cities and towns. These are real and meaningful
achievements and the request set forth in the President's 2017
budget request will allow us to build upon this encouraging
progress.
Now as always, the Department of Justice's first priority
is the safety and the security of the American people. The
President's Budget would invest an additional $781 million in
our national security capabilities, including in critical
measures to address evolving challenges like homegrown
extremism, online radicalization, and increasingly
sophisticated encryption. Among other items that request
contains funds for a new state of the art FBI headquarters
which would reduce inefficiencies and streamline internal
communications and also significantly boost our ability to
thwart emerging criminal and terrorist threats. It devotes an
increase of $63 million to reinforcing our intelligence sharing
capabilities. This would allow us to more rapidly coordinate
with both our Federal partners and our counterparts overseas
and it directs $38 million towards developing the tools that we
need to lawfully access encrypted data and communications so
that we can successfully investigate and prosecute criminals
and terrorists who attempt to hide the evidence of their
crimes.
Now as we have seen recently this is not a theoretical
issue. As we have made clear the going dark problem is a very
real threat to law enforcement's mission to protect public
safety and ensure that criminals are caught and held
accountable.
It is a long standing principle in our justice system that
if an independent judge finds reason to believe that a certain
item contains evidence of a crime then that judge and authorize
the government to conduct a limited search for that evidence.
If the government needs the assistance of third parties to
ensure that the search is actually conducted, judges all over
the country and on the Supreme Court have said that those
parties must assist if it is reasonably within their power to
do so. And that is what we have been asking. And we owe it to
the victims and to the public whose safety we must protect to
ensure that we have done everything under the law to fully
investigate terrorist attacks on American soil.
Now as technology continues to evolve we are also focused
on stepping up our work against those who attempt to use the
internet to attack America's infrastructure, to steal trade
secrets, and to jeopardize the privacy and the property of
everyday citizens. Accordingly the fiscal year 2017 budget
would dedicate $121 million in additional resources to
investigating cyber crimes and fortifying the Justice
Department's vital information networks. The majority of those
resources, $85 million, will be used to enhance the FBI's
ability and capacity to collect and analyze digital evidence
and to increase the overall number of cyber investigations.
Together this important funding will allow us to keep pace with
the fast changing landscape of cyber crime.
Now our commitment to protecting the American people is
matched by our dedication to ensuring that they benefit from a
criminal justice system that is fair, efficient, and
responsive. The fiscal year 2017 budget requests an increase of
$247 million for one of our most successful and groundbreaking
undertakings in that area, the Smart on Crime initiative, which
encourages alternatives to incarceration for low level non-
violent offenders, eases overcrowding in correctional
facilities, and frees precious resources for the prevention and
deterrence of the most serious crimes. Of that total Smart on
Crime request, $184 million will go to the Bureau of Prison's
reentry, rehabilitation, and mental health programming, which
are all essential components of our work to help formerly
incarcerated individuals make the most of their second chance
while ensuring that our communities are strong and safe.
Those are the kind of communities that we seek for every
American and they require bonds of trust and respect between
law enforcement officers and the people we serve. Helping to
repair those bonds where they have frayed is one of my top
priorities as Attorney General and the President's request
reflects that focus with an increase of $25 million in a number
of programs designed to foster collaboration between residents
and law enforcement, including racial reconciliation and
restorative justice initiatives as well as improved data
collection. It includes additional funds for the department's
smart policing program, which encourages local jurisdictions to
improve police-citizen interactions while developing cost
effective solutions to crime in their communities. And it
enlarges our investment in the community oriented policing
services hiring program, which extends funding to State and
local departments to hire or retain officers so that they can
continue to meet the full range of their constituents' needs.
Those of us who work in law enforcement have a special
responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us and few
crimes prey more savagely on the vulnerable than human
trafficking, which destroys families, weakens communities, and
erodes our society's basic foundations of decency and security.
The fiscal year 2017 budget sets aside $89.3 million for the
department's efforts to combat this scourge, including $45
million for efforts to help victims of trafficking rebuild
their lives and reclaim their futures. We are also resolved
that each and every one of our young people should grow up in
safety and security, which is why the budget includes a net
increase of over $64 million for Office of Justice program
grants focused on juvenile justice and at risk youth, including
an increase of $25 million for the Delinquency Prevention
Program which seeks to prevent young people from entering the
criminal justice system by providing assistance and guidance as
early as possible.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I look forward to working
with this committee and with Congress to secure the timely
passage of the President's budget which asks for a total of $29
billion in discretionary funding for the department, including
$27 billion for federal programs and $2 billion for state,
local, and tribal assistance programs. This level of funding
will ensure that the outstanding men and women of the
Department of Justice, whom I am so proud to lead, can continue
their tireless work to protect Americans citizens, to defend
America's values, and strengthen America's communities in the
days and months ahead.
I thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
you today and I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member.
GUANTANAMO BAY
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Madam Attorney General,
there has been a lot of concern expressed by our constituents
and citizens across the country about a proposal just released
yesterday that the Department of Defense released to close the
military detention facility at the U.S. Naval Station in
Guantanamo Bay that at present holds 91 detainees. And as you
know the fiscal year 2016 appropriations act for the Department
of Justice includes two very specific provisions that prohibit
funds from being used to transfer or release or assist in the
transfer of detainees to and that prohibits the Department of
Justice from acquiring, building, or modifying any facility in
the U.S. or its territories to house those detainees. And I
just wanted to ask, make sure that, to reassure the country and
the Congress, would you agree that the Federal government is
prohibited from establishing such facilities and from
transferring Guantanamo detainees into the United States or its
territories?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly
that is the state of the law most recently passed in the NDAA
and certainly as it respects the Department's appropriations.
We also do not participate in any efforts to do so.
I believe the President's plan reflects the
administration's ongoing goal to close Guantanamo Bay because
of the ongoing problems it causes our country, particularly
abroad, as a terrorist recruiting center. And certainly in our
national security work we do see the effects of that. The
administration is committed to closing that and of course we
support those efforts.
I would note that the administration is committed to
working with Congress to make that happen. And certainly in
light of the current statutory framework we anticipate that
that is what will occur. So if there is any request of the
Department in connection with that effort, of course we would
be happy to help in that regard.
Mr. Culberson. But obviously you will not take any action
of any kind to assist in the transfer of Guantanamo detainees
into the United States until Congress changes the law?
Attorney General Lynch. Well certainly we would be
prohibited from doing so.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Attorney General Lynch. I am not aware of any efforts to do
so at this time in any event.
EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON GUNS
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. In January the Obama
administration announced a new executive action dealing with
Americans' right to keep and bear arms, and that is a source of
great concern to Americans across the country. Certainly the
Second Amendment is an absolute right guaranteed to all
Americans and as the subcommittee chairman it is highly
important that I will do everything in my power to ensure that
that right to keep and bear arms is protected. I was
particularly concerned with the guidance on firearms and on
licensing that was published as a part of this executive
action. And it is, I wanted to ask in particular if the
guidance, will in any way impact or affect hobbyists who may
engage in just ordinary lawful transfers?
Attorney General Lynch. Well thank you for the question,
Mr. Chairman. I agree with you that it is a very important
issue and worthy of debate.
The guidance recently published by ATF, which is going to
be distributed at gun shows and to individuals who have
questions about whether or not they are required to obtain a
license to sell firearms, is designed to gather existing law in
one place in a clear, easily understandable version of the
various court cases that have opined on this issue. Individuals
who have those questions who routinely come to ATF, either the
ATF booths at gun shows or frankly even by calling ATF
headquarters, will know, will be able to have at their
fingertips an outline of what the current law requires. And of
course the current law does contain the exception if one is a
hobbyist or a collector you are not engaged in the business of
dealing in firearms.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Attorney General Lynch. And a license is not required for
those types of transfers. Similarly if one is a family member
and given a gift, again, a license is not required for those
types of transfers.
Mr. Culberson. Terrific. That is what I am aiming at. I
just want to reassure people that are listening today that they
know that if you are a hobbyist, and you are transferring a gun
to a family member as a part of an inheritance, for example, or
a gift, if you are a hobbyist or a collector you do not need to
worry about this new guidance. Is that what you are telling
Americans?
Attorney General Lynch. That is correct. And what I would
encourage people to do is to look at the guidance. Because what
we have tried to do is have clear examples of the typical
situations where activities fall within the category of being
engaged in the business, and also where they typically fall in
the category of a hobbyist transfer, a collector's transfer.
And I think people will see in those examples the types of
everyday activities that are typically not covered by the law
that requires them to get a license and that will distinguish
them from those individuals who are engaged in the business.
Mr. Culberson. So for Americans listening today they need
to know that if they are, unless they are engaged in the
regular buying and selling of firearms for a profit as a part
of their daily life, that is what they do as a part of their
living, obviously those folks need to have a license. But
otherwise, you are not targeting or going after individual
Americans' right to keep and bear arms, or transfer them to
family members, or buy and sell them casually or occasionally.
They are not on your radar screen?
Attorney General Lynch. Well what I would say is that while
that is generally the case, there are situations where the
courts, in reviewing the statute, have found that even the sale
of a few weapons, even if it is not someone's everyday
livelihood, if there is other factors, they hold themselves
out, they have a business card, for example, they may go to not
even a gun show but even a flea market, the courts have held
that the individuals in those situations can be considered as
being engaged in the business. And so our concern is that,
again as I noted, a number of people do reach out to ATF for
guidance in this. These are generally individuals who want to
comply with the law. And we felt that it would be helpful to
provide them with clear examples of situations where the courts
have found that individuals with certain activities are engaged
in the business of dealing in firearms and provide the
assistance to help them gain a license if they want to continue
making certain types of sales. The number of guns is not the
only factor. And in fact, it need not be someone whose only job
or only source of economic income is the selling of firearms,
because the courts have found that also.
We also felt that as much as I enjoy being a lawyer, we
should not impose that on everyone else to seek out these cases
and do the research and try and find on their own what the
courts have said about these particular situations. And so we
felt that it would be useful, frankly and in response to
requests, to gather this information in one, clear, easily
understandable format.
Mr. Culberson. Well I appreciate the response I got back
from the Director of the ATF, and I know it went through your
office as well. But it is just important to reassure average
Americans that they can relax and there is no need to be
concerned unless you are doing this to make a profit on a
regular basis. That is very important I think for all of us. I
deeply appreciate your answer and I recognize Mr. Honda. Thank
you.
SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT BACKLOG
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year dealt with
sexual assault kit testing and today there are estimated over
400,000 untested rape kits still collecting dust in the
evidence room of law enforcement crime labs across this
country. We have the technology and the means to process these
samples. But we must provide adequate resources, funding, and
collaborative efforts to ensure that the testing actually
occurs to reduce the existing rape kit backlogs. The fiscal
year 2016 omnibus included $45 million for reducing the sexual
assault kit backlog nationwide. Now this is in addition to $41
million included in fiscal year 2015. In the President's fiscal
year 2017 budget request included another $41 million for the
program. So are there any best practices that have come out of
this work so far? And could you share with us the communities
that are implementing these policies and their progress?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you for that,
Congressman, and thank you for your commitment to this
important issue as well. You certainly are correct in noting
that the current budget request includes $41 million for a
community grant program to ensure the resolution of these
sexual assault cases to get these kits tested. And these are in
fact kits that have never been submitted to crime labs. And the
numbers across the country are literally staggering, 10,000 in
some cities, 11,000 in other cities. And these of course
represent victims. They represent individual women who have
suffered one of the most heinous crimes that we can.
With respect to this we have in fact funded the different
laboratories who are working with a DNA related forensic
program to reduce the backlog also. And so we are looking to
enhance that capacity and that capability. Since 2009 we have
been working with this effort and the labs who are funded by
our DNA capacity enhancement and backlog reduction program have
processed almost half a million cases, over 550,000 cases. As a
result of just this work alone over a quarter of a million
cases, about 240,000 cases, have been uploaded to CODIS and we
have gotten almost 100,000 hits so far, 92,000 hits. Meaning we
have connected information from the rape kit with someone
already in the system. This has allowed us to close numerous
cases. While I do not have those figures for you, certainly it
has allowed us to close cases and do further investigations.
When we announced the recent grant last September I was
privileged to be in New York with the Vice President at the New
York forensic laboratory announcing that in conjunction with
the Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance. At the same time we
received communication from other district attorneys across the
country that money that the federal government had provided and
also money that the Manhattan DA's Office had provided was
allowing them to close open rape cases and provide comfort to
those victims who were living without knowing whether they
would ever find justice.
Mr. Honda. Thank you. And as we proceed it would be very
informative for us to know the progress that is being made and
its impact on our system. Because as you said, if they are
untested then we have victims and perpetrators who are being
denied our justice system's process. So it will be very
important if we could kept up to date on the progress of that.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, sir. And we will do that.
TRIBAL JUSTICE
Mr. Honda. Thank you. On parts of tribal justice and
victims of crimes, Native Americans are two and a half times
more likely to experience violent crimes than other Americans,
yet tribes have not been receiving necessary funds from the
Crime Victims Fund. Between 2010 and 2014 only 16 states passed
through money to tribal victims totaling 0.5 percent, or one
half of one percent, of available CVF funds. The Department's
fiscal year 2017 request for the Office of Justice programs,
that request of $25 million to support tribal assistance for
victims of violence from the Crime Victims Fund. Could you
describe the ways in which you anticipate this funding will
help provide tribal members with crime victim services that
they really need?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity
to talk about this important work that the Department of
Justice is involved in. We take our obligations in Indian
Country very seriously. As you know we have a trust
relationship with tribal nations, and that is a special
obligation and a special bond. And in fact it is a commitment
that we look forward to living up to and enhancing.
As you note, Congressman, we are requesting $25 million for
the Crime Victims Fund for tribal assistance. I would simply
note that the other funding requests that connect with our
obligations to work with our tribal partners the Office of
Justice Programs request of $71 million as part of a flexible
tribal grant set aside program. And also the COPS program,
community oriented policing, request of $3 million that will
support the Tribal Access Program. Because we have found that
it is very helpful if tribal law enforcement has the same
access to the NICS system and computerized crime information as
other law enforcement agencies, as well as money for the
Environmental Natural Resources Division to address
environmental problems in Indian Country, and money for the
Office of Tribal Justice.
For the crime victims in particular we are focused on the
victims of violent crime in Indian Country who tend to be
statistically more often women and children, particularly
sexual assault victims. And unfortunately that includes
children as well. So funds will go toward creating programs for
counseling these survivors as well as enhancing tribal justice
to ensure that their perpetrators are caught. As I am sure that
these members are aware, two years ago in the Violence Against
Women Act, an amendment to that Act allowed tribal nations for
the first time to have jurisdiction over non-Indian
perpetrators of violence against Indian women on the
reservation. This had been a gap that prevented justice for a
number of victims. This year we are also including grant money
to help tribal law enforcement agencies and tribal courts with
their court programs to actually focus on prosecuting those
cases as well. So it is our hope and our intent to deal with
the issue of victims of crime on Indian land, both with a view
toward focusing on dealing with victim trauma, particularly
that of children, and also strengthening the tribal justice
systems that allow for prosecution of those crimes on the
actual reservation.
Mr. Honda. So Mr. Chairman, the sexual assault kit testing
issue is there an issue there in Indian Country? And are the
programs and the fundings that we are making available, are
they also available to the tribal, Indian Country?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Honda. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Honda. Mr. Jolly?
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Lynch.
Attorney General Lynch. Good morning.
EQUITABLE SHARING
Mr. Jolly. Thank you. My apologies for, I was delayed on
the floor. I apologize. I missed part of your opening
statement. A couple of questions this morning. I work very
closely with our local law enforcement leadership back in
Pinellas County, Florida. And as I think many members of this
panel and other members of Congress heard regarding the asset
forfeiture program when the memo went out in December
essentially announcing a suspension of reimbursement of some of
the DAG's request. Obviously that created a lot of concern and
consternation among local law enforcement. I am aware of the
rescission request that had come up, some of the additional
rescissions that had come through as well that led to that
decision. But my understanding--and we had a very constructive
meeting with your senior leadership on this about a month ago--
is that the Department anticipates renewing the equitable
sharing of the asset forfeiture program sometime in the few
coming months. Could you comment on your perspective on where
that is and the anticipation of when it might be restarted?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. And
thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. Because it
has been one of great concern to our State and local
colleagues, and also to those of us in the Department of
Justice who rely upon them so heavily for the important work
that they do in our task forces. If you look at the task forces
throughout the Department of Justice law enforcement agencies
they are 50 to sometimes 60 percent local law enforcement
because they have the best information and we have found it to
be an incredibly helpful partnership and one that has saved
lives and built cases.
When the rescissions were applied to the Department late
last year of an amount greater than I think had been
anticipated, certainly the $1.2 billion was larger than we had
anticipated or ever received before, we were forced to
temporarily suspend those payments. I have been in contact with
the leaders of the law enforcement groups, including police as
well as the national sheriffs groups, to discuss the situation
with them and advise them, as I am happy to advise you, that
this is a temporary deferral of payments. We anticipate that
through the course of our work over the year that the Asset
Forfeiture Fund will be able to be replenished to an amount
where we can resume those payments. We had initially promised
our law enforcement partners an update about a month after the
action, so I spoke with them at the end of January. We have
promised to update them also on a monthly basis and a promise I
think to update this body by mid-March as well.
We essentially are looking at the fund to make sure that as
we look at the obligations that it sustains to the victims,
etcetera, that we have the ability to start those payments. But
it is our intent and we have in fact made the request of our
law enforcement partners to remain in the task forces and to
continue submitting their requests to us so that we can process
them as funds are available. And we have noted and we have also
made sure that they are aware that even though the equitable
sharing payments are temporarily deferred, what is called the
JLEO, the joint law enforcement operation payments, have not
been. Because so much of that money goes to support the
incredible amounts of overtime and the equipment that they use
in supporting these joint efforts. And so we are essentially
prioritizing those so that in the immediate term they will be
able to cover those expenses. But we have asked them to
continue, and I have received commitments from many of them
that they will continue working with us.
Mr. Jolly. And I appreciate that answer and I suppose just
for the record, and I do want to work constructively with you
on this and your team. But I think there is a little bit of
disagreement on how we got there because, yes, the rescission
was larger than anticipated. But as you are aware there is the
anticipated settlement of roughly $900 million coming into the
fund. This Committee also provided flexibility as to when your
Department could execute the rescission. And while I look
forward to working in a constructive manner, I do want to make
sure this Committee stays on top of ensuring it is restarted,
equitable sharing is restarted. And that some of the decisions
regarding the accounting of the fund were not made for
political purposes but in the best judgment of the department.
Because in the estimation of some on the Committee the
rescission could have been held off for several months and
perhaps prevented a delay. Obviously at the end of the day we
appreciate the partnership, as you have said, between local law
enforcement and your department. It is critical to many
communities, including ours, particularly in the area of human
trafficking which I know has been a priority of yours and I
thank you for that.
SURPLUS MILITARY EQUIPMENT
I am about out of time. But I would ask just one more
question. If you could provide your perspective on the 1033
program? I know it is largely a Department of Defense program
that shares surplus equipment with local law enforcement. But
it has been a program that in some ways has been under scrutiny
from the very top, of the President of the United States on
down. Could you provide your perspective as the Attorney
General in terms of the role that surplus equipment provides in
supporting local law enforcement and leadership, or your
concerns about it?
Attorney General Lynch. Well certainly I think that this
has been a topic of concern and I hope constructive discussion
over the last year, certainly since I have been in this chair.
I have had the opportunity to talk about it again with my state
and local colleagues, as well as my law enforcement officers
and sheriffs about this issue. And as I am sure the group is
aware, essentially the administration did issue guidelines on
the acquisition of surplus DOD equipment using federal funds.
Of course departments using other funds would not have to deal
with those particular guidelines. But we hope that they would
be instructive. And the focus was on making sure that the
equipment was not only appropriately sourced but that
appropriate training was provided for the equipment.
Mr. Jolly. Right.
Attorney General Lynch. So we see great value and great
benefit in having that partnership, again where State and local
law enforcement entities, our police officers, our sheriffs
departments, can obtain surplus equipment. Certainly it has
been very effective in specific operations that we can all come
to mind. It has been very effective, for example, with helping
ensure the SWAT teams are adequately sourced and resourced. And
so we want to make sure that, again, the appropriate training
is set in place and that the equipment is accounted for. So the
initial review was to determine what types of equipment worked
best and essentially where federal funds were involved to come
up with a list that would at least in the administration's view
continue to meet local law enforcement needs but also deal with
the issues of perhaps overuse of equipment or use of the
equipment by departments that were not as well trained as
others. And where the use of it, rather than being in the sense
of protecting the community, of SWAT type situations, was used
in ways that simply inflamed tensions, which was not the intent
of anyone.
So I have had an ongoing dialogue, as I noted, with the law
enforcement groups as well as my sheriffs, about this program.
And it is our hope that as we work through it they will find
that they can still obtain the equipment that they need using
federal funds, our grants for example, and that it can be put
to good use, good use, effective use, in terms of public safety
without the intended, the unintended collateral consequences of
having the more open program that existed before.
Mr. Jolly. I appreciate that. I know the full committee
chairman came in. I would just offer for your consideration,
and I have shared this with folks in the White House as well,
this is also an interest of mine given my relationship with
local law enforcement. My approach is pretty simple. I have it
in legislation that has been introduced. It keeps the 1033
program in place but does require local law enforcement to
certify that they have personnel capable or trained on the
equipment they are receiving. It leaves the decision as to
which equipment is most appropriate for local law enforcement
in the hands of local law enforcement but it does require the
training to ensure that any equipment is operated within the
means of their mission. I appreciate your comments this
morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I am over my time. I yield
back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jolly. It is my privilege now
to recognize the former District Attorney from Pulaski and Rock
County, Kentucky, the gentleman from Kentucky, and chairman of
the full Committee, Mr. Hal Rogers.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thanks for the
recognition of a former life. But I enjoyed my, enjoy is not
the word, I appreciated the time that I served as DA and law
enforcement.
Thank you, Madam Attorney General, for being here. Your
request totals $29.5 billion. That is a 3 percent increase over
current levels. This committee has a responsibility to
prioritize the administration of justice and support for our
men and women in law enforcement. And I believe we can do so
without spending away our financial integrity.
Though it highlights some important programs, your budget
request does not reflect the very real budget constraints that
we are faced with. And we look forward to working with you to
meet the challenge that we both face in that regard together.
BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS
That being said, let me specifically mention a couple of
concerns that I have, especially first I am disappointed that
you propose to slash Byrne Justice Assistance Grants by $39.6
million. I have heard from law enforcement people around the
country about the importance of that very flexible grant
program to their crime prevention and drug enforcement
activities. Such a drastic reduction in Federal support will be
devastating for my state and local partners, particularly as we
work collaboratively to address the terrible and magnifying
opioid epidemic facing the country. We are losing 100 people a
day now to that scourge, epidemic by the CDC's definition.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING PROGRAM
And speaking of opioids I am also concerned that you
propose to cut money from the National Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program. It may seem insignificant, $1 million, but
that is nearly eight percent of the funding of that whole
program. And that is where States are able to catch people who
are abusing prescriptions. I cannot imagine you would want to
do any kind of harm to that kind of program. It has been
extremely successful. Every state has a program except one:
Missouri. And they are coming along, but boy are they slow. But
it works. It has reduced prescription abuse in 49 states and
yet you are trying to shave it away.
There is still progress to be made. This grant program is,
I think, part of the solution to the opioid epidemic that is
facing our country. One hundred families a day are losing a
member to death. My district at one time was leading the way. I
hate going to those emergency rooms and seeing a dead young
teenager with a family surrounding them. But this program is
critical to stopping just that. I would appreciate you telling
me what you are going to do about it.
Now those PDMPs in each State are learning to link up with
each other. If a person in Kentucky, for example, goes off to
Tennessee thinking they can defeat the system, Tennessee's PDMP
picks it up and tells our PDMP we have got a problem. So we are
getting interoperability, and we are trying to make it now real
time. It has been days of delay but if we can make it real time
we have got a real thing going. So I would hope you could help
us.
EQUITABLE SHARING
I am highly concerned of the Department's suspension of
equitable sharing payments from the proceeds of the asset
forfeiture program. Those funds are essential in helping law
enforcement fight drug trafficking, among other things. The men
and women working at these State and local agencies are your
partners, often working side by side with federal agents. And
DOJ must find a way to restore those payments as soon as
possible to avoid permanent harm to public safety around the
country. That one is critical and I cannot believe the action
of the department in regard to it.
MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT
I am also troubled by your continued tacit approval of
marijuana legalization efforts around the county in clear
violation of Federal law. Four States and our nation's capital
have legalized recreational use of this drug without any
Federal response. Casting aside the fact that marijuana is a
known gateway drug for young people and its long term effects
on their intellectual development is unknown, the bottom line
is this. Congress makes the laws of the country. The executive
branch enforces those laws. You're tasked with enforcing
Federal law as our nation's chief law officer, and I hope you
will see O17 as an opportunity to fulfill your mandate given to
you by the Congress in this regard.
PRISON CONSTRUCTION
We thank you for being here. I want to ask you briefly
about prison construction. As you know, overcrowding in our
penitentiaries poses significant problems for both inmates and
guards, not to mention prisoners. In overcrowded facilities
inmate misconduct increases, availability of vocational
training and meaningful work opportunities diminish, and the
risk of disease, mental health, and substance abuse increase.
Overcrowding also poses a significant security threat to guards
who are already vastly outnumbered by inmates. It is especially
dangerous in medium and high security prisons where the
majority of inmates are serving sentences for violent crimes.
I see your request slashes the Bureau of Prison's
construction funding by a whopping $417 million, nearly 80
percent at a time of such need of these crowded Federal
penitentiaries. It is a headline in tomorrow's newspaper: the
overcrowding in federal prisons and the treatment that we are
subjecting people to, including guards and the staff. That is
going to be a story. I hope you will help us keep it from being
a story. Casting aside any conversation about criminal justice
reform, how do you intend to deal with the short term problem
of prisoner and guard safety with such a dramatic reduction in
necessary resources to build new facilities and renovate old?
Can you help me?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to speak on what you certainly have accurately
described as one of the challenges facing our prison system
today, and the Bureau of Prisons is certainly not immune from
that. And I also thank you, not only for your attention and
interest in this, but for your support for the Department over
the years.
This Committee was instrumental, certainly in prior years
up to and including 2016, for providing the Department with
funds, approximately $444 million dollars in fiscal year 2016,
and that those funds are going to build a new prison, and I
believe it is going to be in Letcher County in Kentucky.
And so that is certainly an important part of reducing our
issues of overcrowding, as you so accurately note, issues of
correction officer safety as well as inmate safety are
certainly implicated by that.
The reason why that same number was not reflected in the
2017 request is because we did receive that money in 2016, we
have begun to utilize those funds--it is a multi-year process
as I know you are aware--to build the prison and do the
studies, and therefore, we did not need those funds to recur in
fiscal year 2017. But I do want to assure you that the funds
that were appropriated to specifically deal with this important
issue are, in fact, being put to good use as we speak.
And so the fact that you do not see that same number
repeated in the budget is not a reflection of a cessation of
work, certainly not a cessation of commitment, but simply that
having been given those funds we are now working towards
utilizing them, and would not ask for those same funds again.
That is going to help us tremendously with that.
And the other initiatives that we have in dealing with the
Bureau of Prisons, as you mentioned, the overcrowding issues
result not only in harm but exacerbation of health issues for
the inmates. You mentioned mental health in particular, and you
will see within the Bureau of Prisons portion of our budget,
funding to deal with those issues also because where we can
deal with those issues, we will have safer institutions for the
inmates and for the correctional officers who work there.
The Chairman. I thank you for that statement. I am over my
time, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize the
gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for being
with us, I have got a bunch of questions and I will try to get
to as many as I can.
OPIOID ABUSE
I share the chairman's concern about opioid abuse, it has
certainly hit a number of the communities in my neck of the
woods. I have a lot of rural communities, including the town
where I grew up, and small towns. And, you know, I understand
the need to balance prevention, and treatment, and enforcement
to stop the spread here.
I know the Office of Justice programs provides grant
funding for State and local law enforcement assistance, I guess
I am hoping you could speak to how those funds are distributed
and whether communities like the ones I am talking about, rural
towns, small towns, whether they are able to benefit adequately
from this, and what this Committee can do to improve the
ability of rural communities and small communities that are
really struggling with this opioid epidemic. What they can do
to realize this support.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I thank you for
raising that issue. Frankly, it is becoming the law enforcement
issue of our time. And, of course, the opioid issue is a
precursor to the heroin epidemic that we are seeing as well
because we are finding that as we look at the heroin epidemic,
so many of those individuals begin with prescription drug abuse
and they move on to heroin. And, unfortunately, the opioid
abuse, the prescription drug abuse, is leading to increasing
levels of violence, particularly in the rural areas.
So we do have a request in our budget of about $383 million
for the JAG funding, which is an increase over fiscal year
2016. Now OJP does not have programs that specifically address
the opioid abuse in rural areas, but these grants are available
to all law enforcement agencies, particularly to--for the
purchase of naloxone.
Over the last year, we have spent a great deal of time in
discussion with our local partners. And this particular tool we
find is extremely helpful, it is the rapid response overdose
treatment. And using grant money to make sure that while we may
not be able to fund a clinic, we can make sure that the small
police departments and sheriffs offices have access to naloxone
can go a long way towards literally saving a life and getting
someone to the hospital on time. And so that is something that
we are hoping is going to be helpful with regard to that.
I will also say that when it comes to this problem
generally, the Administration is taking a whole of
administration approach, not just the Department of Justice,
but a number of other agencies are involved in looking at this
issue: Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, for
example. All of us focus on finding the best way to deal with
this. And, certainly, I think what has emerged from our
discussions is that we have to view this as a public health
crisis as well as a law enforcement issue, and not just focus
on law enforcement, but have a public health component to
improve treatment and resources as well for the families and
for those people who fall victim to this.
COMMUNITY/POLICE RELATIONS
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, I appreciate the focus on that. I
wanted to switch gears. Too often we hear stories around
distrust between neighborhoods and the police who protect them,
but there are some good news stories out there. One of the
cities I represent, Tacoma, and communities like them, are
working very hard to try to foster a good relationship between
law enforcement and the populations that they serve.
We saw a great effort by the city's leadership and the law
enforcement leadership called Project Peace, which was trying
to bring people together to see how they can improve ties
between the community and the police. I guess I would point
out--and those sorts of efforts are costly, and programs like
Project Peace often can be limited in their success simply due
to resources being spread thin in a large city.
I know that the Department's budget proposed doubling the
community policing development program, and I am grateful for
that, but I am concerned as to whether that is even still
enough to meet the demand in our nation.
I just want to get a sense from you, how confident are you
that the additional funds that are requested in the budget will
actually meet the needs of our communities?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I think that is
an excellent question, because I think those needs are deep.
And, certainly, I have spent a great deal of time working on
this issue. In 2015 I was engaged in a six city community
policing tour, and I did travel to the Pacific Northwest, and
this year I will travel to six more cities, focusing on cities
that had had a very challenged relationship with the police--a
shooting, a pattern and practice investigation, even a
lawsuit--but have found a way to create a dialog between law
enforcement and the community, and include young people in that
to restore those bonds of trust to build those bridges again.
This year I am focusing on cities that are exemplifying the
Six Pillars and the 21st Century Policing Task Force that was
the product of last year's work. So I am familiar with some of
the programs that you mentioned, I am always happy to pull more
into our ambit.
We do have, as you know, key increases for building
community trust and community policing; for body worn cameras;
for smart policing; collaborative reform. And I think our
Community Relation Service is going to be very important in
this.
We are asking for $3.5 million for law enforcement
reconciliation work. Community relation services are not law
enforcement officers, but they essentially go into the
community and work to build those bridges. They work with
community leaders in particular, and law enforcement, and the
local elected officials as well, to foster dialog around these
important problems. They are not investigators, they are not
gathering evidence for our law enforcement components at all.
And so we are requesting additional funding for them. And so I
think that that will be helpful.
I will tell you that I think the most promising efforts
that I have seen as I have traveled the country, are those that
come from the community as you mentioned, such as Project
Peace. And so we are looking for ways to continue to support
them through our grant programs. It is a deep need, it is an
ongoing need, and I am incredibly impressed with the work that
I have seen going on across the country. And we are hopeful
that the funds that we request, for a host of issues involving
community policing, will help in that regard.
As I talk to police departments, for example, we are
supporting a number of them with the body worn camera
initiative, and this is an area that I think people have
different opinions on. But as these body worn cameras come into
use, I think people on both sides of the debate are seeing
their utility in providing for accountability and a level of
trust in the types of interactions that law enforcement has
with civilians.
So we see civilian complaints go down in communities and
departments that are implementing the body worn cameras. And we
see incidents and reports of use of force go down. And that is
all part of the web that we have to build to rebuild the trust
bonds that have been frayed in some areas. But I do believe,
frankly, that this can be accomplished because I have seen it
happen.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Kilmer. Now I would
like to recognize a former district judge from Williamson
County, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, General
Lynch, we are glad you are here. My first opportunity to be
able to speak to you. As he says, I come from a background of
what is the highest trial court in our state, the great state
of Texas, and have some familiarity with the criminal justice
system in our state.
This last Monday, I did what we call a telephone town hall.
We get in touch with roughly 35,000 to 50,000 telephones and we
let people get online and ask questions on the phone. When we
get about 10 or 15 of the same people asking the same question,
we pick that question. This question came up, this is a tough
one, people will be saying it is politics, but I told them I
would ask you.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMAILS
Here is the issue. The State Department has publically
stated that the emails sent and received on Hillary Clinton's
personal server are classified. In fact, they refuse to
disclose numerous emails as they contain top secret
information. As Secretary of State, and one who is seeking the
highest office in the land, she should have known better.
Now if the FBI makes the case that Hillary Clinton
mishandled classified information and put America's security at
risk, will you prosecute the case? Do you know of any efforts
underway to undermine the FBI investigation? And please look
the American people in the eye and tell us what your position
is because you are the chief prosecutor of the United States.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you, Judge, and
Congressman Carter. With respect to our investigation into how
information was handled by the State Department, how they
handle classified information, as I am sure you know, that
matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement
agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys
in the Department of Justice.
They follow the evidence, they look at the law, and they
will make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate.
And so beyond that, I am not able to comment on the specific
investigation at this time. But what I will say is, again, that
this will be conducted as every other case, and we will review
all the facts and all the evidence, and come to an independent
conclusion as to how to best handle it.
Mr. Carter. And----
Attorney General Lynch. And I am also aware of no efforts
to undermine our review or investigation into this matter at
all.
Mr. Carter. Well, there were enough people that are
concerned about that that you ought to know there is an
American public concern that maybe the Justice Department will
not do this for political reasons. I am not accusing you of
that. I certainly would not expect you to comment on the
investigation, and did not ask for that information. But I
promised the questioner that asked me the question. I said no
one is above the law in the United States, and if you should be
brought before a grand jury, the right thing to do would be
bringing somebody before a grand jury. That is where you are,
and I hope you remain there.
Another question if I got--do I have enough question--
enough time?
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
DOJ/LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATIONS
Mr. Carter. A few times in history it has been difficult to
be a police officer, and it really is. You often have
belligerent public holding cameras in your face every time the
officer wants to make an arrest. You have civil unrest in high
crime communities, and police who do not feel that the
Department of Justice really supports them.
Mostly importantly, I am concerned of the perception among
our law enforcement officers that the DOJ is opening
investigations as an intimidating tactic to force state and
local police to push this administration's soft stance on
crime. What are you doing to change the perception amongst many
of the law enforcement agencies that the DOJ is looking over
their shoulder waiting to sue their department every time they
make an arrest?
I have heard horror stories of U.S. attorneys refusing to
prosecute drug and alien smuggling cases along the border. And
let me tell you, if you get caught with 200 pounds of marijuana
in Bell County, one of my counties, or Williamson County, you
are going to go to prison. Yet, I cannot say that about the
smugglers along our southwest border, and it needs to change.
Would you please comment?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you for the opportunity
to talk about the important relationship that the Department
has with our colleagues in State and local law enforcement, and
they are very much our colleagues, with respect to the
important work that we all do for the protection of the
American people.
I think the issue, as we have discussed just recently, of
trust between communities and the law enforcement--particularly
law enforcement in the communities that we all serve--is an
important one. And I will tell you that the message that I have
heard as I have traveled the country speaking directly to law
enforcement officers--I speak to the rank and file officers
when I visit cities, I speak to community members--is how
dedicated they are to their jobs, and how focused they are on
their mission.
And I talk to them about why they became police officers
and that mission that they feel. And the pressures that they
feel because this is a time of great change in policing. But
what I hear is their dedication and commitment to continuing
their work in protecting the American people.
And so where we have situations where those bonds have been
broken, and where law enforcement feels under siege as well--
and I have had those conversations with officers--we try and
engage them also in discussions about why that is and what
might be the causes of it.
One of the things I will say, Congressman, is a benefit of
having been a prosecutor for over 20 years, is that I have
noted, with actually a very positive view, the way in which we
actually do interact with police departments in this current
administration. I was involved in reviewing police issues in
the 1990s when I was a U.S. Attorney in New York at that time,
I have been involved in reviewing them as a U.S. Attorney from
2010 on, and now as Attorney General.
And I think one of the benefits of the relationship now is
that the Department has police departments actually coming to
it and asking for assistance through our Community Oriented
Policing Program, which people refer to as the COPS Program. As
you know we fund police officers, we have all that information
in the budget for you to review to improve that and to increase
our ability to provide additional local law enforcement
support.
We also provide what is called collaborative reform. We
provide technical assistance, we do not charge departments for
this. So police departments come to us and they say, you know,
we are having a problem or an issue, and it may be a community
relations issue or it may be a training issue. It may be
keeping up with the latest data. It may be finding the
resources to, as we always have done, to support them in buying
vests, in buying the body worn cameras, as I mentioned. So I
have seen a positive relationship between law enforcement at
the State and local level and the Department of Justice through
this.
Where we have to look at issues of accountability, we speak
directly to those departments and try and engage them so that
they can be the first person holding an officer accountable
when there has been a problem because we all know that there
will be issues, and the important thing is to make sure that as
we deal with those issues, the American people see that we are
dealing with them in a transparent way, in a fair way, and that
everyone is treated equally before the law. And we have had a
great positive response to that.
So we provide a great deal of support to our local law
enforcement officers, again, through the COPS program, as I
mentioned. You will see in our budget a number of other areas
in which we are seeking to provide support to our state and
local colleagues. And we also spend a great deal of time trying
to get their input.
I have found it, frankly, very positive to have their input
in some of the policies that the Department is putting forth.
Most recently, we promulgated policies on dealing with sexual
assault victims and domestic violence victims. And this policy
was greatly informed by discussion with our state and local
colleagues because they are the first responders to those
cases. And so as we support those types of cases, for example,
with grants for training, we rely on them to give us the actual
on-the-ground experience to talk about the best practices and
the best policies.
So, Congressman, I would say that this Department of
Justice is focused and is, in fact, working well with state and
local law enforcement. We have a very positive bond with them
because we do the same work, we have the same mission, and we
all want to improve as we, in fact, carry out our highest duty
which is the protection of the American people.
ACTIVE SHOOTER PROGRAM
Mr. Carter. Quick follow-up. Yesterday I filed a bill, and
your Department has worked with me on it, to include the Active
Shooter Program in the COPS criteria. The small departments
around the country want to train their people up on the active
shooter issue and they don't have the funds. And I know that
your office helped us, we appreciate it, hope you will support
adding the Active Shooter to the criteria of the COPS grants.
And, finally, the reason I mentioned the 200 pounds,
because we are clearly told--I think the Chairman has been told
also--that it has to be over 200 pounds of marijuana on the--in
the Rio Grande Valley and along the border, or the Justice
Department will not prosecute. And we think 200 pounds is a
lot. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you.
DOJ SUPPORT FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Culberson. Attorney General Lynch, I was especially
appreciative of your response to Judge Carter's question, on
how important it is that every law enforcement officer out
there in America know that the Department of Justice has their
back. That is a message I hope you will continue to speak out
loudly, and clearly, and repeatedly, to make sure that all
those local law enforcement officers know how dedicated you are
and your Department is to supporting them and helping them.
Last August, our neighborhood deputy, Darren Goforth, was
murdered in my neighborhood and it was a catastrophic event,
and all of us I know on this Committee and across the country
are very concerned. We want every law enforcement officer in
the country to know that the members of Congress, and
particularly the Department of Justice, know that we have their
back and we support them. And appreciate you saying that.
We recognize, as a part of that relationship that you have
with local law enforcement, one of the most critical parts of
that successful relationship is a sharing of information that
local, and state, and Federal law enforcement officers have to
know, have to have a complete and open relationship where they
share every bit of information possible about criminal
defendants.
SANCTUARY CITIES
And a source of great concern to the country--and I know
from our conversations before the hearing began, a concern that
you have as well, and I am delighted we are headed in the same
direction--is with sanctuary city policies that where a State
or local jurisdiction refuses to share information with the
Federal--whether it be Homeland Security, Judge Carter--or with
the Department of Justice because that information sharing is
so critical.
And the policies that a lot of these cities, and counties,
and states have where they will refuse to honor a detainer, to
hand over a criminal defendant in their custody to federal
authorities to be deported, is just unacceptable and terribly
dangerous.
Of course, it is standard procedure if an individual is in
the Williamson County jail, if they are in the Pulaski County
jail, Mr. Chairman, before they are released from that county
jail, it is just long standing commonsense that the Pulaski
County Sheriff is going to check with State authorities, with
Federal authorities, is there an outstanding warrant.
And that individual, when he has served his time in the
county jail, will not be released onto the streets of Pulaski
County. If there is a warrant in Michigan, they are going to
call Michigan and say do you want this guy, and Michigan, come
pick him up. And that has been the standard policy of every law
enforcement agency in the history of this country.
Until you get to these sanctuary cities where they will not
release these individuals. If they have got an illegal alien in
their custody who has a criminal warrant for their arrest,
these communities have policies that they will not release them
to federal authorities for deportation. And this is just
absolutely unacceptable. It is outrageous, and has resulted in
the murder of untold thousands of individuals.
And the one that I know that hangs in everyone's mind with
great concern is the young lady who was shot and murdered in
San Francisco, Kate Steinle, who died in her father's arms. She
was shot and murdered by a seven-time convicted felon, a five-
time deportee who was released onto the streets of San
Francisco due to their utterly unacceptable and illegal
sanctuary policy.
And that refusal to share information, that refusal to
cooperate with Federal law enforcement authorities, is just
absolutely unacceptable. And as we talked about earlier, I am,
as the new Chairman, the rules are going to be in this
subcommittee if you want--if you expect to receive Federal
money, comply with Federal law.
And I want to thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for your
timely response to a letter that I sent you earlier this year
on sanctuary cities. And, your response to my letter to my
expressing the concern that I just laid out here.
You said, in part, that where the Department of Justice
receives a credible allegation that an entity, State or local,
is receiving funds under a Department grant or a reimbursement
program has--after they have assured the Department that they
are in compliance with applicable federal laws, where that
entity is--where you have credible evidence that they violated
a specific applicable federal law, the Department can
potentially seek criminal or civil enforcement options against
that entity.
As we had discussed, the Title VIII section 1373 of the
U.S. Code, specifically prohibits States or localities that
have policies that prohibit the sharing of information with ICE
about the immigration status of their prisoners, that law says
very clearly that local jurisdictions cannot interfere in any
way with the sharing of information with Federal authorities.
And I wanted to ask you to assure the committee that the
Department of Justice will review grantees with such policies
to ensure that they are in compliance with all applicable
federal laws?
IMMIGRATIONS CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DETAINERS
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly, that is a part of
our grant review process. And as was also conveyed in the
letter, I do want to reiterate the fact that one of the things
that we are hopeful will be as effective also, and more
immediately effective, is our policy whereby the Bureau of
Prisons instead of deferring to the State or local entity's
detainer and turning an individual, a deportable individual,
over to them, that instead Immigration Customs Enforcement, or
ICE, will instead have the ability to step in and exercise
their detainer first.
We have in the past deferred because, again, we work with
our State and local colleagues and we want to make sure that
they can, in fact, adjudicate their cases as well. But
particularly where we are dealing with a jurisdiction that
essentially is not prone to honoring the ICE detainers--and
those vary across the country, they just vary over time and
place--our policy is going to be that ICE will instead have the
first detainer, and that individual will go into ICE custody
and deportation.
Now this may have the effect that there may be local cases
that may not be able to be prosecuted because, again, the
person will be taken into ICE custody and then deported. And if
a jurisdiction has a concern over that, we will talk to them,
we would have to have assurances that ICE would also then be
able to get the individual back at the end of an adjudication
so that the deportation process could go underway. So we are
trying to be respectful of our State and local colleagues'
desires and goals to prosecute cases, but also do with this
issue as well.
Mr. Culberson. I genuinely appreciate that, and I think as
an example of the cooperative relationship that this committee
has had with the Department of Justice, and with you as the new
Attorney General, I want to express my sincere gratitude to you
for this new policy that you have adopted. Yes, Mr. Chairman?
GRANT FUNDING FOR SANCTUARY CITIES
The Chairman. I am not clear. Will the Department seek to
cease any grants going to a particular so-called sanctuary city
if they violate your terms? Will you seek to stop that grant
program?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, where again, if the grant is
tied to the applicable law. Again, it has to be a connection
between the issue and the grant. For example, you know, a grant
for human trafficking would be different from a grant for
community policing.
But certainly as part of the audit process, as part of the
Inspector General review, and as part of the overall grant
management review, which the Department's Civil and Criminal
Division can also take under investigation, if we receive a
credible allegation that a grantee has violated a specific
applicable federal law, we will make that referral. Again,
there is a audit process in general, but we also have the
office of Inspector General who can step in and do a specific
investigation of a specific jurisdiction or municipality, and
we also have our Civil and Criminal Divisions. Depending upon
how the allegation arises.
The Chairman. Is this a new policy?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I think it is in response to
the concerns that have been expressed and as part----
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
NEW DETAINER POLICY
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. And in result of the
discussions that we have had with the chairman here as well as
other members. But as I indicated, we feel that a way to deal
with this issue immediately is to make sure that individuals
who are being released from the Bureau of Prisons, rather than
be released into state custody, would go directly into
immigration custody and be dealt with for deportation there,
because a large part of the problem has been that as part of
our collaborative working relationship with our State and local
partners, as, Mr. Chairman, you indicated, if there is a
detainer on an individual coming out of federal prison--
certainly when I was young prosecutor, individuals would be
released from federal custody but have to go into New York
State custody to either finish a sentence or to be prosecuted.
And then at that point--at the end of the state case,
deportation would be an option.
Where a city is not necessarily inclined to work with the
Department of Homeland Security as a general matter, we will
instead use the immigration detainer first. And as I indicated,
where jurisdictions indicate this was likely to be a problem,
we will talk with them and we will work with them. But it is an
area of great concern for us.
It is particularly an area of concern for us because there
is, unfortunately, case law that exists that--only in one
circuit, but there is case law with a particular holding that
in certain circumstances, cities' compliance with the
requirement that they provide us information may be voluntary.
We are also actively litigating the matter in two other
jurisdictions.
And so this matter may be unsettled for some time in the
courts. So we feel that a way to deal with this issue
immediately and directly is to have the policy change as well
as to have the review of the grant program that we have been
discussing.
Mr. Culberson. It is really a great example, Mr. Chairman,
of the cooperative relationship that this Committee has had
with the Department of Justice. I am very grateful to you. She
has announced today a new policy that the Department of Bureau
Prisons will first check to see if there is a criminal alien in
the custody of the federal prisons has a deportation order, and
where that individual may also--as in the case of this guy that
murdered Kate Steinle--where San Francisco has a policy they
are not going to honor the federal detainer.
In response to the concerns that this Committee,
Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, has addressed to the Department of
Justice, you have changed the policy at the Bureau Prisons,
which we deeply appreciate, that you will not release that
individual to San Francisco, you are going to hand him over to
ICE, Chairman Carter, so he can be deported.
We thank you for that change in the policy, that is very
important. And then, secondly, we have also learned today, Mr.
Chairman, and we very much appreciate that, the Department is
moving towards--because this will be litigated forever and we
can't wait on that, our lives of countless Americans depend on
quick and decisive action.
And in response to the concerns I have expressed earlier
this year, you responded immediately and in a very favorable
way, which I really appreciate, they are moving right away to
go look carefully. And we will provide you with that list of
those jurisdictions that do have policies where they will not
share information with Federal authorities. They have actually
got an explicit policy on the book, we are not sharing
information, we will not hand over these individuals to ICE for
deportation.
We can provide you with that list, and you have just
indicated that you are going to begin an audit process to
ensure--to encourage them, because we want them to change the
policy. We are not looking to cut them off from Federal money,
we want to give them a chance to change their policy, correct,
and that's the goal. Change the policy so you hand these
individuals over to federal authorities for deportation.
STATUS REPORT ON SANCTUARY CITIES
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I could----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, please.
The Chairman [continuing]. Suggest something. This is
encouraging to hear this, but I believe that old saying, is
trusting and verifying.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, Ronald Reagan.
The Chairman. Yeah. I wonder if you could give us a report
on this after a period of time here, say four months, to give
us report on how many of these instances you have actually had
success with so that we have some way to gauge----
Mr. Culberson. Exactly.
The Chairman [continuing]. How things are going and maybe
make mid-course corrections as we go. This is significant, a
very important matter for a lot of us and I would like to know
that it is working. Is that agreeable?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly I think that we are
all moving to an evidence-based model, and a host of things.
And certainly we are happy to work with you and your staff to
provide you the information, both with regard to the new BOP
policy, which I think would be instructive----
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. And also any instances
again where these allegations occur. As you know, however, once
a matter goes into an investigation, if we refer it to the
Inspector General, for example, we wouldn't have the
information about the investigation readily available at that
point. But certainly, you know, if these situations do come up,
I think we can work with the Committee to find a way to keep
you informed.
The Chairman. Let's do a quarterly report----
Mr. Culberson. Let's do that.
The Chairman [continuing]. For a while to see how things
are going. So we would expect that you would give us a report
on how things are going, as much detail as you can give us at
the end of the first quarter.
Mr. Culberson. I think that is a good idea. Would that be
agreeable?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Culberson. And this is a very significant change, and
we are deeply grateful to you. I know the country is grateful
to hear that you are moving in this direction. And it is a good
time for it because I know the grant solicitations are just now
coming in, Mr. Chairman, the jurisdictions, local city and
state jurisdictions across the country, Madam Attorney General,
are just now beginning to send in their applications for Byrne
JAG, for the various law enforcement grants. So it is a good
time for this change to kick in.
As I said, we will provide you and your staff with a list
of the jurisdictions that have these policies that refuse to
provide information or refuse to honor detainers. And I deeply
appreciate your moving in this direction, and we will find a
way to do this in a cooperative, friendly, and supportive way
to ensure that these jurisdictions are in compliance with the
Title VIII Section 1373, that they have a chance to change
their policy, and try to avoid losing their Federal grant
money.
But if they insist--and we will work with you--if they
insist on hanging onto their policy and they will not honor
detainers, and they will not share information, you know, don't
ask for federal money unless you follow our Federal law.
Delighted to hear you are moving in that direction, and we are
going to work with you cooperatively and in a supportive way to
ensure that that happens, and to make sure that the law
enforcement communities across the country continue that close
cooperative working relationship that has been so successful in
the past. We really appreciate very much your help in this
matter and look forward to working with you. And we will get
quarterly reports, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as a ranking
member, I request a congressional 5 minutes if I may. And I
just want to add my congratulations to the Attorney General
also, and that how well you respond to our questions and
because I understand it is very complicated and there is a lot
of different tiers that need to be considered as you move
forward on this complex issue of criminal justice and civil
rights, and things like that, that we have to face. And I, too,
would look forward to seeing a quarterly report because I am
confident that will be based upon good judgment and laws that
we expect to be able to follow.
And I think that Mr. Chairman had touched upon some of the
other issues on the policies and clarification of the
guidelines of the sales and handling of firearms relative to
hobbyists, and those folks, so I won't take any time to do
that.
But I do notice that a lot of the concerns that we do have
has been based upon lack of resources and things like that. But
I just wanted to say that we as Congress have also been part
and parcel of providing the appropriate resources in the past,
and I am very glad that this past year that we have had an
increase, and I think that that bodes well for all members of
this subcommittee that we can have an expectation on increasing
staffing, increasing in training, and I think that that was a
lot of concerns around that. And a lot of this is because we
are able to hire more folks to do the things that is expected
of your Department.
So, you know, I see that we are making progress on sexual
assaults on college campuses, and with the ATF, there is a lot
of clarification on the kinds of priorities and policies that
is going to be promulgated by the ATF. And also in terms of law
enforcement hiring overall, there is going to be increase in
that. So I think that there should be an expectation of meeting
some of these needs, and I am very gratified to see COPS coming
back.
I think COPS has a basis for improved community and police
force relationships, that they understand working in
conjunction with the communities is beneficial for everybody
around, and we will learn a lot from them.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING AT THE SUPERBOWL
One of the questions I wanted to sort of formulate is
around human trafficking, and cyber systems, and cyber
stalking. We just finished the Super Bowl in Santa Clara
County. And the Super Bowl was the culmination of a lot of work
that has been done by different agencies. I noticed that each
department that is involved in providing services to make sure
that we have a safe environment and successful outcome of a
activity like Super Bowl, which the next one will be in
Houston, I believe.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, it is.
Mr. Honda. And so over the last couple of years and this
year, we have been looking at the services that is expected in
terms of providing a safe environment. And so I just wanted to
have some sort of comment about budget, personnel, assignments,
in such a way that you can provide those services without
having to juggle the different Departments' budgets so that in
the next Super Bowl in Houston, it will be run smooth and
seamlessly through our agency so that Congressman Culberson can
expect the Houston Super Bowl to come out well as it did this
past year.
I do not care who the team is, but I hope that it is the
49ers. But the basic question is can you give us some feedback
on the budgetary approach to providing the necessary resources
and personnel to address the kinds of expectations that one
would have having a safe environment at the next Super Bowl?
We have a template and we have folks who have been involved
in it that we can touch bases with to ask that question, and I
will be asking that question of every department, Federal,
local, and State, so that Houston will have a good solid
preparation for--in the event that whatever team goes to the
Super Bowl will have a good outcome. And I think the two things
that are very prominent in the planning would be human
trafficking, and cyber security and cyber stalking. Do you have
any comments relative to that?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Those
two important issues actually do collide at an event like the
Super Bowl, or the Olympics if we were to host it here again,
it would be a similar situation certainly. And I thank, not
just you, Congressman, but this Committee for your support of
the Department's efforts in human trafficking. I know it is an
important issue for you, and your efforts have really made a
difference in the lives of people. So I thank you and the
Committee for your support over the years, and in this most
recent budget as well.
So with respect to human trafficking, I think the request
is about 89 million--89.3 million for 2017, with 45 million
going for the victims of trafficking program, and for cyber we
are asking for a total of 121 million which would increase
positions. The FBI would receive funds to enhance their
investigative personnel and the number of cyber investigations,
and also attendant money to increase DOJ's internal security,
DEA's internal security, and our grants as well.
With respect to a specific event like the Super Bowl, I
would request the opportunity to come back to you and your
staff with more specific information on that. But what I can
tell you at this point is that for the Super Bowl in
particular, and other large events, what happens at the
planning stage is a great deal of coordination between the
Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, as well
as the intelligence communities so that we mitigate security
threats.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING TASK FORCES
For human trafficking in particular, every U.S. Attorney's
office now is required to have a human trafficking coordinator
and be part of a human trafficking task force. This pulls in
our state and local partners and helps us get information on
the current state of affairs involving cases and
investigations, but also things that are about to occur as
large events like the Super Bowl are put together.
So prior to an event, for example, the Super Bowl was in
New Jersey a few years ago, my office, when I was in the U.S.
Attorney's office there, was involved, along with the U.S.
Attorney from New Jersey, with the preparations for those
events. And so months before the actual game is played, the
planning for how to both have a law enforcement presence and
also protection for any victims that we may be able to rescue,
begins to occur, in terms of every agency involved, looking at
the resources they would need. This is another example, also,
of how we work so well with our state and local counterparts
because so much of the work for an event like that will depend,
of course, upon working closely with local law enforcement also
as well as providing resources from FBI, from DEA if we feel
that narcotics will be involved.
And where we have had, for example, situations where we
have increased funding to our human trafficking task forces, we
use the information and intelligence gathered from them also.
So I would appreciate the opportunity to give you more specific
information about a specific event as that comes to fruition.
We do have, as you mentioned, templates for how the
security protocols are put together for that. We feel confident
that we can take them to Texas and receive as warm a reception
as we did in New Jersey, and San Francisco, and making sure
that the event is as safe as possible. And also that it is not
used, as these events often are, as a cover for illicit
activities such as human trafficking.
So I would appreciate the chance, if I could, to come back
to you with that. But again to note, that the human trafficking
task forces begin to focus on these events months before they
actually come into fruition, and specific plans are set in
place, and specific operational plans are set in place.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
And I also want to add my thanks to the Chairman for
helping us fund and put into law the establishment of the Human
Trafficking Survivors Advisory, which is going to be very
helpful, and also look forward to hanging out with the Chairman
when that event comes around. I am sure it will be a lot of
fun. I didn't watch the Super Bowl, I was at the Command Center
watching the other stuff. So I figured, OK, the next Super
Bowl, I will come over and visit with Houston and Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. We will be glad to have you. Get you out to
the Johnson Space Center.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Lynch, just three very specific questions and if any of
them need to be taken for the record, that is fine.
BUREAU OF PRISONS STAFFING
The Bureau of Prisons staffing request is down about $200
million, and there is also I think plans to hire a little over
300 positions in fiscal year 2017. We have heard concerns from
some of the prison locals, some of the employees about the use
of augmentation and what that means for frankly their own
security, but also their own operational abilities. Can you
provide some perspective on the decrease in the funding
request, what it means for additional hiring, and the process
of using augmentation?
Attorney General Lynch. With respect to the Bureau of
Prisons and the funding, again, as I think I discussed with
another one of your colleagues, I think maybe Mr. Rogers, the
budget numbers are certainly lower than the request for last
year, because again we did receive the $444 million for
construction funds that we did not need to ask for again this
year, that would not have been an appropriate request. So the
amount may be lower, but those funds are being used to
alleviate overcrowding and building the new position.
So the operations of the Bureau of Prisons are not being
cut. Our overall numbers are going to be requesting not only
additional new positions, but additional funding to support
those new positions.
A lot of the new positions will be in the correctional
area, but they will also be in the mental health area, because
this is a problem that is cutting through all of our prisons.
This is a problem that again I hear from my state and local
colleagues, is that dealing with individuals who present these
issues raises safety concerns for the inmates and the officers,
as well as operational concerns.
Mr. Jolly. So reliance on augmentation, though, to what
extent are you relying on that compared to even more than the
336 positions that may be hired?
Attorney General Lynch. Can you give me some context? I am
just not sure what you are referring to.
Mr. Jolly. In terms of reassigning duties of individuals to
support those of say full-time security officers at facilities.
We hear from several prison locals about the concern of using
employees that perhaps are not as trained or at least well
trained in certain specific tasks within the prison system,
that they are being asked to fill in for those duties, and it
has raised concerns of security for some of the prison locals.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, with respect to that
specifically, I do not have information for you at this time,
but I would be happy if we could have our staffs talk and
perhaps get some perspective on this, so we can provide you
with some information for it.
I will say that I have had the opportunity to meet with the
heads of the correctional officers' unions for the Bureau of
Prisons and I am tremendously happy to work with them on a
number of recommendations within the prison. And so their
concerns are very important to me, because they do impact
safety throughout the institution.
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES
Mr. Jolly. Two remaining questions. The next one is Federal
Prison Industries, the program that allows inmates to work in
the production of supply goods for other federal agencies in
return for a stipend. What is the maturity of that program? Is
there additional capacity, are there additional savings for
other federal departments that could perhaps be relying on
this? What is the state of play for Federal Prison Industries?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you for the chance to
talk about Federal Prison Industries, because it is actually I
think one of the ways in which we can not only provide our
inmates with job training and job skills, but also help their
reentry platform out back into the community. Because we have
had some situations where employers have connected with Federal
Prison Industries and find that they receive not only well
trained individuals, but incredibly loyal people who appreciate
being given a chance to use their skills and become productive
members of society. And so we are very supportive of that.
As I am sure the Committee is aware in general, Federal
Prison Industries provides a wide array of services. Frankly,
the Department of Defense is a huge purchaser of Federal Prison
Industries' products, I think they have been very pleased with
their products as well. It's no longer mandatory that Federal
agencies use them, but certainly we are encouraging our fellow
agencies to consider them and looking to actively partner with
other agencies to help in that effort.
With respect to the current state of the operation, we are
very, very pleased to note that we have recently brought a new
CEO on board who comes with over 20 years of experience in
private industry, and he is very excited about the prospects of
rebuilding this great program and in, frankly, enhancing this
great program. So I am tremendously looking forward to working
with him as well.
Mr. Jolly. OK.
Attorney General Lynch. And we think----
Mr. Jolly. I am about out of time, I want to get one more
question on the record. I appreciate that, I look forward to
working with your department on that as well.
CYBER SECURITY
We provided language in last year's bill regarding digital
rights management for information security, secure content
management. And I know there have been incidents, including
last calendar year, where the identity of FBI agents and some
DHS personnel was released. If you could just provide some
perspective on where the Department is with secure content
management, plans going forward either in your budget or unmet
needs.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you. You know, with respect
to that issue, it is very important to us, because the release
of personal information for anyone, the citizens or someone who
is a law enforcement officer, carries with it grave risks and
certainly with our law enforcement officers the risks are
enhanced. And we in fact are involved in prosecuting
individuals who have released information at the behest of
designated terrorist organizations. And so it is something we
take very, very seriously.
Certainly with respect to the cyber budget overall, we have
a larger number in there, $121 million, but what I would note
is that within that we are requesting for $26.4 million to
strengthen DOJ's own cyber security environment to protect
against insider threats and also to bolster literally the
physical security of our systems.
We are all--when I say we, I now refer to a number of other
agencies, but we are all at a point where we are dealing with
the greatest of the last century's technology in many ways.
Well put together, well maintained by dedicated staff, but
systems are approaching end of life, systems are changing, the
costs of maintaining the systems are growing. So I will tell
you that the Department of Justice is committed to this, but
looking for ways to make sure that we have the most efficient
systems possible is included in this budget request as well.
FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
Mr. Jolly. Do you have flexibility to move quickly on
outside vendors? You know, I also serve on the VA committee and
this is one of the huge issues when it comes to scheduling and
how much is done in-house and whether or not there is
commercial off-the-shelf available that can quickly be
incorporated in an environment that continues to so rapidly
change that it creates new vulnerabilities every day. Is there
a balance between what you are doing in-house and relying on
solutions, technology solutions that are out there right now,
today, in corporate America?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, we certainly try and find
that balance. Obviously, we have to go through the Federal
procurement process, but we are allowed to use a variety of
vendors if they meet those needs. The process can be somewhat
lengthy, but it is there for a reason, as I am sure you know. I
think the VA is an excellent example of all the issues that we
are discussing here. And so I look forward to working with you
to ensure that the Department of Justice can also be in that
stream of improving our technological capacity.
And whether or not, Congressman, we can use off-the-shelf
products really depends upon the type of system that we are
talking about also, I will say that. Certainly when it comes to
case management, for example, managing data for the lawyers who
are litigating our cases, there are several excellent programs
that we are able to incorporate into the Department of Justice
systems. When it comes to managing secure data, you know, our
national security data, there are not.
Mr. Jolly. Sure.
Attorney General Lynch. Not to say that there are none, but
there are just fewer options. And so a lot of that will depend
on the type of system that we are talking about as to our
ability to use outside vendors.
Mr. Jolly. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jolly.
I want to recognize at this time our ranking member, the
young lady from New York, Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming our
Attorney General here with us today. I apologize, but the
Secretary of State was next door. So we are moving quite
efficiently and I hope effectively. Thank you so much.
ATF FUNDING AND STAFFING
I have a question regarding the ATF funding proposed in the
President's budget. The budget request includes funding for
additional ATF agents to help investigate gun crimes and
strengthen the firearms background check system to ensure that
firearms are not inadvertently sold to persons who are legally
prohibited from obtaining one.
In addition, the request includes funding to improve the
National Integrated Ballistics Information Network to help law
enforcement solve firearm crimes.
Many members of Congress often express opposition to new
gun restrictions by saying that we need to do a better job
enforcing the gun laws that are already on the books. Isn't it
fair to say that the budget initiatives that you are requesting
for fiscal 2017 are designed to do exactly what so many in
Congress say they want to do, and that is to enforce the gun
laws that are already on the books by helping State, local and
Federal law enforcement prevent gun crime and apprehend and
prosecute those who violate firearm laws?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for the question, Madam
Congresswoman.
Yes, indeed. Certainly as the Department of Justice was
looking at the recommendations to make to the President most
recently, our mandate was exactly that, to view existing
firearms laws and determine how we could best marshal and
leverage Department resources to better protect the American
people within that framework of laws.
So as you have noted, we have taken some steps and we have
some requests for ATF funding that would increase positions, as
well as increase funding. This funding would allow us to bring
on board 200 additional personnel, 80 of whom would be agents,
120 would be what are called industry investigators or Industry
Operations Investigators, to support our new review on those
who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. The
Special Agents would be working on violent crime issues,
trafficking cases and the like. They would enhance our efforts
in reducing violent crime across the country, again, using the
existing laws.
Certainly the NIBIN network has been of great use to law
enforcement over the years. The sharing of information at the
Federal, State and local level about ballistics being used in
crime have been extremely successful.
And the other initiatives that we propose would also
enhance our ability to detect when guns are lost or stolen in
transit much earlier, as those guns tend to be used in crimes.
We have seen that in terms of firearms recoveries from crime
scenes. And so having the ability to start those investigations
earlier would also enhance public safety.
So indeed, the recommendations that we made are designed to
tackle these difficult issues of both violent crime and also
keeping guns out of the hands of those who are not authorized
by law to have them. But at the same time strengthening the
background check system called the NICS system, so that the
licensed dealers who rely on that system to comply with the law
have the best and most efficient system that they need. And so
that individuals who are also relying on that system as they go
through a routine firearm transaction, a purchase transaction,
will have the best and most efficient system as well to rely
upon as they go about their business.
NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
Mrs. Lowey. I appreciate your mentioning the NICS system,
because I just want to follow up on that issue.
We know that current law prohibits individuals from buying
a gun if because of a mental health issue they are either a
danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their
own affairs. The Social Security Administration has indicated
it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the NICS
system, receives all appropriate information on the tens of
thousands of persons who are found each year to have a
documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits and
are unable to manage those benefits because of mental
impairment.
If you could just give us an update on this effort,
including the Justice Department's efforts to assist the Social
Security Administration in helping to ensure that persons with
serious mental impairments do not have access to firearms.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, for
raising that important issue as well.
Certainly the law does prohibit individuals with certain
types of mental illnesses from being able to purchase firearms
and there are very specific delineations of the adjudications
that are required to meet that. Also, every Federal agency is
required to provide information into the NICS system that would
assist the NICS system in being as complete as possible.
The Social Security Administration is engaging in this
rulemaking so that they can in fact produce a clearer, legally
consistent definition of which types of individuals and which
types of adjudications involving their mental health would be
required to be turned over to NICS. And the Department's role,
as with all rulemaking, is to provide legal assistance and
clarity as the Social Security Administration goes through that
process.
They will essentially craft a rule, it will go out for
public comment. Those comments are received back and the
agency, the relevant agency, in this case SSA, would provide a
response before any rule would be promulgated. But it is
designed to make sure that the individuals who fall in that
category are those that are clearly connected to the legal
prohibition against being able to buy or maintain a firearm.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
IMMIGRATION JUDGES
You know, I think you can figure out that I am the chairman
of Homeland Security Appropriations Committee by the comments
of the chairman. The DHS has been doing all we can to catch and
investigate criminals, illegal aliens and smugglers that are
pouring across our southern border. As the chief law
enforcement officer of the land, you must do your part and
follow through with the prosecutions and consequences.
In the past two years, you have requested and received
increased funding for immigration judges. Mind you, these are
courts used 99 percent of the time by foreigners who are
seeking an immigration benefit, yet still we fund them through
taxpayer dollars.
Why are we not placing these immigration judges on the
border where the rubber actually hits the road? Why do our wait
times increase, even though we are increasing the number of
immigration courts? And why does my staff report sitting in
immigration hearings only to see case after case
administratively closed, allowing thousands to circumvent
immigration enforcement?
Would you like to answer those questions?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you for raising this
important issue, because as you note managing the immigration
caseload is one that has become increasingly challenging for
all of us, those who are involved in interdiction at the
border, those of us who are involved in prosecuting the cases
that arise from that. The Department of Homeland Security as
well as they deal with not just deportation, but managing all
of the issues that flow from that. And so I thank you again for
your commitment to that issue as well.
Certainly with respect to our immigration judges, as you
indicate, we have received increases over the last two years
for the hiring of more immigration judges. And let me thank
this Committee for recognizing the need for hiring more
immigration judges and express the Department's appreciation
for your support with that.
Certainly with respect to the total Office of Immigration
Review, we are in fact requesting additional funding, but no
new judges this year. Because we have brought judges on board,
we are in the process of hiring more using the funds that were
provided to us, and the additional funding that we are
requesting is to make sure those judges are up and running. As
you indicated, there are often long waits, they are often
crowded courtrooms. And so we are using the additional funding
request, or the additional funding request would be used, I
should say, to support the infrastructure for those judges. And
so we want to be responsible with our request and fully
integrate those judges and continue hiring using the money we
already received.
With respect to immigration judges on the border, we have
tried to be flexible with regard to that. Certainly within the
last year or so, it may have predated a bit my time as Attorney
General, but as I am sure you will recall from dealing with the
Homeland Security issues, we have waves of individuals coming
across the border at different times and the composition of the
groups will change. For example, when we have large numbers of
unaccompanied children and very young people coming across the
border, in fact what the Department of Justice did was
temporarily reassign some immigration judges to the border
areas to handle just the influx of cases there.
And we look forward to continuing to be responsive in that
way, so that we could deploy judges to those areas where their
colleagues would be overwhelmed. And we hope that the 20 new
judges that were hired last year will go a long way towards
that. And we have additional hiring planned, as I mentioned,
with the money that was already appropriated.
So again, we feel that we can be flexible and we look
forward to continuing to be flexible. If there were to be a
crisis again in another portion of the country, not the border,
but maybe the northwest border, for example, or the northern
border, we would again use that flexibility to make sure we
could staff up those judicial offices so that their colleagues
would not be overwhelmed.
And so that is how we would intend to deal with that again,
but we are requesting additional funding so that we can bring
on board the judges. And we do appreciate this Committee's
support of the efforts of the Office of Immigration Review.
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN
Mr. Carter. Within the last four months, and we have had a
sudden drop-off this month, but over the last four months our
numbers on the UACs, the unaccompanied children, have gone
right back up to 25 or 30,000. It is really unusual at this
time of the year. Those of us who have lived in Texas and know
what goes on at the border because we have lived with it all of
our lives, when it gets cold, people do not come across the
river, when it gets warm, people come across the river. It is
just pretty simple, it is cold to get wet.
And so the situation is, this is contrary to what we would
expect. This means that there is something driving people up
here. If we cannot get them before an immigration judge
hearing, if we give them the notice to appear, they are then
picked up by another federal agency and transported God knows
where in the United States. It could be all the way to Maine,
Washington State or the tip of Florida. We do not know where
they are going. With a notice to appear, the chances are,
especially since most of the children that we are calling
children are 14 to 17 years old, that is the highest number of
category that are coming up as unaccompanied, quote,
``children.'' By the time they get reached, there is a good
chance they will be adults. OK? We have got to fix that.
And I know you are trying. And, if you ask for more money
for judges, I personally will give it to you, because I truly
believe the solution is bringing them before a court of
jurisdiction and have a real hearing, not an agency and a
bureaucrat.
So thank you for what you are doing. Ask for it and I
personally will be on your side.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge.
I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much.
Thank you for being here with us and congratulations on
being our Attorney General.
VOTING RIGHTS
You know, when I first came from Puerto Rico as a young boy
and I started paying attention to what was being discussed in
my house, it was at the beginning of the civil rights movement
and it was whether Puerto Ricans could vote in New York or not.
And both movements had something in common, which was voting
rights. In our case, it was whether we took a test in English
or in Spanish. That was settled by the courts.
Lately, many of us, as you know, have felt that we are
making it harder for people to vote, not easier to vote. And
that brings me to the question of what happened with the
Election Assistance Commission where a commissioner wrote to
some states and said you cannot ask for citizenship. That has
always troubled me because, you know, in my case and in the
case of many other people, we do not walk around with proof we
are citizens. That is just the way it is.
In fact, this voting card is probably--my congressional
voting card is probably the only proof I have on me that I am a
citizen, because we would assume that all members of Congress
are citizens of this great land, but that is it.
And so my question to you is, what role is the Justice
Department playing on that particular issue with that
commissioner from the Elections Commission? Do you feel that he
had a right, without giving me a judgment if that is what the
case would be, to write that letter?
And lastly, very briefly, what in general are we doing to
protect people's rights to vote? Because it seems to me that at
this time in the history of our country to be fighting the
voting rights issue all over again is a very sad state of
affairs.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, with respect to
the specific case that you raised, it is actually currently in
litigation. Typically, it is the Department's responsibility to
represent Federal agencies. We do advise all of our client
agencies on the applicable laws and issues that are raised by
their actions. And with respect to this case, it is currently
in litigation, so I am not able to give you specifics on that.
I think that there is a judge who is going to be holding a
hearing soon to review whether or not there is a legal basis
for certain actions. And so I will leave that matter there.
With respect to voting rights in general, it is in fact one
of the Department's priorities to make sure that we fully
enforce all of the relevant and applicable laws that protect
the rights of everyone to vote. Certainly there have been
changes in those laws recently with respect to the Voting
Rights Act itself. Pre-clearance is no longer an option or a
tool that we have, but that does not diminish the Department's
resolve and commitment when issues are brought to us of where
we do not have pre-clearance eyes on something where there is
evidence of irregularity or issues arising later in the process
of starting investigations and working there.
And I would note that this is also an important issue in
the field with respect to the U.S. Attorney community also.
They are very concerned at the local level as to whether or not
there would be any irregularities with voting and are very
focused on that.
So we are very committed to protecting the right to vote
for all Americans and making sure that it is exercised in as
free and open a way as possible. We provide guidance to States.
Some States do come to us and ask us questions about changes,
we still do that, and we will consult with them and have had
very positive dialogues on specific issues about the best way
in which to ensure an open right to vote. And where necessary,
we will litigate those issues also and then we will let a court
decide.
But where we feel that the right to vote is being infringed
in a way that is inconsistent with the values of this country,
which is that every American needs to participate in this
democracy of ours, we will bring those actions as well.
Mr. Serrano. In the time that I have left, I know you
cannot comment on litigation or something that is being
litigated, but are you at liberty to comment on whether it is
true or not about the rumor we hear that the Justice Department
has asked the judge for a stay on the sole issue of--by the
Elections Commission?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I think that the pleadings
have been filed now and I think that the plaintiffs did ask the
court for an injunction. I think the matter is under
consideration now.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. I appreciate very
much your focusing on making sure that every American has a
right to vote and that means eligible to vote, and I deeply
appreciate that.
And that you will also defend, as the Department always
has, Federal agencies and, therefore, you will be defending the
Federal Elections Commission. I think that is really important
and I appreciate that very much.
I want to recognize Mr. Kilmer and then I believe we are
going to wrap up.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21ST CENTURY POLICING
I am grateful that the President established the task force
on 21st Century Policing to provide a roadmap on how to build
trust and incorporate best practices to reduce crime and make
sure everybody is safe. And I know that the task force made
several recommendations that were specific to the LGBTQ
community and making sure that everyone is safe.
I know the Department is taking the lead on promoting the
adoption of those best practices and those recommendations. I
was hoping you could just give an update on how that is coming
and what the strategy is for getting these measures adopted
nationwide.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, thank you. This is an
important area. It is essentially an area in which some of our
most vulnerable citizens have often either felt that police
protection did not extend to them or they were reluctant to
seek police protection because of a view that they would not
receive it. And so it is also an area that, frankly, when I
talk to law enforcement, they do not want anyone feeling that
you cannot call on an officer for help.
And so we have tried to provide guidance, we have tried to
provide training on how to deal with individuals who are in
this vulnerable situation, either under attack or under
assault. We have tried to provide training in dealing with
individuals who present issues of gender identity, so that
police officers have the training that they need to recognize
the issues that come from that, ranging from booking to
housing, for example.
And so one of the things that we have done is, and I may
have mentioned in an earlier response to a question, that we
have recently released guidance on sexual assault and domestic
violence. This guidance focused on identifying and preventing
gender bias and law enforcement's response to domestic violence
and sexual assault. And we have consulted closely with State
and local law enforcement, both for their experiences and the
questions that they had also.
And so that guidance came out in December and it does
identify and recommend practices that will help law enforcement
agencies develop best practices to respond to crimes of
violence, not just what people traditionally view as domestic
violence against women or sometimes men, but also the LGBTQ
community, to recognize those symptoms and to be able to
respond to those individuals.
And the guidance also seeks to make sure we have ways to
connect law enforcement with a very, very important part of the
community when it comes to all types of domestic violence,
which is other agencies and resources, often community
resources or non-governmental agencies or NGOs, that can
provide support for victims of domestic and sexual violence.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you for that.
SUPPORT FOR VETERANS
With the time I have left. I represent a district that has
a large Navy base and I think I represent more military
veterans than almost anybody in this place, and I feel very
lucky about that. And I fundamentally believe, if you serve, we
should have your back. My State's Human Rights Commission has
had to meet a surprising number of instances where service
members or veterans have voiced concerns around housing or
employment discrimination.
I know the Civil Rights Division under your jurisdiction
deals with those issues. And I want to just get a sense from
you whether it is properly resourced to deal with the needs of
service members and veterans in this regard, and what sort of
demand you are seeing for those services and the ability of the
division to meet that demand.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I want to say that I
certainly agree with you in the fact that I think we owe our
veterans the greatest support when they return home, be it an
issue of health or be it an issue of services, or the all-
important right to vote when they are also stationed overseas.
Because one of the things that we do in the Civil Rights
Division is have a very active practice in making sure that
service members who are stationed overseas have the information
they need to know how to vote and that that particular right is
not infringed through a logistical problem or some other issue.
We do enforce the Federal laws that help them also return to
their workforce when they come home from military duty.
And also we have seen a number of disturbing cases that
involve financial exploitation of our service members, both
when they are coming back and trying to seek housing, and also
while they are on active duty, of service members and of their
families. We have seen some unfortunate instances where that
type of fraud is growing and that is a matter of grave concern
to me as well.
And we also have issues of course with many of our service
members returning injured. Some of these injuries are visible,
some of them are not visible, but it presents them with a
disability that gives them special needs in terms of housing
and employment. And so we take very seriously our
responsibility to defend their right to those reasonable
accommodations as well.
Currently, the fiscal year 2017 budget includes a total of
4.1 million in resources, which is going to plus up the service
members civil rights cases work by a little over $580,000.
We also have a service members initiative at the Department
of Justice that is led by my outstanding Associate Attorney
General. And it really has been instrumental in making sure
that we at the Department look at all of the issues that our
service members present and make sure that, whether it is not
just civil rights, but other areas also. I mentioned the fraud
cases growing, that the Criminal Division is cognizant of these
issues as well.
And so we are trying to look at all of the issues presented
by our service members and be responsive.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. We would love to follow up with you on
that.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Kilmer, thank you. Committee members,
thank you.
And above all, Attorney General Lynch, I want to thank you
for your service to the country and in keeping us all safe, and
for your cooperative relationship with this committee, it is
deeply appreciated, in ensuring that Americans can sleep
soundly at night knowing that the Department of Justice and
their local and State law enforcement officers are working
together to protect themselves and their families.
Thank you very much and the hearing is adjourned.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, February 25, 2016.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WITNESS
HON. JAMES B. COMEY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice and Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. The
Subcommittee welcomes today Director James Comey to present the
President's fiscal year 2017 budget proposal for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI Director is of course at the forefront of the news
today where the topic is terrorism, cyber threats, foreign
espionage, and international organized crime. The FBI is
responsible for leading America's domestic anti-terrorism,
counterintelligence, and national security efforts, along with
your mission, Director, to combat gangs, financial fraud, human
trafficking, and public corruption. Prior to 9/11 the FBI
focused on investigating crimes. However today, of course, the
FBI is charged with anticipating and preventing attacks from
terrorists along with investigating federal crimes.
We on the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations
Subcommittee, Director, will always provide you and your men
and women who serve us and protect us with the support you need
to meet the increasing demands that are placed on your fine
people and resources. But as you know the committee faces
unrelenting pressure to trim budgets and in an environment
where essentially we are facing flat budgets from year to year
and increasing pressure on our mandatory social safety net
programs that have simply got to be brought under control if we
are ever going to balance the Federal budget. The Committee
will do everything we can to help you in that difficult
environment.
Today we will probe your request, seeking assurances that
our investments in the FBI will significantly improve your
capabilities, will strengthen national security, and measurably
reduce crime. We have the highest esteem for the FBI, Mr.
Director, but the committee will not be giving any free passes
for funding increases. We must be convinced that our
constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are going to be used
frugally and carefully to advance our highest national
priorities.
Before we proceed I would like to recognize Mr. Honda, our
ranking member from California, for any comments he may have.
Mr. Honda. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Mr.
Secretary. And I appreciate our continued work together as we
enter into the third CJS hearing today and I am looking forward
to pursuing our mutual interests together with all of our
respected colleagues on this subcommittee in crafting a strong,
bipartisan CJS appropriations bill. And thank you, and welcome,
Director Comey. It is a pleasure to have you join us this
afternoon to hear your testimony and take our questions.
First and foremost I would like to say that I have a great
respect for your prior statements that partisan politics should
play no role in your department. And I would like to also
personally thank you and the dedicated men and women at the
Federal Bureau of Investigation who work tirelessly to protect
the American people against threats, primarily here at home in
the United States but also abroad. And I think that we all
agree that the work of the FBI is vitally important to the
security of our nation. But I also strongly believe that
safeguarding the civil liberties of all Americans is equally as
important, if not more so.
The Constitution is never tested during times of
tranquility. It is during times of tension, turmoil, tragedy,
trauma, and terrorism that it is tested. We must make sure that
it survives these tests.
With that being said I am eager to learn about the progress
the FBI is making in combating sexual assault and human
trafficking and keeping guns out of the wrong hands, among
other activities.
Thank you again, Director Comey, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda. It is my pleasure to
recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman
from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Director, welcome to the
Congress. Thank you for the work you are doing. Thank you for
your dedication to public service.
Everyday the FBI is on the razor's edge in protecting our
homeland from extremism, guarding against global cyber threats
and espionage, and putting dangerous criminals behind bars. The
world is changing quickly as new threats emerge, ones that we
did not even dream of 5 years ago. The tragic attack in San
Bernardino showed that those who wish to do us harm are
adopting more sophisticated recruitment tools than ever before
and we routinely witness the FBI rising to the challenge. And I
have no doubt that they will continue to do so in the future.
Your work is essential to our national security and our
economy. And so this committee thanks you, Mr. Director, and
your 35,000 coworkers for your dedicated service.
As with virtually every year in recent memory, we are
forced here to make difficult decisions to stay within the
confines of our budget parameters. Your request of $8.4 billion
is essentially flat. But many of the offsets will effectively
reduce the operational capabilities of the FBI. A few
problematic reductions include almost $74 million in additional
funds that we gave to you in fiscal year 2016, $57 million for
personnel, $74 million for an operational rescission, and $150
million in fees for IT and criminal database improvements.
While we should always be judicious on how we allocate
scarce resources, we need to hear from you about why you feel
these accounts are the best places to scale back. It is also as
important as ever for the FBI to make the most of its local,
State, and even international partnerships to ensure that every
penny is spent as efficiently and effectively as can be. These
partners thrive with the support and leadership the FBI
provides.
One of my highest interests, and I am sure it is yours as
well, is the effort to combat drug trafficking around the
world. As you know my corner of Kentucky was among the first to
feel the pain of opioid addiction in the 1990s, and more
recently the surge in heroin. With your success combating
production and trafficking in South and Central America, and
then new initiatives like your joint documentary with the DEA
called Chasing Dragons, I am confident that your partnership in
this epidemic will yield results. But we have got to keep our
foot on the gas pedal hard.
As we discussed last year, the growing threat of homegrown
terrorism. ISIS and other extremist groups have spread that
poisonous doctrine worldwide through the Internet and social
media. We have got to be diligent to stay ahead of the curve
and I look forward to hearing your plans to stop the
radicalization of American citizens. More specifically how we
can be sure that the internet, this new international mode of
conversation, that also allows evildoers to organize their
efforts, how can we tackle that part of the problem?
I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks for coming.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time it is
my privilege to present our ranking member, the gentle lady
from New York, Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. And I would like to thank the chairman. And it
is a pleasure to have you with us, FBI Director Comey. You have
served this country through multiple presidents and parties so
I welcome you and thank you for your service.
The internet and social media have revolutionized our
economy and our way of life. They have also become the weapons
of choice for terrorists to spread propaganda and recruit and
radicalize followers. As we tragically witnessed in Paris and
San Bernardino we are facing a new type of terror attack,
including the growing threat of homegrown extremists and lone
wolf terrorists. And Congress must provide the FBI with the
resources to keep up with these evolving threats.
I look forward to hearing how increased funding to enhance
the technical capabilities of the FBI's investigative
personnel, increase the number of cyber investigations, improve
cyber collection and analysis, would help meet this need.
I wholeheartedly support the administration's requested
increase for the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, or NICS. Black Friday, 2015 broke records for gun sales
with 185,345 background checks processed in a 24-hour period,
slightly more than two background checks every second. It is
clear that the FBI will need additional investments to keep up
with the record breaking sales.
Last month the President rolled out his executive actions
to prevent mass shootings and loss of innocent American lives.
Many NRA-backed Republicans in Congress seized that opportunity
to make clear they will not support any measures to implement
the President's plan, including increased NICS funding to keep
up with an increase in background checks. I fear this is
misguided and is indicative, I hope not, of what is to come
during the appropriations process.
Despite the threats facing our nation, the men and women of
the FBI put their lives on the line everyday so that we may
live safely and securely. They deserve to be commended, as do
you. We thank you for your service, Director Comey, and I look
forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Director Comey, I also thank you on behalf
of the people of Texas for your service and we recognize you
for your opening statement. Without objection, your written
statement will be entered into the record. But we would ask if
you could to keep your remarks to five minutes to permit
additional time for questions.
Mr. Comey. Certainly.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Rogers, Mr.
Honda, Mrs. Lowey, thank you for having me here. Again, it is a
pleasure to be before you. Thanks for your good words about the
people of the FBI because they are the magic of the
organization I am lucky enough to lead. I always tell them we
do not have a lot of fancy stuff, but we have great people.
Moments before I got in the car to come here I welcomed 170 new
employees who are joining us from all over the country. They
come together to make sure that we are knitting them to a
common culture, including our ethics and integrity
responsibilities. And I said to them, I hope you did not sign
up here to get rich. This is not about the money. I do not
believe the FBI is something you do, I actually think it is
something you are. It is an orientation towards life and
towards service. So thank you for your support of our folks. It
makes a big difference.
I just want to say a few words about stewardship. I am very
proud of the way in which the FBI has acted as a good steward
of the taxpayers' money in the United States during my two and
a half years as Director. In particular, as I told you, we
tried to be very conservative my first two years on this job in
what we asked for. And I promised you that if I really needed
more dough in areas, I would come and tell you, and I am here
today to tell you about some of those ways in which I think we
need more resources.
But we are trying to go even farther. We have made it one
of our strategic objectives in the FBI to reinforce that
culture of stewardship so we maintain an approach that is like
this when people drive a car that is an FBI vehicle, I want
them not to think of it as somebody else's car. I want them to
think of it as the taxpayers of the United States' car, so they
must care for it like they borrowed it from somebody they care
about deeply. And we want that attitude about our buildings,
about our pens, about all of our resources. Because it is all
borrowed from people who work hard to pay their taxes. We are
trying to drive that attitude into this organization so that
stewardship becomes part of the fiber of this great FBI.
I just want to say a few words about the things that I am
here to ask for more support on. In particular we need a new
headquarters very, very badly. If our people are going to be
safe, be effective, and if we are going to be good stewards of
the taxpayers' money, we have got to get them all in a modern,
safe, efficient FBI headquarters. So there is a big sum asked
for in our budget to support that and I very much appreciate
the support across the aisle on our need for that headquarters.
Cyber also remains a top priority of the FBI for reasons
that this committee knows. As you know, we are asking for an
additional $85 million for cyber. That is going to go mostly to
equipment and to training. We have to have equipment that is at
least as good as the bad guys' so that we can move information,
analyze information, and respond to the threat as fast as it
comes at us, which is at the speed of light.
We have also asked for $38 million to deal with the problem
we call going dark, which is far broader than the problem with
locked devices or encrypted communications. It encompasses a
whole host of challenges to our lawful functions. And so we
need to invest in technology, in particular, so we are able to
execute lawful court orders in a good way.
And as Mrs. Lowey mentioned, we are also asking for
additional support for our responsibilities to check the
backgrounds of Americans who want to purchase firearms. We have
seen a huge increase in the number of transactions we have to
process. That has put great strain on our folks. They are
working like crazy to make sure they meet that obligation to
ensure that bad people do not get guns. But we have got to get
them help, and that help has got to come in additional
personnel. So we have asked for $35 million to plus up the
folks who answer the phones and who process the transactions.
And the last one I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, you and
Mr. Rogers mentioned the challenge we face in counterterrorism.
This ISIL threat is not your parents' Al Qaeda. As we have
talked about many times, it is a dispersed threat. It is an
effort by these savages to motivate troubled Americans to kill
in their name and to reach them wherever they are, which
unfortunately is in all 50 states. If we are going to be
effective against that threat, one of the tools we have to have
and to use well is surveillance. We have to follow some of
these people to make sure that they do not harm innocent
people. So we have asked for an additional $8 million to hire
additional people to make sure we are following bad people and
keeping Americans safe.
Those are the items I wanted to mention in particular. I
will just close by saying thank you, again, for the support to
this organization. We know we can count on the resources, even
in tough times, that are absolutely necessary to keep the
country safe. And we are grateful for it. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Director. I know I speak on
behalf of all my colleagues with the admiration that we have
for the FBI and the good work that you do. But as Chairman
Rogers said, and I deeply appreciate your recognition, that we
have to all be good stewards of these very precious and scarce
hard-earned tax dollars. And I particularly like your approach
that you have played out, that you have asked all your
employees to think of every asset, every resource, everything
that you work with at the FBI as borrowed from someone who they
care deeply about. That is a great way to think about it.
We have in this Subcommittee in past years and in the
fiscal year 2016 bill worked hard to protect the supply chain.
That has been a real source of concern. My predecessor Frank
Wolf quite correctly identified this early on--I think Frank
was one of the very first out of the gate, to recognize the
threat posed to this country by cyber espionage, cyber theft,
particularly from China. And the supply chain is one particular
source of concern and vulnerability. So I wrote into the 2016
bill, in consultation with the good people in your office, to
give the FBI an enhanced role in reviewing the supply chain for
telecommunications equipment, for computer equipment, acquired
by agencies under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice and
Science Subcommittee. Could you describe, Director, the threat
that all agencies in the Federal government face from foreign
governments and other bad actors to their information
technology systems?
Mr. Comey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
your support of that effort. The FBI has taken your urging and
marched out and executed on it. After the language in last
year's bill we have promulgated already to every Federal agency
on our website a primer on the best practices to think about
supply chain. Because we are only as strong as our weakest
link. So you can spend all the time in the world making sure
that foreign states are not penetrating the top corporation in
the chain but if they get in down below, they are going to
wreak just as much havoc. So we have tried to train the rest of
the Federal procurement world on how to think about that. We
have also stood up something called the Hybrid Threat Center,
which I just talked to the House Intelligence Committee about
this morning. We have brought together a lot of elements of the
intelligence community and other parts of the U.S. government
to literally sit together and think about the threat posed to
the United States by corporations who are allowing themselves
to be co-opted and act as agents of foreign powers, and the
work of foreign powers trying to penetrate that supply chain
maybe at a lower level and work their way up. It is an enormous
undertaking. I am not here to report that we have licked it.
But thanks to your support, I think we have made a good
downpayment on that effort.
Mr. Culberson. And the approach that we took, Mr. Chairman,
in order not to overwhelm these good men and women, was asked
the FBI to come up with sort of a Good Housekeeping seal of
approval from the FBI, best practices as the Director just
said. And the best practices, which you just published and I
thank you very much for that, the agencies under the
jurisdiction of CJS are compelled to follow the FBI's best
practices to protect the integrity of their supply chain.
Because we know of the threat posed by, there are a lot of
countries but China is the worst offender, in building in hard
wiring, Trojan horses, or back doors into computer chips. And I
think Australia has just forbid, they will not allow any
government entity to buy routers or telecommunications
equipment manufactured by the Chinese. They just flat will not
buy them because of the pervasive threat posed by the Chinese
and using that Chinese built equipment to penetrate the
government.
What has the response been, Director, from agencies once
you have published the best practices? Are they adopting, do
they seem to be adopting the best practices that you have
published? And are you working with agencies to ensure that
they understand their supply chain threats?
Mr. Comey. I am told they are making the right positive
noises about it. It is probably too early to say what progress
people are making at pushing those best practices into their
procurement. But everybody seems to understand the threat,
which is one of the most important parts of the whole exercise,
to open eyes to what nation states could do to us. And so we
really have to watch this space to see how well they do it. But
that is part of our job, is to watch that space.
Mr. Culberson. So far so good?
Mr. Comey. So far so good.
Mr. Culberson. Could you tell us, and I know this is an
open setting, but you have talked to me about this in a
classified setting, what could you tell us in an open setting
about some of the, you have opened I know some eyes in some
agencies and had some positive result. Is there anything you
can tell us a little bit about that here today in a setting
like this without getting too specific?
Mr. Comey. Yes, I want to be careful because I do not want
particular countries and companies who have been co-opted by
those countries to know what I know. But there is no doubt
there is a concerted effort by hostile states to use not just
traditional espionage but to use so called legitimate ventures
as an instrument to gain access to our systems and our
processes. It is a fairly sophisticated effort that goes on.
And as I said, it really requires eye opening on some--I see
the world fairly darkly given the nature of my life. But it is
important to make sure that some of our colleagues in agencies
that do not have enforcement responsibilities, they see enough
of the darkness to know that they should ask good questions and
ask hard questions. That is what this education process has
been about.
Mr. Culberson. I guess what I am driving at does this
approach appear to be that it looks like it is going to be
successful?
Mr. Comey. It does. I think it is.
Mr. Culberson. OK. Very good, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The House fiscal year
2016 CJS report included language on private lab and uploads to
the Combined DNA Index System, called CODIS. We are very
concerned that the current requirements make the validation of
this data very time consuming. While we want to ensure that
CODIS has a high level of integrity it is also important to get
the information in a timely fashion, especially in the light of
our need to bring sexual offenders and other violent criminals
to justice as soon as possible. We asked that you examine ways
to expedite this process. So how are you moving forward with
the recommendations included in this report?
Mr. Comey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Honda. That is a very
important topic, one you and I, I think, have spoken about for
the last two years. We have really wrestled with this, whether
there is a way to require something less than 100 percent
validation of a private lab before we will let them put
anything in what is the gold standard database for this country
on DNA--CODIS. And honestly, we have come to the place where we
feel we cannot allow anything less than 100 percent. Because if
we do anything to damage the gold standard that is the nation's
DNA database by letting subquality work be deposited into it,
we are going to be sorry someday. So we have looked at that in
good faith and been unable to come to a place where we think we
can weaken the requirements for a private lab. Instead, we are
trying to focus on ways we might equip the States, in
particular, to catch offenders quickly while the validation
process is going on. And what I understand we have been trying
to do is equip states to allow private labs to put data into
the State's DNA holding, before we allow them to put it into
the federal. Because most of the hits for any particular
offender are going to be in a single state, and so we think
that deals with part of the problem. We have not done it long
enough to know whether people are going to be happy enough with
that to stop beating on us. But we have held the line on not
allowing private laboratories direct access to CODIS. We have
tried to speed it up by equipping the States to work with
private laboratories in a better way.
Mr. Honda. So explain to me then the relationship of the
State's process and their inputting their data into CODIS, and
how are they reaching the 100 percent validation standards that
you are requiring?
Mr. Comey. My understanding of the way it works, and if I
screw this up I am sure experts will fix it and will come back
to you. States have to validate 100 percent of the work of the
private lab before it can be part of CODIS. And that is a time
consuming process. We think it is necessary to maintain the
purity of the gold standard. But what we have said is we have
no problem if you want to use the private lab's result in
conjunction with the state's depository of DNA data. And we
think that deals with a large part of the problem because most
offender information is going to be within a particular state,
so the hits will be generated from intrastate data.
Mr. Honda. Well not to be argumentative, but you are saying
the states can achieve 100 percent validation according to your
golden standards, and you are requiring each State to have
these private entities to achieve that at the state level, and
then it goes into the FBI, in your system, the CODIS system?
Mr. Comey. I think that is right. We have told the country
that we will not allow a private lab to put their information
directly into CODIS. We will require that someone stand up for
them and say ``we have checked all of this out, 100 percent,
and so it is good enough to go into the CODIS database.''
Mr. Honda. So help me understand, who stands up for the
State to validate the 100 percent?
Mr. Comey. I do not know the answer to that. I think we
rely on the States to do it. But I am sure there is some audit
function where we, at the national level, check how the States
are doing. But we can get you that answer for sure if you need
it.
Mr. Honda. So can local law enforcement and district
attorney's office achieve that validation requirement that you
require?
Mr. Comey. Can, say, local labs do it?
Mr. Honda. Local labs and the DA's office? Or can law
enforcement offices be trained to do that, aside from private
entities?
Mr. Comey. I do not know the answer to that. I will find
out the answer and get back to you on it.
[The information follows:]
A State is responsible for verifying data they enter into the
National level of CODIS--whether generated by a private laboratory or
by the state laboratory themselves. In order to ensure that a state is
adequately verifying the quality, there are auditing requirements that
must be followed in order to participate in CODIS. The requirements
mandate that a laboratory is audited annually, and that this audit must
be performed by an external laboratory at least once every two years.
All audit records must be submitted to the FBI for review.
In response to the whether or not local labs or DA offices could
participate, these reviews are technical in nature, and require the
scientific expertise of a DNA analyst to confirm that the analytical
results are supported by the data and that all controls and standards
were appropriate. An alternative available to laboratories, however, is
the use of a qualified contract employee to perform the technical
review. A law enforcement agency or prosecutor's office could provide
finding for such a qualified contract employee to assist the laboratory
with the technical review of outsourced DNA records. The quality
requirements for technical review and auditing can be found on the
FBI's web page at: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/
codis.
Mr. Honda. Yes, your comment about things happen just in
the States, we just did an analysis in Alameda County, and we
had a hit in Florida. So I think that the value of this kind of
system is that bad actors can run around different States and
so many, many crimes are left unsolved until we can input some
of the data that we have in other places. So----
Mr. Comey. I agree.
Mr. Honda. I think that we need to keep moving forward. I
am pushing this, but I appreciate, you know, our conversation
and hope that we can continue this to a point where we can get
rid of the 500,000 untested rape kits that are sitting on
shelves. That is 500,000 victims and perpetrators who are not
getting justice.
Mr. Comey. I agree.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda. I recognize Chairman
Rogers.
The Chairman. Mr. Director, ISIS and company are using
technology to recruit members and encourage--you are battling
with Apple over access to the iPhone of Syed Farook, the San
Bernardino shooter. You are hoping to gain access to that phone
to find out if there may have been other people involved, and
so forth. The CEO of Apple says that your request would create
dangerous legal precedent, would endanger the privacy of anyone
with an iPhone. What do you think?
Mr. Comey. Yeah. What we are doing in California with the
U.S. Attorney's Office, in the San Bernardino investigation, is
we have a search warrant for one the terrorists' phones, and
the phone is one that is locked and cannot be opened without
his pass code. And if we try to guess his pass code, after the
tenth guess, the phone will essentially auto erase.
And so what the judge, in the court the search warrant came
from, has done is issued an order to the manufacturer of the
phone saying, you must do two things; you must shut off the
auto erase feature on that particular phone, and you must also
shut off the feature that when you start to guess potential
passcodes it makes you wait a longer period of time between
each guess. The reason being so the FBI can then electronically
try to guess this terrorist's passcodes. And instead of it
taking ten years, it could be done in maybe minutes and or
hours. That is the judge's order.
The manufacturers resisted it, and will have an opportunity
to explain its legal basis, I think either today or tomorrow--
which is as it should be. That is the great thing about the
American system, we serve an order, people can litigate and
object.
I do not fully honestly understand all the argument about
privacy. My view of this matter is, this is a single phone in a
very important investigation where the ask is to write a piece
of software that will work only in that phone, right, not
anybody else's phone. And you, Apple, can hold the phone so
that the software you write never has to leave your premises.
We will send you guesses electronically. And if you open it,
tell us that it comes open.
So I do not quite understand some of the comments that have
been made publically about how this is going to affect our
world, but I think it does illustrate the bigger challenge we
face. I am a huge fan of privacy. I love encryption, it is a
great thing. But our need for public safety and our need for
privacy are crashing into each other, and we have to sort that
out as a people.
Sometimes I hear companies say, we are going to get you to
a place where no one can ever look at your device. And even I
react to that quickly saying, well, that's great, I don't want
anyone going through my phone. Then you stop and say, well,
wait a minute, law enforcement sometimes saves our lives, saves
our children, saves our neighborhoods by getting search
warrants from judges--sometimes for suitcases or for
apartments, sometimes for phones--and if we are going to get to
a world where there are spaces in American life that are immune
to judicial search warrants, that is a very different world
than the one in which we live and we have to talk about that.
Corporations should not drive us there, the FBI should not
make this decision, the American people should decide how do we
want to be governed. That is where I think this matters so
much. San Bernardino matters because it is a hugely important
case, but the bigger issue is tremendous and tremendously
important.
The Chairman. What would you be looking for in this
particular case?
Mr. Comey. In this case, we are simply looking for
compliance with the court's order that Apple write a one-off
piece of software that shuts off the auto erase feature.
The Chairman. No, what I meant was, what could you possibly
learn from this--from being able to access the phone?
Mr. Comey. Well, possibly, as I have said, I don't know
whether there is evidence of the identity of another terrorist
on the phone, or nothing at all, but we ought to be fired in
the FBI if we did not pursue that lead. We could not look the
victims in the face and say, you know what, we decided not to
execute a search warrant on that phone because it would be
awkward or people would feel uncomfortable about it in some
way. We have a duty to try to do that.
Now, if the judge says, no, the law does not permit that,
we are big fans of the rule of law, and that will be the end of
it, but we think we have to follow that lead. This is a live
investigation, and it is hard to imagine a circumstance where
our work is more important than this.
The Chairman. Well, as you said before, it leads us to a
discussion of the larger picture of the use of the new
technology that we enjoy today for evil purposes. What have you
to say about that?
Mr. Comey. This is the hardest problem I have seen in
government because it implicates America's gift for innovation,
implicates privacy, it implicates the rule of law, it
implicates public safety, and so it cannot be bumper stickered.
That is what I explain to people.
The FBI has a limited role here. First, it is to
investigate cases to try to save people's lives and people from
pain. The second is to make sure folks understand that this
world some people imagine where nobody can look at your stuff,
is a world that will have public safety costs. And we may
decide, OK, it is worth it, but we shouldn't go there without
people understanding it.
So what I am hoping is we will never have a day where folks
look at us and say, what do you mean you can't? You have a
judge's search warrant, right? A child is missing, or there has
been a horrific crime, what do you mean you can't? Before we
ever get to that day, we just have to talk about it and
understand how we optimize both of these things we care about:
privacy and safety. How do we do that? And it is not easy.
The Chairman. Quickly, my time is almost out. Heroin. In
the last decade heroin use in this country has increased by 63
percent. How much of that is attributable to the Mexican
cartels, like Sinaloa? And how are we letting this amount of
heroin come into the country?
Mr. Comey. The country is facing--and Mr. Chairman, you
know this better than any American--a wave of highly pure
heroin that is washing across primarily the eastern half of the
United States. But as big a wave of highly pure methamphetamine
is washing across the western part of the United States, and
the waves are actually moving towards each other. They are
starting to pass each other in the middle of the United States,
and almost all of it comes from Mexico, that methamphetamine
and that heroin.
It is highly pure, it is cheap because the Mexican cartels
are growing the poppies in southern Mexico. So they are a
business, their supply lines are very short so they are pushing
this highly pure heroin into the United States. And especially
kids are finding it so easy to move from opioid abuse to this
highly pure heroin abuse and dying in the process.
So this is something I have had my eyes opened to and
formed a partnership with the DEA to try and do something
about. It is washing over us from Mexico and there are lots of
challenges to the interdiction effort--the Director of National
Intelligence this morning was talking about how, in his view,
we need more resources for the Coast Guard because their
ability to interdict these multi-ton loads has been diminished
as their resources have diminished. I don't know the answer for
sure, but I do think it is an emergency in the United States.
The Chairman. And now they are mixing a very powerful
synthetic called fentanyl with heroin----
Mr. Comey. Yes, sir.
The Chairman [continuing]. Not knowing the potency of that,
and overdosing and dying. What can you say about that?
Mr. Comey. Yes, fentanyl is 40, 50 times more powerful than
heroin. And so they are mixing fentanyl--a lot of which comes
from China, which is something we are now focused on--with the
heroin. Even people who think they have gotten used to the
heroin are killed in a snap when it has that extra hit of
fentanyl in it.
You mentioned a film that Chuck Rosenberg, the DEA
Administrator and I did an intro to to try and help educators
and families understand what's going on here. There are
thousands of people dying in this country from heroin--tens of
thousands from opioid abuse and heroin. And it is so big a
problem that it is almost hard to get our minds around, but we
simply must.
The Chairman. More people dying from overdose from opioids
than car wrecks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again
for articulating so clearly the challenge we are facing between
privacy and security. I will not continue on that path, but
many of us have very definite views on that.
And another issue related to cyber security. I remain very
concerned with the attacks by cyber criminals on corporation's
payment systems resulting in the theft of consumers' personal
information. In the last few weeks, the fast food restaurant
Wendy's announced an investigation of a potential credit card
breach, of which they do not know the size yet.
Other the recent large financial data breaches affecting
payment systems include Target, in 2013, 40 million payment
cards, 70 million records of customers' names, addresses,
telephone numbers, email addresses; Adobe 2013, 152 million
customer names, encrypted passwords, encrypted payment card
information; Home Depot 2014, 56 million customer email
addresses and payment cards. Just some of the examples of
breaches that we know of, and thousands more I am sure are not
printed in the newspaper because the companies do not want to
get this information to their stockholders.
Your budget includes an additional 85 million to address
the problem, but it seems to me that unless there are
consequences, arrests, and prosecution, these will continue to
be very attractive activities for criminals. I can remember
being briefed ten years ago by Ray Kelly, the New York Police
Department, and it seems they were always behind. They would
always hear of these events after they occur.
So how many of these large cyber breaches end with the
responsible parties being arrested and prosecuted? And what can
we really do about this? How do we improve that? What concerned
me most about the briefings I got from police Commissioner
Kelly is that we were always behind. And very often the
corporations do not want anyone to know. So, thank you.
Mr. Comey. The honest answer to your how many question is
not enough. We do not have good statistics on how often it is
happening for some of the reasons you alluded to. But the major
problem we face is so many of these offenders are outside the
United States because the Internet allows them to travel as a
photon. They do not ever have to come in at JFK and get their
luggage and then come in someplace and steal from us, they are
able to do it through the internet.
And so we have to, as you said, impose a cost so they do
not think it is a freebie to steal from America. And our goal
is to have them feel somebody's breath on their back as they
are sitting at the keyboard, wherever they are around the
world. And the only way we get them picturing that is if we
lock people up.
We have made good progress here, not good enough in a
couple of ways. From the FBI's perspective, we are embedding
more cyber agents and cyber analysts overseas to have them sit
with local police and local counterparts--as old fashioned as
that seems--so we can get the evidence to make the case, and
then get our foreign counterparts to arrest these people. That
is the first thing.
The second thing we are trying to do is make it less
profitable, even for those who steal. What has happened since
Ray Kelly's briefing is the crooks, their world has evolved to
such a sophisticated place they actually have marketplaces now
for criminals where if you steal credit card information, you
do not even have to know who to sell it to, go to the
marketplace and hire a cash out person, or hire a carder, or
hire a coder.
So we are focused on trying to destroy those marketplaces
because it is actually a weak spot in the criminal world. They
have evolved and gotten sophisticated, but it actually gives us
a chance to attack them at a hub that will disrupt their
activities. So we've got to lock people up and send that
message around the world, and we got to attack them where they
are most vulnerable, and that is in their marketplaces. That is
how we are thinking about the strategy.
Mrs. Lowey. You know I mentioned several situations that
have been pretty public. How good is the communication between
the private sector and your office, or other law enforcement
offices, or are they still not quite sharing?
Mr. Comey. No, it has gotten much, much better. Just in the
two and a half years I have been director it has gotten better.
Because a board of directors--boards of directors are asking
about it, CEOs are asking about. Do we have a relationship with
the FBI or for the payment card folks, especially the Secret
Service? And are they sharing information with us, and are we
sharing it back? That has improved dramatically. It is still
not good enough because our economy is so big and so complex,
but it is in a much better place today than it was even two and
a half years ago.
Because people understand the business imperative, that it
will save you money if you develop a relationship with us so we
can tell you what the indicators are of the crooks so you can
lock your door against them, and so that we can quickly respond
if you are attacked.
Mrs. Lowey. I just wonder--and I am going to close with
this, Mr. Chairman. In my discussion with some corporate boards
and individuals, most of them have hired huge numbers of people
to deal with this at their own business site. And I just wonder
how much communication is taking place between you, and your
staff, and the corporations before something happens. Is there
sharing of technology or are they all keeping their own systems
to themselves?
Mr. Comey. I think companies would tell you this as well--
it has gotten much, much better. We are doing things like--and
I won't get into boring details, but we have built something
called the Malware Investigator. The FBI, for years, has had a
database, like our fingerprint database, of all malicious code
that people use to try and break into different systems. And
we, when we would investigate, would always query it.
What we have done now is told our trusted private sector
partners, we will give you an account. We will let you hook up
to that. If you encounter malicious code, you think it is
malicious, type it in, dump it into our database, and you will
get a result in minutes, sometimes seconds. And that is in our
interest because we get more people contributing samples, but
it is in the company's interest because they get quick answers.
You should call LA, the FBI's LA office has dealt with this.
That is one example, but we got to get better because even
that is not what they would call machine speed. But that is
much better than it was three years ago.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. A very important question, Ms. Lowey, and I
can tell you from personal experience that I have had several
companies in the Houston area, one research center here even
recently complimented you, Director, and your team for it. They
showed up--the FBI showed up at their doorstep and said, we
think you have a problem. And they sat down in a private
setting, and walked this research center through the attack
that had taken place that the researchers had no idea that,
once again, the Chinese had broken in and stolen all this
stuff. So you do great work in this area and it is something we
need to continue to help you in.
Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, it is great
to see you again. Last year, in my first hearing with this
subcommittee, you testified that there are active terrorist
investigations in all 50 States.
Since then, two students in my home State of Mississippi
were arrested trying to join ISIS. Can you provide us an update
on what the FBI is doing to keep US residents from joining ISIS
or other terrorist groups?
Mr. Comey. Yeah. Thank you, Congressman. I remember well
our conversation a year ago. The picture today is worse in some
ways, better in some ways. Worse in the sense that the number
of investigations we have into people who are on some spectrum
from consuming ISIS' poison to acting on it has continued to
slowly rise. We have about 1,000 now in the United States. So
that is very concerning.
The good news is, we see fewer people attempting to travel
to the so-called caliphate, which is a nightmare on earth. We
see that number dropping. And I don't want to be overconfident
in saying what to make of it, I hope part of the reason is the
federal courts have given people significant jail sentences for
joining ISIL, or attempting to go to ISIL, so people understand
there are huge costs associated with dabbling with these
savages.
So I am hopeful that trend will continue. Over the last six
months, the number has stayed down. But the case from
Mississippi illustrates the challenge, especially young people
who are unmoored who are looking for a center in their life.
And a lot of people find that in unhealthy way through ISIL's
propaganda. So it remains a dominant feature of the FBI's work
in the United States.
Mr. Palazzo. In your testimony you mentioned that
terrorists are utilizing social media and the Internet to
disseminate propaganda and recruit American citizens to travel
to ISIS, and you said that those numbers seem to be trending
down. But, you know, they are still trying to recruit people to
do harm here in America, or attack us from within. What is the
FBI doing to detect, monitor, and prevent terrorists from
recruiting within our own country?
Mr. Comey. Everything we possibly can, under the law. We
are trying to make sure that we have appropriate source base,
that is, we have people in communities who will tell us when
they see something odd going on. We try to make sure that we
have a robust undercover presence, where appropriate, to find
out what is going on. We try and make sure that we are tightly
connected with state and local law enforcement. And I probably
should have said this one first because it is the deputy
sheriffs and the police officers who know their neighborhoods
and know the kids in the neighborhood who will have a sense of
who is going sideways, so that is really important.
And then we are building relationships with American
companies, all of whom think about this the same way. They do
not want their products used by terrorists. And then the last
one I mention is, we are also making sure we are tight with our
foreign partners who may see things overseas that are leads
into the United States for us to follow up on. And I have
probably forgotten something, but those five are probably the
core of it.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Director. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Director, for being with us. I am honored to represent 11
tribes in the district I represent, I take our nation's
responsibility to promote tribal sovereignty and to protect
treaty and trust obligations, I take that seriously.
Right now 25 percent of violent crimes prosecuted by the
U.S. Attorney's offices are tied to Indian country. So I would
like to hear more about how the FBI promotes and supports self
sufficiency for tribal law enforcement. I would love to get a
sense of how much money the FBI is making available through
this budget request for us supporting tribal law enforcement.
And also just get a sense of internally how do your operations,
you know, just within your own capacity, support the
investigation of violent criminal acts in Indian country?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer, and thank you for your
interest in this issue. I worry a lot that at times the
reservations seem like crime scenes without a constituency,
that no one speaks for the violence and especially the harm to
children on so many of our reservation lands and among the
Native American people. So thank you for this.
We deal with it, operationally, through the Safe Trails
Task Forces, two of which we work out of the Seattle office. So
that is a huge feature of our work, especially west of the
Mississippi. It is one that I have taken a personal interest
in. I have visited reservations when I was Deputy Attorney
General.
I have two daughters who, on a church mission, went to an
Indian reservation 2 years ago and came back and said, ``Dad,
you are the FBI director, you must do something.'' They are
probably the most important constituency in my life I have had
to report to--Chairman Culberson is an important constituency,
but I have to report to my daughters and tell them what I have
done. So among the things I have done is try to incentivize our
talent to go do that work.
The details are not important, but we have created
incentives for our best and brightest special agents and
analysts, to go work in Indian country to do that work, which
is incredibly difficult work.
As you know, we continue to do a lot of training with the
BIA and with tribal law enforcement, and I don't remember off
the top of my head the particular numbers, because they have to
be the front line of defense. The FBI is enormous, but it is
not as enormous as this problem, and so we rely on the BIA and
tribal law enforcement.
But I am not here to tell you that I think the FBI is
solving this challenge, honestly. It is so big, and so
horrific, and so invisible to so much of our country, that
there is not an easy answer.
Mr. Kilmer. I would very much like to follow up with you
and your team on that. I want to switch gears entirely. Earlier
this month, a hospital in Los Angeles fell victim to a
ransomware scam, and ended up paying $17,000 to hackers just to
regain access to the hospital's computers. And we have heard
about these sorts of attacks being perpetrated against cities,
and law enforcement agencies, and schools, and companies, and
just regular citizens where people are often forced to pay
their own money just to get access to their own technology.
I would like to just get a sense from you of what sort of
safeguards against these types of cyber crimes should we be
looking at? What can we do? You know, I know as the FBI
investigates these sorts of things, are you learning any
lessons from that? And is there any direction to us as
policymakers in terms of what might be done in this space that
may not currently be providing you the resources you need?
Mr. Comey. Yeah, thank you. This is a phenomenon, as you
said, that is sweeping across people and nonprofit and profit
institutions. From the computer hygiene perspective, the lesson
we have learned here is everybody within the sound of my voice
should have a good backup. Whether it is your laptop, or
whether you run a hospital or a business, you must ensure that
you have adequate backup because the Internet is a very hard
place to police successfully.
At some point, someone may try and lock up your device and
then demand money for it. You are immune to them if you have a
good backup, as a company, as a hospital, as an individual. So
that is my overwhelming piece of advice to folks. And then from
our perspective, to follow up on my conversation with Mrs.
Lowey, we have to impose costs on those people who are mostly
outside of the United States, reaching in and locking up
peoples' systems, then asking that bitcoin or money be wired to
them. So we need to track those people down and lock them up to
send a message that this is not some game or some freebie. That
is hard, but it is something we are trying to do every single
day. So those are my two pieces of advice.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, welcome. You
know the high regard I hold your agency and you personally, and
all of these agents. I think you are an example of excellence
that we have to be, and are very proud of.
And I want to start off with something that is local to me.
After much frustration with the VA on the lengthy time waits
and the conspiracies that seem to have existed to shuffle
papers and harm veterans, I asked for your assistance, and you
all became involved. And I am very aware, from having dealt as
a judge with the FBI, you do not comment on investigations.
Not asking you to do that really, but in a way, because we
get about 250 to 300 calls a week, and they know you are there,
and they know you are working, and they are concerned, these
are veterans that are concerned. What can we tell the veterans
about progress on looking into whether there is actual criminal
activity that involves in the stories we have heard about
people making money over delaying veterans getting reached?
Mr. Comey. Yeah, thank you, Judge. The most you can tell
them is we are working it and working it hard. I checked on it
yesterday knowing that I was going to be here, and knowing of
your interest in it. We are working it. As you also said, we do
not talk about our work for good reasons, but I can assure the
folks who call you, we are on it and we are working very hard.
Mr. Carter. And most of them trust you too and, therefore,
that would be a good message to send.
Secondly, something that is very important to me.
Yesterday, or this week, I introduced a bill to expand COPS
grants to include the active shooter training. I am well aware
that the FBI is heavily involved in active shooter training,
and I think it would be--give that access to local law
enforcement that for something they can't--many of them can't
afford now, by using COPS grants to get involved with active
shooter.
Would you comment on what your thoughts are on the active
shooter training that the FBI gives and receives, and then the
expansion to--or the necessity to expand to other law
enforcement to understand how that active shooter program
works?
Mr. Comey. That ALERRT training, which, as you alluded to,
comes out of the great state of Texas, out of a university,
Texas State, I think----
Mr. Carter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Comey [continuing]. That training saves lives in the
United States. And it is so important. We have trained tens of
thousands of law enforcement folks using it so they can then
train others; so millions of people in law enforcement in the
United States should have that training. And then it ought to
go beyond that, frankly. So I am a huge fan of it. Any way it
can be supported and spread more is in our national interest in
my view.
Mr. Carter. Well, I think it is making it as one of the
criteria you can apply for COPS grants for is a good concept.
Right now it would not be covered, but we think we can--we are
going to get a huge amount of support. And I think from both
sides of the aisle, we will get a huge amount of support
because I truly believe after the shooting at Fort Hood, and
realizing that both officers who responded and were successful
in bringing down the shooter were both active shooter trained,
one of them by the FBI. So it is quite--it obviously works.
Mr. Comey. Yeah. And I hear about it all over the country,
Judge. I travel a lot and meet with State and local law
enforcement, and they talk about it constantly. It actually
inspired us to produce a video--I don't know whether you have
seen it yet--a movie called The Coming Storm--which is about an
active shooter incident at a community college. That movie is
good and so important to law enforcement; we have made tens of
thousands of copies and just given it away around the country.
Mr. Carter. It is great, and thank you for that. And, by
the way, as we started this process we contacted your office,
they were very cooperative and very--and encouraged us very
much, and I am happy to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
will get the next round.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Judge.
Mr. Jolly.
Mr. Jolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, thank you
for being here. I appreciate the full Committee chairman
bringing up of the current matter with Apple. I have some very
strong opinions about that and there is a question here, but I
want to start by thanking you for being diligent in pursuing
the court order and staying on top of this.
I looked at my view of the world, and I realized that as
one member of this committee does not necessarily reflect the
entire committee, but this is a court order applying to one
phone, and Apple is refusing to comply with that order. And,
frankly, if their failure to comply means that there is
additional information out there that has already contributed
to other incidents, or will in the future contribute to other
incidents of terrorism or national security, I think Apple
leadership risks having blood on their hands. And I think Tim
Cook is going to have a very hard time explaining why he stood
in the way of justice on this issue. So I thank you for what
you are doing.
This is not my iPhone you are trying to look at, this is
the iPhone of Syed Farouk, who I believe is an individual who
gave up every single one of his civil liberties the day he
killed 14 Americans and injured 21. And so I thank you for what
you are doing on that.
I know our chairman asked what might be on that phone, and
it led to a bit of supposition about the content of
communications. From a factual standpoint though, what are the
files on a typical phone, and what profile might you be able to
build of his activity or communications? As a layperson, I
would presume phone calls, messages, but what profile do you
not have of this murderer that you might otherwise have?
Mr. Comey. Yes, the particular challenge we face in this
case is the phone was last backed up over three weeks before
the attack. Again, I don't do any of this to pick on a company,
I actually find the company has been helpful in a whole lot of
ways, they just got to a point where they said we will not
assist you further, and for reasons that I don't doubt they
hold honestly. But if the stuff is backed up to the iCloud,
Apple cooperates with court orders, and we get backed up
photos, or all kinds of records about people we can get
lawfully with a judge's authorization.
So anything that might have been backed up to the cloud may
still be on the phone. That would be photos, or texts, or
notes, or GPS information where this phone traveled. One of our
real concerns here is, we have 19 minutes we can't figure out
where they were after the attack. We have looked at every gas
station camera, every intersection camera, we have the whole
route, but we are missing 19 minutes before they were finally
killed by law enforcement. The answer to that may be on the
device.
Mr. Jolly. Because a phone would typically--you would have
some type of GPS or tower signals that you would know
approximately where they were----
Mr. Comey. Sure. They may have----
Mr. Jolly [continuing]. During those 19 minutes?
Mr. Comey [continuing]. All kinds of locator services
turned on in connection with the phone. These phones are
wonderful, I love them. And our entire lives, in a way, are on
the phone. And that is why people ask good questions about
privacy, but it is also why I want people to take a step back
and say, so if we got to a world where those places were
warrant proof, what does the world look like?
And that is the other thing I want people to understand. It
is not the Bureau going and opening people's devices. No, no,
no. If we want to open your device, we go to a judge, we make a
showing of probable cause, the judge issues a specific warrant,
tells us what we can take from the warrant, and what we can
take from the device or the place and how we can do it.
Mr. Jolly. Well, I thank you for that. Obviously, you know
the perspective from which I am coming. And I am sick and tired
in this town, and across the country, with people not siding
with law enforcement. And in this case, that includes Apple,
and it includes Tim Cook.
You have got folks up here that I know side with law
enforcement. I appreciate what you are doing, I hope you do
prevail. We will leave that to the courts to decide. I don't
doubt their intentions. And I agree with you, I do not doubt
Apple's intentions. I just think they are wrong on this one,
that they are erring on the side of privacy, and cloaking what
is a national security moment in which they could contribute to
a safer America, and they are choosing not to. So I appreciate
you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Jolly. Director, I recently
visited the National Cyber Investigative Task Force to see the
very serious and persistent threats to our information security
systems and infrastructure. And last year the country learned
of the huge loss of personal data from the Office of Personnel
Management, again stolen by the Chinese, who continue to be the
worst actors out there. And during the Super Bowl weekend
hackers posted online personal information for over 20,000 FBI
and 9,000 Department of Homeland Security employees. It is a
source of great concern to all of us.
The Department of Justice said that it was looking into the
unauthorized access of a system operated by one of its
components and there have been news reports that an arrest has
been made.
Director, you are asking for $626 million for your cyber
security programs, which is an $85 million increase. Could you
talk to us about how the FBI is dealing with this threat and
the realities of intrusions like this, and how will this
requested increase help you address that threat, both for the
FBI, for the Department and for the country in general?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are dealing with this threat in a number of different
ways, which I can summarize briefly. As we are trying to shrink
the world--and what I mean by that is we are trying to impose
costs on the bad guys, so they know no matter where they are,
we can reach them and put handcuffs on them--but we are also
trying to shrink the world within the government. And I am so
glad you visited the NCIJTF, because that is the best example
of what we are doing.
Probably ten years ago, the cyber response is a bit like
four-year-old soccer, everybody chases the ball--I have five
children, so I have watched a lot of four-year-old soccer, they
chase the ball in a big clump. What the NCIJTF represents is
about 20 federal agencies with responsibilities that touch
cyber sitting together, which is a big deal in our national
government, and sharing information about what do you see, what
do you see, and who is going to do what about it.
So we have really spread out on the field, to stay with the
soccer metaphor, and we are deciding who has the clearest shot,
who is in the best position. And that is the answer, because
the problem is so enormous that nobody can do it alone and, if
we all chase it, we are going to ignore a big piece of it. That
is the first thing.
The second thing is, what the budget increase is for is we
have to make sure that we equip our people with the right stuff
to be able to respond to this. So a key part of our ask is for
us to be able to have a better high-speed network to move these
enormous clumps of data that will help us see and understand a
cyber threat.
And the last piece of the $85 million is for training. It
is vital for us to train our folks and state and local law
enforcement to be able to respond to this threat, because it is
getting more sophisticated every day.
So we are trying to shrink the world, we are trying to
equip our folks better, and we are trying to make sure our
folks are trained well. Then, obviously, we need to attract
great people to do this work for us and keep them in the
harness doing the work at the FBI. That is how I would describe
our strategy.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Comey, I have serious concerns about the privacy
implications also of the FBI's ongoing attempts to force Apple,
which is based in my district, to create a hack to allow to
allow the FBI to gain access to encrypted information on the
phone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. I realize that you
face a tough challenge investigating this attack on our nation
and our communities; however, what the FBI requests will echo
beyond this case. It will create a weakness that can be
exploited and invite attacks on Apple by those seeking to gain
access to the new code the FBI seeks. These possibilities must
be weighed against the information the FBI will be able to
recover from the phone of the San Bernardino shooters.
You have said repeatedly that this is about one phone, yet
there have been multiple news stories highlighting other phones
that the government seeks to access.
Can you promise that this is the only time you will ask
Apple or any company to create software to gain access to a
phone?
And as you know, Apple is an international company. If
Apple were to comply with the U.S. Government's request to
build code to its specific needs, do you worry about China and
Russia requesting the same?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Honda. And I am going to try and
make sure I hit all parts of your question.
First, let me start with what I understand the court's
order to be directing. And I am not an expert, but I have
talked to a lot of experts, so I will give this my best shot. I
do not think it is accurate to say that the manufacturer is
being asked to create some code that could get loose on the
land and do harm in two different respects.
First, what the court has directed them to do is to write a
piece of code that would only work in the terrorist's phone. It
would not work in anybody else's phone because it is written to
the unique signature of that phone. And the second is, they
will have custody of it the entire time. The phone would be at
the manufacturer, the code would be at the manufacturer, and I
think they have excellent security.
In fact, in 2014 and before, Apple would unlock phones
routinely in response to search warrants and do it at their
headquarters, and I have never heard anything about anything
getting loose and hurting us there. So I greet that, honestly,
with a little skepticism, but the judge will sort that out.
Mr. Honda. Well, excuse me, let me ask the question then.
Are you saying that Apple's technology say for i6, the access
code is only for one individual phone and that will not affect
other i6 phones?
Mr. Comey. Here is the way I understand this. And again, I
have talked to experts, but I am not one, but again I am going
to try to explain it as I understand it.
What makes this case unusual and I wrote about it as, the
relief we seek is increasingly obsolete, and here is why I said
that. This is a 5C phone running iOS 9. That confluence of
operating system and hardware is increasingly outdated. The 5C
still has the ability for Apple to write a unique code for that
one phone that will shut off the auto-delete function and shut
off the delay function. I do not believe that is possible the
way they built the 6 and phones built after the 5C. They did
the hardware differently.
So I actually do not think that even if the judge says this
is appropriate, after hearing from Apple the some technique
will not be useful in later-generation phones running iOS 9 and
thereafter.
That is what I am told by experts, but as I said, the great
thing about the American court system is they will be able to
bang together and sort this out.
Mr. Honda. Well, I am not a lawyer, but let me ask the
question then. If that were to be done for one phone at this
one instance and it creates a precedence, will that precedence
require other opportunities for law enforcement to access other
technologies and other people's phones?
Mr. Comey. Yes, I am a lawyer. It definitely might, because
here is what would happen----
Mr. Honda. Well, my follow-up question is then, if that is
yes?
Mr. Comey. Can I explain why? I am sorry.
Mr. Honda. Go ahead.
Mr. Comey. Can I explain why I say that? Because a judge
will issue a decision in California interpreting the All Writs
Act statute, that would not be binding on other judges, but
there will be other phones because, as I have been saying for
two years, this is a huge issue for State and local law
enforcement. There will be other phones and other judges will
look to that to see whether that is a similar circumstance. So
there is no doubt about that.
Mr. Honda. So my follow-up response is, if it does create
precedence, what is its impact on constitutional principles?
Mr. Comey. Well, that is a good question, because the
precedence will be created under the framework of our
Constitution. Right? I mean, a search warrant is an exercise of
authorities under the Fourth Amendment. The All Writs Act,
which Congress passed when it passed the Fourth Amendment in
1789, is an exercise of the court's jurisdiction. That is why I
keep stressing, this is not us going and opening people's
phones, it is us going to a constitutional court, asking for
permission under the Fourth Amendment to do something.
And so it would be a precedent in the sense that a court
would look to it to see whether it was useful, but the entire
framework is under our rule of law.
Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, not to be argumentative, but this
is technology, but still it is a constitutional question, it
seems to me, in terms of you are arguing security versus
privacy clashing.
In 1941, December, we had Pearl Harbor, and there was a
group of U.S. citizens in this country that were incarcerated
based upon security and privacy and national security. And
these folks were moved in total to other places out of their
homes without due process. When we looked at it 40, 50 years
later with some hindsight, we realized that we reacted not
judiciously, but we used the courts, the Supreme Courts also,
to justify some of the actions of the government.
So I am just saying this as one person who has seen this
kind of thing happen, I am very cautious about how we move
forward. I understand the tragedy. I have mentioned that in
times of tranquility, our Constitution is very rarely
challenged, but in times of terrorism and trauma and tragedies,
you know, it is when we need to be vigilant and thoughtful
about it and just think it through, because we do not want to
make a mistake as a nation that believes in the rule of law.
Mr. Comey. I agree completely, Mr. Honda. That is why I
think it is so important that this be a national conversation,
because the stakes are too high. It affects how we are going
live, how we are going to govern ourselves, for our children's
lives and our grandchildren's lives. And so I do not think it
ought to be decided by one court case or another court case, or
the FBI or some company. The American people ought to decide
how do we want to be.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to say that I
agree that we should have a national conversation, because in
the past these kinds of things have always been rushed into and
thoughtful people need to get together with their own opinions
and hash it out.
Mr. Comey. I agree.
Mr. Honda. So I appreciate this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Chairman Rogers.
The Chairman. Your request includes 783 and a half million
for FBI headquarters construction. Actually, 646 million is for
the building and the other is for other things. That is a huge
request. And at the same time you are proposing significant
cuts in FBI operations, which I find a little bit troubling.
Tell me how important it is for a new building.
Mr. Comey. Very, very important. And I will have failed if
I leave the FBI in the current crumbling infrastructure and
failed the taxpayer, frankly, because we are in a dozen or more
facilities around Washington, it is incredibly inefficient. We
are blowing all kinds of dough on leases that we should not be
spending, because we have outgrown a headquarters that was
built 40 years ago and it is literally falling down.
And the reason we have netting around the top floors of the
FBI is not to protect us from the civilians, it is to protect
the civilians from us falling on them. Not us or my employees,
I am sorry, the building flaking off.
And so I think it is critical that the Bureau be in a place
that is commensurate with the mission of the FBI to protect the
American people. And I know it is expensive, but the vision is
build a building that I will be long gone from this earth and
it is still functioning and efficient and safe for our folks.
So I am a fairly stingy person when it comes to money, this
is money that I believe is well spent. But to be good stewards,
we are also squeezing ourselves in other areas, as you said, to
make sure that we are not only talking it, but we are walking
the walk.
The Chairman. Well, just as you earlier very eloquently
described your instructions to employees, that car is not
yours, treat it like it is the American public's, we do that
with the dollars. So we are really stingy with what we pass out
too. We try to treat these dollars like they are our own, I
guess.
Actually, the request total is for 1.4 billion, about half
of which is for GSA----
Mr. Comey. Right.
The Chairman [continuing]. And half roughly for FBI. But
the request also includes what I think is an unworkable gimmick
to authorize DOJ working capital funds to be used for
construction.
How do you propose that to work?
Mr. Comey. Mr. Chairman, I do not know enough about that to
give you an intelligent answer. I understand that GSA intends
to have whoever wins the bid take our existing building in
partial payment, but I do not understand enough about the
working capital fund. I will get you a smart answer, but I
can't answer it right now.
[The information follows:]
The FY 2017 President's Budget includes language allowing the FBI
to use up to $315 million from the Department of Justice's Working
Capital Fund to mitigate funding shortfalls that arise in the new
Headquarters project.
The Chairman. Do you know what the intended use for the
present building would be?
Mr. Comey. I think GSA's idea is sell it to a developer.
The developer who builds the new building will get, in partial
payment, the current building on Pennsylvania Avenue and can
develop it however the local law allows them to develop it,
hotel or office building or something like that. But we will be
using that object as partial payment for the new building.
The Chairman. Now, has there been----
Mr. Comey. That is my understanding. This is a GSA deal,
but that is my understanding of how they are going to do it.
The Chairman. An unfair question really.
Has there been a site picked for the new building?
Mr. Comey. No. It is narrowed to three possibles and this
year the competing developers and builders will offer their
proposals. Then there will be a selection thereafter to pick
which of the sites is the smartest one. Two are in Maryland,
one by the Greenbelt Metro, one next to FedEx Field. The third
site is in Springfield just south of where 95 leaves the
Beltway heading south.
The Chairman. Mr. Director, thank you for your service.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Director, have you also explored, rather
than selling the property, hanging onto it and leasing it in a
long-term lease? I know that some of the most successful real
estate developers in downtown Houston that owned that property
way back in the 1840s and '50s just hung onto it.
The Chairman. It would make a great McDonald's, you know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. Well, what they do, they lease it out
like Shell headquarters. Most of those big buildings in
downtown Houston are on leased property, 99-year leases. So
hopefully explore that as well. Why sell that valuable piece of
real estate? Why not hang onto it and lease it out virtually in
perpetuity and it will be like a little oil well for you, just
keep pumping year after year.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to say again how much I appreciate and how
fortunate we all are to have a person of your caliber in this
position. I know you served in an outstanding role in New York
and we are glad that the President was wise enough to bring you
here to Washington, D.C. Thank you.
And I just want to say as a result of my colleagues'
comments on both sides of the aisle, I also appreciate your
articulation of the challenge you are facing between privacy
and security. I may have a different perspective than my
colleague Mr. Honda, but I certainly appreciate the sincerity
and the thoughtfulness with which you presented your views. So
I thank you.
I wanted to continue a discussion briefly within my time of
an issue I brought up in my opening statement and that is
background checks. As we know, under the law, background checks
must be done within three days or the transaction is allowed to
proceed regardless of whether a person is lawfully permitted to
purchase a firearm. To meet the growing demand, your budget
requests 35 million in funding for improvements to the NICS
system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System,
to support 175 additional staff.
It seems to me it is vitally important that background
checks are done thoroughly, as the results of incomplete
information can be deadly. For instance, following the tragic
South Carolina mass shooting, it was discovered that the
shooter had passed a background check despite information that
could have disqualified him. I was shocked to hear of that. And
to those who lost their lives, they must feel the pain to think
that this could have been avoided. And I was pleased that last
summer you ordered a review of the incident.
Can you briefly share what the review discovered, is it
appropriate for you to share it with us?
Mr. Comey. Yes, sure. And thank you for that.
The fact that the South Carolina murderer, Dylann Roof, got
the gun is an extraordinarily painful thing for all of us at
the FBI. And he did not actually pass the background check, we
just had not resolved a question about his criminal history by
the end of the third day. And so the seller, under the law, was
able to transfer it to him and he killed the folks thereafter.
So the review I ordered established the facts as I had
understood them at the time were what we had understood. We
learned that we needed to do better--it is a long story, but
the reason he was not picked up is our information on some of
the geographical oddities of South Carolina caused our examiner
to miss something. And that makes it clear enough, so we fixed
that.
Then we concluded we need more folks answering the phones,
because the number of gun purchases is going up. We need to
update our technology, which was already underway.
And then we need to get the American criminal justice
system to dramatically improve its record keeping, because one
of the big flaws in our whole country's criminal justice is
dispositions. People are not good enough at entering the final
conviction or result in a criminal case, at the Federal level
and at the local level. And if that is not in there, our
examiners are not going to see that the person is a convicted
felon and prohibited people get guns.
Those were the big conclusions from the study. And so we
are asking for your support to get more people in there, the
technology updates are already underway, and we are talking to
our State and local partners and others in the Federal
government to improve our record keeping so we have better
results.
Mrs. Lowey. Yeah, thank you for that. However, as I
understand it, the majority of firearm purchases from law-
abiding citizens can take minutes, but for those with
incomplete information or red flags, the request for
information can go on for days. So it is not necessarily that
you need more people answering the phones or do what they have
to do.
So the question is in these cases, how long can it take for
final determinations even after a gun has been purchased? And I
am concerned that three days may not always be enough time to
evaluate a background check with questionable information. And
I think that is an issue that we have to discuss no matter
where we stand with the NRA, not the NRA, whether you can buy a
gun or not. We need a careful background check. And I think it
is not just that you need more people, you need more time; is
that correct?
Mr. Comey. Under the law, we have three days and----
Mrs. Lowey. That is exactly what I am questioning.
Mr. Comey [continuing]. About 9,000 people a year we find
out after the third day that they were prohibited. About 58
percent of those we find out between day four and day ten. So
most of the prohibited people who are outside the three days we
find out before the tenth day. Now, that is 9,000 people of, as
we talked about earlier, millions and millions of gun
transactions, but still we have to improve.
I mean, the law is the law. The FBI doesn't make the laws.
So if it is three days, we have to make sure we are as good as
we can possibly be within that three-day window. That is why we
need more people, that is why we need better technology, that
is why we need better records.
Mrs. Lowey. I would just like to ask you, if in fact the
time was extended, I am not saying it should be five days, ten
days, that is a professional judgment, but would fewer
prohibited individuals be able to purchase firearms if this
time were extended?
Mr. Comey. Well, the math would tell me yes, that--yes,
because nine----
Mrs. Lowey. OK.
Mr. Comey [continuing]. Because of the numbers I gave you.
But as I said, the law is the law, and so the Bureau is working
very hard to make sure that we are excellent within the time we
have.
Mrs. Lowey. I understand. I do not want to put you on the
spot and I understand the law is the law, but you have many
people here who make the laws.
So I just want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I think it should
be a serious consideration. If in fact we saw what happened in
Charleston and we see many other cases, if three days does not
seem sufficient, none of us would want people to go around
purchasing guns if you look at the facts and they shouldn't be
able to do so. And I would hope we can consider extending the
days, working on a recommendation that makes sense that would
give you some guidance. I certainly understand you are obeying
the law and should continue the law, and I hope we can deal
with the law.
Thank you.
Mr. Comey. And to be clear, the smart people who work for
me say I got the number right. About 9,000 people were denied
whose reviews had gone beyond three days. About 270,000 total
checks went beyond three days, but 9,000 were prohibited people
who were denied. So I had that about right.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. And it is also important to remember, it is
not about standing with the NRA, it is standing on the Second
Amendment and protecting our constitutional right, which is
written in plain English, to keep and bear arms, which is
fundamental to who we are as Americans.
Mrs. Lowey. Oh, I don't know, are we going to have that
debate now? [Laughter.]
Mr. Culberson. Let me go quickly, we are short on time, let
me go to Judge Carter. Mr. Palazzo, forgive me.
Mr. Palazzo. OK, I will make my question quick.
Director, before coming here, I served on the Homeland
Security and the House Armed Services Committee, so I take it
very seriously, you know, making sure Americans are protected
abroad through making sure we have a strong national defense,
and also protecting Americans here in our homeland. So that is
why your remarks earlier about those who are trying to recruit
Americans and doing the radicalization here to do harm here in
our country, we talk a lot, not just during presidential
political years, but how are we going to fix our southern
border.
I am concerned from more so than people coming over here to
find a job to send money back home to their family as I am
foreign nationals who may want to do us harm, human
trafficking, drug trafficking. We know how devastating drugs
can be to a community, to families. And just the things, the
external threats coming in. I know you have spent time, you
actually went down there and investigated the possibility of an
ISIS camp in El Paso and I remember your remarks in that
regard.
But from your job being the FBI Director, do you have any
recommendations to us, to Congress, on how we can gain some
form of operational control more so than what we have now, I
think it is like 43 percent, maybe up or down, I am not sure,
to make sure we are protecting Americans here at home?
Mr. Comey. Yes, thank you. I don't have any great
suggestions for you. The piece that the Bureau focuses on,
especially in our counter-terrorism mission is to make sure
that we have trip wires in place, so that if any terrorists are
trying to use the border as a porous way to get into the United
States, we get an indication of it. I have not seen it so far,
but it is something we are laser-focused on because of the
vulnerability there.
And so that is the Bureau's business to make sure all of
our border offices are doing lots of things, but especially
focused on if they have the sources and relationships in place
to know if somebody gets wind that a terrorist is trying to
come in that way.
So I think we are doing that in a good way, but I do not
want to be overconfident, because it is a vulnerability and so
that is why we have spent so much time worrying about it.
Mr. Palazzo. Do you have a number that you could share with
us, the people who have crossed our border that may have links
to terrorism in other countries?
Mr. Comey. I don't. It is very small, we have not seen it
yet. Obviously, there are areas where those people who are
smuggling humans or smuggling drugs try to smuggle terrorists,
in an odd way we count on the fact that they know what would
happen if the American people found out that a drug cartel was
smuggling terrorists into the United States. So that actually
acts as a deterrent, oddly enough, on the cartels from getting
in that business. But, look, I do not sleep well at night
counting on the cartels to act in a rational way.
So I do not have a number. It is very, very small. In fact,
I don't know that in my two and a half years we have identified
anybody coming in who we have confirmed comes in with an
association with a terrorist organization.
Mr. Palazzo. OK.
Mr. Comey. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I wanted to ask about something I know actually that
Ranking Member Honda has worked a lot on and that is the
increase in the level of reported violence against transgender
people. The FBI's latest statistics suggest a very significant
increase and there were more transgender homicide victims in
2015 than in any other recorded year, at least 21 transgender
women, nearly all of them women of color, lost their lives to
violence.
What is the FBI doing to address this increase in violence
against transgender Americans and do you believe that you have
the adequate resources to combat what is a very disturbing
trend?
Mr. Comey. Yes, there is no doubt it is a disturbing trend.
I mean, homicide is up nationwide, but it is dramatically up
among that vulnerable community.
So we are addressing it in two different ways, through our
civil rights program that our criminal division runs, we focus
on that expressly, and then we ask our 56 field offices to make
sure they have relationships with state and locals and service
providers who might know of people who are victims or likely to
be victims, so that we can sort of bring that information in
and respond to it.
And with respect to the question of resources, I don't know
that we will ever have enough resources, frankly. But my sense
is that in our civil rights program we have adequate resources
to address what is in front of us.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
I know time is short, so I will yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Director, many of my constituents back home in
Texas have asked for reassurance that no individual or
officeholder is above the law. Yesterday I spoke with the
Attorney General and she indicated she was fully prepared to
take up the case Hillary Clinton for mishandling the classified
information should the evidence so be available, and she also
indicated that she was awaiting the conclusion of the FBI
investigation.
I know your position on investigations, but do you have
some estimate as to when you expect to have findings to the
prosecutors of the DOJ, if there are any? And have you or your
staff been under any undue pressure or influence to delay the
presentation of the case?
Mr. Comey. Yes. Thank you, Judge.
I cannot, in keeping with our normal practice, give anybody
an estimate on timing, but I can tell you this. I am personally
following this investigation, get briefed on it regularly,
because I want to ensure that it is done in the ways that the
FBI does its work, professionally, with integrity, promptly. We
want all investigations to move promptly and without any
interference whatsoever, and I can assure you it is all of
those things. We have the resources on it, both people and
technical. And I do not normally follow a lot of
investigations, but I am following this to make sure it is done
in the way the American people would want it done. I promise
you that that is what is going on.
Mr. Carter. This mike doesn't work? Sorry, you didn't get
the question?
Well, I would expect nothing less. And this is very
important, no matter how it concludes, that it be done very
professionally and that we let the American people know none of
us are above the law.
Mr. Comey. I assure you that I have dedicated my whole life
to that proposition and I am not about to change now.
Mr. Carter. Me too. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Director. We have great faith in
your integrity and professionalism.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just preface my comments by saying I really do
appreciate your job, I don't want it. [Laughter.]
Mr. Comey. You can't have it for 7\1/2\ more years.
Mr. Honda. You can have it. But having said that, you know,
I understand that economic espionage is a real threat to
American economic security and our ability to retain jobs here
at home, but I am concerned that espionage threats from bad
actors abroad are creating a climate in which both
investigators and prosecutors here are jumping the gun into
pursuing indictments against Americans who happen to be
language minorities, raising the prospect of serious civil
liberties violations.
For example, Ms. Sherry Chen, a Federal employee at NOAA,
and Dr. Xiaoxing Xi, the chairman of the physics department at
Temple University, were arrested by FBI agents on false and
flimsy espionage charges, only later to have all charges
dropped after some weeks, some months, after they lost their
jobs and, you know, had been embarrassed and their reputations
had been tarnished.
My colleagues and I in the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus have written letters to the Department of
Justice asking questions about this issue, but our requests
were not adequately addressed. And I just wanted to know what
is it that you are doing to ensure that these factors, race,
religion, ethnicity, or national origin plays no role in the
arrests your agency makes, including the idea that folks are
speaking a language at work and that causing some sense of
suspicion. And I think that, you know, has happened too often
that we have to raise that question, I have to raise that
question, and I would like some sort of response on that.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Honda. It is a reasonable
question. The challenge I face is, I cannot explain what
happened in individual cases, because I am restricted in what I
can talk about, but I think I take your questions at the right
level.
The way we ensure it does not happen is the kind of people
we hire, the way we train them, the way we oversee them, and
our interaction with the courts.
Mr. Honda. OK.
Mr. Comey. I am sorry.
Mr. Honda. Let me just cut to the chase then. I think that
we need to have a discussion on the process by which you are
pursuing these kinds of cases and the thought process that you
go through, I do not think that is classified. And so I look
forward to having some sort of meeting with yourself, your
staff and with CAPAC, and just hash this out, if you want in a
closed session.
Mr. Comey. Sure.
Mr. Honda. But we need to know and there has to be some
sort of an apology to these folks who have been put through
this and losing their jobs. And we are trying to seek some sort
of justice for these folks who have been unfairly targeted and
this is not unlike some other cases in the past. And, you know,
if we are going to have Americans of different backgrounds who
are participating and proud of being Americans here, we have to
have some sort of resolution on this.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this.
Mr. Comey. And we would be happy to talk to you about it.
Again, I cannot talk about individual cases. Implicit in your
request for an apology is an assumption about cases that I
can't comment on, unfortunately. So I can't----
Mr. Honda. Well, these cases have been dropped.
Mr. Comey. Right, but I can't comment on it beyond that.
But we would be happy to talk to you about how we go through
the process of thinking about our investigations.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Director Comey, we will submit the remainder of our
questions to you in writing. But again, I want to thank you for
your service to the country and we do indeed have complete
faith in your integrity, your professionalism and your absolute
objectivity in all that you do. We thank you for keeping us
safe and standing on the walls of Rome to let us all sleep
soundly at night. Thank you very much, sir.
And the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 22, 2016.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
HON. CHUCK ROSENBERG, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. It is a
privilege to us to welcome today Chuck Rosenberg, Acting
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, to
present the fiscal year 2017 DEA budget request.
The DEA leads the fight nationwide to fight the supply of
illegal drugs and is a key partner in tackling demand. The
DEA's unique position in law enforcement enables it to address
many different threats, including heroin; prescription and
opioid abuse; methamphetamine and marijuana production and
abuse; regulating doctors, pharmacies and manufacturers;
combating drug cartels, violent gangs, organized crime, Taliban
drug lords, and narcoterrorists. Your plate is full, sir. And
we really appreciate your service and that of your agents.
You have had a tremendous number of challenges in recent
years, including international threats, workforce and
management challenges. However, the DEA continues to serve as a
bulwark against the criminal forces who use drugs and addiction
to damage communities and weaken public institutions and
finance massive criminal and terrorist organizations as well.
The Committee is immensely grateful to you, sir, and the men
and women of the DEA for their contributions to public safety
and security and we intend to help find the resources that DEA
needs to carry out its critical work.
At the same time DEA must work within the fiscal reality of
tight budgets and must address its workforce and management
challenges. Before we proceed, however, let me recognize Mr.
Honda for his comments.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as we begin our
final hearing of the season for the CJS Subcommittee, I just
want to say that I appreciate our collaboration throughout this
whole process. I look forward to working together to craft a
strong, bipartisan CJS appropriations bill that will reflect
our mutual interests, along with those of our colleagues of the
subcommittee.
And I thank you and welcome, Mr. Administrator Rosenberg.
It is a pleasure to have you join us this afternoon to discuss
your work and your budget request. I would also like to
personally thank you and the dedicated men and women at the
Drug Enforcement Administration who work tirelessly to protect
the American people from illegal drug abuse and trafficking.
And I would like to especially acknowledge the hard work of
Chairman Culberson and Chairman Rogers who have been real
leaders in focusing attention on the opioid epidemic that has
swept across this nation.
They are doing their best to combat this scourge to our
constituents and the American people. And with that being said,
I am eager to learn about the DEA's thoughts on a number of
issues, including the war on drugs, medical marijuana, the use
of life-saving drugs to counter opioids and other narcotic
overdoses.
Thank you again, Administrator Rosenberg, and I look
forward to hearing your testimony. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Honda. I recognize the
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Rogers.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator,
welcome to the hearing. I think this is your first appearance
before the Committee. I recall our conversation in December
before the omnibus discussing our shared commitment to
combating the drug abuse plague that has hit my home state and
the country for far too long.
Your vast experience across Justice suits you well, I
think, for your role at DEA. The men and women of DEA serve
admirably in increasingly trying times for narcotics officers
nationwide. Their service on the front lines of the war on drug
trafficking, whether along our southern border or the hills of
Appalachia, is an essential part of the broader national
security and public safety campaign. I look forward to working
with you to build upon your success.
In that vein, let me applaud you for your discipline in
assembling a responsible budget request this year, seeking a
one percent increase to $2.1 billion. So often agencies come to
us with dream budgets that simply are not realistic. But your
request gives us a clear picture of your priorities: cyber
security, your new 360 Strategy, and maintaining adequate
staffing levels.
As we talked a few months ago, the drug epidemic has
evolved at an alarming rate since I first came to Congress.
Since then, the abuse of prescription painkillers and heroin
have ravaged our small Appalachian communities. We fought back
with a holistic approach that incorporates both law enforcement
and prevention. As you know an organization called UNITE
(Unlawful Narcotics Investigations, Treatment, and Education)
has done phenomenal work in Kentucky with this very strategy.
In addition to their important work engaging with our youth to
prevent substance abuse on the front end, they have forged
robust partnerships with local and Federal law enforcement
agencies, especially DEA, to put over 4,300 drug pushers in
jail, crack down on unscrupulous doctors, and confiscate
hundreds of thousands of diverted prescription drugs. In fact,
at this very moment three UNITE task force agents are assigned
to DEA interdiction units in Eastern Kentucky. Together, UNITE
and DEA have had tremendous success with their Take-Back Days
seizing over six tons of drugs nationwide since 2012 and more
than 1,800 pounds just last September. I have no doubt that
replicating this type of effort in your new 360 Strategy pilot
cities will yield positive results, and I am grateful that you
will be providing additional insight about this initiative at
Operation UNITE's National Prescription Drug Abuse and Heroin
Summit in Atlanta next week. We look forward to hearing from
you there.
The importance of taking UNITE's holistic approach to the
national stage has never been more clear. More than 100 people
each day die from opioid and heroin overdoses alone more than
we can fit in this room. We have to redouble our efforts to
stop this needless loss of life and take back our communities.
DEA, of course, is a big part of that. As I mentioned, I am
greatly interested in this new 360 Strategy, which will focus
on driving down the surge of heroin by attacking the supply
chain, strengthening diversion control, and partnering with
community leaders.
What I particularly appreciate about this initiative is its
holistic approach. I have repeatedly advocated for a broad
three-pronged strategy in which enforcement, treatment, and
education work in unison to combat substance abuse. It would be
easy to arrest the drug dealers victimizing our citizens and
claim victory. But the reality is much more complex, of course.
By broadening your partnerships with communities across the
nation you will be working hand in hand with the people closest
to the problem.
Before I conclude, Mr. Director, I would be remiss if I did
not express my continued disbelief at the administration's
disregard for the Controlled Substances Act. Despite changes in
popular perception in some parts of the country, marijuana
remains an addictive drug with significant short and long term
health consequences to its users. It is against Federal law to
consume, possess, or distribute marijuana. Former Deputy
Administrator Harrigan himself said that the administration
should not abandon the science regarding this harmful drug and
I look forward to hearing what the DEA is doing under your
watch to fully enforce that law.
Thank you again to you and your agents, for your steadfast
dedication to the problem. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mr. Culberson. Administrator Rosenberg, you are recognized
for an opening statement and, without objection, your written
statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. And
I welcome your testimony. To the extent you can summarize it
within five minutes it would be terrific. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rosenberg. I believe I can. Thank you, Chairman
Culberson, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Honda, and members
of the committee. It is a privilege and a pleasure to be here
today. It is also a privilege and a pleasure to represent the
DEA.
I have spent my professional adult life in Federal law
enforcement. But I am new to drug enforcement and so I
recognize that I have a ton to learn. One way I have tried to
do that is by visiting our men and women around the country. I
have been to 48 offices so far in my first ten months. And I
have learned a few things that have surprised me, a few things
that have pleased me, a few things that have shocked me.
I had no idea when I started this, despite my background in
Federal law enforcement, that 47,000 people died last year of a
drug overdose. You alluded to that, Chairman Rogers. About half
of that number from opioids, another 8,000 or so from heroin,
about 130 people a day. If we meet for two hours that will be
another ten people dead of a drug overdose somewhere in the
United States. Those numbers are absolutely stunning. And I
think sometimes in our lexicon we use words of exaggerated
meaning, historic or unprecedented or unique. But I actually
think this is an epidemic. I think that is precisely what it
is, an epidemic. And as you pointed out, Chairman Rogers, we
need a holistic approach to it.
We have to do our law enforcement thing. We have to attack
the supply side. But even when I was a baby Assistant U.S.
Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, I never believed
that we would prosecute or jail or enforce our way out of this
mess. And I believe that as firmly today as I did then. We need
to approach it in a 360-degree holistic way, meaning through
diversion, making sure that the drugs that are in the
legitimate chain of commerce stay in the legitimate chain of
commerce, and of course through education and treatment and
prevention, something we historically have not paid enough
attention to. And I am trying to change that, albeit within a
limited budget.
We are five percent of the world's population as Americans
and consume 99 percent of the world's hydrocodone. And so I
guess we should not be surprised that the connection between
pills and heroin is as strong as it is. Four out of five heroin
users started on pills and many folks who use or abuse pills
get it from a medicine cabinet or a friend or an aunt or an
uncle or a relative. And that is why we have reinstituted our
National Take-Back Program. You gave the aggregate numbers. I
will break it down a little bit, if I may. In September of last
year we took in 749,000 pounds of unwanted and expired drugs.
Now by some estimates only ten percent or so are opioids. But
even if that is true, and even if it is `` only'' ten percent,
that is still about 74,000 pounds of opioids.
So we think we are making a difference. We are going to
continue these programs. Our next Take-Back will be April 30th
of this year, so not that far away, about five weeks. And if it
is like our last Take-Back Program it will be in 5,000
communities around the country. We have a lot to do. And we
have less to do it with.
Over the last five years we have lost about 860 people,
about 350 of those were special agents. So we have made I think
a reasonable and modest request. I think the President's budget
for the DEA is a good one. And we will continue to spend the
money that you give to us I hope wisely and carefully. But we
have a lot to do.
I am grateful for the opportunity to be here. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Administrator
Rosenberg. If I could I wanted to ask you about the Inspector
General who had documented a serious problem that you
inherited, and I know you have dealt with. You inherited an
agency that was troubled by reports of misconduct and
unprofessional behavior. The DOJ Inspector General made
recommendations for policy and management improvements and the
Inspector General has reported that all of the issues have been
resolved or closed, and we certainly appreciate that, under
your leadership. Of course we expect the highest standard of
professional conduct by all of our law enforcement agencies.
And if you could, sir, please describe your actions to address
a system or personnel problems that contributed to the types of
misconduct that the OIG found?
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman.
We have done a number of things, I believe, to address it, both
the specific recommendations and more broadly some process
issues that I found. Let me speak to the latter first, if you
do not mind.
For instance our Office of Professional Responsibility
(OPR) staffing was at about 50 percent. It was too small and
too slow in order to move cases, to investigate cases, and
ultimately to adjudicate cases internally. We needed to beef up
that staffing and we have. We are now at about 90 percent.
As well we have streamlined I believe the process for
adjudication, our deciding officials, the folks who receive the
reports and the recommendations initially from OPR, we have
increased their staffing levels as well. And we have taken
smaller cases, I do not mean unimportant but I mean smaller
ones, and moved that to our Board of Professional Conduct for
its resolution, freeing up our deciding officials to handle the
most serious misconduct cases in the agency.
The good news is that we have relatively few of those. The
other good news is that we are moving them more quickly. So the
number of cases we have pending for removal I believe are down
to a very small number.
We had to look at the entire process to see where we had
workflow issues and process issues. We also issued new
standards of conduct, Mr. Chairman, making it clear that off
duty conduct, or at least certain off duty conduct, was
prohibited. One of the things the IG had pointed out was that
agents who had solicited prostitution abroad were not dealt
with swiftly and appropriately. We have made solicitation of
prostitution off duty, on duty, whether it is in a jurisdiction
that permits prostitution or not, a removable offense for the
first instance.
So I think we have done a number of things, Mr. Chairman.
We have more to do.
Mr. Culberson. We are going to have a series of votes
coming up here in just a few minutes. So I would like if I
could to move on to Mr. Honda, and then we will try to get
through as many questions as we can before we recess.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, sir.
OPIOID EPIDEMIC
Mr. Honda. Thank you. Administrator Rosenberg, like many of
my colleagues I am concerned about the surging opioid and
heroin abuse and overdoses. And one medication, Naloxone, has
been shown to be effective in reversing an overdose if given
promptly. In many jurisdictions first responders are now
routinely carrying this medication. And I know that the Food
and Drug Administration evaluates drugs from a safety and
efficacy perspective. From the viewpoint of the DEA would you
have any concerns with making this drug available over the
counter or by simply asking a pharmacist?
Mr. Rosenberg. That is a good question. I have thought a
lot about this, Mr. Honda. I know--let me just add something
first, before I answer your question. We have trained our own
people on the administration of Naloxone. Sixty-four of our DEA
special agents or EMTs have been trained to administer
Naloxone. And as part of their training, and this may answer
your question in part, they were also trained on CPR and on the
use of defibrillators. Because as I understand it sometimes
cardiac incidents can attend the administration of Naloxone.
So whether or not it is appropriate for over the counter
without a prescription distribution, I do not know. But I do
know that when we approached it as an agency we wanted to make
sure that our men and women were trained not just on the
administration of Naloxone but also for responding to cardiac
events that may attend the administration of Naloxone. So I
think it is worth looking at. I love the idea of getting
Naloxone out there. I think that is terrific. I just want to
make sure people are properly trained for any consequence that
may flow from its use.
Mr. Honda. Are there processes or steps that you would
recommend in terms of moving into the arena of, for instance,
having the first responders and other public safety officers
being trained as the DEA and first responders are on a larger
scale?
Mr. Rosenberg. I think that would be wonderful. The more
people we can have trained to administer it, the better. And we
are going to do something within DEA, taking the first 64 folks
that we have trained, and have them train additional people in
our offices around the country. So getting that out there is a
good thing. I just want to make sure we take prudent steps to
ensure that folks who are administering it can administer it
and attend to all of its consequences. So good thing, but we
should be careful about how we go about putting it in the hands
of people who would use it.
Mr. Honda. One last question, in terms of side effects and
its use, you said use in conjunction with cardiac arrest. But
does Naloxone have any other uses other than just cardiac
arrest? I mean, drug overdose seems to me a cessation of bodily
function.
Mr. Rosenberg. I am sorry. I was not clear, sir. What I
mean is its primary use is to counter the opioid overdose. A
side consequence, a side effect, is occasionally a cardiac
incident. And so when we train people on how to administer
Naloxone, we also want them to be trained to handle any cardiac
event that may also occur. I am sorry. I did not explain that
very well.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Rogers.
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, pardon my voice but I guess the
allergies are winning. Let me talk to you about your 360
Strategy for a moment. As I mentioned earlier, I am thrilled to
see DEA tailoring its approach to the ever evolving
prescription drug and heroin epidemic. When Oxycontin appeared
in my district in the late nineties, we did not see much heroin
in circulation. But the last decade that has changed
dramatically. National heroin use has increased by 63 percent.
Overdose has gone through the roof, I think due a lot to the
emergence of Fentanyl with heroin. For the benefit of our group
here today, why don't you give us an overview of how your 360
approach differs from your normal current operational strategy?
DEA 360 STRATEGY
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The idea here is to
attack a problem from all sides. My friend Director Comey at
the FBI talked about the need to fill the time and space that
you create in a community when you have an enforcement
operation. And that is precisely what 360 is all about.
We have to continue our traditional law enforcement supply
side work. That is sort of the heart and soul of who we are and
what we are at the DEA. But in addition we have to recognize
that we create time and space in a community when we put bad
guys in jail for distributing drugs. And so that is the rest of
360. Treatment, education, you know, all go to the demand
reduction leg of the stool. If we do not start knocking down
the demand side, we cannot possibly win against the supply
side. And the other part, of course, is diversion, making sure
that folks who need opioids can get them but that they are
prescribed in a thoughtful way and a limited way and that we
have something to do with what remains. That they do not find
their way into the stream of commerce.
Because here is the problem. Opioids are highly effective
but they are also highly addictive. And if you get addicted to
an opioid, and I am sure you see way too much of this in your
home state, buying that pill on the street is very expensive. A
30 milligram pill of hydrocodone or oxycodone, for instance,
would go for about $30. The heroin or Fentanyl substitute is
much, much cheaper. And so we see this migration, if you will,
of folks hooked on pills to heroin. And the old stigma of
having to inject heroin, that is a thing of the past. Now you
can smoke it or snort it, you can ingest it in different ways.
You do not need a needle. And it is simply widely available,
more potent, and much cheaper than it ever has been before.
So the approach is keep the pills within the legitimate
stream of commerce, attack the supply side, and try to reduce
demand. That is the idea behind 360. And that is what I plan to
talk about at the summit next week, because it is something
that is really important to me and has been for a long time.
The Chairman. Well I really appreciate you coming to the
summit. This is the fifth straight year that UNITE has put this
on nationally. And we have got a tremendous line up of
speakers, including you, which I deeply appreciate.
Mr. Rosenberg. I think I am going to bring the average
down, sir.
The Chairman. I do not think so. At 3:45 we are going to
learn of another speaker that is going to be at our conference.
I will wait to announce that at 3:45. But I think you will be
pleasantly surprised by that speaker.
360 was started in four cities, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, West
Memphis, Arkansas, and Milwaukee. How did you come by those
four?
Mr. Rosenberg. We looked at cities generally that had an
uptick in crime, cities, that were large cities but not
enormous cities, and cities where we thought we could make an
immediate difference. We are looking now at another round of
cities and we are trying to approach this driven as much by
statistics as we possibly can. Where do they need us? Where has
the problem gotten worse? Where can we make a difference? I
would not call it an exact science, sir. But it is an attempt
to put limited resources where we can make a difference.
The Chairman. Do you see that expanding in time to rural
locations?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do if we have the resources. I would love
to be in more cities. The feedback initially from the first
four pilot cities has been good so I would love to expand it if
I can.
DRUG TAKE-BACK DAYS
The Chairman. Congratulations on your Take-Back Programs.
As you know and have said, expired medications or unused drugs
often stay in the back of cabinets for months at a time or even
years. More than 70 percent of people who first misuse
prescription drugs get them from the medicine cabinet of a
family or from friends or relatives, or simply take them
without asking. Local law enforcement agencies simply do not
have the capacity or the authority, really, to take back these
unwanted meds. UNITE in Kentucky, though, did this beginning
seven, eight years ago and it works. The DEA now has taken that
nationwide. And I am pleased that in September you held your
tenth Take-Back Day around the country. Do you plan to continue
that program even more authoritatively?
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, sir. For this year we plan to do it
twice. Our 11th National Take-Back will be April 30, 2016. And
I anticipate that will be in 5,000 communities again around the
country. Our second Take-Back in 2016 will likely be in
October, certainly sometime in the fall. And I am hoping we
build on the success.
One thing I should add, in addition to taking in about
749,000 pounds of unwanted drugs, and this is important, is the
fact that we do it anonymously. We do not read labels. We do
not take leads off of those things. If you want to bring in
Bengay or aspirin or opioids, whatever you want to dump in, we
will take it. But people need to know that they do so
anonymously. Because we have to encourage people to empty out
those cabinets that you spoke about.
The Chairman. In my area of Kentucky, UNITE started a Take-
Back Program several years ago. Now we have got all of the
police departments and sheriff's offices as depositories. And
they have collected tons upon tons of Take-Back drugs. Then the
sheriff and the police departments would utilize a Kentucky
National Guard incinerator on wheels. They would burn the drugs
periodically at different locations as they needed, until EPA
comes along and says that violates the atmosphere. So they took
that away. Can you help us with that?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well I think the way we can help is that we
have worked through those logistics with EPA. And so when we
hold these Take-Back Days we can gather the stuff from various
departments and have it incinerated according to regulation.
With respect to the specific EPA regulations, though, sir, I do
not know enough about it. I do know that we are able to help
the local police departments that gather and collect by holding
our own Take-Back Days.
The Chairman. Another example of your friendly EPA doing
good for America. I yield.
Mr. Culberson. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And welcome, Administrator
Rosenberg.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. I too, you can see that we are all on similar
wavelengths, I am very concerned about the growing use of
synthetic and so-called designer drugs, like bath salts,
jewelry cleaner, herbal incense. They pose a serious public
health concern and can cause vomiting, anxiety, agitation,
irritability, seizures, hallucinations, heart problems,
elevated blood pressure, loss of consciousness, significant
organ damage, as well as overdose deaths. Now I understand that
the problem is compounded as criminals constantly introduce new
chemical variations. It seems to me it is a game of whack-a-
mole.
Last fall the DEA and other local law enforcement partners,
including the Rockland County Sheriff's Office, halted a
criminal operation which operated in all five boroughs of New
York City, allegedly involving the unlawful importation of at
least 100 kilograms of illegal synthetic compounds, an amount
sufficient to produce approximately 1,300 kilograms of dried
product or approximately 260,000 retail packets. Each of these
260,000 packets of synthetic marijuana had the potential to
send someone's family member to the hospital or worse.
In addition to the public health toll, criminal enterprises
like this have been found to have links to violent conflicts
and even terrorist activity. Can you share with us briefly the
challenges in investigating these cases and whether DEA has
enough authority under current law to prohibit these substances
which are continuously changing?
SYNTHETICS
Mr. Rosenberg. Congresswoman, thank you. I think your
description of this as whack-a-mole is apt. But it is a very
dangerous whack-a-mole game. It is not the one that you find at
the county fair. This is much, much worse.
There are several classes of synthetics. Synthetic
marijuana is a bit of a misnomer. It really is not marijuana.
It is rather, I think, vile and nefarious that it is marketed
that way so people will think it is not that bad. But it really
is, as someone has described, Russian roulette. Although that
does not quite work either because Russian roulette had one
bullet in the chamber and this has several bullets in the
chamber. The list of consequences that you described are all
accurate but we are obviously also seeing kids dying from this
stuff. And what makes it so vile is that the folks who are
building this stuff, for lack of a better word, in their labs
only have to tweak a molecule or two from time to time to stay
ahead of enforcement. We have the ability to emergency schedule
some of these compounds. But at one point not so long ago we
were seeing two and three new synthetic drugs a week. That
number is now down to one or two a week, which still
essentially precludes us from catching up. So it is a race we
cannot win. It is whack-a-mole but it is also a race we cannot
win.
Also sadly it is as easy as sitting down at your computer
and ordering this poison off of the internet. And with respect
to synthetic cannabinoids, what some people I think mistakenly
call synthetic marijuana, you will find this stuff in shiny
foil packages, you know, with colorful characters on the
outside, clearly marketed to young adults. Not even young
adults, young teens, young kids. You can buy them in roadside
stores or convenience stores. They are just a few dollars. And
one dose, one time is enough to kill you. Because you do not
know what is in it. And so we are seeing the synthetic
cannabinoids, which are I guess pharmacologically related to
the THC in marijuana. We are seeing the synthetic cathinones,
which you described, which are similar in effect to stimulants,
methamphetamine. Flakka falls under that and I know there is an
enormous problem in New York and around the country with
Flakka. But Flakka is just one type. And this poison is
marketed to kids.
So we have emergency scheduling authority. In 2012, I
believe, Congress legislatively scheduled a number of synthetic
compounds and that is a good way to attack the problem because
you can go faster than I can go. We need help.
SOUTHWEST BORDER
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Like many of the members of this
committee, especially Chairman Rogers who has been really a
leader for us all, I too am concerned with the rise in opiate
addiction. And it seems to me that there are two fronts to this
war, which is affecting every region of the country. The first
is making sure that prescription drugs are not over-prescribed,
which we have talked about, and abused domestically. The second
is curbing the flow of heroin and other opioids from abroad.
And in your statement you identify Mexican cartels as posing
the greatest drug threat to the United States.
DEA has one of the largest overseas presences of any law
enforcement agency with offices around the world, allowing you
to work with foreign law enforcement on drug investigations and
share intelligence. I wonder if you could share with us whether
this collaboration between the DEA and law enforcement in
Mexico is working? And what strategies are you employing with
your Mexican counterparts to ensure that when a cartel is
disrupted another cartel does not just step right in to meet
market demand?
Mr. Rosenberg. Two very good questions, I will try and
answer them both. First I should mention probably 98 percent of
our heroin comes out of Mexico. So an enormous problem. But as
you noted, we have a very large overseas presence and we have a
large overseas presence in Mexico. We work well and closely
with our Mexican counterparts. But when you are working in
another country there are obviously limitations. Not just for
DEA, but for ATF or FBI or anyone else for that matter. And so
we are guests of our Mexican counterparts in Mexico.
We do training. We work closely with vetted units there. We
have made a number of important inroads. But I come back to a
problem that I mentioned in a discussion with Chairman Rogers.
As long as the demand remains so remarkably high in this
country for that poison, they are going to find a way. It is so
lucrative.
So we have successes and we continue to have successes. If
the DEA is doing its job right, and I hope we are, we are going
after the biggest, most violent international cartels and the
most violent and dangerous street gangs in the country. But as
long as demand remains where it is, Congresswoman, they are
going to find a way.
So are we working well with our Mexican counterparts? Yes.
Is there more to do? Absolutely. But we need help on this side
of the border, too.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Chairman, and Administrator
Rosenberg, thanks for being here. I know that your colleague
Director Comey has been very outspoken about the issue of the
smart phone encryption and the impact it has had on law
enforcement overall. And I have directed several questions
submitted to him about the situation. But I would like to hear
your perspective and could you share with the Committee on this
issue, and how it is impacting DEA and its work?
Mr. Rosenberg. Certainly, sir. My view is not different
than his, nor is it different from the Attorney General's. It
strikes me as odd and dangerous that with a lawful court order
there are places we literally cannot go. We also favor strong
encryption. The entire United States government and all of its
citizens benefit from strong encryption. But it is, as Director
Comey has said, as if there was a closet or a room for which
there is no entry. And that is dangerous. We are seeing it in
our line of work too, of course. And so I do not think I can
say it better than Director Comey did. It is a problem at the
DEA. It is a problem throughout law enforcement and it is a
problem throughout our intelligence community. It is something
I worry about and it is something I see routinely.
MARIJUANA
Mr. Aderholt. Your predecessor previously addressed the
situation with legalized marijuana when they were here. Can you
give the subcommittee an update on how the actions of those
states has affected DEA and other law enforcement's ability to
stem the tide of this drug? And does the DEA have the resources
or has it requested a budget request that is large enough to
adequately help with the States surrounding Colorado and
Washington?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well with respect to the budget request, I
think the President's budget is good for DEA and I would be
thrilled to see it enacted as written for us. Do we have enough
resources? Well, we have lost men and women over the last five
years. I think I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are down
about 860 people in the last five years. About 350 of them are
special agents. So we do not have the resources we once did,
and that is a problem. Not an insurmountable one if we do the
following thing. And this is what I have told my Special Agents
in Charge around the country to do. Go out in your jurisdiction
and work the biggest, most important cases you have, whatever
it may be. And this will respond to your question, sir.
In many cases the biggest and most important cases are
heroin, opioids, meth, synthetics, as Congresswoman Lowey
mentioned. But I have also told my SACs, my Special Agents in
Charge, if your biggest and most important case is a marijuana
case, go make it. Marijuana is illegal under Federal law. I am
a law enforcement official and I have no difficulty in
supporting the men and women of DEA if those are the cases they
are doing. None, whatsoever.
But the simple fact and the simple math of it is in most of
our jurisdictions, and you can see this in our National Drug
Threat Assessment, it is ranked lower of course than heroin,
opioids, synthetics, cocaine, and meth. Are we still making
marijuana cases around the country? Absolutely. We are abiding
by the memo that former Deputy Attorney General Cole issued in
I think August of 2014, it might have been 2013, but where we
have a big, important case, go make it. If it happens to be
marijuana, so be it.
Mr. Aderholt. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a
series of votes coming up. Mr. Serrano has, do you want to ask
a couple of questions? Sure. Mr. Serrano?
Mr. Serrano. Thank you for being here. I want to make sure
that we are speaking about the same thing, what Mr. Honda was
speaking about, which one was that? Is that the same item that
is being used by the New York City Police Department?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do not know specifically what they are
using, but there is a second name that is often, Naloxone or
Narcan. Yes, and I think many----
Mr. Serrano. Because my question would be if that, such a
large police department has seen fit to use it, why do we still
have concerns about its usage?
Mr. Rosenberg. Oh, I do not have concerns about its usage.
I think it is a wonderful thing. And I love the fact that my
DEA special agents are being trained to use it. My point only
was that they are also being trained for----
Mr. Serrano. Side effects?
Mr. Rosenberg [continuing]. For possible side effects that
attend the administration of it. So they are being trained on
the administration of Naloxone or Narcan, as well as CPR and
the use of defibrillators.
Mr. Serrano. All right. And my second and last question is
some years ago, about 15 years ago, the Cuban government was
willing to have DEA, I think it went as far as stationed in
Cuba, on Cuban soil, during the heat, you know, the top of the
Cold War between us, in order to deal with the fact that some
boats were landing on Cuban soil and then from there using it
to transport, or make exchanges. And politics got in the way
and that never happened. Has that been mentioned again, without
giving me any state secrets? Or do you think there is an
opening now for that to happen perhaps?
Mr. Rosenberg. They do not tell me any state secrets, Mr.
Serrano. But it is certainly something that we ought to look at
given its proximity to our shores. I would say, and I mean this
colloquially, it is a bit of an intelligence gap. So we are
going to keep our eye on Cuba. It is not presently a large
transit country or source country.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Mr. Rosenberg. But as you know, things can change. And so
it is something we are certainly cognizant of.
Mr. Serrano. Yes, we know that they have been pretty strict
about, you know, and come down hard on drug situations. But it
just struck me that it was so incredible, Mr. Chairman, that
they were willing to have DEA agents stationed in Cuba in order
to deal with this, which was a problem to them and a problem to
us. So if there is an opening under this new thing that is
happening between the two countries, I think we should look at
it again.
Mr. Rosenberg. We will look at it. I promise you that, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mrs. Roby.
OPIOID EPIDEMIC
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Rosenberg. And I just want to tell you personally
how much I appreciate the time that you spent with me last
week. You really educated me in a way that even after having
served on this Committee I do not know that I fully could
appreciate, despite the chairman of the full committee's
commitment to a lot of these issues and the fact that you are
diligent, Mr. Chairman, in always ensuring that these are
issues that are addressed, particularly because of your State
and your district. I, however, did not quite understand how it
affected my own district or my own State.
And so I watched this on YouTube, but you directed me to
this video Chasing the Dragon. And I hope everybody on this
committee, I may just be behind the ball, but watching that
video really gave me a perspective, particularly as a mom with
young kids, about how quickly someone's life can deteriorate
from opioid use into heroin and then overdose. And hearing the
one mother talk about the loss of her child but also seeing a
mother herself having lost control of her own life and losing
her children in a different way was pretty remarkable for me.
And so I just want to tell you, you know, how much I appreciate
your commitment to these issues. And shedding light on it in a
way that we can all relate to.
Because as I said to you in my office, unless you have had
a family member or someone close to you go through an
addiction, particularly in this case opioid or heroin
addiction, and either come out the other side in a positive way
or lose their lives tragically, I do not think, I mean I
certainly can say I cannot speak with authority on this issue
in any way, shape, or form. And so I think it is important for
those of us who have not experienced that to be able to have a
glimpse into the lives of families who have been tragically
affected by this in order to put faces behind the mission and
the cause that we all on this committee and in the Congress are
fighting to eradicate. And so just thank you for that. It
really meant a lot to me to be exposed to this in a different
way. You know, we spend a lot of time in these committees you
know reading facts from a sheet of paper or talking about
things at a 30,000-foot level. But you really helped me
personally drill down on this issue.
Mr. Rosenberg. If I may, Congresswoman, first of all it was
a pleasure to meet you and spend time with you. I truly enjoyed
that. Second, I do not believe you are behind the eight ball or
behind the times or whatever metaphor we want to use. Though I
spent my career in Federal law enforcement as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney and as U.S. Attorney in two different districts, and
with two stints at the FBI, I had no idea until ten months ago
how bad this problem was. None. So please do not feel--
Mrs. Roby. Yes. Well, that does make me feel a little bit
better. But I did ask you for some information and one of the
things that struck me, there is one county in Alabama where the
number of deaths related to heroin overdose grew from 58 in
2013 to 136 in 2014. Which as you said, we use these words a
lot, and we use them sometimes without the appropriate meaning.
But that truly is stunning.
Mr. Rosenberg. Stunning.
Mrs. Roby. And so I appreciate, I mean, all of the things
that my colleagues have already touched on were things that I
wanted to talk to you about. I do want you to help us
understand as members of Congress who work on the federal level
how can we help you with the Take-Back Program? Because it is
such a, this is, we talk about rocket science in this room,
that is not rocket science. That is how do we get these drugs
out of people's medical cabinets so children or anyone does not
have access to it? I mean, I do not know if I am one of the
5,000 cities exist in my district. But I sure want to come up
with a way to get cities in my district on the list to make it
as easy as possible for people, including myself, to empty out
the medicine cabinets of old, unused pills. I think there is a
way that all of us can use our mouthpiece on social media and
other ways to be a part of that. I want you to help us figure
out a way that we can play a role in that.
Mr. Rosenberg. We would be delighted to work with your
office or anybody's office here. This is a public good. It is
one of the reasons I wanted to speak and was so privileged to
be invited to the gathering that Chairman Rogers has in
Atlanta. The more people who know about this stuff, the more
people can help us publicize it. It is, like I said, an
unmitigated good. So we would be happy to touch base with your
office.
Can I also just give a shout out to the FBI? Because we did
not produce Chasing the Dragon alone. We did it with them. It
is a very powerful movie. And we will give copies to anybody
who wants it. If you want to show it in your district, if you
want your district directors to have it. Watch it first. As you
know, Congresswoman, there is some rough language in there.
Probably nothing that our kids have not heard. But it is an
important message.
Mrs. Roby. It is great and it is rough, but rough does not
even begin to describe the reality----
Mr. Rosenberg. That is right.
Mrs. Roby [continuing]. That these people go through. So
again, thank you and I know we are under a time constraint so I
yield back.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mrs. Roby. We are going to come
back and go to Mr. Palazzo. But we have a series of votes,
Director, if we could recess briefly and we will come back
after this set of votes.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, sir.
[Recess.]
Mr. Culberson. The hearing is back in session and I would
recognize Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
HIDTA
Mr. Rosenberg, thank you for taking the time to meet with
us today. I commend the DEA for its efforts in the war on
drugs. Drugs rip apart families and devastate communities. It
doesn't matter if you are in one of our country's largest
cities or some backwoods town throughout rural America, drugs
find a way to establish a foothold that seems to never fully go
away.
I am blessed to live on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. You
know, we have got beautiful beaches, great seafood, great
fishing, awesome people, but we also have the I-10 corridor
that stretches from the southwest border all the way to the
eastern seashore, which is great for commerce, it is great for
travel, tourism, but also it is a great way to traffic drugs in
between locations. And so it does find its way into our
community.
And so with that, I would like you to discuss possibly the
Gulf Coast High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and the DEA's
partnership with state and local entities to block the flow of
drugs flowing through the Gulf Coast region.
Mr. Rosenberg. Certainly, Congressman. And what you are
seeing in Mississippi, sadly, is being replicated everywhere in
this country. It is an epidemic.
Let me give you a little context, if I may. We have about
4,600 men and women who are Special Agents of the DEA, we have
another 2,600 some-odd Task Force Officers. So they are
literally, not just figuratively, but literally a force-
multiplier for us. Something like 35 percent of our law
enforcement cadre are TFOs, state and local officers assigned
to work with us on task forces around the country, including
throughout the Gulf Coast. So it is enormously important.
If I may add one other point about that, sir? The
suspension in the Equitable Sharing Program has caused some
TFOs, the sky isn't falling yet, but some TFOs to drift away
from our task forces, and it is something I worry about and I
hope we can get the Equitable Sharing Program turned back on.
But the task force environment, whether it is HIDTA or
OCDETF, is enormously important to our work and to our mission.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you. And I hope we the Equitable
Sharing Program back on as well, because I have heard from
local law enforcement officers, as well as district attorneys,
how important that is.
Recently, the Commandant of the Coast Guard testified
before Congress that we have actionable intelligence on 80 to
85 percent of known drug trafficking, yet because of resource
restrictions we are only able to intercept and prosecute 20
percent of those occurrences. One of the biggest issues facing
the Coast Guard is the lack of available ships. You know, I am
a big proponent of catching the bad guys and the drugs before
they actually make it into our backyard.
So could you comment a little bit on the interagency
partnerships that you have at the DEA, specifically with the
Coast Guard?
Mr. Rosenberg. The Coast Guard is an important part of what
we do, particularly with respect to their intelligence and
interdiction work; I have tremendous respect for them. And I
will point out, my dear, departed father was a Coastie, so I
have long admired the Coast Guard.
Through our El Paso Intelligence Center we have a number of
intelligence community partners, state and local partners and
DOD partners, including the Coast Guard, that contribute to our
mission and to our intelligence sharing. So I am enormously
grateful to the Coast Guard, not just for the experience they
gave my dad as a young man, but what they do for our mission.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, so basically you would agree with me, if
the Coast Guard had more ships, we could intercept more drugs
before they came to the United States?
Mr. Rosenberg. If we all had more stuff, we probably could
do more with it. It is a challenge throughout government, as
you well know. We try and make do with what we have.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, it is a serious issue. And, again, drugs
do rip apart families and communities, which leads me into my
last question and I will make it fast, is what we are seeing in
rural areas is the spread of methamphetamines and the
production of methamphetamines. In fact, 17 percent of all drug
convictions in the state are related to meth.
In 2010, we tried to slow this growth down by looking at
the precursors of meth manufacturing and we basically required
a prescription for, you know, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine,
and it has worked, it slowed down. People still go to the
bordering states, but we are capturing people, you know, that
are going in and purchasing these precursors more. I think it
is something that is going to devastate our entire nation.
Can you tell me, what is the DEA doing to basically combat
meth production and use in rural communities around the United
States?
ANTI-METH
Mr. Rosenberg. We are trying to approach it, sir, the way
we approach these other aspects of the drug epidemic. A lot of
the meth that we see in the United States actually comes out of
Mexico.
Several years ago we had a number of large clandestine labs
in the U.S. producing meth. Most of the meth labs in the United
States now are what we call one-pot labs, meaning very small
with very small yields. We are seeing the precursor chemicals
going into Mexico, into much larger labs, and then coming
across our border.
So, again, it is probably threefold. It is attacking the
supply. It certainly has, you know, connections to the
diversion problem. And then it is that education, prevention,
treatment, outreach component, the demand reduction.
So we are throwing everything at it. It is a tough battle.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, I appreciate your testimony. And if I
can ask one last question, since we are kind of sparse with
members right now.
What is the one thing that you wish you had that could make
your job easier, and that you could protect families and
protect communities and protect our most valuable resource, our
children, against the scourge of drugs today?
Mr. Rosenberg. I wish I had a day where I could talk to
everybody at once and they would listen to me. I know that
sounds like a soft answer to a legitimate question. I struggle
with how do we get this message out, because I really don't
think supply-side law enforcement interdiction alone will win
the day or do the trick.
I feel like what I have learned in my ten months at the DEA
is both astonishing and frightening, and that if I could
somehow convince people that we really, really do have an
epidemic, and tell them how it starts and where it goes. And I
know it sounds like a soft answer, but that is what I would
love to do. I would love to have people listen to me just for a
day. It seems unlikely.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, I hope more people listen and I thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
In addition to DEA's appropriation, the committee provides
over $500 million for drug task forces, OCDETF, which fund both
investigative and prosecution costs to combat major drug
organizations. Could you describe how OCDETF, how that process
works in comparison with DEA's own task forces?
And should the DEA, FBI and other investigative agencies
and U.S. Attorneys get their money in their own accounts or, in
your opinion, does that OCDETF process work well?
Mr. Rosenberg. Strangely, Mr. Chairman, we just call that
OCDETF. I don't know quite how that word comes from those
letters.
Mr. Culberson. It is tough.
Mr. Rosenberg. But the OCDETF task forces are an important
part of who we are and what we do.
I do like the task force concept, whether it is OCDETF or
HIDTA. I believe there are 12 OCDETF strike forces around the
country, they are funded through the Department, I think, I
believe, and I think nine of the twelve are DEA-led.
And when you look at the number of cases that we open--so
OCDETF, generally speaking, are our largest, most important
cases. It would be transnational, organized criminal gangs and
the like, violent international cartels and the unholy
alliances that they have with street gangs in the U.S. So when
you say OCDETF, it is almost a synonym for our most important
stuff.
And of the OCDETF cases that we opened in the last fiscal
year government-wide, something like 80 percent--I don't know
the exact number, but I can get it for you--are DEA-led cases
or DEA cases. So it is a big part of who we are and what we do.
I like the concept and it works well for us.
And as I mentioned, nine of the twelve OCDETF strike forces
around the country are led by DEA agents. So it is a good
vehicle for us and these are important cases.
I still don't know why we say OCDETF, but----
Mr. Culberson. It is a tough one.
Mr. Rosenberg. It is a tough one.
Mr. Culberson. Should the DEA, FBI and other agencies and
U.S. Attorneys get this money in their own accounts, or does
the way it is currently set up work well?
Mr. Rosenberg. I think the way it is currently set up works
well. I would have to give that a little more thought, because
I don't really know and I have not focused on that question,
sir. So if you don't mind----
Mr. Culberson. Not at all.
Mr. Rosenberg [continuing]. I would be happy to get back to
you on that with some further thoughts.
CYBER
Mr. Culberson. Your request also calls for $7\1/2\ million
in additional staff to enhance internal cyber security and
combat potential insider threats. Could you describe what these
are and what the DEA is currently doing to address these
challenges?
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, sir. And I am pleased that the
President's budget provides for that.
Cyber security generally is so we can protect our stuff
from the outside, from intrusions, and we have all seen far too
many of those, sadly and unfortunately. Targeted not just at
government, but at private individuals and private sector
companies. So we want to make sure that our systems are secure
as can be.
The insider threat piece is a cousin to that. I want to
make sure, because I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the
Eastern District of Virginia where Aldrich Ames, the CIA spy,
was prosecuted and where Robert Hanssen, the FBI spy, was
prosecuted, that our stuff is secure from an insider threat.
I have wonderful men and women, but if one day one of them
decides not to be so wonderful, if one day one of them comes in
and wants to, you know, copy all of our confidential source
files to a thumb drive at 2:00 in the morning, I need to see
that and I need to know about that.
The most important resource we have is our people and
protecting them is paramount. But second to that, of course, it
is our information. Our confidential source files, our
investigative files. I can't lose that. And so I need to build
a capacity internally not to watch people through their bedroom
windows, not to look in their bank accounts, but to know that
if somebody is engaging in strange behavior, and by that I mean
strange electronic behavior, I got to make sure that my files
are secure, so that my people are secure, and the President's
budget provides us money I think to do that.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Honda.
MARIJUANA
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Rosenberg, as you know, many states are
legalizing medical marijuana and a few have legalized
recreational marijuana. And it seems like our country's view on
this has shifted significantly in recent years, and at the same
time we are seeing a surge in costs both in terms of lives and
funding due to the spike in opioid and heroin addiction, and I
think it might be time to shift where we focus our enforcement
resources.
Do you think that it is time to have a conversation about
rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act? And
from the perspective of DEA, would there ever be a circumstance
where you would support rescheduling?
Mr. Rosenberg. So under the Controlled Substances Act, Mr.
Honda, something is put into Schedule I, as marijuana currently
is, if there is a potential for abuse and if there is no
recognized safe and effective medical use.
And so if it turned out one day that there was a recognized
safe and effective medical use, and I don't want to quibble
over words, by recognized I rely on the FDA for its science,
then it could certainly be moved out of Schedule I. But as long
as those are the criteria for placement in Schedule I and as
long as the FDA continues to tell me with their very good
doctors and scientists that there is no recognized safe and
effective medical use, I think it is properly classified.
Now, I also take your point that the conversation has
shifted, but I am a law enforcement officer.
Mr. Honda. I understand that.
Mr. Rosenberg. It is illegal under Federal law. I have told
my Special Agents in Charge to make the most important cases in
their jurisdictions, typically that is not marijuana, typically
that is heroin or opioids or synthetics or meth and the like.
But I have also told them, as I mentioned earlier, where there
is a significant marijuana case where it is a violent cartel,
where they are distributing to minors, where it meets the
criteria of the Cole memo, go do it. It remains illegal under
Federal law and my job is to enforce the law.
I am sorry for the long-winded answer.
Mr. Honda. No, no, it is fine.
I think, being in the position that you are, you have
limited wiggle room in terms of upholding the law and following
it. And asking for your opinion and getting a response like it
is our scientific evidence that shows that there is some
legitimate uses in medicine or in other arenas, that the
conversation probably should take place.
Mr. Rosenberg. And I think that is fair, but I have to rely
not on a vote or on public opinion, but on the science of the
FDA, that is sort of my guiding principle here.
But I will say this. I think this is really important and
sometimes gets lost in the debate, sir. The DEA has 469
individuals registered with us, with our permission, to do
research on Schedule I controlled substances. Of those 469, and
I hope I am getting my numbers right, 254 are researching
marijuana and its constituent parts. We have never, never
turned down a legitimate request for research on marijuana.
If I break it down further for you and make you feel a
little bit better, 85 of those researchers are researching
cannabidiol (CBD), which may turn out to prove effective for
treatment of certain illnesses, including possibly childhood
epilepsy, and another 17 of the researchers are actually
working on smoked marijuana using human subjects.
I completely and fully support research, we have got to do
that. And in fact we are making provisions to make applying for
permits to do research easier. We have recently issued
modifications, or I should say, amendments, so that researchers
who want to modify their work have an easier time in doing
that. If we are going to be grounded in science, we have to
support the work of scientists.
And if it turns out that there is something in marijuana or
marijuana itself that is effective against childhood epilepsy,
I promise you I will be at the front of the parade, leading the
band.
Mr. Honda. No, I understand your response. And my brother
was a Federal parole officer and, you know, he had certain
things he had to follow too.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Honda. So I completely understand your response.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Honda. Another cut on this. In the final fiscal year
2016 omnibus carried the medical marijuana language which
prohibits DEA from preventing States from implementing their
own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, and
cultivation of medical marijuana. We have heard of incidents
where DEA and the Department of Justice are still pursuing
these cases.
Without commenting on specific cases, is it the policy of
DEA to investigate any dispensaries that operate under the
State law? And is DEA disregarding the law that Congress
passed?
Mr. Rosenberg. I am familiar with the provision, I think it
was section 542 of the omnibus bill, and I know it became an
issue in a case out of the Northern District of California
decided by Judge Breyer, United States v. Marin Alliance. So I
am certainly familiar with it.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but nothing in section
542 mentions the Controlled Substances Act, and so I don't
think anything in section 542 in any way undermines our Federal
law enforcement or civil enforcement authority under section
542. Smarter people than me, and there are many of them at the
Department of Justice, are noodling through this right now. I
don't know Judge Breyer. I have great respect for the Federal
District Judges of this country, I practiced in front of many,
but I don't believe that his reading of section 542 is right
and I think the Department has taken an opposite view.
I do know as sort of a principle of statutory construction
that if an Act of Congress is not specifically--I think this is
right--refuted, repealed by another act, and that there is some
way to read them so that they live together peacefully, then
they can. And I think that is what we have here, that we can
continue to enforce Federal law under the Controlled Substances
Act. What we cannot do pursuant to that amendment, I believe,
is prohibit the States from implementing their own regulations.
So, again, there are people far smarter than me at the
Department who can give you a better answer, but I don't see it
as precluding our Federal law enforcement work.
Mr. Honda. I think I followed your noodling.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yeah, it was some significant noodling. So
thank you for bearing with me.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Any other questions we will just submit for
the record, to have you be able to answer them in more detail.
Mr. Rosenberg. I would be delighted.
Mr. Culberson. Any further questions?
Mr. Honda. Well, a real quick one, if I may.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Honda. This impact that the war on drugs has had on
levels of incarceration in our nation's prisons, both at the
State and Federal level, this has been a particularly harsh
impact on minority communities, many of which have seen large
segments of their population jailed for drug offenses. Criminal
justice reform is currently being debated both in Congress, as
well as the legislatures across this nation. As we have those
conversations, I think input from law enforcement is important
to hear.
So the question would be, is there a way to wage a smarter
war on drugs? And I think you spoke a little bit about that in
terms of priorities and how you would approach it, but is there
a smarter way of approaching the war on drugs that still puts
violent criminals in jail while doing a better job of rehabbing
those who are low-level, non-violent offenders?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well, I think our 360 strategy gets at some
of that, Mr. Honda, by also emphasizing education, you know,
prevention and demand reduction.
But also if we are doing our jobs right, and I have urged
our Special Agents in Charge to follow this edict, we have to
do the biggest, most important cases in the country, we
shouldn't be doing low-level offenders. We are not busting kids
in their UCLA dorm rooms for smoking dope. We are going after
big, violent, international cartels and street gangs, that
unholy alliance I spoke of earlier. As long as we focus our
work there, I think we are smart on crime.
Mr. Culberson. Administrator Rosenberg, we deeply
appreciate your service to the country. I will have a number of
other questions we will submit for the record.
And, again, we will do our very best in this tight budget
environment to give you the support that you need so you can
continue your important mission. We thank you so much for
looking after the welfare of our kids and the country.
Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, it is a
privilege. Thank you for having me here today.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, sir.
And the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Comey, Hon. James B., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.. 52
Lynch, Hon. Loretta, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice 3
Rosenberg, Hon. Chuck, Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration................................................. 95
[all]